Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or, view on local television or live feed Pacific Coast.TV 26, (expect commercials). Or, if you miss civic meetings, view on PCT 26 You Tube. The city council meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following. City council updates and archives are available on the City website.
 |
| Past City Councilmember Jim Vreeland deceased, R.I.P. |
CA code 54956.8. Price and terms of payment discussion, Lorie Tinfow, City of Pacifica and Pacifica Spindrif Players, 1050 Crespi Drive APN 023-132-160.
Open Session - Consent Calendar (pass through, limited comment)
Open Session - Consent Calendar (pass through, limited comment)
3. Authorization to advertise Seal Bids for the Warning Lights School Crosswalk project, report.
5. Transfer of 2013-14 child development preschool contract grant funds ($20,000) to general center child care, report.6. Resolution approval of San Mateo County Office of Education contract for providing preschool classes, 2014-15, subsidy $279,882 (same as last year).
7. Resolution update authorizing signatures for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF).
8. Resolution approving an application for the Grant Funds from the Habitat Conservation (HCF): for the purchase option of David Colt's parcel (023-073-080): a $583,000 grant, if approved.
Special presentations - Proclamations: 1) Sandra McClellan, 2) Fire Prevention Month. Presentations: 1) Fog Fest, (Larry Passmore), 2) PG&E (Scott Hart).
Consideration - (discussion, public comment)
9. Report and Resolution, lease agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography, located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts Facility, 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard, $1,883 per month, 10/1/14 - 9/30/15. Stephen Johnson Lease pdf pages 36.
Adjourn.
Related - Stephen Johnson Photography. Note photograph of City Council Incumbent Jim Vreeland at Fog Fest 2006 from Flickr hive Mind.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
29 comments:
Well looky there, a $583K grant to buy the colt property. If approved it makes sense that they gambled a mere $20K doesn't it nimby's? Wow a deal that makes economic harmony. No wonder the gang of no hate it.
Applying For a grant is not the same as receiving it. Also we must remember that Council with that 15-20 thousand dollar option has committed the people of Pacifica to a 5.5 million dollar trail.
A comment may have been lost. If so please send again.
In moderating, I saw a comment with a link on my smart phone. Click, don't see it here, I may have hit the delete in error. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Tom,
Don't you think that with all the hustling council has been doing at regional meetings, they're pretty sure of getting the grants? (But you're right in saying that until they get it, they can't spend it!)
But you're completely wrong on your second point: All that the $15K option has committed to is $15K!! If they can't raise the money to buy the property, all bets are off, end of story. But if they get the grants to buy it, and the grants keep coming in to do the work and finish it, that $15K will have brought up to $5.5m in grants into the city. And if they don't get the grants, it doesn't get done. In other words, a complete no-brainer!
Tom you know Pacifica is not paying for the trail. The county wants this and will make it happen through grants. They just need Pacifica to start the ball rolling.
Anonymous at 9:05am said: "Well looky there, a $583K grant to buy the colt property. If approved it makes sense that they gambled a mere $20K doesn't it nimby's? Wow a deal that makes economic harmony. No wonder the gang of no hate it."
So confusing. Which "gang of no" -- as there is more than one, at completely different ends of the spectrum -- hates it?
Not to detract from anyone's reputation as a hustler, but that grant info came to council from an heirloom nimby. No criticism here-when you need grants who do ya call? Nimby! Shared goals, shared effort. Might find the purchase funds pretty fast. The 5.5 million is a stretch. If they fail I guess the parcel is added to the city's portfolio of undeveloped real estate or someone else gets to take a shot.
338 Yeah, you got that right. Rest assured, when it fails or we discover in 5 years that we paid millions for little odds and ends, everyone will say I told you so and curse the nimbys--whoever they may be at that moment.
It is a competitive grant, not a guaranteed one, and the city must put up matching funds, so don't be so quick to spike the football.
Know where to find the language for the grant? What kind of "match" are we talking about? Will the "match" be covered by another grant? After all, this is a State trail.
Some planning has already been completed, who paid for that? Its doubtful this "got no money" city ends up with the bill.
Again it's the county that is pushing for this. They will make sure costs are covered. If not we don't have to do it.
There was an old Coastal Conservancy grant for $200K years ago. Maybe that paid for some prelim work.
This city has a history of getting stuck with the bill and then losing the paper trail that would lead to the bill.
Information on the HCF can be found here: California State Parks, Department of Parks and Recreation, Habitat Conversation Fund
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21361
If it's the county pushing it and the county who will "make sure costs are covered", then why does this city with all its serious problems have to be involved? Whose idea is that? Does a city qualify for grant money that a county doesn't? Council must have a reason for doing this. How about sharing it?
I know for a fact Jim Vreeland asked the County years ago to help finance the trail and he was told a loud NO. Maybe times have changed.
Devil's Slide has changed and completing that trail is the missing link. The County also has a new Parks Director ready to leave her mark and with the resources to do it. I know the county had a growing interest in getting it done. Odd they didn't just roll in and do it. Was eminent domain becoming a real possibility? So much friendlier this way.
Times have changed. We now have the county devils slide trail which this would connect with. The city has to do this part because the property is within Pacifica city limits. I'm all for concentrating on economic but this won't cost the city anything so what the hell. Why don't you ask council to explain it.
City limits is not an obstacle with this. Seems like council would anticipate this question and be forthcoming with their reason for getting involved in this. Surely they have a reason, considered the pros and cons, etc. It could be a really simple, common sense reason. They've been asked. Still no answer other than oh it won't cost the city a dime which is a non-answer. It's a legitimate question. Particularly of a council who touts more transparency as a goal.
Was the purchase of this property and completion of this trail ever on council's list of goals? Maybe I missed it? Blinded by the library?
Anonymous 2:17 Yes I think Councils hard work will payoff in the form of grant money. No I don't think that that grant money will cover the total cost of the properties,the trail,not to mention the cost in staff time to make it all happen.
Remember the first grant only covers $385,000 (money we have already spent)if both properties are obtained($900,0000) and if the City of Pacifica commits to an estimated $5 million in trail improvements.
As long a Pacifica is the lead agency the other agencies will expect us to pay what they feel
is our fair share. Just 10% would be around $600,000. That is a tremendous amount of money for a City that was not sure it could afford $3,000 for the beach coalition, cut library hour and cut support for the visitors center.
Both the State and County are flush with new revenues let them take the lead and cover the cost, Pacifica is in no position to gamble with its meager resources.
With a ten year history of mismanagement of this trail by the City I think it has become a case of good money after bad. They are so invested that they can't stop themselves. Ego demands that they have something to show for all the money & time spent on it.
People our city is crumbling all around us. With a bad sewer plant, bad roads, bad city sewer system, a couple pedestrian and overpasses falling apart we have more dire needs.
Trails are nice but they bring no revenue.
855 Tom, I'm afraid political egos may be a big part of this and also the Beach Blvd money pit. Pacifica's problems must really be insoluble if council is grasping at monuments.
Reading the Grant application the City would be required to supply 50% matching funds ($242,500)
It is the City's hope to use the $383,000 transportation grant funding to cover this cost. The rub is that that money does not become available until after the City owns both properties and agrees to build the trail (a $5 million commitment). I see some very creative financing in our future. Just think this started out on the consent calender. How that for open and transparent government.
Yeah, the old consent calendar slipperooski. Pretty standard deception for a Pacifica City Council, but when it comes to sneaking around and cutting the public out of the process, this council under the leadership of Mayor Nihart, may be in a league all their own. Still laughing over "This is a public hearing, right?" At ease, Mike, she'll call you when she needs you.
"This is a public hearing, right?" Sure, just like this trail is economic development.
$5,000,000 for trail?
Is it paved with gold?
Think of all the vendors getting pieces of that 5 million. Damn, Pacifica is developing someone's economy. Probably not a penny stays in Pacifica. Hey, maybe the guys will buy a sandwich?
Post a Comment