The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Minutes 2010-09-08So~~x sANFA MINUTE S ti ~ - :9~ . ~ REGULAR MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~'9tiFOa~~P CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY :[BOOM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 CALLED TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Boardrriembers Garbarino, Gonzalez and Matsumoto, Vice Chairman Mullin and Chairman. Addiego. Absent: None. AGENDA REVIEW None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the minutes of August 11, 2010. 2. Motion to approve expense claims of September 8, :?010. 3. Resolution No. 15-2010 authorizing preparation of Proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendments to combine debt limits for the Downtown/Central Added Area and Merged Project Areas, refine methodology used to calculate revenue included in tax increment collection limit, and extend time limit to iincur debt for Downtown/Central Added Area and El Camino Corridor Added Area. 4. Resolution No. 16-2010 authorizing the Executive Director to execute an Agreement for Consulting Services with Seifel Consulting, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $297,800 for the preparation of proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendments. 5. Resolution No. 17-2010 authorizing the expenditure of tax increment. funds for the 356 Grand Avenue Abatement and Building Demolition Project, adopting findings required by Health and Safety Code Section 33445, and authorizing award of contract for the Project to Silverado Contractors, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $94,700. 6. Resolution No. 18-2010 approving an amendment to the consulting services agreement with Brookwood Group for development management services for 418 Linden Avenue to increase the agreement amount by $150,000 to include the costs of engineering, environmental and marketing sub-consultants. 7. Resolution No. 19-2010 approving an amendment to extend the Memorandum of Understanding among the City of South San Francisco, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Oyster Point Ventures LLC for potential development of the Oyster Point Marina and Oyster Point Business Park. Motion-Boardmember Garbarino/Second-Boardmember Gonzalez: To approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1, 2 & 7. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Item 3: Boardmember Matsumoto apologized for not having; said so during meetings with the Executive Director, but felt when items include the approval of large sums of money, they should not be on Consent. Though she had no problerris with any of the items and supported them all, she felt they should at least be read and discussed and suggested a policy be implemented for the future. Motion- Boardmember Gonzalez/Second-Boardmember :Matsumoto: To approve Resolution No. 15-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Clarification on item 3 was given by Counsel Mattas, who rioted it was a resolution that initiated a process and providing direction to Staff to move forward with discussions and all processes necessary for an RDA plan amendment. Public Hearings would be conducted later on in the process. Also, there would be opportunity for additional data and public input. Boardmember Matsumoto asked if the Agency was committed to the numbers. Redevelopment Manager Marty Van Duyn stated there was neither a commitment to the numbers nor to amend the plan. This was a preliminary step and staff would come back with further information and requests in approximately 8-10 months. Libby Seifel of Seifel Consulting explained the amendment would enable the achievement of Agency projects and specifically allow the Agency to arriend various components of RDA plans that were presently fiscal constraints. The amendments adjust the tax increment collection limit, streamline and organize it to allow the additional capacity needed to undertake change and change and extend the time for incunring debt. Item 4: Ms. Seifel explained item 4 as the beginning of a process necessary to undertake a plan amendment. A key reason for the amendment would be to allow dialogue with the taxing amenities. Key document preparation would also be; involved, including a blight analysis of the remaining conditions in the area that warrant Agency investments. Also, refining the program, tax increment projections and pass through projections would be completed. A preliminary report would be brought back for review and authorization. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 2 Prior to final action, there would be notice of a public hearing and a community workshop inviting public input. A final report would then be prepared and sent to the state. The process was expected to be approximately 8 to12 months but Seifel would try to keep it as quick as possible. The primary taxing entities were identified as the School District, the County and the Community College District. Motion-Boardmember Matsumoto/Second-Boardmember Garbarino: To approve Resolution No. 16-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Item 5: Chairman Addiego wanted to address concerns he had heard from local businesses pertaining to why local companies can not be automatically selected for certain bids. For the record, Chairman Addiego asked Counsel Mattas to explain the regulations for awarding contracts and the possible consequences of not following said regulations. Counsel Mattas responded under state law, the City is required to award Public Works contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. The Agency/City would likely face challenges from the low bidder and be exposed to damages for lost profit. Boardmember Matsumoto requested information be included in the notes when any of the firms were Disadvantaged Business Enterprises ("DBE"). Counsel Mattas explained DBE could be a component as to whether the firm was qualified to receive contracts but would not override the lowest bidder obligation. He noted the lowest bidder obligation applied specifically to Public Works contracts, but other contracts the City entered into were not necessarily held to that consideration. Boardmember Garbarino questioned whether the minority contractor formula was still in use, related to a percentage of the money for the project. Counsel Mattas stated in California there was also an overlay of Proposition 209. If more information was needed, background information on the regulatory requirements could be provided by Director White. There were two sets of regulations depending on the source of funding, State or Federal. Motion- Boardmember Matsumoto/Second- Vice Chair Mullin: To approve Resolution No. 17-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Item 6: Redevelopment Consultant, Armando Sanchez explained this action involved increasing the Brookwood contract for development management services of 418 Linden Avenue. The increase of $150,000 would include the costs of engineering, and environmental and marketing sub-consultants. These costs were not initially included for the Project at the time of execution because they were unknown. Boardmember Gonzalez recalled it being explained but did not remember the fees being left open. He questioned if there were any more openings in the deal. Consultant Sanchez responded this would get the project through the entitlement process, but there was anticipation to come back at phase 2 with bridging documents. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 3 Motion- Boardmember Matsumoto/Second- Boardmember Gonzalez: To approve Resolution No. 18-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. CLOSED SESSION 8. Real Property Negotiations Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Related to: 201 Grand Avenue Agency Negotiator: Marty Van Duyn 207 Grand Avenue Owner: David Newman 217-219 Grand Avenue Owner: Pasco 223-225 Grand Avenue Owner: Romo APN# 012-316-060 Grand Avenue Owner: Pasco. Closed Session opened: 6:53 pm. Open Session resumed: 7:05 p.m. Report out of Closed Session by Chairman Addiego: Direction given no action taken. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Chairman Addiego adjourned thf; meeting at 7:05 p.m. sub d by __ _. ~~~~~., artinelli-Larson, Clerk City of South San Francisco Approved: / ~~ 4 Mar N. Addieg ,Chairman City of South San Francisco REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 4