HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.05.07
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on May 7, 2018
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 the Youth Advisory Committee.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: (GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.8) PROPERTY: 1200 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BURLINGAME, APN
NO. 026-142-130 AGENCY NEGOTIATORS; SYED MURTUZA, CAROL AUGUSTINE,
LISA GOLDMAN, KATHLEEN KANE NEGOTIATING PARTIES: SAN MATEO COUNTY
TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND CITY OF BURLINGAME UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE
AND TERMS
City Attorney Kane stated that direction was given but no reportable action was taken.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. YAC PRESENTATION
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
2
Recreation Coordinator Nicole Rath introduced the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC). She explained that
YAC is comprised of 13 teens from seventh to twelfth grade, all with the passion of giving back to their
community. She introduced the members of YAC: Taylor Abbey, Jiana Ang, Tiana Carrol, Nicole Chan,
Carina Husain, Aiden Mendoza, Diana Milne, Sophia Morales, Lauren Shannon, Kaia Stannard-Stockton,
and Ethan Wan.
YAC representatives discussed events they assisted with this past year including: Fall Fest, Holiday Helping
Hands, Burlingame Muddy Mile, Royal Ball, Senior Valentine’s Dance, YAC Attack, and Streets Alive.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked YAC for their hard work. He asked how YAC sets their agenda. Recreation
Coordinator Rath explained that at the beginning of every school year, YAC has an initial planning meeting
to discuss what events they want to take on.
Vice Mayor Colson asked when students would be able to submit an application to join YAC. Recreation
Coordinator Rath stated that openings would be announced in August. She explained that to join YAC,
students must be in seventh to twelfth grade, a resident of Burlingame or attend a school in Burlingame,
attend one meeting a month, and assist with various events during the year.
Councilmember Beach stated that seeing YAC in action was impressive, as they make each event better.
Councilmember Keighran asked if there are opportunities for YAC to talk about issues that they are
concerned about in Burlingame. YAC representative Aiden Mendoza stated that at each of their monthly
meetings there is time to discuss issues that arise. Recreation Coordinator Rath added that YAC invites
speakers to attend their meetings and speak to the students about issues in the community.
Councilmember Keighran stated that it would be great for Council to receive feedback from YAC on
different projects in order to obtain the youth’s perspective.
Councilmember Ortiz stated he would like to see a few of the Councilmembers attend a YAC meeting. The
Council agreed.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Keighran.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
3
a. APPROVAL OF A LETTER AUTHORIZING THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE
SUNSHARES 2018 PROGRAM
Sustainability Coordinator Michael requested Council approve a letter authorizing the City’s participation in
the Sunshares 2018 Program.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CATEGRAPH
SYSTEMS LLC TO PROVIDE ASSET MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SERVICES FOR THE
MAINTENANCE DIVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENTS
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 53-2018.
c. ADOPTION OFA RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN
PROJECT NO. 9, CITY PROJECT NO. 84780
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 54-2018.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HVAC
IMPROVEMENTS BY MARINA MECHANICAL, CITY PROJECT NO. 84330
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 55-2018.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE EL PORTAL 7 TROUSDALE CHANNEL
REHABILITATION, PHASE 2, AND SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECTS
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 56-2018.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
(SUMMERHILL HOMES AND BURLINGAME POINT)
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 57-2018.
g. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO RENEW THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSEMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME
AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 58-2018, Resolution Number 59-2018, and
Resolution Number 60-2018.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
4
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 AND
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 4, 2018; AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT’S
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017-18
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 61-2018.
i. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2018
Finance Director Augustine requested Council approve the Quarterly Investment Report, period ending
March 31, 2018.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED TAX FAIRNESS
AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2018 BALLOT MEASURE
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 62-2018.
k. MAYOR BROWNRIGG RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MAYORS PLEDGE
AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS
Mayor Brownrigg requested Council’s approval regarding the Mayors’ Pledge against illegal guns.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Mayor Brownrigg introduced this item by stating that the Council interviewed nine applicants on April 25,
2018.
Councilmember Beach stated that last year she recused herself because of a connection she had with a
candidate that applied and re-applied this year. She explained that while an economic connection existed
between the candidate and herself last year, it no longer exists. Therefore, after discussing the matter with
the City Attorney, she was informed that she could vote this year.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
The Council voted and handed their ballots to the City Clerk.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballots.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
5
Mayor Brownrigg congratulated Will Loftis, Richard Terrones, and Audrey Tse on being appointed to the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants.
b. UPDATE ON LIMEBIKE BIKE SHARING PILOT PROGRAM
Sustainability Coordinator Michael gave an update on the LimeBike pilot program. In December 2017, the
City agreed to a six month pilot program with LimeBike to initiate bike-sharing in the City. The pilot
program was at no cost to the City and allowed LimeBike to use the City’s public right-of-way for parking
bikes. She stated that the City’s goal was to provide the community with an alternative transportation
option and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that in the past two months, LimeBike averaged 4,000 unique
rides a month in Burlingame. She added that the electric bikes were the most popular option.
Councilmember Ortiz asked why there was a spike in February of 5,670 unique rides. Sustainability
Coordinator Michael stated that she believed this was due to free promos.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael compared Burlingame’s numbers to Alameda and South San Francisco,
two other cities using LimeBike. She explained that Burlingame’s numbers are comparable to the other
cities. Next, she showed a heat map that highlighted the areas of town with the greatest number of rides.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael reviewed the concerns some members of the public have with the
program: bikes blocking pathways, cluttering streets, and kids not wearing helmets. She noted that the
number of complaints has decreased since the program’s inception in January.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that South San Francisco is extending their pilot program for
another six months. Alameda’s pilot program ended, and the City will be releasing an RFP this week,
looking for a single operator. Additionally, she stated that LimeBike is undertaking pilot programs in San
Mateo, Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose, Walnut Creek, and Gilroy.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael discussed LimeBike’s electric scooters. She reviewed the safety and
public concerns that have been raised by their presence in Oakland and San Francisco. She noted that while
the City has not approved of their addition to the pilot program, San Mateo has, and therefore they will end
up in Burlingame.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael recommended that the City extend the pilot program for another six
months in order to collect a full year of data. She also recommended conducting a community survey and
creating a bike sharing policy.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City would issue an RFP after the extension of the pilot program ends.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that the City could issue an RFP for a single operator like
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
6
Alameda. She noted that another option would be to follow San Francisco’s approach and allow for all
operators to apply for permits to operate their business in the City.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if there is an increase of electric LimeBikes in Burlingame. LimeBike
representative Alex replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she thought the pilot program was working well. However, she voiced
concern about bicycles blocking sidewalks. She asked that the pilot program include an educational
component for students on proper bike etiquette and where to park bikes. Alex stated that LimeBike is
creating videos about how to properly use the bike-sharing program and where to park bikes. Additionally,
he stated LimeBike has been reaching out to schools to provide helmets and conduct educational events.
Councilmember Beach stated that she received public feedback about residents’ frustration with LimeBike’s
customer service. She asked that LimeBike share with the City the kinds of complaints they receive from
residents and how they are responding. Alex responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that another comment she was hearing is that the bikes aren’t located in areas
to help residents with the first mile of their commute. She asked if LimeBike was looking at usage and
creating new hotspots for stocking purposes. Alex replied in the affirmative. He added that LimeBike
retrieves bikes in neighborhoods to proactively combat complaints of bikes blocking sidewalks. However,
he noted that they would look into additional locations.
Councilmember Beach stated that she loved the idea of a community survey.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the feedback on the pilot project has been positive. He stated that he does
have concerns about the electric scooters and didn’t want to see them in Burlingame at this time.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if 4,000 rides a month in the City equates to success for LimeBike. Alex replied in
the affirmative and added that the City has consistent usage.
Mayor Brownrigg asked that LimeBike provide users with a message at the end of their rides, reminding
them not to park on the sidewalk. Alex replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that after the pilot program ends, he would prefer a single operator for the City.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
A Burlingame resident asked how the City benefits from this pilot. Sustainability Coordinator Michael
stated that when the City was first looking at bike share programs, staff initially wanted a docking program.
However, after reviewing San Mateo’s experience it was clear that the docking programs were more
expensive. She stated that South San Francisco used LimeBike and based on their good reviews, staff chose
this option for the pilot program.
Mayor Brownrigg added that the City is not paying or being paid during the pilot program.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
7
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Councilmember Beach asked about stocking LimeBikes at BART stations. Alex stated that LimeBike is in
discussions with BART to identify locations at the stations.
Councilmember Beach stated that she read articles that dock-less bike-sharing programs are starting to think
about creative ways to incentivize parking in desirable locations. She asked if LimeBike was doing the
same. Alex replied in the affirmative and stated that this was one of their top priorities.
Vice Mayor Colson concurred with Councilmember Ortiz’s comments. She stated that she would like to
receive statistics on community outreach events including helmets given away and education events.
Additionally, she asked LimeBike to provide numbers at the end of the year concerning the City’s
greenhouse gas reduction by using the bike-sharing program. She noted that she concurred with Mayor
Brownrigg that if the City goes out for an RFP, they should follow the same model as Alameda.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to authorize the City Manager to extend the pilot program for six months
with data reported back by request of the Council; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. REVIEW OF A USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME
SERVICES; ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2018-19 FISCAL YEAR; AND SET
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH AMENDMENT FOR JUNE 4, 2018
Finance Director Augustine stated that the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy was first brought to Council’s
attention a few years ago after consultants undertook the Cost Allocation Plan and Cost Recovery Study.
She explained that the intent of reviewing the policy and Master Fee Schedule was not to grow revenues but
rather to lend some guidance to the establishment of fees.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that the questions being considered were if the City provides a service should
the individual pay for it, and if so, how much.
Finance Director Augustine stated that there are three types of fees that are charged:
1) user fees –when the user receives all or some of the benefit including park/facility rental
2) regulatory fees – include planning review and permits
3) fines and penalties – not voluntary and are enacted to discourage illegal or undesirable activities
She noted that user fees and regulatory fees are included in the Master Fee Schedule.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the more the community as a whole benefits from a service, the more
willing the City is to pay for those services out of the General Fund. She reviewed a list of things to consider
when setting fees including: 1) user versus community-wide benefits; 2) effect of fees on service use; 3)
feasibility of collection; 4) discounted rates; 5) cost allocation plan; and 6) making comparisons with other
communities/private sector.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
8
Finance Director Augustine discussed the foundations of a good cost recovery policy. She explained that
cost recovery should be based on the full cost of the service, including direct and indirect costs. Direct costs
are the personnel and contracts associated with providing the service. Indirect costs include legal resources
and use of the facility. She noted that the policy should be a living document that is periodically reviewed
and updated. Additionally, the policy should include explanations of all the fees and factors considered.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the annual update to the Master Fee Schedule includes an annual review of
costs associated with fees or does staff apply CPI to existing fees. Finance Director Augustine stated that
staff applies CPI even though costs may have increased more than that. She added that a fee study is done
every five to eight years to review the costs of all services.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the storm water pollution prevention construction permit fee. She
asked why the deposit has increased dramatically, while the fee has remained the same. DPW Murtuza
stated staff noticed that after the permit is pulled, contractors are not following through with the requirement.
Therefore, the deposit ensures that the work is being carried out.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the doubling of the Planning noticing fees from $320 to $640 and the
design review noticing fee from $445 to $890. CDD Meeker stated that this is because the City wasn’t
capturing the double noticing requirement.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the potential ballot measure regarding fees. She asked how many of the City’s
fees would be impacted by the passage of this measure. Finance Director Augustine stated that she needed to
review the measure’s impact and noted that it would change from year to year. City Manager Goldman
added that the measure would also limit future opportunities for jurisdictions to place taxes on the ballot.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed the fee covering the cost of inspecting industrial and commercial facilities for
storm water discharge compliance. He explained that the County used to undertake this inspection but that
recently the County cut this service. He asked if the City’s fee was comparable to what the County charged.
DPW Murtuza stated that he would need to get back to Council with this information. He noted that the
County’s fee didn’t cover the cost of inspections. Additionally, there were concerns from the Regional
Water Board that the County’s inspections were inadequate. He explained that the City’s fee is based on the
actual costs associated with the inspections.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed the encroachment fee for sidewalk tables. He stated that staff was
recommending increasing the fee from approximately $1200 to $1600. He explained that he wasn’t clear if
this fee was by restaurant, by table, or by square foot. He noted that he believed that the community
benefited from having sidewalk tables. DPW Murtuza stated that the encroachment fee covers the cost of
inspections, reviewing layout, checking and clearing utilities, finalizing an agreement, and reviewing
insurance. He added that while there is ongoing work (for example: code enforcement violations, meetings
with the business, and annual insurance updates) related to encroachment permits, the City only charges a
one-time fee.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
9
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed a lot of restaurants were scraping by and that the fee should not be
increased. He stated his preference was for a more modest fee, and fines for those that don’t comply with the
permit.
Councilmember Ortiz asked about the annual cost to renew an encroachment permit. DPW Murtuza stated
that it is a one-time fee, and while there are ongoing annual costs, the City doesn’t collect additional fees.
Councilmember Beach stated that she previously brought up the same concerns. However, she was
compelled by staff’s explanation of the different costs associated with this fee, that the fee is reasonable. She
explained that because it is a one-time fee, businesses that are using the public right-of-way, for business
purposes, are essentially getting an extension of their business for free. She noted that Council needed to be
mindful of giving a benefit to some, when others don’t get the same benefit.
Councilmember Keighran stated that it is a privilege for these businesses to be able to extend their business
onto City property. Therefore, she believed that the fee was fair. She stated that on a future agenda she
would like Council to address the issue of keeping Burlingame Avenue clean, as she was noticing that some
businesses were not cleaning up in front of their stores. She explained that this results in the City needing to
spend additional funds to keep Burlingame Avenue pristine.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he liked the idea of a penalty for businesses that don’t keep their portion of
the sidewalk clean. He gave the example of a temporary suspension of a business’ encroachment permit.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would suggest that staff and Council think through this fee and what other
ways it could be charged over the next year. He added that he didn’t support the fee increase.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to bring this item back for public hearing; seconded by Councilmember
Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. UPDATE ON POST OFFICE PROJECT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
EXTENSION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT REGARDING PARKING
LOT E
City Attorney Kane discussed the background of the Post Office project. She stated that the City has had
ongoing discussions with the owner about incorporating Lot E into the project. She explained that there are
several requirements that must be met in order to allow Lot E to be incorporated into the project including
replacing all existing parking onsite and providing a large public plaza. She noted that the City will need to
undertake negotiations about the term and price of the conveyance of Lot E.
City Attorney Kane explained that the Post Office itself is protected by the Historic Covenant. The
Covenant ensures that certain aspects of the property, including the façade on Park Road, remain intact.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
10
City Attorney Kane stated that the City entered into exclusive negotiations shortly after the sale of the Post
Office. The original term of the exclusive negotiation agreement (“ENA”) lapsed due to environmental and
economic constraints of the project. She explained that staff is asking Council to extend this agreement in
order to protect the City. She noted that the ENA extension does not bind the Council to any particular
action, nor does it assume anything about the environmental analysis. She added that the extension also
benefits the other party as they are assured that Lot E won’t be marketed to others.
CDD Meeker proceeded to give a planning update on the project. He stated that staff released an RFP
seeking consultant services to prepare the environmental documents for the project. He explained that
because the project’s application has not been submitted, staff used the description of the last concept, with
the understanding that when staff receives the formal application it may need to be tweaked. He stated that
staff is in the process of reviewing the RFP responses. He noted that staff will require full funding from the
applicant prior to the environmental review being undertaken.
City Attorney Kane stated that because the Post Office is a historic structure, there are concerns about
ensuring the property is maintained during this process. Therefore, City officials, along with members of the
public and the applicants, did an inspection of the Post Office to make sure it is safe. Subsequently, there
were minor repairs done to the satisfaction of the Building Department.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the Historic Covenant covers additional portions of the Post Office. City
Attorney Kane stated that the Covenant goes into considerable detail. She explained that she highlighted the
façade because it is the entire façade and its relationship to Park Road. However, there are also a number of
architectural aspects of the building that need to be preserved.
Vice Mayor Colson asked what happens if a member of the public doesn’t believe the Covenant is being
followed and seeks recourse. City Attorney Kane noted that there is a timeframe in which concerns can be
raised and that all of the documents will be available for review.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the ENA includes any language about affordable housing and whether it
should be included. City Attorney Kane stated that the ENA quotes from the Downtown Specific Plan,
which talks about having mixed income. However, affordable housing hasn’t been a focus of the project but
is something that can be discussed during negotiations for Lot E.
Councilmember Beach asked if there were any plans to have workshops for the public (outside of the public
hearings on the project) concerning the Post Office project. CDD Meeker stated that once the application is
received, staff will work with the applicant to encourage public meetings outside of the ordinary scope.
Councilmember Keighran asked that the City continue to inspect the property as needed. City Attorney
Kane replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach discussed the parking requirements and the potential in-lieu fees for the project. She
explained that she thought the radius for the in-lieu fees should be revisited.
Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018
Approved Minutes
11
Vice Mayor Colson asked if there was a mandate concerning where the parking in-lieu fees can be used.
CDD Meeker stated that parking in-lieu fees were adopted by resolution, and their usage is for the two
downtown areas.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the number one complaint that he hears is not enough parking downtown.
Therefore, he is happy with the radius as it is.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 63-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
c. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Vice Mayor Colson asked that the Council discuss bee protection. The Council agreed to agendize.
Mayor Brownrigg talked about a special impact fee for properties east of 101 because of the need to build a
levee. He asked that this be talked about at a Council meeting. Council agreed to discuss this matter.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m. in memory of Nancy Ortiz, Bryce Nelson, and Donald
Lloyd Huff.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk