The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-05-23 e-packet AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, MAY 23,2007 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. ill order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Mayor PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Mayor MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMP AIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · 2007 Spring Citizens Academy Class Graduation · Certificate of Appreciation to Library Volunteers AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL . Announcements . Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of April 11, April 18, and April 25, 2007 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 23,2007 3. Motion to cancel regular City Council meeting on June 27,2007 4. Proclamation: National Public Works Week 5. Resolution awarding the construction contract for the Linear Park-Phase 1 Improvements to Robert A. Bothman, Inc. of San Jose, in the amount of$I,715,000 6. Resolution identifying a dedicated revenue stream for Wet Weather Phase II 7. Resolution authorizing the 2nd amendment to the agreement for animal control services between the City of South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo 8. Resolution authorizing a $10 increase in the penalty for parking meter violations in the Downtown Parking District ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Motion to waive reading and introduce ordinances describing the Redevelopment Agency of the South San Francisco's program concerning the use of eminent domain in the acquisition of property pursuant to SB 53 for the DO\\'TItov.rrJCentral, Gateway, U.S. SteeVShearwater and El Camino Corridor project areas (first reading) 10. Resolution approving an agreement with the City and County of San Francisco related to business license taxes REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA May 23, 2007 PAGE 2 CLOSED SESSION 11. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(c), conference with legal counsel, pending litigation - one case COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA May 23, 2007 PAGE 3 ort AGENDA ITEM # 3 DATE: May 23, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Barry M. Nagel, City Manager SUBJECT: Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting on June 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended, by motion, that the City Council cancel the June 27, 2007 regular City Council meeting. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council previously expressed a desire to consider cancelling the regular meeting on June 27, 2007, to accommodate Council vacation schedules. The item is being presented to the City Council this evening in response to Council's direction. CONCLUSION Staff believes there are no business items which would be adversely affected by cancelling the regular City Council meeting on June 27, 2007. / By: Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 5 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 23,2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager ADOPT A RESOLUTION A WARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE LINEAR PARK PHASE I TO ROBERT A. BOTHMAN, INe. IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1,715,000.00 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract for the Linear Park Improvement Project - Phase I, Federal Aid Project No. EA 04-924251, Engineering File No. PR-05-1, Bid No. 2444 to Robert A. Bothman, Inc. of San Jose, California. in the amount of $1,715,000.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Linear Park Improvement Project - Phase I is the first phase of "Centennial Way" which consists of a 3-mile, Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian trail, connecting the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations. The project includes safe crossings where the pathway intersects city streets. Phase I ofthe project will construct the southern section beginning at Tanforan Avenue/Huntington Avenue and continuing to Orange Avenue. This will include the construction of a 10- foot wide asphalt bicycle/pedestrian trail, two-foot shoulders on each side, landscaping/irrigation and lighting. A new traffic signal will also be installed at South Spruce Avenue for a safe crossing. On April 13 and April 20, 2007, staff advertised the "notice inviting sealed bids" for this project. Bids were opened on May 8, 2007. Four (4) bids were received, with the lowest bidder being Robert A. Bothman, Inc., of San Jose, California. Below is the summary of all bids received: Engineer's Estimate: Bids: Robert A. Bothman, Inc. of San Jose Interstate Grading & Paving of South San Francisco McGuire & Hester of Oakland Proven Management Inc. of San Francisco $2,322,000.00 $1,715,000.00 $1,885,922.75 $1,933,799.00 $2,195,286.00 Staff Report Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE LINEAR PARK PHASE I Page 2 of2 Staff has verified the low bidder's contractor's license with the California State Licensing Board to be current and in good standing, and has confirmed their experience via references on previous construction projects similar to the subject project. FUNDING Shown below is the cost breakdown for the project budget: Robert A. Bothman, Inc. Bid Amount Contingency (10%) Engineering and Inspection (5%) $1,715,000.00 $ 171,500.00 $ 85,750.00 Total Project Budget $1,972,250.00 The majority of funding will be administered through C/CAG. Sources include MTC's TLC program, TDA funds, CMAQ, and TOD incentives for high density housing projects adjacent to the BART station. Sufficient matching funds have been allocated from gas taxes and park-in-lieu developer fees to fund construction of the Linear Park. CONCLUSION Approval of the construction contract will allow the construction of the Linear Park Improvement Project - Phase I to proceed as planned. B Approve .. Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Man RR/sb/dc Attachment: Resolution Bid Summary RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE LINEAR PARK - PHASEI IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. EA 04-924251, BID NO. 2444 TO ROBERT A. BOTHMAN, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,715,000.00 WHEREAS, on April 13 , 2007 and April 20, 2007, staff advertised the notice to invite sealed bids for the proj ect; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2007, staff received and opened four (4) bids, and the lowest bidder was Robert A. Bothman, Inc., in the amount of$I,715,000.00; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council award the construction contract to Robert A. Bothman, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,715,000.00; and WHEREAS, this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget and sufficient funds were budgeted to cover the project cost; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the Council hereby awards the construction contract for the Linear Park - Phase I Improvement Project, Federal Aid Project No. Ea 04-924251, Bid No. 2444 To Robert A. Bothman, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,715,000.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, subj ect to approval as to form by the City Attorney. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk I ~ S " '" ~ a: ~ ~ ~ ~ .. iii ~ Ii. " ~ a: 3 .!! ~ N '" f ... '" ~ "U "~ & m '" a '" ~ ~ "" '" a: " ,,> a- VI ~ n ~~ g,{10 ~A g [ ~ ~~ a-- ~'" S"go ~ ~. " ec .. ~ Co'" e,'"Cl w, o ~ ~ o < a- 5' ~'" [ <>-, "'" ~ ~~ a' i'l 5 0, ~ g a' g" 5 w g ~ t g' ~ ~ S - '-- '" '" ." ." - - " " ~ ~ "l:: ~~ 0 ... ... "" "" w ~ ... ... ~ " u~ .... ~ a. ~ ---.a ... " w ;., ~ .g ... ... a- ~ ~ u~ " v~ 0 g 0 ... ... "" a- '" 0 ~ --=. ... 0 ~ ~ "~ '" 0 g " ":s o o o ~ r '" a: '" a: " "" ~ " " " - t-..I__.....___ 0'..0 QC -..I a- VI ~ 'L:;:::;:::: 0: '.J;; oc -...l 0\ VI ~..... N f -~ " ::; '" -< a: 0 if ." U> 3 0 c: " --< I ~ ~ Ii' ." 8 ,.. :0 > ~ ~ z " g" > en :0 " " 0 > :0 " ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~r~xr~~~~~-~>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i~~Jf~JI~f~-.f~lrr~~~~~~~~Jt~~~[~[ii~i~~~~~B3~~~~~~5~. -."&c," ~ ec~li6-"nn"-nno F"ocnf!\'" --~~ilnSl<"' <ns--i'" ll[ lf~'~n~ ~~~~iii~~i!1 l~l~~.ttg i~s'il~f~~~EI~ i ~ ::: trl t<=_ E. (6 :::~ Q ~ e *" ::: n I I ~ ~ n::: ::l g:. s,lE- \ I :r 5" n &I &. s.. ~ ::r ~ o' l!! 1 2- (:;- e: tf) tn VJ ;J 15.. 9 5.. < "'tl ~ -< e:. ::; 1Il en ~ !!O_ fii$ 3: C') n !2. ... ::J 0.. ("').g ~"'5' ~'-'~'... g'~ ~~~s..~~ a ~ ~ ~c tl>1 ~ C ~~ "'tltn::;8 tf)::: I~ ~o ~~6'~nn g ~ ~ 2~ ~"'tl ~ i -.5" a~olll ~.~ ~a a~~~aa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~R~' s" R&\ ir~g g. g. ~ e: ~ I ~ R g, [t &. ~. ~ Iii ;r; rf ~ g' ~ & g. g f:!.. :::- :;. 8. 0::; "'" ~..:...~. ~ _. n.. ." _. ::::I ~ Cil g e-: rot ::::I ~ 3'-' ~ ::::I n.. i s::: ~ 15 'Tl c.. n ~ t""" 8 s::: .. E ~ rt E.. :J. ;: 5 ~ E ~ g R ~ ~ :ot ~ R'" 5' g, ~. ~ - S ::::I I-- ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [ IjI:lClI.>.IN~N ->C~~~~~;~ v.oov. ~ ~~ _ ____ l"..l g ~~ v. ~ ::5 ~-~-----3------ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " ~ ~ ;., " ~ ~ ,,"a-a- t~~ 000 000 ......... a- " O~~ "0 N 0 000 000 000 000 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a- " O~~ o N'O 000 000 000 000 " ~ ~ """'''' ~w~ ...."w "'~a- 000 000 ......... " Vo_V.N VoV.ONOO ~~~e:gg 000000 000000 ~ftI'!ftI'!~~~ - _ N~ _~V.NO~ :d~~~~g oogggo N ~I.>.I Vl ~88ggg g gggggg g ~UlO'l_~-...J OGO\\oNO~ ~OOOOO 000000 gggggg ~ S g ~ - ~"N ~ e:::5 v. D: 0 V. IV 000 1.>.Il...l a.. OOOOOOI.>.lNOOVl -...J~ ~w:::: V.O OOW'....lN \Co oo~t-.JQc OOO-...JO'I~-...JOO ooooi.uoo~\C OOOOoOOOC'\~ ~~~ftI'!""~~~~ " -...JI.>.I~ 001.>.1 -..IO'IOOI.>.lOOOOl.>.lV. UlOOOGW-..IN-...JO \COV.oo~NOO-..lVo OOO\.....~~-..It-.J-...J goog~og~~ &'!I&'!I"'ftI'!..,~~..,~ v. N_OV. wo W~OO-...l v.o Wo'oo 00 0000 OOOOOOONN "00' 0000\0\0 00 OOOOv.v. ~~foo't~&'!IftI'!foo't~ftI'! Vl.J:.N_OVoV. WOOOW~OO-..lOVl UlOOOWO'o'O\oOO OO.J:.OOOOUI-..I 00 0000 OOOOOOOUlO 0000000 - -" o W.J:.O _~_~_ ~ Ul_Vo_\C 1.>.1 a-. UlN 0'1 O~~~~~~~W~~~~~~ \00' 00000v.o"o66"oo """'OWOOOOONOO 00 ftI'!~~~ftI'!~ftI'!"'&'!IftI'!ftI'!ftI'!tt'l~ftI'! t-.J_ -I'-.) 00 I.>.I.j;;,.O-...J ~_""'" """'+>-OOUl-Ul-ICO_UJO'IUlI'-.)~ ~ldt~~~~t~Ulj~~8~ ooo-oooooi-.Joooooo 000000000000000 foo't~~~ftI'!"",~~ftI'!~~~ftI'!~ftI'! " ~ ~:~~o ~~~~~~ o 00000 000000 OONOOOOOUJOOOOOO v.o:""'06000\coooooo 000 0000000000 ~"''''~ftI'!..,..,..,~f>o'tftl'!..,~~f>o't " N~~~ e:~oo-..lUJ::5:d~e::o -...JONO oo'oov.'oOOOO 0\00'1000001.>.1000000 O\OOOOOO\COOOOOO 000000000000000 0000000000 0000 ~~~ f>o'tftl'!..,..,~~ .., ~~~~~&'!I"'~&'!I ~~&'!I&'!I~~"'ftI'!&'!I foo'tftl'!..,ftI'!ftI'!~ftI'!"'foo't..,ftI'!&'!I..,ftI'!ftI'! "" i> ow 0 "8 '8 g 000 000 000 v~ .... ~ ~ g "" a- owo '00'0 000 000 60"0 000 "" ~ -\O~-'IOOO 0 8~g888 8 000060 0 000000 0 N-..I_ =v. ~ggggg ~ "0"0'0000 0 0000 ~&'!IftI'!foo't&'!li>"ti>"t~~ ~ "" ~ " g - N 10- 00_00 UJ""'" N+>--...JOCl io 'oc"""'~j;..+>-\o -..IOOOIO-..IO\C v. UlV.O .J:.~O N ogo~gb:~o~ ftl'!ftI'!~~~&'!I~~&'!I " ,,"w 'oN+>- 88~~t:iUl~::::iZ: 00000000_ oooooooov. ~~~~ftI'!~..,~.., ~ o g o NN N_WeN ~OOOOO'\"""'O'\OO\CO g88~~&g~~ 00oboo06N 000 OOOOv. ~ " o "" OVo""'" ""'" OOOVlNV. NO 060600600 000000000 N N-...J- \0-..1 +>-O\O'I-..I.J:. oUJO\.j;;,. j;..O\:"'w OU,OV.O\NNOV. 00000v.000 000060000 000000000 1j5 ~i38~ W<o-1 'wo'oo 0'\0 ceoco OOCVlOOOO ooo"oo06i-.Jo OCCIOOOOOOO ""V'!t """'ioo'l "" &'!I &'!I..., N N-\C t-.J-..IO t-.JOI.OOVl ~~5:008'88~00 000\ 000+>-0 o"ooocoooo 00000 000 " -...J v, -..I UJ _ \C_ Vl -...JVl -...IVl NV'lO\O'\O_ o 'NO -'0 oooa-oOG o 00 -...10 000000 -O+>-OO-OCCV.OOOOOO 0000"00666'000000 000000000000000 "'&'!Ifo"l""V'!tt.l'l&'!l..,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,&'!I&'!I N N _ _ 0-..1 v.-..IO \0 VlVl -..IVl -..IVlON 0\0\0 OO'OC'NO ooo'oo~o'oc NOOOOO -..IOVlOOOOOO 00000 0000000000 600"000666000660 o 00000000 000 - '" ~' [ ,0 ~ q -- ~ ~ .. 0, R _5' ~ ~ I ~ 0< I[ '" s. ~ '" ~ i ~ -j " ~ g if 5 ~ -!- '" s. c: S '" o R " -~ :l " I ~ i - ~ ~ ~ ,,:0 iti?' ~~ il ~ "m ~= " " c" (;f5 < m ~ z --< U> '" i5 o ~~ -<- ~ffi -toJ~ ~rri I 1; ~ "tl i. if "tl ~ iJ; c. '" ~ 3 ~ ""C .. '" 1Il '" !l. i = 5: > ~ ; il" ~ ~ = 5: ~ ~~ ~ " ~fF~ ~ p. ~r[ r :z>e::;' Ci ~ &. ~ g! ~JJ' g' ~ VJ ~ e:JJ' ~ d; I ~ ~ "'tl e; ~! a' s. 3 ~ . 1l' ~. 3 ~ g, ! o '" = ~ 5' f-- f-- ~ ... '" ~ [ ". ... ~ '" '" ." ." -- " ~ ~ ... o -- .... .... ... ~ <5 '" ~ .~ .~ l:5 R .... .... w .9 " ~ ": o ~ ~ ~ w * ~ ~~ .... .... " " . ~--! ~ '" ... " o '" " '" '" ~ v~ g Q " ~ .~ ... ~ ... I; ~ ~ = 5: = 5: ~ ". . ~ ~ " ... :::: " " ,,- t-.)______ 0'>0 0I:l..... 0\ VI A OW;:::; = 0 '>0 00..... 0\ r> C"~ m~~ Q..r'l O"'~ Vlp ;!:t'""::T ~t'l: o..f' ~C> tnt""O:r:rtn~(') C":>l -V1>>tn-iVl~ ~~~['~~~f~r~li"'~~~0~n~tlrllt~~~~iSI.t~&~ [~lililf~~~1~5.lgBBti~~~~~g~~n 'i~~S'~~rn~g =l~ ~6'in~ l~~~&ee!~~~Bi ~~l~~'~'g'= ll~'~(~ ;;1 ~ = '< E. ~ ~ I" R g. e l<- ;:: n I I """"" ~ Ii' go~. g. I I 3. 5. ~ a &. ~B~ ftlltn* =~ o~<"'tl~~~. ~~~ tn-i ~ ~ ~~6' I=-'~'n g"! ~C"~a~~ R ~ ~ ~~ till E 0 t\I tn ::: 1= ., _. 0 ~ E is' ~ n t\I = -9 Q.. C" ~ "'Cl * R !. a ~ Gl c.. l5.. E. S. a agE S' III ~ ~ S' 5' 9- ~t ~ ~ g I t @ ~.!. &. ~. !a 8" I!!. " <: it 0 ~ "".. ~ ~. ~ ~a "~O ~~ 0. 0. E- r- a 8 ;:: If I &. a ~ i ~ ., a /i'1i'....o.n"..:,> ~ 8 g ~ ~ Q ~ ;l o. a'3~~sH~~ gB....g~alil~g o~[~~r!nc ~. ~ g: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. =' ~ a ~. ! ~ !. g' ~:: ~ 8;r ~ g R ~ g' ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ (jOO......(\"j.j:o.N _>oA~~:;~~:;: OOO~~~~ ~----:~ " ,,~ g 00 ~ ::g 0_:0.____ ~ ~ N o -~------ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ " ~ "~ ~ " :5: j;; '" ~ ~ N W... ~ "-...,;jVt ::::~5: 660 000 " ~ "g " ~ " "~~ ,~ ::::~5: 000, " '" ~ ... "'''' ~ w ~ ,,"w ~~'" 000 000 " Ul_UlN \0 ~~~e:~g ~ gggggg g .......... ~~~~~~ " '" ~ ..."'''' ~~~ 000 000 ............ _ _ NJ;o. -J;o.UlNO~ ;:;~oc~~g NOCOOOO gggggo ~io'!t~~~~ 0-._0 000 000 888 000 000 N N... oc N NON Ul '0 '0 ~g8ggg g gggggg g ""flo't~t.'i~~ ~ 0-,_0 000 0,'0'0 000 000 000 000 ............ lh_O\ OOC OC 'oa..o~'c'o '0 gg8gg8 g ggoogg g ...,~flo'tflo't...,..., flo't N...... lh N -N\OI.,h...,;jl"o.l c\N-J.J;o._...,;j WOClhOOC 000066 000000 " " W_OO~N'" V. ~~~~~* g 000660 0 ~ - "''''' -.JO'IN-N---- UlUlC.....Ul_CUlN ooo;""'ww:"":""o-. COOOCOWNOCUl flo't io'!t..,fo"I""flo'tflo'tflo't~..., -- --N\O_ \0 OC-OCW~N"'...,;joo ... \0 w'oo ~ '0-,.,1>.... \0;"" 00 ...,;jOOO\o...,;jO\o_Ul N UlVlO_+>-O'IO_N o 006:':"ow:':"0'...J o ocoOV>O Vl ..., &I!I""io'!t&l!l~UOl"""""" w ~ - OON CCONUl---- OOOVlCJ;o.J;o.J;o.O '066606066 000000000 W N_W\O_ Vl\OOCV>\OUlWO+:- o'oo~'owoci....lw OOOUlOWOCOUl 000000000 600066600 000000 0 ..,...,io'!tio'!tio'!t...,...,,,,,..., ~ ... o o o o " " '" ~- ION-.JNN___ W",,"Ou.J\OO_OIO ooo;""'j...,)a..:"':'v,o,;, 000000000 N __NO\_ ...,;j-.JO\UlO\-OO...,;j.j:>. \O.j:>.'QID W \0 '0-. l.J ~ '0 \O_O_WO_NO\ W 0'1 0 u.J 0'1 -.J.$:o. v. w 600660666 N _ ...,;j .,I>.__QID ...,;j0\ OWOCQID ~g :~;j~ OOC...,;jO\.$:o.-.JOO gg~g~g8~f ""...,...,...,..,...,...,..,"" - ,,- ...,JWJ;O.__OCW ...,JO'IOOWQlDOOWV> UlOOQIDW...,JN...-JO \00 \.I\oc.:o. NOC...-J V> OOO'l...-JO'I......-JN...-J 6606\..J60NN 00,000,0,000 ...,...,t.'i...,...,t.'i..,~~ .,I>. _.....O...-J WV. NCOC co ;"'0,'00 8goggg8ww 06:""666066 000000000 - -- .,I>.W__O...-JV,_ I,o.lUl.....NOOOWo\ 00\.1\\.1\0'00;"'_ oO-...JOOOO_A 000000000 600660606 000000000 """"...,flo'tio'!t~...,...,..., _...,J N.....O_ .,I>. V. \0..... 0'1 I,o.l 0'0 -J.:o.~o 00 VlO'l-...JO ooooooooww 66;"'66660..0.. OO.:o.OOOCVlVl _::::iVlN_O.....oc;_ .,I>. V. N '" _ 0'1 W 0'1 '" 0, '0 'Ul...-J ~ +:- 'o...-J 0\ gg~~g;~8z~ 06606000.6 +:- 5:_~~ ~ ~~t::::i CN"'+:-UlOJ;o. \00:""0060 J;o.OWO 0 """'~..,""flo't..., ,,- - +:-J;o.:il5:_ti:::: ~~~~~~~ 0,;,6:""6000 0000000 io'!t...,~io"l~~flo't ... ~ ~'" Ul 0\.1\00 g gggg -owococ N6:':"0666 V'I 00000 - ... -...JOQ VlO'l O\v._ov.oo NOUl'O'O'OO v:g~gggg ggggggg flo'tfo"l...,...,..,flo'tio'!t J;o. .,I>.i:i 10 V'I N 0'1 Vl i....I l"o.lWNO VlC\O\O _ONOUlOO N61.c6666 0000 0 :;::+:- .,I>.N 0'1\0 0\ VlN 0'1 Vl 'S~~'t;:~~'8 J;o.OWOVtOO 6060666 " ~ -;:;~;:;;~;; ~ ~~te;;g;t ...WOC-JO'IOWVl ov.606600 ONOOOo, ...,flo't~...,...,..,,,,,~ " O-...J ........_+:-_ \OO-WO\UlNO\ ~e~~te;;;g::t ...v.QO...,;jO'lOl"o.lVt ON060660 o 0,00000 io"lflo't~"'~io'J"'''' OC _Y.i_OW o V.OO...,;jON 0, '00,'0000 o 000,0,00 ONOOOOOC 61...1006600 00000000 io'!t...,io'!l""to'!I~""to'!I ;;~ _W_Ol,.o.l OO'lVlOO...-JON 0'000000'0 ONOOOOOO owcooooo 66006000 0000000 ~...,to'!I"'io'Ji:I'!I~'" ....J W _ Vl NI.O-OCIO>.O (....l ...-J.-...J ~ 0 0 0 Vl oOOOO...-JC 0410000\00 6,,66600....0 00000000 ...-J...-J W _ v. QO+:-N\c-QO\O\O lUO'....J...-J'....:!O.o'o UlWOOOOO....JO O...-JOOOO\OO 0666660....6 0000 = ~ ~ -=- 5:~ " ~ ~ ~. ~ g ~ o ;0 "tl " ;0 '" ." :t m o ~ !Ii en o c: -< :t en " z ~ z o en o o e i\. !;;' ~. II ~ ~. = s; [ "" .. R ~ i r Z m " " ,J iil ?' n . '" '2m ~= .;: c" l:~ < m ;: m z -< '" = s; e i\. "" .. "tl R " ~ i'i ~ l :r ~ ... [ = s; ~ "" .. R ~ " " m o l :r " 3 :;l it m B o j;rii -<~ ~~ ~~ ~m ~'t\l S:4N m ~ - ~\t.\ (0 (') ~ ~I u 0 ~lIFO~P Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 6 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 23, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terry White, Public Works Director WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE II - DEDICATING A REVENUE SOURCE FOR STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN REPAYMENT AND EXECUTING THE LOAN AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, adopt a Resolution, dedicating revenue sources for repayment of the $9,600,000 State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan for Phase II of the Wet Weather Program as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, and authorize the City Manager to execute the loan agreement. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council, on February 14,2007, adopted a similar resolution to confirm to the State that the City's expenditures for the Phase II project would meet federal tax guidelines. The subject resolution further confirms to the State that sufficient revenue sources are dedicated for the repayment of the SRF loan. The Wet Weather Program was initiated to remediate a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1997. In response to this order, the City completed capacity improvements at the Water Quality Control Plant and developed a Master Plan of recommended infrastructure improvements, subsequently referred to as the Wet Weather Program. Phase I of the Wet Weather Program was recently completed. Phase II, which will be constructed as two separate contracts beginning this summer, includes the following improvements: WEST AREA IMPROVEMENTS . Westborough Area Subtrunks . Portola Avenue Subtrunk . Victory A ve.lSouth Maple Ave. Subtrunk . 151 Street Subtrunk Staff Report Subject: Wet Weather Phase II - Dedicating a Revenue Source Page 2 CENTRAL AREA IMPROVEMENTS . Airport Blvd./Cypress A ve./Linden Ave. Trunk. . Hillside Boulevard Subtrunk. FUNDING The City has received a funding commitment of $45,000,000 from the State Water Resources Control Board through the State's Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program, for the entire Wet Weather Program. The City's Sewer Fund has been programmed to provide the necessary repayments to the SRF Loan for Phases I and II. CONCLUSION The City's commitment to dedicate sewer fund revenues for repayment of the Phase II SRF loan will satisfy the conditions stipulated by the State Water Resources Control Board. ~~ . ,.J \_ , " . . \ By:----/---X f ' '; - Terry White! \ Director of P'l1blic Works Attachment: Revenue Dedication and Loan Contract Execution Resolution Dedicated Revenue for SRF - Staff Report 5-10-07 rtf RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION DEDICATING A REVENUE SOURCE, AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, FOR REPAYMENT OF THE $9.6 MILLION STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN (SRF) FOR PHASE II OF THE WET WEATHER PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THE LOAN AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City desires to finance a portion of the costs of upgrades to its sewerage collection system, referred to as Phase II of the Wet Weather Program, with a State Revolving Fund loan provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); and WHEREAS, the City has adopted an ordinance imposing sewer service charges and connection fees and now desires to dedicate monies from those charges and fees, as required by the SWRCB, to repayment of the State Revolving Fund loan issued for the design and construction of the identified improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby orders and determines as follows: SECTION I. The City hereby dedicates the following sources of revenue to the repayment of the State Revolving Fund loan utilized for the Wet Weather Program Phase II, Project No. C-06-4278-120: sewer service charges, connection fees and interest revenue. These dedicated sources of revenue shall remain in effect until such loan is fully discharged, unless modification or change of such dedication is approved in writing by the SWRCB or required by State law. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby agrees and further does authorize the City Manager or the City Manager's designee to certify that the City has and will comply with all applicable state and federal regulatory requirements related to any federal and state loan funds received. SECTION 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute a State Revolving Fund loan agreement and any amendment or change orders thereto on behalf ofthe City, subject to review and approval as to form by the City Attorney. * * * * * WWP Phase II Dedicated Revenue Source Resolution 5-10-07 I hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk WWP Phase II Dedicated Revenue Source Resolution 5-10-07 - ~'t\l s:4N .~ C n (p... .... ~ ~ v C ~l!E2J,'"'" Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 7 DATE: May 23, 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which approves a second amendment to the contract agreement with the County of San Mateo for animal control services. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Animal Control Services Contract Animal control services are provided to all CIties in the County through the Peninsula Humane Society/Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PHS). The County has a master contract with PHS and individual contracts with all 20 cities. This arrangement has been in place since the 1950's. The County has completed negotiations with the PHS for a second amendment to the animal control services contract agreement that currently runs through June 30, 2008. This second amendment would extend the contract to June 30, 2011, to expire at the same time as the lease that PHS holds with the County for the site at Coyote Point. The extra time will give PHS time to acquire a new site, and will also provide the County adequate time to consider long-term options for animal control services. Animal Control Services The recommended second amendment to the contract agreement continues the current animal control service program. PHS will continue to provide: . Response to field service calls relating to biting and/or dangerous animals, dog packs, injured or sick animals, stray animals, and dead animal pick-up. . Issuance of citations for violations of any state statutes or local County/City ordinances. . Provision of shelter services, including impounding, receiving, housing, redeeming, providing veterinary treatment, adopting, euthanizing, and disposing of animals. Staff Report Subject: Approve an Amendment to the Contract Agreement with the County of San Mateo for Animal Control Services Page 2 The cost for each city is dependent on a formula approved based on service volumes within each jurisdiction. Each city's percentage share of the contract will fluctuate somewhat each year as service volumes from multiple years are averaged. The 2007-2008 cost for South San Francisco is $458,500, compared with the cost for the current year of $432,900, with the increase reflecting an overall service volume increase in South San Francisco. FISCAL IMPACT: The first year extension will result in an overall reduction to PHS' base budget by $486,000, and that new base will be the starting point for future years. The City's costs for PHS' services, totaling $458,500, will be factored into the City's proposed 2007-08 budget. CONCLUSION: PHS is a cost effective alternative to City provision of animal control services and is recommended by staff. BY:~ Jim . teele Director of Finance APPro~~ L (552~~~'\ a M. Nagel ~ City Manager ~ Cc: Police Chief Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR THE PROVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo ("County") has contracted with the Peninsula Humane Society for over fifty years for animal control services, and the twenty cities within the County have in turn contracted with the County for the provision of such services; and WHEREAS, in June of 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 63-2003 approving an Animal Control Services Agreement between the City and County for shelter and field animal control services; and WHEREAS, in January of 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5-2005 approving an Amendment to the Animal Control Services Agreement extending the term and the Peninsula Humane Society land lease through June 30, 2008 and amending the Peninsula Humane Society payment schedule; and WHEREAS, the County and the City now wish to amend the Animal Control Services Agreement to extend the animal control services contract and land lease through June 30,2011 and amending the Peninsula Humane Society payment schedule; and WHEREAS, the City's costs for Peninsula Humane Society services will be factored into the City's proposed 2007-2008 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Animal Control Services Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTY COUNSEL THOMAS F. CASEY III DEPUTIES KATHRYN E. ALBERTI REBECCA M. ARCHER AIMEE B ARMSBY DEBORAH PENNY BENNETT PETER K. FINCK TIMOTHY J. Fox PORTOR GOLTZ LEIGH HERMAN JUDITH A. HOLIBER KIMBERLY A. MARLOW JOHN D. N IBBELlN PAUL A. OKADA MARY K. RAFTERY DAVID A. SILBERMAN WILLIAM E. SMITH MIRUNI SOOSAIPILLAI V. RAYMOND SWOPE III LEE A. THOMPSON EUGENE WHITLOCK CAROL L. WOODWARD ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL MICHAEL P. MURPHY CHIEF DEPUTIES JOHN C. BEJERS BRENDA B. CARLSON COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF SAN MATEO HALL OF JUSTICE AND RECORDS. 6TH FLOOR 400 COUNTY CENTER · REDWOOD CiTY, CA 94063-1662 TELEPHONE: (650) 363-4250 · FACSIMILE: (650) 363-4034 Please respond to: (650) 363-4760 April 24, 2007 Steve Mattas South San Francisco City Attorney Myers Nave 555 12 Street, Suite 1600 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Agreement Between the County and the Cities Regarding Animal Control Services Dear Mr. Mattas: On March21, we sent you the proposed amendment to Agreement for Animal Control Services between the cities and the County as well as a copy of the Second Amendment to Agreement to Animal Control Services and Shelter Services between the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA and the County of San Mateo for your review. Today the Board of Supervisors approved both of these agreements. We are now requesting that the Agreement for Animal Control Services between the cities and the County be brought to your City Council for approval. For your convenience we have enclosed a copy of the agreement. After your City Council approves that agreement, please send me a fully executed signature page. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, THOMAS F. CASEY III, COUNTY COUNSEL By: ~ 4. Cv/~ Brenda B. Carlson, Chief Deputy TFC:BBC/mc Enclosure(s) SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ATHERTON, BELMONT, BRISBANE, BURLINGAME, COLMA, DALY CITY, EAST PALO ALTO, FOSTER CITY, HALF MOON BAY, IDLLSBORODGH, MENLO PARK, MILLBRAE, PACIFICA, PORTOLA VALLEY, REDWOOD CITY, SAN BRUNO, SAN CARLOS, SAN MATEO, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, WOODSIDE AND THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO This second amendment to an agreement is made and entered into this _ day of ,2007, by and between the County of San Mateo, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter, "County"), and the cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Woodside a California municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"); WITNESSETH WHEREAS, on June 17,2003, County and Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA entered into an Agreement For Animal Control Services and Shelter Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, County and City entered into an Agreement on or about July 1,2003 for Animal Control Services (hereinafter, "City Agreement"); and WHEREAS, County and City entered into an Amendment on or about December 14, 2004, extending the City Agreement to correspond with an extension of the Agreement and PHS land lease through June 30, 2008 and amending the PHS payment schedule; and WHEREAS, County and PHS have entered into a Second Amendment, extending the Agreement and PHS land lease through June 30, 2011 and amending the PHS payment schedule; and 1 ,^ WHEREAS, City and County wish to amend the City Agreement as set forth below to be consistent with the Second Amendment with PHS/SPCA attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITES. Section B, Subparagraph 4. Payments previously deleted and replaced in its entirety in the First Amendment, is hereby further deleted and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof: "4. Payments. City shall pay to the County prior to January I st of each fiscal year, and following the receipt of an invoice from County, the City's percentage share of the net program cost of the Animal Control Program. This net program cost shall be determined by the County and shall be equal to the cost of the contract between the County and County Contractor plus the cost of the County administering licensing collection and Animal Control Services Program, minus any program revenue received by County or County Contractor as described in Section D, Paragraph 5. County and City's percentage share shall be based on service costs. County will calculate a percentage breakdown annually, based on service reports provided by County Contractor. Percentage distribution for a given year will be based on an average of service costs over the three calendar years prior to the year in question. Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by this reference herein, details percentage distribution for FY 2003-04. Percentage distributions for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 will be distributed by County to Cities by March 1 st of the given year. Base costs to be paid to County Contractor by the County and Cities are as follows: 2 Fiscal Year Amount 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 $5,076,951 $4,750,000 $4,987,500 $5,236,875 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section D, Subparagraph 8. Term and Effective Period previously deleted and replaced in its entirety in the First Amendment, is hereby further deleted and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof: "8. Term and Effective Period. This amended Agreement shall be effective the period from July 1,2006 through June 30,2011. All services are subject to the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement." 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section D, Subparagraph 12. Hold Harmless is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof: "12. Hold Harmless. City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend County, its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, suits or actions of every kind brought for or on account of injuries or death of any person or damage to any property of any kind whatsoever and whomsoever belonging which arise out of the performance or nonperformance of City's covenants and obligations under this Agreement and which result from the actively negligent or wrongful acts of City or its officers, employees, or agents. County shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend City, its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, suits or actions 3 of any kind brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to any property of any kind and to whomsoever belonging which arise out of the performance or non performance of County's obligations under this Agreement and which result from the actively negligent or wrongful acts of County, its officers or employees. This provision requiring County to hold harmless, indemnify and defend City shall expressly not apply to claims, losses, liabilities or damages arising from actions or omissions, negligent or otherwise, of Peninsula Humane Society, or any other independent contractor, or its officers, employees or agents, under its contract with the County. In the event of concurrent negligence of the County, its officer or employees, and the City, its officers and employees, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damages to persons and/or property or any other loss or costs which arise out of the terms, conditions, covenants or responsibilities of this agreement shall be reapportioned according to the California theory of comparative negligence. Finally, the parties acknowledge that with respect to activities performed by PHS in the incorporated areas, the County serves solely as a Contract Administrator and solely with respect to the specific obligations contained within this Agreement and the agreement between the County and PHS. Accordingly, in the event the County or the Cities are sued and the suit is 4 related in any manner to actions taken by PHS solely in a particular City or Cities that are party to this agreement, those particular City or those Cities will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County, and any other City that is a party to this agreement, that is named as a defendant in that suit. In the event a City or Cities that are a party to this agreement are sued and the suit relates in any manner to actions taken by PHS solely in the unincorporated area the County, the County will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City or Cities named as a defendant in that suit. 4. County Contractor Responsibilities. Exhibit C ("Contractor Responsibilities"), Section 11 ("Excluded Services") of the Services Agreement is amended to add the following exclusion to the Services Agreement to render it consistent with the parties' intent as of (and since) June 17,2003: . Enforcement of State law and regulations related to the prevention of cruelty to animals. 5. Effectiveness of Amendment. Except as set forth in this Second Amendment, all other provisions of the City Agreement and the First Amendment shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 6. Date of Adoption. This Second Amendment shall be deemed to have been adopted on the date this Second Amendment has been executed by the County and all of the Cities. 7. Condition Precedent. This amendment will become effective only after the County and PHS/SPCA negotiate and adopt an amendment to their June 17, 2003 Agreement that is consistent with this Second Amendment. In the event that the County (acting in good faith) and PHS/SPCA are unable to negotiate and adopt an amendment to 5 their June 17,2003 Agreement that is consistent with this Second Amendment, this Second Amendment becomes void. 8. This Second Amendment may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Second Amendment to the City/County Agreement for Animal Control Services to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the day and year first written above. Dated: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board Dated: TOWN OF ATHERTON ATTEST: By: Town of Atherton, Clerk Dated: CITY OF BELMONT ATTEST: By City of Belmont, Clerk 6 Dated: ATTEST: City of Brisbane, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of Burlingame, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: Town ofColma, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of Daly City, Clerk CITY OF BRISBANE By CITY OF BURLINGAME By TOWN OF COLMA By CITY OF DALY CITY By 7 Dated: ATTEST: City of East Palo Alto, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of Foster City, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of Half Moon Bay, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: Town of Hillsborough, Clerk CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO By CITY OF FOSTER CITY By CITY OF HALF MOON BAY By TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH By 8 Dated: ATTEST: City of Menlo Park, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of Millbrae, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of Pacifica, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: Town of Port 01 a Valley, Clerk CITY OF MENLO PARK By CITY OF MILLBRAE By CITY OF PACIFICA By TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY By 9 Dated: ATTEST: City of Redwood City, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of San Bruno, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of San Carlos, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City of San Mateo, Clerk CITY OF REDWOOD CITY By CITY OF SAN BRUNO By CITY OF SAN CARLOS By CITY OF SAN MATEO By 10 Dated: ATTEST: City of South San Francisco, Clerk Dated: ATTEST: Town of Woodside, Clerk CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By TOWN OF WOODSIDE By 11 - ~'t\\ S:1N fi'''''''oti (0 C'l >0 ~ ~ r') v 0 ~4l~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 8 DATE: May 23, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark J. Raffaelli, Chief of Police SUBJECT: PENALTY INCREASE FOR PARKING METER VIOLA nONS IN THE DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT (SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE 11.56.040) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing a $10.00 increase in the penalty for parking meter violations (11.56.040 MC) in the Downtown Parking District as defined in the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The proposed increase would change the penalty from $15.00 to $25.00 per parking meter violation. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In December of2002, the City Council approved a fee increase of$4.00 for parking meter violations in the Downtown Parking District to offset an increase in the processing of citations and to hold individuals more accountable for depositing the proper amount of money in the meter. At that time, parking meter violation fees were increased to $15.00. Parking violation fees are considered a "civil penalty" and may be set by the local jurisdiction. Past fee increases were adopted by the City Council in 1988, 1996, and 2002. The $10.00 increase will: · Assist in covering the cost to contract with Turbo Data Systems, Inc. to process parking citations. · Offset the rising cost of equipment, supplies, and compensation. · Hold those using the meter more accountable for depositing the appropriate amount of money. In order to establish the increased fee, a comparison survey was conducted with similar cities in San Mateo County and City of San Francisco. The Comparison Chart (Exhibit A) shows our current fee schedule in relationship to other cities, with South San Francisco's current fee being the lowest. A Fee Assessment and Revenue Chart (Exhibit B) details the current fee assessment that South San Francisco is required to pay to the County, along with revenue estimates and projections. Staff Report Subject: PENALTY INCREASE FOR METER VIOLATIONS Page 2 All members of the South San Francisco Parking Place Commission and the CEO of the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce support this fee increase proposal. FUNDING None CONCLUSION The increase will put the City at the same level as the other communities that have meters, will allow us to meet our expenses as they increase, and will hold individuals more accountable for putting money in the meters. ~.. . . ~ (- APProv~,y . _ .' _j . B ]v!. Nagel ..- City Manager By: Attachments: Resolution Comparison Chart (Exhibit A) Parking Fee Assessments and Revenue Chart (Exhibit B) EXHIBIT A City Parkin!! Meter Penalty Fee Comparison as of April 30. 2007: City of South San Francisco -- $15.00 City of Daly City - $18.00 City of Burlingame - $25.00 City of San Mateo- $25.00 City of Redwood City - $25.00 City of San Francisco - $50.00 (Downtown Area) $40.00 (Non-Downtown Areas) EXHIBIT B Current Meter Violation Fee Assessments (Per citation): Turbo Data Processing Fee $1.40 per citation Parking Assessment (Government Code Section 76000) $2.50 per citation Courthouse Construction Fund (Government Code Section 76100) $1.50 per citation Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund (Government Code Section 76101) $1.50 per citation Total Expense per Citation $6.90 Current Meter Violation Fee Breakdown (per citation): Current Penalty Fee (fine) Meter Violation Fee Assessments $15.00 -$6.90 Total Net Collected per Citation $8.10 Revenue in CY 2006 from Meter Violations (11.56.040 MC): 9,351 Meter Violations @ $15.00 each Fees and Assessments @ $6.90 each $140,265.00 Gross -$64,521.90 $75,743.10 Net Proposed $10.00 fee increase. usin2 CY 2006 Meter Violations: 9,351 Meter Violations @ $25.00 each Fees and Assessments @ $6.90 each $233,775.00 Gross -$64,521.90 $169,253.10 Net Comparison: CY 2006 @ $15.00 Proposed @ $25.00 $75,743.10 $169,253.10 $93,510.00 Net - ~'t\\ 3M ri. =- p~, ~ . ~:~ (0 ("'l >< r;; 1 ~ () v 0 ~4l~~\~ Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # 9 May 23,2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES DESCRIBING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S PROGRAM CONCERNING THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL, GATEWAY, U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER, AND EL CAMINO PROJECT AREAS PURSUANT TO SB 53 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt ordinances describing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco's program concerning the use of eminent domain in the acquisition of property pursuant to SB 53 for the Downtown/Central, Gateway, U.S. Steel/Shearwater, and EI Camino Corridor project areas. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Effective January 1, 2007, SB 53 added Section 33342.7 to the Health and Safety Code. This Section requires legislative bodies that adopted a final Redevelopment Plan prior to January 1, 2007 to adopt an ordinance on or before July 1,2007 for each project area describing their redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain in each ofthe project areas. Pursuant to Section 33342.7, a redevelopment agency's eminent domain program may prohibit the redevelopment agency from acquiring certain types of real property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, owner- occupied residences, single family residences, or any residential property. Similarly, a redevelopment agency's eminent domain program may prohibit the redevelopment agency from acquiring real property by eminent domain in specified locations within the project area. Once the legislative body adopts an ordinance describing its redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain, the redevelopment agency can only change its eminent domain program by amending the Redevelopment Plan. The City Council adopted the Downtown/Central, Gateway, U.S. Steel/Shearwater, and El Camino Corridorredevelopment plans prior to January 1,2007. Consequently, the City Council must adopt an ordinance for each ofthe plans before July 1,2007 describing the Redevelopment Agency ofthe City of South San Francisco's (the "Agency") program concerning the use of eminent domain in the acquisition of property in each of the project areas. The following descriptions of the Agency's programs concerning the use of eminent domain are those descriptions set forth in the redevelopment plans. Staff is not recommending any changes to the Agency's eminent domain authority at this time. Staff Report Subject: SB 53 Ordinances Page 2 Downtown/Central Proiect Area Subject to the following limitations, the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire certain types of real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan prohibits the acquisition or assembly of any residential real property, or real property which contains residential uses, without the prior written consent of the affected property owner, for the purpose of conveying such property to others for private development. In addition, the Redevelopment Plan prohibits the acquisition of property on which persons reside. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expires on June 25, 2017, unless the Redevelopment Plan is amended to extend such time limit. Gateway Proiect Area The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expired on June 17, 1993. The Agency may not acquire real property by eminent domain unless the Redevelopment Plan is amended to extend the time limit. U.S. Steel/Shearwater Proiect Area The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel/Shearwater Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expired on February 8, 1998. The Agency may not acquire real property by eminent domain unless the Redevelopment Plan is amended to extend the time limit. El Camino Corridor Proiect Area Subject to the following limitations, the Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Corridor Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire certain types of real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Agency cannot use eminent domain when the following conditions exist: (a) The affected property is improved with a structure and the Agency has determined that it conforms to the Redevelopment Plan and that (1) the property is not needed for specific activities Staff Report Subject: SB 53 Ordinances Page 3 permitted by or pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan; (2) the property is not needed for development of replacement housing for those displaced by an Agency activity; (3) the property is not needed for any public improvement or facility; (4) the property is not needed to promote historical or architectural preservation; ( 5) the property is not needed to remove a blighting influence on surrounding properties which prevents achievement of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (6) the property is not needed for the elimination of environmental deficiencies, including without limitation, inadequate circulation, access or street layout, incompatible and mixed uses, overcrowding and small parcel size; or (7) the property is not needed for the removal of impediments to land development and disposition through the assembly of land into appropriately sized and shaped parcels served by improved circulation and utilities; (b) The affected property is improved with a structure that does not conform to the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency has determined that the property and structure can conform to the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to an owner participation agreement and that the owner is faithfully performing under the terms of the owner participation agreement; or (c) The affected property is owned by a public body that has not consented to the Agency's exercise of the power of eminent domain. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expires 12 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance that included the property in the Project Area unless the Redevelopment Plan is amended to extend such time limit. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt ordinances describing the Redevelopment Agency's program concerning the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of property in the Downtown/Central, Gateway, U.S. SteellShearwater, and El Camino Corridor project areas. By adopting these ordinances, the City will be in compliance with SB 53. BY~ . Marty VanDuyn , Assistant City Manager , Approved: ~ / C' e (} ~ .,.. Barry M. Nagel City Manager Attachments: Ordinance No. Ordinance No. Ordinance No. Ordinance No. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO._-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTING A PROGRAM FOR THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PURSUANT TO S8 53 FOR THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, a public body corporate and politic (the "Agency") is a redevelopment agency duly organized pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), and pursuant thereto has responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment Plan for the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); WHEREAS, the redevelopment plan for the Project Area was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council") by Ordinance No. 1132-93 in June, 1993, and was thereafter amended by Ordinance No. 1150-94, adopted in November, 1994; by Ordinance No. 1270-2000 adopted in June, 2000; by Ordinance No. 1337-2004 adopted in March, 2004; and by Ordinance No. 1353-2005, adopted in May, 2005 (as so amended, hereafter, the "Redevelopment Plan"); WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2007, SB 53 added Section 33342.7 to the Health and Safety Code, pursuant to which legislative bodies that adopted a final redevelopment plan prior to January 1, 2007 are required to adopt on or before July 1, 2007, an ordinance that describes the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain; WHEREAS, SB 53 provides that following adoption of an ordinance describing the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain, such program may only be modified pursuant to an amendment of the redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with authority to use eminent domain to acquire real property in certain limited circumstances following compliance with all requirements of law. THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. PROGRAM. The following is hereby adopted as the Agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7: Subject to the following limitations, the Redevelopment Plan for the EI Camino Corridor Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire certain types of real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Agency cannot use eminent domain when the following conditions exist: (a) The affected property is improved with a structure and the Agency has determined that it conforms to the Redevelopment Plan and that (1) the property is not needed for specific activities permitted by or pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan; (2) the property is not needed for development of replacement housing for those displaced by an Agency activity; (3) the property is not needed for any public improvement or facility; (4) the property is not needed to promote historical or architectural preservation; ( 5) the property is not needed to remove a blighting influence on surrounding properties which prevents achievement of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (6) the property is not needed for the elimination of environmental deficiencies, including without limitation, inadequate circulation, access or street layout, incompatible and mixed uses, overcrowding and small parcel size; or (7) the property is not needed for the removal of impediments to land development and disposition through the assembly of land into appropriately sized and shaped parcels served by improved circulation and utilities; (b) The affected property is improved with a structure that does not conform to the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency has determined that the property and structure can conform to the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to an owner participation agreement and that the owner is faithfully performing under the terms of the owner participation agreement; or (c) The affected property is owned by a public body that has not consented to the Agency's exercise of the power of eminent domain. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expires 12 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance that included the property in the Project Area unless the Redevelopment Plan is amended to extend such time limit. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of San Mateo and circulated in the City of South San Francisco, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of _,2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO._-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTING A PROGRAM FOR THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PURSUANT TO S8 53 FOR THE GATEWAY PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, a public body corporate and politic (the "AgencylJ) is a redevelopment agency duly organized pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 ef seq.), and pursuant thereto has responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); WHEREAS, the redevelopment plan for the Project Area was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council") by Ordinance No. 867-81 in June, 1981, and was thereafter amended by Ordinance No. 1149-94, adopted in November, 1994; by Ordinance No. 1338-2004, adopted in March 2004; by Ordinance No. 1337-2004, adopted in March 2004; and by Ordinance No. 1355-2005, adopted in May 2005 (as so amended, hereafter, the "Redevelopment Plan"); WHEREAS, effective January 1,2007, S8 53 added Section 33342.7 to the Health and Safety Code, pursuant to which legislative bodies that adopted a final redevelopment plan prior to January 1, 2007 are required to adopt on or before July 1, 2007, an ordinance that describes the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain; WHEREAS, S8 53 provides that following adoption of an ordinance describing the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain, such program may only be modified pursuant to an amendment of the redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with authority to use eminent domain to acquire real property following compliance with all requirements of law. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PROGRAM. The following is hereby adopted as the Agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7: The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expired on June 17, 1993. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of San Mateo and circulated in the City of South San Francisco, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of _,2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO._-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTING A PROGRAM FOR THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PURSUANT TO 58 53 FOR THE U.S. STEEUSHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, a public body corporate and politic (the "Agency") is a redevelopment agency duly organized pursuant to Community Redevelopment law (California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), and pursuant thereto has responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. SteellShearwater Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); WHEREAS, the redevelopment plan for the Project Area was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council") by Ordinance No. 996-86 in January, 1986, and was thereafter amended by Ordinance No. 1151-94, adopted in November, 1994; by Ordinance No. 1339-2004 adopted in March, 2004; by Ordinance No. 1337-2001 adopted in March, 2004; and by Ordinance No. 1354-2005 adopted in May, 2005 (as so amended, hereafter, the "Redevelopment Plan"); WHEREAS, effective January 1,2007, SB 53 added Section 33342.7 to the Health and Safety Code, pursuant to which legislative bodies that adopted a final redevelopment plan prior to January 1,2007 are required to adopt on or before July 1, 2007, an ordinance that describes the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain; WHEREAS, SB 53 provides that following adoption of an ordinance describing the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain, such program may only be modified pursuant to an amendment of the redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with authority to use eminent domain to acquire real property following compliance with all requirements of law. THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. PROGRAM. The following is hereby adopted as the Agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7: The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. SteellShearwater Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expired on February 8, 1998. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of San Mateo and circulated in the City of South San Francisco, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of _,2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO._-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTING A PROGRAM FOR THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PURSUANT TO SB 53 FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, a public body corporate and politic (the "Agency") is a redevelopment agency duly organized pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), and pursuant thereto has responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); WHEREAS, the redevelopment plan for the Project Area was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council") by Ordinance No.1 056-89 in July, 1989, and was thereafter amended by Ordinance No. 1152-94, adopted in November, 1994, by Ordinance No. 1337-2004, adopted in March, 2004, and by Ordinance No. 1352-2005 in May, 2005 (as so amended, hereafter, the "Redevelopment Plan"); WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2007, sa 53 added Section 33342.7 to the Health and Safety Code, pursuant to which legislative bodies that adopted a final redevelopment plan prior to January 1, 2007 are required to adopt on or before July 1, 2007, an ordinance that describes the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain; WHEREAS, sa 53 provides that following adoption of an ordinance describing the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain, such program may only be modified pursuant to an amendment of the redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with authority to use eminent domain to acquire real property in certain limited circumstances following compliance with all requirements of law. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PROGRAM. The following is hereby adopted as the Agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7: Subject to the following limitations, the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Project Area authorizes the Agency to acquire certain types of real property by eminent domain throughout the Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan prohibits the acquisition or assembly of any residential real property, or real property which contains residential uses, without the prior written consent of the affected property owner, for the purpose of conveying such property to others for private development. In addition, the Redevelopment Plan prohibits the acquisition of property on which persons reside. The Agency may only acquire property by eminent domain following compliance with all requirements of applicable law, including without limitation, compliance with all requirements pertaining to notice, hearings, and the payment of just compensation. The Agency's authority to initiate proceedings to acquire real property by eminent domain expires on June 25, 2017, unless the Redevelopment Plan is amended to extend such time limit. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of San Mateo and circulated in the City of South San Francisco, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of _,2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK - ~'t\\ 8M S ~ . ~:~ (~ ~) v c '<l!f2l'~~ S taft Report AGENDA ITEM # 10 DATE: May 23,2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RELATED TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES RECOMl\1ENDA TION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the City and County of San Francisco related to payment of Business License Taxes related to commercial parking at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) that is within the City of South San Francisco's city limits. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staff and Special Counsel have been in negotiations with the City and County of San Francisco (City and County) regarding clarifying the extent to which the City's 8% Commercial Parking Tax, which is a part of the City's Business License Taxes, is applicable to a commercial parking facility at SFO. That facility is owned by the City and County through the Airport Commission, is currently operated by Ampco through a management contract, and is expected to be managed by a new company as of July 1, 2007 under a new management contract. The facility is largely within the City of South San Francisco city limits. However, other parking facilities at SFO also under management by Ampco and by the new contract on July 1 are not within the City of South San Francisco city limits. The ownership of the facilities, the location of the facilities, and the terms of the management contracts make the application of the City's Business License Tax somewhat complex. A draft agreement with the City and County is attached. It clarifies the terms of the payment of the tax, which the City and County has agreed to pay on behalf of the private contractor operating the parking facilities at SFO. The attached resolution gives the City Manager the authority to execute a final agreement with the City and County, which may differ from the attached agreement in rninor details only, and will need to be approved as to form by the City's Special Counsel, Benjamin Fay of Jarvis, Fay, and Doporto. Staff Report Subject: Resolution Approving an Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco Related to Business License Taxes Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMP ACT: The attached resolution and agreement will result in an estimated $150,000 in annual Business License Tax revenue from the commercial parking operations at SFO. CONCLUSION: The attached agreement will resolve the difficulties in applying the Commercial Parking Tax to the airport related parking and is recommended. Prepared by: ~ Jil11 teele Finance Director Approved bX~ ~<:::~ , y. . Nagel City Manager Attachments: Resolution Agreement RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS AIRPORT COMMISSION, REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S BUSINESS LICENSE TAX TO COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITIES AT THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, Section 6.16.047 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code imposes a business license tax on the operation of "commercial parking facilities" ("the Tax"). WHEREAS, the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission, ("the Airport") operates commercial parking facilities at the San Francisco International Airport. WHEREAS, part of one of the Airport's commercial parking facilities lies within the City of South San Francisco. WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen between the Airport and the City of South San Francisco regarding the application by the City of South San Francisco of the Tax to the private contractor who manages the Airport's commercial parking facility that lies partially within the City of South San Francisco. WHEREAS, the Airport has agreed to pay the Tax on behalf of the private contractor who manages the Airport's parking facility that lies partially within the City of South San Francisco although by doing so the Airport is not agreeing that the contractor is subject to the Tax. WHEREAS, representatives of the Airport and the City of South San Francisco have negotiated a proposed agreement that would establish how the Tax shall be applied to any private contractor managing a commercial parking facility for the Airport within the City of South San Francisco. A draft of this proposed agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Manager of the City of South San Francisco is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco an agreement establishing how the Tax shall be applied to any private contractor managing a commercial parking facility for the Airport within the City of South San Francisco under terms that are substantially similar to those in the draft agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The form of the final agreement executed by the City Manager must be approved as to form by the City's Special Counsel in this matter. 1 of 2 * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: A TrEST: City Clerk 2 of 2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into between the City of South San Francisco ("the City") and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission ("the Airport") (collectively "the Parties"). RECITALS A. The Airport owns and manages various public parking facilities at the San Francisco International Airport. These public parking facilities are operated by a private company under contract with the Airport. Since November 1, 2001, the private contractor has been Ampco System Parking ("Ampco"). Effective July 1,2007, New South Parking-California will be the new operator of all the Airport's parking facilities. B. On June 1,2006, the Airport opened a long-term parking facility, comprised of a covered parking structure and an adjacent surface lot at the northern edge of the San Francisco International Airport on Lot DD. The covered parking structure is currently used for public parking, and it lies fully within the City of South San Francisco. Only a small portion of the adjacent surface lot, which is also used for public parking, lies within the City's boundaries. C. Section 6.16.047 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code imposes a business license tax on "operators" of "commercial parking facilities" (''the Tax"). The South San Francisco Municipal Code defines a "commercial parking facility" as "any privately owned or operated facility which provides, for any form of consideration, parking or storage for motor vehicles, motorcycles, trailers, bicycles or other similar means of conveyance for passengers or property. Privately owned or operated facilities, which would otherwise be within the foregoing definition of 'commercial parking facility,' are excluded from that definition when rented appurtenant to the rental of residential-dwelling units which are not otherwise required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter." The South San Francisco Municipal Code defines "Operator" as "any person who, as owner, lessee, employee, agent or otherwise, operates, maintains, manages, keeps, permits or allows to be operated, maintained, managed or keep any commercial parking facility in or upon any premises owned, leased, managed, operated or controlled by such person within the city." The South San Francisco Municipal Code provides that "[t]he license tax payable by operator shall be eight percent of the gross receipts received from facilities operated within South San Francisco without deduction therefrom." D. On November 13,2006, the City notified Ampco that Ampco was "operating" a commercial parking facility within the City of South San Francisco and was therefore subject to the Tax. Negotiations between the City, Ampco, and the Airport ensued. E. The Airport has agreed to represent Ampco in these negotiations. F. The Parties wish to resolve their dispute over the Tax's application to the Airport's operations at Lot DD and the manner of calculating the Tax. 10f5 EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT The City and the Airport now enter into the following Agreement: 1. The Parties agree that payments by the Airport in the manner set forth below shall fully satisfy any liability under the Tax arising from operations by Ampco or any other private company that manages a commercial parking facility under contract with the Airport within the City of South San Francisco ("the Contractor"). 2. The Parties agree that the Tax should only be based on the Contractor's receipts for the business it conducts within the City. Attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A" is a chart breaking down the actual payments received by Ampco from the Airport under its contract for managing parking facilities at the Airport from July 2006 to March 2007 as well as the estimated payments for the months of April, May, and June of 2007. 3. The Parties agree that services that are sub-contracted by the Airport through the Contractor to other vendors should not be used to measure the Tax. With regard to the categories of payments from the Airport to Ampco in Exhibit "A," sub- contracted services include the following five categories below: a. Bank Charges, b. Contract Services, c. Facilities Modifications and Equipment, d. Janitorial Services, and e. Security and Traffic Control. 4. The Parties agree that, after excluding the sub-contracted services identified in section 3, at the present time approximately 20% of the payments to Ampco by the Airport represent work performed by Ampco for that portion of Lot DD that lies within the City of South San Francisco. The amount of Tax due shall therefore be calculated first by excluding the sub-contracted services from the Airport's total payments to Ampco, then multiplying that sum by 20% to yield the gross receipts attributable to Ampco's business at Lot DD within the City of South San Francisco, and then multiplying the resulting product by 8% to determine the amount of tax due to the City. For example, as shown in Exhibit "A," for the month of July, 2006, the payments to Ampco after excluding payments for sub-contracted services totaled $398,348. Of this sum, 20% represents payments for work performed in that part of Lot DD that lies within the City of South San Francisco. This yields a gross receipt of $79,670 for July of 2006 that should be used to measure the Tax. This $79,670 is multiplied by 8% to determine that $6,374 was due for July of2006. 5. The Parties recognize that the 20% agreed to in section 4 is an estimate of the work performed by Ampco for that portion of Lot DD that lies within the City of South San Francisco. The Parties agree that 19% represents an accurate estimate the work to be performed by New South Parking for that portion of Lot DD that lies within the City of South San Francisco under the contract set to take effect on July 1, 2007. The Parties recognize that these estimates may need to change as the circumstances regarding parking facilities at the Airport change. Such changes could be caused, for example, by 20f5 increases or decreases in the number of parking facilities or spaces managed by the Contractor for the Airport; the modification, expansion, contraction, or closing of Lot DD; a change in the mix of services provided by the Contractor; or the opening of other parking facilities by the Airport within the City of South San Francisco. The Parties also recognize that the list of categories that should be omitted from calculating the Tax (section 3) may also need to be modified if the contractual agreement between the Airport and the Contractor changes or the nature of the work performed by the Contractor changes. The Parties shall therefore confer in June of every year to determine whether the categories listed in section 3 continue to reflect the nature of the business being carried out by the Contractor within the City of South San Francisco. Should the Parties be unable to agree on the appropriate categories and numbers in sections 3 and 5 ofthe Agreement, the procedure set forth in section 7 shall be followed. 6. In the event the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement, the Parties shall engage a mutually acceptable mediator and shall participate in good faith in a 1/2 day mediation session. If the Parties are unable to agree on a mediator, they shall submit the dispute to JAMS, which shall assign the matter to a mediator. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees in mediation. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, the Parties may avail themselves of the legal process, and neither the fact nor terms of this Settlement Agreement shall prejudice either Party's rights in litigation. 7. The City waives any claim for penalties and interest that may have accrued on the Tax incurred by Ampco from June 2006 to the date of the execution of this Agreement. Provided the Tax is paid to the City as provided in section 8 of this Agreement, no penalties or interest will accrue on the Tax owed to the City for the months of June 2006 to and including March of 2007. 8. Within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement by the City and the Airport, the Airport shall tender payment to the City in the amount of $160,000 for the amount of Tax due from June 2006 to March of 2007 and the amount of estimated Tax due for April, May, and June of2007. Once the actual receipts for April, May, and June of 2007 have been determined, the amount of Tax actually due for those months will be reconciled on the Tax return filed in July 2007. 9. In the event the City rescinds or modifies the Tax and institutes a direct parking tax on consumers, the Parties agree that such a direct parking tax would apply to consumers who park in Lot DD's covered parking structure and that such a direct parking tax would not apply to consumers who park in the uncovered lot adjacent to Lot DD's covered parking structure. 10. This Agreement is the full, complete and final settlement of the dispute between the City, the Airport, and Ampco regarding how the Tax should be applied to Ampco. 11. The City and the Airport acknowledge that in executing this Agreement they are relying solely upon the legal advice of their own attorneys. 30f5 12. The City and the Airport agree that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees arising out of or connected with the dispute between the City, the Airport, and Ampco regarding how the Tax should be applied to Ampco. 13. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, written or oral, between the Parties pertaining to the dispute between the City, the Airport, and Ampco regarding how the Tax should be applied to Ampco. 14. Neither the existence nor execution of this Agreement, nor the terms thereof, nor payment of consideration will constitute or be construed as an admission of liability by the Airport or by any Contractor. The Airport would be unwilling to enter into this Agreement and settle this dispute without a provision that disclaims liability. Neither this Agreement nor its contents shall be admissible in any proceeding involving any of the Parties other than a dispute between or among Parties with respect to the terms, rights or obligations of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Airport have executed this Agreement as of the dates set forth below. For the City of South San Francisco: Dated: Barry Nagel City Manager of the City of South San Francisco Approved as to form for the City of South San Francisco: Jarvis, Fay & Doporto, LLP Dated: By: Benjamin P. Fay Attorneys the City of South San Francisco 40f5 For the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission: AIRPORT COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Dated: By: John L. Martin Airport Director ATTEST: Resolution No.: Adopted: Jean Caramatti Secretary, Airport Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney By: Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco 5/9/07 50f5 Full FY 116107 Actual and EsI Expense (Memo Only) Est. Est Est YEAR TO DATE PUBLIC PARKING EXPENSE FOR FY 06/07 (Plus June 06) Accruals Jun.()7 May'()7 Apr.()7 Mar-07 Feb-{)7 Jan-07 DGc-06 Nov.() 6 Oct-06 Sep-{)6 Aug-{)6 Jul-{)6 Jun-06 Jun-06 $7,369,283 $1.500 $3.500 $30.000 $1.666 $2.200 $0 $2l\!l,poll $1_500 $1,680,216 $132.822 $15,001 $31,464 $194,684 $10,992 $15.899 $37,038 ~;461 ,1I81 $18,6\10 513,004,605 $1,597,620 $900,000 $606,694 $1.500 $2.500 $15.000 $833 $1.100 $0 $11l(l,OOO $1.500 $1,042,977 $132.822 $1.500 $2.500 $15.000 $833 $1.10a $0 $llla.OOO $1.500 $1,042,977 $132.822 $606.694 $569.542 $1 $3.514 $1,250 $2.449 $11.344 $833 $1.075 $14.895 $183.667 $1,753 $1,016,389 $132.822 $603,297 $1.893 $3.487 $12.713 $833 $1,881 $0 $23;i,!\115 $2.885 $1,170,330 $132.822 ;784 $3.719 $1.199 $3.484 $14,211 $833 $500 $0 $205;006 $709 $1,078,077 $132,822 $675,927 $833,455 $2.3 $1.410 $1.627 $17.882 $833 $476 $0 ,$228.ll5T $1.080 $1,329,171 $132.822 $581.463 $ $3,298 $211 $783 $12,064 $833 $2,621 $5,028 $~,?tl,941.l: $1.5e4 $1,078,460 $132,822 $555.507 ,510 $5,314 $2.985 $5.701 $26.386 $994 $637 $1.572 $2111;64-2 $3.054 $1,052,545 $132.822 $85,187 $1.055 $599,61 B SN' $4.488 $208 $1.550 $18.177 $833 $1.174 $14.700 $228,527 $777 $1,106,204 $132.822 $89,889 $778 $585.258 $87 ,692 $3.584 $0 -. $0 $1'45,617 $1.236 $0 $2.792 $15.822 $833 $1.804 $843 $201.058 tz.189 $1,048,728 $134.700 $251,829 $853 $1.345 $1.092 $6.085 $833 $1.331 $0 $94;781 '$HIO $358,531 $134.700 $102 $100 $355,210 $91.675 $0 $350,7 $132.2. $977 $0 $1.245 $8.689 $0 $0 $0 $122;651 $891 $1,064,328 $0 $621,923 $93.732 $2 J,'J2 $14.120. $110..981 $12'1;Sl!2 $7,792 $2.252 $7.011 $29.688 $833 $1,102 $151,799 $189,$18 $10.157 $l,372,0ll2 $134.700 Expense..: DlreC! Labol (wage and OH) other Expenses: Bank Charges Computer Maintenance Contract Service! Facll~les Modifications & Equipment JaMorIal Selvlces Laundry and Umlar",. lien Fees Office Expendttures Operating Expenses Payloll Processing Charges Refunds and Fee Adjustments Revenue Control TIckets and Forms Security and Tramc cOntrol lelephoneiCOfTlmunlC8tlon Expenditures Su btolal: Management Fee EstImated Expenses Total Expenses $14,602,225 $9.331.188 $1.866,238 $149,299 $1,813,038 $1.077.038 $215,408 i"f.'ffi' $1,175,799 $764.799 $152.960 $"i2.23'7 $1.175,799 $764.799 $152.960 12.237 $1,149,211 $739.677 $147.935 $11,835 $1,210,899 $760.773 $152,155 12,112 $1,461,993 $992.007 $198.401 $15,872 $1,211,282 $740.786 $148,157 $'il']53 $1,185,367 $736.028 $147.206 ~ $1,239,026 $775.125 $155.025 $12.402 $1,183,428 $749'c'61 $149.812 i"iT.98'5 $493,231 $398.348 $79.670 - .374 $1,064,328 $367.012 $73.102 $$,872 $1,506,782 $970.849 $194.170 i'5':'5:'l4 Tdal Exp.enses Less exempt t~ Str<li!jhl 20% of ilJlpitaM~ feft 6% Tit)!; N""'" 170.705 (7.812) 62.893 60.000 $ $ $ $ BIT A EXH Tolal, June 2006 - June 2007 Less Payment made 1/31/07 =Total Due. inlcuding Apnl - June 2007 est. Rounded to: