Loading...
CC 2014-04-08 Items Rec'd at Mtg. 1-:-1'( 1+2m1 PETITION OPPOSING HOkESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IlkICkoO.Q Pick Okra Pa residents and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow homestays In our neighborhood on Robin Circle, Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Court&Quail Court In Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of thagagr gaming residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments In our city. Homestays however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: L,t{cuter anat., l .Th,.,.f..fis Address: q- S £aY Phone: Spc 4131_0 32.R S#narjl Date: 3)2O 1 14 Printed Name: a r re41 / ' ! Address: 8 /Z f eocL(ct.✓rt P✓ Phone: .S5q .cj7[ • t VO Signature: %L.._ 44Z' Dat e: 31 7-Al1 Printed Plain e:4i-ra.w r_`[/ Address: /O ft `etiiii.mieba Phone: (&S) 411-876o : 0-Catt/ 46/4441-e- Date: • pETRION OPPOSING HONESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD As residents and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow homestays in our neighborhood on Robin Circle, Nbadowlwk Drive, Cardinal Corot&Quail Court in Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of d occuSd residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments in our city. Homestays however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging Into our neighborhood and City. J(/J,� Printed Name: ' !!i P I 0 -f/�Mn l/V Address: $y /fg leActi fteiC fl ie, 4 Aftort Quwor, • Phone: ( lied) 4/73 q S+z Signature: 77/277. ag Date: 3-.ZS zo jcI Primed Name: C ct+1n j R o5S Address: $3 to me 4aiLavK ni. tP\ G 934a o Phone: IS�0 5 0.� -6 j `4 81 -415q Signature: ` � .o!,-1 Date: 4- h j ' Printed Name:r e ,O c sV\•c Address: 81 S (`t1e o c ou,Ackc k, Phone: 1/4-La S—9 1-40� Signature A o Date: 9 I u I f y pETITlON OPPOSING FORESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD As residents and concerned citizens,we appose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to all hornestay's In ow neighborhood an Robin Circle, Nteadowiark Drive, Cardinal Cant&Quail Court In Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of non„n residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments In our city. Hornestay's however are not a good tit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name/� Address: :/9 //'Rm6dte �.� - . ._ lip _ /� 1� Date. 11,/,/ Printed Name: JM )%014. ALI Address: '7 the L Gort Phone:755—,--31k �7 V sue; Date: 24 l* Printed Name:NG'vS SLOW'v Address; 87 S Aunt-4!L a Phone: ago-5°'� 4ge Ler faZ Sire;`la v- .� �A Date: ik(jAka PETITION OPPOSING HOIuESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD As residents and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning corn miss Ion's recent decision to allow homestays in our neighborhood on Robin Circle, Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Court&Quail Court in Arroyo Grande. We support vacation rentals of swim goggled residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments in our city. Hornestals however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our city.We respeciully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: fecc}y A 1Mi r_k Address: 13 35 QNiri / C f Phone 7 i -740.-30 S9 A. Date: 22 A4• PI Printed Name:<6 ILA Uvtc l/i�d ' I Address: %1� 1��� ' Phone: LOA —1530 Signature: tlAkt, Date: 2Z if Printed Name: t rt L r K LL i% c Address: 4 yb (iA c.r phone: Q0C 7°y n 2 r :_ Date: 3/ Z e/ is/ PETITION OPPOSMG HOfrESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD As rest and concerned ctti¢ens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow honestays In our neighborhood on Robin Circle, Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Court&Quail Cast in Moyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of non owner midst residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments In our city.Homestays however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommerdatian to allow Ws type of transient lodging Into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: t C2C .Iv U ig.)t W 1 Address: t'l Co QS • phials q-11 [ `3S 5 Dates-aa: I H Printed Name: 1 .i'IVID A W Al 14 I Address: 8 Z5?. 64i ' Circle- Phone: YO 5 - 7o4 - oo 6 o Signatm es... ,% �,.�.:.= Date -as Printed Name: fre 7r/ DE taIL Address: S gJ' i�o B/n/ C R Phone: 3'0 . 4j�'/�2 37e : ,( ' Date; ^2. PETITION OPPOSING FORESTAYS N OUR NEIGHBORHOOD As residents and concerned citizens,we appose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow homesta fs in our neighborhood on Robin Circle, Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Court&Quail Court in Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of non owner mak residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments In ow city. Homestay's however are not a good tit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to dim this type of transient lodging into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: `V t// wfr Z Address; NI Q.71 1 a. Phone: ( l 332 -47'7 Signature: 1 f Date: 3 Printed Name: Arita*LIP ‘41 %1/2r/ g D- )0 a 12CL� Address: /�•�� Phone: ia L 5 - if-k I (717 , Signature: £ tw..J'ol 4t"is Date:J s / 200 )j y Printed Name: j Address: 9% a) Wav Phone: :o % A.1: f <01010.• Slgnet► esC� —�iz..� Date: 5•21)"�I� dpr PETITION OPPOSING HOI.ESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD As residents and concerned cam,we appose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow honestay's In our neighborhood on Robin Cbr* AAeadawlark Drive, Cardinal Court&Quail Court in Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of mmm ann gouged residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments In our city. Homestays however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transierd lodging into our neighborhood and City. Pitted Name: I 1 1 I WC> k)01Te l0-AD Address: o 9 koeiNI (j r- Phone: Ss-c, 0 Date: /Z 3// V Printed Name ch*6t'7✓" &JH7 !F/Ft.° Address: 9 t 9 et M1 ^J C ii Phone: (lac- S t/o- Y) ? J Signature: Date: .12 3// Printed Name: J o h " 1 0p Qe iQ Address: /Wl 7 g d i3//U c 7'. Pone: ea- Signature: Date: 315-2`5 m IlE E B 0 4 5 bafi o �a 1 1: Si � .4 1114 qtih I 1 (' N r 1 , I I VIII , i II 3E W 1 MI III 1 1 pETRION OPPOSING HOWESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD Pa residents and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent derision to allow homestays In ow neighborhood on Robin Circle, Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Court&Quad Cost In Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of muffing ogigugled residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments In our city. Homesteys however are not a good flt for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to aflow this type of transient lodging Into ow neighborhood and City. Pitted Name; /SLUM/14a 4404 Address: a f�+ OVA £fi Phone: *lofttt fog signature: Swam-- Pi w st Date: la at Printed Name; 41N h Me In Address; gZ L Ito\1h `d(dQ Phone: q 'R(��Ofl signature: /4,.._.` ) Date: ?Z(J-17 Printed Name: A k d! C (lea ea d o Address: S' Y o 4t At' e Phone: get�e f it �n Signature: `gj Date: 3 ‘• 2. 0 , 11 PETRION OPPOSING HOPESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD As rest and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow homesta s in our neighborhood on Robin Circle. Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Cant&Quail Court in Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of imam =glad residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments in our city. Honestey's however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our cry.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: Ay%) i«^Sc,„, Address: /0 33 Ro ra r r' Q et , 4 , G- 1 CA C 3 `11-O pt 30 r- y sir - 9s Date: 3/21 /ear/ Prb*ed Name: T lti so`r+h Address: /O6 CrcLt ,QC, C4 9 3 Phone: (6Y -93A- a5.r8 Signabse: #AL- Data 5/94/ r If Printed Name: Ho-fin TI`C f ri du c ) 1 I 4€0 Address: 7;'). N.%j n 2 einor Phone: 47" 'f _SO Date:`s?s • /`f J • P ETMON OPPOSING HOMESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBO HOOD, As residents and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow hornestays in our neighborhood on Robin Circle, Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Court&Quail Court in Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of non net mcgRigd residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments in our city. Honestays however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: //Y 1 Y-el fit W A p Address: 9 76 40 /n Cr/ --- Phone: y —i 3 : / Date: 3 PrttedName: St u ��,� HavJ4Vd Address: 4q7 kekt4 6,cli Phone: -44 I- 3$25 #10� Data 5 -23 -(der Printed Nhume: F%N E Wl art t n Address: 1072 Robin l trC.ie Phone: Sof ''7i - 3339 : Date: 6/23/14' PETITION OPPOSING HOP.ESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD Aa resided and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow homestays in our neighborhood on Robin Circle,NteadovAark Drive, Cardinal Cant&Quail Corot In Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of non p ner =Wed residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel estabOshments in our city. Homestay's however are not a good lit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging Into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: ) Inn'DO N1 Address: Sa -ob. C4 rc 1.e_. Phone: 11'1 4-4S 4 q Signature: Date: 31,41'4 Printed Name Slice- fed-e----- Address: g2o Yom - WLGC-c Phone: k 2-cq Data AI(ia ( i4 Printed Name: r1 /Ca r Ct!t� c . p/a n eS Address; 812. Ad s« CI L, eta A r e oe p 6 va 6110 Phone: gat + Qe/90 S Y/� Data 9-7 -Pt' pETITION OPPOSNG HOKESTAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD M residents and concerned citizens,we oppose the Arroyo Grande planning commission's recent decision to allow hornnestay's U ow neighborhood on Robin Circle, Meadowlark Drive, Cardinal Caul&Quail Cant in Arroyo Grande.We support vacation rentals of non owner mooted residences as a secondary alternative for lodging outside of the typical hotel motel establishments in our city. Hornestays however are not a good fit for our neighborhood or our city.We respectfully urge the City Council of Arroyo Grande to reject the planning commission's recommendation to allow this type of transient lodging into our neighborhood and City. Printed Name: AVE.771 aAI4/V 5 Address: 259 /naealbioeif Zest, 407)* LA' O1 Phone: Signature: • ter 401 . Data /a3/Zo/,1 Printed Name: �Yo-& . � • /%rrouD Crn� Of Address; • 0 -� • , ! Phone: Xo5 - /Dr ?9 St L Data 4 - 7 - Punted Name: Address: Phone: Signature: Data 1-frking q� stoicalWiz TAA MEMORANDUM -'^'lada4 131 41 42 etlitStUdi, VIEW °cute TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Grotz, Chairman John Lewis, Vice Chair James Emmerling Frederick Latham Michael Saenz DATE: February 10, 2014 SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY CHARTER EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE On August 27, 2013 the La Mirada City Council established the City Charter Exploratory Committee through Resolution No. 13-32. Over the course of four meetings held from November 2013 through February 2014, the Committee explored the differences between general law and charter cities, reviewed the potential advantages and disadvantages of becoming a charter city, and discussed whether pursing a charter is in the best interest of the City. City staff, including the City Attorney,assisted the Committee by providing information for the • Committee to review and discuss as it worked toward developing a recommendation for the City Council. This memorandum includes the Committee's findings, a recommendation not to pursue drafting a city charter at this time, and reasons supporting the Committee's recommendation. BACKGROUND The City of La Mirada has successfully operated as a general law city since its incorporation in March of 1960. However, State actions of taking financial resources from cities have resulted in negative financial impacts on La Mirada in recent years. Additionally, with the State's dissolution of redevelopment agencies in February 2012, the City lost the economic development powers of its former Redevelopment Agency placing the City at a potential competitive disadvantage compared to surrounding cities. As a result of these impacts and the Great Recession, the La Mirada City Council declared a fiscal emergency and reconvened the Citizens' Task Force on City Finances and Operations in February 2012. The Citizens' Task Force reviewed the financial challenges facing the City of La Mirada and recommended a number of actions to assist the City in stabilizing its finances, meeting its long term infrastructure needs, and achieving greater control of local revenues. As part of its findings, the Citizens' Task Force recommended the City Council explore the potential benefits of becoming a charter city as a measure to protect local control. FINDINGS The Committee undertook a thorough review of the differences between general law and charter cities, potential benefits and drawbacks of becoming a charter city, and recent legislation enacted concerning charter cities. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENERAL LAW AND CHARTER CITIES The California Constitution gives cities the power to become charter cities. Cities that have not adopted a charter remain general law cities. The authority of general law cities, such as La Mirada, is derived from powers granted by the general laws adopted by the State Legislature and the police powers granted by the State Constitution. There are 361 general law cities out of 482 cities in California. A charter city's powers are not defined or limited by the State's general laws, but are defined by the city's own charter subject only to the limitations of the State Constitution. There are 121 charter cities in California. A CITY CHARTER A City Charter is a document serving as the constitution of the city adopting it. According to the home rule provision of the California Constitution,charters transfer the power to adopt legislation affecting municipal affairs from the State Legislature to the city. A city charter can be drafted by either an elected commission or by a city's governing body. After a charter is drafted, it is adopted when ratified by a majority of the city's voters. Most charters adopted many years ago were lengthy, as cities attempted to specifically enumerate all of their powers. However in 1914, the California Constitution was amended to establish provisions stating charters operate not as a grant of power, but as an instrument of limitation and restriction on the exercise of powers over all municipal affairs which a charter city is assumed to possess. Asa result,charters do not need to list every municipal affair a city would like to govern. As long as a charter includes a statement declaring that the city intends to avail itself of the full powers provided by the California Constitution, any city ordinance that regulates a municipal affair will govern over a general law of the State. The Committee reviewed city charters of several surrounding cities,and noticed the trend of developing more concise charters, typically ranging from one to three pages, reflecting the 1914 Constitutional provisions. MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS City charters provide cities supreme authority over municipal affairs. Historically, enhancing a city's local authority and control over municipal affairs offered the following benefits: • Streamlining procedures in public financing • Enhancing economic development support activities • Providing revenue enhancement tools • Revising election rules and procedures - -To-determine if the City should consider increasing its local control over municipal affairs, and if • the above items would be true benefits to La Mirada, the Committee researched areas considered to be municipal affairs. The California Constitution sets a nonexclusive list of four core categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs I. Regulation of the city police force 2. Subgovemment in all or part of a city 3. Conduct of city elections 4. The manner in which ...municipal officers [are] elected Beyond this list, the courts have distinguished between municipal affairs and statewide concerns - on a case by case basis. However, there are areas where the courts have consistently classified as municipal affairs and statewide concerns. Examples of municipal affairs are municipal election matters, term limits for council members, and procedure for adopting ordinances. Statewide concerns include school systems, traffic and vehicle regulations, and open and public meetings. The Committee asked City staff if there is a need to change how the City government is organized and, with respect to municipal affairs, to enact legislation different from what is provided by the State. The City Manager reported that he had considered this issue and discussed it with executive staff,and it was determined the current government structure was operating effectively. - DISADVANTAGES After reviewing the potential advantages, the Committee considered potential disadvantages of becoming a charter city. Below are some concerns: o Can be Costly and Time-Consuming The time and money needed to draft a charter and prepare it for an election can be significant. o Charter Amendments Require Vote Any amendment to a city charter requires signatures by 10 percent of the electorate to qualify it for the ballot. In addition to the cost of amending a charter and running an election, with the recent passage of Senate Bill 311, charter cities must wait until a statewide general election to submit amendments to voters. This waiting period of up to two years can create negative consequences for charter cities including the ability to submit charter amendments to avoid litigation, deal with technical issues or generate revenue. o Limited Case Law In comparison to general law cities, charter cities have limited case law to draw on when evaluating language to use in a city charter. o-Legal Challenges Cities could increase their exposure to legal challenges with respect to what constitutes a municipal affair v. a statewide concern. o May be Divisive in Community The creation of a charter government may create a division amongresidents resulting from disagreements as to what is best for the City. This can cause delays in the creation of the charter government and result in division among residents when a city amends its charter. Additionally, the Committee is concerned that the creation and implementation of a charter in La Mirada might overly politicize issues which are currently resolved by the City Council through consensus. o Can be Used to Limit City Powers Limitations contained within some detailed charter documents can,re'strict local authority beyond what is experienced by general law cities. o State Attempts to Limit Charter City Processes In response to negative actions of some charter cities, Assembly Bill 1344 was passed, and significantly changed the rules governing charter adoptions and amendments. The bill established a new comprehensive ten-week process for adopting charters and provided that cities can no longer put a new charter or charter amendments before the voters at a special election. Further, before submitting a new charter to voters, a city must hold at least two ,/ public hearings with specified timing and public notice provisions. NARROWING GAP BETWEEN GENERAL LAW AND CHARTER CITIES The differences between general law and charter city powers have diminished over time. An example is the tax levying ability of both charter and general law cities is now the same, where at one point charter cities had much more discretion in this area. The only remaining exception is that of property transfer tax, which can be levied by a charter city, but not a general law city. The Committee considers this not to be a major issue for the City of La Mirada. • Recent legislation has begun to further narrow the gap between general law and charter cities by limiting charter city powers. Senate Bill 311 (SB 3I 1)and Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), which became • effective earlier this year are examples of laws that aim to reduce the distinction between the two types of cities. Prior to 2014,existing law required a proposed charter or charter amendment to be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general, statewide primary, or regularly scheduled municipal election. However, effective January I, 2014, SB 311 restricts votes on a charter adoption and charter amendments to a statewide general election. In 2012, the Supreme Court of California ruled in favor of the City of Vista in State Building& Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista. The State Supreme Court upheld the authority of charter cities to exercise control over their municipal affairs, including whether a charter city must pay prevailing wages on public works contracts funded with local revenues. However, • effective January 1, 2014, SB 7 prohibits a charter city from receiving state funding for a • construction project if the city has a charter authorizing a contractor to not comply with prevailing wage provisions on any public works contract. Effectively, this bill would remove some of the cost savings benefit a charter city might achieve in not paying prevailingwage by making the city ineligible to receive State funding for that or other projects. These bills show the trend of the State's intrusion into local authority and its effort to undercut flexibility provided in the Constitution to charter cities. In addition to legislation that has reduced the distinction between general law and charter cities, there is little difference in liability exposure between the two types of cities. A staff member from the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority(CJPIA)attended one of the Committee's meetings,and noted the CJPIA insures both general and charter cities and that with regard to liability issues there appears to be no difference in exposure. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Another primary area of interest in considering a charter is the power to engage in economic development activities to attract and retain quality jobs and revenue-generating businesses. Having lost the economic powers of its former La Mirada Redevelopment Agency, the City was thought to be at a competitive disadvantage compared to surrounding cities, particularly charter cities. Charter cities are able to provide various economic incentives to attract businesses. Originally, it was believed La Mirada, as a general law city, could not provide economic incentives, because any economic incentive might be viewed as a gift of public funds. As charter cities"are not subjected to this provision in the State constitution, becoming a charter city was • thought to be a way to help the City regain some of its economic development powers. To determine the City's economic development powers as a general law city, the Committee requested input from both an attorney from the City Attorney's Office who specializes in charter cities and directly from the City Attorney. After the City's legal counsel provided detailed briefings on the State Constitution, case law, statutes, legislation trends related to redevelopment and economic development, and engaged in open discussions with the Committee, it was . concluded that there is support that general law cities can provide thesame type of economic incentives as charter cities. Additionally, the City's legal counsel also provided the opinion that the City can participate in these types of activities as a general law city. Further, recent legislation has also acknowledged the ability of general law cities to participate in economic development activities, most notably Assembly Bill 562. As of January 1, 2014, this bill requires each local agency to provide specified information to the public before approving an economic development subsidy of$100,000 or more within its jurisdiction, and to review, hold hearings, and report on those subsidies at specified intervals. The language in this legislation blurs the distinction between general law and charter cities. By establishing such transparency requirements for economic incentives, the Legislature is acknowledging both general law and charter cities can participate in economic development activities. -.i RECOMMENDATION When the Citizens' Task Force submitted its recommendations to the City Council nearly two years ago, it was believed that becoming a charter city would increase protection over local control. Since that time, State laws effectively have narrowed the gap between general law and charter city powers, and acknowledged that both general law and charter cities are able to offer economic incentives to businesses. Additionally, the current City governance structure operates effectively, and there does not seem to be a compelling reason to seek local control of municipal affairs beyond what is already granted to general law cities. Further, the potential disadvantages of pursing a charter marginalize any possible remaining benefits. Based upon the foregoing, the City Charter Exploratory Committee has not identified a compelling reason for pursing the adoption of a charter. As a result, it is recommended the City Council not proceed with drafting a city charter at this time. r' ' CONCLUSION This was an important learning process where each member of the Committee was an active participant and brought forth important questions and input. The Committee was guided by a strong desire to do what is in the best interest of La Mirada. The Committee appreciates City staff for their cooperation and assistance in this exploratory effort. Their willingness to engage in open discussion about this topic was instrumental in the preparation of this memorandum. l Palo Alto fires Mitchell Park Library contractor By Jason Green Daily News Staff Writer Posted: 01/11/2014 12:48:44 AM PST I Updated: about a month ago The city of Palo Alto officially cut ties Friday with the contractor tasked with rebuilding the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. The decision to fire Flintco Pacific Inc. follows numerous warnings by the city about inadequate progress on the project, lack of staffing, faulty work and missed construction deadlines. It clears the way for the surety that holds the performance bond on the project to appoint a new general contractor to finish the project. The city issued a notice of default in a letter dated Dec. 4 and gave Flintco 10 days to cure its defaults. The deadline came and went with no action on the part of Flintco, city officials said. "The city has repeatedly notified Flintco that its progress on the project is unacceptable,"City Manager James Keene said in a statement "We tried to keep Flintco in place as long as possible in an effort to complete the project It is a drastic step to terminate their contract, but their repeated lack of performance and dwindling staffing has clearly demonstrated to us that they are incapable of completing the job." City officials said they met with the contractor's surety in late December and indicated they did not believe Flintco could complete hundreds of remaining items without substantial outside assistance. The surety was also told at the time that Flintco would be fired if it failed to submit an"adequate"staffing plan. Public Works Director Michael Sartor said the surety has been given 60 days to bring in a new general contractor to finish the project. But the city is prepared to hire its own replacement if the surety misses the deadline. Flintco has placed the blame for the delays on the city's architect, saying it had to submit more than 1,800 requests for information. Group 4 Architecture also issued nearly 200 supplemental instructions, according to a letter Flintco Senior Vice President John Stump sent to the city last year. The library and community center were originally supposed to open in summer 2012. The project is the centerpiece of Measure N, a$76 million bond measure passed in 2008 to overhaul the city's library system. Flintco agreed to do the job for roughly$24.5 million, but the cost has swelled to$28 million, Sartor said. But Ws still lower than a city engineers initial estimate of$32 million. The city has held 10 percent of the total cost in reserve, as per industry standard, and has$1 million remaining in a 20 percent contingency fund previously authorized by the city council, Sartor said Those funds, as well as$1.3 million in remaining Measure N money, can be used to finish the project, Sartor said. Provided the new general contractor staffs the project with 50 to 60 people, Mitchell Park could reopen to the public by summer, he said. "Despite the disruption,"Sartor said in a statement, "we are confident that a new general contractor will • be able to finish the project faster and with better quality than if Flintco had stayed on the project" freIrlA - A- ,36114 q,g(iq o A n gige n Labor Share of Non-Residential Construction Value Earnings Before Construction Interest&Taxes 19% Labor + Fringes 22% Purchased Services 7% Fuels,Power &Lubricants Mgmt.&Admin. 2% Labor+Fringes Rental Costs 12% 2% Materials, Components &Supplies 36% Source:2007 Economk Census,Construction Industry Series