Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-05 City Council (21)City of Palo Alto 3 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: FIRE AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 5, 1998 CMR: 390:98 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FOR ABATEMENT OF WEEDS RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement which would provide for the City ofPalo Alto’s continued participation in the Santa Clara (County) weed abatement program. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto has been party to an agreement with Santa Clara County since 1977 regarding the abatement of weeds. The County program is directed to be fully cost- recoverable by its governing bodies. In 1996, the County increased the fees for weed abatement contract services. This was the first increase since 1983 (CMR 485:96). At that time, the County indicated it plans to review weed abatement fees every two years in order to monitor the cost-recovery effort. The County no longer has available reserve funds for the program, which previously had been used to subsidize the increased costs of the program. It must meet any increases in the costs to execute and administer the program through necessary fee adjustments. Program revenues and expenses for the County are outlined in Attachment C. DISCUSSION It is proposed by the County to increase the administrative fees f0r the program to 130 percent for the 1998-1999 weed abatement season. This is an increase of 10 percent from the 120 percent fees set in 1996. Approval of this proposal and endorsement of the amendment would continue to provide availability of weed abatement services from the County for those property owners choosing to use them. The increased costs for the administration of the program are discussed in the letter from the County (attached). Dueto Council’s vacation, the County granted an extension to October 6, 1998 for the City Council to approve this agreement. CMR 390:98 Page 1 of 2 RESOURCE IMPACT The average increase for cost per parcel.from 1997 would be approximately $22 in Palo Alto bringing the average cost per parcel to approximately $241. (see Attachment B). The option to contract independently for weed abatement services will remain the same for the residents and City of Palo Alto. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration for the project has been completed and is found exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS Letter from the County of Santa Clara re: Proposed Amendment to Adjust Weed Abatement Program fees Attachment A: Fifth Amendment to the Agreement between Santa ClaraCounty and the City of Palo Alto for Abatement of Weeds -Attachment B: Palo Alto Jurisdictional Summary -Attachment C: County-wide Summary Prepared By: Nicholas Marinaro, Acting Deputy Chief Department Head Review: City Manager HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR 390:98 Page 2 of 2 County of Santa C..ra Environnl(-ntal R(.;sourc(’.’-; Ag¢~ncy Fire Marshal’s Office -S~lllt~l Clarn C{)IIllty Fir~" l)Cl)artnl{~nI 70 west H~-dcIi~g Str(~el. 71h Floor San Jos(’. CaIilomia 951 I ~ 1705 1408} 299-3805 tS’~X 279-8537 June 26,1998 Mr. Nick Marinaro Acting Fire Marshal Palo Alto Fire Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Amendment to Adjust Weed Abatement Program Fees Dear Mr. Marinaro, Santa Clara County began providing weed abatement services to local jurisdictions in the late 1970’s in order to address the issue of public fire safety in a cost effective manner. Since then, we have been fortunate to create partnerships with twelve jurisdictions and one private corporation to provide timely weed and brush abatement services and thereby reduce fire danger. The economy of scale employed by this Program and our efforts to keep administrative costs to a minimum have allowed us to provide these services to your residents at minimal cost. In fact since 1983 we have only requested one Program fee increase. That increase was implemented for the 1996/1997 weed abatement season with the full support of our jurisdictional partners. In 1996 we set the Program fees at 120% of the weedabatement contract costs, and further agreed to maintain that fee for a period of two years. Now in 1998, it is time to revisit the Program fees and make adjustments to cover the actual costs of implementation and administration of the Program for the UPComing 1998/1999 Season. Beginning with the start of the 1998/1999weed abatement season in September 1998 we . propose to raise our Program fees to 130% of the weed abatement contract costs. This increase will cover the increased costs of the Program administration. A proposed amendment to our agreement for weed abatement services is provided in Attachment A. Our Program administrative costs have risen for several reasons. First, we will have experienced two successive salary and benefit increases since the 1996/1997 weed abatement season. These increases reflect the negotiated labor union contract costs. In addition, we have reclassified our weed abatement entry level supervisor position in order to provide the appropriate level of management administration necessary to continue efforts to further streamline the weed abatement process and maintain cost effectiveness and minimize staff turnovers. Our two weed abatement vehicles which are ten years old also need replacement this upcoming year, and the new vehicles will be more costly. Board of Supervisors: Donald E Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pele McHugh. James T. Beall Jr.. S. Joseph Simitian ~ Cotlnly ExeCtlliVe: Richard Wittenberg ,0,, In response to comments received from the public, and in an effort to streamline our Program we have decided to reduce the time a parcel remains on the Program from four years to two years. On a county-wide basis, this results in a 48% reduction in the number of parcels on the Program. However, we anticipate the Program will abate nearly the same number of parcels county-wide on an annual basis. Costs would only be incurred by the property owner if they choose not to maintain their property according to the minimum fire safety standards and the Countyprovides weed abatement services. In keeping with the procedures of the current Program, if a property owner provides their own abatement, they are not assessed a fee for our inspection services. For your reference we have provided Attachment B which summarizes the number of parcels inspected, number of parcels abated and the average cost per parcel including Program fees for weed abatement services in your jurisdiction for the 1996 and 1997 seasons. Attachment C provides an accounting of the Weed Abatement Program on a county-wide basis for the same period of time. Even with the proposed fee adjustment, we believe the benefits realized by the economy of scale still allow our services to be competitive. Please let us know if we can provide any assistance as you carry the amendment forward to your City Councils for approval. Considering our desire to provide uninterrupted service, we suggest the approval process by your Council and our Board of Supervisors be completed this summer. Please return (3) three signed copies of the amendment to my attention by September 1, 1998. If you do not wish to continue contracting with the County for weed abatement services, we would appreciate being notified of your decision by AuguSt 1, 1998 so that we may inform our Board of Supervisors and make any necessary adjustments to the Weed Abatement Program. We anticipate our Board will take action on the amendments August 18, 1998. If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (408) 299-3805 ext. 207. We thank you for your support will look forward to working with you. Sincerely, I~- ~.JOdy Saunders, Sr. Deputy Fire Marshal Attachments Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Proposed Amendment Jurisdictional Summary County-wide Summary. Richard Wittenberg, County Executive Leode G. Franklin, Director Peter Ng, Financial and Administrative Services Manager Lauren Harvey, Management Analyst Attachment A Revised Amendment FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR ABATEMENT OF WEEDS The Agreement for the Abatement of Weeds (Agreement) between the County of Santa Clara (County) and the City of Palo Alto (City) previously entered into on April 18, 1977, as amended on November 5, 1979, November 20,’1981, February 15, 1983 and January 14, 1997 is hereby amended to increase the charge for the County’s program costs to administer the Weed Abatement Program. IT IS AGREED between the parties as follows: 1.Statement of Costs Section 6. of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: County shall render to City an itemized statement or report of the cost of the weed abatement services performed for the respective parcels of land -in the City on or before the 10th day of August of each year, which shall include the County’s administrative costs of 130 % of the cost of the weed abatement contractor for the respective parcels for which services were performed. The statement shall include the description of the lots and parcels of land for which services were performed, and verification by signature of the County official administering the Weed Abatement Program. Charges for services performed on parcels owned by the City will include a reduced administrative fee of 65% of the cost of the weed abatement contractor. Duration of Agreement Section 13. of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: The Agreement became effective on the date of execution and shall run until the governing body of the City or the County shall exercise the right to terminate this Agreement as of the 1st day of September of any year, by giving notice to the other party not less than 10 days prior to the date of termination. The increased charge for the County’s administration costs shall be effective commencing with the Fiscal Year 1999 weed abatement season. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain the same. SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITY OF PALO ALTO Leode G. Franklin, Director Environmental Resources Agency August 18, 1998 Approved as to form and legality: James E. Lewis, Deputy County Counsel Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachment B Palo Alto Jurisdictional Summary FY 1996 Actual FY 1997 Actual Parcels Inspected 419 440 Parcels Abated 55 58 Avg. Cost/Parcel $170 $218 including Program fee Attachment C County-wide Summary Beginning Balance Revenues Expenses: Staffing FY 1996 Actual $14,546 343,717 157,867 FY 1997 Actual ($53,449) 497,162 180,607 Abatement Contract General Interest Total Expenses Surplus (Deficit) Ending Balance 202,107 41,74O 9,998 411,712 (67,995) (53,449) 252,323 48,237 20,412 501,579 (4,417) (57,866)