The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1996/06/25 UI declare ynder penalty of perjury that' am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted Tuesday, June 25, 1996 this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at Council Chambers 6:00p.m. the Public erv·ces Bu:'rlin't;; and at Cit~all on Public Services Building DATED. . ~/ ."l¡, SIGNED '" S ial Meetin o session of the Cit sta Cit Council CALL TO ORDER l. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Alevy _, Moot _, Padilla _' Rindone _, and Mayor Horton _. ....... Effective Aprill, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City CouncU must now recollvene into open session to report any JiDJJl actiolls taken In closed session and to adjourn the meeting. Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened POrtioll of the meeting. However, Jinal actions reptll1ed will be recorded in the millutes which will be available ill the City Clerk's OfJice. ....... CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 2 through 4) The staff rec_lIlÙltiolls regarding the followillg item listed under the Consent CalelllÙlr will be enacted by the CouncU ~ one motioll without discussioll unless a CoullCÜlllember, a member of the public or City stall requests thut 1M item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please Jill out a "Request to Speøk Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meetillg. (Complete the green fo,.", 10 speak in favor of the staff recommelllÙltioll; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff re~lIlÙltion.) Items pulled from the COllsellt CalelllÙlr will be discussed after Oral CommunicatÎOllS. Items pulled by the public will be the Jirst items of business. 2. WRI1TEN COMMUNICATION: a. Letter from the Interim City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 6/18/%. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter from Bettie Warren appealing Council's decision not to sell a parcel of land to her. 11 is recommended that Council receive and file this letter. c. Letter from Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Salganick requesting reconsideration of changes to the Country Club Drive project. It is recommended that staff be authorized to work with the Salganicks and another neighber to allow them to pay for changes to the Country Club Drive project which they are requesting, but that if the details cannot be worked out within a reasonable time, staff be authorized to proceed with the contract as awarded. Staff further recommends that staff be authorized to enter into a change order with Basile Construction, Inc. for elimination of the two islands and addition of the proposed work. #~<Q ì w iA,,-<!JJ /)(A~ ~t...Ff' -."'n...._nrl... ...".........val nf thp. TP_~lllhnn_ II )lTeCto1' of t'.nance1 -I-nl~ IS a Agenda -2- June 25, 1996 3. RESOLUTION 18349 EXERCISING THE CITY'S OPTION TO RENEW THE R.F. DICKSON STREET SWEEPING AGREEMENT ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR TWELVE MONTHS (JULY 1, 1996 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1997) AND DIRECTING THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DELIVER A COPY HEREOF TO THE CONTRACTOR - On 9/22/92, Council approved a contract with R.F. Dickson, Inc. to provide City- wide street sweeping services. On 12/12/95, Council extended the contract through 6/30/96. Staff recommends approval of the resolution renewing the contract. (Director of Public Works) 4. RESOLUTION 18350 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH SRM CONTRACTING AND PAVING, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/% OVERLAY PROGRAM (PROJECT STL-224) - On 3/19/96, Council accepted bids and awarded a contract for "Placement of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay for Fiscal Year 1995/96 Pavement Overlay Program on various streets in the City (STL-224)" to SRM Contracting and Paving. On 6/11/96, staff made a proposal to proceed with the dig out work required for the preparation of four additional streets and proceed with a change order to the existing contract. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) · · · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · · · PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The foUowing items have been advertised and/or posted as pubüc hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please Jill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are Umited to five minutes per individual. 5. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 - Council has held three special work session to consider and discuss the proposed fiscal year 1996/97 budget. Council has received citizen input and discussed in detail with staff the impact of this budget on all City operations. The City Manager's proposed budget has been amended based on tentative decision by Council at the budget work sessions and it is this amended budget which is recommended to be adopted. Staff recommends Council accept public testimony and adopt the proposed budget as amended during the review sessions and as may be further amended as a result of the public testimony. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) RESOLUTION 18351 ADOPTION OF THE FINAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1996 AND ENDING JUNE 30,1997 6. RESOLUTION 18352 ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION - Article XIlIB of the California Constitution approved by the voters in 1979 and commonly referred to as the Gann Initiative, requires each local government to establish an Appropriations Limit by resolution each year at a regularly scheduled meeting or noticed special meeting. The purpose of the limit is to restrict spending of certain types of revenues to a level predicated on a base year amount increased annually by an inflation factor. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) This is a related item. but does not reauire a Dublie hearilU!. Agenda -3- June 25, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the generol pubüc to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council'sjurisdidion that is!JR!. an item on this agenda for pubüc discussion. (Stote law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from toking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the labby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and foUow up action. Your time is ümited to three minules per speaker. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the City Council wiU discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items puIúd at the request of the pubüc wiU be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. Public comments are ümited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 7. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT IS) a. Scheduling of meetings. 8. MAYOR'S REPORTIS) 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone a. City's involvement in vendors' fair. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the regular City Council meeting on July 9, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting. ...** CLOSED SESSION Unless the City Anorney, the City Manager or the City Council stotes otherwise at this time, the Council wiU discuss and deliberate on the foUowing items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of ñnal action token in closed .sslon, and the votes token. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping wiU be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of Ji!JJl1 action token, and adjournment wiU not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action token wiU be recorded in the minutes which wiU be available in the City Clerk's Office. Agenda -4- June 25, 1996 10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: - Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Fritach vs. the City of Chula Vista PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR· Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 . Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 11. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION .........** .. .... COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ...... The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. ----------..- - -------" June 21, 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and city coun~ihA FROM: John D. Goss, city Manager~ bY-~l _ 0 ::-=' SUBJECT: city council Meeting of June 25, 1996 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular city council meeting of Tuesday, June 25, 1996. Comments regarding the written Communications are as follows: 2a. This is a letter from the Interim City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken by the city council in Closed session on June 18, 1996. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED. 2b. This is a letter from Ms. Bettie Warren requesting the city council to reconsider their decision to not sell the 40' wide city owned parcel of land north of First Avenue and D street adjacent to her residence. She is asking that she be allowed to purchase a portion of the City owned property approximately 12 feet wide by 36 feet long. This area coincides with the area she illegally fenced. At the June 11, 1996 Council meeting, the council addressed a recommendation to authorize the adjacent property owners to purchase portions of this strip of land and determined that it was not in the City's best interests to sell any of the subject strip of land. Since the City council has already acted on this item after a public hearing at which input was received from many participants, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE THIS LETTER. 2c. This is a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Salganack, 855 Country Club Drive, requesting reconsideration of changes to the country Club Drive project. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO WORK WITH THE SALGANACKS AND ANOTHER NEIGHBOR TO ALLOW THEM TO PAY FOR CHANGES TO THE COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PROJECT WHICH THEY ARE REQUESTING, BUT THAT IF THE DETAILS CANNOT BE WORKED OUT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH THE CONTRACT AS AWARDED. STAFF FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A CHANGE ORDER WITH BASILE CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR ELIMINATION OF THE TWO ISLANDS AND ADDITION OF THE PROPOSED WORK. (See attached detailed memo from the Director of Public Works.) JDG:mab MEMORANDUM June 21, 1996 File No. 0735-10-TF222 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ~\ Via: John Goss, City Manager~~ Þ() ./? From: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works¡ Subject: Written Communication - Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Salganack This is a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Alfred B. Salganack at 855 Country Club Drive proposing that some of the medians in front of their home be eliminated from the Country Club Medians project and proposing that they pay for the costs involved in installing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in accordance with City standards along the perimeter approximated by the currently existing pylons. These costs include the cost to remove the existing curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement from the current location. They are further requesting that the installation of the median along the centerline of the street also be delayed for 12 to 18 months pending a reevaluation of the effectiveness of their proposed permanent modifications. In consideration for these costs they also request that the City concur in reverting ownership of the vacated area to them. Attached is a diagram ¡mepared by staff indicating the proposed work. In addition, staff has had preliminary contact by another property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Banales at 851 Country Club Drive, regarding a similar proposal in front of their residence at Sierra Way. At the June 18, 1996 Council meeting, the Council awarded a contract to Basile Construction, Inc. to construct "pin-on" medians and islands in the Country Club Drive area. At that meeting the Salganaclc's requested that all of the median and island work adjacent to their home be eliminated. Council authorized staff to proceed with the project as designed. The design, which varied from the layout of the existing plastic delineator posts, was necessary to maintain traffic safety at the same time as working within available funding. The cost of constructing the "pin-on" medians is considerably less than the work proposed by the Salganacks and Banaleses. The temporary delineators were only partially effective in slowing traffic down, however, and based on observations of traffic cutting the comer through the wrong side of the street, staff believes it was absolutely necessary to add the center median islands to more effectively reduce speed through these inlersections. As a result of Council concerns, however, staff did review the center medians in the field and reduced them slightly in wjdth to give vehicles more room. Honorable Mayor and City Council -2- June 21, 1996 Staff believes the proposal by the Salganacks and the Banaleses to pay for the proposed curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements is reasonable for the following reasons: · The proposal eliminates some work now being paid for by the City, saving approximately $1,200 for the island at Palomar Dr. and $3,200 for the island at Sierra Way for a total savings of $4,400 for both islands. · The elimination of the "pork chop" islands and proposed construction more nearly approximates the pattern set by the delineators. · Their proposal still satisfies the traffic safety needs of the City. We have made the Salganacks aware of the potential costs, which are in the range of $20,000 - $22,000. They still concur in the proposal with that information in mind. As of the writing of this letter, the Banaleses have not formally presented a similar proposal. However, at a meeting with staff on Friday, they were also informed of the cost for their work, estimated to be in the range of $22,000 - $25,000. They indicated that they intended to submit a similar letter before the Council meeting. Staff does not, however, recommend any delay to constructing the center islands. Dr. Salganack indicated that it was his belief that traffic would only hit the median causing more damage. Staff believes that this is not the case, but indicated to them that, since this is only a "pin-on" type median, it could be easily removed if future accidents indicated a problem. As indicated above, to the contrary staff believes the center medians are needed to increase traffic and neighborhood safety . Staff recommends that they be authorized to work with the Salganacks and Banaleses to enter into an agreement to be approved by the City Attorney to pay for changes to the Country Club Drive plan, that the center median islands not be eliminated due to safety reasons, but that if the agreement and details cannot be worked out in a reasonable length of time not to exceed thhree weeks, staff be authorized to proceed with the contract as awarded. Staff further recommends that staff be authorized to enter into a change order with Basile Construction, Inc. for elimination of the two islands and addition of the proposed work. Staff will provide Council with a follow up memo indicating the outcome of this matter, and, if appropriate, the necessary agenda items to vacate the excess right-of-way. n: \shared\engineer\salganac. cis ~ ~ u) ~ ~ \ £) , ,02= ,.t3711:JS \ L , z , ~ < \\ < ~ II \ \ ~\ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ .. \ \ \ \ / \ \ , \ \ ' \ \ \ \ '- \ \ // \ ~ // , \ ,\ \,' \ 1 \ / O~,~~/ / I // ~<ö/ I I ~~yV ~ / ( / I ~~/ ryQ/ / / / / / / / / / / // ~ ~ p "i 16 i \)..0 "~/ ~. -------------- //~---...- .. ---... - ~ - \ ~ , r"~ .- \ ~~ \ . - - ~---- - _/ .- \\ J .- --' , ' ~ .\ , ~~ , ) --- .- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~Qì .. /- --- -------- ~-~ ~ -~ ----------- -------------- .. ~ /,-' / ~ / , COON '( c.\...U6 \ " e:. ì \ , \ ~ - - ~/-------¡ i I ~------ \ -=> ,0(,- ) _37\íJS ..._----/-- í ___ I" , \ ~ ~ ft.. =~~~ ~~~~ ""--:...~- OW Of - CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY A TIORNEY Date: June 20, 1996 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Ann Y. Moore, .. ~~' Interlm Clty Attorney Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 6/18/96 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss Fritsch v. City of Chula vista, Public Employee Release and labor negotiations. The Interim city Attorney hereby reports to the best of her knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session of June 18, 1996, there were no actions that are required to be reported under the Brown Act. AYM: 19k C:\lt\clossess.no :2. 4. .. I 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612 t.&PœI~RIIc:)oœOP4U ^------~._._--_.,-----------~-'_..__._----_.,._.-- ......-.-.. JUNE 19, 1996 TO: CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIF. FROM: BETTIE WARREN, 89 FIRST AVE., CHULA VISTA, CA. 3(P RE: PURCHASE SMALL PORTION (APPROX. 12 X -ro FT) OF LAND IN FRONT OF MY HOME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL YOUR DECISION NOT TO SELL ME THE ABOVE VERY SMALL PIECE OF LAND THAT I MAY HAVE A FRONT YARD LIKE OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. THE TINY PIECE OF LAND IS WORTHLESS TO ANYONE EXCEPT ME. IN THE PAST WHEN THE CITY HAD EXCESS PARCELS, OR PARCELS NOT BEING USED FOR A FORMAL PUBLIC USE, IT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PURCHASE. THIS TINY PIECE OF DIRT OOES NOT INTERFER IN ANY WAY WITH THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO THE VALLEY OR THE CITY GATE TO KEEP OUT MOTORIZED VEHICLES. I RECENTLY HAD ERECTED A FENCE AROUND THIS PARCEL PLUS MY OWN SMALL FRONT YARD WHICH WASN'T A YARD AT ALL, ONLY A SKINNY 5' WIDE STRIP OF DIRT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THE REASON FOR THIS IS I WAS SO SCARED TO STAY ALONE AS MY GRANDSON RECENTLY MOVED OUT AND MY NEPHEW AND HIS FAMILY WERE CAUSED TO BE EVICTED FROM ANOTHER HOUSE ON MY PROPERTY BY THE ACTIVIST LUZZAROS. I WAS LEFT ALONE IN THIS DARK AREA WITH NO PROTECTION: THEREFORE OUT OF PANIC FEAR I HAD THE FENCE PUT IN IMMEDIATELY AND WENT TO THE CITY FOR A PERMIT A FEW DAYS LATER WHICH I WAS CERTAIN THEY WOULD ISSUE BECAUSE OF MY SITUATION. I REALIZE NOW I WENT ABOUT IT WRONG BUT DUE TO MY HAVING TO STAY ALONE I PANICKED. GENE AND LOIS MCMILLIN DONATED THIS STRIP OF LAND TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INDEED THEY OWNED MY PROPERTY. WHY, THEN CAN'T THE CITY SELL TO ME THIS TINY BIT OF DIRT SO I CAN HAVE A FRONT YARD AND LEAVE THE FENCE UP AS THE PROPERTY THEN WOULD BE MINE. THERE IS A DEADLINE TO GET THIS FENCE DOWN BY JUNE 27, 1996. I WOULD LIKE TO BUY THE PIECE OF LAND FROM THE CITY BEFORE THAT DATE, SO THAT I WILL NOT HAVE TO REMOVE THE FENCE THAT COST ME $1000. AS I SAID, THIS OOES NOT AFFECT THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY AND IT SHOULD NOT BE A PUBLIC ISSUE. JUST BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MYSELF. IT IS DONE ALL THE TIME BY THE CITY. WHY CAN'T IT BE DONE WITH ME. IF THE CITY DOES NOT SELL ME THE PROPERTY BEFORE JUNE 27, 1996, (DEADLINE FOR FENCE TO COME DOWN) I WILL LOSE THE SECURITY THE FENCE GIVES ME AS WELL AS $1000. PLUS THE EXPENSE OF HAVING IT REMOVED. PLEASE RECONSIDER - THE PU3LIC GOT THEIR PATHWAY: THE CITi WILL HAVE IT'S PIPE GATE A~ MRS. W~~REN WILL HAVE A FRONT YARD BY JUST A LITTLE EFFORT ON YOUR P'\'~T AND ALL WILL BE FAIR TO EVERYONE. T!fIl.NK YOU. P.S. THE SOUTH END OF THIS CITY PROPERTY COMES TO A POINT AND IS OJD SHAPED SO SELLING OFF THIS TINY PIEC!': WOULD NOT MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFSRENGE IN THE SHAPE OF THE SOUTH END OF TlfE CI'Ii PR')PERTY. LIKE I SAY, THE PUB~tC HAS NO LEGITIMATE RJ.lMSON TO em.]"CT TO THIS. WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON??? ~R¡rtT!;\i:r{)~ ~~,(~~'~~Æ~~':'~ .-,"':,.",~, .. '~";.~ ø2Þ-/ ¥,$ ..'·Iìít· ~ w .~ ~ECEIVE8 Alfred B. Salganick, MD '96 Jlf21 An :39 855 Country Club Drive Chula Vista, CA 91911 (619) 426-6549 Ii (~A VfST f¡ .'. ·,S IFfl&f: Mayor Shirley Horton, and Members of the Chula Vista City Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 June 21, 1996 Dear Mayor Horton and Council Members, On June 11, 1996, the Chula Vista City Council took action to approve the letting of a contract for street alterations to the area immediately in front of my home at 855 Country Club Drive. When I voiced my concerns at the May 28, 1996 Council meeting regarding the proposed installation of islands and median strips at the intersections of Palomar Street and Country Club Drive I understood that this action would be delayed for three weeks, and had anticipated that during that time my wife and I, along with our neighbors, the Banales family, who are also directly affected by the placement of these concrete structures, could speak to the proposed changes and offer our alternative solutions to the problem of traffic circulation, pedestrian safety, and unsightly plastic pylons in front of our homes. My wife and I spoke with Mr. Frank Rivera before the Council meeting, and later, in front of my home, with Mr. Cliff Swanson the day after the meetings. They were quite understanding and courteous. This letter is a request to refer this item to its staff for reconsideration. We believe that we can assist the Council in achieving two goals - public safety and street beautification - while saving the City the $19,000 expense estimated to install median strips and islands immediately adjacent to the front of my home. My proposal is this: Upon the removal of the plastic pylons "temporarily" installed eight years ago, as the immediately affected property owner, I agree to - File permits for and pay the costs involved in installing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in accordance with City standards along the perimeter approximated by the plastic pylons; - Remove and pay costs associated with removing asphalt in the subject areas and either remove the sidewalks from their current location or leave them to preserve the charm of the walkway and landscape the adjacent area as a parkway with exact details to be worked out with your staff; - Landscape the subject area according to City specifications. Plans to install median strips should be postponed for 12 - 18 months to allow war'."'''''' . ~ ........ '.' ........ ..... ...' ....." ';-- -.."" -; .. ,- ¡: "~~'; ",,,\",:.,-.-, "'-;::¡~';i"";'!~ ,;',;.:. .. " ,t....,.......,., ",>. , ',..':~ ,- "'. ;'" '. :: ~ ~.\ ,- "-', r:' ,:,( ." ',. i.'-:;.', -':i,';"; -,,"c' '~'Ù""':::. V':'c :",' ,,' .'. "W ,H!;¡'\'i ~~.htJiì!i.v¡,'t¡~~A Jj iIV~'..:ì~ .. - .. . ',2 c. ~ / .. .-.--+---- .--- time to reevaluate the effectiveness of the proposed permanent modifications in creating safer streets. We have found few, if any, median strips along single lane, residential neighborhoods in the City, and fear that such median strips will become traffic hazards, with traffic entering on the wrong side of the median strip or even hitting the median strip itself. In consideration for the costs that I will incur in instituting the above-mentioned improvements, I respectfully request the City's concurrence in reverting ownership of the vacated curbs, gutters, sidewalks and roadway to me, the undersigned. With your approval, we would like to work with your staff to resolve this matter as soon as possible in a mutually agreeable manner. Unfortunately, the first notice we received about discussions of this item was for the City Council meeting of May 28. As a result of the lateness of this notification, we were not in a position to offer the above proposal as an alternative to the proposal approved by the Council last Tuesday. In our opinion, the proposal described here is a better solution to address the legitimate vehicular and pedestrian safety concerns. At the same time, this alternative will help preserve the uniqueness and charm of the Country Club neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~.~./~ Alfr ö B. alganic, D ./ copy to: Cliff Swanson Deputy Director of Public Works ole ~~ --- JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION ;¿ Item No. Meeting Date 6/25/96 ITEM TITLE: Ordinances - Adopting Otay Ranch Pre- Annexation Development Agreements Between: A) :Z1/7 ~tay Ranch, L.P. , a California limited partnership, Tiger Development Two, a California limited partnership, by Tigerheart Inc. , a California corporation; its general partner, Village Development, a California general partnership, and the City of Chula vista; :¿ b f!iJ Jewels of Charity, B) SNMB, Ltd. , and steven and Mary Birch Foundation, and the city of Chula Vista; ;.tf(/ a California limited C) nited Enterprises, Ltd., partnership, and the city of Chula Vista; and )k~i smith, and Georgiana R. smith and D) Gr gory T. the City of Chula vista. SUBMITTED BY: Deputy city Mana~mplli¡C",,~ Planning Directo ~"~ Public Works Dire to otay Ranch projec Manager~~~. REVIEWED BY: City Manage7' 4/5 Vote: Yes_ No~ The purpose of this item is to present four different development agreements between the City of Chula vista and Village Development; the Foundation; united Enterprises and Greg smith. These property owners own the fee title to the majority of the lands on the Western Parcel of the otay Ranch, ranch house and the "inverted L" parcel of land. The Development Agreements, amongst other things, are necessary to achieve the Developers' support for annexation of the otay Ranch Western Parcel as a unit and to meet certain obligations of the Landfill Agreement between the county and the City. Specifically, the Landfill Agreement requires that "Nuisance Easements" be granted by the Property OWners to the County on lands within an approximately 1,000 foot buffer area surrounding the otay Landfill. Granting of the Easements is a pre-condition of any annexation of Otay Ranch Properties. RECOMMENDATION: Place the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning commission will be reviewing and taking action on the Agreements at a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning commission on June 25, 1996. ~-/ Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 2 BACKGROUND A Sphere of Influence application and annexation application for consideration and action are pending before the Local Agency Formation Commission July 1, 1996 to annex the Western Parcel of otay Ranch plus the Ranch House and the inverted "L" property. In consideration of supporting the entire annexation described above at one time, LAFCO has stressed that it is important to have the majority of the property owners' support. These Agreements offer that support. In addition to the LAFCO process and negotiations with property owners, the City has also been working cooperatively with the County of San Diego. On May 15, 1996, a Property Tax Sharing Agreement and an Agreement Regarding Jurisdiction Over and Operation of the Otay Landfill were entered into between the City and County. In mid to late April, draft development agreements were submitted by Village Development and the. Foundation, and in early June by united Enterprises. The city put together a review/negotiating team consisting of the Planning Director, Public Works Director, Otay Ranch Project Manager, Deputy city Manager and the Acting City Attorney, as well as Peggy McCarberg, staff contract attorney. Each of the applicants was represented by legal counsel as well. CEQA review is not required for the development agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental review was approved for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and adopted by the City on October 28, 1993. (Long Beach Sav. and Loan v. Long Beach Federal, 232 Cal. Rptr. 772, 781-2 (1986). DISCUSSION The following discussion focuses on the benefits of the Agreement to the parties, a description of the terms of the Agreement which are constant for all the parties, a description of certain specifics to each party, and an outline of major policy issues. 1. Benefits to the Parties a. Benefits to the City · Developer support for annexation of the Otay Parcel to Chula vista. · assurance that the Developer will dedicate needed R.O.W. for SR #125. · granting of landfill nuisance easements to the County for the Otay Landfill buffer area. ;2-1- ,\ Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 3 · provision of property for the Chula vista Greenbelt open space areas and MSCP compliance. · assurance of adequate public facilities when needed, and in some cases development of excess capacity or facilities sooner than required. · compliance with the city's Growth Management Program. b. Benefits to the Developer · vests permitted land uses, density, intensity of use per the approved General Development Plan and timing and phasing of development per Future Discretionary Approvals (i.e., SPA Plan and Public Facility Finance Plan) and in compliance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance. · grants the owner certainty to proceed with the development of the property in general accordance wi th today' s ordinances, rules, regulations and standards or as they may be changed in the future citywide or east of 1-805. · allows for fee credits and/or reimbursement mechanisms for extraordinary facility improvements or pioneering thereof and specifies that DIF fees will be used to facilitate regional backbone facilities. · allows the Developer to receive timely processing on an equal basis with other Developers of Future Discretionary Approvals and allows those approvals to be covered by these Agreements. 2. Descriotion of the Agreement Terms The Agreement contains the following major points: (1) The owners support the annexation, and the plan is to complete annexation of the Otay Parcel by January 1, 1997 (an outside time frame - annexation is actually scheduled July 1, 1996). (2) The term of the Agreement, as recommended by staff, is 20 years (the Developers want 40 years). (3) Application of new or amended Rules, Regulations, Ordinances, Resolutions, Standards and Policies. ;¿~3 ( Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 4 As stated above, the Developer would like to lock in and have certainty as to what rules will apply to his project while the city wants to retain as much flexibility as possible. The Agreement permits changes in rules, policies, etc. as long as they are applied citywide or east of I-80S and do not unreasonably prevent or delay the development of the Property to the approved uses, densities or intensity of use. Changes necessitated by changes in state or Federal law are also covered. (4) Modifications to Existing Project Approvals are contemplated and do not constitute an amendment to the Agreement. Future Discretionary Approvals are also contemplated and do not constitute an amendment to the Agreement. (5) The dedication and reservation of land is to be consistent with the Existing Project Approvals. (6) The timing for project construction is to only be regulated by the Growth Management Ordinance and threshold standards which include the adequate provision of all public facilities needed to serve the Project as well as project phases through subsequent SPA and Public Facility Finance Plan Approvals. The Project is subject to amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance subject to certain conditions. Changes to the Growth Management Ordinance and Threshold Standards are to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the existing Growth Management Ordinance and generally applicable citywide or east of I-80S or applicable to a benefit, fee district as described in earlier sections. The Developer would like added the phrase "and such changes would not prevent or unreasonably delay the development of the Property consistent with the Existing Project Approvals." This is a policy issue discussed later in this report. (7) Application of new/increased Fees and Special Taxes are contemplated and allowed so long as they are applicable citywide or east of I-80S or relate to some special fee or benefit assessment district formed in accordance with the Government Code. (8) The City will accept and diligently process development applications with the Developer paying for the staff and consultant costs therewith. (9) Length of validity of Tentative Maps. The Developer would like to have the tentative map vested for the term of the Agreement (20 or 40 years) while a tentative map is ordinarily good for 3 years and can be extended .2"'1 \; Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 5 another 3 years for a total of 6 years. A compromise proposed by the Developers is to have a tentative map vest for 10 years for projects up to 3,000 dwelling units and to allow tentative maps larger than 3,000 units to vest additional time at the rate of one additional year for each additional 300 units. This is a policy issue to be discussed later in this report. (10) Recognizes that the Developer can do certain work such as grading at the pre-final map stage subject to City approval and posting of required performance bonds. Acknowledges the ability to record Superblock Final Maps ("A" Maps) for financing purposes as well as the standard Final Maps ("B" Maps). Allows for maps to be recorded in the name of builders or third parties and certain transfer of obligations to occur with City approval. (11) The Developer is obligated to dedicate or reserve land and fund/construct public facilities as required by the General Development Plan and subsequent approvals (12) The SR #125 R.O.W. is to be dedicated to the City. (13) Landfill nuisance easements are to be granted to the County. (14) The Developer is to comply with the provisions of any Preserve Conveyance Plan and convey property as set forth therein. (15) The Developer is to comply with the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program as adopted as part of the Existing Project Approvals. (16) The City has the right to withhold the issuance of building permits if a threshold has been violated and until the deficiency has been cured per the Growth Management Ordinance. Permits may also be withheld where public facilities required for thresholds have not been committed. Unless the Developer is responsible for the threshold violation, the Agreement is tolled while permit issuance has been stopped. (17) If the Developer constructs a facility which is the obligation of another Developer or builds a facility of increased supplemental size, the City will consider a reimbursement district. Similarly, the Developer will dedicate land for others to pioneer projects on the Property. ;2-/ /. Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 6 (18) The Developer agrees to pay DIF fees. The City agrees to establish and use the DIF fees in an appropriate fashion. The DIF can be modified if it incorporates reasonable cost estimates to provide facilities based on specified methodology and justification. The City can withhold permits until the DIF is paid. The Developer can get DIF credits when facilities are completed. The City will undertake reasonable efforts to collect and impose the DIF on others and spread the costs on an equitable basis. The Property OWner will pay its fair share of the DIF for otay River Road crossings and the City will pursue other parties, such as the County and City of San Diego, to pay their fair share as well. (19) The City will cooperate in the provision of utilities to the Project. (20) The city agrees that if they negotiate some long-term participation or financial advantages with CTV on the SR 125 road that the City may share those advantages with subsequent property owners/residents of the area. (21) The Agreement contains provisions for annual review, default, encumbrances and releases on property, modification or suspension, assignment and delegation, delay and amendments. (22) A provision has been included that in the event of a dispute between the parties that a mediation process be followed. If any party commences litigation, the prevailing party as determined by the court, will be entitled to attorney's fees. (23) The parties recognize that the Developer and the City are negotiating agreements with the U.S. Fish and wildlife and California Fish and Game to implement the "NCCP" and the "MSCP" multi-species habitat programs. Modifications to the Existing Project Approvals will be required to be processed by the City, paid for by the Developer, and would not constitute an amendment to the Agreement. 3 . Aqreement Terms Relatina to Specific Parties Because each agreement is with a separate Property owner, there are specific terms unique to each party by way of benefits and acknowledgements. a. united Enterprises The united Enterprises Agreement speaks specifically to the Rock Quarry operations, which have been in existence ;2~? D Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 7 for about the last 40 years. Upon annexation, the Quarry operations will become a legal non-conforming use in the ci ty. This is due to the fact that the use was authorized by the County prior to an ordinance which would otherwise require a use permit. A Reclamation Plan is on file with the County and the state Division of Mines and Geology. The main provision relating to the Quarry states that the owner will be allowed the continued use of the property for rock quarry use, that applications for related uses will be processed by the City for uses including such things as an asphalt and concrete batch plant and sand and gravel operations, and that planning for the ultimate non-quarry use of the property shall be allowed as well. b. The Foundation The Foundation would like the City to consider certain land use changes and infrastructure commitments regarding their property. Those considerations are obviously subject to future discretionary applications including environmental review and public hearing and cannot be pre-judged. Therefore, the terms of the Agreement are along the lines of language stating that the city shall process said applications and give them reasonable consideration. The requests for land use changes the applicant would like to make include the following: transfer of residential units from Village 3 to Villages 2, 4 and 8; a change of the Village 3 land use from industrial to industrial, commercial, recreational, visitor serving and some residential, and a request to expand the development areas of Villages 2, 3, 4, and 8 if environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed. With regard to infrastructure, the Agreement says the City will cooperate and work with CALTRANS to facilitate improvements to the 1-805 and otay Valley Road interchange when needed, as well as hold appropriate hearings to revise the DIF. In addition, we will initiate contact and pursue discussions concerning the number, scheduling and financing of otay River road and bridge crossing with tþe City and county of San Diego. c. Villaae Development A circumstance specific to Village Development is the construction of additional east-west access. The Agreement acknowledges that east-west access through the property connecting to 1-805 may be needed at a time when inadequate DIF monies are available and other developers are not able to contribute either. In effect, Village Development could be pioneering the facility at its cost. ,;2-7 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 8 In that case, the City will be willing to consider a traffic capacity development agreement, giving priority status to some amount of project development. The additional circulation capacity could be on either East Palomar street or orange Avenue. The Developer agrees to proceed, if necessary, with Orange Avenue first since it provides potentially greater traffic capacity. In addition, if SR-125 is constructed prior to construction of east-west access, then the timing of construction required for Palomar or orange will be re-reviewed. A second element specific to the Village Development Agreement is the application of the Natural Communities Conservation Act (NCCP) and the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) . The Developer has negotiated agreements with the resource agencies to make certain trade-offs of sensitive habitat land preservation in some areas for more flexible development possibilities in some other areas. This Agreement recognizes that circumstance, and the City agrees to reasonably consider and process such amendments and consider them as part of Existing Project Approvals and not requiring an amendment to their Agreement. A third factor, somewhat similar to what was mentioned for the Foundation Agreement, would be to process and reasonably consider an application for a land use change necessitated by virtue of land use changes that will be mandated in the otay Landfill buffer area. Land uses in the 1,000 foot buffer area of Village 3 (east of the landfill) are currently designated "Residential" and will need to be changed to an acceptable "non-Residential" designation. Village Properties would like to have an amendment to the GDP considered to relocate those residential uses elsewhere on the Project. Maior Policy Issues The major policy issues, in staff's view, are only three at this point. The issues are the agreement terms, application of growth management changes and the length of time tentative maps remain in effect. 1. Agreement Term - as stated earlier, the Developer wants a 40-year term and the city staff is of the opinion that a 20-year term is more than generous. While acknowledging that the project buildout could be 40 years or more, that doesn't mean the Development Agreement can or should run that long. Many things will change over even a 10 or 20-year period that it is not prudent to vest entitlements for 40 years. The Developer could seek an amendment or another Development .J-Z ') Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 9 Agreement at that time. The City's existing agreements with EastLake and Rancho del Rey have 7 or 10-year terms, respectively. The recently approved Landfill Agreement with the County has a term the length of operation of the landfill or 50 years, whichever is earlier. We feel that is a specialized agreement recognizing the uniqueness of a landfill and ongoing monitoring even beyond closure and should not establish a precedent for this type of agreement. 2. Growth Manaaement Ordinance/Threshold standard Chanaes - The Developers agree that they are subject to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance including the Threshold Standards and all of the public facility requirements associated therewith, including existing and future approved Public Facility Finance Plans (PFFP's). They also agree that they are subject to construct facilities to address project required thresholds and the City retains the right to withhold building permits should the relevant threshold be exceeded until a deficiency is cured. The issue then becomes whether or not they are sUbject to changes in the Growth Management Ordinance and under what conditions. The Developer wants to be protected from "arbitrary" changes, which Developer states would be impossible to meet and which in effect would stop all development and negate the purpose of the Development Agreement. An example would be changing the traffic threshold from level of service "C" to level of service "A" or changing the fire threshold from responding to calls in 7 minutes 85% of the time to 2 minutes 100% of the time. The City, on the other hand, has to be able to reasonably refine, adjust and change, or add, to the thresholds as times, standards and circumstances change. The compromise suggestion was to allow for change if implemented citywide or east of 1-805 and if the changes met the purpose and intent section of the existing ordinance. In other words, the driving motive of the standards are to insure that adequate public facilities are provided when needed and not as a means to impose housing caps or stop development. The above conditions are acceptable to staff and help to circumscribe the types of changes that will be acceptable. The Developers request that an additional phase be added whereby the City may make changes to the Growth Management Ordinance "which would not prevent or unreasonably delay the development of the Property consistent with the Existing Project Approvals." This seems unacceptably broad, in particular the reference to "unreasonably delay" since the Growth Management Ordinance by its very nature sets performance standards and infrastructure provisions and phasing. Should a change in the ordinance result in a change ,).-9 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Page 10 in infrastructure phasing, then the timing of the Project could very well be affected. The ability to change thresholds has been an integral part of all of the City's development agreements to date. 3. Lenath of Validitv of Tentative Subdivision Maps As mentioned earlier, a tentative map normally has a 3-year life with a 3- year extension. The terms of this Agreement call for a 10- year life of a map not to exceed 3,000 units and for a map with more than 3,000 units an additional year for each 300 units. Then a map with say 4,500 units would have a length of 15 years. The policy issue is how long a period of time the city wants a tentative map to exist before a new map has to be filed. From a planning perspective, the longer the period the map exists, the greater likelihood that circumstances of development surrounding the mapped area will have changed or the map and its conditions will have been dated. The options would be to stick with the time frames in the current Subdivision Map Act (i.e. 3 years with a 3-year extension), shorten the 10-year base period, or state that smaller maps, say less than 500 units, should not receive any special consideration as to length. Another option would be to allow for the Council to approve any extensions from 6 to 20 years in length after the normal map extension period had run out. All of the remaining Agreement terms and language are supported by the Developers and staff as appropriate considerations for the benefits occurring to both parties. Fiscal Impact It isn't possible to quantify the value of the Agreement to the city or the other parties. Through annexation and the related property tax, sales tax, etc. , the City will realize significant benefits. Likewise, the Developers benefit from the vesting and certainty provided by the Agreement to be able to get loans and sell and develop the Property in accordance with current and future approvals. M:\HOME\ADMIN\DEVAGl13 ,)2.-10 <, 't: Item No, 2 Meeting Date 6/25/96 OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ERRATA SHEET FOR AGREEMENTS A. GREG SMITH AGREEMENT 7.2.1 Preserve Convevance Plan. The city and ~the Developer shall mutua11v aqree upon a cOl!\l'Ily ,;ita aflY euistifllJ er yet te Be aàol'lteà Preserve Conveyance Plan.-aftà The city shall in qood faith consider for adoption such a plan and .the Developer shall convey property and/or fees in lieu of land as set forth in such Plan. B. FOUNDATION AGREEMENT 5.1.1 City cRall rcaooß:lbly eSRsiàe:r anà prascDÐ ·....·i th fJrsfJcF en.....irsfl1:ncRtal rc.·,.;ic·..:, a rCEj\:lcct for the traRsff:.l" af rcaiàcRtial unite fram villa§c J te Villagcs 2, 4 aRà 8 as the villû§cs aFC idcntifie:à in the CDr). 5.1.1 city shall reasonably consider in its discretion and with proper environmental review. a request to increase the residential densitv of Villaqes 2. 4 and 8. UP to the number of residential units provided in Villaqe 3 bv the County's adopted GDP. 5.1.2 city shall reasonably consider in its discretion and process with proper environmental review a request to change the primary land use designation for Village 3 from Industrial to commercial, recreational, visitor-serving, and some residential uses in addition to the Industrial use. The exact acreages of the residential, industrial, commercial, or other uses, shall be agreed upon and set forth in a general plan amendment. 7.2.3 Preserve Convevance Plan. The city and ~the Developer shall mutuallY aqree upon a eellll'lly '.lith aFlY euistiFlIJ er yet te Be aàepteà Preserve Conveyance Plan.-aftà The city shall in qood faith consider for adoption such a plan and the Developer shall convey property and/or fees in lieu of land as set forth in such Plan. C. THE OTAY RANCH, L.P., ETC. AGREEMENT 2.17 "Future Discretionary Approvals" means all permits and approvals by the City granted after the effective date 02-// " ~~. and excluding existing Project Approvals, including, but not limited to: (i) grading permits; (ii) site plan reviews; (iii) design guidelines and reviews; (i v) precise plan reviews; (v) subdivisions of the Property or re-subdivisions of the Property previously subdivided pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act; (vi) conditional use permits; (vii) variances; (viii) encroachment permits; (ix) Sectional Planning Area plans; (x) Preser','o Csftveyaftee PlaR aRd (x4) all other reviews, permits, and approvals of any type which may be required from time to time to authorize public or private on- or off-site facilities which are a part of the Project. 4. Owner Consent to Annexation. Owner hereby consents to and shall cooperate with the applications of City to declare that the otay Valley Pareel land depicted in Exhibit D is within City's sphere of influence and to annex the Otay '¡alley Pareel land depicted in Exhibit D to the City; provided, however, that Owner may withdraw such consent and withhold further cooperation if the City, prior to the Effective Date, adopts rules, regulations, ordinances, policies, conditions, environmental regulations, phasing controls, exactions, entitlements, assessments or fees applicable to and governing development of the Property which are inconsistent with, or render impractical development of the Property according to, the Development Plan... or tho aààitisRal eemmitmeAts af City sct fortà iR rara~raphz 5.1.1 tRroa~a S.l.~, scle\.~. - 5.2.3 At the bottom of Page a, there is a redundancy in that section 5.2.3 is repeated. The correct Section 5.2.3 appears on page 9, with the heading Modifications to Existinq Proiect Approvals. NOTE: POLICY ICCUE $.2.3 A~rccmÐRt tà~t the Oity âAà De~clopcr m~y mutually 5ce]r Qrui a§rcc te meàifieatiena te the EuistiR§ rroj cst A~~re~alÐ. Cuefi modificatioßÐ arc contemplate as \:ithin the scope of this .~.grcc:R\ct=rt, anà shall, Hpeß ':FittcR aCÐcptaRcC 19y all ~articÐ, caRstitute fer ~ll pHrpsscz aft EuiatiR§ rrejcet ~ppre~al. The parties a§rcc th~t aft} such meàificatieRo may Rot eSRstitutc aft ameßàmcnt te thia A§rccmcnt. 7.2.2 Landfill Nuisance Easements. Developer shall grant to the County by July 1, 1996 "Landfill Nuisance Easements" substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E . "' The Easement shall cover all land which is within the Otay Landfill - Buffer Area of Villages 2, 3 and Planning Area laB of the Otay Ranch GDPP as shown on Exhibit E hereto. D. AS TO ALL PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 2.15 "Existing Project Approvals" means all discre- tionary approvals affecting the Project which have been approved or d~/d- \,1, established in conjunction with, or preceding, the effective date consisting of, but not limited to the GDP, the Chula vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program adopted pursuant to Resolution ~ 18288, the SPA One Plan and the Phase II Resource Management Plan (RMP) , as may be amended from time to time consistent with this agreement. 3. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as a development agreement upon the effective date of the Annexation ("the Effective Date"); provided, however, that if the Annexation does not occur on or before January 1, 1997, this Agreement shall be null and void. Any of the foregoing to the contrary notwith- standing, from the cffeetive date of first readinq of the ordinance approving this Agreement, set ferth iR rara~raph 1.8, and unless or until this Agreement becomes null and void, Owner shall be bound by the terms of Paragraph 4. The Term of this Agreement for purposes other than Paragraph 4 shall begin upon the Effective Date, and shall continue for a period of twenty (20) years ("the Term") '. 5.22 Development of Propertv. The development of the Property will be governed by this Agreement and Existing Project Approvals and such development shall comply and be governed by all rules, regulations, policies, resolutions, ordinances, and standards in effect as of the Effective Date subject to the provisions_of section ~ 5.2.1 below. The city shall retain its discretionary authority as to Future Discretionary Approvals, provided however, such Future Discretionary Approvals shall be regulated by the Existing Project Approvals, this Agreement, and city rules, regulations, standards, ordinances, resolutions and policies in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and subject to Section ~ 5.2.1. 6.4.3 Recordation of Final Subdivision Map in Developer's Name: Transfer of Obliqations Under Subdivision Improvement Aqreement(s) . If Developer so elects, it may defer the conveyance of any super block lot to a Builder or third party until after the final map of such super block lot has been recorded. If Developer elects to proceed in this manner, it will enter into City's standard subdivision improvement agreement(s) with City for the improvements required as a condition to the rceeràatiaA. aÞÞroval of such map(s) . Upon sale to a Builder or third party, if such Builder or third party assumes Developer's obligations under the improvement agreement and provides its own security and insurance for the completion of the subdivision improvements as approved by the City, Developer shall be released from liability . under the subdivision improvement agreement(s) and Developer's " security shall be ~eleased. 6.4.4 Transfer of Riqhts and Obliqations of 'Developer wants 40 year term 2policy issue d - J,J '.,' Development. Whenever Developer conveys a portion of the Property, the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall transfer in accordance with section 15 herein. 7.1 Condition to Developer's Obliqations to Dedicate. Fund or Construct Public Facilities. Developer agrees to develop or provide the public improvements, facilities, dedications, or reservations of land and satisfy other exactions conditioning the development of the Property which are set forth hereinbelow. The obligations of the Developer pursuant to this Agreement are conditioned upon: (i) the City not being in default of its obliga- tions under this agreement; and (ii) the City not preventing or unreasonably delaying the development of the property; and (iii) the Agreement having not been suspended or meàifieà in response to changes in state or federal law; and (iv) the City's obligations having not been suspended pursuant to section 13.2. 8.5 Development Impact Fee Credit. Upon the completion and acceptance bv the city of any public facility, the City shall immediately credit Developer with the appropriate amount of cash credits ("EDUs") as determined by Developer and city. However, if the improvements are paid for through an Assessment District, the City shall credit the Developer with the appropriate number of Equivalent Dwelling Unit Credits (EDU's). Developer shall be entitled to apply any and all credits accrued pursuant to this subsection-toward the required payment of future DIF for any phase, stage or increment of development of the Project. Bold/underline = new addition strikeout = deletion N:\Shared\Attorney\Errata . .,2- /jI ,\¡ [jID SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP MICHAEL D. BRESu..UER CYNTHIA L ELDRED LAWRENCE J- KAPLAN" DANIEL E. OARDENSWAJITZ RICHARD E. M.CARTHY MICHAEL A. GARDINER EDWARD J. MciNTIRE CATHERINE L. PIERCE PAUL S. METSCH AUSON L PIVONKA JEFFREY A. SCHNEIDER OFOOUN8SL RICHARD L SEIDENWURM' JOSEPH M. LESKO JEFFREYH. SILBERMAN June 25, 1996 MIGUEL A. SMITH NORMAN L SMITH WILLIAM 0 WARD. [1J (RET.) GERALD I. SOLOMON HERBERT ). SOLOMON ·APiKIFES8]ONALL'O~FOI<A1l0N VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor and City Council Planning Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: United Enterprises, Ltd. Otay Ranch Pre-Annexation Development Agreement Hearing Date: June 25, 1996 Our File No. 46027.002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning Commission: We represent United Enterprises, Ltd. ("UE") in its capacity as owner of the approximately 136.47 acres of property on which the Nelson Sloan Quarry currently operates (the "Property"). Requested Action. We request that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and City Council and that the Mayor and City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2681, thereby approving the Pre- Annexation Development Agreement between UE and the City of Chula Vista (the "Agreement"), with the following modifications: 1. Revise Paragraph 3 of the Agreement to provide that the term of the Agreement shall continue for a period of forty (40) years; and 2. Revise Paragraph 5.2 of the Agreement by adding the following language to the end of the last sentence of that paragraph: "and which would not prevent or unreasonably delay the development of the Property consistent with the Existing Project Approvals". This change would further modify the circumstances under which the City of Chula Vista (the "City") could apply to the physical development of the Property subsequent changes to the City's Growth Management Ordinance. c2~/~ 401 B Street, Suite 1200 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone (619) 231-0303 Facsimile (619) 231-4755 ,,\ - - "." - -- ._--_._-_..""~---_.-. - u___ _ ____.,__... ._.._._.._.,._____.__.~._._________._. OJ Mayor and City Council Planning Commission City of Chula Vista June 25, 1996 Page 2 Additionally, we request that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and City Council and that the Mayor and City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2681, thereby approving the Agreement with the present language of Paragraph 6.2 of the Agreement intact. This paragraph provides that tentative subdivision maps for 3,000 or fewer dwelling units shall remain valid for a term of ten (10) years and tentative subdivision maps for more than 3,000 dwelling units shall remain valid for a term of ten (10) years plus one (1) additional year for every 300 dwelling units in excess of 3,000 dwelling units. Discussion. Forty-Year Term. We have spent a significant amount of time negotiating with staff the provisions of the Agreement for presentation to the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission. The provisions of the Agreement included in the agenda package for this evening's joint meeting reflect compromises which, although disappointing to DE in some respects, are acceptable to DE with the modifications requested above. The first requested modification would establish a forty-year life for the Agreement, as opposed to the twenty-year life which staff have proposed. The twenty-year life is insufficient to meet the needs of DE with respect to the Property. As staff have indicated, the rock quarry has operated on the Property for approximately forty years. We understand that an additional ten to forty-year life is projected for the quarry. DE continues to plan for the continued operation of the quarry throughout its life term and the development of the Property for its ultimate uses only after the life term of the quarry has expired. Annexation is of value to DE only at such time as it is prepared to move forward to develop the ultimate uses of the Property. For these, among other, reasons, DE would not of its own accord seek annexation into the City at this time. We understand that at least several jurisdictions within the County of San Diego have entered into development agreements for periods of time in excess of twenty (20) years. Neither state nor local legislation limits the terms of development agreements. c2-;¿ r \t ~-_'_--~'_,_.,.._._.'....---- --.-----, . _'~..'m'._._...____,__.___ . ~._.__....._ m _.__.._. -- [j Mayor and City Council Planning Commission City of Chula Vista June 25, 1996 Page 3 For these reasons, among others, DE requests that Paragraph 3 of the Agreement be revised to provide that the term of the Agreement continue for a period of forty (40) years. An agreement of the type now before the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission for consideration is of limited use to DE if its term does not extend beyond the life term of the quarry and into the period of time during which the Property is developed for its ultimate uses. Amendments to the Growth Mana¡¡ement Ordinance. The primary benefit to a property owner of entering into a development agreement is to obtain certainty in the development process. In exchange for such certainty, the property owner agrees to provide to the governing jurisdiction benefits such as those enumerated in Paragraph 1.3 of the Agreement presented for consideration tonight. To a significant extent, without further modification the provisions of Paragraph 5.2 of the Agreement relating to changes in the City's Growth Management Ordinance recite limitations on the City's powers which any project within the City's jurisdiction enjoy. The provision, as written and proposed by staff, would not provide DE with the certainty that it needs in order to enter into the Agreement with the City. The limiting language which we propose be added to this provision does no more than protect the Existing Project Approvals as discussed in Paragraph 5 of the Agreement. The language which we suggest be added is consistent with Paragraph 5 of the Agreement and the underlying goals of the Agreement. For these reasons, among others, DE requests that Paragraph 5.2 of the Agreement be revised to provide that changes to the City's Growth Management Ordinance would apply to the Property only if, among other things, they do not prevent or unreasonably delay the development of the Property consistent with the Existing Project Approvals. Tentative Map. DE, staff, and the other developers involved in the Otay Ranch Annexation have agreed upon a compromise for the length of time in which tentative subdivision maps for the Property would remain valid. DE requests that the language of Paragraph 6.2 be accepted and approved by the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission. eJ-/? \n --.-.---------------..-- '.-- ._.'.' ---_..~----~---_.__.._,_..-_..._--~--~-- - -- --- -- ---.---- -- [i Mayor and City Council Planning Commission City of Chula Vista June 25, 1996 Page 4 Conclusion. The compromises which UE has made with staff are acceptable to UE with the modifications to Paragraphs 3 and 5.2 of the Agreement requested and discussed in this letter. For the reasons discussed above, among others, UE requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and the City Council and that the Mayor and the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2681, approving the Agreement with the present language of Paragraph 6.2 intact, and the modifications requested to Paragraphs 3 and 5.2. Sincerely, ~ Cynthia L. Eldred SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH A Limited Liability Partnership CLE/ sgv cc: United Enterprises, Ltd. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager Beverly Authelet, City Clerk Ann Y. Moore, Interim City Attorney 55:69694.1:46027.002 d/JY f_J \) " _________________. - _M n.......___._ ..___..._ ---_..,_._-.~--.--_.,_.,._.._._"'".,--'".,-"._-,_.__..------~-- ì),J ~ NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering development agreements for approximately 23,000 acres of undeveloped real property known as atay Ranch located generally south of the rural community of Jamul, 2 miles north of the United States-Mexico border, abutting the western Chula Vista City limits, and the eastern boundary of which is generally State Route 94; and generally south of Telegraph Canyon Road/atay Lakes Road in the City of Chula Vista. Requests for development agreements have been made by: a. SNMB, Ltd., Jewels of Charity, and Steven and Mary Birch Foundation; b. atay Ranch L.P., Tiger Development Two, by Tigerheart, Inc., and Village Development; c. United Enterprises, Ltd.; d. Greg Smith The proposed development agreements to be considered would provide for property owner support of annexation of portions of the property, as well as other considerations, through assurances that said property may be developed in accordance with previously approved plans, ordinances and regulations. Consideration will be given to various items, including permitted uses, density, timing and phasing of development, and construction and financing of public facilities. Additionally, the proposed agreements reference future consideration by the City of changes to existing approved plans and regulations. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this development agreement in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD IN A JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, June. 25. 1996 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: June 12, 1996 c2 .:23 ;2-/7 ..-....-..- BmERLIN COMPANIES, INe. TIT San Diego Property Bitterlin Real Bitterlin Investment Bitterlin Commercial Management Estate Brokerage Partnerships Leasing June 25, 1996 Honorable Mayor Shirley Horton Councilman Jerry Rindone Councilman Steve Padilla Councilman John Moot Councilman Scott Alevy City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Joint Meeting of the Chula Vista City Council and Planning Commission, June 25, 1996, Docket Item #2 (Otay Ranch Pre-Annexation Development Agreements) Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the Council This letter is submitted on behalf ofMCA Concerts, Inc. ("MCA"). MCA in general supports the proposed annexation as envisioned by the referenced pre-annexation development agreements. MCA would be concerned, however, about any changes to the land use designation within Village Three, as referenced in paragraph (b) on page 2-7 of the agenda package, unless such changes are accompanied by additional environmental analysis that considers, among other things, MCA's conditional use permit Sincerely, 525 "B" Street Suite 1650 Chris Bit San Diego Bitterlin Brice Development Partners California Y21üJ P.O. Box 6746 Sa n Diego Cl1ifornia 921óó 619.232.5815 FAX 619.239.4962 ~- 7;-7/ J-~ - -.- --..-..-.."..-.,,-.---."-.-------..- ~~f? :::~- :: --------- ""'"----~ ..........~~ (IN OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TELEFAX COVER lEITER Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612 DATE: ~j;¿/;J? TO: Star News Le2:a1 / Ramona FAX NO: (619) 426-6346 , FROM: c;~ -X7~~' SUBJECf: a~~0~ TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover): ~ PUBUCA1l0N DATE: ?~47¿, / / . Jr.. ..... = not _""" pl_ oill ""'''' @ (619) 691-5041. ~ ~;r1Þ ;;C 02~ c:0 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619} 1-50j 1 NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a public hearing to consider the following: Development Agreements for the Otay Ranch, approximately 23,000 acres of land located generally south of the rural community of Jamul, 2 miles north of the United States-Mexico border, abutting the western Chula Vista City limits, and the eastern boundary of which is generally SR-94, and generally south of Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road in the City of Chula Vista. For further information call the Planning Department at 691-5101. If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION on Tuesday, June 25, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: June 12, 1996 c2~..2 ) _ _ '_._m NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL ofChula Vista, California, for the purpose of: 1. / a. SNMB, Ltd., Jewels of Charity, and Steven and Mary Birch Foundation; b. Otay Ranch L.P., Tiger Development Two, by Tigerheart, Inc., and Village Development; c. United Enterprises, Ltd.; d. Greg Smith The proposed development agreements would facilitate future development of the property in accordance with previously approved plans, which are on file at the City Clerk's office. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this development agreement in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD IN A JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL on Tnesday, June, 25, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES The City ofChuIa VIsta, lu complylugwlth the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, request Individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate In a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty..elght hours in advance for meetings and five days for scbeduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific inConnation at (619) 691.5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing Impaired. (M:\HOMEWlANNING\NANCY\ORDEV AG.NaI') c2 r- .;22 Revised 6-24-96 ORDINANCE NO. 2679 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND OTAY RANCH, L.P. , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, TIGER DEVELOPMENT TWO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY TIGERHEART INC. , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ITS GENERAL PARTNER, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, a City of Chula vista application is pending before the County of San Diego and LAFCO to have the Otay Valley Parcel included within city's sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the development of the Otay Valley Parcel will require substantial public improvements phased over a period of time; and WHEREAS, California Government Code §65867.5 et seq. provides authority for cities to enter into development agreements; and WHEREAS, CEQA review is not required for the development agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental review was approved for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and adopted by the City on October 28, 1993. (Lonq Beach Sav. & Loan v. Lonq Beach Redevel., 232 Cal.Rptr. 772, 881-2 [1986]); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council held a joint public hearing on June 25, 1996 to consider the Pre- Annexation Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning commission and city Council have reviewed the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and recommend its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula vista ordains as follows: SECTION I: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for a portion of the Otay Valley Parcel. In accordance with section 65867.5 of the Government Code, the City Council of the City of Chula vista has approved that certain document entitled "Pre-Annexation Development Agreement" for a portion of the Otay Valley Parcel with otay Ranch, L.P. , a California limited partnership, Tiger Development Two, a California limited partnership, by Tigerheart Inc. , a California corporation, its general partner, Village Development, a c§. A-I , ~:¡ \ California general partnership, on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. . SECTION II: The Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista. SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from aHd after ito paooalJC effective date of annexation as set forth in the attached Pre- Annexation Development Aqreement. Presented by Approved as to form by Üv-- ~ ~ George Krempl, Deputy city Ann Y. Moore, Interim Manager city Attorney C:\or\preannex.ov ~ A.-~ 1'; Revised 6-24-96 ORDINANCE NO. 2681 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND UNITED ENTERPRISES, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, a City of Chula vista application is pending before the County of San Diego and LAFCO to have the Otay Valley Parcel included within City's sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the development of the Otay Valley Parcel will require substantial public improvements phased over a period of time; and WHEREAS, California Government Code §65867.5 et seq. provides authority for cities to enter into development agreements; and WHEREAS, CEQA review is not required for the development agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental review was approved for the otay Ranch General Development Plan and adopted by the City on October 28; 1993. (Lonq Beach Sav. & Loan v. Lonq Beach Redevel., 232 Cal.Rptr. 772, 881-2 [1986]); and WHEREAS, the Planning commission and City Council held a joint public hearing on June 25, 1996 to consider the Pre- Annexation Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and recommend its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the city Council of the City of Chula vista ordains as follows: SECTION I: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for a portion of the Otay Valley Parcel. In accordance with section 65867.5 of the Government Code, the city Council of the City of Chula vista has approved that certain document entitled "Pre-Annexation Development Agreement" for a portion of the otay Valley Parcel with united Enterprises, Ltd., a California limited partnership on file in the office of the city Clerk as Document No. . SECTION II: The Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after itz 13aooage ~C-I \' effective date of annexation as set forth in the attached Pre- Annexation Development Aqreement. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ V\ Y\A A9-'<r- Q George Krempl, Deputy City Ann Y. ,~ . Moore, Inter~m Manager City Attorney C:\or\preannex.ov d, C-d. -r~) (, Revised 6-24-96 ORDINANCE NO. 2682 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND GREGORY T. SMITH AND GEORGIANA R. SMITH WHEREAS, a City of Chula vista application is pending before the County of San Diego and LAFCO to have the Otay Valley Parcel included within City's sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the development of the Otay Valley Parcel will require substantial public improvements phased over a period of time; and WHEREAS, California Government Code §65867.5 et seq. provides authority for cities to enter into development agreements; and WHEREAS, CEQA review is not required for the development agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental review was approved for the otay Ranch General Development Plan and adopted by the city on October 28, 1993. (Lonq Beach Sav. & Loan v. Lonq Beach Redevel., 232 Cal.Rptr. 772, 881-2 [1986]) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning commission and City Council held a joint public hearing on June 25, 1996 to consider the Pre- Annexation Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning commission and City Council have reviewed the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and recommend its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula vista ordains as follows: SECTION I: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for a portion of the otay Valley Parcel. In accordance with section 65867.5 of the Government Code, the City Council of the City of Chula vista has approved that certain document entitled "Pre-Annexation Development Agreement" for a portion of the Otay Valley Parcel with Gregory T. smith and Georgiana R. smith on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No.___ - . SECTION II: The Mayor of the city of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista. SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtie.th àay from aRà after itG pazza§c cl [)- I effective date of annexation as set forth in the attached Pre- Annexation Development Aqreement. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ '-'\ r^^~""" 0 , George Krempl, Deputy City Ann Y. I Interim Moore, Manager city Attorney C:\or\preannex,ov ~ i)-~ I; i "'" COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item.:! Meeting Date 6/25/96 ITEM TITLE: R I' /~3Y:1. .. he" h R F eso ution erClsmg t e Ity s optIon to renew t e . . Dickson street sweeping agreement on the same terms and conditions for twelve months Uull, 1996 thru]UN 30, 1997) and directing that the Director of Public Works deliver a copy hereof to the contractor. SUBMITTED BY: Director Of Public Works{J r REVIEWED BY, C;<y M.n""J4 ':J¿~ (4/5<" V",", Y"---I<.-"-' ~ On September 22, 1992, the City Counc approved a contract with R. F. Dickson, Inc., to provide citywide street sweeping services. The agreement provided for three years Uanuary 1, 1993 thru December 31, 1995) of street sweeping with the contract price to be adjusted each year by the San Diego Area CPI and any increases in tipping fees. In addition, the agreement provided that the City could extend the contract in incremental periods for up to two additional years using the CPI increase or a price mutually agreed upon by both parties. The contract was structured in this manner since five years is the capitalization period for street sweepers. On December 12, 1995, the City Council extended the contract through June 30, 1996. The contractor agreed in a letter dated June 7, 1996, to keep the current prices for FY96-97. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution renewing the agreement with R. F. Dickson for street sweeping for the period July 1, 1996, thru June 30, 1997. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: The contractor has done a good job during the first three and one- half years of this contract. The company has been responsive to citizen's complaints and has worked with staff to provide good service at a reasonable price. In fact, the current price, which was adjusted by increases in tipping fees and the CPI over the first three years is still lower than the original prices quoted by three of the other four bidders. Since Dickson's original rates ranged between 2% to 11% lower (depending on the service) than the remaining bidder, staff believes that Dickson's rates are reasonable. Another example of Dickson's fairness is that when tipping fees were $SS per ton, Dickson (on their own initiative) found a way to dispose of the City's street sweeping wastes for $SO per ton and automatically reflected that reduction in their charge to the City. In addition, Dickson has affirmed that even though the agreement only addresses increases in the street sweeping rates due to increases in tipping fees at the landfill, the upcoming decrease will be reflected as well. Staff has also compared prices with the other Cities in the county who contract out for street sweeping and found that Chula Vista's prices are better in most cases, but not quite as low in others. It appears to depend on when the bids were submitted. Informal bids from contractors who are currently in the process of preparing bids reveal that those prices will be higher than our current prices. This is directly related to the recent sharp increase in fuel costs. Consequently, staff believes that rebidding at this time :3-/ _.....---~ Page 2, Item3 Meeting Date 6/25/96 could be counterproductive and actually lead to higher prices due to fuel costs and recommends that Dickson's contract be renewed for Fiscal Year 96-97. This extension corresponds to the same period as the Budget that Council will adopt tonight. FISCAL IMPACT: $187,104 is included in the FY96-97 Budget for this extension of the Agreement. AlTACHMENTS Exhibit A Letter from R. F. Dickson, Inc., dated June 7, 1996. Exhibit B Agenda Statement from Council Meeting on December 12, 1995 3~:2.. RESOLUTION NO. / ~3ý9 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXERCISING THE CITY'S OPTION TO RENEW THE R. F. DICKSON STREET SWEEPING AGREEMENT ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR TWELVE MONTHS (JULY 1, 1996 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1997) AND DIRECTING THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DELIVER A COPY HEREOF TO THE CONTRACTOR WHEREAS, on September 22, 1992, the City Council approved a contract with R. F. Dickson, Inc. to provide citywide street sweeping services; and WHEREAS, the agreement provided for three years (January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995) of street sweeping with the contract price to be adjusted each year by the San Diego Area CPI and any changes in tipping fees; and WHEREAS, in addition, the agreement permitted two additional one year renewals using the CPI increase or a price mutually agreed upon by both parties; and WHEREAS, the contract was structured in this manner since five years is the capitalization period for street sweepers; AND WHEREAS, on December 12, 1995, the City Council extended the contract through June 30, 1996; and WHEREAS, the contractor agreed in a letter dated June 7, 1996 to keep the current prices for FY96-97. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby exercise the City's option to renew the R. F. Dickson Street Sweeping Agreement on the same terms and conditions for twelve months (July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997) and directing that the Director of Public Works deliver a copy hereof to the Contractor. Presented by Approved as to form by CL m{q.(~~ John P. Lippitt, Director of City Attorney Public Works c: \ rs\dickson. ext 3'3/1 ~~. "~-_._-_...~-----------,,- .~.~..~J June 7,1996 Mr. David C. Byers Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations City of Chula Vista 707 F Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Dave: This letter will confirm our discussion this morning, with regard to our' Street Sweeping Agreement' . We would like to continue this agreement with no increase in our rates, tron July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. The only exception to this would be if there would be an increase in the Tipping Fees, and as of this moment it looks like they are decreasing, which is good news for everyone! Dave, we look forward to our continued association with you, and your City. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, OMPANY, INC. ~[~ Dennis McS ane Sales Representative DmcS:lp Chula Vis.Agr R.F. Dickson Company Municipal Sweeping 12524 Clark Avenue 310/923-5441 Construction Clean-up ~ 90242 800/573-3222 Sweeper Sales J Parts and Service .. , COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT )}æI ~1 Item.L3 Meeting Date 12/12/95 ITEM TITLE: Resolution I~ 157 EXERCISING THE CITY'S OPTION TO RENEW THE R. F. DICKSON STREET SWEEPING AGREEMENT ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDmONS FOR SIX MONTHS UAN 1,1996 THRU]UN 30, 1996) AND DIRECTING THAT THE DIRECTOR or PUBUC WORKS DWYER A COPY HEREOF TO THE CONTRACTOR. SUBMlI 11:11 BY: Director Of Public Works f2 ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No...xJ On September 22, 1992, the City Council approved a ::ontract with R. F. Dickson, Inc., to provide citywide street sweeping services. The agreement provided for three years Uanuary 1, 1993 thru December 31, 1995) of street sweeping with the contract price to be adjusted each year by the San Diego Area CPI and any changes in tipping fees. In addition, the agreement provided that the City could extend the contract in incremental periods for up to two additional years using the CPI increase or a price mutually agreed upon by both parties. The contract was structured in this manner since five years is the capitalization period for street sweepers. The contractor agreed in a letter dated November 3, 1995, to keep the CUITent prices for calendar year 1996. RECOMMENDATION:That Council adopt the resolution renewing the agreement with R. F. Dickson for street sweeping for the period January 1,1996, thru June 30, 1996. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDA nON: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: The contractor has done a good job during the first three years of this contract. The company has been responsive to citizen's complaints and has worked with staff to provide good service át a reasonable price. In fact, the current price, which has been adjusted by increases in tipping fees and the CPI over the last three years is still lower than the original prices quoted by three of the other four bidders. Since Dickson's original rates ranged between 296 to 1196 lower (depending on the service) than the remaining bidder, staff believes that Dickson's rates are reasonable. Consequently, staff believes that rebidding at this time would serve no useful purpose and recommends that Dickson's contract be renewed for the remainder of the Fiscal Year (thru June 30, 1996). Under normal circumstances, staff would have recommended that the contract be extended thru December 31, 1996. However, since the contract requires a 120 day notification to the contractor for service reductions and due to the uncertainty concerning the FY96-97 budget, the June 30,1996 date is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT: As Council may recall, the frequency for residential streets was decreased from biweekly to once per month, commercial streets to once per week, and parking lots to once per month during adoption of the FY95-96 budget. Consequently, omy S201,850 was included in the 95-96 budget for street sweeping services for the year, while the original contract was for S292,440 for one year. Approximately half was encumbered for July thru December 1995. The remainder will be used for January thru June 1996. ATIACHMENTS Exhibit A Agenda Statement from Council Meeting on September 22,1992. Exhibit B Letter from R. F. Dickson, Inc., dated November 3,1995. 3-7 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT It_~ ...ting Dat.: s.ptemb.r 22, 1992 ITEK TITLE: A. Re.olution 1¿,i"I¿' Acceptinq pr~po..la and Awardinq Contract for Citywid. str..t sw..pinq s.rvic.. January 1, 1993 throuqh D.cemb.r 31, 1995 to R.I'. Dickaon, .Inc. tl Reaolution /(,8'/7 Approving Fourth Þ.n4m.nt to , the Citywid. Str..t sw..ping Aqr....nt with Laidlaw waat. ayat..a, Inc., to provide atr..t awe.ping a.rvic.a throuqh D.Cemb.r 31, 1992. St1BMITTED BY: Director of Public ~rks~~~t REVIEWED BY: City Manager rc~ )I(4/Sths Vote: Yes_No_K_) On September 15, 1987, the City Council approved a contract with Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. to provide citywide street sweeping. The agreement provided for three years of street sweeping with the contract price to be adjusted each year by the San Diego Area CPI. In addition, the agreement permitted two additional one-year extensions upon satisfactory negotiation of a contract price to provide citywide street sweeping services through August 31, 1992 for the second and final year extension. On August 25, 1992, Council approved a third amendment extending the contract through October 31, 1992. Subsequently, proposals for street sweeping services were received on August 28, 1992. After a complete evaluation, staff is recommending award of the street sweeping contract to R.F. Dickson Co., Inc. who submitted the lowest contract price. seventy-five days are needed for delivery of equipment, routing and the start of the new contract. Therefore, staff is also recommending extension of the current contract with Laidlaw Waste systems, Inc. through December 31, 1992. RECOMMENDATION: A) That the City council adopt the r.aolution awarding the citywid. atr..t aw..ping contract to R.I'. Dickaon Co., Inc. for atr..t aw..ping a.rvic.a January 1, 1993 through D.cemb.r 31, 1995. B) That the City council adopt the r.aolution approving the fourth ...n4ment to the Citywide Stre.t sw..ping Agr..ment with Laidlaw Waat. ayat..a, Inc., which would .xt.nd that agr..ment through D.c.mb.r 31, 1992 and provide for compen.ation of $14.5. p.r curb mil.. ~ £xfJl'l:; /1- II .:J ~ ¡/ _ ~__ U· _, ___~"_ ______~_" K..~iDq D.~.: '/22/'2 pag. 2 It_~ BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable. DISCUSSION: The city entered into a three-year aqreement with Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. for citywide street sweeping services on sep~amber 15, 1987. The agreement was for the period beginning september 1, 1987 through August 31, 1990. The aqreement allowed for extension on a year-to-year basis not to exceed two years. The final year of the agreement expired on August 31, 1992. However, a two-month extension through October 31, 1992 to provide for evaluation of street sweeping proposals was granted on August 25, 1992. At the time of the 2 month extension, Laidlaw indicated street sweeping service after October 31, 1992 would have to be at the new proposal price of $14.58 a curb mile. CUrrently, we pay Laidlaw $14.02 per curb mile". Extension of Laidlaw's contract through December 31, 1992 is to be paid at $14.58 a curb mile. Staff is requesting the two-month extension of the street sweeping contract with Laidlaw Waste Systems due to a manufacturer's delay in the delivery of street sweepers to be used by the new contractor. In order to provide quality service and preserve their company's image, the new contractor prefers to wait until the new equipment has arrived and a local field office established before commencement of services. After discussions with the contractor, staff believes this will assure a smooth transition from one street sweeping service provider to another. As you may recall, this is the first time a new contractor has been selected since we began contracting out street sweeping services in 1984. On July 31, 1992, the City issued a request for proposal soliciting proposals from qualified firms to provide street sweeping services for a three year period with a possible extension of the Agreement ·on a year-to-year basis not to exceed two years. The first year of the contract is to be paid at the proposals' price. The second and third year of the contract are to be adjusted up to a maximum of 6% per year based on the July to July CPI for the San Diego region which is published in August of each year. The fourth and fifth years are negotiable and the city's decision on renewal would depend on the outcome of negotiations. In the past, a fair price for the fourth and fifth year has been set based on staff's evaluation of the contractor's performance and service and a survey of neighboring cities and the price paid for street sweeping services. ß4;-9 --_....._,.-~.~-- -. ----,-.-.._-,~._-,.,---_._-'"-~--_._--- øeetinCjJ Date: '/22/'2 paqe 3 Item c¡ staff had waited until July 31, 1992, to put the contract out to bid because of the uncertainty surrounding the state budget which potentially might have resulted in a reduction or elimination of street sweeping. Proposals were accepted until 2:00 pm on Friday, August 28, 1992. The city received bids for 4 alternatives including: A) Full Service,. B) Half Service, C) Street Sweeping reduced by 25% and D) street.sweeping service with a possibility of up to 100% reduction upon a 120 day notice. After evaluation of the proposals, staff found that alternative D was misinterpreted. In an effort not to re-bid, alternative D was thrown out. Staff is recommending ~cceptance of alternative A providing for full street sweeping services and award of the contract to the low-bidder R.F. Dickson Co., Inc.. Alternative A provides for the same level of service and practices pertaining to street sweeping as are currently provided by Laidlaw. Dickson has agreed to include a clause in the contract to allow up to a 100% reduction in street sweeping services upon a 120 day notice if the City's financial condition warrants a reduction in services. Attached is a summary of alternatives received for each proposal. The following table summarizes proposals received for Alternative A: TOTAL COST/CURB MILE R.F. Dickson Co., Inc. $292,440.55 $ *VARIES Cannon Pacific Services 315,508.79 13.50 Laidlaw Waste systems, Inc. 340,540.58 14.58 California Street Maintenance 346,695.23 14.90 BFI Services Group, Inc. 525,119.47 *VARIES City of Chula Vista 346,725.42 14.89 Kenny's Construction Sweeping NON RESPONSIVE' *See attachment for price p~r curb mile. consistent with past council direction, city staff also evaluated the possibility of providing the service in-house. Cities throughout California who still provide in-house street sweeping services were surveyed and findings compared to Chula vista. The cost of providing street sweeping services in other cities was ~"//) ~_...._-_......__._- ....tinq Dat.: '/22/92 pag. .. It_ ., considerably higher than the bid amounts we received. Additionally, the results of our own analysis indicated it was more costly to provide the service in-house. In order for the City to provide street sweeping services, we would need to hire 3.5 street sweeper operators ($165,365), purchase 4 street sweepers ($472,000), pay dump fees for the disposal of street sweeping debris ($31,000) and provide for annual maintenance and operating costs ($40,000). These costs are based on information received from other comparable cities and manufacturers regarding the purchase of equipment. The equipment cost for 3 sweepers would be spread over a 5 year period. The cost of the fourth sweeper which serves as a back-up would be spread for a longer period of time. The street sweeper operator's salary is comparable to a senior street maintenance worker. The part-time position would be used as a relief, for vacations, sick leave and floating holidays. As the City's bid for providing street sweeping would be about $346,725 for calendar year 1993 as compared to $292,440 for the contractor, it is more cost effective to contract for the service. R.F. Dickson Co.. Inc. R.F. Dickson Co., Inc. has been in the street sweeping business for 42 years, serving cities ranging in size from 6,000 population to over 100,000. The length of contracts with other cities range from one to five years in duration. Their main office is located in Downey, CA. with a maintenance facility in the city of Santee. Dickson would provide for the same level of service and practices pertaining to street sweeping which currently exists in the City. Upon award of the contract Pickson will locate a new maintenance facility and field office in the South County and will purchase 3 new (Mobile) street sweepers and maintain a back-up sweeper. Due to a manufacturer's delay Dickson anticipates arrival of the new equipment within 75 days. steve Dickson, President of R.F. Dickson Co., Inc. will be the city contact. An 800 number will also be provided to residents in the event of street sweepinq inquiries. Prior to commencement of the new contract we plan to issue a press release and release an article in the Chula Vista Quarterly informing residents of the new street sweeping contract. ~:3'J/ --------'""....,_.-------~.....~-- --- .eetinq J)atel '/22/92 paq. 5 :It_ , J':ISCAL :IMPACT I The cost of street sweepinq services are reimbursed by Gas Tax funds resultinq in no impact to the General Fund. The total contract for providinq street p~eepinq services for one year is less than the total price of last year's street sweeping contract. A total of $335,510 is budqeted for FY 1992-93. A) The cost of this extension of contract amendment with Laidlaw Waste systems, Inc., throuqh December 31, 1992 is $56,000. The total contract costs to be paid to Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. for the first 6 months of FY 1992 are $170,000. These funds are included in the FÝ 1992-93 operating budget. B) The contract cost with R.F. Dickson, Co., Inc. for providing street sweeping services for 6 months of this fiscal year (January through June 30, .1993) is $155,000. This includes 2.2% continqency for the addition of new streets durinq the calendar year. Theae funds have already been appropriated in the FY 1992-93 budget. Street sweepinq funds for the remaininq six months of the first year's contract will be budgeted in fiscal year 1993-94. subsequent years of the contract will be reflected in future budgets. y;./;¿ ~ ~~H I- ~~~ ~~ ~ I- ~~~ ""w~ "'!!!'.' z ¡!eO "'!!!' Z ¡It)0 ;¡> ¡:IjilS..:UJw ~'" MilS UJW i¥'" II: c . . '. W:=E . . . W:=E "~ð ~~~a !~ ~a m~g ;>~ :~ ~ðð ~< Q< rr:w rr:w ~ ~ ::¡' c.. w ," Q. W cnS2~ ':(1) ':0 ¡¡: Wi (/) '.. .. m _ w ":," .... . ~;: ;Ii 8liE ¡¡j;:1i8IiE- ~IU i~j~ ¡~Ii ~~g ¡gli ~ ~~tr I~:' g~~ ~ 1I!=~.j i¥ ~ & I < ~ ~ I_I) , IIJ I- .., < ø ~ I- w 1 .". ...J< !!i~~w ,j1 GO ':X: 00 - ~ o ðo>~¡¡ ~ - .~ If !/1 ~~M'~ ~~;! ~~.~ ~~~ ~ N :!!!!!C:." 1:::..0 52!!! '.'" I:::"'c::i UJ ~ - à!>¡¡¡I!!r'- ~-'" iIS¡¡¡ - ~-", w = _ _m:!:.:'" .. . .. ..-~.. M U - N~ "'~ ~ lñ ¡; N.... _ -- w ~ð 14,: i¥ UJ !!,! !:: .{; CJ ~ ill I;; J; ;¡:; ~ )( 5: '" ... '" 0 ª q: W ..J m .~,., ~ go UJ ::s a.: I) ::;:: E i0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....; ~ ~ ~ ~ _ It) '" 0 '" "':.'" ~'" 0 ~ .._w co,.... .'- -_ I-UJ ..... -"'.'~"''' . .. .. ,"'+; ;¡ \j ~ 'ª~ ' Ž ~IUSI '" ~ õ~ð f ¡ . ~-~ ¡Æi ð r¡ ~ ,. ",:;¡:", . . .. N " 8 0 ." 0 N ..,. 8 It) ." . _... ,:. t- IÐCI en... :. t- .....0 u ··..":'.z ... ······z ... ~ I 5!Sõ!:ffiw !!2~a x:Sõ! 1fßw !!2~a 2 8' w :::;:.B;. ..,- 2 ~'" ~II!. ,.'- 2 ~'" ... ~ "':!!¡¡G ~:!!;~G ! I~ðl' on ii ,\~~ i ;¡~i~ ~ !.. i...~ ...~ ¡s¡..;g¡ :cn :(1) .... It! (I)': : ~:1 ~ ~ ~ "! .. g ë 15 .... ; ~; tL m 5 ¡; ~ ~ tL < I ~ .. ...J · ~ ¡...J !§ ~ g ~.. ...J ~ I ~ g I ~! ~I~ ~Î~ I! ~I'~ ii~ o <8 If 8 ~1)~:;;!8 mil. ,8 ruB- ~ ;:1-/3 <> .<., .. 88::fi " 88::fi ¡; .., .. ': : .,," !z ~" !z ~5i '.:. i~g i~g !~ ~ 1~ w .·'w::¡¡ lEiS :i~ Ie ~ Je ,~ :: >c .~ ~ ¡¡;~ ,d::2 '< a:w .a: ...w ...w :: en .": en i~w . '. . " It 8~[I¡ 8~[I¡ i~g i~g z ¡j~~ 0 5 ~i~ :J $ - ð ~ ~Iñ~ ;¡! ...~~ '" ð~~ ,~ ~ ~ . 0 :8 8:8S! tØ ~ ...,.&: 8&:S! a: ~ .... :: ... N cO !i~g cÞ ~;~ I!i~g '" ~ - - ~ ¡;; II> Ñ '~6IIt - II> §Ì": .." II> ~ ~ ¡;; - ':' ~s¡ II> W '" (:¡ z ~)( ¡¡: ~~~ w ~ 3~G ~ 0 80- 8::fiE !ß .... ....0 w M i;¡g ¡~g ~ ~ . .. ... ~ ~!~ i z ~ ð ~ I-~ ! ~~ & - J!~ ¡ ." 8::fi[l¡ § " C":IN ~. 2. .,. !z 8 I!! [I¡ ~ ~ ~ <: - ;« ¡~g . . ¡~g ii'''' w ~ ~cn w ::¡¡ g~1 ·.W::¡¡ ·,W::¡¡ ... ~ i .,;! lE is !; ¡~ is ! 8 - ::< ; !!~ .:> <I( ." C N ~ '~:: ~~ @) lE< §î 0 ...w a:w ~il ~ " w ~w I : '" II! : UJ - a:_ :J . " fê 0 ~ w Ii; a: I it: I it: ö .w à ~~ ,.... ö ::! c ~ 6\2 ~~ >~ I a: ,;¡ HI! un 1(1 I~P c L" '" i ¡':> !¡ w i a:~ ,~ z w ~§ !..I§ c ~ §- IS I; ¡ ~ ~ ;¡'J'I -.,--..-.-, - - - ---- l!.J ;:!: <t g¡ Ie Ie 8 Ii! M C\i C\i ..; M M a M .. .. .. - - - - 0 ... ... ... ... ~ a: 1:; c ;:!: èt g¡ ~ l!.J l!.J 8 Ii! C\i C\i ..; - M M a M - - - - - - - 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I 1:; c . . .~ It) ;:!: èt g¡ Ie It) 8 Ii! ~ '" .... a: M C\i C\i - M M a M !J .. .. .. - . .. - - '" ... ... ... < I c Z < g¡ 1:; d c (:! Z ¡¡: w ;!: èt ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 Ii! ~ C\i C\i - - M M a M '" .. .. .. .. - - - ~ c ... ... ... w I ...J :i ',¡¡: ID a: 1:; ·03 ::> '~o ~ c .~ '" '" i: ·z 8 <0 w ~ w c I~ :~ 0 w w c 0 a: 2 z'" z ~ ~~ ~~ 15 o~ 0 fß~ ILw IL IL ~ ... ILw "'w ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~: ~i zi w~ fil2 ~ ~~ SQa: ::¡a: Za: IDa: II ~w I~ a:~ a:w ~~ a:w ~ ~; ~~ ~~ QA. ! wa: ~i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~i '" . a: w j fÞ'r 3-¡f u_, ._._...............__. .__.. _,.,..._...~_____,_.______'".____,,_. m. '. _0"'_" ! !8 i .,., ì'j ~ ~ ¡¡ CD ~ ~ ~ aci ¡¡t a a & , ¡¡ , c i " :t A ~ CJÍ c ·w .UJ ;!~ ì'j :I! 8 51 .,., :B :B .,., ...~ - - ¡ ~ s u'i ¡ S S aci '" - - .\ a: ... ... ·'0 I x; LL ~ .:iË ~ ,II) ,a: c ·~a . ¡:o . ~Cf) ~ t8 - ~ .,., ~ g¡ C> :B :B :B ..~w Z C\I .. .~ a: ~ ~ ¡;¡ .,; ¡!j ¡;¡ ,.: f1i ~ - ~ - " en II) ... ... ... ... ... ... ':;':;',W < I ¡&:I: 0 :;:''1~ ·'0 ~ w UJ UJ ~ ...::J ~ ··UJ c ffi I,) :;HI) (! ~o Z c.. ii: '.0 w ì'j :I! 8 51 .,., .,., :B .,., .'~. a: ~ .- cø - ~~ ~ ~ s u'i ,.: u'i u'i a:i ..-¡ a: - £t ~ C\I - :·,w ~ c ... ... ... ... ,~ ~ I ·,0 :iË ^~ ,- m « '... a: ~ .11) § >·0 C 'Z U) < 8 ~ ·Z '0 ~ w 0 ~ >< ~ I,) w w Õ ~g¡ z ~ a: :I 'a: 0 ~ ~~ UJ~ ~~ 0 i~ Ii: Ii: Ii: 16 ~ ... U)W .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ w~ 00 ~:I w:l ·Z II ::I a: Za: 5~ ':0 ~w ~w ~~ a:W ~~ ::Iw ~ ~c.. a:c.. ~; w~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i~ :r ~~ U) . I ~-/¿, __ ___.u.__,,__. _u....--.____~.._.___·_·___·___ RESOLUTION NO. 16816 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING PROPOSALS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CITYWIDE STREET SWEEPING SERVICES JANUARY I, 1993 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1995 WHEREAS, the followin9 ·six proposals for street sweeping services were received at 2:00 p.m. August 28, 1992 by the Purchasing Agent: R. F. Dickson $292,440.55 Cannon Pacific Services 315,508.79 Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 340,540.58 California Street Maintenance 346,695.23 BFI Services Group, Inc. 525,119.47 City of Chula Vista 346,725.42 Kenny's Construction Sweeping Non Responsive WHEREAS, upon evaluating the proposals, staff recollVllends awarding the contract to the low bidder, R. F. Dickson, who has assured the City that he is a licensed contractor in the State of California who can produce an acceptable performance bond. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the six proposals received for Citywide street sweeping services for the period January I, 1993 through December 31, 1995 and awards the contract to R. F. Dickson, known as document number C092-158, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by F (,.~ ruce M. Boogaard irector of Public Works City Attorney ;1-// .'.-.,--..-..'---...--" -'~-'''---''~ ResolutlOn ~o. iOOiO Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 22nd day of September, 1992, by the following vote: YES: Councilmembers: Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, Nader NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Counci 1 members: - None - f r /' -/. <IIII:~- ,/ //~,;,/ Tim Nader, Mayor ATTEST: " \ , \ -\ .\ - . '. ¡ --- Vicki Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ~ ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16B16 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on the 22nd day of September, 1992. Executed this 22nd day of September, 1992. ~ r' . \ .-- '\.i : C\ ,~, ~\, ' ,~" ~ Vicki Soderquist, Depùty City Clerk - .J -If" _"":-L --. -. -. . EXHIBIT - - - - -- November 3, 1995 Mr. David C.Byers Deputy Director of Public WorkslOpertaions City ofChula VISta 707 F Street ChuIa Vista, CA 91910 Dear Dave: Thank you for taking the rime to meet with me yesterday. In an effort to assist the City of Chula VISta with its budget p1anning, or any shortfall you may be experiencing, we would like to offer the fonowing: Extend our contract ftom 1/1/96, through 12/31/96, we will hold our current rate for sweeping. We believe this extension would be mutually beneñcial It is our goal to provide the City with the finest service pOSS1õle, and at the same rime promoting a public-private partnership. I look fOIWBrd to hearing ftom you. . Sincerely, ll.F. DICKSON COMPANY, INC. . ~ Steve Dickson 10, ,'; . '~. President SD:1p - CImIa .......... . , í A.F. Dick..... ComNIny Municipal Swaaping 12524 Clark Avenue 3101923-5441 . ." Construction Claen-up .- Downey. CA 90242 8001573-3222 -., .~,\ Sweeper Salas . .J "'J 1 - - :-.: ':- _ -' PeIIS and Sarvlca .. . ',- .- . n__ --" _.---------.._- .:o.l.UOO;:-';"':J"'I-'; [""'" .I..·'.I.,-,r·,~'-'I~ 1'1-".' r H'....'- '-''':' UbI Lift' .1.='='0 UO.I;..I"::' - -- June 7, 1996 Mr. David C. Byers Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations City of Chu1a Vista 707 F Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Dave: This letter will confirm our discussion this morning, with regard to our' Street Sweeping Agreement', We would like to continue this agreement with no increase in our rates, fron July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. The only exception to this would be iftherc would be an increase in the Tipping Fees, and as of this moment it looks like they are decreasing, which is good news for everyone! Dave, we Jook forward to our continued association with you, and your City. Please do not hesitate to call me ¡fyou have any further questions. Sincerely, R.F. DICKSON ~/- Dennis McS ane Sales Representative DmcS:lp Chu"V~.Ar ..-......--....-...-...--.. ... ..-........". ..'-..----.---..---- . ...._. R.F. Dlokoon Company MunICipal Sweeping 12524 Clark Avenue 3'01923-5441 Construction Cleal"1·up Down.y. CA 90242 800/573-3222 Sweeper Sales :1' ..2tJ Parts and' Service COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ItemL Meeting Date 6/25/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution I S"..1f1.uthorizing the City Manager to approve a contract change order with SRM Contracting and Paving, for the FY 1995-96 Overlay Program (project STL-224) SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works _ REVIEWED BY: CityManage~~ ~h ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No-X.) On March 19, 1996, the City Council, Resolution 18234, accepted bids and awarded a contract in the amount of $517,332.20 for "Placement of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay for FY 1995-96 Pavement Overlay Program on various streets in the City ofChula Vista (STL-224) and authorized staff to increase quantities to expend all available funds budgeted for this project ($587,322.20). The contractor, SRM Contracting and Paving (SRM) has the work now underway and is expected to be done in late July, 1996. On June 11,1996, a memorandum was directed to the Mayor and City Council whereby staff made a proposal to proceed with the dig out work required for the preparation off our additional streets to receive a Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay based on anticipated CIP project funding in FY 1996- 97. These four streets were listed in the contract with the provision that they could be overlaid if funding was available. Staff also indicated that in order to fund the overlay of these four additional streets, staff would like to proceed with a change order to the existing contract with SRM to include the available funds proposed for the FY 1996-97 Overlay Program (listed as STL-230 in the FY 1996-97 CIP budget). Statfhas proceeded with the additional digout work in preparation for adding these four streets. The contractor, SRM is currently doing this work.. Staff is now submitting this agenda item for City Council approval as a contract change order and funding to overlay these four streets. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract change order with SRM Contracting and Paving and approve the expenditure of funds jn the amount of$316,000 from Project STL-230. (1996-97 Pavement Overlay Program) BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The contract that the City awarded to SRM contains a list of 30 streets to be overlaid with Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix. An additional four streets were added to this list in the event that additional funding became available to overlay all or a portion of these four additional streets. The four additional streets include: '-/., I Page 2, Item ¥ Meeting Date 6/25/96 31) East Palomar Street ITom Hilltop Drive to Nolan Avenue 32) East Orange Avenue from Hilltop Drive to Melrose Avenue 33) L Street ITom Third Avenue to First Avenue 34) North Glover Avenue ITom Trousdale Drive to Third Avenue The FY 96-97 CIP budget contajns a project to implement the 1996-97 Pavement Overlay Program in the amount of$316,000. The streets to be done under the FY 96-97 Pavement Overlay Program (CIP No. STL-230) are expected to be those not overlaid with the FY 95-96 program now contracted to SRM, which includes the four streets listed above. In the interest of efficiency and to benefit ITom the excellent unit prices bid by SRM for the FY 95-96 program, it is proposed that the City Council authorize staff to issue a change order to SRM's contract to perfonn the work contemplated in the FY 96-97 program. A brief discussion of this proposal follows and refers to these documents: · A-I 13 for Council award of contract to SRM contracting and Paving (Exhibit 1). · Summary of bids received for the FY 96 Overlay Program (Exhibit 2). · Table showing the streets proposed to be paved via SRM's contract (Exhibit 3). · Copy of the CIP detail sheet for the FY 97 Overlay Program (Exhibit 4). · Excerpt of SRM's contract for the FY 96 Overlay Program (Exhibit 5). Stalfbelieves that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the City to include the funding for the 1996-97 pavement overlay program in the 1996-97 contract and to authorize SRM to do work for the following reasons: · SRM's contract was awarded thru competitive bidding and follows established City contract procedures. · The current contract with SRM (Exhibit 5) contains provisions which give the City the right to add this work. It was the intent of this contract to have SRM overlay the streets listed on the table depicting the priority of the work (Exhibit 3). The basis for the contract was the work encompassing priority streets 1 through 30, jnclusive. Streets with priority 31-34 were not part of the contract. The City, however, reserved the right to add these streets should adequate funding become available. · Based on the SRM's contract unit prices, we estimate the cost to complete streets with priority 31-34 to be about $297,000 including additional traffic control costs. · Bidding of the 1996-97 Overlay Program as a new separate contract will cost about $4,000 in additional staff costs. · Fuel prices have increased in the past months. These increases, together with the fact that the quantities involved would be relatively small, will result on higher unit prices under a new contract. J/..;. Page 3, Item t/ Meeting Date 6/25/96 . The type of work contemplated in the FY 96-97 program is identical to the work now under construction by SRM. . SRM is amenable to the change order. Therefore, staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to approve a change order to SRM to complete priority streets 31-34, inclusive in July, 1996. Staff further proposes to return to Council with a fuU report summarizing the expenditure incurred to complete the FY 95-96 program as well as the FY 96-97 program (change order), once all work has been completed. Financial Statement FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount (as awarded) $517,322.20 B. Contract Change Order 296,264.28 C. Staff (Design and Inspection) 85,000.00 D. Material Testing 14,000.00 E. Contingencies (Annroximatelv 8%) 61,863.50 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $974,449.98 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION B. Pavement Overlay Program FY 1995-96 (STL-224) 658,449.98 C. Pavement Overlay Pro¡zram FY 1996-97 (STL-230) 316,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $974,449.98 FISCAL IMPACT: By including the FY 1996-97 Pavement Overlay Program in the current contract with SRM, the City will realize a savings in construction costs and will be able to overlay more streets rather than bidding the FY 1996-97 Pavement Overlay Program as a separate and new contract. Paving additional streets now will avert further deterioration of these streets and will reduce future maintenance and replacement costs. City maintenance amounting to mainly street sweeping will be required. Completion of the work will reduce the need for extraordinary maintenance such as pot hole patching. No estimate can be made of this type of extraordinary work. Attachments: tj,3 ,~ Page 4, Item L Meeting Date 6/25/96 Exhibit I - A-II3 for Council award of contract to SRM contracting and Paving Exhibit 2 - Summary of bids received for the FY 96 Overlay Program Exhibit 3 - Table showing the streets proposed to be paved via SRM's contract Exhibit 4 - Copy of the CIP detail sheet for the FY 97 Overlay Program Exhibit 5 - Excerpt ofSRM's contract for the FY 96 Overlay Program M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\OVRLA Y2.KJG 'I-r RESOLUTION NO. /g'JStJ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH SRM CONTRACTING AND PAVING, FOR THE FY 1995-96 OVERLAY PROGRAM (PROJECT STL-224) WHEREAS, on March 19, 1996, the city Council, Resolution 18234, accepted bids and awarded a contract in the amount of $517,332.20 for "Placement of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay for FY 1995-96 Pavement Overlay Program" ("Contract") on various streets in the City of Chula vista (STL-224) and authorized staff to increase quantities to expend all available funds budgeted for this project ($587,322.20); and WHEREAS, the contractor, SRM Contracting and Paving (SRM) has the work now underway and is expected to be done in late July, 1996; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 1996, a memorandum was directed to the Mayor and city Council whereby staff made a proposal to proceed with the dig out work required for the preparation of four additional streets to receive a Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay; and WHEREAS, the contract provides that the overlay of the four streets could be added to the Contract if funding was available; and WHEREAS, staff also indicated that in order to fund the overlay of these four additional streets, the funds proposed for the FY 1996-97 Overlay Program (listed as STL-230 in the FY 1996-97 CIP budget) would need to be used; and WHEREAS, staff has proceeded with the additional digout work in preparation for adding these four streets and the contractor, SRM is currently doing this work; and WHEREAS, additional unspent funds from the completed FY 1994/95 Overlay Project (STL-22l) are also available to be added to the current project and staff is now requesting City Council approval of a contract change order and funding to overlay these four streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize the City Manager to approve and execute a change order to the contract with SRM Contracting and Paving to add streets 31-34. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the expenditure of funds in the amount of $316,000 from Project STL-230. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of A~~O~City Public Works ú- / // Attorney C:\rs\overlay_co í' ~ ¡I' ~ E~HIßlí I , . COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item_ Meeting Date ]/19/96 ITEM TITLE: Resoluûon Accepring Bids and Awarding Contract for the "Placement of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay for FY 1995-96 Overlay Program on Various Streets in the City ofChula Vista, CA (STL-224)" and """""'"" _to - ~7 n""" oil "m""", fimd> "".., project SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public worksf REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5tbs Vote: Yesßo,X) At 2:00 p.m. on February 28, 1996 in Conference Room 2 & 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works received bids for the "Placement of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay for FY 1995-96 Overlay Program on Various Streets in the City ofChula Vista, CA (STL-224)." The work consists of providing asphalt rubber hot mix 1 Y:." thick overlay on various streets in the City. The work includes the removal of alligator pavement areas and replacement with asphalt concrete pavement, the cold milling of street pavement in certain areas, AC leveling courses, signal loops, traffic control, adjustment of sewer manholes, adjustment of survey well monuments, french drain system, and other miscellaneous work as shown on the plans. . RECOMMENDATION: That Council: I) accept bids and award the contract to SRM Contracring and Paving in the amount of $517,322.20 for "Placement of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay for FY 1995-96 Overlay Program on Various Streets in the City ofChula Vista, CA (STL-224)" and 2) authorize staff to increase quantities to expend all available funds for this project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Funds for this project are included in the FY 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. The project was included in the budget to avoid further deterioration of pavement and base material on selected streets in the City. The project is similar to past overlay programs in the City except this year, we are using asphalt rubber hot mix in place of conventional asphalt concrete mix. The use of asphalt rubber hot mix eliminates the need for the placement of pavement fabric and minimizes the amount of digouts required. Sidewalks ramps associated with the placement of the overlay program were awarded by a separate contract and are now under construcûon. Bids for this project were received from three contractors as follows: , ¿¡~ ? -...-.-- -".-_..._-_.,._--~--_.- -_._--~----_. .- .~. "- Page 1, Item_ Meeting Date 3/16/96 -, Contractor Bid Amount 1. SRM Contracting and Paving - San Diego $517,322.20 2. Sim J Harris Company· San Diego 568,939.00 3. Daley Corporation - San Diego 620,736.00 The low bid by SRM Contracting and Paving is below the Engineer's estimate of $557,710 by $40,387.80 or 7.2%. Staff received an excellent bid for the proposed work. The Engineer's estimate was based on prices received for the FY 1994-95 Overlay Program and previous projects utilizing asphalt rubber hot rnix (ARHM). The specifications require that the low bidder have experience in placement of conventional asphalt concrete and asphalt rubber hot mix. SRM Contracting and Paving is also known as Superior Ready Mix and previously as V. R. Dennis Corporation. They have worked for the City in the past and their work has been satisfactory. Staff also checked their references with regard to the placement of asphalt rubber hot mix and their work was satisfactory. The project was budgeted as an overlay project based on a fixed amount of budgeted funds in the CIP program. At the time the project was approved by the Council, specific streets to be overlaid were not identified. Attached as Exhibit A is a table showing the streets included in the FY 1995-96 Overlay Program (Streets 1-30). Streets 31-34 were included in the bid documents with the intent they would be added to the contract in the event funds remained in the project after completion of the first 30 streets. Based on the bid amounts, staff estimates that there will be about $61,000 left in the contingency fund. Therefore, staff proposes to overlay and/or repair existing deteriorated portions of these streets (Items 31-34) with the remaining funds. The streets are to be overlaid in order of priority. The City retained its right, however, to decrease the contract in the event that unforseen conditions are encountered during the repair of the roadway (such as larger areas of dig out and repair are necessary than were originally anticipated). The intent is to avoid a cost ovenun on the project due to quantity changes on individuals streets. In the unlikely chance that this happens, streets will be deleted as necessary from the contract starting with number 30. Disclosure ~tatement Attached is a copy of the contractor's disclosure statement (Exhibit B). Environmental Status The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has detennined that the project is a Class 2 exemption under Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Reconstruction of Existing Structures and Facilities) I 'I-g' - __._m___ _____ _._,~._ "'0'___________ .- Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 3/16/96 Prevai1in~ WaQe Statement The source of funding for this project is Gas Tax Funds and Transportation Partnership Funds. Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this contract. No special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various minority trade publications. Financial Statement FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $517,322.20 B. Staff (Design & Inspection) 70,000.00 C. Material Testing 10,000.00 D. Contingencies (Approximately 11%) 61,127.78 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $658,449.98 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Pavement Overlay Program FY 1995-96 (STL-224) $658,449.98 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $658,449.98 FISCAL IMPACT: After construction, only routine City maintenance amounting to mainly street sweeping will be required. Completion of the work will reduce the need for extraordinary maintenance such as pot hole patching. No estimate can be made of this type of extraordinary work. Exhibit A: FY 1995-96 Pavement Overlay Streets Exhibit B: Contractor Disclosure Statement SLH:sb File No: 0735-10-STL-224 M:\IIOME'ENOINEERIAc:æNDAIPA VEORVL.SLH '1-9 ,_...__..~_. > r%1 Irlll ::~'I I :"'¡~:::::";;¡~;;I~';;;';;~~ : fllf I ij ~lf=i'f~~fl~í~'f~i¡í!~i!¡~~ > ir ~ i i i¡' ~§ ~ ~~~ 1 !!: i II i ¡ 1° I l" .. H~~I! I ~ 11 rtV!!~~~~~~Ø~~IUii'~~!~I!~I~ ~ ~I~~! ; a Ilr .¡ 1¡~¡ii~~~"~~iiJ¡i~i~~~ : i ~ ~¡.¡ I~ ~ . ~--wt¡g~ :r¡fH~'" ~'h!irlm~"J!9HpI· ~ ¡ifi ~ ~ ~ ¡i[iiriiiri~r[iiii~ir[i[i~~ili~1 ~ ~I ~ '" i [ .~ i ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~- .. = 1: 9. ~ ... -"'..~ õõ 0 ...-... -.... -g;¡.~", >C __~ 0 ~~~~ ._ -. \,oil - ~~.- ~ . ~ p~~~ ~~ ~~~~?~~~~~~~~~???~?P~~~~~~P?~?~ ~ ON.~ ~ -c W~W~Q~N._._N~~OOONOO~~W~~~OO~O ~~ Z 0 <> .. ~ . ~~ ~~ ~ N~.~ ~ ~ N _N_NN N N N NN .....--- w~~ 8'" ~w~~ ~. ~N~W o~~~..~~~~~~w.~~..~~o.w~ n ......'" Q ~ ~...~.....~.........._~e....___",~~...~"'....e~oo...~~ ~- .. 0000 2: C!S =========oooooo==coooo=ooooooo- > III !!! > ¡¡: ;:¡ l:in := ~¡~~ ~ ~ W NW_WW_ _ W w_ _1,01I WW_W~N_N w~i ~ · \0 011 "'" \,oil ~ 0 co _ Ø<. '-.I 0\ Q _ 00 0 0\ 0\ !XI ~ _ \0 \C =0 \0 00 \0 I,Q N \0 -..I ..... N 00 0\ "",":.l.:J. ~ ... 0\-..... 8 0 .O\~~._~~_~~=~=~~~~w~_w~~~w=~~~~ ~~ ~e~~ .e OWQW~~W~~~~~~~~~NON~N~~~O~~~N~ > ¡ d ~ ! . > š ,. _ ~ ñ ""t -....... . ....__"'e.....___o......___....._."'_....~..........__;I;¡1 ~f- Þ > '" ~ .. .. ~ 3:. .. ~ g i ~ > .,¡; = ==_= ~. ==========================_w== ~ ~ a ~ ~ _. ~ _.... ; I!. =w.= I 0 ============================= <~<w -< -«-<NW<-<-««««<-N~«<~ ~;¡J~ ~ ~~~~~~!~¡::!:~~~~~~~~~~~~~e5~~;~~" < < < «< < < ««««< «< ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~!~~II~II~~~III~'¡; ~~~. ~ W Ni-ww- - W ____w. .___~w_w W' ~ "'.......¡ a W~~ ~~WN~_~~~=§oo=w~ww_w_=w_~~~; ~.N ~ ~~~ N~W~~.~~~. ~~.W~_+W~__W~~N~> õ~~ Õ 8~~ ~t~ð!!~=!8 ë=~~~~õ8t~~ëõ~~ .~I¡~ -w ~ - . 0 W~_ __ N _ ~w~ __NWN_ ~ ~ ~~ _~~~ ~~ . N~.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ =8~~ ~= ~o;o=~~8~§~8;!ooo~oo=~§=8~==ëo ~ ). Jj~/tJ . ~ gf.,.¡.f/I3J T I::S aru:. ua I ur \,;ftULA \II~IA ut~I,;LUSUKt: !ìfATEMENT . You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial iDlereslS, payments. or campa;" .~. . II h' h 11 . d" . th f th C' C . ~n ,ontn UUUIl'. on a matters w Ie WI require Iscretlonary ¡¡;UOn on e pan 0 e ny ouncll, Planning Commission and all th ffi .. I bocr Th ~ II . . fa' d' . U or U ILIa les. e 0 oWlDg 1ft rmatJon must be Isclosed: 1. List the namcs of all persons having a financial intcrcst in thc propcny which is the subject of the application or the CUnt,".:. . . c.g., owner, applicant, COnlnlCtor, subcontractor, matcrial supplier. lJor- ¡(!r,"l.d"a_-N~ 2. If any person" idcntified pursuant to (I) aoovc is a corporation or pannership, list thc names of all individuals uwning ltIure than 10% of the sharcs in the corporation or owning any panncrship interest in dIe partnership. /1Jor /.'J?(I("~ 3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) aoove is non-profit organization or a trust. list the names of any person ser\'in~ as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or truscor of the trust. !Jù, ~¡?¡:fJ( .'15/..-_ .4. Havc you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissiolls, Committees, and Council within thc past twelve month'! Yes _ No ~ If ycs, please indicate person(s): S. Please idcntify each and evcry pcrson, including any agcnlS, employees. consultants, or independent Contractors who you have assigned to represcnt you before the City in this matter. /'.lor ,crp(.¡(·,('~ f¿. 6. Havc you and/or your officers or ascots, in the asgregate, contributed more than $1 ,000 to a Council member in the current or preceding clection period? Yes _ No x:. If ycs, state which Council members(s): · · · (NOTE: Attached addltlo Date: Z./WI90 hcant ßt.~ (Oc)~ Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant .. œm is defined as: "Any individual. Jirm, co-parmership. joint vrntUre. association. social club. fraternal organization. corporation, estate. tnLft. receiver, syndicare. thi.f and any other county, city or cOllnrry, city municipality. district. or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting a.f a unit. J/ _ / / 15 . MEMORANDUM . .( March 20, 1996 File # 0735-10-STL-224 TO: John Goss, City Manager Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney Robert Powell, Director of Finance Beverly Authelet, City Clerk Ken Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the "Placement of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Overlay for FY 1995-96 Overlay Program on Various Streets in the City ofChula Vista, CA (STL-224)" and authorize staff to increase quantities to expend all available funds for this project I Financial Statement FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $517,322.20 B. Staff (Design & Inspection) 70,000.00 C. Material Testing 10,000.00 D. Contingencies (Approximately 11 %) 61,127.78 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $658,449.98 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. 1995-96 Pavement Overlay Program· Account 250-2501- $158,449.98 STL-224 B. 1995-96 Pavement Overlay Program - Account 253-2530- 500,000.00 STL224) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $658,449.98 ( M:\IIOMElENGINEERIAOENDAIPA VEORVL.SLH Jj ~ /.2.. -~_....._._-_._--- --- -- --------_._~-----~~~----~---_.- E,ctt,ßIT 2 88~~~~~~8888~88b :;!8g~~~~~~2Ç$g~gg~ g-~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ 2 ~~~~""~~M ~ ~ ... - ......~... ~ ... ~ M M ~ ~:~~;:~;;~~~~~~~~ ;:¡ '" ..;¡r;-;;¡O;M~'" >¡ ~ ~ ... .. .... :f 8~ 8888888888888888 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~!g~~!!ãã~§~§ggø ~ ~ ~~o~~~, ~N ~~~- ~;¡r;M ~ ti ~ :Z>=>ði;; "''''~.. ~ ~~I"~j"~i ~8 ~8~888~88 8 ~u ~ ~",o8~ ~~~~~~~~ § ~~ g~' ~ M MM ð ffi w ~ ~8888888888888888 ~ F ~ <~i~ ~~i!~i! §ii~ ",~~¡!1 ~~~ ~~ gs ~~~; ~~ ~ ; ~5~ð ~~>ð ;; ..~.. .. .. ~ 3ij~~i~~ ~~~~t~ã ~§ &~~~~8~~~ 8 o ~ ~ ~",9~ ~~ ",a M__8MN. § 0 ~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ ," ~ ....~ .... N ~I~ ~ '" 8 8 -HJ:§ ~ - I", , 88~888888888888~ è ~'" ~.~ :;!§g~~¡::;~8ä~Ug~gga Ix- ~ '" ~.,.e I::œ ~"'Q~¡¡ _~_ ~ ... r· >- >=. ~~~~oIII ~& :.;;a"" A..... - - II i ~~I~§~f ~~ ~8~888~88 8 ~ ., ~'" ~ ~ R °öa g;¡~E>i8~¡;:~ ~ > 8 ;!O ¡jù. t; ¡¡ M::: ~ = eZo ~~ ~ .. ~ I 8888888888888888 ~ ~ 5 ., :;!§i~ ~~8å 8§i§i ~ ~ i., i-~gœ ~"'~~- ~~N ~ ... . I ~ Q ~_~_M _MM N ~ _ MrO'IM .., .. on M M M ~ ~ ~æ~8 ~88888888 8 ~ ~ ö~ ia!~8~a!§ § 6 ~ ~;¡M ;; IS ! ~ ~ ~~~!!.~!! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ h~¡!·-~œN - g . ~ ~ ~ 8 1 ~ ~~ffi ~l ~ ~g~ f~ð ~g ..~ ~~~ f~t õJ¡¡~ ~.8S ~ ~:(~ ¡hì\ i ~ g ~ U~ J ~~I H~ I ~~2:ì ~"'l! ~I ",,,,!i! If! ~ ~~~ ~~~~ = ;¡"j3 - - ~._-- ". -- '.. ---.--- fY.HIßIT ... 3 § Q;OO~~!§!gOO~ooo~;~~~Gi~~c~;~~ 08 ~~ic S æ ~ _"~M__ ~~~ - M -- ~ _~~ ~ . - ~ M_ ~ RR~~~:;:~~;~~~.R~i~a:;:~la~i!&~gR! ~ ¡OR! ~ ~~~~~ai~S~~6~5~§§!ij~~~=t~~~~!R~R i ~~ª~ ~ ~Q111:3:311111111111:31:31:3:31:311::~1:3 ~1-1 ~ »> »»»»> > > »> > >~> ~ ~~111:3~a111111111~1~1~~1~11~~1~ w1~1 ~»>~~-»»»»>->->~~>-»-~>- ~>~> ~~~~~~=;~~=-~~!S~~~;~=~~~:"~~ g ~~N~ :ë I ~ '!:; 5 ~. i ~ S ~I;I~I= 5! ~ . ~ ! ~ . ~ ~ i i ;( $ . ~ ... . ~ ; ~ i ~ _~~ ~~ _R;;~;~ ~ ,~~~~~~~~~~ s ~ ft -;;;uu WUMU QG~~: -- u ~~~Mi!~~~~N~·~-·:ft~-·~~:~~~~~= ~~~~ . . .. . . . . . .0 .w_.. . . .ow·-~iw . .~ . 8 ~ .~ . = ~1~~;g·~'~-~~-~~S1l- ~~~. ~~:;:~ . ~ ~~ · ~ð~~ ~ ~ ~1àîàì:ì!'ÞF~~ ~ Së.·t c_~ _I...~ ~ ~ .~... ~~ _·0 ~ -MM M - ¡;¡ GMG ¡;¡-Ma - - ª 1>1 õ~~~~;g~~~~~~~~~·'~=~-.~Ñõ~;~~ 88 ~ ~~~§~i~~äi~~~~~~tiia~~äªi~äã¡ää~ ": J ~~~R~~~~~~E~~5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ N~___~~~N~_N ~¡¡..~~~ ~-~N~~~8. ~ ~.. . ~~~_~N~~~~~N~~. . N ~~~~~_~ ~ ~ _N ~ . _~_o~oo_~~ _ ~ ~ ~-~-_ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=~-~~~=~a ~~~ ¡;¡ ~~¡;¡~~ ~a -~~ - S!å i MMM MMUMW M M M " M oo~~oooooooooooooooooooooooco C C~NC ~- · : 00._00000000000000000000000000 w I 0_00 ~ ~ ~~ ~ i J--~N~~~-~~-~~---~~~c---~~c~--~ ~ i ~~2- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o. I ~~~~ ~~Sk ~~~~~~k~~~S~~~~N~kN~S ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ D~~~-~w~.~.w-w~.~~~.~~._~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~. > ~ ~ ~ _N~.~~~N~NC ~~~.~ ~~N ~- ~. ~ ~~~~ ~ 0 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ "c~~ ~ ~. ~ -~~~ ~ ~ ~ S~E5~- ~k~_ ~=~ !$--: ~ E ! ~ ~! ~ ccccccccoooocccccccccccccccccc cc B oooc ~ 1· E ~ ~ ~i ~ ¡ . II -~ J~~~~~~~~~~~~:;:;~~~~~~~~~~R~~~~~i § ~ :;:~~~ ~e . ___w. .. ~ . ~ ft~_._ ft ~ I ~w~. ~~f ~ ~... ð i c~cc~~~~~~oo~ccc~~~~~~~~~c~~~~ o~ ~~~c ~. ~ ~~5~~~ ~ ~~~§~~;~~ ~-~~ ~ d~~ ~ °5 ~ ~¡~.~~ ~ =i~~~~~~; ~~~ § = ~~~ . ~ ~~= N_~ - - i ~- I . It. .. ~ I ~ ! ~I~I~I~!II!I I ~ ~ IIII ~. 1 h .. 11 ~ _ !.. ~ JQ~ llin'u'I'IM!I;. ! ¡ !, . ~ i 1 ££ I £1 ! ~ II I e d~U~ lJ!t!J~~jlt~l~ j¡~¡11~jl~~UI~ ; ~ ~I!I¡ _.11._ it ¡~ I ii1 " C_N~. ~~.~ _ _N~ Z j-N~~~~~..__________~NR~;~~~~~~ ~~~ . j ~ ,s==::Q:~=~==~~~R~=~~.~.=::~~m~~!!~'CQO;"ç".==g~II~1 ------------~-~---~--~-~-~~~~- ~-----------------~I 1./'1'1 E"¡"lf/l-Dlí 4-3 " ~ oj; , '. .::; MO-O ~.... . ~ ,,~ , - ¡ I I ¡! .:¡! "1! . · ' ~ - -"1:-1:: . ";'-"""'" ~ f(! Q;)'I! I I ~ ,) I , I ('I ~ :) <:> 0 I'; . . 0 a a Io<:>%óò ~ -a 0 Q 10 q- .,.. I., ~ <:> 0 _ ..... _ .... ... r---..... -:t -.9 - ~ - " r--t< \1) " 88 88888888 888~ .. ~~$ ~~ä~~~$ g$$. ~~e& ~~ -~; 5 ~ ~ I~~'! ¡::8~U8'!88 8 ìi ¡¡~~1!¡¡~a~~ 'g .. =~ ~ M M ~ ;; Ii ~ ! :iUU,!:iU J = ; ~~ ~ n ~ ~ ~~~~.-§-" - g ~ if(1 1 ~ d '1< ~ ~ f"$ ~ . 'S~ IhR P' ¡" 02 ,EI ~JH < ¥~/5 -------.- - ---_.-.._._~..~_._..._~---~--------_.- ._~..._- -- f")l.tfIß(T 4- ~ ~o§§§§ § § I. ~'" :8~~~ ~ ~ I' .... .... ... .... c: I rL .... &.' ::J I ~ I· § 0 § § § § § § §,' ; ai :š~~~ ~ ~ c' ~ ..:..."..:",: i rL .... K' ãi ::J , ~ §o§§§§ § § ~ I J ; ai :š~~~ ~ ~ .~ I if ~ .: ¡; .: ~ .~' z 11 ì . I!! : .l/ok S! 0 S! S! ' ~~Ii í ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ §. 'i' "''''0 ,:. '" :8!!1 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ..J ! .,.:.,.:....:.,..: ~! _ M M 0 ¡ , c .. rL Q. i I- .. a: " W w iii .. ' Q ... I:) [;j I' :E ß':;~ ... ~ 0 § § ~ § § § § .q ~ ¡ ~ If, C~ ~ifi! :z ¡;:¡ '!! g ~ ~ ~ si ~ 1!ë ¡;.6 "5 .1 1ñC)0 i!0:¡: N ~ _Ñ~ t:So. S'š .!1 I _ ...Ia::w ... en "ø. >11: SC~ .. ",'- c"'ë .c, a. t:A.O iL .,t:J: cu~G) (J, Cl/ ZWa:: 1-1- CD~E ~ f< -II- _OA. ~-",' :I . c " :t z ¿..g : ~ ¡; ;¿. C , OW "'.... ~ ~ 0'" ..,.,.0. C '" r 2 Zz S em CD 0 ~W SW .!œ ~...= 11>" > -' .ø !:5 _ - c: CD ~ - CD ,. >0 c~-- 1:3 II> 0 "'. 1-11: ....a::>11j .¡~ 2'_ç; 0 ~ -D.. 00.0)- cn,s! CU:O;; 5Z ~ l' 0:E ....0:> 1j.6 .~ '"'t; 6- - f~ ~I!! 1!¡;-2 ' ..J!!.... 1iíë 1C"C1ií g> C _ ~CDC·- t: ~~ 1ií~~ E' ~ ti... ~ 0 §. §. ~ ~ §. §. ~ .~! ! ; ~ i ~ w c ~ en 0 co co co 5i! cø 0...... ¡;,,- ... ... eft ... :t a~" ~ ~ ~:;; .... Ñ;; -OU) :J:S! i c. i I a:f'! .n ¡g ¡g ¡g J!ã~ !p.æ·¡, ~ .e ¡ A. 0.,-... lS .... ... o.Ji 8' '" -' I!! "5 e '"!!Q. :;¡.!!2' II> 5 "'II> _"'''' ~ .c . CI) CI) .oc! -1ã- ~ en ,l f ~ ~ S:!.~ ~ d "i I!! ; o 0 .r!_~ CD"'3 ~ (II I- I- »....þ. >IQ õ - ~ o ~ ~ E [.0 ~ - e ì I Z "'co -..,ø .., 8 õ ~'"-= mc~ ¡ . o . Z .......... ca..... > . .. ... ~ ",.- '" 1ií _ :fi LL t :::...1 i! 1íi~ ~:¡¡:ç ~ ãi .c Î ' ... '" II".., :=E~ ;!! E œ > ",1;;0 ~.~ ~"'.~ 'f1~è it ï: ~ Ii , .. '~]I ..:Bð :ë..2.6:¡¡ = f t w .!! !< ¡ .. ¡¡; i co æ . a: Ii. ~ : rii .cQj II> =o!. 1::... e·! '1 c .12 W ficl) õ-·2 """5 lit z !ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ,"õf "'õ1í 1; ! "':= . ~ ~!èfc:~'! 5 fn7ñ;s.-I!-ciw ~'~i >- i i '2 .~ g ! '" '" ":ïñõ ~.§õ ã .. - e I .. i ~ Q. ~ ð tJ,&' ~)( ~ 8 ~II> °c" i! ~ u ~ . I WOe j:S2 .g 'I Ii" t; ~ t; o;¡g ~¡~ æ e, o· !SII> 11 i! " . o~o 0 ... _ - ~:> i!! ~ ~ "C cj i~.!! '2 _ ~~c ~€11 ~ ~ #'1(' ! '" S ....a W 1/1 ~ __._~.___.___,._ _'0-'_"'--'-- E'')(./-fIr3IT S" PART 2 SPECIAL PROVISIONS - TECHNICAL 2-01 WORK TO BE DONE The work to be done consists of providing asphalt rubber hot mix, I -1/2 inches thick, overlay, on various streets in the City of Chula Vista, California. The work also includes the removal of alligatored pavement areas and replacement with asphalt concrete pavement, the cold milling of street pavement in certain areas as shown on the plans, AC leveling courses, signal loops, traffic control, adjustment of sewer manholes, adjustment of survey well monumenl~, French Drain System, and other miscellaneous items of work. Such other items or details not mentioned above, that are required by the plans, Standard Specifications. or these Special Provisions, shall be performed, placed, constructed or installed. The items are to be constructed or finished and installed in a complete and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the plans and specifications. Applicable plans include those included in these specifications (See sketches in Appendix B) and drawing Number 95- I 43. The sketches in Appendix B also show construction of sidewalk ramps and some other concrete work. All this work has been comnleted bv a senarate contract. The work to be done includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection of existing improvements, and traffic control necessary for the project as shown on the drawings and described in these documents. I , ¡ The specific work to be done on each of the various streets is summarized in Table I, Appendix A of these special provisions. Tahle I shows the streets to be overlayed by order of priority. It is the City's intent to complete as many of these streets as possible. Based on recent similar bids, we anticipate to be able to fund up to and including item No. 30. Streets 31-34, inclusive are not a part of this Contract. The City, however, reserves the right to add these streets to the Contract; if adequate funding becomes available as a result of this bid or from other funded sources. The City also has the exclusive right to eliminate streets from those listed in the table of proposed work to ensure there is not a cost overrun on the project due to quantity changes on individual streets. Except for bid item No. 11 (Traffic Control), the unit bid price(s) shall apply no matter how much the actual quantities vary from those estimated in the proposal. There shall be no adjustment in compensation for as permitted in Section 3-2 of the Standard Specifications. 2-02 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DRAWINGS The Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (1994) commonly referred to as the "Green hook " , San Diego Regional Supplement Amendments (1994), Chula Vista Standard Special Provisions, (1995), the 1995 Supplement to the "Greenhook", Regional Standard Drawings (1995), Chula Vista Construction Standards (1995), California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Standard Plans (July 1992), and State of California Manual of Traffic Controls (1990), all as adopted IB: \fo:.aginrer\Admin\COUtl"ad\OYrLy9s..23(BoiIPreT .aU) 33 J/..- 17 - ..----....- ..' . ..~-_._...._--_..,-_.~ -- ------- £Y.tilt'3IT 5" Special Provisions - Technical (Continued) 'f., '" ,. :j:' The work under this section also includes the construction and replacement with new material of ; 1 fences, lawns, sprinkler systems, planting (like kind), and signs and poles within the work area. 1 Overbreakage will be replaced at the Contractor's expense. The limits ofremoval shall be per RSD "G-I!". , ;~ Work performed under this section will ensure that the private property will be restored to an "as J !1 , good as" or "better than" condition as compared with conditions existing prior to commencement of , ! construction. The Engineer shall determine whether or not the private property has been restored ·1 t satisfactorily. The Contractor shall provide signed releases from each owner that the work has heen , 1 done satisfactorily. \ 2-\3 CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS I The Contractor shall have previous successful experience in the placement of Asphalt Ruhher Hot Mix Overlay and a minimum of three (3) separate projects in the placement of conventional AC . overlays of at least 4,000 tons. Prior to award, the Contractor shall provide a list of said projects t for review hy the City. If the Contractor does not meet these requirements, the bid may be awarded 10 the next lowest responsible bidder. . 2-14 ClfANGE IN QUANTITY OF WORK The City shall have the option to increase or decrease the unit quantity of any items of work in the proposal by any amount without a change in contract unit prices. There will be no adjustment in compensation as permitted in Section 3-2 of the Standard Specifications. 2-15 BASIS OF QUANTITIES The City has approximately $550,000. to spend on overlays for this project. The quantities given :1 in the proposal include the first ~ streets in Table 1 attached at the end of these special provisions. Should the City receive bids for the first ~ streets in Table 1 lower than the available $550,000., the City will likely increase the quantities to expend all available funds. Similarly, if the bids I received are higher than the available $550,000., the City shall decrease the quantities in the proposal to match available funds. The City reserves the right to change the priority and/or sequence of street~ to be paved with no increase in cost in the various items of work bid in the bid proposal. ! .. -16 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING ¡ The City of Chula Vista Land Surveying Group will be responsible for tieing our and replacing of , ~ any property monuments within the immediate work area at no expense to the Contractor. Any monuments destroyed by the Contractor outside the immediate work area shall be replaced by the j'!; ¡? : City of Chula Vista Land Surveying Group at the Contractor's expense. . ~; .. m:\EÐgl.neer\Admln\CoDtract\OvrLy95-.23(8011Prev .aU) 43 J/,¡g-' - ------..- ~_UM COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT f' item: Meeting Date: 6/25/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Consideration of the adoption of the city of Chula vista Operating and Capital Budget for 1996-97 Resolution J ¡Y;J5'1 Approving Adoption of the final operating and Capital budgets of the City of Chula vista for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 1997. SUBMITTED BY: city Manage~< (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-L) The City Council has held three special work sessions to consider and discuss the proposed 1996-97 budget. The Council has received citizen input and discussed in detail with staff the impact of this budget on all city operations. The proposed budget has been amended based on tentative decisions by the Council at the budget work sessions and it is this amended budget which is presented for consideration and possible adoption. Based on these amendments--- including Council's direction to approve additional revenue enhancements and add certain program cuts back into the budget (See Table B.)---the General Fund budget is recommended to be $57,721,509, from the original proposed $56,019,243. The increase in funding of $1,702,266 is partially offset by an increase in revenues of $1,475,349. These actions take the budget from the original proposed $129,721 surplus to a working deficit of $97,196. This deficit is to be addressed via Council consideration of several potential revenue and expenditure items open for further policy decisions on June 25. These decision points all appear in the Budget Options Summary (Exhibit 4, page 2). RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept public testimony and adopt the proposed budget as amended during the review sessions and as may be further amended as a result of the public testimony and Council decisions regarding additional revenue and expenditure proposals. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The proposed Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget includes the proposed spending level, as well as adjustments tentatively decided by ý/ Item #,..Þ" , Page 2 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Council during the budget workshops. The proposed General Fund budget, as amended per Budget workshop direction is recommended to be $57,721,509 while the All Funds budget is recommended to be $101,511,342, an increase of $1,143,862 from the proposed $100,367,480. The increase is discussed in the detail in the report as well as listed in the exhibits. During the Council budget workshops all city departments were tentatively approved. The following list includes all changes to the general fund as amended by Council's tentative action. ~ General Fund APpropriation Amendments The following is a listing of all adjustments to the general fund appropriations (not including restoration of program cuts recommended 6/20/96; see list below): Administration ($74,262) Freeze soon to be vacant Deputy City Manager, offset by adding additional hourly wages for administrative assistance Personnel $16,236 Reinstate Senior Personnel Analyst at .75 FTE level Planning $14,452 Reinstate Sr. Admin. Office Specialist for full year and return partial year Acting Senior Planner to Associate Planner for full year due to EastLake III delay. Building & Housing $50,027 Additional funds for hourly wages for a Code Enforcement Officer II for Curbside Anti-theft Community Hotline Grant. Fully Funded by Grant. Council $819 Add to establish Internet E-Mail accounts for Councilmembers. Various Departments ($2,850) Travel adjustment correction to meet Finance ($1,350) new administrative policy of $750 per Pub Works ($160) department. Nature Center reduced in P & R ($590) other funds ($600). Library ($750) Various Departments $20,828 Increase in fuel costs to be spread to all departments based on spreadsheet in Supp Bud Rept # 22. Overall total of $32,511 also includes $11,683 charged to other funds. y,z ___*.._n._...'_,'.__"'__"__" Item # ç , Page 3 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Police $10,000 Additional funds to continue Cultural Diversity Training in Police Department. Police $7,150 Appropriate state grants funds for South Bay Community Services as discussed in supp Budget Rept #20. Police $981,367 Expenditures from grants moved to general fund for more accurate accounting, and as recommended by auditors. Fully offset by revenue. Also includes CBAG Grant. Community $24,000 Payment for Summer Pops Concert funded Promotions by Port. Revenue was added, however, expenditure inadvertently was not included. Transit Service $214,158 General Fund offset to Transit Budget! Operation Equipment ($11,470) Reduction per Supplemental Budget Memo Replacement #17 (in Admin, Plng, P&R, publ. Works) Police ($32,102) Shift of 0.50 FTE Trainer to Fire Fire $32,102 Shift of 0.50 FTE Trainer from Police Non-Departmental $14,948 Pool car rental allocation TOTAL GF $1,265,403 EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS 1L.. Additional Appropriation Amendments per Council Direction 6/20/96 RESTORATION OF PROGRAM CUTS Parks & $192,868 Park Maintenance: No Recreation organizational change; fill two vacancies ! During preparation for the budget, it was recommended by Finance that unnecessary funds be eliminated. This transit fund was deleted and the expenditures placed in the Public Works budget, and revenue into the General Fund. It was later discovered that the Public Works Budget summary included the transit funds, however, when the budget system totaled the overall General Fund, these were not included. Ý:3 - -~.-----_._--~_.._--.-." Item # -Þ , Page 4 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Parks & $49,245 Aquatics: Reinstate current Recreation staffing levels Library $147,550 Reinstate service hours Parks & $40,200 Restore Afterschool Recreation Recreation sites within walking distance of other facilities Parks & $7,000 Restore Friday and Saturday Recreation evening hours at Norman Park Center TOTAL PROGRAM $436,863 CUT RESTORATION: ~ GENERAL FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS Building and $50,027 Curbside Anti-theft Community Hotline Housing Grant revenues. Roadside Debris ($25,000) Was predicated on an increase in Clean-up Revenue Laidlaw rates which has been postponed. Otay Valley Loan $263,964 Repayment of half of this loan by RDA. Repayment Golf Course ($100,000) Appropriation of reconstruction of Transfer-In golf cart bridge. adjustment Golf Course Annual $295,972 Create a general fund revenue account Revenue to place all golf course revenue directly into general fund. Includes $40,800 from Golf Course Fence CIP. Planning Revenue $30,000 Readjustment of Planning staff Revision reimbursements based on deletion of EastLake III processing. Police Grants $708,711 Transfer of Police Grant revenue into general fund revenue accounts for more accurate accounting of grant funds. CIP Closure of $99,167 Closure of old and completed projects. projects CIP Staff Time $68,769 Available CIP funds (Special Capital reimbursement-CAD Outlay, Charter Point) toward General Fund cost of CAD System. ý¥ --.-.-----. Item # ~ Page 5 , Meeting Date 6/25/96 state Grant from $7,150 Receipt of state Grant funds to be South Bay Community passed through to SBCS. Supp Bud Rept. Services # 20. Cost Allocation ($25,000) The revenue attributed to the Cost Correction Allocation Program (Full Cost Recovery) was incorrectly attributed all to the general fund. $25,000 is to be applied to non-general fund sources. Reduce Transfer-Out $50,000 Creates additional revenue by reducing from refinancing of the payment on the COP's by this TC I COP amount due to refinancing a lower interest rate. Recreation Swimming $7,200 The recommended increase in swimming Fees fees was inadvertently left out of the proposed revenue. Recreation Class $7,200 Increase fee per class session by an Increase additional $1, or a total of $2 per class session. Tree Planting Fee $740 The proposed increase in this fee was inadvertently left out of the proposed revenue. Zoning Permit Fee $7,500 This proposed fee increase was Increase tentatively approved by Council and is recommended to be included in the budget. Fine Arts Fund $18,949 This represents the reimbursement to Reimbursement the General Fund for the additional .25 Cultural Arts Coordinator. Traffic Control $10,000 This proposed fee increase was Plan Fee tentatively approved by Council and is recommended to be included in the budget. TOTAL GF REVENUE $1,475,349 ADJUSTMENTS: .Ih OTHER FUNDS ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES ý5 Item # f , Page 6 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Sewer Service Fund $18,000 Additional funds to refurbish the "G" street pump station. (SBR #11) Sewer Service Fund $30,000 Addition of safety program enhancement as recommended by the Risk Manager. Equipment $71,558 Approval of program as outlined in SBR Replacement Fund # 17. Central Garage Fund $103,016 Increased fuel prices as discussed in SBR # 22. Transit Fund $53,775 Increased fuel prices as discussed in SBR # 22. Nature Center ($600) Travel Cuts (See related General Fund item) . Nature Center ($306) Fuel cost increases Central Garage $7,618 Fuel cost increases Parking Meter $4,371 Fuel cost increases Police Grants ($800,701) Shift of grant funding to General Fund. Central Garage $7,330 Equipment Replacement Fine Arts Fund $18,949 Funds to reimburse the General Fund for an additional .25 Cultural Arts Coordinator. Parking Meter ($1,820) Equipment Replacement TOTAL OTHER FUND ($488,810) APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS REVENUE Storm Drain Fund $15,000 Enforcement of the Storm Drain Ordinance through fines for violators. Sewer Service Fund $5,000 Sewer Variance Processing Fee. CLSA Fund ($49,000) This proposed change represents the corrected grant figures based on grant reconciliation by the Finance Department. þ¿ ,..,- Item # .!;) , Page 7 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Library ($143,600) This proposed change represents the Construction Fund corrected grant figures based on grant reconciliation by the Finance Department. Police Grants ($662,529) Transfer of Police grants to the general fund. Central Garage $14,948 Pool car rental reimbursement. Central Garage $103,016 Increased fuel price reimbursement Equipment ($9,520) Reduction in vehicle fleet Replacement Fund TOTAL OTHER FUND ($726,685) REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS L SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED CIP PROJECT/ PROPOSED FINAL CHANGE FUNDING SOURCE BUDGET BUDGET PR-217 Golf Course Fence (per amended project scope) GOLF COURSE REV. $52,800 $12,000 ($40,800) PS-115 Public safety Communications--CAD (per available CIP close-out balances) GEN. FUND IN-KIND $174,594 $105,825 ($68,769) CHARTER POINT $0 $44,715 +$44,715 SPCAPOUT $0 $24,054 +$24,054 ST-513 ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program CDBG $50,000 $40,000 ($10,000) PR-163 Parkway Complex Renovation CDBG $18,360 $18,500 $140 TOTALS: CDBG ($9,860) GOLF COURSE REV. ($40,800) GEN FUND IN-KIND ($68,754) CHARTER POINT +$44,715 SPCAPOUT +$24,054 TOTAL CIP CHANGE: ($50,645) Another change recommended which does not affect new appropriations concerns S7 Item # f Page 8 , Meeting Date 6/25/96 ST-123 - street Widening-Otay Valley Road. This project's prior appropriations total incorrectly omits Council's action earlier this year (Reso. 18195) to reduce the RDAOTAY share by the $200,788 re-budgeted through TRANSNET in 1996-97. The prior appropriations should thus read $2,695,917 for RDAOTAY and $11,727,330 for all prior funding sources, with a project total of $11,928,118. It should also be noted that the footnote regarding a Sewer Fund loan applies to the $420,000 TRANSDIF line item, not the $2.69 million RDAOTAY line item. I:.... SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS Expenditure Adjustments--ALL FUNDS General Fund $1,265,403 Restoration of Program Cuts $436,863 Other Funds ($488,810) CIP Adjustments ($50.645\ TOTAL: ALL FUNDS ADJUSTMENT: $1,162,811 General Fund Adjustments Revenue Adjustments $1,475,349 Expenditure Adjustments ($1,265,403) Restoration of Program Cuts ($436.863) NET GENERAL FUND CHANGE: ($226,917) PLUS INITIAL SURPLUS: $129.721 NET WORKING DEFICIT: $97,196 policv Decision Points There are several additional revenue and expenditure items proposed on which policy decisions have yet to be finalized (See Exhibit 4: Budget Options summary) . Implementation of all or some of these changes would enable Council to bring the bottom-line to a balance or provide additional funding for General Fund reserves. Master Fee Schedule Update The new and adjusted fees which are included in the proposed budget are subject to approval of a Master Fee Schedule update resolution. Since these fees are subject to special noticing requirements, a separate hearing will be calendared for the Council meeting of July 9. This update will not address the comprehensive review of the Master Fee Schedule as discussed in Supplemental Budget Report #34. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed all funds budget, including debt service is $101,511,342. This amount includes a revised general fund operating budget of $57,721,509. ýg/ ___.......___.__.._____________~___~._..____..._M Item # ~, Page 9 Meeting Date 6/25/96 Exhibits: Attached are the following exhibits: Exhibit 1: operating Budget, special Revenue, and Capital Detail Exhibit 2: General Fund summary Exhibit 3: preliminary Budget summary Exhibit 4: Financing Sources and Uses Exhibit 5: Budget options Summary: Fund Balance , Restoration of Program cuts, Decisions Yet to be Made budadopt.f97 f,~/Io . ,.-." _._-~---,... ~_._._- Revised 6-25-96 RESOLUTION NO 18351 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ADOPTION OF THE FINAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1996 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1997 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista, sections 1004 and 1005, the City Council is required to adopt a budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 1997, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has prepared and filed with the City Clerk his proposed budget, and WHEREAS, due notice has been given by the City Clerk, as required by law, that said proposed budget is on file and open to anyone interested, and WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing was held on June 25, 1996 on the proposed budget as required by City Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Chula vista that there is hereby appropriated out of the resources, including prospective revenues, of the City of Chula vista for municipal purposes and for use by the various departments, the amounts shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein in full. The City Council finds that all appropriations contained in this resolution are within the legal spending limitations authorized by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appropriations attached are approved as the budget for the 1996-97 fiscal year. The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby jointly authorized to transfer appropriations as set forth in Council Policv No. 220- 02 "Financial Reportinq and Transfer Authoritv" ..ithin control accounta for all aorvicoa and to trans for appropriations 1getmoon control accounts for Employee Lcrviccs only. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance may, from time to time, invest temporarily idle funds from anyone fund in legal investments permitted by law for charter cities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the inter fund transfers described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby authorized; and any such inter fund transfers described thereon as loans shall bear interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum which the City council finds and determines is the current prime interest rate. 1 ..--r J -.?~/ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that revenues received from Developer Deposit Funds for projects for which consultants rather than City officers or employees are engaged are hereby continuously appropriated to the Developer Deposit Fund. Presented by Approved as to form by John D. City Manager Ov.... ~ ~ Q Goss, Ann Y. Moore, Interim City Attorney C:\rs\annual.bud 2 ~);( ~ ~ ¡§ ~0800NO~00NOOO~N~~oo8~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~oo~~~o~~~ 00 0 N M~ ~~~O~OOOOO Eio"7 ~ ~""''''' "' "' "' " ... ... ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -0 ~~NO~~~O N ~ ~ ~~ - M~ ~~N ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~N -~ ~ '-' ~ ~~V"7 -" U .... .... .... ~ Z ~ ~OO~~M~N-~~~O~~~~~vMOO ~ ~oM~~-00~8~~~~~~~-N008 p: 0 OMN~~-_ OO~~M_ OO~V ~ ~MMMM~~~Ô~Ñ~~~ÑOOÑM~M ...... ¡o., ¡:: ~MMOOV~~~MMVMVV~~OOOO~M N ~S;~ M~NOONOO~~vv~~-~ O-N~O ~ , ~ ~~~~~~Ñ~~~~OO~~~~M~ ~" : d~P: Gl'7i0"7~ _V"7~_~fállt61'7 ~ : .... .... .... , uê)Ë) , , ~ ~ , , ~ o ~ ò U ~ § ò ~ ~ ¡:Q Z ~OO~~M~N~~~NO~vvOON~MO ~ Ò VOM~~~OON~N~~-MOO~~~OO~ ° NMN~~__NON~ M~_~ ~~N N ~ cJ E=: ~M~MM~~~Ó~~~~ÓÔOOM~~Ñ 0\ ~MO~~~~~MMMM~OOMNS;~~- - ~S;~ M~N N~~~vv~~-~vO 0 0 .... .... ~~~~~~Ñ~~~~~~~Ó~M~ ..£ ~ ...;, ~ &o'7E.0'7&0'7 _&7&0'7_&'7&0'7E.o't ~ p:~¡o., .... .... .... ¡o., Ò_O C? ~ ~ Z , 0 , ~ ~ , , , , , ¡o., 0 l\1 P: ¡o., I ~ I ~ ~ >~~ ~ ~ ~o ~ P:~ U ; ..:.~ oE=: z ~~Ë)Ò ~ Ò Z ~ P: ~o 0 0 ~ ¡o., ~::: ;' -:< ~~ 6 0 ~~ ~ ~ E=: ~ ' , ~ . . .~ ~o z~~~~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ èO~~~~~~~~ ~ ê~ð ~ Ò d ¡o., ~ U 0 § ~ - ul~ ~~I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OP: ~òu Op: ~ §~ ~~~~I ~Iª~~~~~i~§ ¡:Q 0 ~ Ò U 0'0 , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~oo~~~~~o~~~oÔ~§ê æ~ ~ ~ ~ U¡:Quuu ¡o.,U ¡o., Z¡o., ¡:Q¡o.,¡o.,~> N ~ ¡o., 0 ~ 0 ¡ij ~ , , ~ ~ 8 0 * p: U 00 - 0 rf';¡lIì_O..q- 8°0-~00 ~ ~ N~ ~ _l/j \000 N ~~~~oooo ¡o., U - - - NNNv\O _ t'i')vllìt'-t"-- ~ 00 0 00000 ------- f!¡ ~ ::>::> ::> ::>::>::>::>::> ::>::>::>::>::>::>::> ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~J~~~~~~ ~ - ~ ¡§ t: lIì_OOOÓNOOO_gO______lIì ~ p: ~ 0 O_MlIì\O__lIì\ONN M--OO__O U _____NNNN~~~~ONM~~~~ U ooooooooooooo~~~~~~o ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 88888888888888888888 0 <A ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E-< * S·/J ~ OO~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNNNNNNNNN O ~OO~NOOOO~~~~~~O~WWWWNNN__ O~Ow-~O~_O~~WOOOO~~O~~O~_ * ~ OO~~~~~~~~~~~99NNNNNNNNNN n ~ ~ ~O§~NOOOO~~§__~W~WWWWNNN__ 0 ~ O~ W-~O~- ~~~OOOO~~O~~N~- ~ o ~ ~~*oioooi oo~~~ooooooi~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ OO~N NN ~ > ~ ~ ~ 8\j 88~ ~~ n f.c:I "" 0 ~ 0 .. ~ ,~n ~ I ~ ~ ~ , I ~ ~¡~~i~~i~~~~ !~~oii~!¡¡~; ! m z ~rn~~O~d~~ÖO~ ~~ ~~Qö~o~o ~ ~ i ~;~~~~~~;~~~ ~i¡~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~n~."z~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~gÑ ~ ~ (jj ~~~~~~~Qg~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~Q~g Ö ~~Q O~ö ~ ~~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~o ~ 8 ~ ~ o::J ~ ~ ~ ~ CIS ~ ~ 8 ~ : ~ > : o ~ : ~ ." ~ ~ ö ~~Q ~ ~ .... .... .,,::8 ~ 0 ~ w ~ ~ _~ ~ ~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~8~~NN""""00 ....~ ~~....~ NN~""OO ~::J:S ~ ~ 00 o~~~~~o ~N NO~~ ~~~~o n ~ ~ 0 ~~~~W_~ ~~ woooo _~~~o . ~ ." . ............... .... ..... 0 ~ c æ ~~~t~~~~~~~~ ~8~~~~~~~~~ z < ~ ~ oo~o~~oo_~~~~ _oooo~oooõ_o ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ o ~ ~ i ~ o~o : ~ .... ........ "'~p w ~ ~ _~ _ ~~~ p ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~p ~ ~ _~~~NN~~OO ~~ _~~w NNO~ ~::J~~ N OO~N~~~~~O ~N NO~~ ~~~~ .~ _w ~o ...N 'OUt ,,0\ ",-....1 ",\0 ...w ~ ",0\ ~ ...~ ...0\ 'Ow ",0 ",0 ",00 ...~ ",0-. ...VI .........) 0 ~ ~ ~~~~oo~~~~oo~~ ~§N~ ~~~§ d ......)_-....10_lJIO_W......)WOO - -....10\~~V\_ ~~ Z ooo_oO\......)oo_~V\~o _ 0000\000 00 .... .... ~ ~n .... .... .... ......) ~_ ~ 00 ~ -....1-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~oo ~ ~ § ~ ~, ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~o ~~~~~~~ ~o~ ~ ~ ooo~oooooooo~ ooooo~o o~o ~ ~ 5-/Ý ----.--.-" .-....._-~..- . ,,' ~OOOOOOOO~O ~ ~ ooIoo! t"--6"761'761'7E00"761'761'761'760"7"'Í"&'7 N 0'\ Ò ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M 0() N M V) ...... r:- M &'7 61'7 61'7 0 ....~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~0008~~0~~~ ~ ~ NOooO oo....N....~~ N ~ o I.()OOOOV) \OOtfj....-lO'lO 00 0'\ ~ ~ OO~Ñ~Ó~~~~~~ ~ Ó ~ ~ r:-V)6I'7&'70~O....-lNN_ \0 ....-I ~r:-~ r:-- MMO'\NM6I'7V1 V) 0'\ O'\~ "'~ &'76"7&'7&'7&0'7 &'7 ~ '" ,,..., ~ 00 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~g:;~ ~ U....o ~ ¡¡: : 0 ..., ! u ~ , , , , , CI) ~ z ~~~~8~8~g8~ ª ~ U· ~ ~~Ñ~Ô~~~~OO~ ~ ~ ~ Ntr)&0'7V'70~O.......N&'7_ 0'\ r- ~r:-~ r:-_ MMO'\NM V) ~ 00 ~ ~O'\~ ~&'7 61'761'7&'761'761'7 &'7 00 ~ ~ ."'~ ~ ~ ~ ~g:;~ ~ Ò....o o ..,. ~ , "'" ~ i ~ , , :g~~ ¡.::~~ ~oo ~§~ ~ ò ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ § ~E-<~;go U ~ ~ ~ ~z o~ ~~ CI) ò ~ ~~~~~ g~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~1~~~~8 ~ ~ § ~I~~i~~~g~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ CI) ~ ~oo 0 ~ ~ o ~~~ ~ ~ ~ tJ '~~ ~ æ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ô ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 000000....0000 0 ~ Z NNtr)O....-lV)ON~_M 8 ~~:f~~~~~~~~ ~ NNV)O_V)ON"d"....-I("fj 0 o~~~oooo~~~~~ '-" ,'" ~"d""d"0'\0'\0'\0'\0'\0'\0'\0'\ ~ v~ .ýb - -.--.---------- * 0\..(:::0.\0000\0\0\0\0\0\0\880\ NNNNNN Z lI\O\OV't NOOO lI1NV'tWN¡.....>. 0 w.¡..Vlo!ið....¡..wN1515 8 w......:a 00 0'\ lI\ I I I , , I I I . I I I I I I I I , I t n .., "'.¡..~oo"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' NNNNNN I I VI~ VlNNoooo151500 lI\NlI\WN"'"""" 0 ~ W lI'I.OOO.......þ..WNO 00 w......¡ 00 0"1 lI\ ~ ooo.....ooOOO\OlI\..þ..WN oU\,...........oo 00 NN¡;:Ò\'N § lI\ N¡....o.N_O o lI\....... 00 ll\ 0 '-0 d d l' gj >- ~ ~ n Z n 0 0 .., , ~ , "d 0 8 t!1 ~ ~ ~ '" z ~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ê Q n IJ: ~ t!1 § tj Z Q O~"'~nQ"'~"'~~ >p~~"'~~ ~n I , @~~l'~~~~~ ~~Bnn ~tj Q~O ~ t!1 8 (Å !1~~!~~~~Ø~i~~~~~~i~~1 ~ ztjz ~~O.., z",t!1 ~t!1 IJ: ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~I I ~ § ~ ~ -3 Q ~ ~~ ~~~'ð~ ~~ (Å ~ , , ~ , , , "d 8 ~ 0'" .... "d~ ..... .... ~'" ~ 0 ..... .... .... ........ .... .... 00 N ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ $=~ õo ~ N......~~WNlI\ lI\.........þ..~w..þ.. NWNlI\~W~ VI ~VlWtOONOO ~W'-O~NW '-O"''-O'''~15V1 d 0 '-0 N 00\\0 O\QOlI\ lI\WlI\ W"""¡ 000-00 N W N ~~NtNOOW ~~~~~w WOONWO§OO 0 ~ '-0 ..... N"'VI VlVIt....~15...VlVlVI.......VlN...~ 8 Z VI '" lI\OO~O_ 0 ......NONO\o_o\....... ~ , , , , , "d , ~ 0..... .... "d~ ..... .... ~C\ ~ ... ~&:t &:t-Eol9-&07 .... W ~~ ~~~ ~&:t~&:t&:t&:t ~~&:t&:t ~ $=~ 'c § N.......&:t&:tWNlI\&:tll\.........þ........¡W..þ..&:tNWNlI\&:tW~ ..... ~.¡..Wt~!iðOOt~w'-O"'NwNN...'-O.....~15..... d ..... 00\\0 lI\ lI\WlI\..þ..w......¡..(::o.\Oo.......oo N N W ~~NtNOOW~~~~~~WO~OONWO§§ 0 '-0 N N8l1\ lI\lI\..þ..-\08-lI\lI\lI1l1\O\lI\N.......~ Z 00 VI lI\ O......:aO_..Þ..lI\O .......NON..þ..lI\.......O\....... .... .... .... n ..... ~ ~ ~ '0 .... ~ .... .... .... .... VI ..... .... t N'" .¡.. ..... .00 '-0 .¡..OO ° ~ ..... 00 ~ o~ 00 Q ° &:t~~&:t~~&:t.......&:t~~&:t&:t&:tll\V't&:t~&:t~&:t8 t!1 W '-0 o OOOOOll\OOOooo..þ....þ..ooooo ~ ~ ~ .5-/1, N '-' 'M .<:> 'M ..<: " '"' ::11 ""00 '" "" '" '" ø. .,.. 0 '" "" 00 ~ r"!. '" r;. t"- O 0 f'I"\ _ Ñ ~ .. ... N N '" '" a ~ ~ f"- ~ \t') ...'" 0 .... .,.. '" \C \t') ~ .. ... ... ~; 8i § ~ '" ~ '" "" ~ "" N N '" ~ ~ .,.. .,.. .... .... ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - "" ""~oo8""-o""8""'" ~ ~ N~\t')\t') ~\t')\t')~ -~ o -~~ -~- - N - .... . b '" :;¡ r¡ .... u .~ "" ~ Q - r:: Ii ~ ;¡..c tIrO _ __ i .]1 tIS 0 ~ s·~ M Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i IÊ oS i 8 8 ~ i ø: ....~ J ~ M.... J IS "d ;r fI.I en ~ OO_i! 't=. ~~! ~ ~ üue Ð ~ B ~ ~š ~ ] ~ tt~ i ~ b; § -g~ ~ 1 ~.o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' "" ,,- - 11 ! õ"" ~ ~~ "" ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~B< ~ b; § öà ~~ 8 ~ i ~ '~~~~!~1!~1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ 33 i :¡ Ii .i J! ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ III: ~ ';, š ~ "_ 8 8 8 8 § ~ ~ oS~~i~~jl::l1Jit~ ~ ~ ~8ii~ii "" ] ] J~~~] ~~fJ.I~ 1 ~ 1J!~j!J! ] J J ~~~ðæJ~~ø.ð~~ð ~ i J~~~~~~ J .( .. U Q gj Ii'; ;.: Y/7 ~~~~~~~~NNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNN___ ~" ooooooo8~œ~~~~~~~~~~~N NNNN-------O-08 ~~~~~N_ OOOO~~N_O~~_O~ ~N_O~~~~~_O~O~ & ffil~~~illrffiJffliiirrrilr~llilniif~lr Qn~~n~in~~ ~~is~~g~nd:J ~~ ~~~~ ~ nn~~n2. ~~~.~I:i:~£ili~I[!~ir~f!tl!rrlrji!IJi¡fl .. m ~ 0 =.. Ii :01 W.:;! > > Q " " "v ~" " ~06 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~ ~ ¡;" I ~ll[~wl~ft1~~~iilirt[~r~~[8.i[r~~[[i~1 " "..... ;¡¡ n ¡;-~"Iì s.....· .. "..." " ..," '<;:i¡ ~g..ln~~I..~~~l g 2 l~"~ ~ ~I i 1~~8.~"~8.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~I~ al" II~~I~~ [ I 8. ~ al~ ~ ~~ ~=~8.~1 8. I I ~ ~~ Ii 0 ,," 8. 8. ".:;¡ Co "Ø g'~ 8. I ~ r 8. ~ ;¡ - ~~~ ~ ~êl ~ ~. ~ - ~ - ~~å~~~ ~~ _.~ ....0 ~ ~_ a ~ ~~_ ~ N~~~N__ ~ _N ~ _ ~ œ_ 0 ~ _~~ _~ __~~_~w~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~w .. ~ ~ii..;. ..~.. T.,.';...è......" àÏ!w"..,¡0t; ~.. ~ oooo_~oSooooo~o;a~of~~~~~~~~~~~~~-oo~¡ I ~ N o~ - ~ ~f >1 .. - - à ~.~"8- - ~ ';...- W ~ . o ~ ~~i~o~oo~ioe~~~~~~~~~~~~ß~ooo~! N _ ~ _ __ ~ ~fjo ~ ~ ~1. ~ jì~.<I ß~~J ji .~ (i! t ~ ~ ~H ì§ ~~! ~~~~ ~ $ œ' ~ _ __ _ 2: ~ ~ N_ 0 ~~ ~ ~~.w N - i _ N _ N ...~; _ ~ f~1 I ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~Ñ ~~~~~~~.~-~_~N ~~ I~ ~ ~W~ .~~ao a _.0 N~~_5_~~~_OON~. ~~ ~ o~o~§~o~~§~~oSo~~5o~~è~~!iè~§~~§§~oo~~ ä ; - 01 ~ -;:: 'Ñ Õ ~. \þ 03 . 03- -::¡ . 03' .... ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ II ~ ~~~ 8~ § ~~ g§ §o ~ - --- -- - -- -- - - - ...~~ - ~ ~ rl ~~ _N ~ _ ~.... .. ÒI_Ùt. ~~ J ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~J~~~~P~~ ~~~ : oooo~~o~o§~~oSo;ieo~~~~i~ie~~!~§§So~~~ ~ ::! ij :: ~ ~ _O3~~ _N ~~ ¿ õ :; g::g:ì!5:i Ñ'i: ."..e-,;: . . . ;.' . . . ~Jt" ~ Ë ~~~§ ~~ ~~ ~ r ~ - ~~ ~ - ~to.JOIII 1M ~ a. -I. ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~p~~~~~~~p~ ~~ ~~~...~ ~ ~ oooo~~o~o§~~o~o;~eo~8i~~~ie~~!~o~So~~~ ~ æ w Ý/E" l,' ì æ ì~~ oo~o~~a;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OijO~~~~~~~~ ! . i! ~ ~ ~~~~$~~~~~~~~¡~~~~Ñ~ ~ ~~~-~~N~ Š "" t"-N .. 00 IIf'INs:t .....Ø\.~ "" _ ~N.. ""':..... ~ - N - .... ~ t¡ ~ -¡¡¡---- ~ ¡¡¡-~~~ , C g ~~~~i .s IC-_IIt')_ , - -ci ~ ~i:: N Ii oo~o~~a;~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~Oij.~I'~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~$~~~~~~~~=~~~~-~ ~~~S!~~~N~ f"\ If") roo- .. _N""NI:t~...O\~ ~ -\C~_.. -:,'''' ~ - N ,. .... ~ ~ ~i ~ - ¡-=- ~ ij~ ,.. ~ ---;:: If I ~ .....~ ~ ;J;:::§~ -:. ""t ..'":. ; ~ =rei ;J; Iè! ~ = i ~Iè! i i! ìi-~~ ~ c ~ c ~~ ~¿ ¿~::=.~ i:: I!j O~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&~~.~I'~~~~~ I ~~~~~~If")~OOOONIf")~g~¡~-~=~~~~~S~~~OOS~~~~~OO ~....""_ r--~~~ If") 00 lIf'Ii_oo_Ø\.~ ~_ ~\C~-... _ ~ ~ ~Ñ~ Ñ ~ ~ j ti :!; ~ ~ rf~! ~ § ~ ~ ~ I ¡¡:J.. '" 0 IJ ~~oo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~~~;~~ a~ t"-N....\C ~~~~~~6~~~g....¡~....~~¡~~-~~N ~:a ~ -:. ... If").. _ _ CJ\. _.. \C_ N - ~ ~ I~;¡ oo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~g~~~~ª~~~~§~!~ ~~ti~~i~~~~~t~~i~;~~¡~dg~~~~d~~i~~~~ i ...." _~""_ _~ ~~~N""N~~'" ~ -::=.N.... .. .. §! f"I - Ñ _ \C ~ 8 "'8 "Ø"8 1 "Ø =' "'81 c:I ::I 1 § "'d ~ æ~ ~"8 ~ ~"'d"Ø ~"Øc:I - ~ - ~ =]= =~1=§= -=æ ¡ £ E~ ~ ~~~"'8tg~~~£"Ø ü~ ~~~ ~, ~1~!jllll~~I~~IË~ili ~~~ I ~ J~i ~!II~~I¡¡;I!I!1JI~j!~=11 ;11]) ~II~(~ = U~Ji]~~~~J~~~--~~~..~ !!u_~]~~=!!~ ~~~~ ~~==~~ ]1111~~~~~~~~jj~~~~~!~~~~ ~-~þ-~~!!~~~- ~~ ~~I s~i~ ~ ~ 31f~~I!i!!~~~j~~~~g]]gg33~~]~jõ~f18]~] 1~1~~~1 ~j~~5 11~~~~~¡¡~~~ð~~š]~t"~¡~~ I~a ~~_ ~~ ~~~~~ ~·-oQ ~~~~ ~j~~l~]j! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j¡~ð~~~~~~~~ 'i! !~~~~~î8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~¡~~i~§~~~~~ æ M ~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - '" '" 5'17 ,. 0\ 0\ ... - ... ... ~~~~~~~ãi~~~~o\o\§o\o\o\o\o\'O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\LO\ ~5 ~N_OO 0 OOOO~~ ~~W~~~WWNNNNNN~_ OOO~œ ~ QN_~O~ œ~~WO~NO~œ~~~_~o ~ f Ii 1~~~~~~~~~~~I~ii~t~i~¡~~~~~~~I~'~ IoIj ë'r7' ñ·""""I'I"O(")· \C 809QOlll0000 0. I &[ ~D~gfef;~~9~~i!¡!!~I~I~~ggg~~ II ~ tn ".g·".g'f",";;¡oe¡¡¡;.¡¡a...",..~~",~ª~¡¡g ....I!'~ C'I!!. i [l ~~i~~,'t~~~¡,r&;~~~~;~~~i~~s~~~i .. !~..~ g~ '" oQ~.~>~!1 ¡~<p¡~ã ¡('......=¡;:~r! rl ~i I ri~l~r~l~lif~fri~iii~~ia > i i ii}Iffii[i~[ífll¡}i~ ~ ""~~åaa~ ~& ~ 5~~[ & &i[[[i i [r&i § '" '" ~ 0\ 0 'oj , j ~ !!: I !!: j ,..,.. .. ~~r ~ ~I ~I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~¥ ~p~~~~~i;~ l~ ~I ~¡ ~~oooo~o~o~o~~§!~~~ooo~~~§~§~~~~ Ii ~ ""I'~õl I!!'I >1 Ø'I , .. _ ' _ t-J _ ~ ~I~~I~ ~N· - ~~~ ~N ~ ~ œ' J:5 j.?'~ þ~ ~~j:S,!M,.~..i;:~~,p~",.~~.1I'':þ-~~.!'''~ S o ~! 1~ j iUoooooooooo~8§§!H~§§å1§§§§8~~§§§ co ... ¡ 1 Ro f ¡¡t ~ ~i ~ ~ ~~.¡ ;"= $1 $ § ¡¡¡ai'" , ~ , ,:¡ f I~ _I - I r ~ ~~::- ,!'.J.:- "..... ~ .:- ~ ~. _'\0_ ao N _ _ to,)_~ _ _ t.A ~I~~I,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~P~~ß~~~~~~~~~~ i( ~ ~, ~ Ø'I ~ t.A .\0_ ~ \O~o ~~~ ~ ~11~1 ~~oooo~oõo~o~~S!$~~§§å1~~~§~ð~~~~ ä ::! ~ I - fio I " ~ ~J3 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ "" . ~ 1; ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - - - .. - - - II ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ß~j~F~~ß~j~~~~~~~~ : ! ! ~~oooo~o~o~o~~~!$~~~§~~~~~~~~i~~ "" "" ~ ~ ~ "'I a '" ~ to) _ _ _ _ <~ .. ~ ~ ~ i 11 ~"§ 1«' ~ .. . . .. ..~.... ~I ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ it ~ {I {II~ N"" ï:; ~ _tN ~"" _ _ _ (§I 13 ~ ~.~ = ~ ~ ~~~~~~Ñ ~~~~~~~~~~~; -= ö à ...... \0 1.A ~ slit......-:..a.. ....iojo'tAww~..iw ~ - ~I ~ E~oooo~oõo~o~~~!$~~o§å1~~~§~ð~~N~ I æ J -.2CJ æ j$3;ã Ii!! a . ~J ~ 1$ m I I~ c ~ I . ~t '" Ii ; Iii ~ .E! t .Š ~ I!J 1 ] ~ ti j ~ ofJ ~ I! rrft~ ~ §... '" ! ~ . ¡ .S :q:¡ I . I ~~~ I ~: œ JJ.. œ ï I! B Ñ _ ...¡ H I " 'S ! II 6- I] ~ } g: Ñ-- g on .: ~:;:¡:¡ .= ~ " () 1 ~~¡ ~ 8 ~ ~ - § .s ~ ~ ~ .S I~;ä ~ .~ .s i -"" .E ! . §~ - œ = .i!! ~ 'i 1 s Š ~ ] '<i j 1!f = ; :E ¡!! ~L ~ o t) ,g = " :1 I J ~ .i!! .... = ;:: ,g"j ~ , " a § e- ] .... .~. II.: J ~ "I- ~ ~,=i J .!! ISa oS I- <II ... ~ I ð .~'g. « U¡¡¡ u i J +++ u , = u 1! æ 5.:2/ ~~n ~~ .þ.WN è5V\ \C ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~œ~-V\~ .þ.WN S 0 ~~V\ ~~œ~ ~ ~ §ir~i¡ ~ !!! ~ [ ~ ~~~ l g~~f Ii <PPI"\~Ci i or :ø:ø~ -.. "ttllj!o-i ~ Iii.,,-<, i ~ ~ ~- it ~ ìi 8 !!> II ¡ ~ a~. ¡s ~ ..., ~ ~ a pP ~ ~~~ g~ I ;~. ~ ~ i ~~~ I !~i~ ~ !tñ=:i tí" ~:.. ~ ~ 11 1O~8. ~~"e: ~ i ~ i ~ l ~ ~ S S f~' i ~ '[ 8. i~' Ii! .g:c.. :ø EI ã ~ ~ ~ ... > ... rn "'1 ... ElJ!. !t" ..., [(:'!€'[(:' ã''' o-i ~ ~ g " .g "a .. 9'" .. o-i a'~ ..~ I ttt ~! i I ~ ~~ ~...,a l~ n=> 9 q.. ~~ a,,~ -g ;:¡ ..., "..., a r"i ii ~ · '. ~ o-i 0 ~ ~ ~ i ~~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ I iâl ª ~ ~!~Š~te!t ~ ~¡e ~ ~!~õõt ~I~ ca.S ~ .. ü..Ñ1Ao"o,;- N ....'t.ot..... ù.i~:"-:- ';-... i ~ :g;~;;.;~~~ ~ ~¡~o¡: 0 ~;~~~ itlitooo r ~ , 1'-"':: :: I' ¡ I :!:Ir ¡" N 00 -_ !,A : 01 VI ~. ~ ~I~~~p~~ . ~I~~~ t ~~~~ S ~ ~I~~~§~~ 0 000 0 ~ ~I ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ,,1 0, 1 Ø) <:¡ ! 1'1 - · pP !l'J:! !õ ~ ~ ~V.N N N' I ~ ~I~~ ;ï ~ ":;:~:¡; JSI JS: i;¡.¡ ~ -.~§ - § :;¡~- -. -, ~œ ~ Q ~i!:_o ~ oooo~ ~ ~ ::oJ ti~~ ~ ; ~~~ :;: f ~ . I I I ! . - I' .= ØII_~ _ ~ _._~ n Q ~I _v. ~.. :~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~t~ ~ _ ~ a~~ ~ i~$~ "" . I· . . " .. . .." ". . I,' " . . I" " .. fll ~ - -I"'~~~~R N ~~~ ... ~ ~ -...~ ~ ~~N~ ~ 'i:! ~ f".9ð18,§ ~ ¡;;¡;!~ ¡: ð ~1~~3! ~,_~i:!iS ::! ~ ! I, 01 ~ i 1'1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j j ~ ? ~ II :t ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ Ij' :s ~ ~I;~~J~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ; ~~ ~I ~~~ ~ ... _N - ... - - ~ ~ - II ~ ~ ~~~~à~ ~ o~~ H . ~ 2-~ ~ ~ =~~aw~ _ ~~$. ~ ~~Ñ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~g~ ~ 0 ~ ~~~ ~1~~00 . B I I ::!e ~ ~ ¡ ~~~ ~~ ,~!~~, ~ ~ ~;~~~ ~~ 01 ~I~ :sf ~ " 1 'I 1 " .. 1 ~ - I 2'~1 .. . - ~ - . - - .. -- H" . .. _ . ~ . " " .;. 10 . 0 - - ~~~ . - ~ . ~ 0 __ ~ ,~ ~I..~..~i~... ~ a~~ ~ ~I..._-... 0... ~ .¡¡' uo N ....__OOUrl 00 _;zi\C 00 UiI",,"ooN WI~~ r~ u1..... V. .. o..~O" Öo N . ':..I v.. ........ ÓI ':-':...1'0 w;''' ..... óGW.". _ UrlN_ _ VrI_OI. .... VI. nw VI. ~-.!:!!-~~ ~ 0001.... _ 0 ~,\O~.s CJ'I.._~OO å! f .2.2 '" B"" ~~~¡:¡~ì!i~¡;¡~~~i ~~;~s: ª ª ª ª ª ... 'M l ~ ~ B "" i i i i i i i i i i i ~ i i ~i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ µ;:¡ ------------ ----- N N N N N ¡¡ ,¡tt...,¡ ~s: ,¡ ,¡ tt ~ ~ij~ ;~ i i i ~ !!!!J::JJJJJ J jll ! J ! ! J ~ 113 ¡¡¡¡~~~~~~~~ ~l..~ji ¡ ~ ¡ ¡ ~ ! ~~~~~!!~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 111 1 1 1 I ;S fIj ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ }1}}}lilllii ]]11] } I}}} ~ i E ð ~ ~ j ~ 11 11 ~ ¡;j ~ "I .~ i~!l ¡ ¡} ~ ~ 'gJ~ IiI 1~1I iJ~!3 ! J ! 0 ~ ~ !t!]J.~ffJ~~i .~.p.~.~ !.. j j} ¡;; {t;>t;>..JI-l-f¡·..d! JlJI§:JIJI u·f t;> t;> ~ ~~~~~l~~I!åj ~~~~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ] ]Î J ~ ~] J]]]J]lj~1 ],1 ] ] ~ ~ !~iJ.Htgjlf~i ]]]]] !! R ! j :f ëª;j.!JI~eJi.t.[> 11iq1 ë ª:!i.! !¡ ¡!!~ð~!jð!J!ð':..g ~~~ð~ ¡!! ~ ð ~ ! 8~ - 11 ð . S ]]]]]]]]]]]] ~~ ~ð ]]] 1 ] 111111111111 JlJI.[ 1 1 1 1 ] ð j ð j ð L~ c3 j j j ~ ~ ~ ~ .. j jc3 ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "? 0 :Q:Iii~~8::;;;;~S:8~!:! ~ ~~~::;tõ ¡¡¡ :Q :Iii ~ ~ 8 .... _o.t"\ _t"'I_ - Ñ \0 C;!.--V)~ f1 - eo 0. - _ N :E f"'Î v\ --¿ ~ - - < =~ - N ~ . ~ ~ ...Ý .23 - - - - - - - - ~! .-.¡C\~ ...wN_O I.Ø 00 ....:a ~ ~ ~ 'Q~? ~¡;¡: .., 8 'I ;s ~~ :s ~ ï ¡ § ~~ ¡ 'i~ :i is ~ ¥:~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ g i1 8~ $ $~ ~ §§ i ši:¡ i [[ ~~!! i i ii I[ i[ i( :!' 'II ~ ~ r r rr ~l r:!, r:!, B. i I I I I II ! ~l ~B. ~ $ š: š ä 88 ~ B. B. f t '[ [ [ ~ i i' II rf Ii ~ 1 f II I I l ~ ~1 ff rr rr ~ 1 g! ¡¡z = =- :;,~ rr r...;¡ a [II:? ¡ il·· ai 0 0< Ii - = II II a: 0 "ft :!t Ioft"'ft ~ I B. lB. i n ~ ¡;r !I!! !I!! !i' !;I - - :¡;:¡; i:¡ -i-i ~&' ~ l' :..¡:..¡ Jõ !l :g:g ~~ J SS 'XS . i ff r f. ij f ijij "I' i'I' J-i ~ t [ "l ~ g.i" r f l { { { { {g' ~ ~ o ii I If I 8 .... Þ: ~ 011 .... C . ." n Z ...¡g. ~ I g¡ n ~ h" l ~ 2 ~ 8 5 . ~ :? = ~ ¡ r ~ rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ rr rr rr ~ f [ t! [ [ I.!. [I. tt 'If tt: :to rtJ d I'.i! g¡ ¡ ~ ¡¡ î ~ a ~ ii ~~ ~~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~~! ~ I I ~~ ~~ 'i 'i i ¡;¡ ii it ~ ~ i'i' ii ..... ..... ~ "g 1 i'i' .~.~ i ( II Ii i f ii ~!~! ii a a f~ f~ ~ ! ! ~ ~ ....... ~ ...... ~... t!t! !11:! I)! I)! ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~~ ~~ ~~...; ~ š š ¡§š š š § § §¡§ ¡§š I)!š !1š"'; 5,;2~ ~... ~ i i i 88°8:¡~:::: ª~~¡¡¡ ;¡; 8 --~""....O\.O\.O\ '" - l ~ :; ~ :; Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! ¡::;:;:; Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! ~ ~... ~ ~ ~ ., i f'4Nf'4NN--- iiii - ;¡; i! iiiiiiii ~ i '" . '" . i f I i jIlt !!ii 11 ~: a ~JJ~ra~ J 11 J ~~8.8. J i fi ~ ~ ~ ~ j~~J~~~~ Jjll ~ ~ . . . ~ I I I ~~~~~lll ~~ss ~ ~ fi ~ íSî 01:1 ~ i ] ] 1 1 i i 1 i ]-11 ] ] ] ] i i ro¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; e G = ~ -< Q <J £ j -< Q <J X . J J 11 .! . . 11 -< f I ] I~ J]] ! : I u 0> i ~ 8 ~ 3~~~G~~~ X .. 8 l. u =ë ~ .!!l·G.!u= .3 j.1I ~ 11 ! Ë ~ ~ ! I ~ .: ~l' J!J':':... J~I~ ;U ~ . ø.......... eo.. ·r .:! .:! J!'S1.8 .:!.:!.:! f j = ~ ~ ~ ~j]ª~~~~ ~!~~ ~ - ! - .... - - ----- ! ~ = ! >- )1'3 i i i i1iliii x I I t:: o I <J <J <J <Jæ<J<J~<J<J ==f u ~ ! i t t ~t~tittt ]~~f ~ ... i ~ ]jj~ . ! .I .I .I M.lf.l.l..I.I ! g ... 1 : i! : - -~ ~:::: ~~¡¡¡ 1 '" ð ð "''''''' 0 ·r ] ] ] t]i~ ~]~ ':111 f ~ ~ ~ &10 ,L, p;, = jj j t t t 11 J! J! j J! J! J! J! ~ ~ ~ ~ .I~.I~~~~~ j~~~ ~ ~ ! I § !¡ ! .. "'i~&"i"~!&õ' ~ ~~i~ 0 ~ ~o - a /!! .../!!..._ a - -- 8 :! i :d' ~~~~"~:!i~ !i ~~i~ ~ ã M t'!. lit') ,... v\"""! no"'!.'\C.t::.. \0 M-e. - - ci ..;- ~ < BiIIt: 00 0\ 0 - ¡:: ¡:¡ ~ :Q - - N N ~ -2.> . ____ _ _ _______.....___..__...___...."'"'. .__._.M._.___.__._____._~__ BUDGET OPTIONS SUMMARY -- Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 5 FUND BALANCE AND RESTORATION OF PROGRAM CUTS June 25, 1996 Totals Per 6/20/96 General Fund Summary B. Estimated Revenues $54,281,199 C. Transfers In $5,530,142 E. Appropriations ($57,065,216) G. Transfers Out ($2,398,940) Estimated Funding Surplus: $347,185 CHANGES TO REVENUES/EXPENDITURES REVENUES CIP Completed Project Closure $99,167 CIP Staff Time Reimbursement - CAD System $68,769 Building & Housing Community Hotline Grant $50,027 Roadside debris revenue ($25,000) Cultural Arts Coordinator: Fine Arts Reimbursement to expand to .75 FTE $18,949 EXPENDITURES Transit Service Operation: General Fund portion ($214,158) Reduction in Equipment Replacement (Supp\. Budget memo #17) $11,470 Increased Fuel Costs (General Fund savings vs. total budgeted) $11,683 Police-Shift of 0.50 FIE Training personnel to Fire $32,102 Fire-Shift of 0.50 FIE Training personnel from Police ($32,102) Building & Housing Community Hotline Grant: Net Expend. increase ($12,877) Travel: Shift of Nature Center Cut from General Fund ($600) Non-Departmental: Rental charge for Pool Cars (paid to Garage) ($14,948) RESTORATION OF PROGRAM CUTS - Per Council Direction PARKS: No organization change; Fill 2 vacancies ($192,868) AQUATICS: Reinstate current service levels ($49,245) LIBRARY HOURS: Reinstate current levels ($147,550) AFTERSCHOOL RECREATION: Restore sites within walking distance of other facilities ($40,200) NORMAN PARK CENTER: Restore hours Friday, Saturday ($7,000) REVISED FUNDING DEFICIT: ($97,196) Ý..2t BUDGET OPTIONS SUMMARY -- Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 5 DECISIONS YET TO BE MADE June 25, 1996 REVISED FUNDING DEFICIT: ($97,196) P01ENTIAL REVENUES: Quarterly Recreation Brochure Advertising $1,600 Master Fee Schedule Increase (Misc.) $50,000 Redevelopment Special Use Permit Fee $42,000 Youth Sports League Fee-Based on midyear implementation $2,500 Parking Fee-Rohr Park $5,000 Otay Valley Road Loan: Additional Repayment $263,964 . Business License Tax-Allow to Increase-Partial increase $100,000 Additional increase to current allowable rate $350,000 Franchise Fees on Additional Utilities (1 % on sewer = $100,000) $100,000 Additional increase (assuming 3% rate on sewer) $200,000 .. Utility Users Tax-Allow to Increase from 5% to 5.5% $270,000 . Utility Users Tax-Apply to Wireless Technology $ SUBTOTAL: $1,385,064 P01ENTIAL EXPENDITURES: Oxford Senior Center: Restore service levels $4,986 Mterschool Recreation: Restore Winter Holiday week $4,467 Sr. Crime Prevention Specialist: Restore 1 FIE $46,696 Deputy City Clerk-Full Funding of Position Reclass in 1996-97 $9,250 Odawara Visit $5,000 Parks and Recreation: Restore Administrative Secretary (net cost) $31,584 Human Resources: Restore Secretary position $39,402 Additional Reserves or MOU Funding $ Library: Restore vacant or part-time staff not impacting service hours $68,630 Library: Restore materials/misc. expenditure cuts $36,750 Library: Restore second security guard during peak use times $11,160 Equipment Mechanic I (1.0 FIE): General Fund portion with corresponding revenues and expenditures in Central Garage $44,446 Economic Development Travel Request $250 Downtown Business Association-Staff Services $10,020 EastLake Performing Arts Center Manager $50,000 Planning/B&H: Restore Senior Management Assistant $66,034 Council Aides: Restore or replace cuts $51,068 SUBTOTAL: $479,743 · Increasing these revenues would be subject to a vote of the people if Prop 62 is determined to apply to charter cities. .. Would need to examine further whether this would be subject to a vote if Prop 62 is applied to charter cities. Ý~7)t6 Item No. -Í- Meeting Date 6/25/96 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Goss, City Manag~ SUBJECT: Balancing the 1996-97 Budget After reading the A-113, which is the basic report for the budget public hearing for 1996-97, and Resolution 18351, which would approve adoption of the final operating and capital budgets of the city, some thoughts came to mind. First, the report shows that the working deficit for next year's budget would be $97,196. Actually, in looking over the material of the city council review of the proposed budget during its workshops, there are two "potential expenditures" on Exhibit 5 that you may wish to include in the proposed expenditure plan in the budget. One ¡s the restoration of service levels for the Oxford Senior Center ($4,986) and the other is restoring the winter Holiday Week for the Afterschool Recreation Program ($4,467). If it is correct that the intention of the Council was to include one or both of these items in the expenditure part of the budget, then the working deficit would be from $97,1~6 to $106,649. To overcome this working deficit to achieve an operating budget that is technically balanced would require looking at the potential revenues on Exhibit 5. The chart below selects some of these revenues that could be used to balance the budget. Revenue Source Amount Advertising in Recreation Brochure $ 5,000 Master Fee Schedule Revision 50,000 Youth Sports League 2,500 Otay Valley Road Loan Repayment 25,000 Equipment Replacement Fund 25,000 TOTAL $ 107,500 . J - . First, regarding quarterly recreation brochure advertising as proposed by the Parks and Recreation commission, it is conceivable that appropriate advertising that would not jeopardize distribution of the brochure through the Elementary Schools could achieve as much as $5,000 in revenue. 5~7 Second, in reviewing Supplemental Budget Report No. 34, it is the view of the Finance Department staff, and one which I share, that there is a very good likelihood that revisions in the Master Fee Schedule would conservatively produce at least $50,000 additional revenue to the city. Basically there are fees that need to be updated from the last revision as a result of recalculating the full cost of providing. such service, surveying other cities to compare fee levels, and identifying new fees to cover new services, such as the GIS reports. Staff feels that the amount of revenue produced from this source will be considerably higher than. this amount, but for the purposes of budget planning, it is recommended that $50,000 be included as revenue for 1996-97. Staff had originally included this in the overall proposed city budget and still feels this is a supportable figure. Third, it is proposed the Youth sports League Fee be implemented midyear. It is expected that this would produce $2,500 in additional revenue. Fourth, even though this is offered reluctantly, in order to technically balance the budget, it is recommended that an additional $25,000 be transferred one time to the General Fund from the Equipment Replacement Fund in addition to the $100,000 already included in the budget for next year. This is offered reluctantly because it is a one-time revenue that cannot easily be repeated next fiscal year so, as a result, additional revenue enhancements or expenditure reductions would be needed in 1997-98 to replace this one-time income. However, if the amphitheater and the water park proceed, there will be additional revenue brought to the City from these sources to counterbalance this and other one-time revenues in the 1995-97 budget. Fifth, regarding the otay Valley Road loan repaymént, it is recommended that it be increased by $25,000. The total of the quarterly recreation brochure, master fee schedule increase, Youth Sports League Fee, otay Valley Road loan repayment increase, and an increase in the one-time transfer from the Equipment Replacement Fund to the General Fund of $25,000 would total $107,500 and technically balance next fiscal year's budget. Such an action should not be viewed as thinking the City's budget issues are behind us. Because of the uncertainty of revenues, particularly some new revenues, and the prospect of mid-year budget increases, there still would be a need to continue to pursue additional revenue enhancements or expenditure cuts. It is suggested that other revenues be examined for review during the ; course of the fiscal year, such as removing the wireless exclusion in the utility Users Tax, collecting the utility Users Tax at or closer to the rate originally set in the 1970's, and applying a franchise fee to additional utilities. In addition, there is a need to complete the Master Fee Schedule and to work on a number of one-time revenues, such as the Sharp Hospital negotiation. yJtJ Finally, additional expenditure reductions should be reviewed. since many of the Level I reductions - those solely fram within an individual department - are becoming more difficult to make, it is suggested the logical Level II reductions be examined, such as the consolidation of the Planning and Building & Housing Departments. These recommendations are offered as a way to balance next year's budget and hopefully will be useful in your deliberations. JDG:mab - ~ - . ß>Y/ I rDJ Œ ~' 1\ r \" " r~ I D L !'] 1[., ,! ',' I:: r,1 !I' r----·-··~I" !I ',' :. -': ! In' ,¡" r Ii i ; JUN 2 4 IOéJ~ .j 1.,I;..l, .'"'1 ",.. I L__ . -- ._H_J ( ,'r ( I . . . June 10, 1996 ¡ c' "( --.~. '- '~"--_----J Dear Mayor Horton and City Council, I have decided to communicate with members of the City Council and yourself, in order to state my position in the current budget dilemma. I have been employed by the City of Chula Vista for almost sixteen years. I worked 8~ years as a Communications Operator II and in 1988, I was selected as the Senior Crime Prevention Specialist. For the past 8 years, the unit has provided many community crime prevention programs and has developed other safety programs that are offered to the citizens of Chula Vista. Some of these programs are: Pre-school and Elementary Child Safety programs including a special "Personal Safety and Awareness" program, Operation C.A.T. Combat Auto Theft,. Senior Alert, Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness and, of course, the Neighborhood Watch program. Additionally, the unit has provided services to the City b¥; reviewing plans and conditional use permits and design reV1ews for the Planning Department as Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Over the past five years, the unit has managed the Security Alarm Ordinance which annually generates over $100,000 in revenue for the City. Of course, these collections could not have been done without the outstanding help we have been given by the Finance Department. Within the past two years, I have had the pleasure of coordinating and maintaining the Senior Volunteer Patrol Program, made up of approximately 80 volunteers. It is believed that crime prevention services can continue to be provided through the Police Department and there would not be the need for a formal Crime Prevention Unit. My concerns are not just for the programs that I have listed above, but for the many more ~rograms and communit¥ services that are initiated by the exper1enced personnel with1n any established Crime Prevention Unit. Personally this has been a difficult year and although my . ~ assignment may be eliminated, my concerns are to the programs, services and commuñity that I have served. Crime Prevention, in whatever form it is, needs the personal attention of a full-time employee that will devote 100\ of their efforts to the goals of Crime Prevention. If not, I fear it will suffer the same fate as other non-essential programs, and will soon be left behind and forgotten. y]2 _._-_._._-_.,---.__..._-~.. ----.--- Traditionally, crime prevention and crime awareness ~rograms have been a part of police departments. Recently, some c~ties have chosen to relocate these programs to Cit¥ Administration. Crime prevention and awareness should be cityw~de and the scope of their duties should include workin~ with all city departments. I agree that crime and the police co~ncide, but the prevention of crime can be accomplished by all of us, in every department, throughout the city. If the S.C.P.S. position is eliminated for the good of the or~anization, the C.S.O. position could still be maintained in cr~me prevention, and still be cost effective. Volunteers are the special advantages we have been blessed with here in Chula Vista. Do not expect them to replace paid employees, they are still just volunteers and are not looking for a full-time job. I appreciate your attention and consideration during these tight budgetary times. Crime Prevention is the foundation of a safer community. Respectfu ly, I ;Z .~¿1r- r¥1 ane Diosdado Sen~or Crime Prevention Specialist Chula Vista Police Department cc: Rick Emerson, Chief of Police Ross Withers, Captain ";; . ~ . ý33 -,.-- ---- --" ----~ - ---.--.-------, '--::\ ' :.' ,. i ! [ } í--m - - .- - ~- ,I "',¡ \: n ¡ : ~10W LJ C; , ¡" - ',--' L- -- - -- (,' , c " , , CHULA VISTA MOTEL ASSOCIATION June 18, 1996 Mayo~ ShL~ley Ho~~on Chula VL~~a CL~y CouneLl 275 4~h Avenue Chula VL~~a, CA 91910 Vea~ Mayo~ Ho~~on and Membe~~ 06 ~he CL~y CouneLl: The Chula VL~~a Mo~el A~~oeLa~Lon would lLke ~o e)(p~ e~ ~ L~~ ~uppoJr:>t 60~ ~he Chula VL~~a Conven~Lon and VÜL~o~~ Bu~eau. We a~k ~ha~ you ~enew ~heL~ eon~~ae~ 60~ ano~he~ yea~. We 6eel ~ha~ ~he ConVL~ Ü ve~y Lmpo~~an~ ~o bo~h the CL~y and ~o ou~ A~~oeLa~Lon. Bo~h ~ou~L~~~ and bu~LneH people eomLng ~o ~he San VLego a~ea need ~o be made awa~e 06 Chula VL~~a and wha~ we have ~o 066e~. The new dL~ee~o~~ 06 ConVL~, LL~a VavL~ and KLm Lueh~, a~e ve~y en~hu~La~~Le and a~e ~~a~~Lng ~o agg~eHLvely p~omo~e Chula VL~~a. Bo~h a~e dedLea~ed ~o makLng ConVL~ ve~y ~ueee~~6ul and we 6eel ~ha~ ~hey ~hould be gLven ~he oppo~~unL~y ~o eon~Lnue doLng ~o. SLnee~ely, ~ ~ Be~~a Men~Lk P~e~Lden~ .' ~.7 . ~ ~ç,31 - -,~_. ~ ,\)f\Ji ~------- ' GrubhfiEllis June 25, 1996 Mayor Horton City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Dear Shirley: Per my verbal presentation to the council on Thursday evening, I would appreciate your reconsideration of the proposed budget for the Planning Commission. The amount in question is $1,245.00 and, although small by all terms, this portion of the budget is allocated toward educating our commission regarding current planning pertinent to our purview and projects being processed through the city. In the past year, workshop topics have included: 1. The Multi-Species Conservation Program 2. Single-family detached condominium housing (the new trend) 3. Subdivision Map act and Development Process 4. Community Development Process Affordable Housing 5. Traffic Impacts, Measurement and Threshold Standards 6. Legal Issues: Conditions to approval and Nexus Issues 7. Gated Communities 8. Other issues covered at the California League of Cities Planners Institute Conference included: a. The Planning Commission and its operation b. The future of City Planning c. Safety and Security through design d. Implications of Federal and State politics to Planning e. Debate regarding the "Big Box" retailing of America f. Increasing public participation g. Downtown Revitalization 5'" J~-- Grllhh & Ellis Cnmrany 8880 Ri() San Dic¡::!() Drivc. Suire 200. San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-)100 F<-lx (619) 298-6897 --- _._---~ - -- ~----_.._..'-,... -"'--~~'---~~-----------------'- Mayor Horton June 25, 1996 Page Two h. The future of entertainment retail centers i. Public's private partnerships j. The merits of neo-traditional planning related specifically to the first two villages of Otay Ranch We greatly appreciate your consideration regarding this matter, and we are hopeful that our portion of the Planning Department's budget will remain at $12,450. Warmest personal regards, GRUBB & ELLIS COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES ~ r - !, / //J -;;;? X / /--- : William C. Tuchscher II Hospitality Properties & Land Division WCT:jmm yy/ _..._--~--_.._..._--- " /~ ~~ - 0" } i'r--- ". I . ':J-J ..I' I , ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY lHE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT lHE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider the following: "'".~ - '~ , ( Adoption of final operating and capital budgets for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 1997. For further information call the Budget Manager -,at 691-5031. ~- , -------------- ---- " --. If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY lHE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, June 25, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: June 12, 1996 ,.-/ . It)7V ~6" ~ i ¿v /. . ,/!,~) 1/~~,(#1 / / ;)~ / J~ ß/) \ / rY :.,.L', (1/ .)"/ ·.f,'Jf':µJ , ~ JÞ!trY p'¡ " r f.- (( í ¡r;Þ-' / r' 7 f r/" /I, j 7Je-- )/ I )J..¿1) if v* I J' Á )" f ¡/. /J' /" - if {¡ / ./-, ø d:fo f~) lkr) ! '1pJ ð" f~t V ~r. c¿} ý3Y fr- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ¿, Meeting Date 6/25/96 ITEM TITLE: I~;¡..Q Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the City of Chula Vista for Fiscal Year 1996-97 SUBMITTED BY: Director of FinanceKr REVIEWED BY: City M,,,,e'J\ 11 ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) -- Article XIIIB of the California Constitution approved by the voters in 1979 and commonly referred to as the Gann Initiative, requires each local government to establish an Appropriations Limit by resolution each year at a regularly scheduled meeting or noticed special meeting. The purpose of the limit is to restrict spending of certain types of revenues to a level predicated on a base year amount increased annually by an inflation factor. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution establishing an appropriations limit of $175,164,764 for the 1996-97 fiscal year. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, approved by the voters in 1979, imposed the concept of spending limits on local governments. This Constitutional provision and related implementing legislation specifies that annual increases in appropriations financed from "Proceeds of Taxes" are limited to a base year (1978-79) amount increased annually by an inflation factor comprised of the change in population of the City combined with the greater of the change in new non-residential construction or the change in the California per capita personal income. By definition, "Proceeds of Taxes" includes such revenues as property taxes, sales and use taxes, utility users taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and state subventions. Revenues from other sources like fees/charges and federal grants are considered "Non-Proceeds of Taxes" and are not subject to the annual spending limit. ¿, -/ ~. . ---_...~...--_._..-..-.-- Page 2. Item ¿ Meeting Date 6/25/96 The State Department of Finance and the San Diego County Assessor's Office are charged with providing the data necessary for local jurisdictions to establish their appropriation limit. According to these sources, for fiscal year 1996-97, the population increased 2.25% and new non-residential construction increased 6.48%. The California per capita personal income increased by 4.67%, but was not used in the formula to compute the limit since this increase was lower than the increase in new non-residential construction. The fiscal year 1996-97 Appropriation Limit has been calculated as follows: Fiscal Year 1995-96 Appropriation Limit $160,883,640 Increased by an inflation factor composed of the increases in population and new non- residential construction X 1.0887 Fiscal Year 1996-97 Appropriations Limit $175.164.764 The "Proceeds of Taxes" as included in the Fiscal Year 1996-97 Proposed Budget that are subject to the appropriations limit are estimated to be $32,509,940. Therefore the City has what is referred to as an appropriation "gap" of $142,654,824 ($175,164,764 - $32,509,940). Simply stated, this means that the City could collect and spend up to $142,654,824 more in taxes during fiscal year 1996-97 without exceeding the Constitutional limit. FISCAL IMPACT: This action will enable the City to continue to appropriate and spend tax revenues amounting to an estimated $32,509,940 in fiscal year 1996-97. ¿, #.2- --- ----------+--. RESOLUTION NO. /3"3.5'.2.. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION WHEREAS, Article xnIB of the California Constitution provides that the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of each governmental entity, including this city, shall not exceed the appropriation limit of such entity of government for the prior year adjusted for changes in population and inflation mandated by Proposition 4 passed in November, 1979 and Proposition 111 in June, 1990 except as otherwise provided for in said Article xnIB and implementing State statues; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Article xnIB of said California Constitution, and section 7900 et seq. of the California Government Code, the city is required to set its appropriation limit for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Director of Finance of the City of Chula vista has interpreted the technical provisions of said propo- sitional computations and has reviewed documentation of the City's said appropriation limitation; and WHEREAS, based on such calculations the Director of Finance Administrator has determined the said appropriation limit and, pursuant to section 7910 of said California Government Code, has made available to the public the documentation used in the determination of said appropriation limit. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California that said appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 1996-97 shall be and is hereby set in the amount of $175,164,764 for said Fiscal Year. Presented by Approved as to form by C~,,--YVL~'10- Robert Powell, Director of City Attorney Finance C:\rs\Applilit ¿-,J &) rlI¡EY¡"'AI CHULA VISTA C HAM B ER-DL-CO M.ME R C E·, It i-', í(: I -." .. !! : ~~--..~...._~_.__..... -, I , ~ ACCREOITED I d, 0 .".- , " C......H.O·Coor..U.CI .. ·'LSi ··'0"" :.. ,....".,."...."" .""".""""" . . .,'þ, ,- '. '-~',~... ," ., ':. 'I - I": ~ ~ , AN . . ~ L_ '-',-. - U '(. . INVESTMENT IN May 28, 1996 l, " THE FUTURE -- ------ BOARD OF DIRECTORS President The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Chula Vista City Council Ch ris Lewis County Board of Supervisors President Elect Sweetwater Union High School Board , Dave Ward Chula Vista Elementary School Board Vice Presidents: Sweetwater Authority Board of Directors Patricia Bi:irnes Otay Water District Board of Directors JoAnne Clayton Southwestern College Board of Trustees Gary Nordstrom Brad Wilson Dear Elected Officials: Members: Renee Bute One of the criticisms I hear most often is that businesses within the Jose Dona Mike Green City of Chula Vista, and indeed the whole South Bay, are excluded from Susan Herney bidding on the various goods and services purchased by your agency. Dan Higgins Tom McAndrews Whether this is a factual assertion or not is beside the point. As with so Berta Mensik many things, perception is all that matters. The Chula Vista Chamber of Len Moore Commerce is recommending that your agency participate in a vendors' Scott Mosher Robert Penner. MD fair to facilitate vendors being added to the bidders' list. Ben Richardson What we envision is a well advertised location where interested Frank Scott Mary An~e Slro vendors can come and sign up to be,added to the bidders' list for Bob Thomas particular goods and services. The vendor would come in and review all Jon Ulsh ' the categories for which goods and services are desired and then merely Executive Director ¡¡,dd his/her name and aààr6s:; to thebidàers' list for those goods VI' Rod Davis services. At the sam,e time, the vendor could pick up a general information sheet detailing what requirements must be met by vendors - insurance, business licenses, workers compensation insurance, completion bonds, etc. To makE- this even more viable and exciting the Chamber would like to see the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County, Sweetwater Union High School District, Chula Vista Elementary District, Sweetwater Authority, Otay Water District, and Southwestern College District participate. Ideally the vendors' fair would take place in late July_ Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions or suggestions, We look forward to hearing fròm you in the near future. :233 F 0 u R T H A V E N U E . C H U L A V 1ST A, C 9~F ~ ) N I A 91 9 , 0 - 1 E L (1519).20·13603 .9 -,,--~-~,,----~~.._----_. - I . We request that this letter be added to your next agenda and that we be provided a copy. Sincerely, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce .';< ~,/ .--/ ,¡: 1/:,';'/ '(i,' Roderick F. Davis 'Executive Director cc: John Goss, City Manager City of Chula Vista Gary Stephany, Acting Chief Administrative Officer, County of San Diego Dr. Ed Brand, Superintendent Sweetwater Union High School District Dr. Libia Gil, Superintendent Chula Vista Elementary School District Richard Reynolds, General MRnager Sweetwater Authority Keith Lewenger, General Manger Otay Water District Mr. Joe Conti, President Southwestern College I , I ¡ . 9a- ' .2 IriV " ----, ~ p~¡) \ ,w/III GrubhfiEllis June 25, 1996 Mayor Horton City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Dear Shirley: Per my verbal presentation to the council on Thursday evening, I would appreciate your reconsideration of the proposed budget for the Planning Commission. The amount in question is $1,245.00 and, although small by all terms, this portion of the budget is allocated toward educating our commission regarding current planning pertinent to our purview and projects being processed through the city. In the past year, workshop topics have included: 1. The Multi-Species Conservation Program 2. Single-family detached condominium housing (the new trend) 3. Subdivision Map act and Development Process 4. Community Development Process Affordable Housing 5. Traffic Impacts, Measurement and Threshold Standards 6. Legal Issues: Conditions to approval and Nexus Issues 7. Gated Communities 8, Other issues covered at the California League of Cities Planners Institute Conference included: a. The Planning Commission and its operation b. The future of City Planning c. Safety and Security through design d. Implications of Federal and State politics to Planning e. Debate regarding the "Big Box" retailing of America f. Increasing public participation g. Downtown Revitalization Grubh & Ellis Cnmrany 8880 Rin San Dieg() Driw, Suire 200, San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 19ì-í\OO Fax (619) 191i,61i9i . ---_.._~^- ..~-----------~-------- - -----,-~---_.._---- ..------- I Mayor Horton June 25, 1996 Page Two h. The future of entertainment retail centers i. Public's private partnerships J. The merits of neo-traditional planning related specifically to the first two villages of Otay Ranch We greatly appreciate your consideration regarding this matter, and we are hopeful that our portion of the Planning Department's budget will remain at $12,450. Warmest personal regards, GRUBB & ELLIS COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES ~ ,r- - i . /2 ,L ' -;;;? ¿'--- William C. Tuchscher II Hospitality Properties & Land Division WCT:jmm . ^~._- . .,.----..-- .. ! I rDì ~ [, r, n n'i C' r";;; n l ir) il ' ',"~ \ " ! i ..!~, r---~~"~ in: ~: n í : t ~ ¡ JUN24100~ 'J I ~-, "c· I i L .-- -- --_J ( " 'r r June 10, 1996 I [,,'.' ! .-----.--~-~____.J Dear Mayor Horton and City Council, I have decided to communicate with members of the City Council and yourself, in order to state my position in the current budget dilemma. I have been employed by the City of Chula Vista for almost sixteen years. I worked 8~ years as a Communications Operator II and in 1988, I was selected as the Senior Crime Prevention Specialist. For the past 8 years, the unit has provided many community crime prevention programs and has developed other safety programs that are offered to the citizens of Chula Vista. Some of these programs are: Pre-school and Elementary Child Safety programs including a special "Personal Safety and Awareness" program, Operation C.A.T. Combat Auto Theft, Senior Alert, Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness and, of course, the Neighborhood Watch program. Additionallÿ, the unit has provided services to the City b¥; reviewing plans and conditional use permits and design rev~ews for the Planning Department as Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Over the past five years, the unit has managed the Security Alarm Ordinance which annually generates over $100,000 in revenue for the City. Of course, these collections could not have been done without the outstanding help we have been given by the Finance Department. Within the past two years, I have had the pleasure of coordinating and maintaining the Senior Volunteer Patrol program, made up of approximately 80 volunteers. It is believed that crime prevention services can continue to be provided through the Police Department and there would not be the need for a formal Crime Prevention Unit. My concerns are not just for the programs that I have listed above, but for the many more ~rograms and communit¥ services that are initiated by the exper~enced personnel with~n any established Crime Prevention Unit. personally this has been a difficult year and although my assignment may be eliminated, my concerns are to the programs, _.~ ;J services and community that I have served. Crime Prevention, in whatever form it is, needs the personal attention of a full-time employee that will devote 100% of their efforts to the goals of Crime Prevention. If not, I fear it will suffer the same fate as other non-essential programs, and will soon be left behind and forgotten. --~,. Traditionally, crime prevention and crime awareness ~rograms have been a part of police departments. Recently, some c1ties have chosen to relocate these programs to City Administration. Crime prevention and awareness should be citYW1de and the scope of their duties should include workin~ with all city departments. I agree that crime and the police c01ncide, but the prevention of crime can be accomplished by all of us. in every department, throughout the city. If the S.C.P.S. position is eliminated for the good of the or~anization, the C.S.O. position could still be maintained in cr1me prevention, and still be cost effective. Volunteers are the special advantages we have been blessed with here in Chula Vista. Do not expect them to replace paid employees, they are still just volunteers and are not looking for a full-time job. I appreciate your attention and consideration during these tight budgetary times. Crime Prevention is the foundation of a safer community. Respectfu ly, Â ~~ ~I ane Diosdado Sen10r Crime Prevention Specialist Chula Vista Police Department cc: Rick Emerson, Chief of Police Ross Withers, Captain , , ~ GEORGE J. KOST SWEETWATER VALLEY CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND BONITA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION June 25, 1996 Mayor Shirley A. Horton Chula Vista City Council SUBJECT: MUSIC IN ROHR PARKIN 1996 Dear Mayor Horton, 1. Rohr Park and the County Park, divided by Central Avenue, offer the best in Parks in the entire San Diego County. 2, Rohr Park has something for every economic level and just about every age group. Just to mention a few activities: Trails around a community golf course for equestrians, walkers, joggers and bike riders Equipment for the children, Miniature railroad (to be extended). Baseball, softball, basketball and soccer. Horse and dog rinks for shows, Apache Fort for kids, Bicycle lanes, Acconunodations for picnics, 3. People enjoying the Park are from inter city San Diego, Tijuana, Bonita, Chula Vista, National City, etc. 4, Plans for further improving the Parks are already made and approved i,e. bridge on Central, bike lanes, County Park, Sanctuary, etc. 5. The purpose of this letter is to continue to enhance the parks by recommending music in Rohr Park. On Sundays, the busiest day of the week, almost everyone in the Park will be able to hear and enjoy the music. -,....---- · Mayor Shirley A Horton Page 2 J~ 25, 1996 L 6. In order to make the above a reality, we need about $7000,00 per eason. The County, with Supervisor Greg Cox's leadership, will ask for half of the amount Ì.e, $3750,00, The Sweetwater Valley Civic Association and the Bonita Business and Professional Association would like to have the City ofChula Vista contribute $3750,00, or a portion of this amount, and do the administrative work making all the arrangements, Local Clubs, such as the Optimist Club will help with clean up and other duties, 7. For 1997 we hope to develop funds to buy a mobile music van that will offer more service for less money, The City of San Diego has three such vans, Why shouldn't South County have one? Sincerely, ~ George Kost PC: Jerry R. Rindone Scott D. Alevy John S. Moot Steven C, Padilla John D, Goss, City Manager Jess Velenzuela, Director of Parks