HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-02 e-packet@700Wednesday, November 2, 2016
7:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
November 2, 2016Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on
Wednesday, November 2, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room, 400
Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
Report regarding a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement with WatchGuard
Video in an amount not to exceed $312,699 for the purchase of an integrated Mobile
Audio Video (MAV)/ Body Worn Camera (BWC) System; amend the Police
Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget by $92,100; increase budgeted
revenues by $60,000 to account for risk management grant funds from the
Association of Bay Area Governments Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG
PLAN); and authorize the City Manager to execute a Purchase Agreement on behalf
of the City. (Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief)
1.
Resolution approving a Purchase Agreement with WatchGuard Video in an amount
not to exceed $312,699 for the purchase of an integrated Mobile Audio Video
(MAV)/ Body Worn Camera (BWC) System; amend the Police Department’s Fiscal
Year 2016-17 Operating Budget by $92,100; increase budgeted revenues by $60,000
to account for risk management grant funds from the Association of Bay Area
Governments Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG PLAN); and authorize the
City Manager to execute a Purchase Agreement on behalf of the City.
1a.
Report regarding a resolution amending the City Clerk Department Fiscal Year
2016/17 Operating Budget in the amount of $10,000 to fund a Management
Consultant Study of the City Clerk Department.
2.
Resolution amending the City Clerk Department Fiscal Year 2016/17 Operating
Budget in the amount of $10,000 to fund a Management Consultant’s Study of the
City Clerk Department.
2a.
Report regarding a resolution amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code to update
the List of Designated Positions. (Krista Martinelli, City Clerk).
3.
Resolution amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code to update the List of
Designated Positions.
3a.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/7/2016
November 2, 2016Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Study Session regarding proposed amendments to the City Council Handbook.
(Krista Martinelli, City Clerk and Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney)
4.
Report regarding a resolution approving the Amended and Restated Master
Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation for distribution of the net proceeds from
the disposition of properties conveyed to the City of South San Francisco consistent
with the Long Range Property Management Plan and authorizing the City Manager to
execute said Agreement. (Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney)
5.
Resolution approving the Amended and Restated Master Agreement for Taxing
Entity Compensation for distribution of the net proceeds from the disposition of
properties conveyed to the City of South San Francisco consistent with the Long
Range Property Management Plan and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Agreement.
5a.
Adjournment.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/7/2016
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-725,Version:1
Report regarding a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement with WatchGuard Video in an amount not to
exceed $312,699 for the purchase of an integrated Mobile Audio Video (MAV)/Body Worn Camera (BWC)
System;amend the Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget by $92,100;increase budgeted
revenues by $60,000 to account for risk management grant funds from the Association of Bay Area
Governments Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG PLAN);and authorize the City Manager to execute
a Purchase Agreement on behalf of the City. (Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement with WatchGuard
Video in an amount not to exceed $312,699 for the purchase of an integrated Mobile Audio Video (MAV)/
Body Worn Camera (BWC)System;amend the Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget by
$92,100;and increase budgeted revenues by $60,000 to account for risk management grant funds from the
Association of Bay Area Governments Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG PLAN);and authorize the
City Manager to execute a Purchase Agreement on behalf of the City.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Recent nationwide events involving police use of force,along with a recent San Mateo County Civil Grand
Jury report,have generated calls for law enforcement officers to wear body worn cameras.The South San
Francisco Police Department is committed to transparency in all its deeds and actions,and will adopt the use of
body worn cameras for all its officers in the field.As part of our long standing commitment,the Police
Department currently uses a vehicle-based Mobile Audio Video (MAV)system to record interactions between
officers and community members that occur near a patrol vehicle.While the patrol vehicle is equipped with
cameras and microphones,the patrol officer is only equipped with an audio transmitter.This transmitter needs
to be within range of the patrol vehicle for the system to receive data from the officer’s audio transmitter and
record it.The current MAV system is over seven years old,has surpassed its lifecycle and has begun to degrade
in performance and reliability.The South San Francisco Police Department looks forward to using the newest
technology available to help provide the citizens of South San Francisco with the best service possible.
The Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget included an appropriation of $264,606 for
replacement of the Police Department’s Mobile Audio Video (MAV)equipment.Roughly 25 percent,or
$67,739 of that budgeted amount was allocated from the Public Safety Impact Fee Fund,and the remaining
$196,867 was allocated from Asset Seizure funds.Staff requests that the City Council appropriate an additional
amount of $92,100 for the additional cost of Body Worn Camera (BWC)equipment and backup data storage.
The additional $92,100 of funding will be allocated with $23,320 from the Public Safety Impact Fee,$60,000
from risk management grant funds from the Association of Bay Area Governments Pooled Liability Assurance
Network (ABAG PLAN),and $8,780 from Asset Seizure.Note that,of the additional $92,100 in budgeted
funds,$44,007 will be set aside for budget authority to purchase a backup server with 330 terabytes of storage.
Purchasing both the MAV and BWC system at this time will enable the Department to reduce costs and
administer a single, integrated system, rather than two separate recording systems.
While the MAV will record audio and video from the perspective of the front windshield and back seat of the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2016Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-725,Version:1
While the MAV will record audio and video from the perspective of the front windshield and back seat of the
patrol car,the BWC system will record audio and video from the perspective of each patrol officer who wears
the equipment.Additionally,the new BWC system will record audio and video from each patrol officer’s
perspective regardless of its distance from, or connection to the patrol vehicle.
Because BWCs record from the perspective of each patrol officer,they can provide valuable evidence in use of
force investigations and citizen complaints.In addition,BWCs can help reduce the instances of both police use
of force and citizen complaints.The University of Southern Florida conducted a study in March 2014 that
showed a 53 percent reduction in police use of force and a 65 percent reduction in citizen complaints when
BWCs were used.
According to the 2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report;Body Cameras -The Reel Truth,
BWCs provide several advantages:
1.Citizen complaints are reduced (police behavior is improved,use of force is reduced,and citizen
behavior is improved).
2.Unedited video and audio evidence of decisions made by officers in high-intensity situations are
available.
3.Increased transparency and accountability of police officers’activities and improved community
perception of law enforcement.
4.Valuable evidence in court proceedings and/or in obtaining witness and victim statements are available.
As of 2016, there are currently five agencies in San Mateo County that utilize BWCs:
1.Atherton PD deployed 2006
2.Belmont PD deployed 2014
3.Foster City PD deployed 2012
4.Hillsborough PD deployed 2014
5.Menlo Park PD deployed 2013
Most other San Mateo County law enforcement agencies are currently in various stages of adopting,or
considering the adoption of BWCs.
Chief Azzopardi has met with the general membership of the South San Francisco Police Association,the
Association’s Executive Board twice;and the Association’s President and Vice President on several occasions
to gain consensus on the use of body cameras.The response Chief Azzopardi has received has been positive
toward the BWCs and the aforementioned groups plan to work with Police Department staff to develop official
BWC policies for the department prior to implementation.
Vendor Selection
The Police Department issued an RFP for an integrated MAV/BWC system on August 30,2016.The RFP was
posted on the City’s website in addition to being mailed directly to ten different companies that specialize in
MAV/BWC systems. Five responses to the RFP were received, from the following companies:
1.WatchGuard Video
2.Data911
3.Taser
4.Digital Ally
5.Federal Signal
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2016Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-725,Version:1
On October 18,2016,three members of the Police Department (Lt.Keith Wall,Sgt.Mike Rudis,and Daryl
Jones)evaluated and scored the responses based on 83 criteria (Attachment 1 is the Bid Comparison
Spreadsheet).Of the five proposals,three were disqualified for not meeting the requirements/specifications
listed in the RFP.Of the two remaining proposals,the assessors unanimously rated WatchGuard Video number
one and Taser number two.Not only was WatchGuard Video’s price the lower of the two,but also its products
were rated superior and more mature, in this emerging technological field, than those of Taser.
Staff recommends the selection of WatchGuard Video as the vendor for the Police Department’s MAV and
BWC system.The integrated MAV and BWC system includes MAV systems for 21 patrol vehicles,five police
motorcycles,software,servers,and a five-year warranty on all aforementioned items.The system also includes
45 BWCs to outfit each patrol vehicle and motorcycle (total of 26)in the Department’s fleet,as well as 19 extra
BWCs to be utilized by two-officer teams,SWAT,Detectives (during special operations),and as replacements
for any BWCs that might need servicing.Please note the actual BWCs come with a three-year warranty.See
Attachment 2 showing the Body Worn Camera (BWC).See Attachment 3 showing the BWC on officer’s
uniform.
Note that while an integrated MAV/BWC system offers a variety of benefits for our officers,Department,and
community,there are limitations to the system,as noted in the attached Force Science News article detailing
limitations associated with BWCs.See Attachment 4 body worn camera implementation timeline.See
Attachment 5 Force Science News.
Public Outreach
One of the goals of the MAV/BWC systems is to foster trust with our community partners through
transparency.The Police Department intends to inform and educate the community about the system through
public outreach. Items covered during community outreach will include:
1.Community members being recorded during most police contacts
2.Circumstances causing an officer to record a contact
3.Advantages of the BWC system
4.Limitations of the BWC system
FUNDING
Adoption of the resolution will increase the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget by $92,100 to include the
purchase of the BWC system and increase budgeted revenues by $60,000 to account for risk management grant
funds from the Association of Bay Area Governments Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG PLAN).
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends City Council City Council adopt a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement with
WatchGuard Video in an amount not to exceed $312,699 for the purchase of an integrated MAV/BWC System;
amend the Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget by $92,100;and increase budgeted
revenues by $60,000 to account for risk management grant funds from the Association of Bay Area
Governments Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG PLAN);and authorize the City Manager to execute
a Purchase Agreement on behalf of the City.
Attachments:
1.Bid Comparison Spreadsheet
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2016Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-725,Version:1
2.Body Worn Camera (BWC)
3.BWC on Officer’s Uniform
4.Body Worn Camera Implementation Timeline
5.Force Science News article
6.WatchGuard Shortform Purchase Agreement
7.WatchGuard Video Cost Proposal
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2016Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
Item
#Watch Guard Data911 Taser Digital Ally Federal Signal
Pricing
Total cost (3 yr warranty) 2 yr storage $282,270 $228,983 (17) $376,300 $219, 213 (33)$169,243 (32)
Total cost (5 yr warranty) 2 yr storage $311,849 (9)$269,764 $376,300 $288,515 (32) (33)$194,633 (32)
Total Cost (3 yr warranty) - 2.5 yr storage $283,201 (N/A)$376,300 (N/A)(N/A)
Total Cost (5 yr warranty - 2.5 yr storage $312,699 (9)(N/A)$376,300 (N/A)(N/A)
Ownership
1 Subidiary of another company?No Yes (10)No No Yes/No (42)
2 Current ownership since when?2002 2016 1993 2000 1901
3 Years company in continious operation?14 33 23 12 115
4 Date started providing these services?2001 2005 2007 2006 2007
Financial Resources/Responsibility
1 Debtor or bankruptcy?No No No No No
2 Currently being sold?No No No No No
3 Been debarred?No No No No No
4 Non-responsible bidder?No No No No No
5 Terminated contract prior to completion?No No No No No
6 Used a debarred subcontractor?No No No No No
Disputes
1 Defendant in court for performance/ $$No No No No No
2 Outstanding judgements?No No No No No
3 Assessed liquidated damages?No No No No No
4 Patent infringement issues?Yes (1)No Yes (18)No No
Compliance
1 Assessed penalties or law violations?No No No No No
2 License suspended No No No No N/A
3 Improper hazmat disposal?N/A No No No N/A
Businesss History
1 Other similar contracts w/in 5 years Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2 Provided sampling of similar contracts?Yes Yes Yes None Yes
3
Minimum Qualifications
1 3 years experience?
Yes - worlds largest, 6000
customers
10 yrs in Bay Area -
Pacifica, Colma, &
more
Yes - 9 years
experience, 3500
agencies
Yes - 6,000
agencies
115 years in
business, Edesix
makes body cams
(34)
2 2 contracts w/ similar agency?
Yes - Santa Barbara PD,
Monterey PD
Yes - Solano Co S/O,
Brentwood PD
Yes - Livermore PD,
Mt. View PD None
Yes - LASO, LAPD,
San Diego PD (35)
Technical Requirements
1 MAV & BWC Fully Self contained Yes Yes No (56)Yes Yes
2 Co-Exist w/ Data911 computers Yes Yes Yes Yes (27)Yes
3 Archived in Single system for MAV and BWC?Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 BWC record 9 hrs HD and 10 hrs SD Yes No (11)Yes No (28)Yes (36)
5 BWC mics same for MAV Yes Yes Yes No (28)Yes
5a MAV range of BWC 1 mile Yes (2)Yes (2)Yes (2)No (28)Unk
6 MAV Wide-angle panoramic front camera Yes No (49)Yes No (28)Unk (37)
6a MAV front - degrees field of view 138 degrees 53 or 57 degrees 142 degrees No (28)130 degrees
6b MAV Rear seat camera Yes (3)Yes (3) (12)Yes (20)No (28)yes
7 Shock/vibration isolation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
8 Front MAV HD of 720p+Yes Yes Yes Yes yes
9 Retroactive buffer 24+ hrs MAV Yes Yes (53)No (21)No (28)Unk
9a Retroactive buffer 24+ hrs for BWC Yes No No (21) No (28)Unk
9b Pre-event recording option Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
10 MAV standard vehicle power Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
11 MAV and BWC wide temp range Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
12 WiFi upload for MAV and BWC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
13 2 years onsite storage for MAV & BWC Yes Yes No (22) (48) Yes/No (29)Yes /No (38)
13a Amount of storage in Tb (2 yr storage)324 Tb (4)216 Tb unlimited storage 200gb/user?16 Tb
14 Software for cars & station Yes Yes Yes Yes (30)Yes
15 Motorcycle-mounted cameras Yes Yes No Unk No
Optional Technical Requirements
15 Redaction of person software No (5) (46)Yes (5) (47)Yes (23)Yes (31)Yes (31)
16 Selectability of HD or SD for MAV Yes (6)No (13)No (13)No (13)No (13)
16a Selectability of HD or SD for BWC Yes (6)No (13) No (13)No (13)No (13)
17
Software to share video w/ outside agencies
(DA, City Atty, etc.)Yes No (14)Yes Yes No (39)
18
Wall-mount rack for charging/storing
transmitters for MAV or BWC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
19 Various options for BWC mounting to uniformsYes (7)No (15)Yes (24)Yes Yes
20
Review of audio/video from Smartphone or
tablet Yes No (16)Yes Yes Yes (40)
21 In-car charging dock for BWC Yes No No Unk No
MAV Camera Capabilities
1 MAV front camera HD 1280x720 HD (8)1280x720 HD 1080p 1080p 1280x720p
2 MAV front camera SD option 864x480 Yes 640p Unk 640x480
3 MAV front aspect ratio 16:9 16:9 16:9 Unk 16:9
4 MAV field of view 138 degrees (panoramic)53 or 57 degrees 142 degrees Unk 130 degrees
5 MAV rear camera
color, infrared, non-HD,
90 degree FOV
1920x1080P, color,
infrared, 120 degree
FOV
same as MAV front
camera Unk 130 degrees
6 MAV has GPS data saved w/ video Yes Yes No (25)Yes Yes
7 MAV lightbar activation trigger Yes Yes Yes Unk yes/no (57)
8 MAV siren or 2nd lightbar trigger Yes Yes Yes Unk yes/no (57)
9 MAV crash activation trigger Yes Yes No Unk yes/no (57)
10 MAV speed activation trigger Yes Yes No Unk yes/no (57)
11 MAV door activation trigger (not anticipated)No (45)Yes Yes Unk yes/no (57)
12 MAV - other triggers (likely gun lock)Yes (45)Gun lock No Unk yes/no (57)
BWC Camera Capabilities
1 BWC size 3"H x 1.9"W x 1.3"D 3"H x 2.2W x 0.9"D 3.4"Hx2.8"Wx1"D Unk unk
2 BWC weight 5.3 oz 4 oz 5 oz Unk 3.5 oz
3 BWC camera GPS Yes No (51)No (25a)No Yes
4 BWC WiFi upload Yes Yes Yes Unk Yes
5 BWC camera field of view 130 degrees 140 degrees (50)142 degrees (26)130 degrees 130 degrees
6 BWC HD 1080x720p 1080x720 1080x720 720P 1280x720p
7 BWC SD option 864x480p 720p 480P Unk 640x480
Management Response
1 Number of US employees for in-car 228 39 18 160 17
2 Number of SF Bay Area employees 1 38 0 1 1
3 Closest Service location Hollister, CA Alameda, CA Scottsdale, AZ Lenexa, KS San Leandro, CA
4 Previous experience/reference - 5 yrs Yes Yes Yes None listed Yes (41)
5 Terminated contracts w/in 5 years No No No None listed No
6 Subcontractors?Yes No No No No (44)
6a How subcontractors used?Installation of equip.N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 3 year warranty included in price Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
8 Optional 2 year additional warranty Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Bay Area Installations for MAV - Favorable or
Unfavorable view from Customer?
1 same as above Palo Alto PD - Favorable Pacifica PD - TBD
San Francisco PD -
TBD None provided None provided
2 same as above San Mateo Co. S/O - TBD Atherton PD - TBD San Jose PD - TBD None provided None provided
3 same as above Monterey PD- Favorable
4 same as above
5 same as above
6 same as above
Bay Area Installations for BWC - Favorable or
Unfavorable Review from Customer?
1 same as above Palo Alto PD - Favorable None (52)None listed None provided
2 same as above Yuba City PD (52)None listed None provided
3 same as above
4 same as above
5 same as above
6 same as above
Footnotes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Rear camera is HD w/ 120degree wide angle view
Sample rate on HD can be from 3 to 5 mgps sample rate
Five year warranty includes MAV, but NOT BWC
Can only be shared via LAN and VPN or by manually burning to CD/DVD - no software option
Two patent lawsuits, but believe they will prevail w/ good defense
Recommend using private party vendor Motion DSP
Six different resolution options - officer can choose HD or SD for each incident
Quote for BWC comes w/ magnetic chest mount, but other options available
Fifty-four (54) 6 TB servers
Range is essentially irrelevent since BWC works anywhere and will upload sync to car when back in range
Also has infrared illumination for backseat
Owned by Broadcast Microwaves Services in Poway, California
Current BWC can only do 6.5 hrs recording. New system avail in Q1/2017 will do 9 hrs. They will swap current w/ next-gen for free when available.
Can only be configured for either SD or HD upon setup, not optional to choose per incident/event
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25a
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Requires an MDC to be running a program to display video and needs MDC to assist with wireless offload ov video to Evidence.com
There is not a dedicated backseat camera located in the back. They use another Axon Fleet camera in front of car facing backwards
Only has a configurable pre-event buffer up to max 120 seconds
No onsite storage option - Taser proposes using Evidence.Com for cloud storage w/ ongoing monthly cost
Redaction software through Evidence.com as part of cloud storage solution
Includes two moutns of our choosing from a variety of different mounting options
Although Federal Signal submitted the bid, the product they are using is from heir subsidiary company "Edesix" which is located in Ediburgh, Scotland
References were provided, but nearest reference was in North Carolina and Texas, with remaining references outside the USA in Scotland, Ireland, and
England
Response indicates no use of subcontractors, but closest service location indicates Public Safety Equipment Inc in San Leandro as service center - this may bt
the installation subcontractor??
Price includes 3 years of redaction software from Motion DSP ($5,599)
Only one mount with a clip on the back of the unit. No other options. Future models expected to havea Point of view option.
Complaint filed against Taser by Digital Ally alleging patent infringement - Taser says "meritless" and they are "vigorougly defending"
No response was given for this question, but it is assumed that it will co-exist since it is self-contained
"Does not comply" was checked and no additional explanation was provided
DigitalAlly was proposing a cloud solution, but said they could provide "on side" (sic) disk storage (but no details or price provided)
Cloud hosted software
Redaction software included through their provided software
Quote appears to be missing some hardware requirements specified in the RFP - see their pricing sheet notes
Currently no option for this, but planned for future models.
GPS will only work in the MDC is running the Taser program
GPS tagging only w/ iOS or Android Axon View application running on Offier's phone and bluetooth turned on
They indicated "yes" to similar sized agencies, but only listed LAPD, LASO, San Diego PD, and San Bernadino SO
FOV is 107 degrees horizontal and 78 degrees vertical
Can record up to 14 hrs on full charge
Sales tax is not included
Bodyworn cameras made by Edesix (Edinburgh,Scotland)
All triggers are included with the base price for the 4RE units. Aux on doors is problematic - likely AUX trigger (included) is the gun lock
Neither yes or no was indicated on response and no comments explained whether panoramic or not
FedSig said that they can provide servers, only two 8Tb servers for 8,000 hours of SD (not HD) video was included in the price
FedSig talked about "it is possible to create" anonymous and unique URLs for access. Does not sound like a planned system is in place.
Yes, with "network and browser support"
No warranty as specified was included
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is a significant conern of note. If an officer gets in a "cold" car and rolls out code 3 with no computer running, there will be no activation of the MAV
Taser originally quoted 45 BWC and 26 Fleet cameras to cover our spec (21 cars and 5 motors). Upon received revised quote on 10-14-16 with storage issues
rectified, I noted that they now specified only 40 BWC and 21 fleet cameras. I called Robert Dillon and he advised that at the time of the deadline for the RFP,
they only had "Flex 1" cameras that mounded to a motorcycle officers' helmet or body. The Flex 1 was SD and not HD. Both then and now, they do NOT offer
a motorcycle-mounted camera, only a body camera. Dillon advised that with the 10-14-16 revised, he was now specifying a "Flex 2" motor body camera that
is an upgrade that has HD. This is NOT currently available to anyone and will only be released in December.
Taser needs the MDC (computer) to be running in order to send out and download videos
Based upon conversations and emails with Tase, I believe their storage estimates for the BWC are significantly low and correct estimates would be much
more $ to a properly revised estimate. Their own estimations and math do not add up.
Data911 does not offer a panoramic view or wide view - they offered to have a second front-facing camera, but this would be another cmera view (not
integrated into one view) and this would be an additonal cost at $400/camera
BWC has infrared capability up to 10 meters
Although no independent GPS associated with the BWC, when the BWC video is downloaded, it will marry up with the car video (which has GPS) and will use
that GPS as its location.
Data911 does not have any BX cameras in use yet - they have an old partner camera (VieVu) with references from Ahterton PD, Solano SO, and UC Davis PD.
BX camera is currently being field-tested by Yuba City PD
Uses the 128gb memory card to have the "rolling history" feature - price included in the quote
Pre-event recording capable
Record after the fact on both BWC and MAV can go back and save from buffer up to 24 hrs previous
CJIS-certified cloud-share for sending out video to DA, etc.
WatchGuard Benefits
MAV and BWC interconnected to start recording w/ each other even when going/coming into range
BWC from another car/user can move into range and will activate automatically
MAV and BWC all upload into a single viewing platform
WatchGuard has two choices of (not included in the price) redaction software: Motion DSP or Redactive Redaction: both are about $6,000 for 3 years of the
software.
Motion DSP software cost was included in Data911 bid - $5,600 for 3 years subscription w/ maintenance and support
BWC and MAV record in 16:9 aspect ration versus 4:3 ratio
Panoramic view front camera captures 138 degree field of view
Front camera can choose to record in regular view or in panoramic view depending upon user choice
FedSig didn't specify and when asked, they said that "activation triggers are customized" and are included in base price - no specificity was given
Met crieteria specified in RFP
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Local vendor / local service
Upon release of new technology next year it would be relatively untested - reliability?
No buffering technology for retrocative recording on BWC
No panoramic front view camera
No software for sharing with DA, etc.
Coexist well with existing MDT?
Zero contract terminations within last 5 years
WatchGuard Concerns of Note
No local presence - located in TX. Local installer located in Hollister,CA
Will use subcontractor for installation
No digital or optical zoom on the panoramic camera
73,000 systems in service at 6,000 PD's . 1 in 4 systems sold in US are by WatchGuard
In use by CHP, Texas DPS, and several state patrols
All manufacturing done in USA (Texas)
High fidelity microphone
Redaction software (albeit from outside vendor) included in bid quote
WatchCommander option (not included) for live remote viewing
Data911 Benefits
Front camera MAV has 12x optical zoom and 12x digital zoom for 144x total
Braking applied on screen display indicator
Multple triggers for MAV (speed, lightbar, crash, gun rack, rear door)
Option for live streaming video?
Optional LPR capabilities
Data911 Concerns of Note
Most of what they are proposing does not yet exist - not to be released until next year in 1st quarter
Patent infringement lititgation pending (unk who from)
Redaction software not included - would need to add aftermarket
Unable to meet criteria specified in RFP
No in-car charging dock
No smartphone review
No options for BWC mounting - only a clip - not enough secure options
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
1
2
Cloud storage needs wildly fluctuated - their match was wrong several times - very confusing as to whether we would have sufficent data storage with wha
they quoted until we went to "unlimited"sstorage and then price significantly increased
No officer selactability for SD/HD save options in the field
BWC camera currently cannot sustain required recording time
Taser Benefits
Appear to be durable BWC
Many options for replacement plans of hardware - but expensive
Can be connected later to activate cameras with Taser activations
Evidenc.com has built-in redaction software
Taser Concerns of Note
Digital Ally Benefits
Pricing was cheaper than 3 other bidders
Unable to meet criteria specified in RFP
Digital Ally Conerns of Note
No speed trigger
No crash trigger
No built-in GPS on MAV- required MDT to be running
No in-car charging dock
No motorcycle-mounted option
No officer-selecatble recording option for HD vs SD in the field.
No GPS on BWC without officer running an application and bluetooth on their personal phone
Prices and information from Taser was not reliable - took many back and forth sessions to flex out the true pricing and capabilities
No GPS on BWC
Patent infringement issue with Digital Ally
No self-contained - needs MDT to be ablve to send out videos
No retroactive buffer feature on BWC or MAV
No onsite storage - cloud only
Unable to meet critera specified in RFP
Response to RFP was abbreviated with limited information provided
3
4
5
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
Watch Guard Questions
Include local Bay Area references for both MAV and BWC
Line item in price quote has section for "Redactive Redaction" software - will this not work vs. recommended 3rd party Motion DPS vendor?
Line 24 of price sheet - what is the 5 yr hardware/software bundle for $1375 and is that x 26 vehicles?
I don't see the indication for 5 of the 21 total cars to have dual officer (2 BWC) capability - is this extra for chargers? BWCs in addition to extra 19 cameras for
Extra quote has ability for years 4 & 5 on MAV, but does NOT show BWC cost - is that available?
Is the regular or panoramic camera on the X2 capable of digital zoom when reviewing or playing back
Is there GPS data built into the MAV and the BWC (separate)?
Data911 QuestionsBid says "yes" to panoramic camera, but which camera is this? Price sheet says "3150 front zoom camera" and spec page shows 53 degree wide image for
that camera (larger white one) vs. a smaller black one on website (optional) that says 57 degree view. Which camera is included? Do you have any wider
For retroactive video recording retrieval, you recommend using an optional 26 SD memory cards with the Verus in-vehicle recording which you included in
Confirm that Panoramic camera upgrade quoted (line 3 of costs) is the "X2" combined regular & Panoramic camera?
Which activavation triggers are included with the base price?? Cost for additional triggers?
For the "AUX" activation trigger - what can that be used for? Door opening (prisoner door) sensor?
Equipment offered does not meet criteria specified in numerous categories and they offered no explanatory information to compensate for shortcomings
No retrocactive buffer feature
No local presence or references whatsoeover
Federal signal Benefits
Longtime reputable vendor
Low-cost alternative
Federal Signal Concerns of Note
Unable to meet criteria specified in RFP
Cameras made in Scotland and not in the USA
BWC is same as car camera - all in one
Response to RFP was abbreviated with limited information provided
Equipment offered does not meet criteria specified in numerous categories and they offered no explanatory information to compensate for shortcomings
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Which activation triggers are included with the base price? Cost for additional triggers
Once you have confirmed the BWC being specified, please provide the height, width, depth and weight of the unit.
Which Axon Fleet activation triggers are included with the base price? Cost for additional triggers
Do you have a Axon Fleet speed activation trigger? What other triggers are available?
What is the aspect ration 16:9. 4:3., etc for the Axon fleet camera?
Is there retreivable GPS data built into the MAV and the BWC (separate/combined?) that shows up on videos later?
On the front MAV camera please confirm the aspect ration (i.e. 4:3, 16:9, etc.)
For the technical requirements options (#16) for selectability of SD vs HD on video confirm that this is a system setting upon seup and cannot be changed per
The pricing sheet showed the BWC as the "BX" model but no spec sheet was included. On your website you have only a "BX1" model listed as "coming soon".
Is there retreivable GPS data built into the MAV and the BWC (separate/combined?) that shows up on videos later? - the "tagging" through the Axon view
phone App was confusing- is all video tagged w/ GPS regardless?
Taser Questions
As far as selectability to choose SD or HD recordings, how is that accomplished (via MDT after each incident) or is it setupo configurable?
Include clarification of Bay Area references on who has BWC vs. MAV and/or both.
Was VuLink control module with activation triggers included in the price - we didn't see that specified
Item #12 of technical requirements specified WiFi access points to be provided by vendor. I see no line item for this. Was ths included?
You did not list any references for similar installations locally or otherwise. Do you have any references to provide as requested?
The quote provided was for only 16 cars. We specified 16 one-officer cars and 5 two-officer cars.
Please provide the Height x width x depth measurements and the weight for the unit being offered
If the two-piece model is being quoted, we can see the camera attaches to the shirt, where does the main unit (microphone and battery?) mount on the
Was the quote provided for the First Vu HD (two-piece) or First Vu HD One?
Response and pricing sheet list model DVM-800 (SD model) and not the DVM-800 HD. We specified HD video - confirm the pricing provided is for the HD
Since the camera is not panoramic, what is the field of view of the camera DVM-800 or DVM-800 HD depending upon model provided?
Website shows the DVM-800 has 4 cameras - can you provide details on the cameras? (front? rear? Additional two cameras?
Can you please provide details on the activation triggers included with the VuLink (speed, crash, lights, siren, doors, etc?)
How much storage is included w/ Evidence.com - unlimited? Tb limitations? 4500 items of storage/year at $3,375?
Confirm that the Axon Fleet car camera has 5 full year warranty at no extra charge? Difference with "fleet basic" ($25/car/month) or "fleet unlimited"
Digital Ally Questions
The VuVault storage solution has 200 Gb per user. Is that per year? Is that per officer? Is that per unit (BWC or MAV or both?) What is the total storage
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Can you please provide details on the activation triggers available with the in-car camera (speed, crash, lights, siren, doors, etc?)
Which activation triggers are included with the base price? Cost for additional triggers?
For technical requirement #9 is the retroactive feature you are referring to a "behind the scenes" buffering or are you referring to an activation and a
For techical requirement #16 for HD or SD option - is this per a officer option to choose for each event or is this agency-configurable with the system as a set-
For access to viewing via smartphone or tablet, you said yes with network or browser support, but how is this accessed? Is there a login directly to the Video
Was sales tax included in the hardware? We are unfortunately not tax exempt and must pay sales tax (9.5%)
Federal Signal Questions
Is the in-car video solution the same as the body camera (model VB320) or another model ("VB-patrol"?). Please provide the specifications for the patrol car
Was sales tax included in the hardware? We are unfortunately not tax exempt and must pay sales tax (9.5%)
For the charging stations for the body camera - which is included with the price? You mentioned that the DVM-800 has either - can we choose 19 for the
cars, 5 for the motorcycles, and 19 in a wallmount rack? Is that included in the price?
The "limited Warranty" pages provided were generic and it doesn't appear to include the VB-300 or the VB-Parol. Can you provide the pricing for the RFP
Do you have any California or San Francisco Bay Area references for video installations at Police Departments?
What is the aspect ratio of the body camera and car cameras? (16:9, 4:3, etc.)
What is the field of view (in degrees) of the body camera and the car cameras?
What is the height x width x depth measurements on the body camera?
BODY WORN CAMERA IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
Date Action Item
Aug 30, 2016 RFP issued to acquire MAV/BWC system
Oct 6, 2016 Deadline for RFP responses
Oct 18, 2016 Staff review and recommendation of preferred
Vendor(WatchGuard Video)
Nov 2, 2016 City Council consideration of Agreement and
Budget amendment
Jan 1, 2017 Installation of MAV/BWC system complete
Feb 1, 2017 Department policy adoption complete
Mar 1, 2017 Department-wide training of system complete
Mar 15, 2017 District Attorney training of system complete
Mar 31, 2017 Complete Implementation
1 of 5
Headquarters: 124 East Walnut Street - Suite 120 Mankato, MN 56001 USA T: 507-387-1290 F: 507-387-1291
10 limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection
A special report from the Force Science Institute
The idea is building that once every cop is equipped with a body camera, the controversy
will be taken out of police shootings and other uses of force because “what really
happened” will be captured on video for all to see.
Well, to borrow the title from an old Gershwin tune, “It Ain’t Necessarily So.”
There’s no doubt that body cameras—like dash cams, cell phone cams, and surveillance
cams—can provide a unique perspective on police encounters and, in most cases, are
likely to help officers. But like those other devices, a camera mounted on your uniform or
on your head has limitations that need to be understood and considered when evaluating
the images they record.
“Rushing to condemn an officer for inappropriate behavior based solely on body-camera
evidence can be a dicey proposition,” cautions Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of
the Force Science Institute. “Certainly, a camera can provide more information about
what happened on the street. But it can’t necessarily provide all the information needed
to make a fair and impartial final judgment. There still may be influential human factors
involved, apart from what the camera sees.”
In a recent conversation with Force Science News, Lewinski enumerated 10 limitations
that are important to keep in mind regarding body-camera evidence (and, for the most
part, recordings from other cameras as well) if you are an investigator, a police attorney,
a force reviewer, or an involved officer. This information may also be helpful in efforts to
educate your community.
(Some of these points are elaborated on in greater depth during the Force Science
Certification Course. Visit www.forcescience.org for information on the course. An
earlier report on body cam limitations appeared in Force Science News #145, sent
3/12/10. You will find online it at: www.forcescience.org/fsnews/145.html)
1. A camera doesn’t follow your eyes or see as they see.
At the current level of development, a body camera is not an eye-tracker like FSI has
used in some of its studies of officer attention. That complex apparatus can follow the
movement of your eyes and superimpose on video small red circles that mark precisely
where you are looking from one microsecond to the next.
“A body camera photographs a broad scene but it can’t document where within that scene
you are looking at any given instant,” Lewinski says. “If you glance away from where the
FORCE SCIENCE INSTITUTE, Ltd.
2 of 5
camera is concentrating, you may not see action within the camera frame that appears to
be occurring ‘right before your eyes.’
“Likewise, the camera can’t acknowledge physiological and psychological phenomena
that you may experience under high stress. As a survival mechanism, your brain may
suppress some incoming visual images that seem unimportant in a life-threatening
situation so you can completely focus very narrowly on the threat. You won’t be aware of
what your brain is screening out.
“Your brain may also play visual tricks on you that the camera can’t match. If a suspect is
driving a vehicle toward you, for example, it will seem to be closer, larger, and faster
than it really is because of a phenomenon called ‘looming.’ Camera footage may not
convey the same sense of threat that you experienced.
“In short, there can be a huge disconnect between your field of view and your visual
perception and the camera’s. Later, someone reviewing what’s caught on camera and
judging your actions could have a profoundly different sense of what happened than you
had at the time it was occurring.”
2. Some important danger cues can’t be recorded.
“Tactile cues that are often important to officers in deciding to use force are difficult for
cameras to capture,” Lewinski says. “Resistive tension is a prime example.
“You can usually tell when you touch a suspect whether he or she is going to resist. You
may quickly apply force as a preemptive measure, but on camera it may look like you
made an unprovoked attack, because the sensory cue you felt doesn’t record visually.”
And, of course, the camera can’t record the history and experience you bring to an
encounter. “Suspect behavior that may appear innocuous on film to a naïve civilian can
convey the risk of mortal danger to you as a streetwise officer,” Lewinski says. “For
instance, an assaultive subject who brings his hands up may look to a civilian like he’s
surrendering, but to you, based on past experience, that can be a very intimidating and
combative movement, signaling his preparation for a fighting attack. The camera just
captures the action, not your interpretation.”
3. Camera speed differs from the speed of life.
Because body cameras record at much higher speeds than typical convenience store or
correctional facility security cameras, it’s less likely that important details will be lost in
the millisecond gaps between frames, as sometimes happens with those cruder devices.
“But it’s still theoretically possible that something as brief as a muzzle flash or the glint
of a knife blade that may become a factor in a use-of-force case could still fail to be
recorded,” Lewinski says.
Of greater consequence, he believes, is the body camera’s depiction of action and
reaction times.
“Because of the reactionary curve, an officer can be half a second or more behind the
action as it unfolds on the screen,” Lewinski explains. “Whether he’s shooting or
3 of 5
stopping shooting, his recognition, decision-making, and physical activation all take
time—but obviously can’t be shown on camera.
“People who don’t understand this reactionary process won’t factor it in when viewing
the footage. They’ll think the officer is keeping pace with the speed of the action as the
camera records it. So without knowledgeable input, they aren’t likely to understand how
an officer can unintentionally end up placing rounds in a suspect’s back or firing
additional shots after a threat has ended.”
4. A camera may see better than you do in low light.
“The high-tech imaging of body cameras allows them to record with clarity in many low-
light settings,” Lewinski says. “When footage is screened later, it may actually be
possible to see elements of the scene in sharper detail than you could at the time the
camera was activated.
“If you are receiving less visual information than the camera is recording under time-
pressured circumstances, you are going to be more dependent on context and movement
in assessing and reacting to potential threats. In dim light, a suspect’s posturing will
likely mean more to you immediately than some object he’s holding. When footage is
reviewed later, it may be evident that the object in his hand was a cell phone, say, rather
than a gun. If you’re expected to have seen that as clearly as the camera did, your
reaction might seem highly inappropriate.”
On the other hand, he notes, cameras do not always deal well with lighting transitions.
“Going suddenly from bright to dim light or vice versa, a camera may briefly blank out
images altogether,” he says.
5. Your body may block the view.
“How much of a scene a camera captures is highly dependent on where it’s positioned
and where the action takes place,” Lewinski notes. “Depending on location and angle, a
picture may be blocked by your own body parts, from your nose to your hands.
“If you’re firing a gun or a Taser, for example, a camera on your chest may not record
much more than your extended arms and hands. Or just blading your stance may obscure
the camera’s view. Critical moments within a scenario that you can see may be missed
entirely by your body cam because of these dynamics, ultimately masking what a
reviewer may need to see to make a fair judgment.”
6. A camera only records in 2-D.
Because cameras don’t record depth of field—the third dimension that’s perceived by the
human eye—accurately judging distances on their footage can be difficult.
“Depending on the lens involved, cameras may compress distances between objects or
make them appear closer than they really are,” Lewinski says. “Without a proper sense of
distance, a reviewer may misinterpret the level of threat an officer was facing.”
In the Force Science Certification Course, he critiques several camera images in which
distance distortion became problematic. In one, an officer’s use of force seemed
inappropriate because the suspect appears to be too far away to pose an immediate threat.
4 of 5
In another, an officer appears to strike a suspect’s head with a flashlight when, in fact, the
blow was directed at a hand and never touched the head.
“There are technical means for determining distances on 2-D recordings,” Lewinski says,
“but these are not commonly known or accessed by most investigators.”
7. The absence of sophisticated time-stamping may prove critical.
The time-stamping that is automatically imposed on camera footage is a gross number,
generally measuring the action minute by minute. “In some high-profile, controversial
shooting cases that is not sophisticated enough,” Lewinski says. “To fully analyze and
explain an officer’s perceptions, reaction time, judgment, and decision-making it may be
critical to break the action down to units of one-hundredths of a second or even less.
“There are post-production computer programs that can electronically encode footage to
those specifications, and the Force Science Institute strongly recommends that these be
employed. When reviewers see precisely how quickly suspects can move and how fast
the various elements of a use-of-force event unfold, it can radically change their
perception of what happened and the pressure involved officers were under to act.”
8. One camera may not be enough.
“The more cameras there are recording a force event, the more opportunities there are
likely to be to clarify uncertainties,” Lewinski says. “The angle, the ambient lighting, and
other elements will almost certainly vary from one officer’s perspective to another’s, and
syncing the footage up will provide broader information for understanding the dynamics
of what happened. What looks like an egregious action from one angle may seem
perfectly justified from another.
“Think of the analysis of plays in a football game. In resolving close calls, referees want
to view the action from as many cameras as possible to fully understand what they’re
seeing. Ideally, officers deserve the same consideration. The problem is that many times
there is only one camera involved, compared to a dozen that may be consulted in a
sporting event, and in that case the limitations must be kept even firmer in mind.
9. A camera encourages second-guessing.
“According to the U. S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, an officer’s decisions in
tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations are not to be judged with the ‘20/20
vision of hindsight,’ ” Lewinski notes. “But in the real-world aftermath of a shooting,
camera footage provides an almost irresistible temptation for reviewers to play the
coulda-shoulda game.
“Under calm and comfortable conditions, they can infinitely replay the action, scrutinize
it for hard-to-see detail, slow it down, freeze it. The officer had to assess what he was
experiencing while it was happening and under the stress of his life potentially being on
the line. That disparity can lead to far different conclusions.
“As part of the incident investigation, we recommend that an officer be permitted to see
what his body camera and other cameras recorded. He should be cautioned, however, to
regard the footage only as informational. He should not allow it to supplant his first-hand
5 of 5
memory of the incident. Justification for a shooting or other use of force will come from
what an officer reasonably perceived, not necessarily from what a camera saw.”
[For more details about FSI’s position on whether officers should be allowed to view
video of their incidents, see Force Science News #114 (1/17/09). You will find online it
at: www.forcescience.org/fsnews/114.html]
10. A camera can never replace a thorough investigation.
When officers oppose wearing cameras, civilians sometimes assume they fear
“transparency.” But more often, Lewinski believes, they are concerned that camera
recordings will be given undue, if not exclusive, weight in judging their actions.
“A camera’s recording should never be regarded solely as the Truth about a controversial
incident,” Lewinski declares. “It needs to be weighed and tested against witness
testimony, forensics, the involved officer’s statement, and other elements of a fair,
thorough, and impartial investigation that takes human factors into consideration.
“This is in no way intended to belittle the merits of body cameras. Early testing has
shown that they tend to reduce the frequency of force encounters as well as complaints
against officers.
“But a well-known police defense attorney is not far wrong when he calls cameras ‘the
best evidence and the worst evidence.’ The limitations of body cams and others need to
be fully understood and evaluated to maximize their effectiveness and to assure that they
are not regarded as infallible ‘magic bullets’ by people who do not fully grasp the
realities of force dynamics.”
Our thanks to Parris Ward, director and litigation graphics consultant with Biodynamics
Engineering, Inc., for his help in facilitating this report.
For more information on the work of the Force Science Institute, visit
www.forcescience.org. To reach the Force Science News editorial staff please e-mail:
[email protected].
Page 1 of 3
[Rev:2.13.2014]
PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND WATCHGUARD VIDEO
These terms and conditions govern the purchase of materials, supplies, and/or equipment, including any related installation,
training, and/or minor services and repairs described in this Purchase Agreement (“Purchase Agreement”) by Watchguard
Video (“Vendor”) for the City of South San Francisco (“City”). Vendor and City are collectively referred to in this
Purchase Agreement as “the Parties.” If the Vendor selects subcontractors to execute a portion the terms of this Purchase
Agreement, that subcontractor is an agent of the Vendor, and is hereby included by reference as “the Vendor.”
1. Time of Performance. This Purchase Agreement shall commence effective November 3, 2016, and shall end when
Vendor has provided to the City the Products and Services described in this Purchase Agreement, and in Exhibit A
(“Products” and/or “Services”). The equipment and products listed in Exhibit A must be delivered by January 1, 2017.
The installation and other services set forth in Exhibit A must be completed by January 1, 2017. In the event that any
of the terms of Exhibit A conflict with this Purchase Agreement, the terms of the Purchase Agreement shall prevail.
2. Description of Goods. Vendor shall perform everything required to be performed and shall provide and furnish to City
with a Vista WiFi & 4RE integrated body worn camera and in-car video system and shall complete delivery F.O.B. to
the City of South San Francisco on or before January 1, 2017 in strict accordance with the specifications as established
by this Purchase Agreement and Exhibit A, which specifications are incorporated herein and made part of this Purchase
Agreement.
3. Description of Purchase. The City hereby agrees to pay Vendor for the Products and/or Services with a not to exceed
amount. The total compensation for Products and/or Services performed under this Purchase Agreement is not to
exceed three hundred twelve thousand six hundred ninety nine dollars ($312,699.00.)
The City shall pay Vendor invoices for Products and/or Services actually delivered in accordance with this Purchase
Agreement. To be eligible for payment, Vendor invoices must itemize the Products and/or Services delivered and the
corresponding prices in accordance with this Purchase Agreement. Payment of Vendor invoices does not constitute
acceptance of Products and/or Services delivered. Prices of Products and/or Services delivered that are not in
accordance with this Purchase Agreement are subject to adjustment. In no event will the prices of Products and/or
Services delivered exceed that specified on this Purchase Agreement. Payments shall be subject to adjustment for
defects in quality or failure of Vendor to meet terms and conditions herein and in Exhibit A. Such adjustments shall be
equal to one hundred percent (100%) of City’s costs to correct such defects or Vendor’s failure to meet Purchase
Agreement requirements.
4. Taxes. Vendor shall pay all applicable federal, state and local taxes, which may be chargeable against the delivery of
the Products and/or Services listed herein.
5. General Warranties and Product Compliance. Vendor warrants that: (A) All Products and/or Services are as described
on this Purchase Agreement conform to all drawings, samples, descriptions and specifications contained in Exhibit A;
(B) All Products and/or Services delivered are new and of good merchantable quality, free from material defects of
workmanship and fit for the purpose for which sold or provided; (C) Vendor has good title to all Products delivered and
all Products delivered are free from liens and other encumbrances; and (D) Vendor's delivery and installation of the
Products and/or Services will be in strict conformity with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. For purposes of
this warranty, any Products or components not meeting the foregoing quality shall be deemed defective. The foregoing
warranty provisions shall also be applicable to equipment or materials provided by a third party entity to Vendor via
this Purchase Agreement.
Vendor also expressly warrants and guarantees, for three (3) years for Vista WiFi body cameras, and five (5) years for
all other products that the Products and/or Services furnished by it to City shall be free from breakage or defects of
material and workmanship under normal use, service and maintenance from the date of acceptance of the City, and
expressly agrees to repair or replace Products and/or Services or any part thereof which proves defective as a result of
inferior or defective materials, equipment or workmanship. If within the period stated above, any repairs or
replacements in connection with the Products and/or Services are, in the opinion of the City, rendered necessary as a
result of the use of inferior or defective materials, equipment or workmanship, Vendor agrees on receipt of notice from
City and without expense to the City, for freight, parts or labor, to properly repair, replace or correct any and all such
defects therein. If Vendor, after such notice, fails to proceed promptly with the terms of this warranty and guarantee,
the City may perform the work necessary to effectuate such corrections, repairs and replacements, and recover the cost
thereof from Vendor.
Page 2 of 3
[Rev:2.13.2014]
6. Damage to City Facilities. Damage to City or public facilities or private property caused by the Vendor or by its
subcontractors during delivery or installation shall be repaired and/or replaced in kind at no cost to the City.
7. Site Safety and Cleanup. The delivery and installation site shall be kept clean and free of hazards at all times during
installation. After installation is completed at the site, Vendor shall clean the surrounding area to the condition prior to
installation.
8. Final Inspection and Work Acceptance. Finished installation work and/or equipment shall be subject to final inspection
and acceptance or rejection by the City.
9. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Vendor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the
City), and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, contractors and
consultants (collectively, the “City Indemnitees”)from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses
and costs (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature
arising out of or in connection with the delivery and installation of the Products and/or Services described on this
Purchase Agreement or Vendor’s failure to comply with this Purchase Agreement, except such Liability caused by the
gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees.
10. Insurance. Before beginning any installation work and continuing throughout the term of this Purchase Agreement,
Vendor, at its sole cost and expense, furnish the City with certificates of insurance evidencing that Contractor has
obtained and maintains insurance in the following amounts:
A. Workers’ Compensation that satisfies the minimum statutory limits.
B. Commercial General Liability and Property Damage Insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence, TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) annual
aggregate, for bodily injury, property damage, products, completed operations and contractual liability coverage. The
policy shall also include coverage for liability arising out of the use and operation of any City-owned or City-furnished
equipment used or operated by the Vendor, its personnel, agents or subcontractors.
C. Comprehensive automobile insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per
occurrence for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned and non-owned vehicles.
All insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and shall name the City Indemnitees as additional
insureds with any City insurance shall be secondary and in excess to Vendor’s insurance. If the Vendor’s insurance
policy includes a self-insured retention that must be paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s liability,
or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others, including additional insureds
or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention, such provisions must be modified by special endorsement
so as to not apply to the additional insured coverage required by this agreement so as to not prevent any of the parties to
this agreement from satisfying or paying the self-insured retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s
liability. Additionally, the certificates of insurance must note whether the policy does or does not include any self-
insured retention and also must disclose the deductible.
The City Risk Manager, in writing, may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements. A valid and
executed approval by Risk Manager must accompany this Purchase Agreement for a variation to be binding.
11. Prevailing Wage. Where applicable, the wages to be paid for a day's work to all classes of laborers, workmen, or
mechanics on the work contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, shall be not less than the prevailing rate for a day’s
work in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where the work hereby contemplates to be
performed as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the Director’s authority under Labor Code
Section 1770, et seq. Each laborer, worker or mechanic employed by Contractor or by any subcontractor shall receive
the wages herein provided for. The Contractor shall pay two hundred dollars ($200), or whatever amount may be set by
Labor Code Section 1775, as may be amended, per day penalty for each worker paid less than prevailing rate of per
diem wages. The difference between the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the wage paid to each worker shall be
paid by the Contractor to each worker.
An error on the part of an awarding body does not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for payment of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1770-1775. The City will not
recognize any claim for additional compensation because of the payment by the Contractor for any wage rate in excess
of prevailing wage rate set forth. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by the
Contractor.
Page 3 of 3
[Rev:2.13.2014]
A. Posting of Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates and Deductions. If the schedule of prevailing wage rates is
not attached hereto pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, the Contractor shall post at appropriate
conspicuous points at the site of the project a schedule showing all determined prevailing wage rates for the
various classes of laborers and mechanics to be engaged in work on the project under this contract and all
deductions, if any, required by law to be made from unpaid wages actually earned by the laborers and
mechanics so engaged.
B. Payroll Records. Each Contractor and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the
name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman,
apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the Contractor in connection with the public work. Such
records shall be certified and submitted weekly as required by Labor Code Section 1776.
12. Tax Withholding. Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor is a resident of the State of California in
accordance with California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 18662, as may be amended, and is exempt from
withholding. Contractor accepts sole responsible for verifying the residency status of any subcontractors and withhold
taxes from non-California subcontractors as required by law.
13. Termination. In addition to all other legal and equitable rights of the City, the City may terminate this Purchase
Agreement upon notice to the Vendor. If the City terminates this Purchase Agreement, the City will pay the Vendor for
Products and/or Services accepted in accordance with this Purchase Agreement prior to the date of termination.
14. Prevailing Party. In the event that either party to this Purchase Agreement commences any legal action or proceeding
(including but not limited to arbitration) to interpret the terms of this Purchase Agreement, the prevailing party in such a
proceeding shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees associated with that legal action or proceeding.
15. Assignment, Governing Law. The Vendor may not assign any of Vendor's obligations under this Purchase Agreement
without the City’s prior written approval. This Purchase Agreement is governed by California law. The jurisdiction for
any litigation arising from this Purchase Agreement shall be in the state of California, and shall be venued in the County
of San Mateo.
16. Severability. If any portion of this Purchase Agreement is held invalid, the Parties agree that such invalidity shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Purchase Agreement.
17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Parties. This Purchase
Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both Parties.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VENDOR
A Municipal Corporation Watchguard Video
By:___________________________ By:___________________________
City Manager [Name], Authorized Rep
Approved as to Form: ATTEST:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Clerk
Item
#Qty.Unit
Price
Extended
Price
1 21 $5,220.00 $109,620.00
2 5 $5,030.00 $25,150.00
3 21 $200.00 Included
4 26 $200.00 $5,200.00
5 5 $195.00 $975.00
6 10 $100.00 $1,000.00
7 24 $945.00 $22,680.00
8 10 $95.00 $950.00
9 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
10 26 $75.00 $1,950.00
11 $75.00 $0.00
12 45 $75.00 $3,375.00
13 $3,995.00 $0.00
14 $745.00 $0.00
4RE Motorcycle System
Includes:
Standard Definition Front Camera
Integrated GPS
Crash detection
DVR with integrated 64GB solid state drive
16GB USB drive
4.3" touch screen remote display control panel
Cabin microphone
All mounting hardware and cabling and accessories
needed for installation
1-Year warranty on ALL in-car components
VISTA HD Wi-Fi Charging / Transfer Base
Redactive Redaction Software, Single Seat License, Optional
4RE, VISTA, Smart PoE Switch
Connects the 4RE In-Car Video System to the VISTA HD Wi-Fi wearable camera in the vehicle
VISTA HD USB Transfer / Charging Base
EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
Evidence Library 4 - 4RE Device License
Includes 1st year of Software Maintenance
Evidence Library 4 - VISTA/4RE Combo-Discount Device License
Includes 1st year of Software Maintenance
Evidence Library 4 - VISTA Device License
Includes 1st year of Software Maintenance
.
EXHIBIT A - Description of Products
Description
VISTA HD Wi-Fi Wearable Camera
Extended Capacity
Includes: Mounting Hardware and One (1) Year warranty on ALL components
BODY CAMERA HARDWARE
IN-CAR CAMERA HARDWARE
4RE High Definition In-Car Video System with Integrated VISTA Wi-Fi
Includes:
Zero Sightline HD Front Camera
Separate Back Seat Camera
Integrated GPS
Crash detection
DVR with integrated 200GB automotive grade hard drive
16GB USB drive
4.3" touch screen remote display control panel
Cabin microphone
4RE, VISTA, Smart PoE Switch
VISTA WiFi In-Car Charging / Transfer Base
All mounting hardware and cabling and accessories
needed for installation
1-Year warranty on ALL in-car components
HD Panoramic Camera Upgrade
Replaces the Zero Sightline Front Camera with a HD Panoramic Front Camera
Redactive Redaction Software, Annual Software Maintenance
(3 Year Required)
4RE IN-CAR 802.11n WIRELESS KIT, 5GHz
Includes: Radio, Antenna, PoE, 2-10' Ethernet Cables)
Evidence Library 4 Site License
5 Year Warranty + 2.5 Year Retention
15 1 $8,850.00 $8,850.00
16 56 $425.00 $23,800.00
17 1 $4,975.00 $4,975.00
18 3 $250.00 $750.00
19 26 --Included
20 $100.00 $0.00
21 $200.00 $0.00
22 $325.00 $0.00
23 $450.00 $0.00
24 26 $1,375.00 $35,750.00
25 --Included
26 $450.00 $0.00
27 45 $650.00 $29,250.00
28 45 --Included
29 $150.00 $0.00
30 $150.00 $0.00
31 45 $150.00 Included
32 45 $150.00 Included
33 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
34 26 $400.00 $10,400.00
35 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00
Included
$291,175.00
$21,523.68
Total Price $312,698.68
4RE System Installation, In-Car (Per Unit Charge)
WiFi Access Point, Configured, 802.11n, 5GHz, Sector (included PoE)
sales tax
VISTA WiFi No Fault Warranty, Hardware and Software Bundle, Years 1-3
Replaces standard warranty and must be purchased up front
Warranty, 4RE, 5 Year Hardware and Software Bundle
Video Storage Hard Drive, 6TB
3U Rack Mount Server
16 SATA Drive Server, Intel Xeon E5-2620 2.0GHz 6-Core, 32GB RAM, 2x128GB SSD 6GB/S MLC
drives (boot) 3x500GB SATA 7,200 RPM drives (sql), Windows Server 2008 R2 64-bit, SQL Server
2008 R2 (5CAL), 3-Year full service (on-site or reimbursed) warranty.
WARRANTIES AND MAINTENANCE
Evidence Library 4 Software Maintenance, 2nd Year
Basic CLOUD-SHARE: 24 Shares per Device and VISTA Mobile Companion application
Evidence Library 4 Software Maintenance, 3rd Year
Basic CLOUD-SHARE: 24 Shares per Device and VISTA Mobile Companion application
Access Point Installation
SUBTOTAL
Shipping
Warranty, 4RE, In-Car, 1st Year (Months 1-12)
Warranty, 4RE, In-Car, 2nd Year (Months 13-24)
Warranty, 4RE, In-Car, 3rd Year (Months 25-36)
Warranty, 4RE, In-Car, 5th Year (Months 49-60)
Warranty, 4RE, In-Car, 4th Year (Months 37-48)
VISTA Warranty, 1st Year (Months 1-12)
Evidence Library 4 Software Maintenance, 1st Year
Included in Evidence Library Device License. Basic CLOUD-SHARE: 24 Shares per Device and VISTA
Mobile Companion application
IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES
System Configuration - 1st Location
Includes:
Configuration services per location
WG Technical Services on-site installing and configuring
Evidence Library, Remote Client, and SQL database
Programming all access points and available DVR units
End-to-end system testing
Training for: hardware end users, back office software users, and system administrators
VISTA WiFi No Fault Warranty, Years 1-3
Replaces standard warranty and must be purchased up front
Evidence Library 4 Software Maintenance, 4th Year
Basic CLOUD-SHARE: 24 Shares per Device and VISTA Mobile Companion application
Evidence Library 4 Software Maintenance, 5th Year
Basic CLOUD-SHARE: 24 Shares per Device and VISTA Mobile Companion application
BACK OFFICE HARDWARE
Storage, JBOD Enclosure, 44-bay, 4U, includes SAS Cable
5 Year Warranty + 2.5 Year Retention
5 Year Warranty + 2.5 Year Retention
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-892,Version:1
Resolution approving a Purchase Agreement with WatchGuard Video in an amount not to exceed $312,699 for
the purchase of an integrated Mobile Audio Video (MAV)/Body Worn Camera (BWC)System;amend the
Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget by $92,100;increase budgeted revenues by
$60,000 to account for risk management grant funds from the Association of Bay Area Governments Pooled
Liability Assurance Network (ABAG PLAN);and authorize the City Manager to execute a Purchase
Agreement on behalf of the City.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the
Police Department to purchase a Mobile Audio Video (MAV) and Body Worn Camera (BWC) System; and
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Police Department will provide the highest level of service based on trust and transparency; and
WHEREAS,the purchase of the MAVs and BWCs will enable the Police Department to reduce costs and administer a single
integrated system, rather than two separate recording systems; and
WHEREAS,the Police Department issued an RFP for an integrated MAV/BWC system on August 30,2016;
and
WHEREAS,the City received five responses to the RFP,of which three were disqualified for not meeting the
requirements/specifications listed in the RFP; and
WHEREAS,upon the review of the two responsive proposals,staff determined that WatchGuard Video best
meets the Police Department’s needs and concerns; and
WHEREAS, currently there are five agencies in San Mateo County that utilize BWCs; and
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco Police Department wishes to take advantage of a grant program
from ABAG for the purchase of BWC system.
NOW,THERFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves a Purchase Agreement with WatchGuard Video in an amount not to exceed $312,699
for the purchase of an integrated Mobile Audio Video (MAV)/ Body Worn Camera (BWC) System.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves an
increase to the Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget by $92,100;and an increase in
budgeted revenues by $60,000 to account for risk management grant funds from the ABAG Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the
City Manager to execute the WatchGuard Video purchase agreement,substantially in the form attached hereto
as Exhibit A,on behalf of the City and execute all other required documents,subject to approval as to form by
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/7/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-892,Version:1
as Exhibit A,on behalf of the City and execute all other required documents,subject to approval as to form by
the City Attorney.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/7/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Page 1 of 3
[Rev:2.13.2014]
PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND WATCHGUARD VIDEO
These terms and conditions govern the purchase ofmaterials, supplies,and/or equipment, including any related installation,
training, and/orminor services and repairs described in this Purchase Agreement(“Purchase Agreement”) by Watchguard
Video(“Vendor”) for the City of South San Francisco (“City”). Vendor and City are collectively referred to in this
Purchase Agreementas “the Parties.” If the Vendor selects subcontractors to execute a portion the terms of this Purchase
Agreement, that subcontractoris an agent of the Vendor, and is hereby included by reference as “the Vendor.”
1.Time of Performance. This Purchase Agreementshall commence effective November 3,2016, and shall end when
Vendorhas provided to the City the Products and Services described in this Purchase Agreement, and in Exhibit A
(“Products” and/or “Services”). The equipment and products listed in Exhibit Amust be delivered by January 1, 2017.
Theinstallation and other services set forth in Exhibit A must be completed by January 1, 2017. In the event that any
of the terms ofExhibit Aconflict with this Purchase Agreement, the terms of the Purchase Agreement shall prevail.
2.Description of Goods. Vendor shall perform everything required tobe performed and shall provide and furnish to City
with a Vista WiFi & 4RE integrated body worn camera and in-car video systemand shall complete delivery F.O.B. to
the City of South San Francisco on orbefore January 1, 2017in strict accordance with the specifications as established
by this Purchase Agreementand ExhibitA, which specifications are incorporated herein and made part of this Purchase
Agreement.
3.Description of Purchase. The City hereby agrees to pay Vendor for the Products and/or Services with a not to exceed
amount. The total compensation for Products and/or Services performed under this Purchase Agreementis not to
exceed three hundred twelve thousand six hundred ninety nine dollars ($312,699.00.)
The City shall pay Vendor invoices for Products and/or Services actually delivered in accordance with this Purchase
Agreement. To be eligible for payment, Vendor invoices must itemize the Products and/or Services delivered and the
corresponding prices in accordance with this Purchase Agreement. Payment of Vendor invoices does not constitute
acceptance of Products and/or Services delivered. Prices of Products and/or Services delivered that are not in
accordance with this Purchase Agreementare subject to adjustment. In no event will the prices of Products and/or
Services delivered exceed that specified on this Purchase Agreement. Payments shall be subject to adjustment for
defects in quality or failure of Vendor to meet terms and conditions herein and in Exhibit A. Such adjustments shall be
equal to one hundred percent (100%)of City’s costs to correct such defects or Vendor’s failure to meet Purchase
Agreementrequirements.
4.Taxes.Vendor shall pay all applicable federal, state and local taxes, which may be chargeable against the delivery of
the Products and/or Services listed herein.
5.General Warranties and Product Compliance. Vendor warrants that: (A) All Products and/orServices are as described
on this Purchase Agreementconform to all drawings, samples, descriptionsand specificationscontained in Exhibit A;
(B) AllProducts and/or Services delivered are new and of good merchantable quality, free from material defects of
workmanship and fit for the purpose for which sold or provided; (C) Vendor has good title to all Products delivered and
all Products delivered are free from liens and other encumbrances; and (D) Vendor's delivery and installation of the
Products and/or Services will be in strict conformity with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. For purposes of
this warranty, any Products or componentsnot meeting the foregoing quality shall be deemed defective. The foregoing
warranty provisions shall also be applicable to equipment or materials provided by a third party entity to Vendor via
this Purchase Agreement.
Vendor also expressly warrants and guarantees, for three (3)years for Vista WiFi body cameras, and five (5)years for
all other productsthat the Products and/or Servicesfurnished by it to City shall be free from breakage or defects of
material and workmanship under normal use, service and maintenance from the date of acceptance of the City, and
expressly agrees to repair or replace Products and/or Services or any part thereof which proves defective as a result of
inferior or defective materials, equipment or workmanship. If within the period stated above, any repairs or
replacements in connection with the Products and/or Services are, in the opinion of the City, rendered necessary as a
result of the use of inferior or defective materials, equipment or workmanship, Vendor agrees on receipt of notice from
City and without expense to the City, for freight, parts or labor, to properly repair, replace or correct any and all such
defects therein. If Vendor, after such notice, fails to proceed promptly with the terms of this warranty and guarantee,
the City may perform the work necessary to effectuate such corrections, repairs and replacements, and recover the cost
thereof from Vendor.
Page 2 of 3
[Rev:2.13.2014]
6.Damage to City Facilities. Damage to City or public facilities or private property caused by the Vendor or by its
subcontractors during delivery or installation shall be repaired and/or replaced in kind at no cost to the City.
7.Site Safety and Cleanup. The delivery and installation site shall be kept clean and free of hazardsat all times during
installation. After installation iscompleted at the site, Vendor shall clean the surrounding area to the condition prior to
installation.
8.Final Inspection and Work Acceptance. Finished installation workand/or equipmentshall be subject to final inspection
and acceptance or rejection by the City.
9.Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Vendor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the
City), and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, contractors and
consultants (collectively, the “City Indemnitees”)from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses
and costs (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature
arising out of or in connection with the delivery and installation of the Products and/or Services described on this
Purchase Agreement or Vendor’s failure to comply with this Purchase Agreement, except such Liability caused by the
grossnegligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees.
10.Insurance. Before beginning any installation work and continuing throughout the term of thisPurchase Agreement,
Vendor, at its sole cost and expense, furnish the City with certificates of insurance evidencing that Contractor has
obtained and maintains insurance in the following amounts:
A. Workers’ Compensation that satisfies the minimum statutory limits.
B. Commercial General Liability and Property Damage Insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence, TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) annual
aggregate, for bodily injury, property damage, products, completed operations and contractual liability coverage. The
policy shall also include coverage for liability arising out of the use and operation of any City-owned or City-furnished
equipment used or operated by the Vendor, its personnel, agents or subcontractors.
C. Comprehensive automobile insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per
occurrence for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned and non-owned vehicles.
All insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and shall name the City Indemnitees as additional
insureds with any City insurance shall be secondary and in excess to Vendor’sinsurance. If the Vendor’s insurance
policy includes a self-insured retention that mustbe paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s liability,
or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others, including additional insureds
or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention, such provisions must be modified by special endorsement
so as to not apply to the additional insured coverage required by this agreement so as to not prevent any of the parties to
this agreement from satisfying or paying the self-insured retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s
liability. Additionally, the certificates of insurancemust note whether the policy does or does not include any self-
insured retentionand also must disclose the deductible.
The City Risk Manager, inwriting,may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements.A valid and
executed approval by Risk Manager must accompany this Purchase Agreementfor a variation to be binding.
11.Prevailing Wage. Where applicable, the wages to be paid fora day's work to all classes of laborers, workmen, or
mechanics on the work contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, shall be not less than the prevailing rate for a day’s
work in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where the workhereby contemplates to be
performed as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the Director’s authority under Labor Code
Section 1770, et seq. Each laborer, worker or mechanic employed by Contractor or by any subcontractor shall receive
the wages herein provided for. The Contractor shall pay two hundred dollars ($200), or whatever amount may be set by
Labor Code Section 1775, as may be amended, per day penalty for each worker paid less than prevailing rate of per
diem wages. The difference between the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the wage paid to each worker shall be
paid by the Contractor to each worker.
An error on the part of an awarding body does not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for payment of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1770-1775. The City will not
recognize any claim for additional compensation because of the payment by the Contractor for any wage rate in excess
of prevailing wage rate set forth. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by the
Contractor.
Page 3 of 3
[Rev:2.13.2014]
A. Posting of Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates and Deductions. If the schedule of prevailing wage rates is
not attached hereto pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, the Contractor shall post at appropriate
conspicuous points at the site of the project a schedule showing all determined prevailing wage rates for the
various classes of laborers and mechanics to be engaged in work on the project under this contract and all
deductions, if any, required by law to be made from unpaid wages actually earned by the laborers and
mechanics so engaged.
B. Payroll Records. Each Contractor and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the
name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman,
apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the Contractor in connection with the public work. Such
records shall be certified and submitted weekly as required byLabor Code Section 1776.
12.Tax Withholding. Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor is a resident of the State of California in
accordance with California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 18662, as may be amended, and is exempt from
withholding. Contractor accepts sole responsible for verifying the residency status of any subcontractors and withhold
taxes from non-California subcontractors as required by law.
13.Termination. In addition to all other legal and equitable rights of the City, the City may terminate this Purchase
Agreementupon notice to the Vendor. If the City terminates this Purchase Agreement, the City will pay the Vendor for
Products and/or Services accepted in accordance with this Purchase Agreementprior to the date of termination.
14.Prevailing Party. In the event that either party to this Purchase Agreementcommences any legal action or proceeding
(including but not limited to arbitration) to interpret the terms of this Purchase Agreement, the prevailing party in such a
proceeding shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees associated with that legal action or proceeding.
15.Assignment, Governing Law. The Vendor may not assign any of Vendor's obligations under this Purchase Agreement
without the City’s prior written approval. This Purchase Agreementis governed by California law. The jurisdiction for
any litigation arising from this Purchase Agreementshall be in the state of California, and shall be venued in the County
of San Mateo.
16.Severability. If any portion of this Purchase Agreementis held invalid, the Parties agree that such invalidity shall not
affect the validity of theremaining portions of this Purchase Agreement.
17.Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Parties. This Purchase
Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both Parties.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VENDOR
A Municipal Corporation Watchguard Video
By:___________________________ By:___________________________
City Manager [Name], Authorized Rep
Approved as to Form:ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
City Attorney City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-556,Version:1
Report regarding a resolution amending the City Clerk Department Fiscal Year 2016/17 Operating Budget in
the amount of $10,000 to fund a Management Consultant Study of the City Clerk Department.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing an amendment to the City
Clerk Department’s 2016/17 Operating Budget in the amount of $10,000 to fund a Management
Consultant Study of the Department.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since January 2016,the City Clerk and Human Resources (HR)Departments have collaborated in an attempt to
address the impact the changed pace of City business is having on the City Clerk’s Department (Department)to
ensure it is positioned to provide the highest quality of service to the public.The process has clarified that the
demands on the Department have increased significantly over the past few years. For example:
·The number of Brown Act Legislative Bodies for which the Department handles all aspects of
legislative compliance including,staffing,legislative processing (finalizing of motions,resolutions,
ordinances and minutes)has increased by nine (9)from two (2)to eleven (11)Brown Act Legislative
Bodies;
·The number of Brown Act Legislative Body meetings under the Department’s responsibility has
increased from an average of 73 in 2008-2014 to 102 in 2015 and 120 through October 19,2016,
yielding a corresponding increase in the items requiring public noticing,including agendas,public
hearings, minutes, resolutions and ordinances;
·The number of Public Records Act (PRA)requests has increased by over 100%in the past two (2)
years,with the Department receiving upwards of 200 PRA requests through October 2016 and 151 in
2015, as compared against an average of 76.5 PRA requests per year from 2011-2014;
·Interest in/and management of the recruitment process for the City’s Boards and Commissions has
expanded in scope as is evidenced by the increased number of applicants applying for Board and
Commission positions;
·Management of employee Conflict of Interest Code filings and responsibilities has increased due to
changes in Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)requirements and rapid changes to the City’s
workforce over the past two (2) years;
·The Department has taken on management of the City Council Handbook; and
·The enhanced pace of business has created more records requiring additional staff time and attention to
the City-wide Records Management Program.See Attachments 1 and 2 for additional background on
Clerk Department operations and responsibilities.
This increased demand on staff is not sustainable under the current organizational structure.For this reason,in
consultation with the City Manager’s Office,Finance and Human Resources Departments,the recommendation
is to propose an independent management consultant study of the Department.The outside consultant would
review the Department’s workload,job classifications,work processes,systems and challenges,and provide
recommendations that will assist the Department in implementing effective action plans and appropriate
solutions to enhance the organizational effectiveness of the Department.The City Clerk’s intent is to position
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-556,Version:1
solutions to enhance the organizational effectiveness of the Department.The City Clerk’s intent is to position
the Department to best meet the City’s needs going forward.
Consultant Selection Process
Because the value of the service is under $25,000,City Council approval of the contract is not required.
However,funding for the study must be approved by the Council to ensure sufficient funds to cover the
expense to the City Clerk Department Budget.Accordingly Council is being provided with this background on
the Request for Quotes Process that instructed the dollar amount required for the proposed budget amendment.
The Human Resources Department solicited a request for quotes from Management Partners,Regional
Government Services (RGS),and CPS HR Consulting (CPS)for review by the City Clerk.Consultants were
advised of the scope of work as follows:a)Performance of a Department workload analysis to determine
appropriate staffing levels;b)Classification review to determine appropriate division of work into individual
job roles and effective interaction of those roles; and c) work process and systems analysis.
Both Management Partners and RGS are able to conduct the organizational assessment.CPS offered to help
with aspects of the study,but it did not have a former City Clerk or other consultant available to provide the full
scope of services needed to conduct the study.Management Partners submitted an initial proposal of $22,500,
which was reduced to $19,500,and possibly to as low as $18,500,while RGS estimates it can complete the
project for $10,000. Accordingly, RGS was selected since it has the qualifications and its fee is lower.
FUNDING
As a Department Head,the City Clerk has the contract authority to execute agreements under $25,000.
However,funding for the study requires an amendment to the City Clerk Department Operating Budget for the
Fiscal Year 2016/17 in the amount of $10,000, the estimated value of the contract with RGS.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing an amendment to the City Clerk
Department’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget in the amount of $10,000 to fund a Management
Consultant’s Study of the Department.
Attachments:
1-2016/17 Budget Narrative for City Clerk Department
2-Detailed Catalogue of City Clerk Department Functions
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
CITY CLERK
MISSION:
The primary purpose of the City Clerk’s Department is to serve as the conduit between the
residents of the City of South San Francisco and local government legislative agencies, including
the South San Francisco City Council and its seven (7) Standing Committees, the South San
Francisco Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency and the Oversight Board to
the Successor Agencyas well as the Measure W Citizens’ Oversight Committee. The Clerk’s
Office also performs functions ancillary to this purpose by administering democratic processes
such as elections, access to city records, and all legislative actions ensuring transparency to the
public. The City Clerk acts as a compliance officer for federal, state and local statutes including
the Political Reform Act, the Brown Act, and the Public Records Act. The Office strives to meet
these duties efficiently, courteously, neutrally and in a manner that is above all else,in the best
interests of the Citizens of South San Francisco.
THE DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS ITS MISSION TO THE CITY THROUGH AND BY:
Performing all legislative duties for the legislative bodies identified above pursuant to
state and local government requirements, including: (1) Managing projected agenda
items; (2) Noticing public hearingsand ordinances; (3) Preparing and publishing the
agendas; (4) Finalizing and retaining resolutions and ordinances; (5) Preparing minutes
for presentation to the legislative agency at issue.
Maintaining relationships with staff for the legislative agencies identified above, which
includes day to day meetings and interactions permitting information flow in a regular
and consistent manner.
Managing both the physical and electronic records retention program and goals for the
City.
Managing Elections and Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)matters for the City.
Representing the City at public events.
Administering the City’s Public Records Act Program.
Representing the City on City Clerk and Election related Boards.
Attesting City and local documents.
ACCOMPLISHMENT/INITIATIVE HIGHLIGHTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2015-16:
Managed and implemented roll-out of Legistar Automated Agenda Management System.
The systemempoweredstaff to ensure the accuracy of legislative reporting and
compliance with California law in the most efficient way currently available to
government entities;
Managed and implemented establishment of WebQA Public Records Act Request
Automation,making submission of and receipt of information related to Public Records
Act Requests more efficient and accessible to the public. The system alsoincreasedstaff
visibility to requests and compliance tracking;
Managed the 2015 Municipal Election;
Completed preliminary staffing plan for the City Clerk’s Office to meet increased
workflow and enhanced record of Office Policies and Procedures; and
Orchestrated placement of City’s inactive records at a secure off-site records storage
facility to achieve security, safety and efficiency related goals.
OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17:
Audit Records Retention Schedule to assist Departments with conversion to electronic
records retention. Continue to work with Departments to convert records retained in
physical storage at the Corporation Yard to electronic format in line with the statewide
movement towards electronic availability of records;
Develop Electronic Portal for FPPC Filings;
Assist Council with audit and update of the City Council Handbook;
Assume responsibility for maintenance of Administrative Instructions;
Streamline legislative processing functions via implementation of Legistar Automated
Agenda Management System and work with Council and staff to adjust the system to best
suit the needs of the City,legislative bodies,and staff; and
Assess impact of automated efficiencies against City Clerk Staffing Plan.
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17:
$7,000 for annual maintenance of WebQA, the City’s Automated Public Records Act
Program;
$8,814 for annual maintenance of Legistar Automated Agenda Management System;and
$5,000 for staff training to permit training of new employees and maintain awareness of
current laws, rules and regulations affecting the Office of the City Clerk.
Organization Chart 4: City Clerk
Citizens of South San Francisco
1.0 – ÙWX Û W T
Krista Martinelli
1.0 – M WX ÙWX Û
Í ÌÌ N W T ØN
ÌÌ ØN
N ÙVWÙ Ù T Ö VÙWÙ V
N ÙVWÙ T T Ö VÙWÙ V
N ÙVWÙ W Ö VÙWÙ V
Ô X VW T Ö VÙWÙ V
Í Ì ? ÙWX Û TV Ø U Ù Ù
Í Ì ? ÙWX Û TV Ø U Ù Ù
Table 6: City Clerk Position Listing
ÙWX Û
T Ö VÙWÙ ØÙW
ÎÌÍÏ Í
W
ÎÌÍ Í
W
ÎÌÍ Í
T W T
U
Ü
ÎÌÍ Í
N W T Ø NÍÌÌ N W T ÙWX Û Í ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Ì ÌÌ
ØÕØ Ò N W T Í ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Ì ÌÌ
ØÙÜ ÕÎ VVÙVW W ÙWX Û Í ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Ì ÌÌ Í ÌÌ
ØÙÜ Õ ÎÌ M WX ÙWX Û Í ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Ì ÌÌ
ØÙÜ ÕÏÍ ÙWX Û TV Ø U Ù Ù Ì ÌÌ Í ÌÌ Î ÌÌ Í ÌÌ
ØÕØ Ò ØÙÜ Î ÌÌ ÌÌ ÌÌ Ì ÌÌ
ØÕØ Ò ØN ÙWX Û ÌÌ Ï ÌÌ Ï ÌÌ Ì ÌÌ
ØQ ÒN O
T
ÎÌÍÏ Í
W
ÎÌÍ Í
T W T
ÎÌÍ Í
Ü T T
ÎÌÍ Í
Ö Ú W T
ÎÌÍ Í
T W T
U Ü
ÎÌÍ Í
T W T
Ö Q ÕÒÒ H Î ÌÌHÎ Ì ÌÌHÎ Ì ÌÌHÎ Ì HÎ HÌÍÌ
ÖÖÒ N F N N ÎÌHÌ Î Í H ÎÍ H ÍH ÎÌ Ï HÏÌ ÍÌ HÍ
ÔØN MNÖ ØÓNÔØ Ò Ñ N ÎH ÌÍ HÏ HÏ HÏ ÌHÎÎÎ HÎ
Ø W N TÙW V ÏÎ HÏÍÌ ÍH ÌÏ ÍH ÌÏ Î H Ï H Ï Ï HÏ
MNÖ ØÓNÔØ Ò Ñ Ô N F Ñ ÑÒ ÑØ J
Ö ÜV F Ù VJ
? HÌÌÌ Ü Ù W ÙWXGV W Ü W T Ö Ù TV W Ü Ù XVW Ü
? H ÌÌ Ü Ù W Ò ÙVW T Ü Ü W VXVW Ü
Ö VÙWÙ VJ
ÕWU J
? Ô
? ÌÌÌ W Ù Ù WU U Ò Ù Ù ÙWÙ V ÙWX ÛGV VV Ù WÙ T W WÙ VWÙW W Ó Ù Ù ÛV
Ø Ù Ù V Ù T Ü Ù W T Ü WW VH Ù TÙ H W W ÙÜÙW T W H WÙ VH Ü Ù Ù WÙ H Ö Ù
TV W T W
? Í HÌÌÌ TV Ø U VV WU Ü VVÙVW W ÙWX Û Ö VÙWÙ
City Clerk Department Responsibilities2016
Mission Statement: The primary purpose of the City Clerk’s Office is to serve as the conduit
between the residents of the City of South San Francisco and local government legislative
agencies, including the South San Francisco City Counciland its seven (7) Standing Committees,
the South San Francisco Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency, the Oversight
Board to the Successor Agencyand the Measure W Citizen’s Oversight Committee. The Clerk’s
Office also performs functions ancillary to this purpose by administeringdemocratic processes
such as elections, providing access to City records, and all legislative actions ensuring
transparency to the public. The City Clerkacts as a compliance officer for federal, state and
local statutes including the Political Reform Act, the Brown Act, and the Public Records Act. The
Office strives to meet these duties efficiently, courteously, neutrally and in a manner that is
above all else in the best interests of the Citizens of South San Francisco.
Elected
Neutral Public Liaison at City Hall
Representsthe City at Public Events
ProvidesPublicinformation as requested
County representation on City Clerk and Election related groups and committees
Service on Regional Elected Boards-time permitting (Former Service as Peninsula Division Rep
to League of California Cities Policy Committee)
Records Management-City Wide
Physical Records StorageManagement-formerly at Corp Yard now at Corodata
Electronic Records Storage-Laserfiche scanning and naming convention
Records Retention Policy
Records Index Maintenance
Records Purge
Insurance Certificates Management
State Law Mandates-City Wide
Agreements-Management /Storage
Public Records Act
Elections Official
FPPC Filing Officer-elected, Boards and Commissions,employees
Conflict of Interest Code
State Law Mandates-Public Notice, Agenda Processing and Legislative Functions
Brown Act Compliance, including: (1)Public Noticing (Public hearings, Ordinances); (2)Agenda
Management, packaging and posting; and (3) Legislative Processing (Resolutions, Ordinances
City Clerk Department Responsibilities2016
and Minutes) for all Legislative Bodieslisted below:
City Council
Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency
Oversight Board to the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency
Community Development Block Grant Standing Committeeof the City Council
Downtown Standing Committeeof the City Council
Budget Standing Committeeof the City Council
Harbor District Liaison Standing Committeeof the City Council
Housing Standing Committeeof the City Council and Planning Commission
School District Liaison Standing Committeeof the City Council
Environmental Standing Committeeof the City Council
Measure W Citizens’ Oversight Committee
Successor Agency and Oversight Board Department of Finance (DOF)Compliance: including
website maintenance and postings (including ROPS)
Forwarding of required actions to DOF
Maintenance of OversightBoard DOF review tracker
General
Public Information-Default number on main City information line 8500 and official Information
number for the City (411)
e-mail inquiries City-wide
Staff requests for research City-wide (average 8.9 requests/month)
Animal Permits-City-Wide
Claims Processing-City Wide
Subpoena/complaint Processing-City Wide
Board and Commission Recruitment/Management
Maintenance of certain City lists: Elected and Appointed Officials Roster, Historical Rosters (all
Boards and Commissions and Elected Officials)
Clerk participation on City Committees including EOC, Central Safety, Library Strategic Plan,
Innovation Committee, Website Revision Working Group, TEECOM Security Working Group, Fee
Study and CFD Working Group, meetings of Executive Management Group weekly and as
requested
Issue Oaths of Office/Maintain Employee Oath Book
City Employee Parking Passes
City Wide Garage Sale
Board and Commission Recognition Event
City Council Handbook
City Clerk Department Responsibilities2016
General-Cont.
Oversight Board Facilitator/Liaison
City Clerk Budget Management
Staff Supervision and Oversight
Maintenance of City Clerk DepartmentWebsite pages
Maintenance of City clerk Department Intranet pages
Taking on in 2017: Admin Instructions
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-865,Version:1
Resolution amending the City Clerk Department Fiscal Year 2016/17 Operating Budget in the amount of
$10,000 to fund a Management Consultant’s Study of the City Clerk Department.
WHEREAS,an independent management consultant study of the City Clerk Department (Department)is
necessary to ensure the Department is aligned with current workflow demands in the City to ensure the highest
quality of service to the Public; and
WHEREAS,the outside consultant would create a report of the current workflow structure and job duties and
provide recommendations for the organization going forward,including a review of the staffing levels
appropriate for the City Clerk’s Department so that Council and the City Clerk can position the Department to
best meet the City’s needs going forward; and
WHEREAS,the City has received a proposal to complete this project for up to $10,000,depending on assigned
personnel and the Department’s capacity to compile information and participate in the collection of workload
data; and
WHEREAS,to fund the study,the Department Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2016/17 needs to be amended
in the amount of $10,000.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco authorizes the Finance Department to amend the City Clerk
Department Fiscal Year 2016 2017 Operating Budget by $10,000 to fund an independent management
consultant study of the City Clerk Department.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-786,Version:1
Report regarding a resolution amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code to update the List of Designated
Positions.(Krista Martinelli, City Clerk).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution amending the City’s Conflict of Interest
Code to update the List of Designated Positions.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At its September 28,2016 Regular Meeting,the City Council accepted by Motion the 2016 Biennial Notice
(Notice)pursuant to the California Political Reform Act as regulated by the Fair Political Practices Commission
and issued by the City Clerk.The Notice specified that the City’s Conflict of Interest Code was in need of
amendment.The amendments are required due to changes to the City’s organizational structure,elimination of
positions and re-named positions,added positions and changes in duties and responsibilities.Accordingly,the
City is obligated to revise the code by Tuesday, December 20, 2016, 90 days from the filing of the Notice.
Conflict of Interest Code Requirements and Recent History
State law requires the City to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code (COI).The COI obligates a person holding a
designated position in the City to file a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700)with the City Clerk.See
Attachment 1,Form 700.The COI includes a list of designated positions and identifies disclosure categories,
which are the portions of the Form 700 applicable to each position.To inform the City’s determination as to
which positions to include,the FPPC requires inclusion of all agency positions that involve the making or
participation in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest.
The City Council adopted its initial COI in Resolution 129-87.The COI has been amended on several
occasions.In 2009,the disclosure categories were updated by Resolution 22-2009 to reflect changes to the
Form 700 schedules.See Attachment 2,Disclosure Categories.The most recent amendment to the COI came
on February 26,2014 and was accomplished in Resolution 28-2014.The 2014 amendment reflected changed
positions and did not revise disclosure categories for established positions.
Current Recommended Amendments
Because of recent changes in the organization,new positions have been created and others have been
eliminated.Additionally,certain Boards and Commissions have come into being and others have incurred
increasingly responsible roles.As a result,the changes to the COI’s List of Designated Positions set forth in
Attachment 3 are recommended.See Attachment 3,proposed revisions to the List of Designated Positions in
the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.
There have been no changes to the Form 700 schedules since 2009.Accordingly,no changes to the disclosure
categories are recommended at this time.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution amending the City’s Conflict of
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-786,Version:1
Interest Code to update the List of Designated Positions.
Attachments:
1.Form 700
2.Disclosure Categories
3.Recommended Revisions to List of Designated Positions included in the City’s Conflict of Interest
Code
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
A.APPROPRIATE FORMS
All persons holding offices or positions specified in Government Code Section 87200 shall file
FPPC Form 700for purposes of complying with the financial disclosure requirements of the
Conflict of Interest Code. All other positions and offices designated in Resolution 32-2008shall file
FPPC form 700based on the disclosure categories listed below.
B.DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1:All investments, sources ofincome, interests in real property or businesspositions
in which the designated employee orofficial is a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee or holds any position of management. (SchedulesAll A-E)
Category 2:All interest in real property located in the City of South San Francisco, within two
(2) miles of the City of South San Francisco or within two (2) miles of any land
owned or used by the City of South San Francisco. (SchedulesB & C)
Category 3:All investments, interests in real property or sources of income subject to the
regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department, board or commission,
or agency. (SchedulesAllA-E)
Category 4:Investments in business entities and sources of incomewhich engage in land
development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. (SchedulesA,
C, D, E)
Categories5:Investments in, income from and positions held in business entities of the types
which, within the past two (2) years, have contracted with the City of South San
Francisco to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
(SchedulesA, C, D, E)
Category 6:Investment in, income from and positions held in business entities of the type
which, within the past two (2) years, have contracted with the designated
employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery and
equipment. (SchedulesA, C, D, E)
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-787,Version:1
Resolution amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code to update the List of
Designated Positions.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Political Reform Act (Article III of Chapter 7 of the Government Code,
commencing with Section 81000), each government agency is required to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code
(Government Code Section 87300 et seq.);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 87302, the Conflict of Interest Code shall provide for
specific enumeration of the positions within the City, other than those specified in Government Code Section
87200, which involve the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have
material effect on any financial interest and for each such enumerated position, the specific types of
investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income which are reportable; and
WHEREAS,by Resolution No.129-87,as amended most recently by Resolutions 22-2009 and 28-2014,the
City Council previously adopted the City's Conflict of Interest Code ("COI")and the list of designated positions
subject to the COI; and
WHEREAS,an update to the list of designated positions subject to the COI is necessary because of the recent
reorganization of the City's staff and because of the creation of new Boards and Commissions and the changed
responsibilities of certain Committees.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
adopts the updated Conflict of Interest Code,including designation of positions and the applicable disclosure
categories for the positions, as shown in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/7/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
A.APPROPRIATE FORMS
All persons holding offices or positions specified in Government Code Section 87200 shall file
FPPC Form 700for purposes of complying with the financial disclosure requirements of the
Conflict of Interest Code. All other positions and offices designated in Resolution 32-2008shall file
FPPC form 700based on the disclosure categories listed below.
B.DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1:All investments, sources ofincome, interests in real property or businesspositions
in which the designated employee orofficial is a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee or holds any position of management. (SchedulesAll A-E)
Category 2:All interest in real property located in the City of South San Francisco, within two
(2) miles of the City of South San Francisco or within two (2) miles of any land
owned or used by the City of South San Francisco. (SchedulesB & C)
Category 3:All investments, interests in real property or sources of income subject to the
regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department, board or commission,
or agency. (SchedulesAllA-E)
Category 4:Investments in business entities and sources of incomewhich engage in land
development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. (SchedulesA,
C, D, E)
Categories5:Investments in, income from and positions held in business entities of the types
which, within the past two (2) years, have contracted with the City of South San
Francisco to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
(SchedulesA, C, D, E)
Category 6:Investment in, income from and positions held in business entities of the type
which, within the past two (2) years, have contracted with the designated
employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery and
equipment. (SchedulesA, C, D, E)
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-296,Version:1
Study Session regarding proposed amendments to the City Council Handbook.(Krista Martinelli,City Clerk
and Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Councilmembers review the City Council Handbook (Handbook),the suggested
revisions,and provide direction regarding the policies set forth in the Handbook.Pursuant to these
discussions,Councilmembers may direct staff to prepare revisions to the Handbook for approval at the
November 30, 2016 special meeting of the City Council.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Legislative History of the City Council Handbook
The City Council first approved the City Council Handbook (Handbook)by Motion at a Regular Meeting on
September 13,1989.The legislative history of the document indicates that the purpose of the Handbook is to
establish operating procedures and general policies of the City Council.The Handbook is intended to serve “as
a ready reference for Councilmembers,both new and experienced,with regard to certain basic operations.An
overview of various legal provisions,such as the basics of conflict of interest and the Brown Act,is provided.
Practices which have evolved over time even though not required by law are also memorialized.In addition,
topics which do not arise very often,but which tend to raise questions or issues when they do come up,are
addressed.”See Attachment 1,Initial August 9,1989 staff report presenting the City Council Handbook for
approval by motion.
Revision and Maintenance of the Handbook
Since the Handbook’s initial adoption in 1989,it has been revised by the City Council multiple times.It has
been maintained at various points of time by the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices,respectively.
Maintenance of the document resided in the City Manager’s Office as late as 2013.With retirements and the
shift in composition of the City Manager’s Office that occurred in late 2013 and early 2014,the then current
Word versions of the Handbook were not able to be located.In 2015,the City Clerk’s Office offered to assume
maintenance of the document.In order to create a current Word version of the Handbook,the PDF version of
the Handbook accessible on the City’s servers was compared against relevant Council legislation.City Council
resolutions clearly modifying the Handbook that had been passed between 2013 and 2015 were incorporated
into the current Word version of the Handbook.The City Clerk and City Attorney also identified policies
reflected in the Handbook that had been changed by legislation not directly referencing it;these changes are
presented in track changes format in the attached Handbook for Council’s consideration and discussed under
the Recommended Legislative Updates section below.See Attachment 2,City Council Handbook,Appendices
7 (Boards and Commissions), 8 (Boards and Commissions), and 10 (FPPC Gift requirements related to meals )).
Finally,as instructed by the version of the Handbook the Clerk assumed in 2015,there are areas where
legislative history was unclear based on conflicting resolutions predating 2013.In these circumstances,the City
Clerk is recommending that the Council revisit policy and confirm its current intent with respect to these
provisions as discussed in the “Policy Amendments from Council”section below.See Attachment 2,City
Council Handbook,p.22 (Board and Commission compensation),Appendices 3 and 10 (City Council
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-296,Version:1
Council Handbook,p.22 (Board and Commission compensation),Appendices 3 and 10 (City Council
Expenses) and Attachment 5, Resolution 15-2010 (Peninsula TV).
The City Attorney’s Office has made suggested revisions to Appendix 1A based on previous input from a
former Council Adhoc Committee organized to review reorganization policies set forth in the Handbook.This
is discussed below.
Policy Amendments from Council
Councilmembers may seek direct policy revisions to sections of the Handbook based upon changed City
priorities,infrastructure and changed relationships vis-à-vis staff and the public.Accordingly,at this study
session,Councilmembers should discuss their respective policy preferences,come to a concurrence and provide
direction to the City Clerk and City Attorney to prepare any additional revisions.Based on Council’s direction
at this study session,the City Clerk’s Office will work with the City Attorney to prepare a revised version of
the Handbook for adoption by the City Council at the November 30, 2016 special meeting of the City Council.
In addition to any policy issues Council wishes to address,the following four (4)specific topics should be
considered:Compensation for Board and Commissions (Attachment 2,City Council Handbook,p.22);
Procedure for Making Appointments and Reappointments (Attachment 2,City Council Handbook,p.22);The
Peninsula TV (PenTV)Expenditure Policy (Attachment 5,Resolution 15-2010);and City Council Expense
Reimbursement (Attachment 2, City Council Handbook, Appendices 3 and 10).
·Board and Commission Compensation.Presently all members of Boards and Commissions established
by ordinance of the City Council are compensated at a rate of $50.00 per regular meeting.There are
several committees that are not established by ordinance,but are recruited through the City Clerk’s
Office,that are not compensated-specifically,The Measure W Citizens Oversight Committee and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.Council should confirm or amend this policy to provide
clarity for implementing staff. See Attachment 2, City Council Handbook, p. 22.
·Procedure for Making Appointments and Reappointments [to Board and Commissions].At an October
17,2016 special meeting,the City Council requested that the Handbook be updated to provide that all
applications submitted for Boards and Commission be typewritten.Page 22 of the Handbook has been
updated to include this requirement.Note that applications are good for one (1)year.Accordingly,
applications presently on file with the Clerk’s Office will be valid for one (1)year from submission
irrespective of whether they are typewritten.All newly submitted applications must comply with the
typewritten requirement.Additionally,during the last recruitment for Boards and Commissions,it came
to the attention of the City that the Cultural Arts Commission has a slightly different eligibility
requirement than other Boards and Commissions.The Handbook currently states the following,“In
order to be eligible for an appointment to any Board or Commission,a person must be a resident of the
City,unless otherwise provided by law.”If the Council wishes to have a uniform standard for Board
and Commission eligibility,please provide direction to the City Clerk and City Attorney regarding what
that uniform standard should be. See Attachment 2, City Council Handbook, p. 22.
·PenTV.Resolution Number 15-2010 establishes a policy for funding public television programming
featuring information on public services,resources,and events on PenTV subject to certain restrictions.
See Attachment 5,Resolution No.15-2010.As the standing version of the City Council Handbook did
not include this change,and given that the pagination of the document has changed since 2010,the
Clerk believes placement of this section in the current version of the Handbook is best left to Council’s
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-296,Version:1
discretion.
·Expense Reimbursement.In the standing version of the Handbook,the City Council Expense
Reimbursement Forms are set forth at Appendix 3 and the Expense Reimbursement Policies are set
forth at Appendix 10.The Legislative History on these sections is imprecise and the representation of
these sections in the standing version of the Handbook is not instructive.Note that the Clerk has
included all currently known and/or used Council Expense Forms behind Appendix 3 for Council’s
consideration.See Attachment 2,Council Handbook,Appendix 3 and Attachment 3,Resolution 112-
2007 (expenses).Regarding Expense Reimbursement Policies set forth in Appendix 10,the Clerk has
made an effort to synthesize the legislative history through track changes;however,Council should
review this Appendix and the attached resolutions to determine the best policy for current
circumstances.See attachments 2,3 and 4,City Council Handbook Appendix 10,Resolution 112-2007
(expenses) and 19-2009 (expenses), respectively).
Recommended Legislative Updates
The Offices reviewed the Handbook to verify consistency with recent resolutions and certain state law affecting
procedure.In instances where there are clear internal inconsistencies with the Handbook,proposed revisions
have been suggested.See Attachment 2,Appendices 7 (Board and Commission Liaisons),8 (Board and
Commissions) and 10. Each of these suggested revisions is addressed herein.
·Handbook. There are multiple sections of the Handbook discussing areas that have been impacted by
changes in state or local law. Such revisions have been suggested throughout the body of the document.
·Appendix 1A.Proposed edits to Appendix 1A are marked in strikethrough and double underline.The
proposed changes are based on input from the former Adhoc Committee organized to provide direction
on reorganization policies set forth in the Handbook.Additionally,proposed changes are provided to
update the City’s new election cycle and the Mayoral and Vice-Mayoral succession based on current
office holders. See Attachment 2, City Council Handbook Appendix 1A.
·Appendix 7 Board and Commission Liaisons.The Parking Place Commission has been moved from
under the jurisdiction of the Economic and Community Development Department to the jurisdiction of
the Public Works Department.The suggested update reflects this change.See Attachment 2,City
Council Handbook Appendix 7.
·Appendix 8 Boards and Commissions.The Historic Preservation Commission was abolished by
Ordinance 1440-2011.See Attachment 6,Ordinance No.1440-2011.The suggested update deletes the
Historic Preservation Commission from the list of Boards and Commissions reflected in the Appendix.
See Attachment 2,City Council Handbook,Appendix 8.The update further includes minor
modifications to the Appendix that reflect current Board and Commission policy.
·Appendix 10 Council Expense Reimbursement.The Clerk has included a suggested revision to clarify
the definition of “Nominal Value”related to meals for FPPC gift reporting purposes.This revision is
suggested to align the Handbook’s policy on Meals with FPPC Gift Reporting Requirements.See
Attachment 7, Form 700 Gift Policy.
CONCLUSION
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-296,Version:1
After review and discussion, Councilmembers should direct staff to revise the Handbook for approval at the
City Council special meeting scheduled for November 30, 2016.
Attachments:
1.August 9, 1989 Staff Report on Resolution establishing the City Council Handbook
2.City Council Handbook and Appendices with recommended changes
3.Resolution 112-2007 (Council Expense Reimbursement)
4.Resolution 19-2009 (Expenses)
5.Resolution 15-2010 (PenTV)
6.Ordinance 1440-2011 (Abolishing Historic Preservation Commission)
7.Form 700 Excerpt (Gift Policy)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/27/2016Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-891,Version:1
Report regarding a resolution approving the Amended and Restated Master Agreement for Taxing Entity
Compensation for distribution of the net proceeds from the disposition of properties conveyed to the City of
South San Francisco consistent with the Long Range Property Management Plan and authorizing the City
Manager to execute said Agreement. (Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Amended and Restated
Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation for distribution of the net proceeds from the
disposition of properties conveyed to the City of South San Francisco consistent with the Long Range
Property Management Plan (LRPMP) and authorizing the City Manager to execute said Agreement.
BACKGROUND
There are 10 property tax entities (“Taxing Entities”)with jurisdiction in the City of South San Francisco
(“City”).Pursuant to the Successor Agency (“Successor Agency”)to the Redevelopment Agency’s LRPMP
(approved by the California Department of Finance on October 1,2015),the City is required to enter into an
agreement (“Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation”or “Agreement”)with the Taxing Entities for
the distribution of the net proceeds from the disposition of properties formerly-held by the Successor Agency.
On February 23,2016,the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency approved the Master Agreement for
Taxing Entity Compensation.On February 24 2016,the City Council approved the Master Agreement for
Taxing Entity Compensation for the City’s share.To date,seven of the Taxing Entities have approved a
version of the Agreement.
In reviewing the Agreement for approval,the County of San Mateo (“County”)requested several changes to
the Agreement.Under the original version of the Agreement,the County Auditor was charged with distributing
the net proceeds to the Taxing Entities.The County Auditor has requested that another entity coordinate
distribution of the net proceeds.
The City’s Finance Department has confirmed that they have the capability to distribute the net proceeds and
that doing so,would not place an undue burden on City resources.Consequently,the City Attorney’s Office in
cooperation with the County Counsel’s Office has amended the Agreement to provide for the City to distribute
the net proceeds to the Taxing Entities.To effectuate that change,additional provisions related to reporting and
auditing were added to the Agreement.In addition,the County clarified that a number of entities that were
believed to be overseen by the County in the original version of the Agreement were actually subject to
separate governing and approval bodies and thus,should be separate signatories to the Agreement.A redline
version of the Agreement showing all of the changes and new provisions is attached as Attachment 1.
The County Board of Supervisors approved the amended version of the Agreement on October 18,2016.While
the changes to the Agreement are administrative and non-substantive,staff is requesting that the City Council
and the other Taxing Entities execute the amended version of the Agreement to ensure consistency with the
version adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-891,Version:1
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Amended and Restated Master
Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation for distribution of the net proceeds from the disposition of
properties conveyed to the City of South San Francisco consistent with the LRPMP and authorizes the City
Manager to execute the Amended and Restated Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation.
Attachment: Redline Version of Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1
3/15/16
AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER AGREEMENT
FOR TAXING ENTITY COMPENSATION
This AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER AGREEMENT FOR TAXING ENTITY
COMPENSATION (this “Agreement”), dated as of________________ October 18, 2016, is
entered into by and among the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (the “City”),
and the following public agencies (each, a “Taxing Entity,” collectively referred to herein as the
“Taxing Entities,” and together with the City the “Parties”):
County of San Mateo, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”)
San Mateo County Community College District
San Mateo County Flood Control DistrictColma Creek Flood Control Zone and Subzones
San Mateo County Harbor District
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
San Mateo County Office of EducationTax
South San Francisco Unified School District
Willow Gardens Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
RECITALS
A. The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco (“Successor Agency”) is the owner of certain real property (“Agency Properties”)
located in the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and,
B. On June 29, 2011, the Legislature of the State of California (the “State”) adopted
Assembly Bill x1 26 (“AB 26”), which amended provisions of the State’s Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code sections 33000 et seq.); and,
C. Pursuant to AB 26 and the California Supreme Court decision in California
Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al., which upheld AB 26 (together with AB
1484, the “Dissolution Law”), the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and,
D. Pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Agency Properties were transferred to the
Successor Agency; and,
E. Pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Successor Agency prepared a Long Range
Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), which was approved by a resolution of the Oversight
Board for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
(“Oversight Board”) on November 19, 2013, and on May 21, 2015 and , the Oversight Board
approved the Amended Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), which was approved
by the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) on October 1, 2015; and,
F. The approved LRPMP identifies nineteen (19) properties to be transferred from the
Successor Agency for disposition and development consistent with the LRPMP ; and,
2
3/15/16
G. Eleven (11Fourteen (14) of the nineteen (19) properties are to be conveyed by the
Successor Agency to the City for the redevelopment activities consistent with the Redevelopment
Plan and the LRPMP , and the remaining eight (8five (5) (315 Airport Blvd, 401, 411, 421 Airport
Blvd, and 405 Cypress Ave) of the nineteen (19) properties are slated for redevelopment activities
that are currently under contract with a private developers developer through an Oversight Board-
approved Disposition and Development Agreements (DDA), Purchase and Sale Agreements (PSA)
or Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreements (ENRA) Agreement (PSA) and will be conveyed by the
Successor Agency to directly to the third-party purchasers purchaser pursuant to the Oversight
Board-approved agreementsagreement; and ,
H. The LRPMP also identifies nine (9) parcels to be transferred from the Successor
Agency to the City or the County for governmental uses; and,
I. Pursuant to the LRPMP, the Successor Agency’s transfer of real property assets to the
City for future development is subject to entering into this Agreement with the Taxing Entities for
the distribution of any funds received, if any, from the sale of such properties; and,
J. The Oversight Board-approved Purchase and Sale Agreements Agreement (PSA) for
the conveyance of the nine (9six (6) properties by the Successor Agency to the third-party
purchasers will provide purchaser (216 Miller Ave, 315 Airport Blvd, 401, 411, 421 Airport Blvd,
405 Cypress Ave) provides for the distribution to the Taxing Entities of the net funds received, if
any, from the sale of the nine (9six (6) properties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Purpose. This Agreement is executed with reference to the facts set forth in the foregoing
Recitals which are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. The purpose of this
Agreement is to address the allocation of certain prospective revenues among the Taxing Entities
that share in the property tax increment (“Tax Increment”) for property located within the City of
South San Francisco, South San Francisco Redevelopment Project (the “Project Area”) formerly
administered by the Redevelopment Agency, a list of all of the Taxing Entities and the applicable tax
rate apportioned to each individual entity is contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
2. Special Districts and Funds. The governing boards of certain of the Taxing Entities
administer certain special districts and funds that receive allocations of property taxes from the Tax
Increment, and are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of such special districts and
funds as described below.
3. County Funds. The County administers the following special districts and funds,
and in addition to entering into this Agreement for the County itself, the County is authorized to,
and has entered into and executed this Agreement on behalf of the following:
County of San Mateo
San Mateo County Flood Control District Colma Creek Flood Control Zone and
Subzones
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
County Education Tax
3
3/15/16
3. 4.Parcels to be Conveyed for Development Consistent with Plans. Pursuant to the LRPMP,
eleven (11 fourteen (14 ) parcels formerly owned by the Redevelopment Agency will be
transferred by the Successor Agency to the City for disposition consistent with the Redevelopment
Plan adopted for the Project Area, the Implementation Plans adopted in connection with the
Redevelopment Plan, and the City of South San Francisco General Plan (all of the foregoing,
collectively, the “Plans”). These 11 14 parcels (each individually, “Property,” and collectively,
the “Properties”) are more fully described in Exhibit A (numbers 1 through 14).
4. 5.Parcels to be Conveyed to the City for Governmental Uses. The LRPMP also provides that
nine (9) parcels formerly owned by the Redevelopment Agency will be transferred by the Successor
Agency to the City or County for continued governmental uses, as described more fully in Exhibit
A (letters A through I). No compensation will be paid to the City or to the Taxing Entities in
connection with the foregoing transfers. The properties and their uses, and the applicable deed
restrictions are described in the LRPMP, a copy of which has been provided to each Taxing Entity.
As set forth in the LRPMP and the applicable deed restrictions, in the event that a governmental use
ceases, the entity holding the formerly governmental use property will remit any Net Unrestricted
Proceeds (defined below) associated with that property to the Taxing Entities in accordance with the
procedure outlined in Section 5 below.
5. 6.Compensation to Taxing Entities. The City agrees that, upon the approval by the
Oversight Board of the sale price, and consistent with the LRPMP, in connection with the
conveyance of any of the parcels comprising the Properties, the City will remit the Net Unrestricted
Proceeds (defined below) to the San Mateo County Auditor-Controller for distribution to the Taxing
Entities within 60 days of the consummation of the sale in accordance with each Taxing
Entity’s pro-rata share of Tax Incrementproportionate contribution to the Redevelopment
Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”) of the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South
San Francisco pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 34188, as provided by
the San Mateo County Controller’s Office in connect ion with the most recent RPTTF
distribution.
For purposes of this Agreement, “Net Unrestricted Proceeds” means the sale proceeds
received by the City for the sale of any parcel included in the Properties, less: (i) costs incurred by
the City for expenses incurred in connection with the management and disposition of the Properties,
including reasonable and actual costs incurred for property management, maintenance, insurance,
marketing, appraisals, brokers' fees, escrow, closing costs, survey, attorneys' and consultants' fees,
and other reasonable costs incurred, including reasonable compensation for City staff performing
functions associated with the management, maintenance and disposition of the Properties, provided
that the City shall first apply any revenue generated from license or , permit, lease , right-of-entry,
or similar agreements (of less than one year per term) received by the City to offset the
management, insurance and maintenance costs of the Properties (collectively, “Permissible
Expenditures”), and (ii) any proceeds of sale that are restricted by virtue of the source of funds (e.g.
grant funds or the proceeds of bonds) that were used for the original acquisition of the Properties.
The Upon sale of any parcel included in the Properties, along with each Taxing Entity's pro-rata
share of the Net Unrestricted Proceeds, the City shall deliver to the Taxing Entities an accounting of
all such costs, expenses and restricted proceeds. related to that particular parcel (“Sale Accounting”).
4
3/15/16
6. Annual Report. Within ninety (90) days after the end of each fiscal year, the City will
provide a report to the Taxing Entities that identifies those Properties, or any portion thereof, still
held by the City pursuant to the LRPMP (“Annual Report”). This Annual Report will include an
accounting of all revenue and Permissible Expenditures related to the Properties for the most recent
fiscal year, including funding source (revenue) transactions and expense transactions. In the event
that the revenue for any Property exceeds its Permissible Expenditures for a given fiscal year, the
City will distribute to each Taxing Entity its pro-rata share of the net revenue for that fiscal year, as
described in Section 5, along with the Annual Report. In the event that Permissible Expenditures
exceeds revenue for a particular Property for a given year, the City will account for the net deficit
and apply any such deficit balance to future years or to the sale of the parcel as set forth in Section 5
of this Agreement.
7. Request for Audit. Within sixty days (60) from the issuance of (a) an Annual Report, or (b) a
Sale Accounting pursuant to the disposition of one of the Properties, any Taxing Entity (other than
the City) may submit a written request to the City for an audit of the accounting of revenue and
Permissible Expenditures contained in the Annual Report or the Sale Accounting, as applicable.
Only one such audit on behalf of the Taxing Entities may be requested for any given Annual Report
or Sale Accounting. Such audit pursuant to this Section 7 shall include a review of accounting
records and other supporting documentation and compliance with sections 5 and 6 of this
Agreement. In the event that a request for audit pursuant to this Section 7 is received by the City
within sixty (60) days of transmittal of the applicable report, one of the following qualified third-
party accounting firm will be retained to conduct the audit as envisioned by this Section: Macias,
Gini & O’Connell LLP; Brown Armstrong, Certified Public Accountants; Gallina, LLP; or Williams,
Adley & Company-CA, LLP. If none of the aforementioned accounting firms is available to conduct
the requested audit within a reasonable period of time, then the taxing entity requesting the audit
may propose a different qualified third-party accounting firm to conduct the audit subject to the
consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The conclusions of such
audit, and any report associated therewith, will be shared among all Taxing Entities. The cost of the
third-party audit will be paid by the City and included as a Permissible Expenditure against the
subject Property (or if the Property has already been sold, against an unsold Property) as
contemplated in Sections 5 and 6 of this Agreement. To support any audit envisioned by this
Section, City shall maintain all records of any revenues, sales, or Permissible Expenditures incurred
in connection with any Property for at least one year after the consummation of the sale of that
Property.
8. 7.Sales Procedure and Proceeds. The Parties acknowledge that City is obligated to convey
the Properties for development consistent with the Plans.
9. 8.City as Taxing Entity. The Parties hereby acknowledge that the City is also a Taxing
Entity for purposes of receiving funds pursuant to Section Sections 5 and 6 of this Agreement.
10. 9.Compensation AgreementLRPMP. Health and Safety Code Section 34191.3 provides that
once an LRPMP has been approved by DOF, the LRPMP supersedes all other provisions of the
statute relating to the disposition and use of the former redevelopment agency's real property assets.
5
3/15/16
11. Memorandum of Agreement. A memorandum of this agreement, substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit B, shall be recorded against the title of each of the Properties. Upon the
sale of a Property and distribution of Net Unrestricted Proceeds to the Taxing Entities, the City shall
cause to be recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County a release of the memorandum of
this agreement so that the memorandum of this agreement shall be removed from title for the
Property sold.
12. 10.Miscellaneous Provisions.
10.112.1 Notices. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices to be
sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective
addresses specified on the signature pages to this Agreement or to such other address as a Party may
designate by written notice delivered to the other Parties in accordance with this Section. All such
notices shall be sent by: (i) personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery; (ii)
certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered
on receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt; or (iii) nationally recognized overnight
courier, with charges prepaid or charged to the sender's account, in which case notice is effective on
delivery if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service.
10.212.2 Headings; Interpretation. The section headings and captions used herein are
solely for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The Parties agree that this
Agreement shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according to its fair
meaning as a whole, as if all Parties had prepared it.
10.312.3 Action or Approval. Whenever action or approval by City is required under
this Agreement, the City Manager or his or her designee may act on or approve such matter unless
specifically provided otherwise, or unless the City Manager determines in his or her discretion that
such action or approval requires referral to City Council for consideration.
10.412.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, contains the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to
the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral agreements, understandings,
representations or statements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
10.512.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one instrument. The
signature page of any counterpart may be detached therefrom without impairing the legal effect of
the signature(s) thereon provided such signature page is attached to any other counterpart identical
thereto having additional signature pages executed by the other Parties. Any executed counterpart of
this Agreement may be delivered to the other Parties by facsimile and shall be deemed as binding as
if an originally signed counterpart was delivered.
10.612.6 Severability. If any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement is held by
a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement is defeated by
such invalidity or unenforceability.
6
3/15/16
10.712.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing
contained in this Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than
the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, any rights or remedies hereunder.
10.812.8 Parties Not Co-Venturers; Independent Contractor; No Agency Relationship.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall establish the Parties as partners, co-venturers, or
principal and agent with one another. The relationship of the Parties shall not be construed as a joint
venture, equity venture, partnership or any other relationship.
10.912.9 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of
laws. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior Court
of San Mateo County, California or in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of
California.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
7
3/15/16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized
representatives as indicated below.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
By:
__________________________________
City Manager
Attest by:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Address for Notices:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Attention: City Manager
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
8
3/15/16
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the
County of San Mateo and the entities and funds set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
County Counsel
Address for Notices:
San Mateo County
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Attention:
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
9
3/15/16
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the San
Mateo County Flood Control District:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
County Counsel
Address for Notices:
County of San Mateo
Department of Public Works
555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Attention: James C. Porter, Director
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
10
3/15/16
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the San
Mateo County Harbor District:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
County General Counsel
Address for Notices:
General Manager
400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 300
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
11
3/15/16
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the San
Mateo County Community College District:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
County District Counsel
Address for Notices:
Director of Community/Government Relations
San Mateo Community College District
3401 CSM Drive
San Mateo, Ca 94402-3651
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
12
3/15/16
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the South
San Francisco Unified School District:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
District Counsel
Address for Notices:
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services South San Francisco USD
398 B Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
13
3/15/16
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the Willow
Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
__________ District Counsel
Address for Notices:
Willow Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
14
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
__________ District Counsel
Address for Notices:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis St.
San Francisco, CA 94109
Attention: Executive Director
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
15
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the San
Mateo County Resource Conservation District:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
District Counsel
Address for Notices:
Kellyx Nelson
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
625 Miramontes Street, #103
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
16
The undersigned authorized signatory hereby executes this Agreement on behalf of the San
Mateo County Office of Education:
By:
_____________________________
Name:
______________________________
Title:
______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
Counsel
Address for Notices:
Cheryl Agrawal
San Mateo County Office of Education
101 Twin Dolphin Drive
Redwood City, CA 94065
17
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTIES
Parcels to be conveyed consistent with the Plans:
Number Disposition Address
APN
1.
2.
3.
Future Development Former PUC Properties 093-312-050
093-312-060
011-326-030
4. Future Development 1 Chestnut Avenue
011-322-030
5. Future Development 201 Grand Avenue 012-316-110
6. Future Development 207 Grand Avenue 012-316-100
7. Future Development 217-219 Grand Avenue 012-316-090
012-316-080
8. Future Development 227 Grand Avenue 012-316-060
69. Future Development 200 Linden 012-334-130
710. Future Development 212 Baden Avenue 012-334-040
811. Future Development 216 Baden Avenue 012-334-030
912. Future Development 905 Linden Avenue
012-101-100
1013. Future Development 616 Linden Avenue
012-174-300
1114. Future Development 700 Linden Avenue
012-145-370
A.
B.
Governmental Use Former PUC Properties 093-331-050
093-331-060
C. Governmental Use 80 Chestnut Avenue
011-324-190
D. Governmental Use 480 N. Canal
014-061-110
E. Governmental Use 296 Airport Blvd. 012-338-160
F. Governmental Use 323 Miller Avenue
012-312-070
G. Governmental Use 356 Grand Avenue
012-312-300
H. Governmental Use 306 Spruce Avenue 012-302-140
I. Governmental Use 468 Miller Avenue 012-301-020
18
EXHIBIT B
TAXING ENTITIES AND TAX-ALLOCATION
Tax Entity/Fund % Total
County of San Mateo 25.77%
City of South San Francisco 16.73%
South San Francisco Unified School District 43.91%
San Mateo County Community College District 7.38%
San Mateo County Flood Control District Colma Creek Flood Control
Zone and Subzones 1.64%
Willow Gardens Parks and Parkways Maintenance District 0.12%
Bay Area Air Quality Management District 0.23%
San Mateo County Harbor District 0.38%
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District 0.00%
San Mateo County Education Tax 3.84%
Total 100.00%
2666202.1
FORM OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Recording Requested by
and when Recorded, return to:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attention: City Manager
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)
MEMORANDUM OF
MASTER AGREEMENT FOR TAXING ENTITY COMPENSATION
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2011, the Legislature of the State of California (the “State”)
adopted Assembly Bill x1 26 (“AB 26”), which amended provisions of the State’s Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code sections 33000 et seq.); and,
19
WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 26 and the California Supreme Court decision in California
Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al., which upheld AB 26 (together with
AB 1484, the “Dissolution Law”), the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, former Redevelopment Agency of the City
of South San Francisco properties were transferred to the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Successor Agency”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Successor Agency prepared a Long
Range Property Management Plan, which was approved by a resolution of the Oversight Board
for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
(“Oversight Board”) on November 19, 2013, and on May 21, 2015, the Oversight Board
approved the Amended Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), which was
approved by the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) on October 1, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the approved LRPMP identifies properties to be transferred from the
Successor Agency to the City of South San Francisco (“City”) for the redevelopment activities
consistent with the applicable redevelopment plan and the LRPMP; and
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has transferred to the City the properties listed in
Attachment 1 for redevelopment activities consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and the
LRPMP (“Properties”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the LRPMP and the Dissolution Law, the City is required to
enter into an agreement for the distribution of any net proceeds received from the sale of such
Properties (“Agreement”) with the following taxing entities (collectively, “Taxing Entities”):
County of San Mateo, a political subdivision of the State of California
San Mateo County Community College District
San Mateo County Flood Control District
San Mateo County Harbor District
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
San Mateo County Office of Education
South San Francisco Unified School District
Willow Gardens Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the Taxing Entities have entered into said Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE be it known that this Memorandum of Agreement will be recorded in
the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office and shall become a record on those Properties, as more
particularly described in Attachment 1. Said Memorandum of Agreement shall be released from a
Property when such Property has been sold and the net unrestricted proceeds have been
distributed to the Taxing Entities.
20
Dated: ____________________ ________________________________
Mike Futrell, City Manager
City of South San Francisco
Attest: _______________________
City Clerk,
City of South San Francisco
21
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPERTIES
Properties subject to the Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation:
Number Disposition Address
APN
1.
2.
3.
Future Development Former PUC Properties 093-312-050
093-312-060
011-326-030
4. Future Development 1 Chestnut Avenue
011-322-030
5. Future Development 201 Grand Avenue 012-316-110
6. Future Development 207 Grand Avenue 012-316-100
7. Future Development 217-219 Grand Avenue 012-316-090
012-316-080
8. Future Development 227 Grand Avenue 012-316-060
9. Future Development 200 Linden 012-334-130
10. Future Development 212 Baden Avenue 012-334-040
11. Future Development 216 Baden Avenue 012-334-030
12. Future Development 905 Linden Avenue
012-101-100
13. Future Development 616 Linden Avenue
012-174-300
14. Future Development 700 Linden Avenue
012-145-370
2721549.2
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-907,Version:1
Resolution approving the Amended and Restated Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation for
distribution of the net proceeds from the disposition of properties conveyed to the City of South San Francisco
consistent with the Long Range Property Management Plan and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Agreement.
WHEREAS,the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
(“Successor Agency”)is the owner of certain real property (“Agency Properties”)located in the City of South
San Francisco (“City”); and
WHEREAS,on June 29,2011,the Legislature of the State of California (the “State”)adopted Assembly Bill x1
26 (“AB 26”),which amended provisions of the State’s Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety
Code sections 33000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS,pursuant to AB 26 and the California Supreme Court decision in California Redevelopment
Association,et al.v.Ana Matosantos,et al.,which upheld AB 26 (together with AB 1484,the “Dissolution
Law”),the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco was dissolved on February 1,
2012; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Dissolution Law,the Agency Properties were transferred to the Successor Agency;
and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Dissolution Law,the Successor Agency prepared a Long Range Property
Management Plan (“LRPMP”),which was approved by a resolution of the Oversight Board for the Successor
Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Oversight Board”)on May 21,
2015 and was approved by the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) on October 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the LRPMP,the City is required to enter into an agreement (“Master Agreement for
Taxing Entity Compensation”or “Agreement”)with the Taxing Entities for the distribution of the net proceeds
from the disposition of properties formerly-held by the Successor Agency; and
WHEREAS,on February 23,2016,the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency approved the Master
Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation; and
WHEREAS,on February 24 2016,the City Council approved the Master Agreement for Taxing Entity
Compensation and authorized the City Manager to execute the Agreement for the City’s share; and
WHEREAS,in reviewing the Agreement for approval,the County of San Mateo (“County”)requested several
administrative,non-substantive changes to the Agreement to provide for the City’s Finance Department to
distribute the net proceeds instead of the County Auditor and to include reporting and auditing provisions to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/7/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-907,Version:1
effectuate the change in responsibilities and other minor administrative changes; and
WHEREAS,the City Attorney’s Office and the County Counsel’s Office revised the Agreement to reflect the
County’s requests and the County Board of Supervisors approved the revised version of the Agreement,now
entitled “The Amended and Restated Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation”on October 18,
2016; and
WHEREAS,to ensure consistency with the version approved by the County Board of Supervisors,staff
recommends that the City Council approve and execute the Amended and Restated Master Agreement for
Taxing Entity Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby take
the following actions:
(1)Finds and determines that the recitals are true and correct; and
(2)Approves the Amended and Restated Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
(3)Authorizes the City Manager to enter into and execute the Amended and Restated Master Agreement
for Taxing Entity Compensation,in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A;to make any
revisions,amendments,or modifications,subject to review and approval by the City Attorney,and take any
other action deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution and which do not materially alter or
increase the City’s obligations thereunder.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/7/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1
AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER AGREEMENT
FOR TAXING ENTITY COMPENSATION
ThisAMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER AGREEMENT FOR TAXING ENTITY
COMPENSATION (this “Agreement”),datedasofOctober18,2016,isenteredintobyandamong
theCity of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (the “City”), and the following public
agencies(each, a “Taxing Entity,” collectivelyreferredtohereinasthe “TaxingEntities,”and
together with the Citythe “Parties”):
County of San Mateo, apoliticalsubdivisionoftheStateofCalifornia(“County”)
San Mateo County Community College District
San Mateo County Flood Control District
San Mateo County Harbor District
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
San Mateo County Office of Education
South San Francisco Unified School District
Willow Gardens Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
RECITALS
A.The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco (“Successor Agency”) is the owner of certain real property (“Agency Properties”)
located in the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and,
B.On June 29, 2011, the Legislature of the State of California (the “State”) adopted
Assembly Bill x1 26 (“AB 26”), which amended provisions of the State’s Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code sections 33000 et seq.); and,
C.Pursuant to AB 26 and the California Supreme Court decision in California
Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al., which upheld AB 26 (together with AB
1484, the “Dissolution Law”), the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and,
D.Pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Agency Properties were transferred to the
Successor Agency; and,
E.Pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Successor Agency prepared a Long Range
Property Management Plan, which was approved by a resolution of the Oversight Board for the
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Oversight
Board”) on November 19, 2013, and on May 21, 2015, the Oversight Board approved the Amended
Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), whichwas approved by the California
Department of Finance (“DOF”) on October 1, 2015; and,
F.The approved LRPMP identifies nineteen (19) propertiesto be transferred from the
Successor Agency for disposition and development consistent with the LRPMP;and,
2
G.Fourteen (14)of the nineteen (19) properties are to be conveyed by the Successor
Agency to the City for the redevelopment activities consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and the
LRPMP,and the remaining five(5)(315 Airport Blvd, 401, 411, 421 Airport Blvd, and 405 Cypress
Ave) of the nineteen (19) properties are slated for redevelopment activities that are currently under
contract withaprivate developer through an Oversight Board-approved Purchase and Sale
Agreement (PSA)and will be conveyed by the Successor Agency directly to the third-party
purchaser pursuant to the Oversight Board-approved agreement; and,
H.The LRPMP also identifies nine (9) parcels to be transferred from the Successor
Agency to the City or the County for governmental uses; and,
I.Pursuant to the LRPMP, the Successor Agency’s transfer of real property assets to the
City for future developmentissubject to entering into this Agreement with the Taxing Entities for
the distribution of any funds received from the saleof such properties; and,
J.The Oversight Board-approved Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) for the
conveyance of six(6) properties by the Successor Agency to the third-party purchaser(216 Miller
Ave, 315 Airport Blvd, 401, 411, 421 Airport Blvd, 405 Cypress Ave)providesfor the distribution
to the Taxing Entities of the net funds received, if any, from the sale of the six(6) properties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1.Purpose. This Agreement is executed with reference to the facts set forth in the foregoing
Recitals which are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. The purpose of this
Agreement is to address the allocation of certain prospective revenues among the Taxing Entities
that share in the property tax increment (“Tax Increment”) for property located within the City of
South San Francisco, South San Francisco Redevelopment Project (the “Project Area”) formerly
administered by the Redevelopment Agency.
2.SpecialDistrictsandFunds. ThegoverningboardsofcertainoftheTaxingEntities
administercertainspecialdistrictsandfundsthatreceiveallocationsofpropertytaxesfromthe Tax
Increment,andare authorizedtoexecute thisAgreementonbehalfof suchspecialdistrictsand
fundsasdescribedbelow.
3.ParcelstobeConveyedforDevelopment ConsistentwithPlans. Pursuanttothe LRPMP,
fourteen(14)parcelsformerly ownedbytheRedevelopmentAgencywillbetransferredbythe
SuccessorAgencytotheCity fordispositionconsistentwiththeRedevelopmentPlanadoptedfor
theProjectArea,the ImplementationPlansadoptedinconnectionwiththeRedevelopmentPlan,
andtheCity of South San FranciscoGeneralPlan(alloftheforegoing,collectively,the “Plans”).
These14parcels(each individually, “Property,” and collectively,the “Properties”)aremorefully
describedin ExhibitA(numbers 1 through 14).
4.Parcelsto be Conveyed to the City for Governmental Uses. TheLRPMP also providesthat
nine (9)parcelsformerlyownedbytheRedevelopmentAgencywillbetransferredby theSuccessor
AgencytotheCityor County forcontinuedgovernmentaluses, as described more fully in Exhibit
A(letters A through I).NocompensationwillbepaidtotheCityortotheTaxingEntitiesin
connection withtheforegoingtransfers. Thepropertiesandtheiruses, and the applicabledeed
restrictions aredescribedinthe LRPMP,acopyofwhichhasbeenprovidedto eachTaxingEntity.
As set forth in the LRPMPand the applicable deed restrictions, in the event that agovernmental use
3
ceases, the entity holding theformerly governmental use property willremit anyNet Unrestricted
Proceeds(defined below)associated with that property to the Taxing Entities in accordance with the
procedure outlined in Section 5 below.
5.Compensation to Taxing Entities. The City agreesthat,upon the approval by the
Oversight Board of the sale price, and consistent withtheLRPMP, in connectionwith the
conveyanceofanyoftheparcelscomprisingtheProperties,theCitywill remittheNetUnrestricted
Proceeds (defined below) to theTaxingEntitieswithin 60 days of the consummation of the sale
inaccordancewith each Taxing Entity’s proportionate contribution to the Redevelopment
Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”)of the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South
San Francisco pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 34188, as provided by
the San Mateo County Controller’s Officein connection with the most recent RPTTF
distribution.
For purposes of this Agreement, “Net Unrestricted Proceeds” means the sale proceeds
received by the City for the sale of any parcel included in the Properties, less: (i) costs incurred by
the City for expenses incurred in connection with the management and disposition of the Properties,
including reasonable and actual costs incurred for property management, maintenance, insurance,
marketing, appraisals, brokers' fees, escrow, closing costs, survey, attorneys' and consultants' fees,
and other reasonable costs incurred, including reasonable compensation for City staff performing
functions associated with the management, maintenance and disposition of the Propertiesprovided
that the City shall first apply any revenue generated from license, permit, lease, right-of-entry, or
similaragreements received by the City to offset the management, insurance and maintenance costs
of the Properties(collectively, “Permissible Expenditures”), and (ii) any proceeds of sale that are
restricted by virtue of the source of funds (e.g. grant funds or the proceeds of bonds) that were used
for the original acquisition of the Properties. Upon sale of any parcel included in the Properties,
along with eachTaxingEntity's pro-rata share of the Net Unrestricted Proceeds, the City shall
deliver to the Taxing Entities an accounting of all such costs, expenses and restricted proceeds
related to that particular parcel(“Sale Accounting”).
6.Annual Report. Within ninety(90) days after the end of eachfiscal year, the City will
provide a report to the Taxing Entitiesthat identifies thoseProperties, or any portion thereof,still
held by the City pursuant to the LRPMP(“Annual Report”). This Annual Report will includean
accounting of all revenueand Permissible Expendituresrelated to the Propertiesfor the most recent
fiscal year, including funding source (revenue) transactionsand expense transactions.In the event
that the revenuefor any Propertyexceeds its Permissible Expendituresfor a given fiscal year, the
City will distribute to each Taxing Entity its pro-rata share of the net revenuefor that fiscal year, as
described in Section 5,along with the Annual Report.In the event that Permissible Expenditures
exceedsrevenue for a particular Propertyfor a given year, the City will account for the net deficit
andapply any such deficitbalanceto future years ortothe sale of the parcelas set forth in Section 5
of this Agreement.
7.Request for Audit. Within sixty days (60) from the issuance of (a) an Annual Report, or (b) a
Sale Accountingpursuant to the disposition of one of the Properties,anyTaxing Entity (other than
the City)may submit a written request to the City for an audit of the accounting of revenue and
Permissible Expenditurescontained in the Annual Report orthe Sale Accounting, as applicable.
Only one such audit on behalf of the Taxing Entities may be requested for any given Annual Report
4
or Sale Accounting. Such auditpursuant to this Section 7 shall include a review of accounting
records and other supportingdocumentationand compliance with sections 5 and 6 ofthis
Agreement.In the event thata request for auditpursuant to this Section 7is received by the City
within sixty (60) days of transmittal of the applicable report, one of the following qualified third-
party accounting firm will be retained to conduct the audit as envisionedbythis Section: Macias,
Gini & O’Connell LLP; Brown Armstrong, Certified Public Accountants; Gallina, LLP; or Williams,
Adley & Company-CA, LLP.If none of the aforementioned accounting firms is available to conduct
the requested audit within a reasonable period of time, then the taxing entity requesting the audit
may propose a different qualified third-party accounting firm to conduct the audit subject to the
consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The conclusionsof such
audit, and any report associated therewith, will be shared among all Taxing Entities. The cost of the
third-party auditwill be paid by the Cityand includedas a Permissible Expenditureagainst the
subject Property(or if the Propertyhas already been sold, against anunsold Property) as
contemplated in Sections5and 6 of this Agreement.To support any audit envisioned by this
Section, City shall maintain all records of any revenues, sales, or Permissible Expendituresincurred
in connection with any Propertyfor at least one year after the consummation of the sale of that
Property.
8.Sales Procedure and Proceeds. ThePartiesacknowledgethatCityisobligatedtoconvey the
PropertiesfordevelopmentconsistentwiththePlans.
9.City as Taxing Entity. The Parties hereby acknowledge that the City is also a Taxing Entity
for purposes of receiving funds pursuant to Sections5 and 6of this Agreement.
10.LRPMP. Health and SafetyCodeSection34191.3providesthatonce anLRPMPhasbeen
approvedbyDOF,theLRPMPsupersedesallotherprovisionsofthestatute relatingtothe
dispositionanduseoftheformerredevelopmentagency'srealpropertyassets.
11.Memorandum of Agreement.Amemorandum of this agreement, substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit B,shall be recorded against the title of each of the Properties. Upon the
sale of a Property and distribution of Net Unrestricted Proceeds to the Taxing Entities, the City shall
cause to be recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County a release of the memorandum of
this agreement so that the memorandum of this agreement shall be removed from titlefor the
Property sold.
12.MiscellaneousProvisions.
12.1 Notices. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices to be sent
pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective
addresses specified on the signature pages to this Agreement or to such other address as a Party may
designate by written notice delivered to the other Partiesin accordance with this Section. All such
notices shall be sent by: (i)personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery; (ii)
certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered
on receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt; or (iii) nationally recognized overnight
courier, with charges prepaid or charged to the sender's account, in which case notice is effective on
delivery if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service.
5
12.2 Headings; Interpretation. The section headings and captions used herein are solely
for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The Parties agree that this
Agreement shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according to its fair
meaning as a whole, as if all Parties had prepared it.
12.3 Action or Approval. Whenever action or approval by City is required under this
Agreement, the City Manager or his or her designee may act on or approve such matter unless
specifically provided otherwise, or unless the City Manager determines in his or her discretion that
such action or approval requires referral to City Council for consideration.
12.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibit Aattached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, contains the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to
the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral agreements, understandings,
representations or statements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
12.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall
be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one instrument. The signature page of
any counterpart may be detached therefrom without impairing the legal effect of the signature(s)
thereon provided such signature page is attached to any other counterpart identical thereto having
additional signature pages executed by the other Parties. Any executed counterpart ofthis
Agreement may be delivered to the other Parties by facsimile and shall be deemed as binding as if an
originally signed counterpart was delivered.
12.6 Severability. If any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement is defeated by such
invalidity or unenforceability.
12.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing contained
in this Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than the Parties
and their respective successors and assigns, any rights or remedies hereunder.
12.8 Parties Not Co-Venturers; Independent Contractor; No Agency Relationship. Nothing
in this Agreement is intended to or shall establish the Parties as partners, co-venturers, or principal
and agent with one another. The relationship of the Parties shall not be construed as a joint venture,
equity venture, partnership or any other relationship.
12.9 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of laws.
Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior Court of
San MateoCounty, California or in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.
SIGNATURESONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
6
INWITNESSWHEREOF,thePartieshave executedthisAgreementbytheirauthorized
representativesasindicatedbelow.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,AMUNICIPALCORPORATION
By:_________________________
City Manager
Attest by:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
AddressforNotices:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Attention: City Manager
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
7
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfofthe
County ofSan Mateo:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
County Counsel
AddressforNotices:
San Mateo County
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Attention:
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
8
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheSan
Mateo County Flood Control District:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
County Counsel
AddressforNotices:
County of San Mateo
Department of Public Works
555County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City,CA 94063
Attention: James C. Porter, Director
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
9
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheSan
Mateo County Harbor District:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
GeneralCounsel
AddressforNotices:
General Manager
400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 300
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
10
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheSan
Mateo County Community College District:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
District Counsel
AddressforNotices:
Director of Community/Government Relations
San Mateo Community College District
3401 CSMDrive
San Mateo, Ca 94402-3651
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
11
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheSouth
San Francisco Unified School District:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
District Counsel
AddressforNotices:
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services South San Francisco USD
398 B Street
SouthSan Francisco, CA 94080
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
12
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheWillow
Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
District Counsel
AddressforNotices:
Willow Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
13
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheBay
Area Air Quality Management District:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
District Counsel
AddressforNotices:
Bay Area AirQuality Management District
939 Ellis St.
San Francisco, CA 94109
Attention: Executive Director
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
14
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheSan
Mateo County Resource Conservation District:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
DistrictCounsel
AddressforNotices:
Kellyx Nelson
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
625 Miramontes Street, #103
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
SIGNATURESCONTINUEONFOLLOWINGPAGES.
15
TheundersignedauthorizedsignatoryherebyexecutesthisAgreementonbehalfoftheSan
Mateo County Office of Education:
By:_____________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:______________________________
Attest by:
Approved as to form:
Counsel
AddressforNotices:
Cheryl Agrawal
San Mateo County Office of Education
101 Twin Dolphin Drive
Redwood City, CA 94065
16
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTIES
Parcels to be conveyed consistent with the Plans:
Number Disposition Address APN
1.
2.
3.
Future Development Former PUC Properties 093-312-050
093-312-060
011-326-030
4.Future Development 1 Chestnut Avenue 011-322-030
5.Future Development 201 Grand Avenue 012-316-110
6.Future Development 207 Grand Avenue 012-316-100
7.Future Development 217-219Grand Avenue 012-316-090
012-316-080
8.Future Development 227 Grand Avenue 012-316-060
9.Future Development 200 Linden 012-334-130
10.Future Development 212 Baden Avenue 012-334-040
11.Future Development 216 Baden Avenue 012-334-030
12.Future Development 905 Linden Avenue 012-101-100
13.Future Development 616 Linden Avenue 012-174-300
14.Future Development 700 Linden Avenue 012-145-370
A.
B.
Governmental Use Former PUC Properties 093-331-050
093-331-060
C.Governmental Use 80 Chestnut Avenue 011-324-190
D.Governmental Use 480 N. Canal 014-061-110
E.Governmental Use 296 Airport Blvd.012-338-160
F.Governmental Use 323 Miller Avenue 012-312-070
G.Governmental Use 356 Grand Avenue 012-312-300
H.Governmental Use 306 Spruce Avenue 012-302-140
I.Governmental Use 468 Miller Avenue 012-301-020
17
EXHIBIT B
FORM OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Recording Requested by
and when Recorded, return to:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attention: City Manager
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)
MEMORANDUM OF
MASTER AGREEMENT FOR TAXING ENTITY COMPENSATION
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2011, the Legislature of the State of California (the “State”)
adopted Assembly Bill x1 26 (“AB 26”), which amended provisions of the State’s Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code sections 33000 et seq.); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 26 and the California Supreme Court decision in California
Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al., which upheld AB 26 (together with
AB 1484, the “Dissolution Law”), the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, former Redevelopment Agency of the City
of South San Francisco properties weretransferred to the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Successor Agency”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Successor Agency prepared a Long
Range Property Management Plan, which was approved by a resolution of the Oversight Board
for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
(“Oversight Board”) on November 19, 2013, and on May 21, 2015, the Oversight Board
approved the Amended Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), whichwas
approved by the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) on October 1, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the approved LRPMP identifies properties to be transferred from the
Successor Agency to the City of South San Francisco (“City”) for the redevelopment activities
consistent with the applicable redevelopment plan and the LRPMP; and
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has transferred to the City the properties listed in
Attachment 1 for redevelopment activities consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and the
LRPMP(“Properties”); and
18
WHEREAS, pursuant to the LRPMPand the Dissolution Law, the City is required to
enter into an agreement for the distribution of any net proceedsreceived from the saleof such
Properties(“Agreement”)with the following taxing entities(collectively, “Taxing Entities”):
County of San Mateo, apoliticalsubdivisionoftheStateofCalifornia
San Mateo County Community College District
San Mateo County Flood Control District
San Mateo County Harbor District
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
San Mateo County Office of Education
South San Francisco Unified School District
Willow Gardens Parks and Parkways Maintenance District
Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the Taxing Entities have entered into said Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE be it known that this Memorandum of Agreementwill be recorded in
the San MateoCounty Recorder’s Office and shall become arecord on thoseProperties, as more
particularly described in Attachment1. Said Memorandum of Agreement shall be released from a
Propertywhen suchProperty has beensold and the net unrestricted proceeds have been
distributed to the Taxing Entities.
Dated: ____________________________________________________
Mike Futrell, City Manager
City of South San Francisco
Attest:_______________________
City Clerk,
City of South San Francisco
19
ATTACHMENT1
PROPERTIES
Propertiessubject to the Master Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation:
Number Disposition Address APN
1.
2.
3.
Future Development Former PUC Properties 093-312-050
093-312-060
011-326-030
4.Future Development 1 Chestnut Avenue 011-322-030
5.Future Development 201 Grand Avenue 012-316-110
6.Future Development 207 Grand Avenue 012-316-100
7.Future Development 217-219 Grand Avenue 012-316-090
012-316-080
8.Future Development 227 Grand Avenue 012-316-060
9.Future Development 200 Linden 012-334-130
10.Future Development 212 Baden Avenue 012-334-040
11.Future Development 216 Baden Avenue 012-334-030
12.Future Development 905 Linden Avenue 012-101-100
13.Future Development 616 Linden Avenue 012-174-300
14.Future Development 700 Linden Avenue 012-145-370
2722727.1