Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.11.21 Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on November 21, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Sandra Lang. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION BY CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT TO THE SOBEL FAMILY CCFD Chief Kammeyer presented the Sobel family with life-saving awards. He explained that in July, 2016, Jim Sobel suffered from a heart attack. His 14 year old daughter, who learned CPR at Burlingame High School, quickly began CPR with the assistance of her two sisters on her dad. Chief Kammeyer stated that Mr. Sobel’s chances of survival were less than 10%. However, because of the efforts of his daughters and his wife in immediately calling 911, he was saved. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 As a result of their experience, the Sobel family became advocates for CPR and in conjunction with CCFD: trained over 200 people, raised over $2,000 for training and scholarships and created a public service announcement for the community. Mayor Keighran thanked the Sobel family and the Fire Chief for their hard work educating the community on CPR. b. PRESENTATION ON THE COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research gave a presentation on the 2016 Community Satisfaction and Priorities Survey. He stated that the purpose of the study was to look at the public’s perception of the quality of life in Burlingame, to gauge overall satisfaction with the City’s provision of services, and assess the perception of the City’s financial situation. As well, the survey looked to assess the potential viability of a local funding measure to maintain quality of life by improving essential City facilities and services with funding that cannot be taken by the State. Mr. Godbe began by explaining the methodology of the survey. He stated that staff conducted the survey between July 28 and August 7, 2016 through phone and internet interviews. Links for the survey were not posted on facebook, twitter or other social media platforms but instead were sent out only to those in a pool of registered Burlingame voters. The first question the likely voters were asked was to rate the overall quality of life in Burlingame with the following choices: excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor or don’t know/not applicable. Over 92% rated the quality of life in Burlingame as either excellent or good. Next, participants were asked to rate Burlingame as a place to work, live, visit and participate in recreational activities. Each of these categories received high ratings of excellent and good. Next, participants were asked their opinion on the direction of the City. 64.1% stated that the City was going in the right direction, 17.5% stated it was going in the wrong direction and 18.4% didn’t know. Mr. Godbe stated that typically when this question is asked for municipalities, the results are an even split of thirds. Accordingly, he stated that it is very impressive that nearly 2/3rds believe the City is going in the right direction. Participants were then asked their opinion on how well the City is doing providing services to the community. 74% stated that the City was doing a good or excellent job. Mr. Godbe stated that in the next set of questions, participants were asked to separately rate 23 City services with the following choices: extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important. Some of the 23 services participants were asked to rank were: rapidly responding to 911 calls, maintaining safe routes to schools, providing adequate park and recreation facilities and updating park irrigation systems to conserve water. Mr. Godbe explained participants’ rating choice was given a numerical value and then the services were ranked from highest scoring (extremely important) to lowest scoring (not at all important). Ranked the highest was rapidly responding to 911 emergency calls and ranked the lowest was installing synthetic turf on city playfields. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 Next, participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with city services and facilities using the following choices: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Rapidly responding to 911 emergency calls received the most favorable rating and providing a separated north-south bike path received the least favorable rating. Then, participants were asked their opinion of the City’s financial situation. He stated that over 50% stated the City was in good or excellent shape. Next, participants were read the following question: To maintain the City of Burlingame’s quality of life by improving essential City facilities and services including: maintaining neighborhood police patrols; fixing potholes, repairing streets/sidewalks; replacing the seismically unsafe recreation center; providing a safe Broadway-CalTrain grade separation; other essential city services; shall the City of Burlingame enact an ongoing, one-half cent sales tax with authority to incur debt to accelerate infrastructure projects, providing $3 million dollars annually, with annual audits, independent citizens’ oversight, and all funds spent locally? He stated that for the November, 2017 election about 61.6% said they would definitely/probably vote in support and in the November, 2018 election 64.6% would definitely/probably vote in support. Lastly, the participants were asked their agreement with statements about city facilities and services. The participants were asked to respond using one of the following choices: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree. The statement that the participants agreed most with was “It is fiscally responsible to repair potholes and maintain our streets, roads and sidewalks now.” The statement that ranked the lowest was “An up-to-date recreation center would provide technology-based enrichment programs for children.” Mayor Keighran thanked Mr. Godbe for his presentation. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Sandra Lang discussed the duty of the Council to represent the entire community including those who rent and asked the Council to look ahead and facilitate discussion to assist renters. Burlingame resident Kristen Park asked the Council to work with consultants and set new priorities in terms of affordable housing for the community. Burlingame resident Adela Meadows discussed her continued concern about rent increases and evictions in Burlingame and asked the Council to work on this matter. Burlingame resident Cynthia Cornell thanked the individuals who worked on Yes on Measure R and asked the Council to prioritize affordable housing. Estefani Morales, a representative of Congresswoman Jackie Speier, introduced herself to the community and stated that she would be available if anyone had questions or concerns for the Congresswoman. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Keighran pulled item 8a and Councilmember Colson pulled item 8c. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve item 8b from the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2016 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2016. Mayor Keighran asked that section 10c entitled “Hoover School Area Sidewalk Feasibility Study Update” be updated to include her suggestion that staff conduct seasonal counts of the traffic around Hoover Elementary School. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve the amended Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2016; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF A PROGRAM MANAGER POSITION TO A SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER POSITION HR Director Loomis asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 107-2016. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH NFP TO PROVIDE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM CONSULTING SERVICES TO CITY EMPLOYEES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH NFP TO PROVIDE COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE FOR THE DEFFERED COMPENSAITON PLAN ASSETS HR Director Loomis asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 108-2016. Councilmember Colson asked if the SST Benefit’s Consulting now NFP was Paul Hackleman’s group. HR Director Loomis replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if the organization was aware it was being asked to expand its contract. HR Director Loomis replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson expressed her support for this decision. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 108-2016; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER RATES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2017, 2018 AND 2019 DPW Murtuza presented the staff report asking City Council to hold a public hearing regarding proposed water rate increases. He stated that in compliance with Proposition 218, notice of hearing and educational brochures were mailed to rate payers on October 5, 2016 (45 days prior to the hearing) to discuss the potential rate increase and the reasons for the increases. Assistant DPW Morimoto stated that the City’s water system is comprised of 107 miles of pipelines, 7 storage tanks/reservoirs and 2 pump systems. He explained that 100% of Burlingame’s water supply is purchased from SFPUC. As well, he discussed the fact that much of the water system is 70 to 100 years old. Many issues arise as a result of the aging water system including: ruptured water pipes that create a water loss and corroded water pipes that create inadequate pressure and fire protection. Next, Mr. Morimoto explained that in the early 2000s studies were performed to assess the City’s 107 miles of water system. From this study the City prioritized over $120 million of necessary improvements. The City Council approved rate increases to fund accelerated improvements through the issuance of bonds. As a result, the City completed $38 million of work, including: replacing 22 miles of old deteriorated transmission and distribution pipeline system, installing 1,600 water services, and rehabilitating 1,200 linear feet of fire services. However, approximately $88 million worth of work remains. Mr. Morimoto explained that previously, because of the impact of SFPUC wholesale rate increases, the City decreased CIP funding from $4.5 million to $2.5 million per year to soften the impact. The proposed rates aim to partially restore funding to $3 million over 3 years. The City’s aim is to fund projects on a pay-as- you-go basis with no additional debt. Bartle Wells Associates representative Alex Handlers discussed the Water Rate Study. He stated that the last water and sewer rate studies were completed in 2012. The last increase for sewer rates was in July, 2012. However, the consultants found that that the City did not need sewer rate increases. Instead, the consultants focused on the need to increase water rates that would reflect the cost of providing service. Therefore, the consultants developed 10-year financial projections and looked at how to set water rates on a course that would maintain financial health. Mr. Handlers compared water and sewer rates throughout the County of San Mateo. While Burlingame was in the upper middle range for water rates (average single family residential monthly bill for Burlingame is $75.80), the City is in the lower end of the range for sewer rates (average single family residential monthly bill is $55.13). Therefore, looking at the combined monthly water and sewer bills, the City is in the middle of the range for the County. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the slide that compared the estimated monthly water utility expenses per capita of Millbrae, Burlingame, Menlo Park and Belmont stating that Burlingame was investing twice as much into infrastructure as the other cities. He discussed the water main breaks that occurred this year and the costs associated with those issues. He explained that by investing in infrastructure and rehabilitating the water system, the City would be able to prevent damage and emergency costs. Councilmember Colson added that Burlingame is seeing a better return by comparing what cities spend on operations and management to what they invest in infrastructure. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. In reviewing water financials, Mr. Handlers stated that water rates are the main source of revenue and therefore they need to be set at adequate levels to fund operating and capital needs. In the past, he explained that the City maintained good financial stewardship by gradually raising water rates each year. These rate increases spared the City from needing to take emergency action to raise rates in response to drought and reduced water sales. However, because the City has not increased rates since 2015, rates have fallen behind the cost of providing service and the water enterprise faces a number of manageable financial challenges. Mr. Handlers stated that the four main financial challenges the City is facing in water rates are: (1) SFPUC wholesale water rate increases; (2) reduced water sales = reduced revenues; (3) capital improvement needs and rehabilitation of aging infrastructure; and (4) ongoing operating cost inflation. He discussed each challenge explaining its impact on the water rates. He focused on SFPUC’s rate increases stating that SFPUC is projecting roughly 30% additional rate increases over the next three years. Next, he explained that a big part of the study was developing financial projections to evaluate annual revenue requirements and rate increases. He stated that based on the best information available and slightly conservative assumptions that the City should undertake rate increases over the next three years. He stated that the proposed rate increases are as follows: 2016 2017 2018 2019 0% 9.0% 7.5% 7.5% He stated that the actual bill impact would vary based on customer class and water use. Mr. Handlers discussed the proposed revisions to the water rate structure. He explained that the proposal for residential structure changes include: (1) bill for all water use (coupled with reduction to fixed meter charge); (2) modify tier breakpoints based on analysis of water use; and (3) all single family homes to be billed via tiered rate structure. As for commercial/multi-family/other, the consultants proposed eliminating the surcharge for Burlingame Hills/Unincorporated. Lastly, he stated that many communities on the peninsula are facing the same challenges as Burlingame. He showed the increases that other cities are looking at such as Menlo Park with 12% increases each year through 2020. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 Vice Mayor Ortiz asked Mr. Handlers to discuss what happens if the City collects more then it spends. Mr. Handlers stated that water rates are subject to Proposition 218 which does not allow rates to exceed the cost of services. He added that water rates are routinely reviewed. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked that if there was an excess, that the money would not be deposited into the General Fund. Mr. Handler replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked how cities outside of BAWSCA establish their water rates. Mr. Handlers stated that they have to buy water for the same rate. He stated it is a negotiated rate based on a cost of service. He stated that some private water companies do have alternative sources of water but that it usually supplementing what they receive from SFPUC. Councilmember Beach discussed the protest letters that the City received that mentioned water rate studies from Menlo Park and Alameda. She explained that individuals used those studies to suggest that Burlingame’s water rates were actually higher than what Mr. Handlers suggested. Mr. Handlers stated that there were a few issues with the studies that were mentioned in the protest letters. First, they only included a few cities. Burlingame’s water rate study looked at 17 additional cities. Secondly, he explained that Burlingame’s water rates are on a conservation structure. Residents use less water but will pay more once they hit higher tiers of water use to encourage them to conserve water. While, the Burlingame water study compared different city’s rates at the tier where average Burlingame single family residences fell (5,000 gallons), Alameda’s study compared cities at higher rates of usage. Therefore, it wasn’t an accurate depiction. Councilmember Colson asked what happens if the City spends more on infrastructure and operations than the City collects. DPW Murtuza stated that the purpose of the study is to not get into a situation like this. Accordingly, staff works with the Financial Director to review rates, use and projected funds every year. Councilmember Colson asked the public if the water was billed monthly instead of bimonthly would that be helpful and would it be helpful to separate the water and sewer bill. Mayor Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident William Hoskinson thanked the Council for the presentation. He asked how SFPUC justified the water rate increases and if the drought caused the water rate increases. Burlingame resident Rocque Yballa discussed the City’s residential fire sprinklers ordinance. He stated that the number of residential fire sprinklers has increased dramatically in the City. He explained that under the program the one-inch meters are necessary for the sprinklers to work. He asked that citizens that obtain residential fire sprinklers not be penalized for having to obtain the one-inch meters. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if what Mr. Yballa is asking is that the City not disincentive 1 inch meters. Mr. Yballa replied in the affirmative. DPW Murtuza stated that staff would look into this matter. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 Burlingame resident Diane Condon Wirgler showed a spreadsheet that she explained was the City’s audited financials from the past ten years. She argued that the City had a surplus in water reserves and asked where this money was and if it was being used on improvements. DPW Murtuza stated that if the City had a surplus in water funds, staff wouldn’t be holding a public hearing for water rate increases. However, he stated he would review the numbers she discussed. Burlingame residents Ed Barberini and Gene Condon discussed the same audited financials spreadsheet and their concerns with how water funds were spent. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the audited financials the public was discussing. Finance Director Augustine stated that it was most likely from the CAFR but that she had not reviewed the numbers. She stated she would take a look so that she could provide a more precise explanation. Burlingame resident Martha Laboissiere asked that the City research and answer the following questions: how much money the City has in water reserves and the certainty of the need for fee increases. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the fact that the City consistently receives the highest marks from municipal auditors and therefore he was sure that all funds were properly accounted. Therefore, he stated that while he understood the public’s concerns, the numbers they were discussing could not be addressed without first giving the Finance Director time to review the spreadsheet that the public was reading from. Councilmember Beach asked Mr. Handlers if there was any part of the water rate structure that is in violation of Proposition 218. Mr. Handlers replied in the negative. Mayor Keighran asked if the Council had to take action on the resolution tonight or if they could follow up with the public’s questions. City Attorney Kane stated that Council could continue the public hearing to the next City Council meeting on December 5, 2016. She recommended that Council keep the protest period open and stated that the public notice for tonight’s meeting would meet the requirements for the next meeting (as it would be continued). Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he did not believe the Council should delay its decision to increase water rates based on the spreadsheet the public brought to the Council meeting. Instead, he stated that he was satisfied with the work that the consultants, Director of Public Works and Finance Director had done to ensure the legality of the water rate increases. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk how many protests she had received. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied that she received 44 letters of protest by the start of the meeting. Mayor Keighran stated that although she was satisfied with staff’s work, for the sake of the public and the questions that they brought up, she would like the public hearing to be continued to the next Council meeting on December 5, 2016. Councilmember Brownrigg agreed with Mayor Keighran. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 9 Councilmember Colson asked if there would be any timing issue, if the Council continued the public hearing. DPW Murtuza said there would be no issue. Mayor Keighran and Councilmember Colson both discussed the age of the City and the need for infrastructure improvements and maintenance on the water system to ensure its longevity. As well, they both discussed the concept of investing into the water system now to save the City money in the future. Councilmember Beach discussed the necessity of increasing water rates to improve the City’s services. She stated that this is an investment in infrastructure and a response to SFPUC’s water rate increases. Councilmember Beach made a motion to continue the public hearing and extend the public protest period until the December 5, 2016 City Council meeting; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. APPROVE THE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT BODY WORN CAMERAS FOR THE BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT Prior to the beginning of this staff report, Councilmember Brownrigg excused himself due to unavoidable travel. However, he noted his support for Police Chief Wollman and his support for the plan to implement body worn cameras for the Burlingame Police Department. Police Chief Wollman presented the staff report concerning body worn cameras for the Burlingame Police Department. Chief Wollman stated that staff was recommending that Council authorize BPD to begin the process of implementing body worn cameras for use by officers. He explained that the need arose from growing local and national concern over the use of force employed by police departments. He stated that the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury investigated the issue and in its final report recommended that all San Mateo County cities adopt body worn camera plans and advise the public of their plan by November 30, 2016. The Grand Jury further stated that the plan must be implemented by October 31, 2017. He stated that the Grand Jury’s recommendation was based on six main conclusions: 1) costs are containable; 2) many hardware, software, and storage options are available and easily modifiable to accommodate specific agency requirements; 3) workable operational policies are readily available and easily modifiable to accommodate specific agency requirements; 4) training needs are minimal; 5) patrol staff rapidly accepted body worn cameras; and 6) the behavior of both residents and police officers improves when their actions are being recorded on video. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 10 Police Chief Wollman stated that BPD agreed with the findings of the Grand Jury report. He stated that Police Captain Matteucci drafted regulations for body worn cameras that were being reviewed by the POA. As well, he stated that once a vendor was selected they would conduct a three to six month testing phase. During this period, a select, small pool of officers would test the cameras, the various mounting options, and the body worn camera policy. Police Chief Wollman stated that preliminary estimates showed the cost of body worn cameras at a range of $30,000 to $50,000 annually. Mayor Keighran asked what the $30,000 to $50,000 would cover. Chief Wollman stated it would cover the cost of the cameras, storage, and maintenance. Mayor Keighran asked how long the storage would need to be kept. Police Chief Wollman stated that the retention policy would need to be reviewed. City Attorney Kane stated that the retention policy would be reviewed and that the nature of the footage would play a role in the length of time it is kept. Chief Wollman stated that one of the vendors that BPD is looking at has unlimited storage and redaction software. Mayor Keighran asked how much additional staff time would be required to answer public records requests. Chief Wollman stated that Captain Matteucci had looked into this question. He stated that in asking other departments that have body worn cameras most have not been inundated with records requests. City Attorney Kane stated that she believes that at least in the beginning there will be an increased number of requests. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about the security of the data. Chief Wollman stated that there are two ways to go: 1) have your own server or 2) store it in the cloud. He stated that the standard is to store it in the cloud. Councilmember Colson stated that if additional time was needed to answer public records requests or to handle the videos from the body worn cameras that police would hire additional staff. Councilmember Colson stated that in 2012 the City of Rialto introduced body worn cameras, as standard equipment. This introduction led to an 88% reduction of complaints against officers and a 60% decline in officer’s use of force. She went on to state that she is proud of the work of BPD and believes that the body worn cameras will show their high standard of work. City Attorney Kane echoed this sentiment and stated that the number of incidents that BPD has is already very low so how much more of an effect the body work cameras will have will probably be minimal. Councilmember Beach asked if the $30,000 to $50,000 would be a part of this year’s budget or next. Chief Wollman stated that it would be a part of next year’s budget. Mayor Keighran opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Burlingame City Council November 21, 2016 Approved Minutes 11 Councilmember Colson made a motion to approve the plan to implement body worn cameras for the Burlingame Police Department; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1. (Councilmember Brownrigg was not present as he had excused himself for unavoidable travel.) 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Keighran asked that Council schedule a presentation from the Nomad students on prospective flag designs for the City. Council agreed to put this on the agenda in early 2017. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: TRAFFIC, PARKING AND SAFETY COMMISSION – OCTOBER 13, 2016 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk