HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-16 City Council (46)of a o A tol7
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: FIRE
DECEMBER 16, 1996 CMR:485:96
Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Santa Clara County
for Abatement of Weeds
REQUEST
The purpose of this report is to request that Council authorize approval of the fourth
amendment agreement with Santa Clara County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor, or her designee, to enter into this
agreement that would provide for the City of Palo Alto’s continued participation in the
Count), weed abatement program.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The content of this proposal is consistent with existing City policies. Authorization of this
agreement does not represent any changes to the existing policy. This proposal will result
in a fee increase over the next two years for both the City of Palo Alto and its residents who
utilize weed abatement services. There will be no significant policy change implications as
a consequence of this proposal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Twelve cities in the County of Santa Clara, including Palo Alto, participate in the Weed
Abatement Program. The City of Palo Alto has been party to this agreement since 1977.
Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code provides further authority and provisions for
abatement of weeds and related issues. The County program is directed to be fully cost-
recoverable by its governing bodies.
CMR 485:96 Page1 of 3
There has been no increase in fees to participating agencies and users since 1983. Costs for
program implementation have increased in excess of 80 percent during the same period.
Additional impacts Countywide and other changes have affected program fee revenues to the
degree that present cost-effectiveness is in jeopardy. The County has previously operated the
program on reserve funds and other allocations that have allowed fees-for-service to remain
relatively constant over the past 14 years. However, the reserve funds are now depleted and
the Count5, can no longer subsidize the program. Justification for fee adjustments and
program impacts are noted in Attachment #2.
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. It would:provide available service via an existing contract with Open Space and
Sciences for City-owned or leased parcels that would otherwise necessitate additional
administrative coordination and oversight by Cit-y staff.
In view of the proposed adjustments, the fees-for-service would continue to be cost effective
vis-a-vis economies of scale and remain competitive with market rates for abatement
services.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposal for fee adjustments requests an increase for administrative fees from 65 percent
in 1983 to 120 percent for fiscal year 1997. This adjustment would provide for full cost-
recovery over the next two years. The effect of this adjustment translates to an increase from
1996 of 36 percent for the private property, owner, or $62 per average cost. It would result
in an increase of 31 percent for City-owned or leased parcels. This increase would total
$8,390; from a contract amount of$27,111 in 1996 to $35,501 in 1997-98. The funds for the
contract increase would be requested through the normal budgetary process. The option to
contract independently, for weed abatement services will remain the same.
ENWIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
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:-Correspondence from County re: Proposed Adjustment to
Program Fee Performance Measurement Data and Justifications
-Fourth Amendment to Agreement between County of Santa
Clara and City of Palo Alto
CMR 485:96 Page2 of 3
Prepared By: Nicholas Marinaro, Acting Fire Marshal
Department Head Review:
City. Manager Approval:
RUt~ .Xi’X3RIJALVA
Fire~( h~/
Jl~’ ?LE~/iG )
City Managed//
CMR 485:96 Page3 of 3
Count), of Santa C_
En\’ironmcnlal Resources AgenCy
Fire Marshals Office" L~,dminislered b\ tile Ceniral Fire ProleCtiOn DislriCl
(-~A~tlllly G()’,’(-FI/II/(’II! Center. Eagi \VJI]~
70 Wes~ Hedding Str~eL 71h Floor
San Josu. Cahfornia 9511C~ 1703
~408~ 2gfl-3805 FAX 279-8537
September 30, 1996
Nick Marinaro
Fire Marshal
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Adjustment to Program Fee for Weed Abatement Agreement
Dear Mr. Marinaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you recently. As we had discussed, the
County of Santa Clara’s Weed Abatement Program is proposing to adjust its program
implementation fee for the upcoming weed abatement season beginning, jn November
of 1996, in order for the program to reattain its full cost recovery status for FY97.
This proposed adjustment was prompted by a number of reasons (see attached for
background and detailed analysis), the foremost being that the fee had not been
adjusted for 14 years since the 1983 weed abatement season, yet costs for program
implementation have steadily increased with inflation and other cost of living
adjustments totaling at least 80%. Over that same period of time, the compliance rate
has increased by 31% countywide resulting in less abatement work performed and
correspondingly less program fee revenue generated to offset program costs. The
need for the adjustment was also compounded by the recent unanticipated loss of
abatement work provided for Southern Pacific Railroad parcels due to their merger
with Union Pacific. This alone resulted in a decrease of program fee revenue to our
Weed Abatement Program of approximately $45,000 annually or 19% of our program
budget (excluding contract abatement costs).
Since our meeting, we have modified our proposed adjustment to our program fee to
120% of the contract abatement costs .(rather than the 130% that was initially
presented). It is projected that this adjustment will allow our program to reattain its full
cost recovery over two years instead of one, with no additional adjustment to the
program fee anticipated for the following year, depending on the actual level of
abatement activity that is realized this season. With this proposed adjustment, the total
average cost to be charged to each property owner in your city who requires weed
abatement work will increase from $170 last season to $232 this upcoming season, for
an increase of $62 for the same level of work provided. It is important to note that
Board of Supervisors: Micl]ael M. Honda. Blanca Alvarado. Ron Oonzales. James T Beall Jr.. Dianne McKenna
COtlllI}’ Executive: RIcl~ard Willenberg
September 30, 1996
Page 2
although the program fee component is proposed to be adjusted to 120%, the effective
increase to each property owner is approximately 36% over the prior year. As noted in
our discussions, the program had been drawing on reserves for three of the past four
fiscal years which allowed us to postpone any adjustment until now.
For abatement work to be performed on city-owned parcels, the proposed adjustments
are a 2.3% CPI increase to the contract abatement work (as provided for in the
County’s agreement with our contractor) and an adjustment to our program fee to 60%
of contract abatement costs. The adjustment to our program fee continues to
recognize that servicing city-owned parcels requires significantly less time and effort
than privately owned parcels (about half the time). Assuming the same level of
abatement work that was actually performed in 1996 for Palo Alto by our program
- (about $21,689 excluding the program fee), the proposed adjustments would result in
CPI increase of $499 plus a program fee of $13,313 for a total charge to your.city of
$35,501 for 1997 compared to $27,111 in 1996. The effective increase to your city,
therefore, is 31%.
Even with these proposed adjustments, we believe that the total costs to the property.
owners and to your city are still competitive with the market if they or youJ:.Ci~.were to
contract for weed abatement services on their own. This, of course, remains an option
for each property owner. Our contract services and related program costs would only
be charged if the property owner did not abate the nuisance themselves. We also
believe that-this program continues to be cost effective and makes the most of
economies of scale with its twelve participating cities and the unincorporated areas
including obtaining the lowest competitive bids possible for the contract abatement
work and program implementation with the minimal level of staffing necessary. In fact,
1996 contract costs have decreased by 2.3% when compared to 1989, and
productivity has increased by 22% over the last fourteen years as the program has
expanded with additional jurisdictions participating and as the database information
has become computerized (see performance data on attachment).
It is important, therefore, that these proposed adjustments receive the full support of all
of its participating jurisdictions if this program is to remain cost effective and fiscally
viable. Given the upcoming start of the new weed abatement season in November, it
is also critical that we have your city council’s approval for these adjustments as soon
as possible. Therefore, enclosed with this memo is a proposed amendment to our
existing agreement which effects the proposed adjustments. Assuming approval by
your council, we will then present it to our Board of Supervisors for their approval.
If you have any additional questions concerning the program or any of the information
provided, please contact me at (408) 299-3805 extension 211. We thank you for your
support of this program and we look forward to your council’s response to this
proposal.
September 30, 1996
Page 3
Sincerely,
Lisa Brown
Supervisor, Weed Abatement
attachments
cc: Richard Wittenberg, County Executive
Leode Franklin, Environmental Resources Agency Director
Karl Schneider, Assistant County Fire Marshal
ATTACHMENT- 1
Background
o The agreement with your city for the Weed Abatement Program was initiated in
1977. Program fee was originally established at 25% of contract abatement
costs. The fee was increased to 35% for the 1980 season, to 45% for 1982, and
finally to 65% for 1983.
O
O
O
Fiscal
Current Services/Staffinq Provided
o Program implementation is provided by one supervisor, three inspectors, and
one-third clerical position.
o Prepares and handles noticing to approximately 11,000 parcels program-wide
on database; surveys to locate and identify new parcels to be added.
o Inspects all parcels on database three times annually for compliance with local
weed abatement ordinances with primary objective for fire prevention; directs
all abatement work to be performed.
Coordinates with cities for public hearings for adoption of resolution and for
placement of charges on tax roll.
Handles bidding out process for abatement contract work to be performed.
Responds year-round to approximately 1,000 complaints annually.
& Performance Measurement Data
Palo Alto;..~.
Esti.mated/
Actuals Actuals Proposed :% Chaog.e..
1983 1996 1997 ,97 to ’83
221 419 479 117%
88 55 55 (38%)
60%87%89%48%
$232 $170 $232 36% (’97 to ’96)
Parcels Inspected
Parcels Abated
Compliance Rate
Average Cost/Parcel
(Note: Average Cost!Parcel for 1997 can only be compared to 1996 assuming the same level of abatement work
performed. 1983 actual level of abatement work performed not available).
Countywide:
! Actuals "Actuals Actuals Actuals
i FY93 FY94.FY95 FY96
i Beginning Balance 244,408 119,575 145,867 14,546
Revenues 361,714 478,117 244,991 358,586
i Expenses:
Staffing 156,786
General/Abatement 292,104Interest2,935
Total Expenses 4.51,825
I Surplus/(Deficit)(124,833)26,292 (131,321)(53,126)
,Ending Balance 119,575 145,867 14,546 (38,580)
Note:
Projected ProjectedIFY97FY981
(38,580)(21,4--~9)
520,872 542,218
185,400 190,962
307,341 308,813
11 000 12 000.
503,741 511,775
17,131 30,443
(21,449)8,994
141,675 145,194 157,867
342,597 226,327 243,847
~4 791 9998
486,547.376,312 411,712
1) In prior years, revenue accruals did not match with timing of expenditures which made it difficult
to project when the program would exhaust its reserves
2) FY95 large decrease in abatement work was a direct result of the floods.
3) FY97 staffing costs increase includes full annualization of additional inspector position added
in mid-FY96.
4) Projected FY97 and FY98 revenues assumes proposed adjustment to program fee.
ATTACHMENT - 2
Total Number of Parcels Inspected
Total Number of Parcels Abated
Compliance Rate
Contract Abatement Work Performed
Parcels Inspected per Inspector
1983 1996 %
Season Season Change
5,955 10,941 84%
1,975 1,296 (34%)
67%88%31%
$291,162 $176,146 (40%)
2,978 3,647 22%
Comparison of Fee Methodologies with Other Jurisdictions:
1995 Fee Schedules
San Jose:contract costs plus flat fee of $443 per parcel
Fremont:contract costs plus flat fee of $202 per parcel
Morgan Hill: contract costs plus 100% administrative fee
Sunnyvale: contract costs only; administrative costs paid for by General Fund
Los Banos: minimum fee range from $97 to $195 plus additional $65/hr charge in
excess of base minimum depending on the size of the lot
Benefits of Program
o Coordinated and consistent effort toward enforcement of weed abatement
ordinances for fire prevention. ..,
o Economies of scale realized with: 1) competitive bidding for contract abatement
services resulting in lower contract costs; 2) cost effective regio.nal utilization of
staffing resulting in increased productivity.
o Convenience for out of town property owners.
o Competitive with market rates for abatement services.
Justifications for Adjustment
o No increase to program fee for 14 years, while CPI increase of approximately
58% and salary and benefit increases of over 80%.
o Recent loss of Southern Pacific Railroad parcels and related program fee
revenue of $45,000 annually.
o Increase in compliance rate and increased development of parcels resulting in
less abatement work performed which correspondingly resulted in less program
fee revenue received.
o Impact of weather (ie. ’93 storms, ’95 floods, and ’96 late rains) resulted in
significant curtailment of abatement activity and correspondingly less program
revenue received in those years, forcing reserves to be exhausted.
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENrT
BETWEEN COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
FOR ABATEMENrT OF WEEDS
The agreement previously entered irito on April 18, 1977 between the County of Santa
Clara (County) and the City of Palo Alto (City), as amended on November 5, 1979,
November 20, 1981, and on February 15, 1983, is hereby amended to increase the charge for
the County’s program costs in administering the weed abatement program.
IT IS AGREED between the parties as follows:
1. Statement of costs. Section 6 of the agreement for abatement of weeds shah be
amended to read as follows:
County shah 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
tenth day of August of each year, which shall include the County’s administrative costs of
120% of the cost of the weed abatement contractor services 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 wil! include a reduced administrative fee of .60% of the cost of
the weed abatement contractor.
2. Effective Date. This agreement shall be effective on the date of execution by the
parties. The increased charge for County’s administration costs shah be effective
commencing with the 1997 weed abatement season.
Executed by the County of Santa Clara on
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Executed by the City of Palo Alto on
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mayor, City of Palo Alto
Approved as to form:
Deputy County Counsel