HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1994/05/10
Tuesday, May 10, 1994
6:00 p.m.
"I declare \>lnder penalty of parJury thet I all'l
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted
this AgenJalNolice on the Bulletin Board at
tha Public ~!l!'ces Buildin:! and at Cit Hall on
DATED,6 5/~ SIGNED ~
Re lar of the Cit of a Vista I Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _, Moore _, Rindone _, and
Mayor Nader _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 26, 1994 and May 3, 1994
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: John Munch - Economic Development Commission (Ex-Officio).
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any .fit1gJ actions taken in closed session and to atfjoum the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there wiU be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 14)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation,' complete the pink fonn to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar wU/ be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public wU/ be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter in response to City Council request for joint meeting with Southwestern ColIege
Governing Board regarding building/locating a Transit Center at Southwestern ColIege -
Joseph M. Conte, Superintendent/President, Southwestern ColIege, 900 Otay Lakes Rd., Chula
Vista, CA 91910. The Staff and City Attorney recommend: (1) That Council accept the
conditions for the meeting; and, (2) that the City Manager be directed as folIows: (a)
communicate the acceptance of the conditions to the Governing Board and
Superintendent/President of the College; (b) develop a framework with the concurrence of the
SuperintendentlPresident for selecting the three local community residents who would be 'dias'
participants in the deliberation, and have same approved by the Governing Board (if they so
desire) and Council prior to the meeting; (c) meet with the staff of Southwestern ColIege for the
purpose of selecting a time and place for the meeting that will be mutualIy acceptable to the
'active participants', SuperintendentlPresident and City Council; (d) notice the meetings in a
manner required by law, and provide suitable special notice to local residents; and, (e) have
preliminary meetings with the staff of the ColIege for the purpose of generating the appropriate
data and Board/Council reports.
Agenda
6.
7.
8.
9.
ORDINANCE 2591
ORDINANCE 2592
RESOLUTION 17479
RESOLUTION 17480
-2-
May 10, 1994
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH
THE BOARD OF ADMINlSTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (second readiru!
and adontion - Memorandums of Understanding with the Chula Vista
Employees Association, Police Officers Association, and International
Association of Fire Fighters contain provisions whereby the City agreed
to amend its contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) to include the optional benefit known as Military Service Credit
as Public Service for local miscellaneous and local safety members.
Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and
adoption. (Director of Personnel)
AMENDING SECTION 17.10.100 TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF
REQUIRED PARK FEES 60 DAYS AFTER MAP APPROVAL
BUT BEFORE MAP RECORDATION, AND AMENDING
SECTION 18.16.100 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE ALLOWING
BONDS TO BE PROVIDED AFTER MAP APPROVAL (second
readiru! and adontion) - On 1/19/93, Council approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates. The
fourth final map for said tentative map is now before Council for
approval. The developer has requested that payment of Park
Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees be deferred until after map
approval. The proposed Municipal Code amendment would allow the
alternative. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second
reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works, Director of
Planning, Director of Community Development, and Director of Parks
and Recreation)
APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CONCERNING WAGES AND OTHER TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE WESTERN
COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 AND
APPROVING THE ACCOMPANYING SIDE LETTER OF
UNDERSTANDING - Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Deputy City Manager Krempl)
APPROVING BOOKING FEES LITIGATION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
SETTLEMENT AND ONGOING EXPENSES RELATED TO
BOOKING FEES - Staff of the County and the staff of the litigating
cities of the County of San Diego have agreed upon a proposed
settlement of the booking fees litigation by which cities, except the City
of San Diego, will pay $154 per booking for the bookings between
4/1/91 and 12/31/93, plus interest at the County's average interest
earnings rate during each quarter of such period. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (City Attorney) 4/5th's vote reqnired.
Agenda
-3-
May 10, 1994
10.
RESOLUTION 17481
APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
REMY AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION REPRESENTATION
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHAPARRAL
GREENS LAWSUIT, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAME - When the City of Chula Vista and County of San
Diego approved the final version of the Otay Ranch Project, part of the
approval was an indemnification agreement by Otay Vista Associates,
indemnifying the City and the County in the event of an attack on the
project approval. Chaparral Greens thereafter sued, alleging
inadequacies in the final program EIR andlor violations of CEQA. On
1/4/94, Council ratified a Three-Party Agreement whereby Remy and
Thomas would represent the City pursuant to that indemnification
agreement, at Otay Vista's expense. On 3/29/94, Council approved the
First Amendment to the Agreement. Approval of the resolution and
agreement will authorize Remy and Thomas to continue to represent the
City in that litigation at Otay Vista's expense, and further increase the
maximum compensation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Assistant City Attorney Rudolf)
11.
RESOLUTION 17469
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
"PLACEMENT OF VARIOUS TYPES OF STREET SURFACING
(ASPHALT CONCRETE, ASPHALT RUBBER HOT MIX,
ASPHALT RUBBER AND AGGREGATE MEMBRANE WITH
SLURRY SEAL) FOR THE 1993/94 OVERLAY PROGRAM AND
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS
STREETS IN THE CITY (STL-206)"; AND AUTHORIZING
STAFF TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL
AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT - On 3/23/94, bids were
received for placement of 1-1/2 inch thick asphalt concrete overlay,
asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane with slurry seal and asphalt
rubber hot mix overlay. The work also includes removal of aIligatored
pavement areas and replacement with asphalt concrete; the milling of
street pavement in certain areas; signal loops, traffic control,
adjustment of manholes and storm drain cleanouts; adjustment of
survey well monuments; removal of curbs, gutter, and sidewalk; and
the construction of pedestrian ramps, and other miscellaneous work
shown on the plans. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 5/3/94.
12.
RESOLUTION 17482
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO
SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION AT GOTHAM STREET AND OTAY LAKES
ROAD IN THE CITY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS - On
4/20/94, four sealed bids were received from electrical contractors for
the installation of traffic signals at Gotham Street and Otay Lakes
Road. The low bid of $79,361 was received from Southwest Signal
Service and is below the Engineer's estimate of $86.970. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
4/5th's vote required.
Agenda
-4-
May 10, 1994
13.
RESOLUTION 17483
MAKING APPOINTMENTS, APPROVING THE
ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II) - EastLake
Development Company has informally petitioned the City to use
assessment district financing for improvements to be located in
EastLake Greens II. The resolution makes the formal appointment of
the Director of Public Works as Superintendent of Streets, makes other
administrative appointments, and approves the acquisition/financing
agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Public Works)
14.
RESOLUTION 17484
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH D. J. SMITH
ASSOCIATES FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND APPROPRIATING $90,000
FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND-
The item involves retaining a consultant with expertise in funding of
transportation facilities. The consultant, working with staff and the
property owners, would develop a program for funding transportation
facilities from sources other tbsn developer fees, and would then
aggressively seek such funding. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
**""""*
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the foUowing items of business which are permitted by low to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is ndvised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by low to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of final action taken, and ndjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be avai/Qble in the City Clerk's Office.
15. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Chaparral Greens vs. the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and Baldwin
16. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
Agenda
-5-
May 10, 1994
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The foUowing items have been advertised and/or posted as pubUc hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please flU out the "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby aad submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green fonn to speak in favor of the stoff recomme1Ulation; complete
the pink fonn to speak in opposition to the stoff recomme1Ulation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
iadividual.
17.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERING THE WAIVER OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE PROPOSED
MARINA GOLF CENTER (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
760-048-059) - Johnson International is a prospective lessee of 14.7
acres of an IS acre parcel located at the northeast comer of the
intersection of"J" Street and Marina Parkway. The prospective lessee
is requesting that Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PDIF) be
waived for the proposed temporary golf driving range. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17485
APPROVING THE PARTIAL PAYMENT OF PUBLIC
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE
PROPOSED MARINA GOLF CENTER (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 760-048-59) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
DEVELOPER FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE IN YEARLY
INCREMENTS
IS.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR
1994-1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF
FUNDING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - The City
will receive $1,S12,OOO in CDBG entitlement funds for Fiscal Year
1994/95 and will have available $9,000 in reallocation funds making a
total of $1,S21,OOO. The City proposes to use the funds for public
facilities and improvements, social services, fair bousing, and other
community needs. The activities will primarily benefit low and
moderate income families, with a minimum of 70 percent of the funds
targeted to benefit low income households. Staff recommends Council
accept the report and direct staff to return on 5/24/94 with a funding
recommendation report. (Director of Community Development)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general pubUc to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this age1Ula. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City
Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted age1Ula.) If you wish to address the Council
on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Fonn" avai/uble
in the lobby 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 follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
Agenda
-6-
May 10, 1994
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City CouncU will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items Usted in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the CouncU, sttiff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and sttiffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the altemative. Those who wish to speak, please
Jill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
19.
REPORT
UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE ISSUES AND FINAL REPORT ON
PROPOSALS FOR SERVICES - The report concludes the Request
for Proposal process for alternative solid waste services which was
begun in December, 1993 and first reported at the 4/5/94 meeting on
the preliminary evaluation of the five proposals received. On 4/26/94,
Council received the results of an economic analysis of the cost of
staying in the County system. The report for that meeting also
included a comparative analysis of the cost of six proposal options
(three prospective contractors and four landfill sites) to the County
system costs. Staff recommends Council: (I) Approve, in concept, the
staff recommendation to proceed with a transfer station; and (2) direct
staff to return on 5/24/94, during the report on the proposed solid
waste IP A, with an outline of the process to begin implementing
Council's preferred course of action. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
20.
REPORT
BUDGET OVERVIEW - An oral report will be given by staff.
21.
REPORT
UPDATE ON CLEAN WATER PROGRAM ISSUES - An oral
report will be given by staff.
22.
REPORT
CONCERNING THE CITYWIDE GRAFFITI ABATEMENT
PROGRAM, A PROPOSED GRAFFITI EDUCATION PROGRAM
AND A GRAFFITI, ADOPT-A-BLOCK PROGRAM - On 1/4/94
and 2/8/94, staff was directed to return to Council to address graffiti
abatement activities currently conducted within the City. Staff was
instructed to prepare a report outlining current enforcement of the
Property Defacement Ordinance and provide applicable
recommendations, if any, for improved modifications to the Ordinance.
Council also instructed staff to investigate the potential for establishing
an Adopt-A-BIock or Adopt-A-Community Graffiti Program and
consider awards for civic groups and/or schools which contributed to
graffiti abatement programs or which were most successful in keeping
their areas graffiti free. Staff recommends Council accept the report.
(Director of Building and Housing)
Agenda
-7-
May 10, 1994
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City CouncU wiN discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items puUed at the request of the public wiN be considered prior to those puUed by CouncUmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
23. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT IS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
24. MAYOR'S REPORTlS)
25. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fox
a. Regional Open Space and Park District.
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City CouncU states otherwise at this time, the CouncU wUl
discuss and deliberate on the folJJJwing items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the CouncU is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The CouncU is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping wUI be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the CouncU's return from
closed session, reports of JilYl1 action taken, and a4joumment wiN not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which wiU be available in the City Clerk's Office.
26. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Govenunent Code Section 54956.9
. Perez vs. the City of Chula Vista
. Hummell vs. the City of Chula Vista
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
27. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 17, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers.
April 28, 1994
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and city counj1~.
John D. Goss, City Manage~ ~~l
City Council Meeting of May 10, 1994
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting of Tuesday, May 10, 1994. Comments regarding
the written Communications are as follows:
5a. This a response to the city Council's request for a joint
Governing Board/Council meeting to discuss the siting of a
Transit Center at Southwestern College. The Governing Board
of Southwestern College has unanimously accepted our offer to
meet under specified conditions listed in the letter.
Representatives of the School Board have clarified that
Condition No.2, wherein they specify that the active
participants would be limited to three residents from the
community adjacent to the College District, was not intended
to mean a limitation on who may attend the meeting, but only
who may actively participate in the deliberations at the dais
in the same manner as a councilmember or a governing board
member. As this is an expansion of public participation in
the process, the city Attorney finds no problems with such an
arrangement under the Brown Act.
The Staff and city Attorney recommend:
1. That Council accept the conditions for the meeting;
2. that the City Manager be directed as follows:
a. communicate the acceptance of the conditions to the
Governing Board and Superintendent/President of the
College;
b. develop a framework with the concurrence of the
Superintendent/President for selecting the three local
community residents who would be "dias" participants in
the deliberation, and have same approved by the Governing
Board (if they so desire) and Council prior to the
meeting;
c. meet with the staff of Southwestern College for the
purpose of selecting a time and place for the meeting
that will be mutually acceptable to the "active
participants", Superintendent/president and city Council.
d. notice the meetings in a manner required by law, and
provide suitable special notice to local residents;
e. have preliminary meetings with the staff of the
College for the purpose of generating the appropriate
data and Board/Council reports;
M~
~~
Southwestern
College
~~\n /" , G rl'\
'/ ~ ~
fv'r. III APRIL 20,
o~er 1ft
/IN
Governing Board
Augle Bareno
G. Gordon Browning, D.M.D
Jerry J. Grlff~h
Marla Nevas-Perman
Judy Schulenberg
Joseph M. Conte
Superintendent/President
I/f;'l ~ ~" f-'~~"'7;r"i:"r71
I Ujr- -. .,;"\ ,
('
"jj APR 2 6 I:.y.(
w=L
.f:t,o'*i~.i.c;jl~' !:\ni""';~ ~_:]
',,', >.:; CH:..'i..,; ;l'I""" c.'/! '
----.,-'-~-.....~.)
1994 \~
0'
if
~J '\
\'J~ li! ::u
(")0 ~ rr1
.-" ("')
"'0
:xJ 'T' ~ rr1
~c: -
(/) r-- <
0>> > rr1
"<' ..., 0
'1--
_<n W
C">-l
m:.- N
THE HONORABLE TIM NADER, MAYOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
DEAR MAYOR NADER:
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD ON APRIL'19TH, I SHARED
THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL'S REQUEST FOR A JOINT GOVERNING BOARD/
COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS, ONCE AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF BUILDING/LOCATING
A TRANSIT CENTER AT SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE.
AFTER REVIEW OF PREVIOUS TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE BOARD, ORAL
COMMUNICATION FROM A LOCAL RESIDENT, AND GENERAL DISCUSSION, THE BOARD
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO MEET UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE OPEN, PUBLIC MEETING BE HELD AT SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE, AT
A TIME THAT PERMITS PARTICIPANTS TO VISIT THE SITE(S)
UNDER DISCUSSION
2. ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS WOULD BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE CHULA
VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY MANAGER, MEMBERS OF THE
GOVERNING BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT, AND 3
RESIDENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY ADJACENT TO THE COLLEGE DISTRICT
3. THAT BOTH ENTITIES AGREE ON AND WORK FROM THE SAME DATA; THAT
THIS DATA BE COLLECTED AND SHARED WITH ALL ACTIVE MEETING
PARTICIPANTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING
4. CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE
MEETING TO LOCAL RESIDENTS
S~~ >>t t;,.u
JOI.P~ M. CONTE
Wl'i;);7'i::';,.f'I~.",,, SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT
fr..1Il ij Ilt:i~ C"""\>-'
g~~:~OVERNING BOARD MEMBERS U^'tMUNIC A "PiJ^A.~~
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS . . #J\l"I~""
JOHN GOSS, CITY MANAGER C~i[1 /-!vw-(Lj) .d..... 5h',9/,;
KEN FITE, VICE PRESIDENT, . /0 ,/ ,pr- I '/Y~))L/
FISCAL AFFAIRS ~ /
JO:~S~~~~~N& g~~~~~~NS ~~ ~~
TOM DAVIS, RESIDENT c:::-t:::. ~ "..... ,/
o /:, (?.fi ' ..j 4-
900 Otay Lakes Road. Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 482-6301 /;:~: r9 -;; ~m Community College District
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
~.r'1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT O~1\O~
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE BOARD ~-
OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUB~ ~O
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ~t>>>
~O~O,
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. That an amendment to the contract between the
city Council of the City of Chula vista of the city of Chula Vista
and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees'
Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment
being attached hereto, marked "Exhibit", and by such reference made
a part hereof as though herein set out in full.
Section 2.
hereby authorized,
amendment for and on
The Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is
empowered, and directed to execute said
behalf of said Agency.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of
fifteen days from the passage thereof shall be published at least
once in the Chula Vista Star News, a newspaper of general
circulation, published and circulated in the City of Chula vista
and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in ful force and
effect.
Presented by
, City
Candy Boshell, Director of
Personnel
c: I.rlperl
,.../
ITEM TITLE:
A.
ITEM t,
'f11l1
MEETING DATE Ma~..3:19941/15r
Ordinance .).5'1/ of the City Council of the City of C i\\~
Vista Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract B he
City of Chula Vista and the Board of ActrR~ Ion of the
California Public Employees R?t~em.
Resolution J 7 tit, 2f Intention to Approve an Amendment
to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public
Employees Retirement System and lhe City Council of the
City of Chula Vista
Director of Personnel C/:t
City ManagerJEt ~~
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_ No~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
.
Memorandums of Understanding with Chula Vista Employees Association, Police Officers
Association, Police Officers Association, and International Association of Fire Fighters
contain provisions whereby the City agreed to amend its contract with the Public
Employee's Retirement System (PERS) to include the Optional Benefit known as Military
Service Credit as Public Service for local miscellaneous and local safety members.
RECOMMENDATION: Place the ordinance on first reading and adopt the Resolution
declaring the City's intent to approve an amendment to the PERS Contract in order to
provide military service credit as Public Service to employees covered by the PERS
contract. . .
o
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: This pension option allows employees who have served In the military
to pay amounts determined by PERS in order to obtain pension benefits which reflect
up to four years of military service. The option is not available to military retirees.
FISCAL IMPACT: None EmPloyeeS elialble far this benefj~ pay the full cost.
There is a potentiaTfOrOneg Igitile Increasea unturideallaDlhty. According to the PERS
actuarial department, the unfunded liability could result if the City amended. its
contract after one or more employee'S costs have been calculated. It is also pOSSible
that an employee choosing the option could receive pay increases in excess of the
average. or live longer than actuarial assumptions.
.
~~I
COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM
Item 7
Meeting Date 5-10-94
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council ~~
John Goss, City Manager~t1 ~~/
George Krempl, Deputy City ManagerG?\
Second Reading of Ordinance 2592, Re: Payment of Required Park Fees
60 days after Manager's approval
It is recommended that the second readina of this Ordinance be
continued to Mav 17. 1994. At that time, staff will be bringing forward an
amendment to allow the payment of required park fees 60 days after map
recordation. If the amendment should be approved by Council on May 17th, then
the first reading of the Amended Ordinance would be re-introduced.
GK/ec
Ord.2592
7-1
e,AJr/lJIIHf"AI tI,Tlle
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
r
Meeting Date
5/10/94
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution J 74/ 7tpprOVing Memorandum of
Understanding concerning wages and other terms and
conditions of employment between the City of Chula
vista and the Western Council of Engineers for FY
1993-94 and approving the accompanying side letter
of understanding
Deputy City Manag~€\~emPl~IV
city Manager,JC!\~~\\ (4/sths Vote: Yes_ No-1L1
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Backaround
The city's negotiating team has concluded a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Western council of Engineers (WCE)
which was ratified by its membership on April 26, 1994. The MOU is
a single year agreement beginning June 25, 1993 and ending July 7,
1994. Major changes to the MOU are outlined below.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt the resolution approving
the Memorandum of Understanding and
accompanying side letter of understanding with
the Western Council of Engineers
DISCUSSION:
This MOU with WCE includes the following recommended changes:
1. Waaes
No wage increases.
2. Health and Welfare
The flexible benefit plan amount is increased from the current
$5,371.70 as follows:
From December 31, 1993 through July 7, 1994 the Flex Plan
amount shall be increased by $130 to $5,501.70.
3. Professional Enrichment
The items eligible for professional enrichment reimbursement
have been enumerated and clarified. One item, work-related
computer software purchase, is being implemented for a six
<;r- /
Item
8'
Meeting Date
5/10/94
month trial basis with the right of the City to terminate or
extend at the end of that period.
4. BiLinqual pav
The allowance for bilingual pay has been increased from
$25/month to $40/month.
5. Recoqnition/Career Advancement
Three new job titles have been added to the MOU, Assistant
civil Engineer, Assistant Traffic Engineer and Land Surveyor.
The Assistant civil Engineer and Assistant Traffic Engineer
are career ladder positions to which an employee can advance
from an Assistant Engineer II position upon professional
registration. At present, Assistant Engineer II's who achieve
professional registration receive a 5% increase in recognition
of this achievement. The purpose of this MOU change is to
provide a recognition by creating the new titles of Assistant
civil Engineer and Assistant Traffic Engineer.
The Land Surveyor position is already an existing budgeted
position. WCE formally agrees to represent the position by
adding it to the MOU. WCE had not previously agreed to
represent this position. There are no new fiscal impacts
associated with these changes.
6. Side Letter Aqreement
There is one side letter agreement with WCE which addresses
two points. The first point provides support for the
development of a catastrophic Leave Policy with all of the
bargaining units and employee groups and outlines a process
for its follow through. The second point acknowledges WCE's
role on the city's ongoing health insurance committee and the
unit's ability to raise health insurance issues before the
committee group.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this
established by Council.
be forwarded to the City
package is consistent with the guidelines
The actual appropriating resolution will
council in the near future.
NOTE: A copy of the MOU and side letter are available in the
Clerk's Office
GK:dt
B:\(Al13)\WCE93-94.MOU
8'";;1.
RESOLUTION NO.
/?tj?1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING WAGES AND OTHER TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND THE WESTERN COUNCIL OF
ENGINEERS FOR FY 1993-94 AND APPROVING THE
ACCOMPANYING SIDE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
WHEREAS, the Management Negotiation Team representing the
City Manager of the City of Chula Vista, acting for and on behalf
of the City Council of the city of Chula Vista, have heretofore met
and conferred with the Chula vista Chapter, Western Council of
Engineers, an organization representing certain members of
classified employees in the City of Chula Vista, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 3500 et seq. of the Government Code of
the State of California, and
WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding jointly prepared
by said parties as a result of meeting and conferring in good faith
includes the following recommended changes:
1. Waqes
No wage increases.
2. Health and Welfare
The flexible benefit plan amount is increased from the
current $5,371.70 as follows:
From December 31, 1993 through July 7, 1994 the Flex Plan
amount shall be increased by $130 to $5,501.70.
3. Professional Enrichment
The items eligible for professional enrichment
reimbursement have been enumerated and clarified. One item, work-
related computer software purchase, is being implemented for a six
month trial basis with the right of the city to terminate or extend
at the end of that period.
4. BiLinqual Pav
The allowance for bilingual pay has been increased from
$25/month to $40/month.
1
~..;!
5. Recoqnition/Career Advancement
Three new job titles have been added to the MOU,
Assistant civil Engineer, Assistant Traffic Engineer and Land
Surveyor. The Assistant civil Engineer and Assistant Traffic
Engineer are career ladder positions to which an employee can
advance from an Assistant Engineer II position upon professional
registration. At present, Assistant Engineer II's who achieve
professional registration receive a 5% salary increase in
recognition of this achievement. The purpose of this MOU change is
to provide a recognition by creating the new titles of Assistant
civil Engineer and Assistant Traffic Engineer.
The Land Surveyor position is already an existing
budgeted position and is merely being memorialized in the MOU.
There are no new fiscal impacts associated with these changes.
WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding jointly prepared
by said parties as a result of meeting and conferring in good faith
has been presented to the city council and is on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning Wages and Other Terms and Conditions of
Employment with the Chula vista Police Officer's Association and
accompanying side Letter of Understanding for FY 1993-94, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Presented by
George Krempl
Deputy city Manager
Bruce M. Boogaa
City Attorney
(C:\Res\Engineer.MOU)
2
~'v
)
.1993 NEGOTIATIONS
~Vt.-
~
- ----~-.
- - -
~~~~-
CllY OF
CHUlA VISfA
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS
.~12~j;11
;r-~
\""
, .
, ,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING WAGES AND OTIIER TERMS
AND CONDmONS OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
THE CHULA VISTA CHAPTER, WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1991 III RBEI 11llll 9] i2mg!
1.01 PREAMBLE
1.02 RECOGNITION
1.03 CITY RIGHTS
1.04 W.C.E. RIGHTS
Jmlll}Wtf*,~.B~1I11I:mm~II'Jl!~i!1'II~
2.01 WAGES
2.01.1 JOB SHARING
2.02 OUT OF CLASS ASSIGNMENT
2.03 EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE
2.04 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
2.05 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
2.06 WORKWEEK
2.07 OVERTIME
2.08 BILINGUAL PAY
2.09 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
2.10 RETIREMENT
2.11 HOLIDAYS
2.12 VACATION AND SICK LEAVE
2.12.1 PROFESSIONAL LICENSE OR REGISTRATION EXAM LEAVE
2.13 LEAVE OF ABSENCE
2.14 MILITARY LEAVE
2.15 JURY DUTY
2.15.1 COURT LEAVE
2.16 CAREER ADVANCEMENT
2.17 LABOR MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
2.18 ACTING APPOINTMENTS
2.19 DRIVING ELIGIBILITY
2.20 SUBSTANCE/ALCOHOL ABUSE POLICY
3.01 PROHffiITED PRACTICES
3.02 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
3.03 TERM
3.04 FULL UNDERSTANDING, MODIFICATION, AND WAIVER
3.05 SAVINGS CLAUSE
g~;"
~~:::;U:::-~~~~::-;~.m$,.:.x.;;t;@:::~.::~$.:t::::1;:;;:;?::'U~?;~;;r.B*-::::::::::~':'i;:;%$;':::''m'::%::::.::;::,.;*~~::t't.~':':::~W%$;::*-:::;%-:rB%::::~~m~*~s::::::am~:;::):-f::t%:::~:t.:;:::%%-::).~~rt~:mm$.m~x}':f;
1.01 PREAMBLE
This MOU is entered into by the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and the
Chula Vista Chapter of the Western Council of Engineers, hereinafter referred to as the "WCE."
1.02 RECOGNITION
The City recognizes the WCE as exclusive representative for the employees in the City of Chula
Vista that are employed in the following classifications:
Assistant Engineer I
Assistant Engineer II
,,~,~~im!11
,,::i? E~~lDeer. . . .
BDa\IlIBBi'lm
Associate Traffic Engineer
Chief Plans Examiner
Ri~;~jBIl9j
1.03 CITY RIGHTS
A The WCE recognizes that the City has and will continue to retain in all respects, whether
exercised or not, the unilateral and exclusive right, subject to this MOU, to operate,
administer, and manage its public services and its work force performing those services.
B. The exclusive rights of the City shaU include, but not be limited to:
. Determining the organization of City government and the purpose and mission of its
constituent agencies.
. Setting standards of service to be offered to the public and, through its management
officials, to exercise control and discretion over its organization and operations.
. Establishing and effecting administrative regulations and employment rules consistent
with law and the specific provisions of this MOU.
. Directing its employees.
. Determining the City budget
. Taking disciplinary action.
. Relieving employees from duty because of a lack of work or for other legitimate
reasons.
~~' :'$.;?Ma*#.:~~~~$*%~~tt::m.w;:tg*~$.:1t~%~4M:E:}M~::::.."%~%w..4~.~":%:mm~~:'lliW:
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994) Page 1
?~7
m:m::;W;:,::;;:;:::;:~~.:~:m:?:?;,w;::::t.(:~~~"U%-m:;;;:;:;;g.::~?;:?X%::t.(;>>.m~:;:::::':;:::;;%$&:@f.~~$;"1:;:;~:~:tf.~:?::;;:?::*::t~'::::~:H;::~::t..:::t~j~l:'%;:;t?;:$?::f.?:;?%H:~;:;~f.:<<$~&~::?~::::::?~::;1;$t'?%~~M:t:;:;:;;~!<::un:*~:;:9J.@;~:::@::::?:H:~::;;:::~::~~f.%:~::
. Determining the methods, means, and personnel by which the City's services are to
be provided, including the right to schedule and assign work and overtime, and to
otherwise act in the interest of efficient service to the City.
. Subcontracting out various services whether currently performed by City workforce
or not, when no eliminations of current employees will result and management
determines it is in the public interest.
C. The exercise and retention of the City rights contained herein does not preclude the
employees and/or WCE from consulting about the practical consequences that decisions on
these matters may have on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
D. Nothing contained in this provision shaH be deemed to supersede the provisions of existing
State law and the ordinances and rules of the City which establish the Civil Service System.
1.04 WeE RIGHTS
WCE shaH have the right to:
. Be provided a reasonable amount of space on relevant City buHetin boards
for legitimate communications with members.
. Be granted use of City facilities by the appropriate authority for meetings
composed of WCE members, provided such meetings are held outside
regularly scheduled working hours for the group which is meeting, and
provided space can be made available without interfering with City needs.
WCE agrees to provide proper advance notice of such meetings and pay any
contingent costs of security, supervision, damage and clean-up.
. Have tlleir ellief Begetiater i\E~]>r~~ded without charge a eepy ~g;sIUI
of the FY 1991 92 aDd 1992 9J 1~2e;U Memorandum of Understanding.
. Be allowed reasonable access to employees of the unit at their work locations
during working hours for the purpose of consulting with employees in the unit
regarding the employer-employee relationship, provided that (1) the work of
the employee and the service of the public are not unduly impaired, and (2)
the authorized representative shaH have given advance notice to the
department head or his designated representative when contacting
departmental employees during the duty period of the employees. The
department head shaH determine the appropriate time for such access.
. Designate two (2) employees plus alternates who serve as official
representatives. Such persons shaH be released from work, without loss of
compensation, when formally meeting and conferring with management
representatives on matters within the scope of representation. One member
shaH also be released from work without loss of compensation when meeting
miIDW:~%::;.::m:m::;'"';:;~:::~s.W$~ltMWff:t~J:m%-::.~~:r*%:::~:~::":::K1'::;~.:t1<t~:;t.;:fmt%;~w~:*:~m~:~~~;;f.::~:tt:t:~t-:r:i..:::W::::tMi~ttf:i%tW;~'%:~mt%tM::-~t.w~m~::~1t1~~Rt:~ll~:
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994)
g-~g/
Page 2
:t.;$mW1*~m::::m:::;:~;:::;~f.[.-::;ms$li:~$%t.:!:;:::::':;::::~::%::::$:::::::::~-::'::'?:@;:::S%%:;:S%;~;~;W~;:::::~::~~:::~3:::&$;:W~l::::::H@~s:::;:;:::ti;:r,:;:;i;t$;f.:::~;;:;:::%~:::;@$X::::'!"i$:=i~m:;;:::::::M:@~::::;:;;:;:<-:':'4t.:f.:~:;:;$::::;f,::::;:%;:;:;Mf.;:~M;~$;r:::~:3;~r;~;
with management representatives on matters pertaining to an allowable
grievance item.
. Be provided, upon request, such literature and public documents as may be
necessary (i.e., City budget, Workers Compensation benefits). A reasonable
duplication charge may be made for items not normally available for wide
distribution.
. Tbe City of Chula Vista shall bill WCE $.18 per member per pay period for
the full costs incurred for dues deduction on behalf of WCE.
lig~itlgm~Qll~lU;Bm,lllgmPBt~!1
2.01 WAGES
A.
B.
C.
Bft'eew:e JtiBe 28, 1991, tile salary raBges fer all elA5siHeatieBs represeBted \ly "TCB sfiall
\Ie iBsreased \ly five perseBt (S%). Bffeetir.'e JtiBe 2€i, 1992, tile sAlary raBges fer aY
elassifieatieBs represeBteEl13y "!CE shall he iaereased BY wle pereeBt (5%). J!\\~ll!jim!:
-
pay range of each classification shall be as listed in the "Salary Plan" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
Tbe City shall pay seven percent (7%) of the employee's contribution to PERS for
classifications represented by WCE.
All other payroll and wage changes, such as merit increases, shall be made effective at the
beginning of the regular pay period closest to the date of change.
D.
Distribution of paychecks shall be done only on regular paydays except in an emergency,
when employees may receive their check on a day other than a regular payday if a memo
is directed from the Department Head to the Finance Officer justifying the request.
E.
All classifications represented by WCE may receive in advance a maximum of two weeks
earned vacation pay. Vacation pay in advance will be made on a regular payday if the
employee notifies the Finance Department at least three working days prior to the payday
on which payment is desired.
F.
.ii~iiii~;ii1&~r~e'!~~lX:~~t~~fl!r:~~I!!fJP!~~~~~!!!~~:~Il
D.l .. ::! :::~~~%.g<<K$J . .~.%@~'(~-%"~~..._:::::t"%.w~~wm::w-~<<:.3,*tWf::~".:t:::~~f:'mm\'lli:%~%M~:t;t~:?~1%k:t.~~~~'@:{~::~::ooID~ttW%lli&%~
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994)
;5'7
Page 3
war1tm::::::;W;$~:f:::::*,%~:;;:.%~ ':;:::" .~m~m;:r:*;1::%::'$~w:~m.m~$;~m!;:::::w~-rJ;*.::f*f.'?;!;:*)~::t;t::'%'fv.::::::*mM:!;::w::;:m::::-f.;::mij:::!;::wt:llim@:~:;::!;:%-:im::::$X::::m:::Hmg:;:?:it:!f.:~:::a;::.w::?:i:;m
En ineer Q1Sfessi6li!1!Fiif"ciiEfi"ili!"": or Land Surve or and such re istration .
g , !Mf""""""""""""",c""~""""""",,,c';'"M"""""""""""g,"m",,~;r y , g IS not a
requirement of the position held, shall receive five percent (5%) additional compensation.
1;l!!n!}I'III~lfl.llflllflililllii\ljmf!m,qli!ilm~tlfji;~UlR;1IIi~r~~i;B
2.01.1
JOB SHARING
The City will make reasonable accommodation for an employee in a regular position who desires
to share hislher job with another qualified employee or eligible person. Jobs may be shared on an
hourly or daily basis. All legally permissible benefits will be pro-rated. Each employee shall be
notified in writing by the appointing authority (Director of Public Works) at the time of the
appointment and such notification will clearly define the benefits to which each employee is
entitled.
2.02 OUT OF CLASS ASSIGNMENT
A. When, at the sole discretion of the City, an employee is assigned by the City to perform the
duties of a higher paid classification for a period of ten (10) or more consecutive working
days, such employee shall receive the next higher step in pay range, or five percent (5%)
over the employee's wage rate, whichever is greater. The effective date of said increase
shall be the first working day of the temporary appointment.
B. This provision is not applicable to situations deemed by the City to be for training or
educational purposes.
This provision does not apply if a unit member is given an acting appointment to a position not
represented by WCE. However, in the event a WCE member was temporarily appointed to a
middle management position, City policy concerning middle management would apply.
2.03 EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE
A. Extraordinary Service Pay is defined as pay for exceptional performance by an individual
at his!her classification level as determined by the department head.
B. Eligibility shall be determined by one or more of the following criteria:
1. The employee has performed outstanding work on a continuing basis at his!her
current job classification level such as, but not limited to:
a) Frequent completion of work significantly ahead of schedule.
b) Volume and/or quality of work produced greatly exceeds department norms
on a continuing basis.
2. The employee has completed, or is currently working on an assignment which calls
for a substantial degree of greater responsibility and/or professional or technical
~.$:~1t~::l~:x.;~:W:::!3%~"$,:~W':M~~~.$~r:~M,**~%W~W~M~~***~~t.~~*:W~w.;:,1.@~H:*$8"%1:*:;:;~mWJ~ti!P..b.";:mMm:@.roW&w:::..ttt::;:n~.aM~~:Ht1:#~#:1.;:n.:::,t
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28. 1994)
Page 4
~/JO
~:~;n:;::.::::::::;:&w;;::;:;:::@~:mM@U$w:ti::::;~;"%:r{;::::.e.:::.m:m:r:;:~;:;:;:;:~::s~~:;::m:w;~;::~:m:::nwm::~:m:;:~;::@g:~~~m::;{;:~;:::~:BW:;:::::.:::::M::;:;:$x::~:;;:::n:f.:m.:::mn:::f.::::;&?::;:$.:t:;::f.:;::m:n1::::;:;':;:::m;:$;:::..:::m:::w;:::;;~:~:t.~g:r{;:::n
expertise than his/her current job classification requires and is not covered by
Temporary Work in a Higher Classification Pay provisions contained herein.
3. The employee has completed, or is currently planning, developing or implementing
a special program initiated or suggested by himself/herself and approved by the
department head which will provide substantial overall benefit to the department
and/or the City.
C. Implementation
1. The department head shall, during the months of June and December, meet with
his/her supervisory staff to determine if any employee should receive Extraordinary
Service Pay for exceptional performance during the past six (6) month period. The
maximum number of eligible employees during the year shall not exceed three (3)
persons.
2. When the department head determines that an employee should receive ESP, it shall
be his!her responsibility to determine the amount and to forward his!her
recommendation(s) to the City Manager for approval.
3. ESP shan be a lump sum payment of one of the following amounts as determined
by the department head and approved by the City Manager: $250, $300, $400, $500
or $600. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days following the City Manager's
approval at a staff meeting called for the purpose of presenting the awards. Along
with the awards, each recipient will receive a letter of appreciation signed by the City
Manager or his/her designated representative which, in part, will give the reasons for
that particular award.
D. Annual review by the department head(s) or their designated representative(s) and WCE
shall be made in the second quarter of each calendar year. The eligibility and
implementation procedures shan be reviewed to determine if any revisions, deletions, or
additions should be made to this provision (ESP). Changes to this provision (ESP) shall
be subject to the mutual approval of the department head(s) and WCE.
E. The provisions of this Section shan not be subject to the grievance procedure. The
provisions of this Section are separate and distinct from the City's Performance Evaluation
System.
1.04 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
IIIk19X;~~lfiRt.il!!!lll WCE Bumllers shall be elig~le to partici~ate in the City's approved
Deferred Compensation Plan. The Ci*y agrees ta isve6tJgate tile feaSiBility af as iBerease is the
alhr:JHle deferred eempeBsatieB mates frem 2Q% ta 2$% aBd agrees te :ha~:e eelBpleted the
iw.~estigatiaB is SYffieieBt time te permit meaBiBgful BegatiatieBs es tlie i55Ye ,rier te f:he
eHpiratieB af this eaBtraet.
~~1.~~mt%:::w~m;.%$J.:m~%:.::t:;~;:.:lm;~~::i.w~w..t.':twm%~:m'$:t":"t:t'1..~;4'$.~w::mmt:;::~4:t~%~
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128, 1994)
<6)1
Page 5
%f*mw:~.:m:~:;:;!;:;:t~:m~~~:r$r4f.$~;~~m.wm~~-:.?:r.1~"?:m:m%:;:;:;;:n;~;:mf@:t::t::.$n:m1.:-:riill~m;~~:::::t::~d::m~%~*~::;:r$~:;::r:~~":$:::..W:fh::::::@~~m~~;W~%.;f::w:~m~%;::;-z:;::@
2.05 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
Employees in this unit shall be subject to the City's Mileage Reimbursement Program when
required to use their private automobile for authorized City business.
26~ per mile first 200 miles each month
24~ per mile next 300 miles each month
22~ per mile over 500 miles each month
2.06 WORK WEEK
A. Definition - The work week is a fixed and regular recurring period of work hours during the
seven consecutive 24 hour periods beginning at 12:01 a.m. on Friday and ending at 12:00
a.m. the following Friday morning. Excepting overtime, the work day will commence no
earlier than 7:00 a.m. and end no later than 6:00 p.m.
B. Work Schedules - There are four types of schedules utilized in the Department of Public
Works. Each of these schedules fall within the normal two week payroll cycle:
1. Regular Work Schedule - A five day, 40 hour week with an eight hour day and a
choice of a 30 - 120 minute lunch period.
2. Flex-time Schedule - A non-regular work schedule with a consistent pattern as to the
number of work hours per day, but an arrangement whereby the employee is
obligated to perform work and be responsible for flexing the hours of his/her own
work schedule in accordance with written arrangements agreed to by the employees
and the appointing authority.
3. Flex-Week Schedule (4/10) - The Flex-week Schedule (4/10) consists offour 10-hour
days during a one week period with a choice of a 30 - 60 minute lunch period.
4. Flex-week Schedule - The Flex-week schedule consists of four 9-hour days and one
one-half day during a one week period with a choice of a 30 - 120 minute lunch
period.
All schedule changes are subject to supervisor and department head approval.
C. Policy and Procedures
1.
Individual employee's preference will be considered whenever possible based upon
seniority, satisfactory work performance and the needs of the department within each
work unit in choosing a particular work schedule. However, the overriding factor to
be considered in allowing variable work schedules shall be that all work units are
adequately staffed, including supervision, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
.......x:;
:::mt.JtW~A;sm.*~~~%:fu't~4B$.W'i::@;f@~m~v.,;f$i1mt:%t:~.::.~W\t:;'%%:%~:t~:mt~~m"@*m:lli1~:'
Page 6
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128. 1994)
<6"//2
$~.m~i:::@;i:::.:mm.~~W..%im%f:~~$(;%K@:'Y$m.$.::~~::;:%~:::~::::%:::ir$t$~.::;m::;~~~::::::::::;$.m:@~~:::.:::~x~.:::{;::::ri:~m~*=~:;$~<?.wmW.:~iW.at:l:::m~?~;::::m~-:t$?l~?'@:::~~m?:::?f.-::~:s7:$)X~:::::i
2. All new employees subject to the Agreement may be required to work a five day, 40
hour week, with an hour off for lunch to facilitate adequate training for the position.
A request for a change of the work schedule may be made following the completion
of the probationary period.
3. Should the production and efficiency of an individual or work unit on a variable
work schedule not meet the department's needs, as determined by the department
head, it shall be the division head's prerogative to alter individual work schedules or
schedules of a work unit.
4. An employee may be required to alter hislher work schedule, either temporarily or
permanently to provide adequate coverage when other personnel are absent,
vacancies exists, when holidays create time constraints, or when peak load
requirements demand. Except in cases of emergency operations or unforeseen
absences, proper notice of a change in work schedule arising from other than a
transfer or promotion shall be given the affected employee. Proper notice shall be
two weeks notice. Failure to give proper notice to the employee shall entitle the
affected employee to compensation for all hours actually worked on the new
schedule which are at variance from the employee's previous schedule until proper
notice is given.
5. If an employee requests in writing a change in work schedule for the employee's own
convenience, and such request is approved, the employee shall waive overtime
resulting from the schedule change as long as the total number of hours does not
exceed 40 in anyone work week.
6. Time off for vacation or sick leave shall be charged in accordance with the
employees work schedule for the days in question. Holidays are credited for eight
hours. Depending upon the work schedule (i.e., for days in excess of eight hours)
an employee shall make up the additional time or take vacation time off for the
excess.
2.07 OVERTIME
A. Definition - Whenever an employee is ordered to work more than 40 hours in a work week
they shall be granted overtime pay at the rate of 1 % times their Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) "Regular Rate" or compensatory time off at 1% times the extra hours worked
(except as stated in Section 2.06.). Such overtime work shall be only at the direction of and
first approved by the employee's immediate supervisor. Payment for overtime shall be made
during the pay period wherein the overtime was earned. A record of compensatory
overtime earned and utilized shall be maintained on the biweekly pay records.
Compensatory overtime shall not be accrued to an employee's credit for any time in excess
of 40 hours. Reimbursement for overtime with time off or pay will be at the option of the
supervisor and the department head based on the employee's request while recognizing the
overall departmental staffing requirements.
@~ "~r.."::::;::~~w.&mwl:mwk:;;:%.~~~~tt%t&:;2%;r~::::?%~%m~@%tlli.~~mw'@@'0$:':$~~t~*1~1~w..~M1-:$Th"$llitW:..'%W::~~~:OO.*
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994) g-'/ I) Page 7
m%fM~%%$:::-:.w;rlm::mm:::;,~m;~~~:::'$.'@~~@::;:;.~~X.-%~~::::;:8m~~3~m:~~$:r@M:::@?:~$H~:~-:-i;:;@?::::?:;;;%?m:M%m;:,~%~$.;:;:..%-m@~$.;;;?::x:Wlo/.:%@~$.:mri~m;:;:mmoom:;:;~$~mt..~m~
"Time Worked" - Includes all paid hours including sick leave, leaves during which Workers'
Compensation is paid, vacation time, holidays or any other time away from the job that is
paid.
B. Administration of Overtime - All time worked in addition to tbe work week witb tbe
exception of insignificant amounts of "bours worked" will be counted toward the 40 hour
work week. Insignificant amounts of bours worked is defined as BaY-!pl time worked
outside the regular scbedule tbat is less than IS minutes in a day, unless definition is
cbanged in Federal Regulations or by court action.
2.08 BILINGUAL PAY
lii!lWj~~Sg~!?I~,m!lif1tlRl,2~~({t91%ij;19~!:Di.~~:~~Iif&I!~lIm;~;l]~~1!i!11~lfgtIl~ma&PP;1
WCE members wbo upon recommendation of the department bead, approval of the Personnel
Department and City Manager, and successful completion of a Bilingual Performance Evaluation
are required to continuously use their bilingual skills in tbe performance of tbeir duties, will receive
~Im a montb in addition to their regular pay.
2.09 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
A. Flexible Benefit Plan
1.
~
Effeetive JHIy 1, 1992, eaeh re)lreseBted effi)llayee ....m reeeiye ~S,IS'Her FY 1992 93.
The City agrees ta 5Jllit tile east af the health )lIaR iRerease far tile highest )lIaR S!lfSQ
aea-:e the Ae)! p]aR 8HlB\lRt &~ted iR the agreemeet far that year af the mar ease.
2. Administration of Program
(a) From June IS througb June 30 of the fiscal year, requests for reimbursement
under the City's "Flexible Benefit Plan" will be approved for "emergency"
expenses only. An emergency is defined as an unforeseen occurrence or
combination of circumstances wbicb necessitated immediate action. Requests
for reimbursements for purcbases made by employees after June 15 for those
items and services rendered which are not of a routine nature, will be
reviewed on an individual bases by Personnel to determine if an emergency
existed. Upon approval of emergency requests, reimbursements will be
granted.
~. . :-r:.rt5.;~~;:;m~::.:X..:U,.:
.~~w~t":"$b~~~t.':":;m.::~%~m.-mm:m:ttf.t1.U%t~m}r:,:;'M%t~4?:Wmw:"$..":":M.~*1.
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994) ?,.- / j
Page 8
~~?~:::-$.:::ml$Kf::.;.:::m:~"%:m~~"1M:~::;;::::nt%1?::";::.@'~:t:~.:::m::;;::.tu;:::~:r}:::::U~~K~~::;;@~:@:m:::::::m.;:::~m%:;;;m:::m::::~:::t:t::mm%{:::H:~.:m:::.@:::~%rWm~::r:::m:~~~:;;;:$;;;~r@$;~;:;;;f~w.::;r@:::.::th~h'Hm:tx:1:::~
Examples:
. Emergency medical expenses not covered by insurance for an illness
that requires the services of a doctor, clinic, or hospital including
auxiliary services (emergency transportation, lab tests, prescriptions
and so forth) will be covered. Nate: mellieal elljleBses iBslIrrell as a
reSlllt af aeeilleBt are ea'/erell 199% hy the HMO (Healdl
MaiBteBaBee OrgaBEtiaB iBSllraBee plaB aBIIIQ9% lip ta SS9Q lJy the
iBdemBity health iBsyraBee plaB aBd tIlefefere Bet reimlnusahle
threllgk the "F1eldlJle PlaB."
. Emergency Vision Expenses-Repair of broken eyeglasses or
replacement of lost contact lenses will be approved. (Note: routine
eye exam, spare glasses, etc.).
. Emergency Dental Expenses-Reimbursements for expenses associated
with toothaches, broken teeth, impacted wisdom teeth, root canals, etc.
will be covered. (Note: routine dental work done as a result of an
exam done after June 1.)
. Non-medial items considered routine and not covered include:
conference expenses, books, memberships, subscriptions, extra
insurance (except authorized payroll deductions).
(b)
Reimbursements shall be for a minimum of $50 aBd shall ell;~~I;ftQiftIM!jy
1(lllillltRI~lli'li'~I!i~~j~~c!!'~~!~~'~!~~~!~!~!!~
oasis elLeept immediately prier te tile eBII af the fiseal year.
(c)
Employees who are on a leave of absence, unless such leave is due to
disability or suspension for. disciplinary reasons, may not utilize their Flex
Plan benefit during the absence (see Section 2.13 Leave of Absence).
-
3. Content of Program . The Flexible Benefit Plan will consist of one mandatory
selection and additional optional selections.
(a) Mandatory Selection
Hospital, Medical and life Benefits (Employee)
Each represented employee must select one of the medical plans offered by
the City for health protection. Employee coverage includes a $3,000 group
term life policy. In addition, the City will provide an additional $7,000 group
~3r: ~~r~{!j:L~.~1i~.m:::='~" - ~J%m:g~.~t"':"Tw'~,w~-m-?:@m~::::~::m?'",:::.;::::m~dm:.,::t~*~l:r.&%m"%:%1m%%ffl:;13W::;:m%.%..\.:~~a":%..~_:~t~::t":"f,::@J.?l%
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994) ~ / ~ Page 9
~:~w.:.~::s-mm::W:B:::::::.:::;:;~-r:@@:fm;:;:%.w:!t:..%$x:m@rBw:@.::m::::m.:::if@&W@;f.::::.B.::::::~m:;w,*:::::~~?;:;?;?~::;:;:;m;:;~:;::?;~$;:;:m;::@KB.ttl{Bm;:;?:W;$;::@$%$~~:mm::'W~@:&'W~::::y:*::-t.:;$..Wi@f.tiWa::::
term life =Ymp! policy for each represented employee for a total of
$10,000. In the case of two City employees who are married to each other,
one spouse may cover the other as a dependent.
(b) Optional Selections
(1) Hospital/Medical Care Benefits (Dependents)
A represented employee may seJeet ~J~l dependent coverage under
the approved $fj~yjmaB~RfE~ health plaiisunder one of two categories
of coverage either "Employee plus one" or "employee plus family"
coverage.
(2) Prepaid dental.insurance benefits offered by the City for employee,
employees plus one or employee plus family coverage.
(3) Reimbursable Programs
A represented employee may elect to receive reimbursement for the
following expenditures with any balance left after the purchase of
health insurance for the employee and/or the employee and
dependents. The descriptions below are general in nature. Eligible
programs shall be the same as those for the Mid-Management Group.
Specific rules for allowable reimbursements will be based on applicable
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) sections.
. Vision, Dental and Medical
Each represented employee may apply any remaining portion
(after mandatory costs are paid) to BiUt9l1p~i~ vision, dental
and medical costs on a reimbursement basis. Employees
remain free to be attended by prakssiaBBI eye, deBtal
pefsaBBel, ar pllarmaey i;;p]11$6tlQn~t of their own choosing.
:.;.;.:.;...;.;.;.;.;.~;.:~.:.x.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.:.;.;<<.;.:.;.:-
. Educational Assistance
Employees may select to receive reimbursement for expenses
incurred for education directly related to their work. Allowable
expenses include tuition, fees, and similar payments, books,
supplies, and equipment. Expenses not allowed for
reimbursement include books, tools or supplies which are
retained by an employee after completion of a course of
instruction, or meals, lodging, or transportation. Employees
must obtain approval of the department head and the Director
of Personnel prior to enrollment in the desired course.
~%"J}ll~.~:: :~4t"f$oo;#%ml.~l~::::;W.:~~1S!:i;~'M%*~%;~~m'i~$:%U~tm:m~%~~WH4~~%tsnt%~1~mW4.1,Mt:@:*mt:~~~~.
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128. 1994)
S-,/j,
Page 10
mmm;:;@]t::::N:?:*~:::~:::#;:;~$::::.:ffi:tl:n;;;:'-:;;:;:;::$;::::::~:;:;~:~::::~'t:~:r.1::;:mm~H;:;::::$m&g1;~:r1);1:~$:~:~;:;:;:;:::;:;:~;::$;:;$;:;a:;::::::~:::;:m@~::::::::m~$;:;:;:::::::::::::::':::-:;::m:~f1:mt:::~;:;::@:;::::n:::::;:B:M$;:'::'::;:::;;::';:;;::;;:>>':::?:~:;:;@?:;'W':'::::W).$:Hm~mw
Educational assistance reimbursements under this section must
be considered non-taxable in accordance with State and Federal
laws.
To receive funds in advance, employees must read and sign the
Advance Funds Request Form available in the Personnel
Department and have it approved by their Department Head
and Training Coordinator. Upon completion of a course of
instruction, employees must submit evidence of a C grade or
better, pass/fail or the equivalent based upon how the course is
structured or advanced funds must be returned immediately.
. Physical Exam
Employees may seIeet m~~ to receive reimbursement for a
voluntary physical exam. from the physician of their choice.
. Supplemental Life Insurance
Each represented employee may purchase additional group life
insurance (in accordance with IRC ~79) in addition to the
$10,000 group term life insurance provided by the City under
Section 3(a) above.
. Miscellaneous Categories
Employees may elect to apply any remaining portion (after
mandatory costs are paid) towards deductible and out-of-pocket
health plan costs.
· QiM IFE~!t~~P! Care
Employee may receive reimbursement for eBtitl dependent care
expenses incurred in order to allow the employee. to work for
-
. Supplemental Health Insurance
!:~p,~2:es may Tl:ceive reimbursem~nt for the costs of I!~~il
UM)tI$Ore4 health JDsurance plans which supplement the eXlstJDg
CiiY':offer'ed health plans. Examples of such insurance may
include cancer insurance or intensive care insurance.
~%tf.~MWi1M:Kt*'t%:W.:,~W$:%%%~WMts:Wt::$&W$J:::;:;:::":~~W~~:::~:~::::t~t::;@%W:~M:~.@>>:ti~:~~:mr:mmt~w:%t.~~~M~~:mM::;:~~:@~:$*@~%~~H~~&t~:t?:i$~*:;:;tm@Mm~w
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994)
<(fr /7
Page 11
:::WK4::;:~~>>U~1.:?;~;~(:::::::tt:;:::::;;;:;;W:::t~:::::.:::t.::.;:J::;;%:.:::t~;:;;ti;m~:~%:~$;~:::-:;:;::?x;~}::::.;:;:::::~;;;:m~;:~:::::::::;~:;m;;;:(::;:~~;~:::;:::::~::.:;.:::~:%(:::~~:~::m::;~;~:;::~~;~::;;~:~:;:;~~::;:~;:(:;~:;~:;::~$.mm:~\:;::::.-m~::o/M:;:;~~n~::;::;~~;;::~::::~::::;:;~~$.:t@:~~:;::;:~:;:::;W&t
. Group Vision Care
If available, employees may individually purchase group vision
care offered by the City.
. Group Psychological Health Plan
If available, employees may individually purchase group
psychological health plan offered by the City.
B. Additional Benefits
1. Long-Term Disability - The City agrees to contribute the amount necessary to
provide long-term disability protection for each employee represented by WCE in
accordance with the following:
The plan will include a thirty (30) day waiting period, a maximum benefit of 60% of
salary up to $7,500/month. The plan will provide benefits until age 65 in the event
a disability prevents the employee from performing itt his or her own BeRBal
occupation, and is subject to the provisions of existing applicable insurance and
retirement plans.
2. Employees will be eligible to deposit a maximum of 20% of the beginning flex plan
balance into the deferred compensation plan if the employee matches the deposit
with a like contribution from his/her paycheck. The allowability of this provision is
conditioned on approval by the IRS. If it is disallowed by the IRS, the parties will
reo en this ortion of the contract to discuss this issue. leffi'l'''eeslffBires'nsiblS
(2fii9mRl~t&i:.'IB~:,,"PP!g'Pn~~$i9tm~:~9gfe:;it!~ipl~p':m~ii'""""":PP",,,,
3. Professional Enrichment - A special fund of $J, 499 $$JSQQ will be established for use
by represented employees in FY 1991 92. This am~uBr~~11 he $1,$99 fer IT 1992
93 122e;l~~. Frem this peel empleyees may reqllest reimellrsemeBt fer ellfleBses
asseeiate€! \-Ath prefessieBal de'/elepmeBt syeh as semiBars, hastes, prefessieBaUy
related dyes, tT~:el aT ledgiBg, eta.
(~~!A~9!~1:.s~tlmtmF1i!~1!.~~!gjf,~!m~gm~m~91~,I!~,~1;iB~11!~~i:.~H,tl~$ti!!~!lm!il!!
to,1
>>:';':v.~
1.ltlim:~t~9~seflihgil~~~tI~lti
IJi.!$lt~f~!~n!n~imi!!tit;~!le~
~tttlf.[il9>>:!&i1"1
flt\~!i.&9Kf,;i'ftSfl~pp!!~I$!!?S!!!~~:;I!YlS9R.iI9fX;gr:p~R!~m9Bi!;~~~~1911!:~!
~~.$%.~wtJ:%%%wr;:(r~%':'M~:$:Wt$%*{:mt'%t1:~f;:~tM~~M::::*~:~.M%;:;tW.:::*:~:i;:;::$;~:;;;;;::n~::1*~:ff:;:n:~;:;:~;:~:m;::~::u#ttW~:~m::;~$.m%'&"::~:;?1#.:%~::::~;::;%1{:~*::
WCE MOV FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994) !f' ~ / ~ Page 12
~*::::m;:r::.;,:?::.~~:::@$:'.;;,-:::WKqmr&W::;'~:::3~r.KB~:~t,::~~'w::::::m@~::::~:~w:;:;:;:~;:;m:~:3::::;:::;::;:K~@:~;:;:m:::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::8:n::::;;;-::.Mm;~:~:~::H:~:::m;3:::;;:;:::;~::::r~::;:::t?::3?::f:::::::~;:;:::;::m:;:::;:;:@~;~:?:m:?::;::~:;::3m:3:;::;:::~.;:f::::~~::::;:?~;:;n:~:::;::::::;::n
111Ij;nfj_ill1!liitl!~lii~ili!t_I~liln~HI:\ijj&lH~m&';ijr~:!1h:1Hn2i,RiI;
liir\i!!fI!m1~iffi~1&[;G~Isr~~gl:eilljltmjaii
BlfjU;:!~~~~:a!Eg~I~t~~.!g~!~gijp,~t~;{~~g;[i15t!Il:~I\Mim=,
l{!iwll;1;f;~t,!ggi9j:m:Il~;::~HR~gefjRI
Pll111!li11[lpP8~~n2a;!l€$~;Ig!j!lsja~m&;mlm!n2Ri
!gili[lglgt2r~l!gi~!;lti~~Mit!B~[[4sl
Such expenses must be related to the employees' professional or technical growth.
The purpose of this special fund is to reimburse employees for those types of
expenses that are not eligible for reimbursement under Educational Assistance.
Professional enrichment will also be administered in accordance with State and
Federal laws.
Employees must receive approval from hislher department head and Director of
Personnel before funds may be claimed for reimbursement out of the special fund.
The maximum reimbursement per employee is ~ $4.1tI9 for Fiscal Years 1991 92
liBEl 1992 93 ~g:m2~. However, with approval ofthe"departmenthead, a represented
~e:::: r~;:~~:t~:::~:~:ai~iIDi~t~imliJ'~I~IMili~A~;ipi_;~i~;
mlllld)$4~i Funds paid to the employee from the Professional Enrichment special
fu':'d':~yb~ reportable as part of gross. income to the employee.
The Ci~ agrees t8 ';;ar][ yAth '.\TeE t8 de~le]ep aD IRE aeeepHlhle list af items aBd,
llpeB agreemest as the items te he iDehuleEl, tse City Vvlill -l!erlE ellt a preeedllre te
8119\1: tile Depat1lBeBt ~fasBgemest ta appreve reEjsests far enpeBdihlfes.
4. Flexible Spending Accounts for Health Care and Dependent Care
Two Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), under Sections 125, 105, 129 and 213 of the
Internal Revenue Service Code, are offered to all represented employees.
Employees may elect to budget by salary reduction, for certain health and welfare
*~m~~::m:tllit~~~>+m':=.m-:i"'W.:'*;~*t#*jf4*~;:::;;~~:~@@mm%%;;:;$.;::~~%*t~:::{;:;#.~;::::mt:~::~:~:u~-:::@m:~:~~~:~M;:::::Wt::~1it::;;:;:t#M:$..~W:@1::W.mw.ffl:tW$1%:~.m:8t$?:~'::;
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994)
'6' I /
Page 13
t:f.;;:'t::w::n.;:;:;::.t:::;Nt:::;$%('fi-:m:-;:;:;:;:;$%$':?'.::m;$;~~~~~'$.$::;:::t:~$;m:::;$r$;~~m@H:m:tJ1:-:;~:;($?:$?:;:;:r:@~$?:~%:;::::?:m$?:;;;?:;?:m;:::$;:"titi;::K~:;:~?;:;$::::;$:.:;?::::m;m$~;i;%-;:;.:;:?.:;:;~:m?:$~-::P.{f.:;.W:::XB:ri%:$::;~M}?:;::~;::::::::::.:.
benefits and dependent care reimbursements on a pre-tax basis. If the City does not
meet IRS regulations or if the IRS regulations change for any reason, this benefit
may be discontinued.
1';j&llg~~lm::li~jiW~,lIy?jl~1
~):;;I1t\lQ~P&#~&AI:;Rit~.1
a\'~~!j::::ESA~amlrii$tfililbri
~.;.l.;.~;~.,;.~;.;...;~.:.:...;.. ;.;.;.....; ..;.;.;.; ;.;,.; ;.;,;,;,,;';';'.';w;...;';'.';';'.'; ..;.....; ....;.;.; ;.~. ;.;.
5. Health and Dental Payroll Deductions Treated as Pre-Tax
Under Sections 125, 105, and 213 of the Internal Revenue Service Code, the City will
treat all payroll deductions for health and dental care on a pre-tax basis, unless an
affected employee requests such deductions be taxed. If the City does not meet IRS
regulations or if the IRS regulations change for any reason, this benefit may be
discontinued.
OOif:m:::.t:f~$@k~..m::t'(*~1:;.~tW::::;::t~;;:;~:!:@?-Mt,:::-:::%t,::~~tW$N~::;:;~~;K~::::t%-;:;;M%'t'!.:%.;:;:;:;:?:~;:::.t{i.1:'~:::W.:;;:~:t:::*::;:;~~1:;;'$:*;:t:~;:t:::;-};:;*rM:tA:;,tt*#t:::1;::;$~~~t;'$lM:t:~~~::;::~~~':X';:{:;::~:;,'t.:;:;:;t~~**
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128. 1994'?r/ ;Lt/
Page 14
%:::.'t},::r.:=.@:tk::m:':::;*~;B;:::.~;@:::~::::m:.:~li;*::;m::m:;:::.;:~n;w.t.n:t'W;::#$.~:::m::::$.;::;H:::;im~:;:::H~~::::;:ml~;;m:.~~~:;:::;::::~m;m:::::::':;~;;~8:::::-::W::;;:mW;W;H~~:;:m.>.m~"'~r.%?:@:::@:::m:::;:::;:::::~:rf:~:::::t~::t.mr@:@:::::;:.1::r:$.~:?i;:;:r:t:~:;::;
6. Medical Premium Retirement Benefit Plan
The City will offer a medical premium retirement benefit plan, under Section 457(f)
of the Internal Revenue Service Code, to all represented employees through the
JPEBA, Joint Powers Employee Benefit Authority (or an equivalent plan).
This program will provide employees the option of making unlimited pre-tax
contributions from their wages to pre-fund post-retirement health insurance premium
costs for themselves and their dependents. Since IRS Section 457(f) requires
restrictions on the program that can result in forfeiture of the contributions to the
City for specified reasons, employees are advised to carefully review the information
that will be provided on the program prior to deciding whether or when to
participate. '
The City will pay the start-up costs associated with third party administration.
Participating employees will pay the participant costs (currently $24 per year). If the
City does not meet IRS regulations or if the IRS regulations change for any reason,
this benefit will be discontinued.
7. Supplemental Life Insurance
Represented employees may purchase from $30,000 to $300,000 of group term
supplemental life insurance in $10,000 increments through the City's group insurance
plan with said employees paying the additional; cost through payroll deduction.
c. F1eNiele BeBefit PlaB OptieB SQllly
The City \viR iB~:estigate ~e feasihility af replaeiRg the eJEistiRg eafeteria filaR \"AtIt BB IRS
EeetisR 12$ plaB aRd agrees t8 Bw.e eempleted the iBv8stigati8B is suft'ieisRt time t8 pefBIit
meaBiBgml BegetiatieRs aa the issue prier te the expiFatieR af tl1is CaBtraet.
2.10 RETIREMENT
A
*'
The City shall provide the 2% at 60 retirement for miscellaneous employees as
provided for under the Public Employees Retirement System.
2. The City agrees ta ,etluest 8B aetuarial va]yatiea Be later tBBB lasllBpY 1993. The
aemarial re(j1:lest \"lill he te determiBe tile pa~ell 88&t& if tile 2% at ~~ {smuda ''':ere
impJemeBted. TJpsa reeeipt, the fesulis, af StieR \'aluatisB \"AU he fef\1Varded ta '.\!CE
reprsseBtaw.'es.
B. Additional Retirement Benefits
All WCE represented employees will receive Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefit under
PERS Sections 21380-21387, and 21382.4). The PERS 1959 Survivors Benefit employee
premium cost of $2.00 per month will continue to be paid by the City.
OOfu.'~..:$}~f:'" . -:7m~:M,*.1::mmw.:}mw&~w~ma@~;mwt.~:~m@;.wi:t..%).m~ili%tt,*~:*m~::J:t:m~t:;::~:@;~t%~~d#~:;;@%::~~~~"::'$ID:t~$:1~'tH::;:~~:r:::t~1%&~t:~~:t;@::.@~1
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28. 1994) g-,;;L J
Page 15
:::::t~~:m::;:;tB;'m::::;:;:;:f<i:::::~j.;:t:~i3n~-:.~i.~~}:r@W$;::::.m:;$~$;:::;.~::::::::t::::t:::-~8:H:M:;:::;:::;:t.::t.~;:m;t=;:;$::::::HW:::~~~::m:::;:;@t:::3t.:::::::~t::%::::;:::;:;:::;:~;:;::$;:;~:t::::::t:;::;:;~:;:;:~:?;m::f1::;:g;:;@:;:;;-m;~*-,%::-::::f.:;Wm::?*.;:::f.:m::$.;:::H:~$tW.;*
All refunds of employee contributions or additional costs of employee retirement contributions
mandated by the courts and/or requested by PERS because of court decisions during the life of the
contract will be reimbursed to or paid by the employee.
2.11 HOLInA YS
A. Fixed Holidays - During the term of this agreement, the recognized holidays are:
11,Q(j,~J
J;!,fi1m.lI~l!
!!'l~t:!1
I!MOO41~
'l~12~
,~~~
,~~
t~lrli
p?;@Pl!!~
CU" QRfeRD Clooe.
F\' IPPl PJ
City OAhu Clan.
F\' IPPl P1
07/QJ~2
Independence Day J y I)' 1, 1 ~ 1
Labor Day ~9ptoBllt8r 1. IPOl
Thanksgiving Day tT9"oBl\;'er Ji, 1901
Day after Thanksgiving !>I."lmIllr 10, 1~91
Christmas ];)eoolBBor 15.1001
New Year's Day Jaswal=)' 1, IPQ2
Memorial Day Ma)' 1~, 1991
lllIlJ'Wl
11.\1'Wl
mU,\ll
01,101,\ll
1la,IJ lRl
1. Holiday Pay - Employees shall receive eight (8) hours pay at their regular hourly rate
for each fixed holiday payable during the pay period in which the regular holiday
occurs.
2. For employees who work the traditional Monday through Friday work week,
overtime will be paid if the employee works on the day City offices are closed to
celebrate a fixed holiday.
3. If a fixed holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be observed as the
holiday. If Ii fixed holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed
as the holiday.
B. Floating Holidays:
1. Amount - Effective the first pay period in July of each fiscal year of this agreement,
employees shall be credited with thirty-two (32) hours floating holiday time, eight
hours each for: Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's Birthday, Admission Day and
Veteran's Day. Employees may take floating holiday time at their discretion with the
approval of their department head.
2. Floating Holiday Use - If an employee uses floating holiday time before the holiday
passes and subsequently leaves City service, they will be charged for such time, If
employees do not use their floating holiday time before June 30 of the fiscal year,
they will lose such time. The smallest unit of time chargeable to floating holiday
time is one half hour.
~~ ~WmT1c"M"~":~.;.x.:<g.;@m;~$m~~~::#:t~Am..%%m:tw~mt~'g$.:t~t~M%tB.:m:%-:;::~~'$:tw*tm~~1.@:t$1.-::mWl~m:;:~~W%1m:~%'*
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128, 1994)
6' ~ ,;lcJ.,
Page 16
mr.t.:t:::w*~mm:::::~:@:@:::.:::~:::'%::;::;~.;:::~::::~:::.::::?.;;::::;:;::tl::;~f~W~:::;:::::;::;::::;:Mm:~::::~:~m:::~r.:f.:~:~:::::::::~::::~::::::m1::::::~.::::::::~r:;::::m:m:~:::~~m.::;~:~::m::{(~~m@::;:::::.~~~t~::::m:~::;r.@;r:-x:;~.::::::~~-:'i.~:::;:~f::~.;.~;::;:%X~:::@::~:;:::::::;~mm:::::mf.t
2.12 VACATION AND SICK LEAVE
A. Definition - For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Continuous Service" means City service uninterrupted by separation.
2. "Intermittent service" means City service interrupted by separation.
3. "Time worked" includes all paid time.
4. "Active service" includes time worked, leave of absence without pay not to exceed 14
calendar days, and leave of absence not to exceed one (1) year for which Workers
Compensation is paid.
B. Vacation
1. Vacation Accrual - Each employee paid biweekly shall be entitled to vacation with
pay. The following provisions shall apply:
(a) Employees will accrue 10 working days during the first year of service. This
benefit will be accumulated at the rate of 3.07 working hours for each full
biweekly pay period of service performed.
(b) Employees will accrue and be eligible to receive 10 working days annually
(cumulative to a total leave balance of 20 working days) during the second
through fourth year of service. This benefit will be accumulated at the rate
of 3.07 working hours for each full biweekly pay period of service performed.
(c) Employees will accrue and be eligible to receive 15 working days annually
(cumulative to a total leave balance of 30 working days) during the fifth
through fifteenth year of seryice. The benefits will be accumulated at the rate
of 4.60 working hours for each full biweekly pay period of service performed.
(d) Employees will accrue and be eligible to receive 20 working days annually
(cumulative to a total leave balance of 40 working days) during the sixteenth
and succeeding years of service. This benefit will be accumulated at the rate
of 6.14 working hours for each full biweekly pay period of service performed.
Maximum Vacation Accrual. At no time may an employee have more than
two years of vacation leave accumulated. No credits shall be accrued above
this limit and any time in excess of the two-year limitation will be lost.
(e) Vacation accrual rate changes will become effective at the beginning of the
pay period closest to the actual date of change.
2. Each part-time employee paid at a biweekly rate shall be entitled to vacation with
pay. The number of working days of such vacation shall be computed on the basis
t1M~%"%H~*\n1~*;"~~;%m:%:1:<i:i::;Mi%:mmt~$::::r@::;:mm:H:;:::;1t:~*M*~:M:$-:m*~t~*~t$'4M:::::;:.MM.$t%~*t#~f..:.~J",'f:;~W.4~illW~;;:f.:W.;*"M&'WM.~:-
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994) g-'-;l}
Page 17
l:::r::;:;%~:3g%~t:*:.%~"W:t::::t&.t::::?:.;;.::::{:::W~:::W.::::~t..;;.::~~t:.;;::{:;:r~:~::~;~:3;~::;.1~;r~::::;::;~::::;~:~r;::~::~z:::~:;::r:~:;::;;;:::~.;.w.:~:::;;::%:;;;::::::::;mr~;::::::~~:~::%:::::::r~~:@;:;B::;::~%:~:;-:'::;:~;;;}.~::;:}.:~:~:r:3.?::;:;~>>:i:~::m~;:;:;:t::;::::t~:::rl$;:r:::Ht..:;:;~:~:::~;r:$:::r%;:
set forth in subsection (b), (c), or (d) and shall be in the proportion that such part-
time employment bears to full-time employment.
3. Employees separated from the City service, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, shall
be granted all of the unused vacation to which they are entitled based upon
continuous service computed on the basis set forth in subsections (b), (c) and (d).
Payment shall be made hour for hour with any portion of an hour being considered
a full hour.
4. Vacation Use - Vacation leave balances shall be reduced for actual time not worked
to the nearest quarter hour for reasons allowable under this section. Absence may
not be charged to vacation not already accumulated.
C. Sick Leave
1. Accumulated paid sick leave. credit is to be used for the sole purpose of protecting
the employee's wages in the event absence is made necessary because of disability
due to injury or illness of the employee or members of their immediate family.
2. Sick Leave Accrual - Computation of sick leave: Sick leave with pay is cumulative
at the rate of 3.68 working hours for each biweekly pay period of service, 96 hours
annually, beginning at the time of full-time probationary employment. A person who
has held a position with temporary or interim status and is appointed to a position
with probationary status, without a break in service, may have such ~e credited to
sick leave upon the recommendation of the department head and Director of
Personnel and with the approval of the City Manager.
3. Maximum Sick Leave Accumulation - Unused sick leave may be accumulated in an
unlimited amount.
4. Sick Leave Use - Sick leave balances shall be reduced for actual time not worked to
the nearest quarter hour for reasons allowable under this section. Absence for
illness may not be charged to sick leave not already accumulated.
S. Sick Leave Verification - The City may, in its discretion, require a doctor's certificate
and/or a personal sworn affidavit verifying the nature, severity and cause of the
disabling injury or illness of the employee in order to determine eligibility for sick
leave. If an employee is to be required to furnish a doctor's certificate, the employee
shall be notified by their supervisor that a doctor's certificate shall be required when
the employee notifies the City that they will be absent by reason of illness or
disability.
6. Bereavement Leave - When an employee with permanent status is compelled to be
absent from work because of the death of an immediate family member, an
immediate family member of the employee's spouse, or any other person defined by
the Internal Revenue Service as a dependent, and after such employee makes a
written request and receives written approval from the department head, such
m1:~%!fw~~%%'\:@.::ID*:mt~%~%1.:'@'*t~t::t::W@~FMg~:t~*=%~;:&.mn~:w~#~~~~$t=W:f;;:~*~:$:@:*'*:::::ttMt:n1:m#~:}f.&:tf;W*~t.r,t~%i%:t~:j:;ttl=S%:;;lMs?
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128. 1994) i!('" r d- 'I-
Page 18
K~m~;:;if:m:s.5;$:t~:::;:;@;J::t.1~::::;:::r$;':ffi:~:;n;-:;tt.'::;.%'%:{~$.Hm::t;:;;:::-:::f:$-:::.:$H~11K~;:;:$.:::~m~;~;W~%~$;:;M:3;:;;~;m:::?$::~::m;~;;:;H::::~:$;:;:~;M;m;m~%;;:;;:;:n:.WtMf.;:;:;:;::::::t~;::::::;m::tM::0.:.~:::m:::::~;:;@::::-::;;;::':::;:.:::::t:=&;:;:3;::H~~~~:;:~
employee may be allowed the privilege to be absent from work with full pay up to
five (5) days, plus reasonable travel time. Travel time will be actual time used not
to exceed three (3) calendar days. Paid leave of absence for family death shall be
charged to sick leave.
7. Sick Leave Reimbursement
(a) WCE members using four (4) days of sick leave or less during the fiscal year
shall have the option of converting twenty-five percent (25%) of their
remaining yearly sick leave pay.
(b) Pay shall be computed based on the following schedule and all computations
shall be rounded to the nearest whole hour:
REMAINING YEARLY SICK LEAVE
PAY OPTION (25%)
12 days 3 days
11 days 2 days, 6 hrs.
10 days 2 days, 4 hrs.
9 days 2 days, 2 hrs.
S days 2 days
7 days or less 0
(c) If the pay option is selected, the paid sick leave hours shall be subtracted
from the employee's accumulated yearly sick leave balance. The remaining
sick leave hours shall be carried over and accumulated. (Example: Employee
uses 4 days sick leave. They then elect to receive pay for 25% of remaining
days, or 2 days. The 2 days are subtracted from their remaining yearly sick
leave and the other 6 days are added to the employee's accumulated sick
leave balance.)
(d) Payment will be made during the month of July of each year. Pay will be
computed based on the employee's salary step on June 15.
(3) Payment will be made only to members on the payroll twelve consecutive
months prior to the payoff calculation. Permanent employees who retire
during the fiscal year will be compensated under this plan based upon their
formal retirement date. Prorated payments will not be made to employees
who terminate during the fiscal year. However, in the event of the death of
an individual while employed by the City, 50% of the employee's unused,
accumulated sick leave will be paid to the appropriate beneficiary.
M$::"t:m:;i8E:W~:lli;.\~{~.-*..J,:::rm~:mmi,@H~~1%%%~t:m:1,**4%~t~W&W~{~,~~t:~~1::~%$:t%w.t~t~*m::~::!'~r~;:~:~;~m%~~m*mwkMMt.~:m.t'ttj:mw~tt.~*-m~~a~%{'?{$~:t4\~*
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28. 1994) zr '" ;2~ Page 19
m:t:'::>>.::$.:;:::;:-x;;:%%~~B::.~W:.~:gm::i;~::::;:;::::mm;:::;:;@:;;w:::':~:::::;:;H:B;:;:;:'~:8;:;8};::::;::::Wt::::tl@;~::~:::::;:::::::::t:::m~;:::.::~m::;:;;:::::m~:;:::~;~:t:~::;r::::8::t::::;:::;::;::~:$~:m@:@::$.:~:~:m:m:;:m$:~~qt;:;;t%?::::?5.:;-z$.~::;:X-:t:;t:i;::t~:Hn?:::I~;~~.
D. CatllStrephie Leave
The City agrees t8 prepare a dratt prapesal fer a eatastrephie lew/e paYer -;,:lliefi, lieder
eertaia eireHmstaaees, -;"sHlEl aUm-, 8a empleyee t9 trseskf \tBllsed .:aeatieB 9f
eempeasatery time eff t9 Raether empleyee. The City \vill {.an-lard the prepassl t8 '.J,'CE
fer eeBsiEleratieB at least three mestas prier te the expiraties sf tlle ~{OU.
2.12.1 PROFESSIONAL LICENSE OR REGISTRATION EXAMINATION LEAVE
Represented employees who have made application for and are scheduled to participate in a
licensure examination for Professional EngineeriJllr9~~~9il~!mtimg.I~&!!f~~~ or Land Surveyor
shall, upon verification by the appointing authonty, be granted time with pay to participate in any
such part of the examination which is scheduled during City work hours. Such time off shall be
granted one time only and shall not be charged to any leave time.
2.13 LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Employees who are mentally or physically incapacitated to perform their duties, or who desire to
engage in a course of study that will, in the judgement of the City, increase their usefulness on
their return to the classified service or who, for any reason considered to be in the best interest
of the City government by the appointing authority and the Director of Personnel, and with the
approval of the City Manager, be granted leave of absence without payor benefits for a period not
to exceed one year. Employees asking for leave of absence without pay shall submit their request
in writing stating the reasons why, in their opinion, the request should be granted, the date when
they desire the leave to begin, and the probable date of their return. For each leave without pay,
the Director of Personnel shall determine whether the employee granted such leave shall be
entitled to their former position on their return from such leave or whether their name shall be
placed on the reinstatement list for the class as provided for in the Civil Service rules. If a request
for leave is denied, a copy of such request and the reasons for denial shall be sent to the Civil
Service Commission.
An employee who is granted an unpaid leave of absence for more than one month for any reason,
including a leave for disciplinary purposes, shall pay the cost of health and life insurance premiums
for the entire period of the leave of absence, provided, however, that this provision shall not apply
if the leave of absence is a result of the employee being ill or disabled.
2.14 MILITARY LEAVE
Military leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of applicable State and Federal
laws (California Military and Veteran's Code).
2.15 JURY DUTY
Permanent and probationary employees who are called to serve on jury duty for any county, state
or federal court within the San Diego area shall be entitled to paid leave under the following
circumstances:
*~M%Mi::;::aW~3ffi'lli%;t~;:%;!1::;:~s::;:~M:;:i:::::::nt@:~t:%'~}:::::::r::;;:~:;~~:$~~#:.:;::@*mt;$rw::~m::::~:;~:;::::;:::::::::::t;:::;:m::ht;~;:;;~:::~~:S,**=1~~n#t:.,<<a1t@:t::;:mW$tt%1$:~~*:;;:~;:~,m~~@:;:;8:~'
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128, 1994)
?r / ). e"
Page 20
M~:f.;:~mM:::::mm:,::::~:,:'::::::'m:,:;:@~::::'f.:~:'::.t.~:;::,:m~~~:,m:;::':;~t~::m:~:,:;:r:::,?::,:::~:::,~;::g::;:?:::':~;8~:@'8::'::?::;::m::,:?:~;;ri~?::mg:::,::::~:~:~:::::::~~:::$::':~:~:::H:::':'~::;::~$:$~:;::?::'~~:::::;H:m:~)@~::;::~:[;:;~t:::::t:::::::,~~mm~:'?::;::::;.%::;::::~~fM.R:::m::m:$;:'m:::::m~$
1. They must present to their supervisor the court order to appear for jury duty at least three
weeks prior to their date to report.
2. All fees received by the employee for jury duty for days when scheduled for work, excluding
mileage, shall be paid over to the City.
3. The employee must submit a'daily court authorized, stamped time card accounting for all
hours of required service ordered by the court.
4. If jury service and travel time from court to work is less than five hours in a work day, the
employee is expected to return to work unless a justification is provided and approved or
pre-authorized leave is approved.
s. Employees who are required to serve jury duty on their scheduled days off will not be
compensated for this time and may keep any fees paid by the court.
6. If the employee is not required to report for jury duty on any particular day(s) they are then
expected to be at work as per their normal schedule.
7. It is the employee's responsibility to inform his or her supervisor on a daily basis if they are
required to report for jury duty the following day. This may include calling the supervisor
after or before normal working hours.
8. Absence due to jury duty will be submitted on the City leave form.
2.15.1 Court Leave
Court leave is paid leave granted by the City to enable an employee to fulfill his/her duty as a
citizen to serve as a witness in a court action to which the employee is not a party, before a
Federa~ Superior, or Municipal Court located within San Diego County.
Court leave shall be limited to:
1. Required attendance before Federal, Superior, Municipal, Justice Courts located within San
Diego County.
2. Time in attendance at court together with reasonable travel time between court and work
if attendance is for less than a full day and the employee can reasonably be expected to
return to work.
3. Court leave shall not be granted when the employee is paid an expert witness fee.
4. The employee must submit to the City any payment received for court leave except travel
and subsistence pay for such duty.
S. Court leave shall not be granted to employees who are not litigants in the civil case nor
related to litigants in the civil case or defendants in a criminal case.
~%..%..%%m:%?;i';:'::::f'::':;:WJ:C.*X.:l~:f';:M**W:-IDtW~W::-:$.%;::.*:;:t.mw:*~~:;~:ill~:}*1.*~m:'#~Ulli';MHW1~:'f:~~W$~t$~::~:::'~tt'1m:::::M:m~%~t..M$W.::.tr.w:w::':.m;t~t.'*.;:.
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994)
'it';L 7
Page 21
;!t::g~8*~r@m:%W:::::::H-M:::::;:.:::f&::.:..~'%~::::::::::::@f@;;;;;;;:;;;Wg:;:~W::;:ft:::~:mmt.::::~:::::::m:~w:::::m:;:t::::~~1;::m:;:;m:;;::~f~:;:;~;~;::::::~::m:;::::~:::::;:::::~::::;:::;:;~:t::::;:~;:;:;::~:;~:;:::::~:;:~::m~-::::~m~;:::::;~:~::::3?:;%;:::;:::::~:.t:::~:::;::;:~.::;:@m:;:t:~::::~::~:;:::t:m:m~
6. Employees shall provide their supervisor with a copy of the legal subpoena and provide
other documentary evidence of service.
2.16 CAREER ADVANCEMENT
A. Promotion
I The Assistant Engineer I classification wilI be considered as career advancement to
the Assistant Engineer II level. Employees will not be required to undergo a
promotional exam but will qualify for certification upon (1) fulfillment of a minimum
of one year as an Assistant Engineer I and upon forwarding of a positive
recommendation by the relevant appointing authority or (2) becoming registered as
a professional engineer by the State of California. Permanent employees who
advance from the Assistant Engineer I classification under #(1) above to the
Assistant Engineer II level shall not be subjected to an additional probationary
period. Employees who advance from the Assistant Engineer I level as a result of
#(2) above, shall serve at least a six month probationary period at the Assistant
Engineer II level and at least a combined total of one year as an Assistant Engineer
I and/or Assistant Engineer II.
R. ClassifieatieB Ehuly
UpeB release sf reeemmeaElatisBs frem the 5BgiBeeriBg Di9.1siesa] ReergaBFzatiaB
eSBlsittee, tile City 9J:iIl Bieet 'xith 'J/CB represeBtath'es aRd the Cemmittee 18 dissyss t.Jie
reeSBllBeBdatieBs aBd aBY apprepriate aetieBS tker~;.1th.
2.17 LABOR.MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
During the term of this agreement, the City agrees to explore ongoing relationship with this unit
beyond the traditional negotiation process. The objective is to jointly develop and implement
programs designed to improve City operations and enhance employee satisfaction.
2.18 ACTING APPOINTMENTS
In the absence of an eligible list, upon the recommendation of the Department Head and the
Director of Personnel, and with approval of the City Manager, a unit member may be appointed
on an "acting" basis to a vacant position if he/she meets the desired qualifications. He/she shall
receive a minimum compensation equal to five percent (5%) over their current salary, or step A
of the new salary range, whichever is greater. The effective date of such increase will be the first
$:wi:W~~w~;*:~~:':_%lli%w.!t:lli.'fi;ww~}~'mm;::$.:;:~:mf.t@@::::~t:%%M~r.~M.;1M.;t::m::;:1:~tM~~:~~~:;~~r~~ili1#t~::;:;:::~:;1;;~:~~~t~~:::::::m:t1:;t*~m:;:'::m;m:::~::::M~:t~1:;;@;
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128. 1994)
)J/J-r
Page 22
m;:W:~::;;:::1.;:t::lli:::W::;IDl::.:->~x.:=:.:Wt"&:m::::$x::nw~:;:;~::;::w'::-:~9.m:::::r:t:;:~::;;;m:t:::;::::(:;~:~:;:;:;;;:::~::::~:H:::~;:;t:W?::?::::~:t:~:g?:@:::W::;:~::::::m~%g:;:m::::n:~::::~:t::::;:;H?:~~:~:r$:~~?:::;:;:::::.~?::;;:::?::mm:m:::m?:~:@z:::;::;::::m::::~::~~..,....w
working day of the acting appointment. Employees so appointed will maintain their status in their
regular position and receive earned salary increases if they would otherwise be eligible.
2.19 DRIVING ELIGIBILI1Y
Whenever an employee drives a vehicle for City business he or she shall have a valid California
Drivers License. In order to ascertain the validity of the employee's licenses, employees must
present their drivers license to their supervisor upon request. The City reserves the right to check
at any time with the Department of Motor Vehicles to determine if the license is valid. If an
employee's drivers license is revoked, suspended or otherwise made invalid, the employee must
inform his or her supervisor. Failure to notify the supervisor may result in immediate disciplinary
action.
An employee who does not posses a valid California Drivers License will be considered for a non-
driving position, if one is available in the employee's classification. The non-driving assignment
will continue for a maximum of six months if there is a reasonable expectation the employee will
have a valid California Drivers License at the expiration of that time. Extensions to the six month
limit will be considered on a case-by-case basis, however, in no case shall an employee receive
more than one non-driving assignment in any three-year period. When no non-driving assignment
is available, employees must request a leave of absence without pay for six months or such time
as their license is once again valid, whichever is shorter.
In order to assure that non-driving assignments are provided on a fair and equitable basis, the
following procedures shall be observed:
1. Each department will determine whether or not it has any non-driving assignments that can
be filled by employees who would otherwise have driving assignments.
2. Non-driving assignments will be given on a first come, first served basis. For example, if
two employees in a department have non-valid drivers licenses and there is only one non-
driving assignment, the first employee who comes forward will be given the non-driving
assignment. The other employee may apply for a leave of absence as described above.
2.20 SUBSTANCE/ALCOHOL ABUSE PROGRAM
Represented employees are subject to the current substance abuse policy as stated in .Resolution
No. 13971, as adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on February
21, 1989.
3.01 PROHIBITED PRACTICES
A. WeE pledges it shall not cause, condone or counsel its unit members or any of them to
strike, fail to fully and faithfully perform duties, slow down, disrupt, impede or otherwise
impair the normal functions and procedures of the City.
m:m.~~';;:U:;::J.::.~,;w~~;J$;lg~W~$t#;::r:~~t~::tMf&W4:?:;:*t~~M:::W~:~::&~;~:~:~?:::~:::::::@::~%:;;:;,::w::::::m::~~~::::?:;:;:~::~::?:;::~:~~m%::::::::::~::~~::~:~~:;:;~:~t~:~::~::t!M::::;:~:~:M;::,*m:?:t~:~:::~.;:#~}%~.t$:t~:mw~::~:m::
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994)
~/ ).;
Page 23
~:;:~~~~~:[~::;:::::.~1:':u::::~;:;;%t:?:'~,:;:-m;:;:;:.a;:;:;;:;::.::;::@;:;:;:m;,,;~;:::;,;;:;,,;:::~H;~-:;::::@;~:;:;:~~;:::;::::;:;:;mm;:;~-:;:;m:;:,n(.@;~;::;:;::{~;:::;:::;H;::::;:;~;f.;m(.:@m;(.,;::;:;:;,;:;:;::;n@;f~-;:;f;.;:::;;.f.;;*:::f.;:;:;:;:mm::;:m,,;:::;::::;;';;:;,m;:iM,=(.:-:::
B. Should any unit employees during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding breach
the obligations of Paragraph I ~i~g!;!;lij~9Yi the City Manager or his designee shall
immediately notify WCE that an alleged prohibited action is in progress.
C. WCE shall forthwith, and in any event, within eight working hours disavow said strike or
other alleged prohibited action, shall advise such members orally and in writing to
immediately return to work and/or cease the prohibited activity and provide the City
Manager with a copy of its advisement or, alternatively, accept the responsibility for the
strike or other prohibited activity.
D. If WCE disavows the prohibited activity and takes all positive actions hereunder in good
faith, the City shall not hold WCE financially or otherwise responsible. The City may
impose such penalties or sanctions as the City may appropriately assess against the
participants.
E. Should WCE during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding breach its obligations
or any of them under this section, it is agreed that the City shall pursue all legal and
administrative remedies available to the City that in its discretion it may elect to pursue.
3.02 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
This grievance procedure shall be in effect during the full term of this Memorandum of
Understanding.
Section 1. PURPOSE. The purposes and objectives of the Grievance Procedure are to:
(1) Resolve disputes arising from the interpretation, application or enforcement of
specific terms of this agreement.
(2) Encourage the settlement of disagreements informally at the employee-supervisor
level and provide an orderly procedure to handle grievances through the several
supervisory levels where necessary.
(3) Resolve grievances as quickly as possible and correct, if possible, the causes of
grievances thereby reducing the number of grievances and future similar disputes.
Section 2. DEFINmONS. For the purpose of this grievance procedure the following definitions
shall apply:
(1) Manager: The City Manager or hislher authorized representative.
(2) Day: A calendar day, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and hard holidays as described
by this agreement.
(3) Department head or head of a department: The chief executive officer of a
departmenl
m~*%%"~~~%V<<iW'*t%Jwt.~m;~,~.~~\'W.lli::,f4.W',,*~,t~t:f$,*f~f.;~;~~"%:~~%~t,.{~*%~:t~;%;~~:::n;r::;fi~~;m1:t.~N~{tW,$M~~mt:w~~11~;,f~;f;*w"&m*
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28. 1994)
~/ Jtl
Page 24
~m:~::;$.:u:m.'.t%::::t.:::m::;:;:W~>>;;':::l-rr@m%':$.W&1i?X;:.)";:;:@$;::;:?.J:'~::u::a:::;~@~:~%::;?x;~@~::::'~:~:::::~::::;:%::::::::~:::;~;::;~;;::$;:;%H:;@:;:~;*t:::~:::::;:;;::~:;;:;:;:;;;~:m~~:::m::~;:::;~;;::;:;:;:;;::g;:;::;::::r~~;;:@::::?;::;%::::~M'::;%:~.::;~:~:~::::~::%:;~:::g~:
(4) Director of Personnel: The Director of Personnel or hislher authorized
representative.
(5) Employee: Any officer or regular (not temporary) employee of the City, except an
elected official.
(6) Employee representative: An individual who speaks on behalf of the employee.
(7) Grievance: A complaint of an employee or group of employees arising out of the
application or interpretation of a specific clause in this agreement.
(8) Immediate supervisor: The individual who assigns, reviews, or directs the work of
an employee.
(9) Superior: The individual to whom an immediate supervisor reports.
Section 3. REVIEWABLE AND NON-REVIEWABLE GRIEVANCES.
(1) To be reviewable under this procedure a grievance must:
(a) Concern matters or incidents that have occurred in alleged violation of a
specific clause in this agreement; and
(b) Specify the relief sought, which relief must be within the power of the City to
grant in whole or in part.
(2) A grievance is not reviewable under this procedure if it is a matter which:
(a) Is subject to those reserved City Management Rights as stipulated under
Section 4 of the Employer-Employee Relations Policy for the City of Chula
Vista or under management rights as specified in this agreement.
(b) Is reviewable under some other administrative procedure and/or rules of the
Civil Service Commission such as:
1. Applications for changes in title, job classification or salary.
2. Appeals from formal disciplinary proceeding.
3. Appeals arising out of Civil Service examinations.
4. Appeals from work performance evaluations.
5. Appeals that have Affirmative Action or civil rights remedy.
(c) General complaints not directly related to specific clauses of this agreement.
m~~*=tt~..m.%Wt~... .:&::;.;:,,;w::rut"4.$ID;::illR~:f:f:!t~::W:}~~:}*,1:tftW::::1{:~t:::~t.~m~:~;~t~~;::::"*~~M~:%;:::*~~~:::~M:~:~:~t~!.:ht:::'i.~:}f~w*~:;:m:1:%~%:"W*!::;w:::::~~::~:g:fit
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28. 1994)
?~J/
Page 25
~:i:~:mtw:m-%m~::;:;:%;::m:.mr~~::w:;:@t:"?::t.:::~~&M.:mm.~;::-;;m;:::m~m;:t:::::::::':1-:w.;:.r;;;mm:llim.'1:m.:::~:::::t;:tr~:::.m;mm~~:~mt::{:r.t!;;;::,rm:;:;;:::m1~mJ:m:1~~;W.t.:m-mmm:;;@;:?:::;;:;(:;;;;:::%1?;;;;:
(d) Would require the modification of a policy established by the City Council or
by law.
(e) Relates to any City group insurance or retirement programs.
Section 4. GENERAL PROVISION OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
(1) Grievances may be initiated only by the employee or employees concerned and may
not be pursued without hislher or their consent.
(2) Procedure for Presentation: In presenting hislher grievance, the employee shaH
foHow the sequence and the procedure outlined in Section 5.
(3) Prompt Presentation. The employee shaH discuss hislher grievance with hislher
immediate supervisor within ten (10) working days after the act or omission of
management causing the grievance, or within ten (10) working days of when the
employee, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the act
or omission being grieved.
(4) Prescribed Form. The written grievance shaH be submitted on a form prescribed by
the Director of Personnel for this purpose.
(5) Statement of Grievance. The grievance shaH contain a statement of:
(a) The specific situation, act or acts complained of as an agreement violation;
(b) The inequity or damage suffered by the employee; and
(c) The relief sought.
(6) Employee Representative. The employee may choose someone to represent hislher
at any step in the procedure. No person hearing a grievance need recognize more
than one representative for any employee at anyone time, unless he/she so desires.
(7) Handled During Working Hours. Whenever possible, grievances will be handled
during the regularly scheduled working hours of the parties involved.
(8) Extension of Time. The time limits within whicb action must be taken or a decision
made as specified in this procedure may be extended by mutual written consent of
the parties involved. A statement of tbe duration of sucb extension of time must be
signed by both parties involved at the step to be extended.
(9) Consolidation of Grievances. If the grievance involves a group of employees or if
a number of employees file separate grievances on tbe same matter, the grievances
shaH, wbenever possible, be bandIed as a single grievance.
~%..~WJ.::%*t::.f~.m:'%~.zWit,~:;~f~t:;%*@;t~ff.t4$lf&:m~1~~N-?j;:::%t{:~MMM:~~~S:'::~~~:@m~*m~:t};l:~n*~M~"t%?M&:'t1#~*~tt.~~t:i:l*~f:mm~w:??~~mJ&wsm%
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994)
8'/ J ;L
Page 26
*~m;:;;;;?:::.<mm:th%;:;:::~::;:;:m~;;,.":t-%m::;fu--:::~tm@~~1:~;:;:lli-.-:;:;:~:::::;:;:~m:a:::::m::;;;:;:::::::t:B::~:m:@m:mM~:%?~$.:;:~:B;:;:::~~;:;:~N:m;:;.~::::i;:;:9;:;;:;:;:;:::m:B::;:t.:.-%:$::;:;:;m:?:~w:t.:.~$.:;:~:::m9';,::;:mmt::'m.j:m:!h:::-mi.~;::;~'f:ng::mm
(10) Settlement. AJ1y complaint shall be considered settled without prejudice at the
completion of any step if all parties are satisfied or if neither party presents the
matter to a higher authority within the prescribed period of time.
(11) Reprisal. The grievance procedure is intended to assure a grieving employee the
right to present his/her grievance without fear of disciplinary action or reprisal by
his/her supervisor, superior or department head, provided he/she observes the
provisions of this grievance procedure.
(12) Back pay. The resolution of a grievance shall not include provisions for back pay
retroactive further than twenty (20) working days prior to the date the grievance is
filed. However, if with the exercise of reasonable diligence the act or omission being
grieved was not discovered within 10 working days of its occurrence, and the
grievance is subsequently timely filed pursuant to Section IV (3), then the resolution
of the grievance may include provision for back pay for a maximum period of one
year from the date the grievance was filed.
Section 5. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE SlEPS. The following procedure shall be followed by
an employee submitting a grievance pursuant to policy:
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Discussion with Supervisor. The employee shall discuss his/her grievance with
his/her immediate supervisor informally. Within three (3) working days, the
supervisor shall give his/her decision to the employee orally.
Written Grievance to Superior. If the employee and supervisor cannot reach
an agreement as to a solution of the grievance or the employee has not
received a decision within the three (3) working days' limit, the employee may
within seven (7) working days present his/her grievance in writing to his/her
supervisor who shall endorse his/her comments thereon and present it to
his/her superior within seven (7) working days. The superior shall hear the
grievance and give his/her vuitten decision to the employee within seven (7)
working days after receiving the grievance.
Grievance to Department Head. If the employee and superior cannot reach
an agreement as to a solution of the grievance or the employee has not
received a written decision within the seven (7) working days' limit, the
employee may within seven (7) working days present his/her grievance in
writing to his/her department head. The department head shall hear the
grievance and give his/her written decision to the employee within seven (7)
working days after receiving the grievance.
Grievance to Director and Manager. If the grievance is not settled at the
department head level, it may be submitted by WCE's Representative within
twenty (20) working days to the Personnel Director, who shall investigate and
report his/her findings and recommendations to the city Manager within ten
(10) working days. The City Manager shall provide his/her answer within ten
(10) additional working days. The times indicated may be extended by mutual
m:t:r.$~%iW~:w.~:m:&t~~...~.~j':'.;...~$~tlt~%:::::::~aWi-:;llifs.l:::::~t$Nt:~::~t~~ltt.~;:::f~rf.;1~**.:m~t:::t:::::%~~~-::n%n~:t*m:!-#.W&1Wt&'i%~.:mtt~&~m:~$;m
Page 27
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28. 1994)
8" J}
~u:;:~@.~::::;:;:::&nWi:::::*~:::~:;::::n::w-*:w@;~4.:;;;*-t::::::ghm::::~.::;.1;:;:m.t~~::::':w.:#;:;~%,:::;U::;:;:;:::%~::::::H~-$m~m~:?:~::::gg:$n1::K:H:::::;:~~$:$~::.~:::i:::;::::::::::w.:::$:~:'%::;:;:-~::::~-t::::::::m:~:W:~~~:r.rf.i:w:mtm.~-:::g~tg;:m;~:
agreement. Any Employee grievance will be filed with WCE's Representative
at Step 4.
Following the submission of the City Manager's answer, and before going to
Section 6, Advisory Arbitration, matters which are unresolved shall be
discussed at a meeting between the parties during which all pertinent facts
and information will be reviewed in an effort to resolve the matter through
conciliation.
Section 6. ADVISORY ARBITRATION. Any dispute or grievance which has not been resolved
by the Grievance Procedure may be submitted to advisory arbitration by WCE's Representative
or the City without the consent of the other party providing it is submitted within ten (10) working
days, following its termination in the Grievance Procedure. The following advisory arbitration
procedures shall be followed:
(1) The requesting party will notify the other party in writing of the matter to be
arbitrated and the contract provision(s) allegedly violated. Within five (5) working
days of the receipt of this notice, the parties may agree upon an arbitrator, or panel
of three arbitrators, trained in conducting grievance hearings.
If agreement on an arbitrator cannot be reached, the State Department of Industrial
Relations shall be requested by either or both parties to provide a list of five
arbitrators. Both the City and WCE shall have the right to strike two names from
the list. The party requesting the arbitration shall strike the first name; the other
party shall then strike one name. The process will be repeated and the remaining
person shall be the arbitrator.
(2) The arbitrator shall hear the case within twenty (20) working days after the arbitrator
has been selected. The arbitrator may make a written report of their findings to
WCE and the City within fifteen (15) working days after the hearing is concluded.
The arbitrator shaH make rules of procedure. The decision of the arbitrator shaH be
advisory to the City Manager who shaH render a final decision within ten (10)
working days.
The arbitrator shaH have no authority to amend, alter or modify this agreement or
its terms and shaH limit recommendations solely to the interpretation and application
of this agreement. The above time limits of this provision may be extended by
mutual agreement.
(3) Each grievance or dispute will be submitted to a separately convened arbitration
proceeding except when the City and WCE mutuaHy agree to have more than one
grievance or dispute submitted to the same arbitrator.
(4) The City and WCE shaH share the expense of arbitrators and witnesses and shaH
share equaHy any other expenses, including those of a stenographer, if required by
either party. If either party elects not to follow the advisory decision rendered by
mJ~.m.:1f.~ . . .~.*~~J.::.t~1~::m:'t.~%tt'W::?t@$Wm..w.mt...m.w%.~w~t~m~;~*t'%tmmbttm~1t{*&%%."%%~~~%W:$:~%%~m*
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28, 1994) [r'/ J 'I Page 28
~~;:;ID.:m:t~-::aB;:;~~*~.:;@;::.:.::::::n~B:.%ww.~:::~:=.::~.:::mm;ffi3.::"W:?.m:;:;::~;:,:r($%:~%$;.'0.:?~:~:t.':r$;~~~:~@~::~:::m:-m~Wt:~~M%~~::H~:%;:;:-:::mw;:;:m;::.:1:;:;::~~x:-::.m:m~.}$w..&:%$;:;:X$.~-$U$J;'$J::::;;:~:$.~;:.~:::%@%;:;::;
the arbitrator, that party shall pay the entire cost of the arbitration process, including
the expense of the arbitrator, witnesses and/or stenographer.
3.03 TERM
This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in full force and effect from 1l1ly I, 199119.!!~
i!I!Bjii~~i9ij~tfil~i'ltl~4~~ ~~:~~~~::e:~:;~il ~:~i!!~l!~~~~~!'l~~!~~~!'!!~l~~
of the parties notifies the other in writing on or before Marek, 1993, ~Y!a~l:I~,?}! of their desire
to negotiate a successor agreement. Said notification may include written proposals for such
amended agreement and negotiations shall begin no later than thirty (30) days prior to expiration
of this agreement.
3.04 FULL UNDERSTANDING, MODIFICATION, WAIVER
A. This Memorandum of Understanding sets forth the full and entire understanding of the
parties regarding the matters set forth herein. My other prior or existing understanding
or agreements by the parties, whether formal or informal, regarding such matters are hereby
superseded or terminated in their entirety.
B. Except as specifically provided herein, it is agreed and understood that WCE voluntarily and
unqualifiedly waives its right to meet and confer with respect to any matter covered herein.
C. No agreement, alteration, understanding, variation, waiver, or modification of any of the
terms or provisions contained herein shall in any way be binding upon the parties hereto
unless made and executed in writing by the parties hereto and, if required, approved and
implemented by the City Council.
D. The waiver of any breach, term, or condition of this Memorandum of Understanding by
either party shall to constitute a precedent in the future enforcement of all its terms and
provisions.
.
E. Except as specifically provided in this MOU, it is understood and agreed that any benefits
and/or working conditions within the scope of representation published in the Civil Service
Rules, Salary Ordinance and other resolutions and ordinances that affect benefits and/or
working conditions presently in effect and not modified by this MOU, shall remain
unchanged unless and until the City and WCE meet and confer in good faith pursuant to
the provisions of Section 3504.5 of the Government Code and the City Employer-Employee
Relations Policy concerning any such proposed changes.
F. The provisions of paragraph E, above, shall not obligate either party to meet and confer on
any issue for the term of this MOU except as provided herein.
3.0S SAVINGS CLAUSE
If any article or section of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be held invalid by operation
of law or by any tribunal or competent jurisdiction or if compliance with or enforcement of any
w~.. :.u:?m$'if4.m:.~L~:i:':'..%.W1::lli~~.....m~~':%."0~*M:H:tW$Wf:2:t1:t*$1:t~%::r:&:t%iM;;M:::tHt:%@f.;~;WWMm~rr$:'t}~~:!:::~t:::t~t~Nr.~;W:~W;:':'K$1t~M:~mt
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. April 28. 1994)
./
%~J/
Page 29
)
.
.~ ~ ,; ::mm.%:W~t::f,::&~:::::;r:::~:::{:::~:::1@:~[;:;H::t::;:.;:::;:;::m:::::m:~%::.;::;~:~;::.%f.::::;{:~m:::::~::;:1:~::-;::f.;:;:;:;:;::w::m%::m:~$~{::;::::::m:::;:~;;;:::::::::::m:m:::~$.::::H@::-~(;:~::;W~:?:$;'%~;:::;:;:m:::tf.%:$jf.:;U::;:;:;'$::;:~;:;;:::::::@:~
article or section shall be restrained by such tribunal, the remainder of this agreement shall not be
affected thereby. The parties shall if possible meet and confer or meet and consult as the case may
be for the purpose of arriving at a mutually satisfactory replacement for such article or section.
George Krempl
Deputy City Manager
Chief Negotiator
City of Chula Vista
~~::t~:e ~~~~~!iillii!lll'ilj
Western Council of Engiiieers' .. ....m
&:.. W1%:t*~f.*~~..:ill~::.:::;;W%~m;1tt~t%t~~t@~?:tt*~:t:t*M(;:t1::::t:f:W(;:t~:~:~:*:%:~~%:~~:~:;%:::$:%mttw~:~t:~:H;~:~~ttM::.~tt*M%~~$m%*t:%~b'tM*1tM\*m*t::4~:
WCE MOU FY 1993 NEGOTIATIONS (Rev. Apri128. 1994)
2)' )b
Page 30
November 19, 1993
SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS
REGARDING CATASTROPHIC LEAVE AND
SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS
During the course of negotiations for the FY 1993-94 Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Chula Vista and Western Council of Engineers, issues have
arisen regarding catastrophic leave and supplemental health insurance options.
To clarify the issues, the parties agree as follows:
I. Catastroohic Leave Policy
The City supports the concept of formulating a catastrophic leave policy
and will negotiate in good faith during the term of the MOU to structure
such a proposal. City management agrees to convene a committee comprised
of representat i ves of each of the four barga i ni ng un i ts, execut i ve
management, mi d-management and unrepresented to prepare a catastroph ic
leave proposal. Once the Catastrophic Leave Committee reaches agreement,
the proposal will be presented to each unit for ratification.
II. Suoolemental Health Insurance Ootions
Section 2.09A.3(b) of the Memorandum of Understanding addresses Flexible
Benefit Plan, Optional Selections. The current language is being
clarified to state that employees may receive reimbursement for the costs
of any City soonsored health insurance plans which supplement the existing
City-offered health plans.
The City has a health insurance committee which convenes periodically to
review health insurance issues. The City acknowledges that the Western
Council of Engineers may, through its representative, convene the
committee, and submit proposals to the committee for its deliberation and
consideration to possibly become part of the City sponsored health plans.
George Krempl
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
H. Joseph Trapp
Chief Negotiator for
Western Council of Engineers
')(~ J ?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: 9
Meeting Date: 5/10/94
SUBMlTnill BY:
"If'rfl
Resolution Approving Booking Fees Litigation
Settlement Agreement, and Appropriating Funds For
Settlement and Ongoing Expenses Related to Booking
. Fees n. Q
Bruce M. B~gaard, City Attorney\~~
ITEM TITLE:
4/5ths Vote: (X) Yes () No
Chula Vista, along with several other San Diego and California cities, has been
a party to ongoing litigation to challenge the State legislation that allows
Counties the right to charge Cities for the cost of booking prisoner's into the
County jail. A "booking fee" charge effectively shifts the cost of part of the
criminal justice system from the counties to the cities. The Staff of all
litigating cities in San Diego County!! have jointly reached agreement with the
County, subject to Councils' and Board's approval, settling the litigation
pursuant to an agreement by which the litigating cities will pay $154 per
booking for the bookings between April 1, 1991 and December 31, 1993, plus
interest at a lower-than-legal rateY.
1. Excluding the City of San Diego ("CSD"), who has reached a separate
agreement with the County. We are unsure that such agreement provides
equitable treatment by the County of all of the cities in the County. By this
separate agreement, the City of San Diego is contributing to the County's cost
of constructing and maintaining a detention center in exchange for, among
other things, the waiver of the booking fee. We have verified that the other
cities are not subsidizing the cost of City of San Diego's bookings. We did
this by determining that the CSD's bookings are included in the denominator of
the fraction used to determine the "fee per booking". (See Exhibit B-2 and B-3)
But there is the risk that the CSD is paying an equivalent charge less than $154
per booking, and that all cities should be able to avail themselves of the same
benefit. There is little interest in other cities pursuing this aspect in litigation
because of political relations reasons, and because the legal standard needed to
overturn the fee on "equal protection" grounds is that the County is being
"arbitrary and capricious" is reaching the agreement with the CSD.
2. The Legal Rate is the maximum rate chargable at law as interest on
(continued.. .)
9'/
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution which will:
1. Approve the agreement1' settling the booking fees litigation for
booking fee charges between April 1, 1991 and December 31, 1993 in
the total amount, payable to the County, of $809,537.
2. Appropriate an additional $409,537 to cover the expenditure of this
settlement ($400,000 previously reserved for this purpose in prior
years).
3. Appropriate an additional $203,922 for booking fees expenses to be
paid from January 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: None.
DISCUSSION:
Effective April 1, 1991, as part of the State's budget balancing process, the
State Legislature approved legislation~ which provided authority to County
governments to charge cities for the cost of booking prisoners into county jails
as a way of reallocated the cost of the criminal justice system from County
governments to City governments.
In response to this action, many California cities objected to this additional
mandated expenditure and initiated litigation in the various counties, all of
which were consolidated before a Sacramento County Judge (Honorable James
Ford). Pre-trial efforts to dismiss the litigation efforts proved unsuccessful for
the California cities.
Subject to the legislative bodies' approval of the agreements, Staff of the
County and the staff of the litigating cities of the County of San Diego have
agreed upon a proposed settlement of the booking fees litigation described
herein by which litigating cities would pay $154 per booking for the bookings
between April 1, 1991 and December 31, 1993, plus interest at the County's
2. (...continued)
judgments involving a liquidated debt, or 10%. The interest rate proposed in
the agreement is a "simple interest rate" and varies between 6% and 8 1/2%.
3. Exhibit C attached.
4. Codified as Section 29550 of the Government Code, and technically
referred to as Criminal Justice Administrative Fees. A copy of the Section as
it currently reads as of January 1, ~994, is attached as Exhibit D.
9,,2.
It~m:--2-
Meeting Date: May 10, 1994
Page 3
average interest earnings rate during each quarter of such period.
Attached as Exhibit C is the settlement agreement. It settles only the booking
charges for bookings that occurred between April 1, 1991 and December 31,
1993. During each quarter of that period, the number of bookings, and the
average County interest earnings are set forth on a separate confidential
attorney client communication attached hereto as Exhibit A.
New Legislation effective January 1. 1994.
Effective January 1, 1994, legislation went into effect to limit the types of
costs that can be considered "booking costs. of the County and for which
County may charge reimbursement. We have requested but have not received
an accounting of what the new rate is going to be,~1 but we have been advised
that County staff (the Sheriff and CAD) is proposing to continue the same rate
of $154. We have been further advised that the rate, if calculated according to
the new legislation, would result in a rate of $163 per booking.~1
When the bill is received for quarters after December 31, 1993, staff should be
vigilant to request the calculation sheet by which the County determined that
any new rate is appropriate prior to payment. The author has discussed this
matter the Finance Administrator and the Budget Manager.
Based on the proposed continuation of the $154 rate and the first quarter of
1994 bookings (552), we project that the needed appropriation is $203,922 for
the last half of the 93-94 fiscal year (January, 1994 to June, 1994), for which
an appropriation is now recommended (Recommendation No. 3).ZI
5. Staff has made the calculation, but County Board of Supervisors has not
approved same.
6. County representatives have explained that while the new legislation allows
fewer items of cost, because the number of bookings have declined, the rate
has increased instead of decreased. We queried staff if there was any thought
of reducing the costs of the booking operation now that bookings have
dropped, but received no significant response from County staff.
7. It appears that the County was proposing to bill the cities on the basis of an
(continued... )
9,3
Item:~
Meeting Date: May 10, 1994
Page 4
Verification of Amount.
The Police Department completed a random test sample of bookings in such a
manner as to give them a 95 % level of confidence that the charges billed by
the county were accurate and matched our own arrest records. The sample
indicated an error rate by the County, in charging the City of Chula Vista with
bookings, of .7%, which is within 2-3% accurate.
As part of the Police Departments ongoing verification of booking fee billings
they will be evaluating each booking against the exemptions from fees for such
things as re-bookings, post arraignment bookings, self-bookings, and multi-
agency arrests. The Police Department is confident that the City was credited
with all applicable exemptions, and that the bookings with which the City was
charged were non-exempt bookings of the Chula Vista Police Department
occurring at the time claimed by the County of San Diego.
Advantage of Settlement
Since the legal challenges to the booking fee on a global basis have failed
(statewide), it appears that the advantages of settling now as opposed to
litigating, is the following:
1. If we litigate, we will probably have to pay interest at an annual rate
of 10% as opposed to the lower ("simple interest") rates shown on Exhibit A,
generally ranging between 6 and 8 1/2 %.
2. The County has reduced, by original resolution, and now confirmed
by this agreement, the booking fee from what they calculate their costs of
booking to be, to wit: $179 per prisoner-', down to $154 per prisoner.
7. (...continued) .
estimate of bookings averaged over the last five quarters. We are not legally
required to pay for bookings sooner that the booking is actually made, and
would recommend against paying billings based on estimates.
8. See their original calculation attached hereto as Exhibit B purporting to
justify $179 per prisoner.
9-~
Irem:~
Meeting Dare: May 10, 1994
Page 5
3. If we litigare, the only remaining basis would be for improper cost
allocation, which is an expensive, cost consuming piece of litigation, the cost
of which would probably have to be borne by Chula Vista and not shared
among the other litigating cities, now willing to settle. Up to now, the
litigation was shared by the several litigating cities, and our particular cost has
been less than $10,000.
State Mandated Cost Issue
The City of San Jose asked the Commission on Stare Mandares to rule that
booking fees are a state mandated cost (which would have required the State to
pay for its imposition). The Commission declined, and the City of San Jose
asked the Superior Court in that County to issue a writ of mandate ordering the
Commission on State Mandates to order that booking fees are a state mandared
cost. The Superior Court agreed with the City of San Jose, and issued the
Writ. That order is now on appeal by the affected County.
If the appellare Court sysrem concurs that the booking fee legislation
constitutes a state mandared cost on cities, it would not be unreasonable to
expect the State Legislature to reverse the legislation. Afrer all, if the Stare
has to pay for the' criminal justice out of their own funding sources, they might
as well shift it back to Counties.
We will keep you advised on the progress of this appellate matter.
FISCAL lMPACT:
When the fee was first imposed, we availed ourselves of a Government Code
provision which permitted us to deny the billing, a matrer which prevented
them from deducting the amount from other tax revenue allotments which the
County controls on our behalf. Therefore, no principal or interest on this
billing has yet been paid.
As the litigation was proceeding, in order to protect against a large significant
impact of a single payment, the City appropriated $400,000 in the 1991-92
fiscal year budget to partially offset the cost of this fee. Additional
appropriations were not made.
Amount of Settlement, including interest:
$809,537
9,.?
Item:~
Meeting Date: May 10, 1994
Page 6
Appropriation needed to Dec. 31, 93
$400.000
$409,537 $409,537
Previously Appropriated:
Additional appropriation needed to June 30, 1994
$203.922
$613,459
Total Appropriation Requested:
Council has already taken steps to mitigate the impact of the fee by requesting
the local judges to impose a charge for the fee in the penalty assessments
levied against convicted prisoners. The local judges have recently agreed to
comply. The amount received under this charge is unknown at this time, but is
expected to be minimal, and the proceeds, if any, will go into the general fund
from which this fee is paid. .
M:\homc\admin\bookin&3.wp
SOME
~ X H 11:i Irs J4Jt!)'r'
C~ItItJ/tJ Eb
9-1,
RESOLUTION NO.
/ 71~(j
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING BOOKING FEES LITIGATION
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
FOR SETTLEMENT AND ONGOING EXPENSES RELATED TO
BOOKING FEES
WHEREAS, Chula vista, along with several other San Diego
and California cities, has been a party to ongoing litigation to
challenge the State legislation that allows Counties the right to
charge cities for the cost of booking prisoner's into the County
jail; and
WHEREAS, a booking fee charge effectively shifts the cost
of part of the criminal justice system from the counties to the
cities; and
WHEREAS, the Staff of all litigating cities in San Diego
County have jointly reached agreement with the County settling the
litigation pursuant to an agreement by which the litigating cities
will pay $154 per booking for the bookings between April 1, 1991
and December 31, 1993, plus interest at a lower than legal rate
(10%) .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Booking Fees
Litigation Settlement Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
appropriate $162,008 from the unappropriated balance of the General
Fund Reserve to Account for booking fees expenses from
January ,1994 to June 30, 1994.
d.ndrOVd~bY
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
(M:\Ho.e\Attorney\8ooking.Res)
9-7/Q.,t..
! lIlunu~ur::s~~ ~~
"I.. ... . . .. . .. .
on _N:'~"""""""'''''~O''''"''''" U
! ~ .... ...tl'ttl't... ;;;.:;.~~
..
!1~iiI~ a~ UJ
1 ! ~ iU
!fiil~ ....:41 ~ ~
;;;c;;C") !
':':1 ~
., ! .. ..
h;:i~. ~~
!'l!'l~- ~
......Nt) -I
i 8 5 ;;tirl ~ g., ~~
.. -lSS
- U5!1;;i ~ln
~ lalal'lU
1 -~ . f"!.t'tct _ _ ~
---~i ~ ZZ
" ~ .. .. .. .J~
., ., Ull
S 81 r'~~ ~1/)1t)1t)_.... -<:;:
! NNNt:!~
-7 . ---":":":~i ~~
.t E ........
.:
'E 8l1l"h ~i~HU :::::.
~
j -. i """
;;. ;;;;.1iJe <::::..J
., .. ..
1 h";8. aJinU~. ~
f 8 I ;; ;;;;;I;! -i-J/C'\
..
i~CD~~ ~~UUi~~ <:::t::
~ -i "I
I " i .... ~i .s::: ~
., A.. ~
~!.,~~ ~.~~.8.!H.~~~ \----
Z ~"
I _" 0
l g ............ .........a... "'-J ~ -
._4IIt_ ....... = ~
~~..~2 ~. i.UU ~.~.~.~.~. ~~ -
-~ . ;;;;; ;;;;;;~Ie -t:.. -:h
'Is . Ii .. .. '><.
~ ., ~;~
... ..,O~ ~JU!!i.umu~~ \~
] m~ :i.., ~
8 Ii ........._... -'II' ~~
. ......"...... .......
0 ....
1 ... NO~ ~J~.~.~~uu.~.~~
m! :i.,. ~ \ -
~ ;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;~~ -
I ., i .... ,~ ~
iil-ji~ ~J~~~~~.UU~~~. '-I::::. '";:)
-7 . ~
~ .t i ;;;;;;;;;;;;;; t!~ -
.... ~
f ;:Pi If ~~U~UUUU~I ~ .....
-
.. A~Al ~
NNNNNN-------l_
'El
S 1 ~ i f~ if.. If ~
1 ~ g g ~ g11
~aa 0- 00: .,0
0 . _N"...V)tO....tom~~t:!::!
I 11 i
0: g .
.! a~
}!~I\\ ~ i h~ 11 h~t I!~t 1
..1 g lhHh~1.,8~1
i 0
Ids !!!n~u~nn
.Ull ~ ~ 9~<J
u.,
"
DETENTION
Booking Clerk
Jail Clerk
Detention Proc. Super.
Detention Proc. Manager
Principal Clerk
Deputy
Corrections Deputy
Sergeant
Lieutenant
Staff Nurse II
Charge Nurse (SN II)
L. V. Hurse
II. C"""/Un. Ins
PremlOT
Salary Savings
Uniform Allowance
Total Detention
RECORDS
Records Manager
Supervising Clerk
Records Clerk II
Records Clerk I
II. C"""/Un. Ins.
P rem/OT
Salary Savings
less Cal 10 offset
Total Records
PRETRIAL SERVICES
PretriaL Serve Maneger S
Sup. Pretrial Svcs. Officer
Pretrial Services Officer
PretriaL Services Intern
Court Services Clerk II
~. temp/Un. Ins.
Prem/OT
SBlary Savings
Total Pretrial Services
TotaL Suffing
COUNTY OF SAN 0 I EGO
COST SUMMARY - BOOKING FUNCTION
COST PER
STAFF YEAR
S 28,536
26,315
33,866
49,479
40,878
48,053
34,039
65,934
77,225
38,488
38,488
26,396
S 47,345
35,143
32,303
26,055
58,344
52,043
44,522
22,942
25,248
TOTAL
STAFF
YEARS
TOTAL
COSTS
61.25 S 1,747,830
5.25 138,154
12.00 406,392
1.00 49,479
1.00 40,878 ~ _,.,-11
75.00 3,603,975 . -' ~
18.00 ' 612,702 ?VL/
1::~~~. 741,758 .--- tt--
19.00 73
0.00 0
16.00 422,336
345,628
460,494
(298,838)
63,828
221.00
S 9,162,418
6
0.50
1.00
12.00
29.00
23,673
35,143
387,636
755,595
36,374
61,905
(38,880)
(166,224)
42.50
$ 1,095,222
0.50
1.00
7.00
16.00
2.00
S
29,ln
52,043
311,654
367,On
50,496
3,274
o
o
26.50
$
813,711
290.00
S 11,071,351
8 -)
9-/t:)
EXH-I~lr
. .
SERVICES AND SUPPLIES
DETENTION '$ 747;315
RECORDS 3,000
PRETRIAL SERVICES 55,180
Total Services and Supplies $ 805,495
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 11,876,846
INDIRECT COSTS (% OF SAL. ANO BEN.)
OETENTlON (61%) $ 5,589,075
RECORDS (29%) 317,614
PRETRIAL SERVICES (21%) 170,879
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $ 6,On,569
TOTAL BOOKING COSTS
$ 17,954,415
-----------
---------
NEW BOOKINGS FY 1989-90
101,903
BOOKING FEE
$176.19
RECAP . TOTAL COST BY DIVISION
Detention S 15,498,808
Records 1,415,836
Pretrial Services 1,039,771
TOTAL S 17,954,415
&=R:_Za:&ZE
\3~2-
~ ~eJ\J"LJ
T15 JtI9f
9,.//
~H~ Vl~~U LUUJ~IT
.
U1H
ICL NO.Ol~-~~f--ql~~
'.
o I:!l:!~~~~~~!<!
.... ,.,:'Jg..r-V\a)CCHlun
~3N"":"':";"';"':";,^"';
lO_
.....
-::5
~~
..
~~SUH~g
...J .........
"'Ch_ON""I't'IC::H"..o~
ot;
...w
'"
...'"
0...
..
",15lG~SOC~$t:08
r-.NCO",,,,,o.,,,;;ZSQo.N
Ur- ~ ~ ~ '" ~ '" ~ ~ .
:!M!2$::;ro~;e;;..ote
8<a~";l;U:O;l~""
..~ :O~
w
w
...
..
'"
;:;
8
co
l=-
S
g~~~~gi"'l::~
Cfjgw'\"'w'\V\-oo~oas
~ 1"-" N";";..."N":c;
-a; ,..,
8~
..
..to:
o
..
~
.,
..
..
..
~r!!:~~~~~~
~ON4...-NOV'l
"'SO . . . . . . . . .
C~Nr-V\""'4"NNV'I:$
l5
.....
...
.....
o~
..u
~
..
c
...
=>
~
:n~~t~;:eo.~~
...~$...N"'~"'N
t'J'" .0 ...'" -0'" ~o.,.,; ..o~ ",. f4"
OON"'COOVHI'1N'"
...... --
..
...
u
...
..
...
... u
8~ g -,~g
i >~....cc-'"
iDol: ~O"'3U1-
~!~c5~W2ZQ
a.=:D::~ t;z.~~z
cS.......c..u..
u u.......,....o""'
~
....
.
,..,
..
~
;;
g
.,
i
c'
-
~
!i
..
N
~
g
....
N
~
~..
...
c
l5
...
!
..
............~l;!..
~taS8~8iO'"'~
. . . I . . . . .
.....0_...0...00_
~g~!:i!:i~!Hli
000.000000
000000000
~&~~~~~~~
to. ..:,...... o~ o.!l," J:::. 0."'.
:U;l;l>l..:o=::
..
"'~"''''''''''N''",
11'\ ,.......""'o-~W"l,...
NNNfII'I"" 0.
~~~~t<~!:~~
N_QOJ.;:..,.....IIl1:::
. . . . . . . . .
QN.....Q..........NON
~~~~~~to..:o!}!
NO"'t"'\MO~""i:l
";v\.o",..;t:~4.~"
If\NN ook,., "".......0
t
..
w
-
..
u
li '"
i~ l;!
Q!~~~ ~ ~
~;.."..:~!o(
u:li1n;l=S~5
g""__2",,,,~>
t;
:!
....
~
~
c::
s
..;
8
"'
~.
~
.
'"
..
8
.
t:!
N
C
'"
..'
N
,..,
...
...
..
o
....
~
1> ,-3
~
-
,.;
~
-
i
..
Ii!
t.:
:$.
-
-
'"
:r
.
!S
~
:a
... ...
N "'
'" ....
y; ~.
!i :r
.
N
..
~
....
"
~
e
uet ~l.~U 1~:54 NO.OOl P.04
..
l3
..
~
~
..
~
~.
...
~.
..
<i
~.
..
N
":
~
..
..
!l!
l5
....
-
-
2
e
~
..
~
..
8
-
..
~
'^
l3
....
:0
~tl
~
~
..
0::
~.
'^
.
N
~
~
w
..
-
.......
...-
!:'::
..
...,
.....
..
l:I!
!l!..
w
....
we
wID
..
....
....
N
--
~...
..:~
.2
...
.
.
...
...
l5
....
~-
.,
~.:
...
c..
~i
g
-
w
!i
~
j
'"'
~
9--/02
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY (EXCLUDING THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO)
REGARDING BOOKING FEES
THIS AGREEMENT, dated April 15, 1994, for purposes of
identification, is entered into between the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
("COUNTY") and the CITIES OF CARLSBAD, CHULA VISTA, CORONADO,
DEL MAR, CITY OF EL CAJON, ENCINITAS, ESCONDIDO, IMPERIAL BEACH,
LA MESA, LEMON GROVE, NATIONAL CITY, OCEANSIDE, POWAY, SAN MARCOS,
SANTEE, SOLANA BEACH AND VISTA ("CITIES").
RECITALS
A. COUNTY adopted an ordinance imposing a booking fees in the
amount of $154 per booking, effective April 1, 1991.
B. A lawsuit entitled "City of CarIsbad, et. al. v. County
of San Diego, et. al." was filed by CITIES in San Diego Superior
Court (Case No. 641337) on August 15, 1991 ("Lawsuit"), seeking a
writ of mandate, an injunction, declaratory relief and an
accounting with respect to the imposition of criminal justice
administration fees (hereafter "booking fees") pursuant to
Government Code section 29550.
C. The Lawsuit was coordinated with other lawsuits and is
pending before the Honorable James Ford of the Sacramento Superior
Court (Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 2584).
D. Government Code section 29550 was amended by. the
Legislature (AB 2286), effective January 1, 1994, to requ1re a
recalculation of the booking fee by COUNTY for persons booked on
and after January 1, 1994.
E. The purpose of this Agreement is to finally resolve all
issues involved in the Lawsuit.
AGREEMENT
1. Recitals
The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein.
2. PaYment of Bookina Fees
Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, CITIES
shall pay to COUNTY the booking fees properly invoiced and unpaid
for bookings occurring during the period commencing April 1, 1991,
and ending December 31, 1993, at the rate of $154 per booking and
1
,
9~/;J
e-Xltl~1 T
L
in accordance with section 34.101 et.seq. of the San Diego County
Code.
3. Interest
Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, CITIES
shall pay to COUNTY interest on the amount of booking fees paid
pursuant to paragraph 2 for each of the following quarters at the
rate of interest earned on COUNTY'S investments for such quarter,
as follows:
Ouarter
Ouarter1v
Interest Rate
April 1, 1991 - June 30, 1991
July 1, 1991 - September 30, 1991
2.115
2.134
October 1, 1991 - December 31, 1991
2.115
January 1, 1992 - March 31, 1992
2.149
April 1, 1992 - June 30, 1992
July 1, 1992 - September 30, 1992
October 1, 1992 - December 31, 1992
January 1, 1993 - March 31, 1993
April 1, 1993 - June 30, 1993
July 1, 1993 - September 30, 1993
October 1, 1993 - December 31, 1993
2.143
2.227
1. 980
1. 674
1.501
1. 385
1. 550
Interest accruing after December 31, 1993, shall be calculated
at the rate for the quarter ending December 31, 1993, unless the
rate(s) for subsequent quarter(s) is (are) available, in which
event the rate(s) for the applicable quarter(s) will apply.
Interest shall be calculated and paid from the 30th day
following the date of invoice for each quarter until the date of
payment.
4. Amount of Bookina Fees and Interest
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 17 are copies of
the invoices for the period April 1, 1991 through December 31,
1993, for each of the seventeen cities. Each invoice shows the
total amount booking fees for the applicable quarter and the amount
of interest at the rates set forth in paragraph 3 and computed as
provided in paragraph 3 through December 31, 1993. The amount each
city will pay for booking fees is as set forth in the exhibit for
2
9,/1-(
the respective city, together with accrued interest for the period
January 1, 1994, through the date of payment.
5. Effective Date
This agreement shall be effective as of the last date it is
executed by any party.
6. No Admission
This Agreement is not and shall never be considered to be an
admission of any fault, error, wrongdoing, or liability by COUNTY,
or by any agent, officer, servant, or employee of COUNTY.
7. Dismissal
within thirty days of the effective date of this Agreement,
CITIES shall file a dismissal with prejudice as to all defendants
in CarIsbad et. aI. v. County of San Diego et. aI., both in San
Diego Superior Court (Action No. 641337) and in Judicial Council
Coordinated Proceeding (No. 2584).
8 . Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees.
9. Amendment
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written
instrument executed by all parties hereto.
10. DUDlicate Oriainals
This Agreement is executed in 18 duplicate originals so that
each party will have an original of this Agreement, provided that
the original for each individual city will include the appropriate
exhibit for that city only.
Dated:
City of Carlsbad
Dated:
Mayor
City of Chula Vista
Mayor
3
9-15/q~/1
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
City of Coronado
Mayor
city of Del Mar
Mayor
City of EI Cajon
Mayor
city of Encinitas
Mayor
City of Escondido
Mayor
city of Imperial Beach
Mayor
City of La Mesa
Mayor
4
9-/1,
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
City of Lemon Grove
Mayor
city of National city
Mayor
City of Oceanside
Mayor
city of poway
Mayor
city of San Marcos
Mayor
city of Santee
Mayor
city of Solana Beach
Mayor
City of Vista
Mayor
9-1 ')
5
~
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Elizabeth H. Silver
Attorney for cities of Carlsbad, Chula
Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon,
Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach,
La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National
City, Oceanside, poway, San Marcos,
Santee, Solana Beach and vista
Dated:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
David E. Janssen
Chief Administrative Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM
San Diego County Counsel
County Counsel
30:Z\..U;1.. .d
9-/<6
6
'BIRII'F
COUNTY or SAN DIIGO
INVOICE
Plea.e make eheek payable to SAN DllGO COUNTY IBsaIrr. Return paysent
and eopy of thil form to:
San Die,o County Sheriff'e Departaent
ATTN: FINANCtAL SBRVICES DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Die,o, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Raymond Patehett
City Mana,er of Carllbad
1200 11m Avenu.
Carllbad, CA 92008
RE: BOOkING CHARGIS FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DECIMBla 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DlScaIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY: CARLI8AD
In aeeordance with the County Code of
34.101 et. leq., the COlt to the City
bookin, f.e. for the above referencea
R.gulatory Ordinancel, Section
of Carl.baa for out.tanding
periOd 11:
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991
Jul. 1 - Sap. 30, 1991
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991
Jan. 1 - "ar. 31, 1992
Apr. 1 - Jun, 30, 1U2
Jul. 1- s.p. 30, 1992
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993
Jul. 1 - sep. 30, 1993
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
tnten.t
principal thru 12/U TOTAL
$ 63,602 $ 10,155 $ 73,757
58,520 8,gs4 67,474
54,362 6,672 61,034
56,826 6,184 63,010
54,362 5,030 59,392
52,668 3,683 56,351
45,122 2,295 47,417
37,422 1,333 38,755
43,274 951 44,225
44,506 330 44,836
43,582 0 43,582
---------- --------- -----------
$554,246 $45,587 $ 599,833
....---... . --.....-- --....---...
9,;7
~IBll'
J
IllftIrP
COUNTY or 8AIf DISGO
IHVOICS
.1.... m.k. check payable to 8AIf DIIGO COUNTY SI8ftIPP. Return paya.nt
and copy of thi. form tOI
San Di.go County Sheriff', Departaent
ATTRI FINANCIAL SIRVICSI DIVIIION
P. O. Boa 429000
San Diego, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. John Go..
City Man.ger of Chula Vi.ta
P. O. lox 1087
Chula Vi.ta, CA 91912
REI BOOKING CHARGES rOR THE PIRIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DECEMBIR 31, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCftIP'l'ION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITYI CBVLA VISTA
In accordanc. with the County Cod. of Regulatory Ordinance., lection
34.101 et. .eq., the cOlt to the City of Chula VittI for out.tanding
booking f..a for the above referenced period 111
Intenat
'dncipal thru 12/93 TOTAL
Apr.l - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 60,214 $ 9,613 $ 69,827
Ju1.1 - Sep. 30, 1991 64,526 9,873 74,399
Oct.l - D.c. 31, 1991 63,140 7,748 70,888
Jan.1 - Mar. 31, 1992 65,604 7,140 72,744
Apr.1 - Jun. 30, 1992 72,072 6,667 78,739
Jul.l - Sep. 30, 1992 62,216 4,350 66, 56~
Oct.1 - DtC. 31, 1992 68,068 3,463 71,531
Jan.l - Mllr. 31, 1993 71,456 2,546 74,002
Apt.1 - Jun. 30, 1993 78,386 1,722 80,108
Jul.l - Sep. 30, 1993 78,694 5U 79,277
Oct.l - D.c. 31, 1993 71,456 0 71,456
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUI $755,832 $53,705 $ 809,537
.......... .......... ...........
9-.20 /1/-35
UBIBIT c:6
',,- ,.-,1 '. ._",'CIo''',_
hi... .
. ~.'''.:''I''..q~.
BRlaU'r
COUNTY or IIA1'l DIIGO
INVOICS
,lea.e make check payable to SAN OlIGO COURTY 1lllIrr. leturn payment
and copy of this fora tal
San Diego county Sheriff'l Depart.ant
ATTMz FINANCIAL SlaVICSS DIVISION
.. O. BOX 429000
San Diego, California 92142-'000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Jack Drown
Chief of .olice, Coronado police Department
578 Orange Avenue
Coronado, CA 92118
RB: BOOKING CHARGSS rOR THI PBRIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DICIMIER 31, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DlSCRUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITYz CORONADO
In accordance with the County Code of
34.101 et. seq., the cost to the City
booking fees for the above referenced
Regulatory Ordinances, Section
of Coronado for outstanding
pertod 11 I
Apr.l - Jun. 30, 1991
Jul.l - Sap. 30, 1991
Oct.l - DIe. 31, 1991
J.n.1 - Mar. 31, 1992
Apr.l - Jun. 30, 1992
Ju1.1 - sap. 30, 1992
Oct.l - Dec. 31, 1992
Jan.l - Mar. 31, 1993
Apr.l - Jun. 30, 1993
Jul.l - Sep. 30, 1993
Oct.1 - Dec. 31, 1993
TOTAL AMOUNT DUB
Inter..t
Principal dUI 12/93 TOTAL
$ 10,780 $ 1,720 $ 12,500
10,780 1,U8 12,428
11,704 1,417 13,141
8,778 956 ',734
7,546 698 8,244
',394 657 10,051
9,702 493 10,195
6,468 231 6,699
8,162 180 8,342
7,392 S5 7,U7
8,470 0 8,470
---------- --------- -----------
$ 99,176 $ 8,075 $ 107,251
..--...... ......-.. ..---------
9-"1
t,_ ll...-,:"<r
I_....~~... . '
.oU--.""!'.."......
UHIBI~ ~
8Balun
COUNTY OF SAN DIBGO
INVOICB
.1eaae .ake check payable to 8AN OliGO COUNTY 8BERIFF. Return payment
and copy of thia for. to:
San Diego County Sheriff'. Depart..nt
ATTNI FINANCIAL SBRVIcaS DIVISION
.. O. Box .29000
San Diego, California 921.2-9000
April 15, 111,.
MI. Lourain. Brekke-Ilparla
City Manager of Del Mar
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RB: BOOKING CHARGIS roa THE PIRIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DECIMBIR 31, 1993
DESCRIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the county Code of aegulatory Ordinancea, 'ection
34.101 et. .eq., the coat to the City of Del Ka, for outatanding booking
feea for the above referenced period i.; --- ---
Inter..t
principal due 12/93
$ 982
871
321
401
327
279
102
39
10
11
o
CITY; OIL MAR
Apr.1
Jul.l
Oct.l
Jan.l
Apr.1
Jul.l
Oct.l
Jan.l
Apr.l
Jul.l
Oct.l
30,
30,
31,
31,
30,
30,
31,
31,
30,
30,
31,
1991
1991
1991
1992
1992
1992
1992
1993
1993
1993
1993
$
6,160
5,n8
2,618
3.n6
3,542
.,00.
2,002
1,078
462
1,5.0
1,232
- Jun.
- sep.
- Dec.
- Mar.
- Jun.
- Sep.
- Dec.
- Mar.
- Jun.
- Sep.
- Dee.
TOTAL
$
7,H2
6,569
2,939
4,097
3,869
4,283
2,10.
1,117
.7%
1,551
1,232
TOTAL MOUNT DUI
$ 32,032
---------- --------- -----------
$ 3,343
$ 35,375
....-.--.- ......... ...........
9....2:1-
UHIBI'1'.!L-
SRUIPr
COUH'l'Y or SAN DIBGO
IJrlOICB
'lla,e make eheek payable to SAN DIEGO COUNTY SaBaIrF. aaturn pay..nt
and copy of thi, form to:
San Diego County Sheriff'_ Dapart.ant
ATTN: rINANCIAL ISRVICIS DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Dia90, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. aobert Ackar
City Manager of al Cajon
200 I. Main street
11 Cajon, CA 92020
al: lOOKING CRARGIS rOR THa .aRIOD A.aI~ 1, 1991-DICIMBIR 31, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY: BL CAJON
In accordance with tha County Code of aegulatory Ordinanc.., Slction
34.101 et. '11" the co.t to the City of 11 S!12! for outltanding
booking fe.1 or the above referenced perTOdl1
Interut
principal thru 12/93 TOTAL
Apr.l - Jun. 30, 1991 $100,100 $15, U2 $ 116,082
071.11.1 - Sep. 30, 1991 99,946 15,290 115,236
Oct.1 - DIe. 31, 1991 83,468 10,243 n,711
Jan.l - Mar. 31, 1992 83,776 9,116 n,892
Apr.l - Jun. 30, 1992 83,622 7,737 91,359
Ju1.l - lep. 30, 1992 84,392 5,902 90,294
Oct.l - Dec. 31, 1992 100,254 5,101 105,355
Jan.l - Mar. 31, 1993 97,328 3,467 100,795
Apr.l - Jun. 30, 1993 98,098 2,156 100,254
071.11.1 - Sep. 30, 1993 107,492 797 108,289
Oct.l - Dec, 31, 1993 107,954 0 101,954
---.------ --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DU! $1,046,430 $15,791 $1,122,221
-........- ......... ...-.......
q , .2. "J
DBIBIT f)
.~. , ,
_ ~'1"'A
"14~
.~.'.::..._!'..to'.., OJ. :~"'.,." .. .:l.~:"":'.!'''''.'' .: ,'\'
..~~..""'.,..,._~............_. ,,' I ' .. .
SRI!:RIP'
COUNTY 0' SAN DIaGO
INVOICS
'lea.e make check payahle to SAN DllGO COUNTY sssaIPP. aeturn payment
end copy of this fora tOI
San Diego county Sheriff'. Depart.ent
ATTNI PlNANCIAL BlaVICSS DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Diego, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
I'Ir. Jim a.n.on
A..t. Cit! Manager of Sneinita.
505 S. Vu can
Incinita., CA 92024
all BOOKING CHARGES POR THI PIRIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DICIMall 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRIPTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY: BNCINITAS
In accordance with the County Code of Regulatory Ordinance., Section
34.101 et. .eq., the COlt to the City of Sncinita. for out.tanding
booking f.e. for the above refereneed perl0a 11:
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991
Jul. 1 - Sep. 30, 1991
Oct. 1 - Dec. U, 1991
Jan. 1 - Mar. U, 1992
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993
Jul. 1 - Sep. 30, 1993
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Intenlt
frinc!pa! th ru 12/n TOTAL
$ 52,360 $ 8,360 $ 60,720
60,984 9,330 70,314
60,368 7,408 67,776
60,830 6,619 67,449
60,830 5,627 66,457
49,434 3,457 52, au
40,964 2,084 43,048
41,426 1,47' 42,902
46,200 1,015 47,215
45,430 337 45,767
41,888 0 41,888
---------- --------- -----------
$560,714 $45,713 $ 606,427
...------- --....... ......---.
9'':;'1'
EXHIBIT b
SDERIFP
COUNTY OP aM DIEGO
INVOICE
'lea Ie make check payable to SM DIBGO COUNTY a.IRIPr. Return payment
and copy of thie form tOI
Sen Dlego County Sheriff'. Departaent
ATTH: PIHMCIAL BERVICBS DIVIaION
P. O. Box 429000
San Diego, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Mark DOlla
Citr of Escondido
Adm nistrative Services Manager
700 W. Grand Avenue
Escondido, CA 92025
REI BOOKING CHARGBS rOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1. 1991-DECEMBER 31. 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY, BSCORDIDO
In accordance with the County Code of Regulatorr Ordinances, Section
34.101 et. se1" the COlt to the Cit~ of Bscond do for outstanding
booking feel or the above reference periOd 11'
Inteult
I'dncipal thru 12/93 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30. 1991 $172,788 $27,586 $ 200,374
Jut. 1 - Sep. 30, 1991 158,774 Z4,2U 183,065
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 144,914 17,782 162,f96
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 135,366 14,731 .150,097
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 116,886 10,814 127,700
Jut. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 134,750 9,423 144,173
Oct. 1- Dee. 31, 1992 125,356 6,377 131,733
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 116,424 4,147 120,571
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 136,290 2,n4 139,284
Jul. 1 - Sep. 30, 1993 135,982 1,008 136,990
Oct. 1 - Dee. 31, 1993 129,822 0 129,822
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUB $1,507,352 $119,153 $1,626,505
.......... ......... ......--...
,?'d
.....~.,.......
P1tIBI'r
...:.~.,. ..,~'.
I.....
7-
SHlaIrr
COUNTY or SAN DIBGO
INVOICB
Pleaa. make check payable to IAN DIBGO COUNTY SHBRIrr. Return payment
and copy of thia form tOI
San Diego County Sheriff', Department
~TTNI rINANCI~L SBRVICBS DIVISION
1'. O. Box 429000
San Diego, california 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Ronald C. Jack
City Manager of Imperial
825 Imperial Beach Blvd.
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
JEI BOOKING CHARGSS rOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DBCBMBZl 31, 1993
Beach
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY; IMI'BR%~L B~CH
In accordance with the County Code of Regulatory ordinance., Section
34.101 et. .e~., the coat to the Cita of I.~erial Beach for out.tanding
booking fee. or the above reference perio 111
Interest
principal th,u 12(93 TOTAL
~pr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 22,946 $ 3,663 $ 26,609
Jul. 1 .. Sep. 30, 1991 30,954 4,735 35,689
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 22,484 2,758 25,242
Jan. 1 .. Mar. 31, 1992 19,096 2,078 21,174
Apr. 1 .. Jun. 30, 1992 22,022 2,038 24,060
Ju1. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 20,636 1,443 22,079
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992 15,862 807 16,669
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 24,332 867 25,199
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 30,030 659 30,689
JUl. 1 .. Sep. 30, 1993 26,796 199 26,1195
Oct. 1 .. Dec. 31, 1993 27,104 0 27,104
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUI $262,262 $19,247 $ 281,5011
....--.... ......... ...........
9-;1.1,
EXHIBIT-L
8RIRI"
COUNTY or 8AN OlIGO
INVOICI
.1.... make check payable to BAN DI8GO COUNTY 8SBRIrr. a.turn pa~ant
and copy of thi, form to:
San Diego County Sheriff'. Dep.r~.nt
ATTN: FINANCIAL SlaVICES DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Diago, California 92142-9000
April 15. 1994
Mr. D.vid N. Wear
City Manager of La M..a
8130 Alli,on Av.nue
La Ma.., CA 91941
al: BOOKING CHARGES rOR THB PBRIOD A'RIL 1, 1991-DBCEM8ER 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CI'l'Y; LA MISA
In accordanee with the County Cod. of R.gulatory Ordinane.., S.ction
34.101 .t. .aq., the cOlt to the City of La R'" for out.tanding booking
f... for the above r.f.reneed p.riod ill -- ----
Interelt
Principal thru 12/94 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 28,798 $ 4,597 $ 33,395
Jul. 1 - sep. 30, 1991 41,734 6,384 48,118
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 37,422 4,591 42,013
".n. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 27,874 3,034 30,908
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 32,494 3,007 3S,501
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 35,266 2,465 37,731
Oct. 1- Dee. 31, 1992 26,795 1,362 28,158
Jan. 1 - l'Iar. 31, 1993 27,874 U3 28,867
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 28,644 629 29,273
JUl. 1 - sep. 30, 1993 36,806 273 37,079
Oct. 1 - Dee. 31, 1993 33,418 0 33,418
---------- --------- ----------
TOTAL AROUNT DUB $357,126 $27,335 $ 384,461
---...---- -.----... ............
9".2.?
Lui.18I1' -L
"...\"
t
SHERI!'!'
COUNTY or 8M DIIGO
INVOICE
P1e..e make check payable to SAN DIEGO COUNTY SRBaIr!'. aeturn pay.ent
and copy of thi. form to:
San Die90 County Sheriff', Depart.ent
ATTR: !'INANCIAL SIRVICIS DIVISIOR
P. O. Box 429000
San Die90, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. "ack D. She1ver
City Manager of Lemon
3232 Main street
Lemon Grove, CA 91945
orove
aE: BOOKING CHARGES rOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DICIMBIR 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PI!:SCRIPTION
CITY: LEROH OROYI
In accordance with the County Code of Rt9U1atorl Ordinance., Section
34.101 tt. .e1" the COlt to the Cit~ of Lemon rove for out'tanding
booking fee. or the above reference periocl 11\
rntanlt
Principal thru 12/94 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 '$ 0 $ 839 $ 839
Jul. 1 - Sep. 30, 1991 0 551 551
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 0 104 104
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 0 0 0
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 0 0 0
Jul. 1- sap. 30, 1992 0 0 0
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992 14,938 760 15,698
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 24,024 856 24,880
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 19 , 866 437 20,303
Jul. 1 - Stp. 30, 1993 15,092 112 15,204
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993 16,940 0 16,940
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT PUB $ 90,860 $ 3,6511 $ 94,519
.......... ......... ...........
9'.J. 'r
EXHIBIT 10
.'1'
'.1. - - . - .
SRDur
COUM'l'Y or IAN DIBGO
IRVOICE
plea.e make check payable to SAR DIEGO COUNfl SRllIff. .eturn payment
and copy of this form tOI
San Diego County Sheriff'. Depart..nt
ATTNI FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Diego, california 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. foa G. Macabe
city Manager of National city
1243 National CitY.Blvd.
National City, CA 91950
RBI BOOKING CHARGES rOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DICEM8ER 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY: NATIONAL CITY
In accordance with the County Code of Regulatory Ordinance., section
34.101 et. 8e~., the cost to the CIt! of National City for outltanding
booking fees or the above reference periOd 111
Intenlt
principal due 12/94 TOfAt.
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 93,632 $14,948 $ 108,580
Jul. 1 - Sep. 30, 1991 84,546 12,934 97,480
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 112,266 13,776 126,042
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 117,194 12,753 129,947
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 106,568 9,860 116,428
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 101,024 7,063 108,087
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992 95,480 4,857 100,337
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 94,402 3,362 97 , 764
Apr. 1 - "un. 30, 1993 87,934 1,932 89,866
Jul. 1 - sep. 30, 1993 54,978 408 55,386
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993 63,756 0 63,756
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $1,011,780 $81,893 $1,093,673
.......... ......... ...........
9,,11
IXHIBIr 1/
IRBRnr
COUNTY or SAN DIEGO
INVOICI
Pl.... m.k. ch.ck payable to SAN DIEGO COUNTY IBSRlrr. a.turn payment
and copy of thia form tOI
San Di.go County Sheriff'a D.part.ent
ATTNI rlNANCIAL SIRVICIS DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Diego, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. John l'!llmaUx
City Manaqer of Oceanaide
321 No. Nevada
Ocean.ide, CA 92054
REI BOOKING CHARGES rOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DBCBMBER 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY: OCIANSIDI
In accordance with the County Code of aegulatorr Ordinance., Section
34.101 .t. aeq., the coat to the Cit! of Oc.ana de for out.tandin9
booking feea for the above rlf.rencl plriod iel
Int.r.et
Principal due 12/94 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $215,292 $ 34,374 $ 249,666
Jul. 1 - SIp. 30, 1991 195,272 29,875 225,147
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 176,946 21,716 198,662
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 170,940 18,604 189,544
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 158,620 14,676 173,296
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 164,934 11,532 176,466
Oct. 1- DIe. 31, 1992 179,564 9,134 188,698
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 143,990 5,129 149,119
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 147,532 3,242 150,774
Jul. 1 - SIp. 30, 1993 145,992 1,082 147,074
Oct. 1 - Dlc. 31, 1993 133,672 0 133,672
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DU! $1,832,754 $149,364 $1,982,118
............. ----...-- -----------
9".3 tJ
EXHIBIT I ~
IRElllrr
coUNTY or IAN DIBOO
IRVOICB
P1eaa. make check payable to SAN DIEGO COURTY SRBIlIFF. Return pay.ent
and copy of this form tOI
San Diego County Sheri~f', Departaent
ATTN: PlNANCIAL SSRVICES DIVISION
P. O. BOX 429000
San Diego, california 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. James L. BowerlOX
City Manager of poway
P. 0 Box 785
'oway, CA 92064
RKI BOO~ING CHARGES FOR THE PERIOn APRIL 1, 1991-DBCIMBER 31, 1993
--------------------------------------.--------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
nl!:SCltIPTION
CITY I POWAY
In accordance with the County Cod. of Regulatory Ordinance., '.ction
34.101 .t. leq., the COlt to the City of poway for out.tanding booking
f.el for the above referenced period ill
Inter'lt
principal due 12/94 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 11,088 $ 1,771 $ 12,859
Jul. 1 - S'p. 30, 1991 8,778 1,344 10,122
Oct. 1 - nee. 31, 1991 10,934 1,341 12,275
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 14,322 1,559 15,881
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 19,558 1,809 21,367
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 17,402 1,217 18,619
Oct.. I- Dee. 31, 1992 16,324 830 17,154
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 18, lI42 675 19,617
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 18,326 403 18,729
Jul. 1 - sap. 30, 1993 14,784 110 14,894
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993 18,172 0 18,172
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $168,630 $11,059 $ 119,689
........... ......... ....-..----
9..:J )
EXHIBIT -J:3
SHlRlrP
COUNTY OF BAN DIEGO
INVOICE
plea Ie make check payable to SAN DllGO COUNTY BHIRIFF. aeturn payment
and copy of thil form tOI
8an Diego County Sheriff', Departaent
ATTN. FINANCIAL SlaVICKS DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Diego, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Rick Gittingl
City Managlr of San MarcoI
105 W. lichlllar
San Marcol, CA 92069
REI BOOIING CHARGES FOa THE PERIOD APaIL 1, 1991-DECEMIZft 31, 1993
--.--------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
--------------------------------~--------------------------------------
CITY. SAN MARCOS
In accordance with the County Codl of aequ1atory Ordinance., Section
34.101 It. .eq., thl COlt to the City of San MarCOI for out.tanding
booking fee' for thl above reflrenced perTOa ill
Inten.t
princioal due 12/94 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 23,408 $ 3,736 $ 27,144
Jul. 1 - SIp. 30, 1991 21,098 3,228 24,326
Oct. 1 - Die. 31, 1991 2$,410 3,118 28,528
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 28,952 3,152 32,104
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 31,724 2,1l35 34,659
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 28,028 1,959 29,987
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992 28,490 1,450 29,940
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 33,880 1,206 35,086
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 31,262 687 31,949
Ju1. 1 - Sip. 30, 1993 40,194 298 40,492
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993 34,496 0 34,496
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $326,942 $21,769 $ 348,711
_....~---- ......... ......-----
9 r .3.)....
EXHIBIt J.J
SHBRII'I'
COUNTY 01' SAN DIIGO
INVOICE
plea.e make check payable to SAN DlaGO COUNTY SBa.IFF. Return payment
and copy of thil form tOI
San Diego county Sheriff'l Dapart.ant
ATTN: rINANCIAL SaRVICIS DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Dieqo, California 92142-9000
Apdl 15, 1994
Mr. ..on Ballard
City Mana,er of Santaa
10765 Woodlide Avenua
Santee, CA 92071
all BOOKING CHARGES roa THI PERIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DICIMBI" 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCalPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITYI SANTIB
In accordance with the County Code of "egulatory Ordinancel, Section
34.101 et. leq., the COlt to the City of Bant.. for outstanding booking
fea. for the above referenced period ill
Interest
Principal due 12194 '1'0'1'1.1.
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 32,802 $ 5,236 $ 38,038
JUl. 1 - Sep. 30, 1991 25,256 3,863 29,119
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 34,188 4,195 38,383
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 37,730 4,106 41,836
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 41,888 3,875 45,763
Jul. 1- Sap. 30, 1992 30,030 2,100 32,130
Oct. 1- D.c. 31, 1992 27,104 1,378 28,482
Jan. 1 - /'Iar. 31, 1993 30,492 1,086 31,578
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 30,800 67' 31,476
Jul. 1 - Sap. 30, 1993 33,264 241 33,511
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993 28,182 0 28,182
---------- ------....- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUI $351,736 $26,762 $ 378,498
......-... ......... ...........
9'.J}
EXHIBIT .!..S-.
,..,....,....--.
........,:,"!"..
8SBRIrr
COUH'rY or SAN DIBGO
IMVOICS
'1.... m.ke check p.yab1e to BAR DIEGO COUNTY 88BaI... a.turn paym.nt
.nd copy of this form tal
S.n Diego County 'herlff'. Depart.ent
ATTN; .INANCIAL 8BaVICS8 DIVI8ION
P. O. Box 429000
S.n Diego, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Micha.l Bu.e
City M.nager of Solana aeach
380 St.v.ns Av.nue, Ste 120
801.na .e.ch, CA 92075
aEI BOOKING CHARGES rOR THE PERIOD A'lXL 1, 1991-DICEMBla 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRIPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY: SOLANA BEACH
In accordance with the County Code of Regulatory Ordinance., Section
34.101 et. .e1" the co.t to the Cit! of 801ana Beach for out. tanding
booking fee. or the .bove reference perlocl lS1
Intet..t
Principal due 12/94 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 $ 9,394 $ 1,499 $ 10,893
Jul. 1 - Sep. 30, 1991 9,856 1,508 11,364
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 9,240 1,135 10,375
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 6,314 688 7,002
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 9,240 855 10,095
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 6,930 484 7,414
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992 5,698 290 5,988
J.n. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 5,698 203 5,901
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 5,082 112 5,194
Jul. 1 - up. 30, 1993 4,312 32 4,344
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993 3,080 0 3,080
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 74,844 $ 6,806 $ 81,650
------.-.- .......... ..........-
9..3i
EXHIBIT IILJ
flRERIFF
COUNTY or SAN DISGO
INVOICB
Plea.. make ch.ck payable to SAN 01100 COUNTY .IBRIrr. Return payment
and copy of thi. form to:
San Diego County Sheriff', Departaent
ATTN: FINANCIAL IBRVICS. DIVISION
P. O. Box 429000
San Diego, California 92142-9000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Morri. B. Vance
City Manager of vi.ta
P. O. BOX 1988
Vhta, CA 92083
RB: BOOlING CHARGES fOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1991-DICIM811 31, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
CITY: VISTA
In accordance with the County Code of Regu1atori Ordinanc.., S.etion
34.101 et. .eq., the co.t to the city of vi.ta or out.tanding booking
fee. for the above referenced period.:
Intere.t
Principal due 12/94 TOTAL
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1991 ,$ 99,022 $15,809 $ 114,831
Jul. 1 - Sep. 30, 1991 109,956 16,821 126,777
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1991 107,646 13,210 120,856
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1992 121,044 13,172 134,216
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1992 107,338 9,931 117,269
Jul. 1- Sep. 30, 1992 91,630 6,407 98,037
Oct. 1- Dec. 31, 1992 89,012 4,528 93,540
Jan. 1 - Mar. 31, 1993 78,540 2,797 81,337
Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 1993 89,936 1,"6 91,912
JUl. 1 - Sep. 30, 1993 115,018 704 95,722
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1993 79,618 0 79,618
---------- --------- -----------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUI $1,068,760 $85,355 $1,154,115
..--....... ......... ...........
.... ,..'Pl'~.t..
9' 3->
. UBIBIT
rl
I
,-
Section
29550.
Reimbursement of county expensesj
booking or detainlng llTeated peraona;
invoice.
ARTICLE 12
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Section
29550.1.
A1Teating agency; entitlement to recov-
ery of fee imP08ed by county; order
for pa)'lllent.
Criminal justice odmlnlatratlon tee.
29550.2.
Article II """ 04ded bJi 81418.1990. ~ ~66 (S8.1557) , 1.
The heading of Article II, Criminal Ju.stic. Adminilirati.. F.~ """ a1Mndod bJi 81418.1991,
~ 551 (8.8.11), , 5. to read ae it now appecre.
t 29550. Reimbunement ot county expenaea; booking or detaining "",,aled penonl; invoice
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a county may impoae a fee upon a clty, apecial district.
achool district, community college district, college, or university for reimbunement of county expensea
incurred with respect to the booking or other proceaaing of paraona arreated by an employee ot that clty,
special district. school district, community college district, college, or univensity, where the 8lTeIted
persons ~re brought to the county Jail tor booking or detention. The fee imposed by a county pursuant to
this sectIon shall not exceed the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costa as
pennitted by federal Circular A-87 standards, as defined in subdiVision (d). incurred in booking or
otherwise prore~sing arrested persons. A county may submit an invoice to a city, special district, school
district, community college district, coilege, or university for these expenses incurred by the county on
and aIler July I, 1990. Counties shall fully disclose the cost.! allocated as federal Circular A-87 overhead.
b 1 Notwithstandin subdiVision a a cit a ciaI distrlc achool diatrl communit colle e
district co e e or universit s a not care eea or lUTeata on an n warrant or un to
I in ;o~"'lU~;r. o~.a~'" "arrest wanoant issued in ~nnection with a crime not commJtted within the
entit a una iction.
(2 Notwithst>.ndin subdiVision (a) a cit s ecial district school diatrlc communit colle e district
co e e or universit s a not e c ar e ees or a erson w 0 is or ere a court to e reman e to
e Count a exce t t at a count ma care a ee to recover t ose irect costs or t ose unctions
re Ulre to 00 a erson ursuant to.u ivislon 0 ection ., 0 t e ena 0 e.
3 Notwithstandin subdivision a) a clt a ecial distrlc achool district communit colle e district
co e e or umverslt s not Care ees or arrests ma e ursuant to arrest WBJTants 0 a
OUtsl e 0 Its uris iction.
(4) Not'Wfthstandin subdivision (a) no fees shall be char ed to a cit 8 cial district school disUict
communit co e e co e e or universit on aro e Via alion arrests or ro ation.or ere returns to
custo un ess a new c at e as en I e or a crime committe l1l t e un! ictlon 0 e 8JTestin cit
istnct. co eie, or university.
5 An a enc makin a mutual aid re uest shall fees that result from arrests made in res onse to
the mutua ai re uest exce t at in e event t e overnor ec ares a alate 0 emer en no a en
· a be care eea or an 8M'eat ma e urin an riot istur ce or event at i. au eel to e
ec aUon.
6) Notwithatandin subdivision (a no rees shall be char ed to a cit . cial district achool district
communit co e e co e e or universit or t e arrest 0 a Msoner w 0 has esCl Tom a count
state, or (e era etentlon or corrections aci ity.
(7) Notwithstandin 8ubdivision a no fees shall be char ed to a cit a cial district .chool district
communit co e e co e e or universlt or &rTestces e in tern ora etention at a court Ici it or
uses 0 arrai ment w en e arrestee as n revious boo e at an entit etentfon aC11t .
8) NotVoithsu.ndin subdivision a) no feea shall be char ed to a cit s c1a1 district school district
communit co e e co e e or un versit as t e reSll t 0 an arrest ma e its 0 eer ass to a
arma mu tia enc tas ore! in w ic t e count IS a a ci ant. or t e u oses 0 t is section
.. arm tas orce means a tis oree t at as een esta is e v written 81lTeement of t e
participatini a2encies.
ext"h 13\ T
'D -I
9-;J ?
I
(9) In those counties where the cities and the countv participate in a consolidated booklna pror.:m and
where rior to arrai ment an arrestee is transferred from a city detention facilit to a count et.ention
aei ity t e city s al not e char~ed or those tas 6 isted in su i'F'ision ( ) that are a part. 0 e
consolidated bookinJZ proiTSm whit were completed by the cit~ prior to deliverimr the arrestee to the
county detention facility, However, the county may char"e t e actual administrative costs for those
additional tasks listed in subdiv18ion d that are rfonned in order to receive the 8JTe8tee into the
county detention aci ity.
~ Ally county whose officer or agent arrests a person is entitled to recover f'rom the arrested penon a
eriminal justice administration fee for administrative costs It incurs in conjunction with the arrest if the
person is convicted of any criminal offense related to the atTest. The fee which the county is entitled to
recover pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed the actual administrative costa. including applicable
overhead costs . . . incumd in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons. A judgment of
conviction may contain an order for payment of the amount of the criminal justice adminiltration fee by
the conviet.ed penon. and execution may be issued on the order in the 8ame manner as a judgment in 8
civil Iclion. but the order shan not be enforceable by contempL The court 8hall. II a condition of
probation, order the convicted person, based on his or her ablUta to pay, to reimburse the county ror the
criminal justice administration (ee includinsr applicable overhea costs.
(d) As used in lhis section "actual administrative costs" include onl those costs (or functions that are
De orme in or ar to receive an arrestee Into a county alention ac. itv. peratinsr expenses 0 e
cou~lY jail facility indudint capitol costs and those cost.s involved. in the hOUSin~, feedinsr. and care of
inmates shall not be indu ad in calculatinsr "actual administrative costs." "ActuR administrative costa"
man include anyone or more of the followin~ as related to receivin2 an arrestee into the county detention
raei Ity:
(I) The aearchlna. wristbandina, bathln2, clothina, ftnaerprintina, photol!1'llphina. and medical and
mental aCTeenin2 o( an arrestee.
(2) Document ~reparation, rebieval, updalina, mina, and court schedullna related to receivlna an
arrestee into the etention facility. .
(3) Wan-ant service, processin~. and detainer.
",~(4) Inventory of an IlT8Itee'a money and creation of caah accounts.
(5) Inventory and atoran of. an arreatee's property.
(6) Inventory, laundrY. and stora~e of an arrestee's clothirul.
(7) The claas!fleation or an arrestee.
(8) The direct costs or automated services utilized in para2raphs (1) to (7), Inclusive.
9 Unit mana ement and su rvlslon or the detention function aa related to ars
inc uSlve.
!!l Nl admlnlltrative Icreenlni ree or twenty-ftve dol1ara ($25) Ihall ba collected from each person
arrested and releaaed on his or her own recognizan.. upon conviction or any criminal otrenae related to
the arrest other than an inCraction, A citation pro....ing ree In the amount or ten dollara ($10) ahall ba
collected from each person cited and releaaed by any peace officer In the fteld or at a jail racillty upon
conviction of any criminal offense. other than an infraction, related to the criminal offense cited in the
notice to appear, However. the court may determine a iealer ree than otherwlae provided in thIa
lubdivision upon e ahowing that the defendant II unable to pay the CUll amount. All rees collected
punuant to thil lubdlvision shall ba traNmltted by the county auditor monthly to the Controller ror
deposit in the General Fund, Thil lubdlvision appllea only to convictions occurring on or after the
etrective date or the aet adding this lubdivislon and prior to June 80, 1996.
(Added by 8tats.!990. c, (66 (8,B,2557), I I. Amended by Stats,I99I, Co 881 (8,B,21), I (, etr. AUi. 6,
1991; Stats.I99I, c, 1168 (A.B,21(2), I 8, etr. Oct. 1(, 1991; Stats,I998, Co 882 (A.B.2286l, I I.)
ex It\ ~ 11
P-L
9- .3 ?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
IP
Meeting Date 5/10/94
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution ) 71'6'{pprOVing Second Amendment to
Agreement with Remy and Thomas for Litigation
Representation Services
~ssistant city Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Rudolf n.\)
Attorney \o3J
4/5ths Vote: Yes
No-L
SUBMITTED BY:
When the city of Chula vista and County of San Diego approved the
final version of the Otay Ranch Project, part of the approval was
an indemnification agreement by OtayVista Associates (successor to
Baldwin vista Associates), indemnifying the City and the County in
the event of an attack on the project approval. Chaparral Greens
thereafter sued, alleging inadequacies in the final program EIR
and/or violations of CEQA. Council, by Resolution No. 17547 on
January 4, 1994, ratified a Three-party Agreement whereby Remy and
Thomas (Tina Thomas, Esq.) would represent the city pursuant to
that indemnification agreement, at Otay vista's expense. On March
29, 1994 the Council approved the First Amendment to Agreement,
increasing the maximum compensation from $75,000 to $160,000.
Approval of the resolution and agreement will authorize Tina Thomas
of Remy and Thomas to continue to represent the City in that
litigation at Otay vista's (Baldwin's) expense, and further
increase the maximum compensation from $160,000 to $295,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution approving the
Second Amendment to the City'S Agreement with Remy and Thomas for
legal representation in the Chaparral Greens litigation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A.
DISCUSSION:
Approval of the resolution will increase the maximum compensation
set forth in the Agreement from $160,000 to $295,000, and clarify
the payment schedule for these services. It will allow continued
representation of the City by Tina Thomas of Remy and Thomas, the
attorney who has provided advice with regard to compliance with
CEQA and the adequacy of the EIR throughout the entire planning
process. Both the city and the County are named as Real Parties in
Interest in the litigation, and the defendant is the Baldwin
Company, through its corporate entity, otay vista Associates.
Jd-j
Item
Page
IQ
2
FISCAL IMPACT: $135,000, the difference between the old
authorization ($160,000) and the amount herein approved ($295,000),
which by the agreement is to be paid by the Baldwin Company and the
establishment of a deposit account. The city has no funds exposed
for payment of attorney's fees in this matter. Our duty to pay the
attorney is dependent on collection of funds from Baldwin.
M:\Ho.e\Attorney\Chappar12
IP'~
RESOLUTION NO.
J 7~'K J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT WITH REMY AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION
REPRESENTATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CHAPARRAL GREENS LAWSUIT, AND AUTHORIZING
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, the City, by Resolution No. 17347, on
January 4, 1994, approved an Agreement with Remy and Thomas for
Litigation Representation Services in connection with the Chaparral
Greens lawsuit; and,
WHEREAS, the city of Chula Vista, by Resolution No. 17426
on March 29, 1994, approved a First Amendment to Agreement to
provide for continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and an increase in
the maximum compensation from $75,000 to $160,000; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend said Agreement to
increase the total amount of Agreement from $160,000 to $295,000;
and,
WHEREAS, Otay vista Associates is required by an
Indemnity Agreement to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City
regarding any litigation arising from City's approval of the Otay
Ranch Project, including payment for legal counsel to represent
city in such litigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Second Amendment to
Agreement with Remy and Thomas for Litigation Representation
Services in connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document
No.CO glf-DIo2..(to be completed by the City Clerk in the final
document) .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Second Amendment for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented and Approved as to form by
'J)LLf
torney
Bruce M. Boogaard,
(M:\Ho.e\Attorney\Re.y.Res2)
10"';1
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
REMY AND THOMAS FOR
LITIGATION REPRESENTATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by Resolution 17347 on
January 4, 1994, approved an Agreement to provide for litigation representation
services in connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit/ and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by Resolution 17426 on
March 29, 1994, approved a First Amendment to Agreement to provide for continued
litigation representation services in connection with the Chaparral Greens
lawsuit, and an increase in the maximum compensation from $75,000 to $160,000;
and
WHEREAS, since that time, it has become apparent that litigation
expenses will be higher than originally anticipated; and
WHEREAS, Otay Vista Associates (Baldwin) i8 re8pon8ible for and
agrees to pay all costs involved in defending the litigation as a result of the
Indemnification Agreement approved by the Council as part of the final approval
of the Otay Ranch Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as folloW8:
1. That Paragraph 2 .b. iv be amended to change the amount of $160,000
to $295,000 to read as follows:
"iv. Consultant shall not incur cost8 or billings which, in total,
exceed Two Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($295,000.00)
without further written approval of the city."
2. All other terms and conditions not modified by this Second
Amendment to Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City, Consultant and Developer have executed this
Second Amendment to Agreement this day of May, 1994.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
REMY AND THOMAS
City Clerk
T1.na A. Thomas
Approved as to form:
~l~t
'cJ..j Iris
Bru e M. Boogaa
City Attorney
/IP- f
.
.
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
ItemL \ \
Meeting Da~ S~/lu/qo./
Resolution 171/ /, , Accepting bids and awarding contract for
"Placement of various types of street surfacing (asphalt concrete, asphalt rubber
hot mix, asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane with slurry seal) for the 1993-
94 Overlay Program and construction of sidewalk ramps on various streets in the
City of CIiula Vista, CA (STL-206)"; and authorizing staff to increase quantities
to expend all available funds for this project
REVIEWED BY:
City Managerj~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X..)
SUBl\1.l'rn;D BY: Director of Public Wor
At 2:00 p.m. on March 23, 1994 in conference room 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director
of Public Works received bids for "Placement of various types of street surfacing (asphalt concrete,
asphalt rubber hot mix, asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane with slurry seal) for the 1993-94
Overlay Program and construction of sidewalk ramps on various streets in the City of Chula VISta,
CA (STL-206)." The work includes the placement of l-Ih inch thick asphalt concrete overlay, asphalt
rubber and aggregate membrane with slurry seal and asphalt rubber hot mix overlay. The work also
includes removal of alligatored pavement areas and replacement with asphalt concrete, the milling of
street pavement in certain areas, signal loops, traffic control, adjustment of manholes and storm drain
cleanouts, adjustment of survey well monuments, removal of curbs, gutter and sidewalk and the
construction of pedestrian ramps, and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bid Alternate P and award the contract to Sim J.
Harris Company in the amount of $1,457,132.00, tlIld authorize staff to increase quantities to expend
all available funds for this project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funds for this overlay program were included in the FY 1993/94 CIP project budget (STL-206). The
project was included in the budget to avoid further deterioration of the pavement and base material
of selected streets in the City.
The project was bid with four alternatives. Alternates A and C utilized conventional asphalt concrete
paving only. Alternates B and D utilized asphalt rubber hot mix overlay, asphalt rubber and aggregate
membrane (chip seal) with slurry seal and conventional asphalt concrete paving. Alternates A and B
were bid using minimum wages, while Alternates C and D used prevailing wages. Attached are
Exhibits 1 and 2, which list the work to be done for the conventional paving (Alternatives A and C)
and the paving utilizing rubber products (Alternatives B and D).
~ e(!AG~ H/1'(O:3 t99f
riP!!.. ~l> /) ( nON ~ L..!
~_ \ /NFoR.Pll9no,.J,0R.I:.:#'V
~ \\
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 3/94
It is staff's recommendation to implement Alternate D (using asphalt rubber products and paying ~
prevailing wages), We feel this alternate will give the City the most paving miles with the latest high
quality paving materials available. The City Attorney has recommended that prevailing wage rates
be paid with this project (see attached Exhibit 3 dated March 29, 1994).
This project is similar to past overlay programs in the City except that two new products are being
used for the overlay in addition to conventional asphalt concrete paving. Also this program includes
installation of pedestrian ramps ,in order to comply with new ADAlTitle 24 regulations. Past overlay
programs did not include pedestrian ramp installation. The new products utilize asphalt rubber hot
mix for the overlay and asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane for th,e chip seal over a portion of
the project. The asphalt rubber hot mix overlay is not entirely new to the City. This product was
used successfully on the East H Street reconstruction project from I-80S to Del Rey Boulevard in May
1993. The asphalt rubber hot mix overlay on this stretch of East H Street has performed excellently
since installation and still provides a smooth and quiet driving surface.
The asphalt rubber aggregate membrane chip seal has not been used before in the City and is being
recommended as a trial installation of this new technology. This chip seal differs from conventional
chip seal used in the past in that it includes the use of ground rubber from used tires in the mix design
(as does asphalt rubber hot mix overlay) and uses chips that are precoated with hot asphalt concrete.
A conventional Type II slurry seal will be placed on top of all streets paved with asphalt rubber chip
seal in order to provide a smoother, aesthetically pleasing surface by filling voids between chips.
These streets are numbered 1 thru 25, inclusive on Exhibit 2. Please note that items 3, 13, and 28
appear blank on exhibits 1 and 2. The reason for this is that these streets were deleted from the """'"
contract at the request of the local utility companies, These streets were:
3) Alpine Ave. (Kearny St. to 1St.)
13) Penelope Dr. (East I St. to Carla Ave.)
28) Otay Lakes Rd. (Canyon Dr. to Apache Dr.)
.
These streets will be overlayed after the utilities have completed their facility installation work.
Since asphalt rubber chip seal is a new product to City staff, we did extensive research and made trips
to review projects in which the new material has been used. The City of Santee and City of Poway
have used this product and are quite pleased with the results. The advantages to the use of asphalt
rubber chip seal are its ability to minimi7.e reflective cracking through to the surface, and it is basically
impervious to water penetration which quite often is the leading cause of pavement failure. It should
be noted that the research 'literature indicates that, due to the addition of the rubber, this product has
significantly more structural value than the ordinary chip seals used in Chula Vista in the past.
Therefore, in order to adequately test this relatively new product, several streets which were
deteriorated beyond the ability of ordinary chip seals to help and requiring an overlay were selected.
In the event that the product does not perform over the long range as expected, the streets selected are
not major streets with high volumes of traffic in order to minimize any negative aspects. Also, the
amount of this work was limited to no more than $237,000. Staff will carefully evaluate the
performance of the rubber asphalt products in order to determine if these products should be used on
future overlay projects. Evaluation shall include video taping selected streets before and after """"
placement of the overlay and visual reconnaissance every 6 months. The Council will be kept
informed on the performance of the streets paved with the asphalt rubber hot mix overlay and asphalt
~-.2. -
-v
I \ ~2-
.
.
.
Page 3, Item ~ I \
Meeting Dat~
lUbber chip seal. If, as expected, this turns out to be a good product, it will lower the cost of our
street maintenance program in the future.
Bids for construction of this project were received from four contractors as follows:
Altemate A Altemate B Altemate C Altemate D
c....-. A.c.
pavioa llIIIy
Niaiammwap
CGIl\ ~; .1 A.C.
pavioa llIIIy
l'lwIiliDa-...
AIpUIl- ....
... owday,
AopbaIl- cIIip
..... ~ ." ....1
A.c.
l'lwIiliDa-...
AIpUIl- ....
... owday, AopbaIl
_cllipoaola:
GClIr1. ..% -_I A.c.
WiDiamm...
Contractor
1. Superior Ready Mix L.P.. San Diego
2. Sim J. HaIris Company. San Diego
3. Daley Colporation, San Diego
4. Granite Construction Co., San Diego
:c,:.,.',.__',',..............'...:............'....,:_"..
..... $... .....I.~~;9i9:90.)
;. ',-.;;, ..",', ~,':,...,... "";',".: ":'. .';....: ."
SI.675.760.oo
No Bid
No Bid
.!~~~~?\Wl
SI,438,854.oo
No Bid
No Bid
SI.474,277.25
..u...... ....... .
.....".....",.........,.,
....,."".. . ........
..........-.-..................'.'....
· .~I;.S.,~~.~~!!!l.
SI,461.69O.oo
SI.713,913.oo
~I;~~~~li!i<i)
SI,694.829.oo
SI,682,547.oo
S2,013,214.OO
After reviewing the bids for Alternates B and D, Engineering Division staff discussed the use of
minimum wage versus prevailing wage with the City Attorney. The source of funds for this project
is Gas Tax, and while the City Attorney felt that our status as a Charter City would allow the use of
minimum wage provisions, we have never done so in the past with this revenue source. It was his
opinion that while we would be successful in a potential lawsuit, the difference of less than $21,000
in a $1.4 million contract was insignificant to the potential cost of defending a lawsuit. Therefore,
the City Attorney recommended using prevailing wage provisions.
The low bid for Alternate D by Sim J. Harris Company is below the engineer's estimate of
$1,506,086.00 by $48,954.00 or 3.3%. Staff received an excellent bid for the proposed work. The
engineer's estimate was based on prices from the East H Street asphalt lUbber project last year and
from prices recently received by the City of Santee for the asphalt lUbber chip seal. Bids for these
two projects came in below or at the expected prices.
The specifications required that the low bidder have experience in the placement of both conventional
asphalt concrete and asphalt lUbber concrete overlays. Sim J. Harris Company has had extensive
experience in the placement of conventional and lUbber AC overlays and has satisfactorily performed
both types of overlays for the City. We, therefore, expect the contractor to place the overlays for this
project without any difficulty.
Since the asphalt lUbber chip seal is a new product being used by the City, the supplier of the lUbber
binder used in the chip seal will supervise both the mixing of the asphalt lUbber binder at the batch
plant and the placement of the asphalt lUbber chip seal at the project site. The supplier, International
Surfacing, Inc., has had extensive experience in the placement of asphalt lUbber chip seal. Having
them supervise the placement of the asphalt rubber chip seal will ensure an excellent quality job. The
asphalt lUbber chip seal unit price bid includes the cost of this supervision.
This project was budgeted as an overlay project based on a fIXed amount of budgeted funds in the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). At the time the project was approved by the City Council,
~
1\-3
~\\
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date . 73/94
specific streets to be overlaid were not identified. A list of streets was prepared and staff bid the ~
project from this list. The streets included in the bid to be overlayed are shown in the attached
Exhibits 1 and 2, streets 1 through 41.
Because of this excellent bid, staff is requesting Council's authorization for the Director of Public
Works to execute a change order in the amount not to exceed $198,187 with Sirn J. Harris Company
such that we may utilize all the funds currently budgeted in this year's CIP for pavement overlay.
Additional streets needed to be overlaid are included in Table I of the exhibit listed in priority
beginning with street number 42. We plan to utilize available funds to place Ilh conventional asphalt
concrete overlay on pavement fabric on these additional streets.
Attached is a copy of the contractors disclosure statement.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and
determined that the project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 2 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (reconstruction of existing structure and facility).
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The source of funding for this project was Gas Tax and TransNet funds. Prevailing wage scales as
those determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, State of California were determined to be '""
applicable to the work to be done. No special minority or women owned business requirements were
necessary or part of the bid documents.
Funds Required for Construction
A.
B.
C.
D.
Contract amount (Alternate D)
Staff (design and inspection)
Laboratory testing
Contingencies
$1,457,132.00
47,000.00
30,000.00
243.253.35
$1,777,385.35
Funds Available for Construction
A. Pavement Overlay, Citywide Funds (STL-206)
Total Funds for Construction
$1. 777.385.35
$1,777,385.35
FISCAL IMPACT: After construction, only routine City maintenance accounting mainly to street
sweeping will be required.
SElFlIo No. AX-I29
WPC M:\L '." f....\owday.ccm.
Attachments: Exhibit 1 (Alternates A & C - list)
Exhibit 2 (Alternates B & D - list)
Exhibit 3 - City Attorney memo
"""'\
~
1\ - Y
.
RESOLUTION NO. 171/ /, lj
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR "PLACEMENT OF VARIOUS TYPES OF
STREET SURFACING (ASPHALT CONCRETE, ASPHALT
RUBBER HOT MIX, ASPHALT RUBBER AND AGGREGATE
MEMBRANE WITH SLURRY SEAL) FOR THE 1993-94
OVERLAY PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK
RAMPS ON VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CA. (STL-206)"i AND AUTHORIZING STAFF
TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE
FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT
.
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on March 23, 1994 in Conference
Room 3 in the public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received bids for "Placement of various types of street
surfacing (asphalt concrete, asphalt rubber hot mix, asphalt rubber
and aggregate membrane with slurry seal) for the 1993-94 Overlay
Program and construction of sidewalk ramps on various streets in
the City of Chula vista, CA (STL-206)."; and,
WHEREAS, the project was bid with four alternatives:
Alternates A and C utilized conventional asphalt concrete paving
onlYi Alternates Band 0 utilized asphalt rubber hot mix overlay,
asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane (chip seal) with slurry seal
and conventional asphalt concrete paving; Alternates A and B were
bid using minimum wages, while Alternates C and 0 used prevailing
wages; and
WHEREAS, bids for construction ' of this project were
received from four contractors as follows:
Alt:.mat:. Alt:.mat:. B Al~.rDat.. Alt:.mat:.
A 1; I!
Converrtional Alphait rubber COnventional Alphalt rubber
A.C. ~ov1ng hot o1x A.C. ~ov1ng hot .1x
only overlay onir overlay
IIlnilu. wage Alphal t ru~ber prev.! ing Alphalt ru~b.r
chip e.al . wago chip aea1 .
conventional conventional
A.C. A.C.
Cont:ract:or IIlnbUII .age PreyaUing
.0 .
1. $1,474,277
Superior Ready Xix L.P., .25
San Diego
2.
S1m J. Barris company,
San Diego
3. No Bid No Bid $1,682,54 $1,461,690
Daley Corporation, San 7.00 .00
Di.go
. 4. No Bid No Bid $2,013,21 $1,713,913
Granite Construction Co., 4.00 .00
San Diego
2::'-
-0-..;)
l \-$
WHEREAS, after reviewing the bids for Alternates Band 0, ~
Engineering Division staff discussed the use of minimum wage versus
prevailing wage with the City Attorney and since the source of
funds for this project is Gas Tax, the City Attorney felt that our
status as a Charter city would allow the use of minimum wage
provisions, we have never done so in the past with this revenue
source and it was his.opinion that while we would be successful in
a potential lawsuit, the difference of less than $21,000 in a $1.4
million contract was insignificant to the potential cost of
defending a lawsuit, therefore, the City Attorney recommended using
prevailing wage provisions; and
WHEREAS, it is staff's recommendation to implement
Alternate 0 (using asphalt rubber products and paying prevailing
wages) as this alternate will give the city the most paving miles
with the latest high quality paving materials available; and,
WHEREAS, the low bid for Alternate 0 by Sim J. Harris
Company in the amount of $1,457,132.00 is below the engineer's
estimate of $1,506,086 by $48,954.00 or 3.3% and staff recommends
awarding the contract to Sim J. Harris; and
WHEREAS, because of this excellent bid, staff is
requesting Council's authorization for the Director of Public Works
to execute a change order in the amount not to exceed $198,187 with
sim J. Harris Company such that staff may utilize all the fund """""
currently budgeted in this year's CIP for pavement overlay; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and determined that the
project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 2 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (reconstruction of existing structure and
facility).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the four bids for
"Placement of various types of $treet surfacing (asphalt concrete,
asphalt rubber hot mix, asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane with
slurry seal) for the 1993-94 Overlay Program and construction of
sidewalk ramps on various streets in the City of Chula Vista, Ca.
(STL-206)" and awards the contract for Alternate 0 to 8im J. Harris
Company in the amount of $1,457, 132.00.
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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works
is hereby authorized to execute a change order in an amount not to
exceed $198,187 to expend all available funds for this project.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~
John P. Lippitt, Director of ~_~
Public Works ~
I \- <..0
PENDING REVIEW BY CITY ATTORNEY
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
.'
~C1
Iii
K~il~
i!~ii
. mi;l~
I- E=..~~-
CQ l!i!i!cl!il!
:t '~iI5i
)( ~z- III
I.U ~I~l!i~.
ii"IZI
~a!U
i~i8
!n
.
~
\ \-1
l~ 1Fr~ il\
It'
ffi iJI
Dr
I ~~
C\l
;;;;rr-- L&.
~I 0
....
~il
~#
I.U
~
'llC
Q.
mfF
...;Q. M' Jl 1'1 "
, II -p;if i'"F"1
. .., . "
1'1 ~1iI i~I" ;l; ,Il., ."
M " · '[IF or """ .~l ~pm im" II
~ ~ ~
F
J:lFlI
-
JLlm
i
~
~
II 1\ l~
~ t "1rm .I.......""~~~~.., ;Si~ j~~
i\' ~I\! ~. ;~... .' Kaai
:..~~!M~~_~~. w~ I~~ .\
~\ I . . . I i~ill.1
JL ~ ~ [... ~
1\ . ~!~b~.'. . . . ~ .~
~;!~~~i~~\ ~ .1IIEj;1 .
~
iil !"! L II IT T I I I II I I
:iL Tr" n'r" "'Trrrt" 'T iT I
Fro
~-
tJt:~IilIi~PI
~I ~~\
""
Iii
i
Ii'
"Q
:.
Ci)
hi
I\)
o
."
I\)
~
~
I \-~
........
Ii
In."
:D~
~i
.I~I!
a~~~O
!!jCC-4'"
.a!!~
~zKl!~
zo~:D.
",,,,_z~
~~I~;~
i~ei?C~
-ei~ij ~
:siXl-4.
..oO~C:
;:z<C:~
~i!l.
~-c~i
j~1
ii-4
i~
~
.
~!
~II
III
~ ! i~ 1'(1
. i!~ii ~L.
ii!f
~ I~!t
iQ l!ii!Il!i!
.~ !i~..5i
~ Iii;:
~i Ii
.
l\-q~
~~ r~'
-~~ ~
It
~. ro 'i"'PP~1
--1
C\I
i&..
o
...
~i!ll
~
ill
(!J
~
Q.
il 3!~
.ifW.. .::.~
rm 111 .c~
ffll,.. I -b\;" " 10
~~.I ~
15 ~ f'1ii~~ '~;,;i'!~1 'r'.'.'........ ~ 11
"'~,.. ,~~I rr l"t: ~~...........
T li> 'I
S 'r[[11 "
B ~I ~. 11
. i~1 11
a=1 ., II
.. F.I ~I ~~~~~~FFll
I. "1"
'>';1 .,. 1"i~1 II.
~I i~i~II\.i~~
~
r
!D ii
~~ i~ !~\mmml1l
111ti ~I
~r 1..1
o
'*
\Ilf' ~~
>.;
I
':;I~' ~'I
, , .
~
Iii !Ik, j
!if III
..;'
.. ~
ii'~1 1..;1
iil~
....10.' .L
'..-r r
IT ITIIT' I,,:
-r-r'r-r"I'r. I. T('r~r"'l .L.L li~1
TIT. I I I!l
~
G)
I'll
I\)
o
....
I\)
Y'"J~
- ,
1\-\0
-..,
II~
;n
8!~i
..I~~!i
m!E~:;
"a!l~
EZli!",g
i~f:;
!i~ii~!
i~~~.?C~
-Qso~ti
Ei:;:~!!i -..,
< iI I "'4..
!jo~!i
1>:!!;
~I<;I
il~i
i8~
11"'4
~
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 3
~ :: ""~ ';::...-
\. . ': ~ -:':~ii.' '-:.. ...,:; ~ :.
March 29, 1994
:-~ ~~.~ =-;.( t..:". :,:!~~1
1334 APR 12 PM 3: 44
'1'0:
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works
Shale Hanson, Associate Civil En~~r
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney ~'"
Asphalt Concrete Payment overlay at Various Locations
in the City
From:
Re:
You advised me that we can avoid the risk of litigating the
appropriateness of minimum wage over prevailing wage by agreeing to
accept a bid alternate for approximately $20,000 more that will
involve the payment of prevailing wage. In light of the social
value related to the payment of prevailing wage, the minimal extra
expense, the elimination of the risk of litigation and the risk of
an adverse judgment, it is my opinion that we should accept the
Alternate 0 bid and require the contractor to pay prevailing wage
to his employees, even if the law does not specifically require
same (an issue which we do not have to resolve at this point in
time) .
BMB: Igk
C:Iltl...rlay.wag
~
) I-I \
,
Noel Neudeck, Change Agent
6224 Snowbond Street
SAN DIEGO, CA 92120-3735
582-0576
Mayor Tim Nader
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910-2631
Dear Mayor Reber:
Qt.', %~
>L9~& 4\~~
~' ~~~'=
Ma~994~ ~~;Qc~"
~~ ::u
00 ::II:
r-"Tl ::lIIii ITl
me") '"< (")
~:c I ITl
v;p. 'D -
oJ> <
"< ." m
::!:!<;;; - 0
O-l ,b;.
m. W
On the evening of Tuesday, May 3, 1994 the city ofChula Vista's full city cffilncil held its
regularly scheduled and published meeting.
On the agenda, under consent items was item number 8.
Item number eight was to award a contract to resurface some city of Chula Vista's public
streets.
Under the Federally mandated, "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990" are found different
wheelchair accessible specifications and guidelines.
Be aware that when a public street is resurfaced this is called altering a public facility.
When the street surface is altered the path of travel for a person in a wheelchair when
wheeling from one street public sidewalk comer, wheeling across the newly resurfaced street
pavement to the opposite street public sidewalk comer becomes a federal mandate.
What this means is that when any street sidewalk comer which is within the resurfaced
project will have to include within the bid package cement saw cut out comers and a typically
designed pedestrian ramp will have to be pored in at all 4 comers.
On Wednesday, May 4, 1994 I video taped parts from your TV public service broadcast of
your 5/3/94 public meeting.
I taped the start of your meeting where item number 8 was pulled from your consent agenda
and I taped your several hours later short public discussion after your council returned from
closed door discussion on item number 8. Your council voted to continue item number 8 until
Tuesday, May 10, 1994.
I request the following from your full council.
1. Amend your present bid package to include, AU 4 street corners within the
immediate altered street surface project shall have retrofitted (1) pedestrian
ramp per corner, making a total of (4) pedestrian ramps per intersection.
j)/J]
If you need clarification from me, please continue this item for I more week:, ask your city of
Chula Vista attorney to call me on the morning of May II, 1994 to please come down in my
power wheelchair to testify publicly, not behind closed doors, to any questions any elected
official or staff my have for me.
My request for pedestrian ramps within the street resurfacing project comes after a judge
ordered the city of Philadelphia to retrofit sidewalk comers which did not have existing
pedestrian ramps, only within the street, path of travel construction project.
I can mail your city clerk a complete photocopy of the judges ruling for copying copies to be
forward to all council members and staff if you so request me to do so by mail.
I look forward to a cooperative working relationship to implement this new civil rights
mandate into the city of Chula Vista's policy of routine wordage for all future street
resurfacing bid packages.
The city and county of San Francisco is already doing so.
I request that you enter this letter into the record on May 10, 1994 during item number 8
discussion.
Si3$~' /Jd
7~~
Noel Neudeck, Change Agent
(for persons in wheelchairs)
cc: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk, City of Chula Vista
Ellen Harland, Civil Rights Division, Public Access Section, U.S Department of
Justice
cvstapr
////1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item / ~
Meeting Date 5/10/94
Resolution /7 ~~ ~ Accepting bids and awarding contract to
Southwest Signal Service for the traffic signal installation at Gotham
Street and Otay Lakes Road in the City of Chula Vista and appropriating
funds. . .J /
Director of Public wor~ lrfV
City Managerj~ ~ @ (4/5ths Vote: YesXNo_)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 20, 1994, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids from four (4) electrical
contractors for the installation of traffic signals at Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road.
The low bid of $79,361 was received from Southwest Signal Service. The low bid is below
the Engineer's estimate of $86,970. Staff' has reviewed the low bid and recommends awarding
said contract to Southwest Signal Service in the amount of $79,361.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appropriate $18,800 from the unappropriated
Traffic Signal Fund balance, accept the bids and award the contract to Southwest Signal
Service in the amount of $79,361.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The traffic signal installation at Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road was approved and funded
in the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Project (ClP). The work to be done includes the
installation of traffic signal standards, loop detectors, controllers, Emergency Vehicle Pre-
emption (EVPE) System and other signal equipment necessary to affect an 8-phase signalized
intersection. Also incorporated in this project is the construction of two (2) new bus shelters
requested and funded by the Chula Vista Transit.
On April 20, 1994, the Director of Public Works received bids from four (4) qualified electrical
contractors as follows:
I.
2.
3.
4.
Southwest Signal Service
Lekos Electric, Inc.
MCR Electrical Contractors, Inc.
Select Electric
$79,361
83,620
88,971
98,590
I~ -j
Page 2, Item ))..
Meeting Date 5/10/94
Chula Vista Transit is proposing to fund the installation of two new shelters, benches and trash
disposal containers to be installed on the east side of Otay Lakes Road south of Gotham Street
as part of the Traffic Signal Construction for a cost of $6,291. Funds are available in Chula
Vista Transit fund.
The low bid of $79,361 submitted by Southwest Signal Service is below the Engineer's
estimate of $89,970. The total construction cost is $100,091, which includes $7,930 for
contingencies plus $12,800 for the separate purchase of the signal controller and cabinet and
independent equipment testing services. In addition, there is an additional $25,000 in staff
costs for design, inspection, and contract administration bringing the total project cost to
$125,091. Since $100,000 was budgeted for this project in the FY 93/94 CIP budget and
$6,291 is being made available from transit funds for this project an additional $18,800 needs
to be appropriated from the Traffic Signal Fund.
Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the low bid, Southwest Signal Service for a
cost of $79,361.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project
and determined that the project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 3 (new construction or
conversion of small structures or the location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or
structures) .
FISCAL IMP ACT: The annual maintenance and energy costs for a traffic signal is estimated
to be $2,000. The source of capital funding for this project is Traffic Signal and Transit Funds.
No prevailing wage requirements were necessary or a part of the bid documents.
Funds Reauired for Proiect
A.
B.
C.
D.
Contract Amount
Contingencies (approx. 10%)
Controller Purchase and Testing
Design, Inspection, and Administration
TOTAL
Funds Available for Construction
A.
B.
C.
Fund 600 - TF154
CV Transit - Fund 402
Additional appropriation from Fund 600
TOTAL
ZOIFUe No.: BR-OS7
WPC M\hom.e\enginecr\agenda\1874.94
J~ - 2.
$79,361
$ 7,930
$12,800
$25.000
$125,091
$100,000
$ 6,291
$ 18.800
$125,091
RESOLUTION NO.
17iY~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT TO SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE FOR THE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT GOTHAM STREET
AND OTAY LAKES ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on April 20, 1994, in Conference
Room 1 in the Public services Building, the Director of Public
Works received the following sealed bids for the installation of
traffic signals at Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road.
1. Southwest Signal Service
2. Lekos Electric, Inc.
3. MCR Electrical Contractors, Inc.
4. Select Electric
$79,361
83,620
88,971
98,590
WHEREAS, the low bid by Southwest Signal Service bid is
below the Engineer's estimate of $86,970 and staff recommends
awarding contract to Southwest signal Service; and
WHEREAS, in order to award the contract to the apparent
low bidder, it is necessary that Council appropriate $18,800 from
the unappropriated Traffic Signal Fund balance; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and determined that the
project is exempt under section 15302, Class 3 (new construction or
conversion of small structures or the location of limited numbers
of new, small facilities or structures).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept said four bids and
awards the contract for the traffic signal installation at Gotham
Street and otay Lakes Road to Southwest Signal Service in the
amount of $79,361.00.
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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby
appropriate $18,800 from the unappropriated balance of th
signal Fund to Account 600-6005 TF154.
Presented by
App 0 ad a"~ f
Bruce M. Boogaar
city Attorney
bY~
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
C:\Res\Signal.Bid
12.-,3
mE crrv OF CBULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
YOIIIR IelpIind 10 &Ie a eo , ....... of Diac1cJaIIft of calaiD Ottlleuldp or fi-.....al iDIaals. paymeDlS. or --...11"
COlllIibulioas. OIl all _ wbich wiI1 requiJe diIcIelioDary aclioII on die put of die City CoaDcil. I'IaIIaiIIa C""""l.aon, aDd
all odler ofIkial bodieI. 'J1Ie fo1IowiDa iDfnnnotinn must be ofi--!noed'
1. 1JIt die __ of all pcnoas baviD& a fi_......1 bIIeIest in die property wbich ia die IlIbject of die ww,;gn or die
CllIIIII8Ct. c.... _. appIw.... ONUb.....r. 1IIbc_. maIeriallllpplicr.
~~
If uy ..... idcnrilW punuaDllO (I) above ia a COIpOIaIioD or panaenbip. Iiat die __ of all iadividuals 0WIIiD&
__ ...... 10" of die Ibucs in die COIpueDm or 0WIIiD& allY panaenbip bIIeIest in die ...-oIIllp.
If allY pason. idcaIificd pursuaDllO (1) above ia IIDII-pIOfit orpnl..,;nu or alnlSl. Iiat die -- of any pmoIl aerviDa
u diIcc;tor of die DOD-pfOfit orpDization or U tnISlCC or beacficlary or InISlor of die 1nISl.
Have you bad more than S2S0 worth of busiaess transacIeCI witb any _be~ tbc City staff. Boards. Commissions.
CommillCCS. and Council within the put twclve months? Ycs_ No..01 yes. pIeuc illllil:ate penon(s):
P1asc ideDtify each aDd every penoD. iDcludina any qcnIs. =ployccs. COD&UItaDIS. or i~ ~ CODIIlIl:lOrs who you
!lave -JJ""IIO IcprucnI you before die City in tbia maner.
---l~
. ~
I
>
Have JOII andIor your ofIil:ers or 8JC111S. in die llIP~COIIIributed _ ...... SI.000 10 a C~...,.i1 member in tbc
CIIIftlIC or Jftl*IiDI dcclion period? Vcs_ No f yes. - wbich Councilmemba(s):
.
.
"
· · · (NOTE: Aa.da y....... .... ·
(~4l
Si.......... of ......._/applicant
V/iiiUJlJ11- 8. a-cr
PriIIl or type _ of CODIIlIl:tor/applicant
II
I:
~:
+- ~- 9r
.....,., ............ ..........--....,..."....,......... .........-................................ ...--.....~...... .....",.,.
....................... .,.
C:ICGlI1MC1\1MOT-.OZ7
1.2. If
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / 3
Meeting Date 5/10/94
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution J 7J/f1':} Making appointments, approving the
acquisition/financing agreement, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the
acquisition/financing agreement for Assessment District No. 94-1 (Eastlake Greens
II)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~ Nf/'
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO
EastLake Development Company has informally petitioned the City to use assessment district financing for
improvements to be located in Eastlake Greens II. This resolution makes the formal appointment of the
Director of Public Works as Superintendent of Streets, makes other administrative appointments, and
approves the acquisition/financing agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution making appointments, approving the acquisition/financing
agreement, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the acquisition/fmancing agreement for Assessment District
No. 94-1 (Eastlake Greens II)
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On April 12, 1994, per resolution 17458, Council initiated the proceedings for Assessment District No. 94-1
(AD94-l) whose boundaries include the parcels located in the south part of the Eastlake Greens development
and the areas presently within the County located between Eastlake Greens and Orange Avenue and an area
west of Eastlake development (see Attachment A). Approval of this resolution continues the assessment
process by approving the acquisition/fmancing agreement and making appointments.
Acauisition Al!reement
The public improvements proposed to be financed through this acquisition proceeding include:
1. South Greensview Drive from Clubhouse Drive to Hunte Parkway
Grading, base, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, landscaping, and underground facilities
for water, reclaimed water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, telephone and gas.
2. Hunte Parkway from Clubhouse Drive to Orange Avenue
Grading, base, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, median, street lighting, landscaping, monuments, and
storm drain improvements.
3. Orange Avenue from Hunte Parkway to the SDG&E Easement
Grading and storm drain improvements.
13./
Page 2, ItemB
Meeting Date 5/10/94
The estimated total amount to be assessed to the land in the district is $8,000,000, $5,397,354 for grading
and improvements, and $2,602,646 for non-construction costs such as design, plan check, assessment district
formation (City and consultants), bond reserve fund and discount allowances. Hunte Parkway and Orange
Avenue are both components of the Transportation DIF program. It is proposed that the DIF amount,
$3,998/EDU effective January, 1995, be utilized as the method of spreading these streets' costs. This is
proposed because the DIF program assumes that the land would pay at the $3998/EDU rate and it's not
anticipated that the land will develop prior to the effective fee date in 1995. The DIF eligible costs are
estimated to be $1,773,278.
The acquisition agreement sets out terms and conditions for acquiring the public improvements. Of special
note is Eastlake Development Company's (EDC) intent to construct the improvements in three phases to
track with the development phasing. The agreement requires EDC to provide right of way and security for
grading and improvements at certain assessment district and development stages to protect the City in the
event that EDC is unable to financially complete all the improvements. There will be one bond sale with
proceeds to be maintained by City until the improvements have been constructed and accepted. In order to
assure that the City has enough money to complete the project, bonds will also be required at various stages
of the project. The agreement has been prepared by bond counsel and reviewed by the City Attorney.
Anoointments
The resolution appoints the Director of Public Works as Streets Superintendent, Kadie-Jensen, Johnson &
Bodnar as Financial Advisor, and Brown, Diven & Hentschke as Bond Counsel for AD 94-1. The
agreements for consulting services were approved by Resolution 15624. Resolution 15624 also approved
the assessment engineer and project manager however, subsequent to the approval staff has gained the
experience to preform those functions in-house. The financial consultant and bond counsel were retained
for their expertise and focused experience in assessment district proceedings. This combination of in-house
and outside experience will provide the City with a quality product and assure the bond holders that the bond
issue is sound.
Future Actions
The County is processing the City's request for consent and jurisdiction after which the City may approve
the Resolution of Intention and set the public hearing dates. After the public hearings, Council may approve
formation of the district and confirm the assessments. Staff anticipates the hearings to be held in July of this
year to meet EDC's schedule for marketing some of the homes, within the proposed assessment district, in
July. Staff also anticipates that bonds will be sold in July in time to make the August deadline for getting
the assessments on the tax roll.
FISCAL IMPACT: The developer has advanced funds for all City and consultant expenses related to the
proposed assessment district pursuant to the reimbursement agreement. In conformance with Council policy
on developer requested assessment districts, EDC will deposit the origination charge of approximately
$120,000 prior to the first public hearing. The actual amount will be based on the Final Engineer's Report.
DDS:AY..()92
Attachments: A - Boundaty Map
B _ Acquisition/Financingagreemcnt
WPC M:\home\engineer\agenda\1876.94
I:J-,J.
RESOLUTION NO.
I 7'11"3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA MAKING APPOINTMENTS AND APPROVING
THE FORM OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION/FINANCING
AGREEMENT, AUTHORITY THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
ACQUISITION/AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula vista is
considering the formation of a special assessment district,
pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement
Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California, for the installation of certain public
works of improvement, together with appurtenances and appurtenant
work, said special assessment district to be known and designated
as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and
WHEREAS, at this time, this legislative body is desirous
of making the required appointments and designating persons to
perform certain duties, in order to allow the proceedings to go
forward to completion in accordance with the provisions of law; and
WHEREAS, at this time, there has been submitted to this
City Council for review and approval, an Acquisition/Financing
Agreement setting forth certain terms and conditions, as well as
estimated prices and quantities of work to be installed and
financed pursuant to the above-referenced Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
2. That the Director of Public Works is hereby appointed
to perform all of the duties and functions of the Superintendent of
Streets as said duties are specified and designated in the
"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the
above-referenced Assessment District.
3. That the place for recordation of the assessment roll
and diagram shall be in the Office of the Superintendent of
Streets, and said assessment roll and diagram, upon recordation,
shall be kept as a permanent record.
4 . That the Star news is hereby designated as the
newspaper for all publications as required by law and as necessary
for completion of this Assessment District.
5. That the Public Works Director is hereby appointed
the Assessment Engineer for said proceedings, and said Assessment
1
/3-)
Engineer shall perform all of the duties and responsibilities as
set forth by law as they relate to said Assessment District.
6. That BROWN, DIVEN & HENTSCHKE, Attorneys at Law, is
hereby appointed to act as Bond Counsel for the purposes of
preparing proceedings and issuing an approving opinion attesting to
the validity of the proceedings and the enforceability of the
bonds.
7 . That KADIE-JENSEN, JOHNSON & BODNAR is hereby
appointed as Financial Consultant, who shall obtain a proposal or
bid for the sale of bonds to be issued in order to finance said
proceedings, and said bonds are to be issued pursuant to the terms
and provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being
Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California.
8. That the Acquisition/Financing Agreement, known as
Document No. , a copy of which is file in the Office of
the City Clerk, is hereby approved substantially in the form
submitted; and the Mayor is authorized to execute such Agreement
for and on behalf of the City. The Mayor, subject to the review of
the city Attorney and Bond Counsel, is authorized to approve
changes in the Acquisition/Financing Agreement deemed to be in the
best interests of the City and the Assessment District, approval of
such changes to be evidenced by the execution of such Agreement.
A copy of the final form of such Agreement shall be kept on file in
the Office of the city Clerk and remain available for public
inspection.
9. That this legislative body hereby establishes a
special improvement fund designated by the name and number of the
Assessment District, and into said fund shall be placed all
proceeds from the sale of bonds and cash collections. In order to
expedite the improvements or acquisition under these proceedings
and as authorized by law, funds from any available source may be
transferred into said special fund. Any funds transferred are a
loan to the fund and shall be repaid out of the proceeds of the
sale of bonds, including authorized incidental expenses, as well as
costs for the installation of the authorized public improvements,
all as required and authorized by law, and specifically Section
10210 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of alifornia.
Presented by
orm by
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
i Bruce M. t.
City Attorney,
d
(Res\Eastlake.Grn)
2
13-J/
..
. .
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT
BOUNDARIES
DISTRICT 94-1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EASTLAKE GREENS, II
~
_ III SCALl
_DO-II
LEGEND
-
CD
....-
--
--
--
_A_or__
~ ....
-
I IIEIEI"f cnnF'Y 1MAT 1ME ..,.. MAP IMDWIiIO flOl an~ ........
or ntE ADUIIIDlT ~,c:r..r _ 1IIITA, - or - -.
srAn OF CALJf'DMIIA. WAS ., 1Ml crrr COUNCIl. 011 tHE em OF
CIIUAL WllTA AT A IEGUAUlllfttT_ THIIIEOf'. HELA ON tHE - ...., .
or . ,_ IY -.uTlClIl NO.
---
em CLIIICo em or -" 1IIITA
IILlD . THE omct .. TME CITY cu.c or TMr em OF CHULA VISTA
nil _ OAT or . ,....
IIIIIE:
,. __n- AND PMCt.EI AI ....... ....
_.._OIIntE-.....S..-..-
or__or__STA1I:or-
em CI.EIK. em or CIlIIUo _A
rILED ntlS _ ItA" OF' . ,... AT _ O'CLOCK -
_ __ _ _ =- or __ or ~_ DISTIIClI,
___-NT-.- ___or"'E
__0I1ME_or__STA1I:0I-
1;1"'>
COUICTT., r r- OF' IAN DIUD e:outn'f
"
ACQUISITION/FIRAHCING AGR......=u
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of , 1994, by and
between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a charter city duly organized and validly existing
under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter referred to
as "City"), and (hereafter referred to as
"Developer").
WHEREAS, the City is considering the formation of a special assessment district
under the terms and conditions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being
Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "1913
Act"), for the acquisition of certain public improvements, together with
appurtenances and appurtenant work within the jurisdictional limits of said City,
said special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.
94-1 (EASTLAKE GREENS II) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District");
and,
WHEREAS, Developer, in order to proceed in a timely way with its development,
desires to construct certain public works of improvement that are to be owned,
operated and maintained by the City (the "City Improveme'lits"), by the otay Water
District (the "otay Improvements" and "otay" respectively) and by various public
utilities (the "Utility Improvements" and "Utility Companies" respectively) and that
are proposed to be included with the works of improvement for the Assessment
District, namely, the improvements as set forth and described in the attached,
referenced and incorporated Exhibit "A" (collectively, the "Improvements"); and,
WHEREAS, the City and Developer are in agreement that the Improvements may be
acquired by the City through the Assessment District financing at prices determined
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer intends to construct. the Improvements in three phases as
shown on Exhibit "C" hereto and as described in Exhibit "B" hereto and Developer has
requested that the Improvements be acquired by the City in phases; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Agreement that Developer shall, upon a successful
confirmation of assessment and sale of bonds for the Assessment District, be paid
for the Improvements which are integral and a part of the Assessment District, at
the prices as determined by the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City has no objection to purchasing the Improvements from said
Developer, and Developer is desirous that the City purchase said Improvements, and
at this time any of said Improvements currently existing are owned by Developer.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED between the respective parties as follows:
SECTION 1.
Recitals. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2.
Plans and Specifications. All plans, specifications and bid documents
for the Improvements shall be prepared by the Developer at the
Developer's initial expense, subject to City, Otay or the Utility
companies approval, as the case may be (the "Plans and specifications").
The costs of acquisition of such Improvements shall include costs for
said plans, specifications, bid documents and all related documentation.
1 13"'~
SECTION 3.
SECTION 4.
Developer shall not award bids for construction, commence construction
or cause commencement of construction of any Improvements until the
Plans and Specifications have been approved by the City, Otay or the
Utility Companies, as the case may be.
Otay Agreement and Utility Agreements. Developer, Otay and the Utility
Companies have entered, or intend to enter, into agreements pertaining
to the design, bidding, bonding, construction, inspection and accep-
tance of the Otay Improvements (the "Otay Agreement") and the Utility
Improvements (collectively, the "Utility Agreements"). City and
Developer agree that to the extent that the Otay Agreement and the
Utility Agreements do not conflict with the requirements of the 1913
Act pertaining to the acquisition and financing of the Otay Improve-
ments and Utility Improvements, the Otay Agreement and the Utility
Agreements shall establish the terms and conditions governing the
preparation of Plans and Specifications, inspections and construction
of the Otay Improvements and Utility Improvements, but that this
Agreement shall control the Purchase Price to be paid for any such Otay
Improvements and Utility Improvements. A condition subsequent to this
Agreement but precedent to the payment of the Purchase Price for the
applicable Improvements shall be the execution by Otay, the Utility
Companies, Developer and City of agreements 'Pursuant to Streets and
Highways Code Section 10110 satisfactory to the parties thereto
related to the Otay Improvements and the Utility Improvements.
Construction of Improvements. Developer covenants and agrees that all
Improvements shall be constructed by, or under the direction of,
Developer and shall be constructed (a) in substantial compliance with
the approved Plans and Specifications (as defined herein) for such
Improvements (b) in a good and worlananlike manner by well-trained
adequately supervised workers, (c) in strict compliance with all
governmental and quasi-governmental rules, regulations, laws, building
codes and all requirements of Developer'S insurers and lenders, (d)
free of any design flaws and defects and (e) in compliance with the
requirements of Section 10010 of the California Streets and Highways
Code, which statute requires that any of the Improvements to be
acquired by the City which are completed after adoption of the
resolution of intention for the acquisition of such Improvements must
be constructed as if such Improvement had been constructed under the
direction and supervision, or under the authority, of city.
After approval of the Plans and Specifications for the Improvements
pursuant to Section 2, Developer shall solicit at least three (3) bids,
or, as to Improvements subject to (e) in the preceding paragraph, shall
publicly advertise for bids for such Improvements and shall provide
City with a list of all bids received for the contract. Subject to
City's prior written approval, such approval not to be unreasonably
withheld or delayed, Developer shall award the contract(s) for such
Improvements to the lowest responsible bidder. City, in its sole but
reasonable discretion stating the reasons therefore, may require
Developer to reject all bids and require the work for such Improvements
to be rebid.
2
/3- ?
SECTION S.
SECTION 6.
SECTION 7.
In order to include the cost of any change order as an eligible cost
for purposes of determining the Purchase Price for an Improvement
pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement, Developer shall obtain the
prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
Inspection and Acceptance of the Improvements. The construction activi-
ties relating to the Improvements shall be subject at all reasonable
times to inspection by authorized representatives of City or otay, as
appropriate. Once an entire Improvement to be acquired by City is
completed in accordance with the approved Plans and Specifications for
such Improvement (including any change orders reasonably approved by
City or otay, as appropriate), then such Improvement shall be eligible
for acceptance by the City for purposes of paying the Purchase Price
(as defined in Section 8 below) for such Improvement.
Prior to acceptance of any Improvement by City for purposes of paying
the Purchase Price, the Developer shall provide to City (i) as-built
drawings or other similar plans and specifications for such Improvement
in a form reasonable acceptable to City, otay or the Utility Companies,
as applicable, (ii) a certificate of Developer, supplemented by informa-
tion reasonably satisfactory to City, that anY' Improvements subject to
the provisions of (e) of the first paragraph of Section 4 to be
acquired have been constructed as if they had been constructed under
the direction and supervision, or under the authority of City, and
(iii) a certificate of Developer stating that no mechanic's liens or
other encumbrances have attached, or to the best knowledge of
Developer, after due inquiry, will attach to the Improvements to be
acquired.
Warranty of Improvements. The Developer shall be obligated for a
period of twelve (12) months after the date ~ity accepts an Improvement
to repair or replace any defects or failures resulting from the work of
Developer, its contractors or agents. Upon the expiration of such
twel ve (12) month period, "Developer shall assign to City, otay or
Utility Companies, as applicable, its rights in and to any warranties,
guarantees or other evidence of contingent obligations of third persons
wi th respect to such Improvement. At the time city accepts an
Improvement, Developer shall post a maintenance bond in a form
reasonably approved by the City, cause a maintenance bond to be posted,
or assign Developer's rights under such a bond naming City, otay or
Utility Companies, as applicable, as beneficiary in an amount equal to
ten percent (10\) of the construction costs of the Improvement in order
to secure Developer's obligations pursuant to this Section.
Notice of Completion and Lien Releases. Developer shall notify city in
writing upon completion of each of the Improvements to be acquired
hereunder. Developer shall prepare and execute a Notice of Completion
for such Improvement or portion thereof in the form prescribed by
Section 3093 of the California Civil Code and shall record such notice
in the Official Records of the County. Developer shall cause its
contractor (s) to provide unconditional lien releases for such Improve-
ments or portion thereof in accordance with Section 3262 of the Civil
Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City may waive the requirement
3 /:J~r
SECTION 8.
for a Notice of Completion and lien releases if City determines that as
of the date of payment of the Purchase Price for an Improvement, title
to such Improvement or portion thereof satisfies the requirements for
Acceptable Title (as hereinafter defined).
Payment of Purchase Price. The Developer may request in writing
payment of the Purchase Price (as hereinafter defined) for an Improve-
ment; provided that all Improvements within the phase of Improvements
as shown on Exhibit "C" in which such Improvement is included have been
completed and are ready for acceptance pursuant to Section 5. herein.
Upon satisfaction of the conditions to acceptance of an Improvement for
purposes of paying the Purchase Price as set forth herein, City shall
determine and pay the Purchase Price for such Improvement in accordance
with this Section 8.
(a) Amount of Purchase Price. The amount to be paid by City for the
Improvements or any portion thereof to be acquired from Developer
(the "Purchase Price") as to each such Improvement shall (i) be
deterinined by City in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 8, (ii) equal the lesser of the cost or the value thereof,
(iii) include the reasonable cost or value of eligible appurtenant
public facilities, (iv) include the costs of the title insurance
policy described in Section 10 (a), and (v) include all other
costs of construction reasonably determined by City to be eligible
under the 1913 Act as a part of the cost of the Improvements, such
as fees and costs incurred in obtaining permits and licenses, the
costs of change orders, and engineering and inspection fees, and
the costs of such other items as are specifically referred to on
Exhibit "A" hereto; provided, however, in no event shall the cost
or value of the Improvements be deemed to exceed the contract
prices set forth in the contracts and. change orders approved by
City. Prior to completion of all of the Improvements, City shall
only be required to pay the lesser of the Purchase Price for an
Improvement or the amount budgeted for such Improvement as
described in Exhibit "B". Upon completion of all of the Improve-
ments, any unpaid portion of the Purchase Price for each Improve-
ment shall be paid out of Surplus Proceeds in accordance with
subsection (d) below.
(b) Documentation. Any payment request submitted by Developer shall
be properly executed and shall include all supporting documents
referred to in the payment request and Section 5 above, including
evidence acceptable to the City Attorney of the City (the "City
Attorney") that the Developer' s contractor (s) have provided
unconditional lien releases for the Improvement or portion thereof
to be acquired. Improvements constructed on land to be conveyed
to otay or Utility Companies shall not be formally accepted until
the land has been so conveyed. If land is to be conveyed to Otay
or Utility companies, Developer shall provide the City Engineer
with evidence that the land has been accepted by otay or Utility
Companies, as applicable.
4
/:3'" CJ
(c) Review of Payment Request. The City Engineer shall review each
payment request. If the City Engineer finds that any such payment
request is incomplete, improper or otherwise not suitable for
approval, the City Engineer shall inform Developer in writing
within twenty (20) working days after receipt thereof, the reasons
for his finding. Developer shall have the right to respond to
this finding by submitting further documentation and/or to
resubmit the payment request within thirty (30) days after receipt
of the denial. A resubmittal shall be deemed a new payment
request for purposes of this Section. The City Engineer shall
review any resubmitted payment request and inform Developer of his
approval or denial of it in accordance with this Section within
ten (10) working days after receipt of the resublllission. Costs
incurred under a construction contract entered pursuant to the
requirements of this Agreement and pursuant to change orders
approved by City shall be deemed to be reasonable. The City
Engineer shall, after the sale of Sonds (defined hereafter)
pursuant to Section 18, the proceeds of which are intended to be
used to acquire the Improvements within the phase of Improvements
as shown on Exhibit "CO in which such Improvement subject to the
payment request is included, immediately" forward his recommenda-
tion regarding each payment request to the City Council. The City
Council shall take action on the payment request at the next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting for which such meeting
may be timely agendized following receipt of the recommendation.
(d) Surplus Proceeds. Upon completion of construction of all Improve-
ments, the payment of the Purchase Price for all Improvements up
to the amount budgeted for each such Improvement in Exhibit "S"
and the determination by the City that there are excess proceeds
of the bonds in the Improvement Fund. ("Surplus Proceeds"), the
City shall pay to Developer. that portion of the Surplus Proceeds
equal to the amount, if any, of the positive difference between
the amount budgeted for the Improvement as set forth in Exhibit
"S", and the Purchase Price paid pursuant to Section 8(a);
prov ided, however, that Developer can document cost overruns
related to the construction of the Improvements corresponding to
such amount to City's reasonable satisfaction.
(e) Payment. The Purchase Price for each Improvement shall be paid to
Developer within thirty (30) days after the date of the City
Council's approval of the payment request, but not earlier than
thirty-five (35) days after the recording of a Notice of
completion for the Improvement.
The Purchase Price shall be distributed pursuant to written
instructions substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
"D" executed prior to the formation of the Assessment District by
all persons having an interest in the property as of the date of
this Agreement. "Interested parties" shall consist of those
partie. ..t forth in Exhibit "E" attached hereto. No cash
distribution shall be made until all parties have executed the
appropriate written instructions.
5
/:1,,11/
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Purchase Price or any Surplus
Proceeds shall not be due and payable to the Developer except to
the extent of available funds in the Improvement Fund, which shall
be funded through the sale of Bonds as provided in Section 18
hereof, after all higher priority Bond expenses and reserve
account payments have been made. Beyond the amount of available
proceeds in such Improvement Fund, the City shall have no obliga-
tion to pay for the Improvements contemplated hereby.
SECTION 9. ~. The authorized representatives of City shall have the right,
upon two (2) days prior written notice to Developer and during normal
business hours, to review all books and records of Developer pertaining
to costs and expenses incurred by Developer in construction of the
Improvements.
SECTION 10. Ownership and Transfer of Improvements. The conveyance of the Improve-
ments by Developer to City shall be in accordance with the following
procedures:
(a) Improvements Constructed on Land not Owned by City, Otay or
Utility Companies. As a condition to thp payment of any portion
of the Purchase Price, Developer shall cause an irrevocable offer
of dedication to be made to City, otay or Utility companies or an
outright grant of a fee interest or easement interest as appropri-
ate, in the sole discretion of the City, otay or the Utility
Companies, as appropriate, of the appropriate right, title and
interest in and to the portion of such property related to such
Improvement, including any temporary construction or access
easements. Developer, whether or not it is the Developer
constructing the Improvements, agrees to execute and deliver to
the appropriate entity the documents required to complete the
transfer of Acceptable Title,to such portion of the Property. For
purposes of this Agreement, the term "ACceptable Title" shall mean
title to the portion of the property to be conveyed free and clear
of all taxes, liens, encumbrance., a.....m.nts, e.sement., leases,
whether any such item is recorded or unrecorded, except those non-
monetary encumbrances and easements which are reasonably deter-
mined by the appropriate entity not to interfere with the intended
use of the portion of the property. As a further condition to the
payment of the Purchase Price for any City Improvement, Developer
at its sole cost and expense, subject to reimbursement pursuant to
Section 8, shall cause to be issued a policy of title insurance
for such portion of the property in an amount not to exceed the
Purchase Price and in the form normally required by City in connec-
tion with the dedication of land for subdivision improvements and
title endorsements reasonably requested by City. City'S final
acceptance of the portion of the property and the City Improve-
ments constructed thereon shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed.
(b) Improvements Constructed on Land Owned by City, Otay or the
Utility companies. If Developer is authorized to construct an
Improvement on land owned in fee by City, otay or the Utility
companies, as appropriate, or on land over which such applicable
6 13-//
entity owns an easement, Developer shall obtain the nec.ssary
encroachment permits to enter such land for purposes of construct-
ing such Improvement. City shall cooperate with Developer in
issuing such encroachment permits. Improvements shall be
inspected by City on an ongoing basis.
SECTION 11. Grading and Subdivision Improvement Bonds. Prior to the sale of the
Bonds or any portion thereof, Developer shall be required to post bonds
or other security acceptable to the city to guarantee completion of the
following grading and appurtenant drainage structures for:
(a) south Greensview Drive in its entirety;
(b) Hunte Parkway, from South Greensview Drive to Orange Avenue;
Prior to approval of any final subdivision map encompassing all or any
portion of lots R-l, the south half of R-3, R-4, R-6, R-10, R-12, R-16,
R-18, R-2l, R-23 and/or R-27 of Tentative Map 88-3, Revision 4 (the
"Tentati ve Map"), the Developer shall be required to post bonds or
other security acceptable to the City to guarantee completion of the
grading of Orange Avenue from Hunte Parkway to,~he westerly boundary of
the San Diego Gas and Electric easement.
The bonds or security required above shall be in an amount equal to
150% of the grading costs of the alignment of the particular streets
for which the bond or security is being posted, or as approved by the
city Engineer, as well as the adjacent slopes at a 2: 1 slope and any
appurtenant drainage structures required for proper drainage of the
graded area. The bonds or security may provide for a reduction in the
amount thereof to 110% of the original amount thereof upon approval by
the City of the plans for such grading work and to 25% of the original
amount thereof upon substantial completion of such grading work as
determined by the City Engineer. '
Irrevo.cable offers to dedicate all necessary right-of-way, drainage
easements and the right to grade adjacent slopes for all of the grading
described in the preceding two (2) paragraphs shall be granted to the
City in a form satisfactory to the city as a precondition to the
payment by the City of the Purchase Price or any portion thereof' for
any Improvement.
Prior to approval of any final subdivision map encompassing all or any
portion of lots R-4, R-6, R-10, R-16, R-2l and/or R-23 of the Tentative
Map, Developer shall be required to post subdivision improvement bonds
or other security acceptable to the City to guarantee the completion of
South Greensview Drive from the entrance of Unit 6 to Silverado Drive.
If at any time the average daily traffic at any location on Silverado
Drive exceeds 1,200 average daily trips, Developer shall be required to
construct the Improvements to South Greensview Drive identified in
phase 3 on Exhibit "e" hereto unless Silver.do Drive is constructed as
a cul-de-&ac.
In addition to the guarantees required above, a subdivision improvement
or security bond may be required by City to assure the completion of
the Improvements, the construction of which are a condition precedent
7 /3-/,2.
to recordation of a final subdivision or parcel map unless (1) such
Improvements constitute a portion of the required subdivision improve-
ments, (2) Bond proceeds to construct or acquire such Improvements are
available prior to recordation of the final subdivision or parcel map,
and (3) the Improvements are to be constructed entirely with the
proceeds of the Bonds. Provided that conditions (1) and (2) are
satisfied, if an Improvement is to be constructed or acquired only in
part with the proceeds of the Bonds, subdivision improvement bonds or
security bonds shall not be required for that portion of the Improve-
ments to be so constructed or acquired except with respect to the
portion that will not be acquired or construction with Bond proceeds.
city will cooperate with Developer in the termination or exoneration of
any subdivision improvement bonds or security bonds assuring completion
of Improvements for which bonds have been sold.
SECTION 12. Indemnification by Developer. Developer shall defend, indemnify and
hold harmless City, its officers, directors, employees and agents, from
and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, including
court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees by reason of, or resulting
from, or arising out of the design, engineering and construction of the
Improvements; provided that any claims which relate to the Improvements
shall be limited to those arising out of personal injury or property
damage caused by actions or omissions by Developer or Developer's
employees, agents, independent contractors or representatives which
occurred during the period prior to the transfer of title to the
Improvements by City, whether or not a claim is filed prior to the date
of acceptance of the Improvements. Nothing in this Section 12 shall
limit in any manner City'S rights against any of the architects,
engineers, contractors or other consultants employed by the Developer
which has performed work in connection with construction or financing
of the Improvements.
Except as set forth in this Section 12, no provision of this Agreement
shall in any way limit the extent of the responsibility of Developer
for payment of damages resulting from the operations of the Developer,
its agents, employees or contractors.
SECTION 13. Obligation of City. Except as provided herein, the City has no legal
or financial obligation to construct or finance the construction of the
Improvements. All costs incurred for construction of the Improvements,
including all incidentalS thereto, shall be borned by Developer.
SECTION 14. Failure by Developer to Construct Improvements. At any time that the
construction of the Improvements is not progressing within a reasonable
time limit, in accordance with the standards of performance set forth
herein or the Developer fails to demonstrate a continuing ability to
complete the construction of the Improvements, as any such condition
may be reasonably determined by the City Engineer, this contract may be
terminated by the City by providing ten (10) days written notice to the
Developer. Upon termination, the City may in its sole discretion then
proceed to advertise and bid the balance of the Improvements, and there
will be no further obligation for payment due pursuant to this
Agreement.
B
13--/3
In the event that the city choo.es not to advertize and bid the balance
of the Improvements following such a termination, any monies remaining
in the improvement fund for the A..essment Di.trict and not approp-
riated or subject to appropriation for eligible expenses of the Assess-
ment District previously incurred shall be tran.ferred to the redemp-
tion fund for the Asaessment Diatrict and u..d to call out.tanding
Bonds and/or to give a ca.h r.fund to property owner. who have
previously prepaid their as....ment obligation.
SECTION 15. Agreement Contingent. A. a precondition to the obligations of the City
hereunder and at the time the City council shall, after public hearing,
confirm the Bngineer'. Report on the cost of Improvement. and propo..d
spread of assesaments, Developer shall pay (",Origination Payment") in
cash to City an origination charge of 1.5', or .uch other percentage as
may be establiahed by the City Council and be in effect at the time of
such public hearing, of the Engineer's e.timate of the total costs of
Improvements and financing charges a. estimated in the Engineer'.
Report conformed by the city council. Said Origination Payment shall
be at Developer's own expen.e and not recoverable from the proceeds of
the assessment or from the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds. In the
event that the Bonds are, for any reason, not .old, the amount of the
,.
origination Payment shall be returned to the Developer, less any costs
to the City; however, the amount of the origination Payment .hall not
otherwise be adjusted by differences between the actual and estimated
costs of the Improvements and financing charg... This Agr..m.nt is
contingent upon the confirmation of ass..sm.nta and .ucc...ful sale of
Bonds, and it shall be null and void if said Bonds are not sold within
a three (3) year period following the date of this Agreement, or any
mutually agreed extension; however, this time can be extended by
request of the Developer and concurrence of the l.gi.lative body.
The City may, at its option, .uspend the performance of it. obligations
under this Agreement if, during the 3D-day .tatute of limitations
period following the formation of the A.....ment Di.trict, any legal
challenge is filed relating 'to the validity or enforceability of this
Agreement or the Asses.ment District proceedings. The obligations of
the City hereunder shall be reinstated upon the entry of a final
judgment in any such proceedings upholding the validity and enforceabi-
lity of the Agreement and the A.sessment District proceeding.. In the
.vent that a final judgment ia entered invalidating or declaring
unenforceable this Agreement or the Asses.ment Di.trict proceedings,
the City may, at ita option, terminate this Agreement.
SECTION 16. Notice of Assessment. Developer hereby agr_. to provide written
notice to any pot.ntial purcha.ers of lots in a form .atisfactory to
City so advising the potential owner of the fact of the proposed or
confirmed A.a.sament Di.trict, with said document being executed by the
potential owner. Such notice ahall be provided to the pot.ntial owner
a reasonable time before the potential owner becomes contractually
committed to purcha.e the lot so that the potential owner may knowingly
consider the impact of the aasessment in the deciaion to purchase the
lot. A copy of all such notices executed by actual purcha.ers .hall be
sent to the City.
9 IJ-JL/
SECTION 17. Relationship to Public Works. This Agreement is for the construction
and acquisition of certain Improvements by City and the sale of the
Bonds for the payment of construction and acquisition costs for such
Improvements and such other amounts as are herein provided, and is not
intended to be a public works contract. In performing its obligations
under this Agreement, Developer is an independent contractor and not
the agent of City. City shall have no responsibility for payment to
any contractor or supplier of Developer. Notwithstanding the fore-
going, Developer may be subject to certain public contract requirements
as provided in Section 10010 of the California Streets and Highways
Code and Section 4 of this Agreement.
SECTION 18. Sale of Bonds. If and when the Assessment District is successfully
formed, acquisition of the Improvements ordered and assessments
confirmed, the City shall proceed with the issuance and sale of
improvement bonds to represent unpaid assessments within the Assessment
District (the "Bonds") to be issued pursuant to the "Improvement Bond
Act of 1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California (the "1915 Act"). The proceeds of the Bonds shall
be used in the following priority to (i) fund a reserve fund for the
payment of principal and interest with respect to the Bonds; (ii) fund
,.
capitalized interest on the Bonds in an amount not to exceed the
amount provided for in the Final Engineer's Report for the Assessment
District; (iii) pay for costs of issuance of the Bonds including,
without limitation, underwriter's discount, bond counsel fees,
printing, and paying agent fees; (iv) pay for the costs of forming the
Assessment District; and (v) the acquisition of the Improvements
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
The timing of the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the terms and
conditions upon which the Bonds shall be issued and sold, the method of
sale of the Bonds and the pricing of the' Bonds shall be determined
solely by the City. The sale of 'the Bonds shall be subject to receipt
by the City of a public bid or bond purchase agreement which is accept-
able to the City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the appregate principal amount of the
Bonds shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the value of the property
within the Assessment District subject to assessment as determined by
an independent appraisal undertaken for the City utilizing the
appraisal assumptions approved by the City.
SECTION 19. Conflict with Other Aqreements. Nothing contained herein shall be
constructed as releasing Developer from any condition of development or
requirement imposed by any other agreement with City. In the event of
a conflicting provision, such other agreement shall prevail unless such
oonflioting provision is specifically waived or modified in writing by
City.
SECTION 20. General Standard of Reasonableness. Any provision of this Agreement
which requires the consent, approval, discretion or acceptance of any
party hereto or any of their respective employees, officers or agents
shall be deemed to require that such consent, approval or acceptance
not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, unless such provision
expressly incorporates a different standard.
10
IJ~/.>
SECTION 21. Entire Agreement, Amendment. This Agre.m.nt and the agreements
expressly referred to herein contains all of the agreements of the
parties h.reto with respect to the matt.rs contain.d h.rein and no
prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding, oral or written,
pertaining to any such matters shall be .ffective for any purpose. No
provision of this Agreement may be modified, waiver, amended or added
to except by a writing .igned by the party against which the enforce-
ment of .uch modification, waiver, amendment or addition is or may be
.ought.
SECTION 22. Notices. Any notice, payment or in.trument required or permitted by
this Agreement to be given or delivered to either party .hall be deemed
to have been received when personally delivered or seventy-two (72)
hours following deposit of the same in any United State. Post Office in
California, registered or certified, po.tage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Developer:
Attn:
City:
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: City Manager
Each party may change its address for delivery of notice by delivering
written notice of such change of address to the other party.
SECTION 23. Severability. If any provi.ion of this Agreement is held to be illegal
or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of
this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest .xtent reasonably
possible.
SECTION 24. Successors and Assigns. This Agreem.nt .hall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the .uccessors and a..ign. of the parties hereto.
Dev.loper may not a..ign it. right. or obligation. hereunder except
upon written notice to City within ten (10) days of the date of .uch
assignment indicating the name and addr.ss of the as.ignee. Upon such
notice and the assumption by the assign.. of the rights, duties .nd
obligations of the D.veloper ari.ing under or from this Agreement,
Developer .hall be relea.ed by City from all future duties or obliga-
tions rising under or from this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
pr.ceding .entence, Developer may a..ign its right. and obligations
hereunder as .ecurity to lender. for the purpose of obtaining loans to
finance development within the A.....ment Di.trict, but no .uch
a.signment .hall release Developer from its obligations hereunder to
City.
SECTION 25. Governing Law. This Agreement and any di.pute ari.ing hereund.r .hall
be gov.rn.d by and int.rpreted in accordance with the law. of the State
of California. Additionally, this Agreement and the construction of
the Improvement. .hall be .ubject to all City ordinances and regula-
tions relating to the requirement of improvement agreements, land
division, improvement s.curity or other applicable development
requirements.
11
/;J~/t
.'
SECTION 26. Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of
any of the provisions of this Agreement by any other party, or the
failure by a party to exercise its rights under the default of any
other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to
insist and demand strict compliance by any other party with the terms
of this Agreement thereafter.
SECTION 27. Singular and Plural; Gender. As used herein, the singular of any work
includes the plural, and terms in the masculine gender shall include
the feminine.
SECTION 28. Counter~arts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original.
EXECUTED by and between the parties hereto on the day and year first hereinabove
written.
"CITY"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,.
KAYOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ATTEST.
APPROVED AS TO FORM.
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CAIFORNIA
BRUCE BOOGAARD, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, BY GLEN
R. GOOGINS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
"DEVELOPER"
By.
12 /3- J 7
EXHmIT A
Description of Work
Assessment District 94-1
The general description of work to be funded by Assessment District 94-1 consists of the following:
1. Street improvements consisting of grading, base, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and
landscaping within the following rights-of-way:
a. South Greensview Drive - from Clubhouse Drive to Unit 6 entrance (2,400 L.F., Phase 1).
b. South Greensview Drive - from Silverado Drive to Hunte Parkway (3,400 L.F., Phase 2).
c. South Greensview Drive - from Unit 6 entrance to Silverado Drive (1,920 L.F., Phase 3).
2. Utilities and underground improvements consisting of potable water facilities, storm drain facilities,
sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, electric facilities, telephCllle facilities, and gas facilities
as appropriate by applicable state and federal statutes within the following rights-of-way:
a. South Greensview Drive - from Clubhouse Drive to Unit 6 entrance (2,400 L.F., Phase 1).
b. South Greensview Drive - from Silverado Drive to Hunte Parkway (3,400 L.F., Phase 2).
c. South Greensview Drive - from Unit 6 entrance to Silverado Drive (1,920 L.F., Phase 3).
3. DIF funded street improvements consisting of grading, storm drain, base, paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, medians, streetlighting, landscaping and street monumentation within the following rights-
of-way:
a. Hunte Parkway - from Clubhouse Drive to South Greensview Drive (2,300 L.F., Phase 2).
4. DIF funded street and underground improvements consisting of grading, and storm drain
improvements within the following rights-of-way:
a. Hunte Parkway - from South Greensview to Orange Avenue (1,270 L.F., Phase 2).
b. Orange Avenue - from Hunte Parkway to the SDG&E easement (3,500 L.F., Phase 2).
WPC P:\hcme~16IS.94
/3-/Y
EXHIBIT B
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT DIF TOTAL
Dry Utilities $ 734,008 $ 38,263 $ 772,271
Grading 545,500 674,990 1,220,490
Landscaping 234,155 407,180 641,335
Reclaimed Water 158,950 158,950
Streets 929,030 588,828 1,517,858
Sewer 177,750 177,750
Storm Drain 1,345,385 64,017 1,409,402
Water 497,705 497,705
Construction Subtotal 6,395,761
Reimbursements ($638,350)
SUBTOTAL 5,757,411
Incidentals 1,023,852
TOTAL $6,781,263
TA:dv
(F:\b.ome\engineer\1anddev\eslimate. ta)
/:3 ~/r
EXHIBIT B
~M-I,EAS1L\D GREENS 0
PIUSE 1
-=mmoN QTf IlIIn'S UlGTPRlCIl TOTAL
.. a_.L.... Dr, ~v-- Dr. &. u.tt,
AC'AVEMENT t17@ SP 11.95 1229,320.00
r_o CllRIl.l11'Il. S/W GOO LP $12.00 $57,600.00
PIlD RAMP 2EA $120.00 $2AO.OO
SUIl.VEY MONUMENT 5 EA SS30.00 $1,650.00
S1UIrrLJOHTS ilEA S2,IOO.OO S50,4OO.00
S1UIrrNAMESJON 10 EA $110-00 Sl,IOO.OO
OUAJU)JV.JLBAlUUCADE .~ LP $34.00 S2,04O.00
REMOVE EXISJ" AC BERM UOLP $2.00 _00
lr RCP !SO LP $31.00 $10,150.00
2t'RCP 1670 LP $36.00 $60,120.00
SO"RCP 1270 LP S4100 $53,340.00
"II" INlET lEA S2.IOO.OO $22,600.00
-A- CI..EANour 7EA $2,175.00 $15,225.00
rSEWER MAIN 2S6O LP $14.00 S40,o.tO.OO ,-
SEWER MANHOLE 7 EA 11,350.00 ",450.00
CONNECTltl EXIST. SEWER 1 EA S5OO.00 S5OO.00
1rwATERMAIN 2600 LP $30.00 mooo.oo
100WATERMAIN 230 LP $26.00 $5,910.00
'1'AIlV 11EA $1.650.00 $11.l50.00
'1'ao. 5EA S7OO.00 $3,500.00
rao. 6EA 11,300.00 $7,100.00
100GATEVALVES 6EA $1,175.00 11,050.00
lrOATEVALVES 12 EA $5,100.00 169,600.00
PIJlE HYDRANT (2.WAY) lEA $2,500.00 S2ll,000.00
CONNECTltlEXIST. WATER 1 EA S2,5OO.00 $2500.00
r JlEClAIMEIl WATER 2600 LP $2ll.00 $41,000.00
t-AV SEA 11,200.00 $3,600.00
'1'ao. 2EA . 1100.00 11.600.00
rOATEVALVES 2 EA 11,000.00 $2,000.00
tmL1TY CONDUIT lIS $2$9,162.00 $2$9.162.00
SLOPE lANDSCAPING 52617 SP $1.45 $76,295.00
cur S6000CY $0.15 S50,6OO.00
ALLUVIAL 1000 CY $0.10 $6,400.00
a.EAR& GRUB 15 ....c. _.00 $1,750.00
~17J; 1 EA SI,S5O.00 SI,S5O.00
~ lIS (S2ll7.99S.7S) lS207.991 1S>
._o'us. CONI'I1l0cnON COlT IK4,3'lI.27
lXlNI1NOBIlCY (1~) 1 IS 1196.4$'1'" 1196._.00
avo.1!NOIIlIlIl1UNG lIS 18.792.00 169.192.00
lIClU ENClINI!IlIUNO lIS $1S,705.l6 SlS,705.I6
SUIl.VEYlNO lIS $16,190.14 $16,190.14
DRYumn'IES aNO. lIS 15,051.00 15,051.00
1AND$CAPEAIlCHlT1!Cl" lIS $11,927.00 $11,927.00
PLAN CIIECK 1 IS S2ll,159.00 S2D,159.00
BONDS 1 IS $7,917.00 $7.917.00
.mrrorAL IOPT COlT $241.179.99
TOTAL ''''''4).'''
I ;G".2eJ
AD Nol, BASTLo\KE GHEENS n
PHASE 2
DESCRJPTlON QTY tJNlTS tJNlT PIllCE TOTAL
s.o. .....Dr.B_tePkw1..- Dr.
, ACPAVEMEN'f 112100 SF 5U5 $218,S9S.00
fl'MONO CURB, GTR, S(W 4700 LF 512.00 $56,400.00
PED RAMP 4EA 5120.00 S480.00
SURVEY MONUMENT 7EA S330.00 $2,310.00
Bl1UlBT UGHI'S 15 EA S2,8OO.00 $42,000.00
Bl1UlBT NAME SIGN 4 EA $180.00 S720.oo
18"RCl' 340 LF $31.00 $10,540.00
!6"RCl' 22SO LF SS2.OO $117,000.00
OFF.srre PIPE A Snl.UCIURE lUl S4OO,OOO.OO S4OO,OOO.OO
"11" INLET 2E,<. S2,8OO.00 15-'00.00
-A* a.E.ANOtIT 5 EA $2,175.00 510.875.00
8" SEWER MAlN 1500 LF $14.00 $21,000.00
10" PVC 1030 LF 517.00 517,510.00
SEWER MANHOLE 10 EA 51,3S0.00 513,SOO.00
0'
16" WATER MAIN 2600 LF S3C1.00 $78.000.00
10" WATER MAIN 9SO LF $26.00 $24.700.00
'r'ARV 7 EA $1,650,00 $l1,5SO.00
'r'B.O. 5 EA $700.00 S3,5OO.00
4"B.O. 3EA $1,300.00 $3.900.00
10" GATE VALVES 5 EA $1,175.00 15,875.00
16" GATE VALVES 6 EA 15,800.00 $34,800.00
FIRE HYDRANT ('J.-WA Y) 8 EA S2,SOO.OO $20,000.00
8"RECLAJMEDWATER 2600 LF $20.00 SS2,00G.00
I"AV 4 EA $1,200.00 _ $4,800.00
'r'B.O. 2EA $700.00 $1.400.00
8"GATEVALVES 3 EA . $1,000.00 $3,000.00
UTILITY CONDUIT lUl $310,694.00 $310,694.00
SLOPE LANDSCAPING 68354.75 SF $1.45 599.114.00
CUT 231294.1 CY SO.8S $196,600.00
AlLUV1AL 30000 CY SO.80 $24,000.00
CU!AR A GRUB 6 AC. $SOO.OO 53,000.00
MOBILIZE 1 EA $1,soo.OO $1,soo.OO
1UlIMIlURSEMENTS lUl ($2'70,203.48) (S270.203.48)
.....OTAL CO,....llCIION COST $1,524.759.52
CONTINGENCY (1~) 1 Ul $152,475.9S S152,476.GO
avn. ENGINEERING lUl $122.438.00 5122,438M
soas ENGINEERING lUl $21,670.06 $21,670.00
SURVEYING lUl $25,597.91 S25,598.00
DRY UTIUl'IBS ENG. 1 Ul $6,561.00 $6,561.00
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT lUl $15.495.00 $15,495.00
PLAN CHECK lUl $36,594.00 $36,594.00
BONDS 1 Ul $13,890.00 $13,890.00
.u&rlOTAL 10Ft' COST $394,'T.l2.00
TOTAL Sl,,",4I1.52
13';l./
AD M-1, EAS1LAKE GREENS n
PBASE 2, DIF
DESCRIPTION
Q1Y
UNITS UNITPRlCE
TOTAL
S. Bate PIlwy, Oabb_ Dr to S. ~ Dr
ACPAVEMENT 156500 SF S1.95 $305,175.00
6' MONO CURB, GTR, S/W 2300 LF S12.00 v S27,600.OG
6' TYPE 'B-1' CURB " GlR 4450 LF $4.83 121,494.00
6' CURB "GTR 2300 LF 15.30 S12,1!1O.00
MEDIAN 28500 SF SU5 $41,325.00
DOUBLE STREET UGlITS 8EA S2,800.00 $22,400.00
SINGLE STREETUGlITS 3EA $2,400.00 $7,200.00
SURVEYMONUMENT 3EA $330.00 S990.00
ADJUST MANHOLES TO GDE 35 EA $75.00 S2,625.00
36'RCP 74.28 LF $47.00 $3,491.00
24' RCP 92.81 LF S31.00 S2,877.00
18'RCP S02.8S LF $27.00 SI3,577.00
A-4 C.O. 2EA S2,046.00 ,. $4,092.00
A-S C.O. 4EA S2,200.00 $8,800.00
B-1 8EA S3,l97 .so $25,580.00
MEDIAN u.NDSCAPING 280814 SF SUS S407,l80.00
S. BDDte Pkwy, S. G~... Dr to Orup Ave
AC PAVEMENT TO STA 73+60 49500 SF S1.95 S96,525.00
6' CURB GlR S/WTO STA73+6O 725 LF $12.00 $8,700.00
6' CURB GlR TO STA73+6O 750 LF S12.00 S9,OOO.00
6' 'B-1' CURB/GTR TO STA 73+60 1310 LF $4.83 $6,327.00
MEDIAN TO STA 73+60 11050 SF $U5 S16,022.S0
DOUBLE S.L. TO STA73+6O 2EA S2,800.00 15,600.00
SINGLE S.L. TO STA73+6O 2EA S2,400.00 $4,800.00
SURVEY MON TO STA73+6O 1 EA $330.00 $330.00
ADJUST MIl TO GDE TO STA73+6O 7EA S75.00 S525.00
urn.ITY CONDUIT lUi $38,263.00 $38,263.00
GRADING HUNTE PKWY 479300 CY $0.80 $383,440.00
Oruae A_De, Bllllte PIlwy to SDGaE En_'lI>~
CUT 343000 CY $O.8S $291,SSO.IIO
'B'INLET 2EA S2,8OO.00 15,600.00
aUIIIOTAL CONS11lVCJ10N COST $1,773,278.50
SOn.s ENGINEERING lUi $25,2D2.04 S2S,2D2.00
SURVEYING lUi $29,770.09 $29,770.00
PLAN CHECK 1 Ui $4,352.00 $4,352.00
BONDS lUi $1,741.00 Sl,741.00
liual'OTAL SOFJ' COST $61,065.00
TOTAL St,ll34,343.50
I;J~~~
JI I II III j. ill ! f ~~U
I I i S 1.1.I)6
Ii If I! lr ~} \J
I'., 1 ~1 . AI I. I--
r I. I, I:. r d I I'J I
I-I I JlfI ~<-' ,-
1111 I 11 d Ii J llil ~
:..c
.. .. of ~
.. .. .. .. of .... "
N...._..... (If)
~.~~~:r(~):fi. ~ .. ~
.:l
..
i
~
I ;-).J
E..,;
~ i
:~lli[
\J!!r~
AD H-l. EAS'l'lADGREENS n
PHASE 3
DI!SC1lImON QTY 1lNITS tJNIT P1UCE TOTAL
S. o.-_Dr, lJDlt' to _ Dr.
ACPAVEMENT 94100 SF IUS 1183,4!/S.00
6"MONO CURB, Gm, SfW 3840 LF 112.00 $I6,08G.OO
SURVEY MONUMENT 4BA S330.00 11,320.00
STREETUOHTS 12 BA S2,8OO.OO S33,600.00
STREET NAME SIGN 4BA 1180.00 mo.OO
18" RCP 170 LF $31.00 15,270.00
24"RCP 190 LF $36.00 110,440.00
OFP-S11E PIPE A S1RUCTURE lLS S606,000.00 S606,000.00
"II" INLET 4BA S2,8OO.OO 111,200.00
-A" a..EANour 3BA S2,175.oo S6,S2S.00
8" SEWER MAIN 3SO LF 114.00 $4,900.00
8" SEWER MAIN 4928.6 LF 114.00 169,000.00
SEWER MANHOLE 1 BA $1,3S0.00 11,3S0.00
CONNECfTO EXIST. SEWER 1 BA SSOO.OO SSOO.OO
16"WA1ERMAIN 1920 LF $30.00 157,600.00"
1000WA1ERMAlN 100 LF $26.00 S2,600.00
2" ARV 1 BA 11,650.00 $1,650.00
2"B.O. 2BA $700.00 11,400.00
10" GA're VALVES 2BA $1,175.00 S2,35O.00
16"GA'reVALVES 4 BA 15,800.00 S23,2OO.00
FIRE HYDRANT (2.WA Y) 6 BA S2,SOO.OO $15,000.00
CONNECfTO EXIST. WA1ER 2BA S2,SOO.OO 15,000.00
8"RECLAlMEDWATER 1920 LF S20.00 $38,400.00
2" ARV 1 BA $1,650.00 11,650.00
2"B.O. 1 BA $700.00 $700.00
8" GA're VALVES 2BA $1,000.00 S2,000.00
unLITY CONDUIT lLS $184,152.00 $184,152.00
SLOPE LANDSCAPING 40514.75 SF $US $58,746.00
CUT 46000 CY 1O.8S $39,100.00
EXPORT 120000 CY 11.60 $192,000.00
AlLUVIAL 14000 CY 10.80 $11,200.00
J'INlSH 10 "-c. $3,000.00 S30,000.00
a.u.R A GRUB 10 ,,-c. SSOO.OO 15,000.00
MOBIl.IZB 1 BA $3,000.00 $3,000.00
REIMBURSEMENTS lLS ($160,152.79) ($160.152.79)
au..OTA!. CO!IJT1ltlC110N COST 11,494,9!/S.21
(x)NT1NGENCY(1~) lLS 1149,499.52 1149,499.52
avJLENolNEElUNG lLS $83,032.00 $83,032.00
SOn.s ENGINEElUNG lLS $21,247.05 $21,247.05
SURVEYING lLS $25,098.22 $25,098.22
DRYU'IUJTIES ENG. 1 LS $3,889.00 $3,889.00
LANDSCAPEARanTECT 1 LS $9,184.00 $9,184.00
PlAN CHECK lLS $24,816.00 $24,816.00
BONDS lLS $9,419.00 $9,419.00
1tlITOTA!..on COST $326,184.79
TOTAL 11.G1,1.....
IJ-.;.'1
EXHIBIT "D"
CITY OF CBULA VISTA
ASSBSSJIBRT DIS'l'RICT RO. 94-1
(BASTLUB GRBBRS II)
IIIS'l'RUCTIONS RBGARDIIIG THB PAYJIBIIT OF THB PURCHASB PRICK POR
THB ACQUISITION OF IMPROVBKBIITS III All ASSBSSJIBRT DIS'l'RICT
TO: City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
The undersigned hereby certifies and instructs the City of Chula Vista (the "City")
as follows:
,.
1. The undersigned is a representative of (insert the name of the party as shown on
Exhibit "B"] (the "Interested Party"), which has an interest in the real
property proposed to be included within Auessment District No. 94-1 (Eutlake
Greens II) (the "Assessment District"), and is duly authorized to make the
certifications and provide the instructions as contained herein on behalf of the
Interested Party.
2. The Interested Party is aware that the City is currently undertaking proceedings
to form the Assessment District to finance the acquisition of certain public
improvements (the "ImprOvements") which will serve and benefit the property in
which the Interested Party has an interest. The tnterested Party is further
aware that the City and Eastlake Development Company ("Kastlake") have entered
into an Acquisition/Financing Agreement dated as of , 1994, pursuant to
which Eastlake has agreed to construct the Improvements and the City has agreed
to acquire the Improvements from Eastlake. The Acquisition Agreement provides
that the Interested Party must provide the City with written instructions
pertaining to the payment of the Purchase Price (as defined in the Acquisition
Agreement) for the acquisition of the Improvements.
The Interested Party hereby instructs the City to disburse and pay the Purchase
Price for the Improvements to East lake or to any other party to which Eastlake
may assign the Purchase Price or any portion thereof. The Interested Party
hereby assigns any right, title or interest which it may have to receive the
Purchase Price or any portion thereof to Eastlake and acknowledges that the City
will be disbursing the Purchase Price pursuant to and in reliance upon the
instructions contained herein.
Executed this
day of
, 1994, in
"INTERESTED PARTY"
By:
J 3'.2.>'
By:
EXHIBIT E
BY VARIOUS DEEDS OF RECORD VESTING TITLE AS TO ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
643-020-23:
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP;
AS TO ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 643-020-34 AND 643-030-07 AND 08:
WESTERN SALT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;
AS TO ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NOS 643-020-39 AND 643-070-04:
EMILY HUNTE BLACK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE EMILY HUNTE BLACK REVOCABLE TRUST
NO.1, AND HENRY F. HUNTE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LOUIS H. HUNTE TESTAMENTARY
TRUST CREATED UNDER'THE LAST WILL OF LOUIS H. HUNTE;
AS TO ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO 595-320-16:
EASTLAKE COUNTRY CLUB PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
-, ..
"
/j-.2/'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item )'1
Meeting Date 5/10/94
Resolution / 7rr'l Approving an agreement with D. J. Smith
Associates for advocacy and planning services in connection with the
Transportation Development Impact Fee and appropriating $90,000 from
the Transportation Development Fee Fund
Director of Public Works I
City Manage~ ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: YesXNo->
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
This item involves retaining a consultant with expertise in funding of transportation facilities.
The consultant, working with staff and the property owners, would develop a program for
funding transportation facilities from sources other than developer fees, and would then
aggressively seek such funding.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution approving an agreement with
D. 1. Smith Associates, authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement, and appropriating funds
for the contract.
BOARDS/COMl\flSSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
When Council held the public hearing on the proposed update for the Transportation
Development Impact Fee Program in November 1993, several of the property owners
recommended that the City retain a consultant with expertise in identifying and obtaining
supplemental sources of funding for transportation facilities.
As a result of this suggestion, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for such a consultant.
The initial time period for submittal of proposals was approximately one month, ending
January 31, 1994, at which time the City received two proposals. At this time, staff became
aware of two ftrms that received information regarding the proposal through third parties, fairly
late in the proposal period. Since the ftrms seemed highly qualifted and the City wanted to
get the best possible selection of potential consultants, the proposal period was extended to
February 25. During this period, the two ftrms submitted proposals bringing the total to four
ftrms. The four ftrms, and the original dollar cost of their proposal, are as follows:
D. J. Smith Associates
De Leon, Cather & Company
aSI Consultants, Inc.
Linda Morshed Associates
$90,000
$75,000
$21,780
$168,000
JJ/ ~ J
Page 2, Item 1'/
Meeting Date 5/10/94
All four proposing teams were interviewed by a committee consisting of City staff (Public
Works Director John Lippitt, City Engineer Cliff Swanson, and Senior Civil Engineer Steve
Thomas) and the property owners (Baldwin, Eastlake, McMillin, and Sunbow). The
fundamental criteria that the committee used to evaluate proposals involved evaluation of the
proposers previous experience at obtaining funds for public works projects, demonstrated
understanding of the City's transportation needs and the proposal to assist the City in dealing
with other agencies and the toll road project. The committee determined that the ftrms of D.
J. Smith Associates and Morshed and Associates were considered highly qualmed and
requested clarmcation of the proposals. The other two ftrms were judged to be not qualmed,
and were eliminated from further consideration. The basis of the determination was a
consensus that the proposers did not have a team with "advocacy" type experience. The
subject proposers would identify and process applications for funding from existing, well
established sources, a task that staff believes it can perform. The goal of this program is to
identify or create new sources of funding. The nature of the clariftcation was to allow the
proposing ftrms to eliminate or reftne aspects of the proposals that staff considered unnecessary
or to eliminate components that City staff could provide (engineering services for example).
This clariftcation would also hopefully eliminate the disparity in price, and allow the ftrms to
be judged in an equitable fashion on a similar proposal. As a result of the clarmcation process,
Morshed reduced their proposal cost to $60,000 compensation plus $16,000 for expenses for
a total contract value of $76,000. It should be noted here that the expenses are estimates rather
than ftrm expeditures. Actual expenses should not exceed estimated expenses.
Following the clarmcation, the committee recommended that D. J. Smith be awarded the
contract, despite the fact that Morshed's cost proposal was lower. Considerations cited in the
selection process included:
1. Local experience. D. J. Smith Associates has been actively involved in transportation
issues locally and at the State level. They have worked on the Proposition 108 ("The
Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act of 1990") and Proposition III ("The Trafftc
Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990") campaigns for the governor,
and have worked with SANDAG and local elected officials in developing and reftning
the County's sales tax transportation program. D.J. Smith and Andy ScWaefli both have
strong working relationships with SANDAG Executive Staff and many of the area
legislators.
2. Local Familiaritv/Local Presence. A big component of the D. J. Smith Team is their
sub consultant, Urban Systems Associates (USA). USA has been involved in
transportation planning in the San Diego region since 1979, and their principal Andy
Schlaefli has been involved for over 30 years. They have been involved in planning
for Rancho del Rey, Eastlake and Otay Ranch with the City of Chula Vista. The
Morshed ftrm originally proposed Boyle Engineering as the local presence, however,
this component was eliminated in the "clarmcation process," when it was determined
by staff and Ms. Morshed that City staff could provide most civil engineering services
for the project.
1~'.2
Page 3, Item 1'1
Meeting Date 5/10/94
3. Track record. Both firms demonstrated excellent track records. Agencies that have
retained either firm spoke highly of their abilities.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the consensus of the committee was that the two
teams demonstrated strong capabilities at both State and Federal levels. The committee highly
valued the local connections and experience of the DJ. Smith team and recommended that the
City retain that firm, even though they were not the low bidders. The consensus point of view
was that a firm with Mr. Smith's experience should be able to obtain such substantial sums that
the price difference between the two finalists is dwarfed.
The scope of work for the proposed contract contains three major components towards the goal
of obtaining supplemental funding for transportation projects. One additional componenet
(Task 4) allows the consultant to assist the City in overseeing transportation developments with
other agencies and the toll road program.
Task 1. PlanlProl!ram Review
This task involves review of existing documentation programs and all related planning area
data, including traffic projections and development projections to allow consultant to fully
understand Chula Vista's transportation expectations and needs.
Task 2. Stratel!ic Plan
This task is to develop a strategy for providing the required improvements for the Eastern
territories of Chula Vista. As a part of this effort. consultant will identify planned projects in
terms of scope, cost and schedule. This document will defme a practical, phased approach to
project implementation that will be coupled with an achievable fmancing plan. The strategic
plan will be developed under two separate scenarios, one utilizing the existence of the proposed
toll road (SR-125), and one excluding the toll road.
The strategic plan will define the network of required transportation improvements the Eastern
Territories and will include scope descriptions for all projects at a sufficient level of detail to
reasonably assess costs. The final document will also include cost estimates and an
implementation schedule which will reflect construction needs, phasing requirements and
available funding (or potential available funding). This task will also involve working with
other agencies to identify potential additional funding for required improvements. It is
recognized that a goal of this task is to maximize the availability and timing of any and all
sources of funding for transportation facilities
Task 3. Advocacv Effort
This task involves an ongoing effort to identify and secure alternative sources of funding for
transportation improvements for the Eastern Territories, with the focus being coordinated with
the development of the Strategic Plan, and funding opportunities identified in development of
the plan. .The level of activity associated with this task will vary in intensity from month to
month, but this work will proceed on a constant basis in parallel with the other tasks.
IL/~:J
Page 4, Item 1'1
Meeting Date 5/10/94
Task 4. MonitoriRl~
This task involves ongoing involvement in transportation issues in the South Bay, including
Toll road progress and issues, Otay Mesa and NAFTA issues as they relate to Chula Vista, and
transportation developments in the South Bay as they relate to Chula Vista. As a part of this
activity, consultant will attend meetings with City Staff and property owners on a monthly
basis, or as requested by the City, not to exceed twelve meetings during the duration of this
one year contract. This task will also involve general assistance on issues related to project
management and process resolution.
The fee compensation proposal involves compensation at $78,000 for a one year contract.
Additional travel expenses are estimated to be approximately $12,000 for the year, including
trips from Sacramento to Chula Vista and to Washington, D.C. Such expenses will be
reimbursed as they occur. The total cost for the contract is $90,000.
As stated above, the purpose of retaining the consultant is to obtain funding for transportation
related projects, from sources not readily available to the City. At this point, it is impossible
even speculate as to the amount of funding that the consultant may develop, but based on
discussions with staff from other agencies, all of the agencies are very pleased with the results,
and continue to retain the consultants. Staff believes, as do the property owners, that the cost
of this contract is money well invested.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The contract is initially for a period of one year, with extension options.
If the fIrst year produces satisfactory results, staff may recommend that the contract be renewed
on a yearly basis for a maximum of three years. At the hearing in November (on the TDIF
update), staff proposed that the "administration" component of the TDIF be increased by 1%
(from 4% to 5%) to provide sufficient funds for such a consultant. The additional 1%
component is proposed to remain in effect for as long as it is necessary to provide for this type
of consultant.
The CIP did not include funds for this service, however, there are sufficient funds available
in the Transportation Development Impact Fee fund. These funds should be appropriated to
account 621-6212. As the consultant is successful in completing the scope of work, additional
funding beyond that already available to the City for Transportation DIF and SR-125 projects
will be made available. This will lower the cost of both the TDIF and SR-125 DIF fees by
an unknown amount.
CST:HX-037
WPC M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\DJSMIIH
/'I..J.j
RESOLUTION NO.
J7~Y~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH D. J.
SMITH ASSOCIATES FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND APPROPRIATING
$90,000 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
FEE FUND
WHEREAS, when Council held the public hearing on the
proposed update for the Transportation Development Impact Fee
Program in November 1993, several of the property owners
recommended that the City retain a consultant with expertise in
identifying and obtaining supplemental sources of funding for
transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, as a result of this suggestion, staff issued a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for such a consultant; and
WHEREAS, four firms submitted proposals as follows:
D. J. smith $90,000
Associates
De Leon, Cather &
Company
BSI Consultants, Inc.
Linda Morshed
Associates
$75,000
$21,780
168,000
WHEREAS, all four proposing teams were interviewed by a
committee consisting of city staff (Public Works Director John
Lippitt, City Engineer Cliff Swanson, and Senior civil Engineer
Steve Thomas) and the property owners (Baldwin, Eastlake, McMillin,
and Sunbow); and
WHEREAS, the committee determined that the firms of D. J.
smith Associates and Morshed and Associates were highly qualified
and requested clarification of the proposals; and
WHEREAS, the nature of the clarification was to allow the
proposing firms to eliminate or refine aspects of the proposals
that staff considered unnecessary or to eliminate components that
City staff could provide (engineering services for example); and
WHEREAS, taking local experience, local familiarity/local
presence and track record into consideration, the consensus of the
Committee recommended that the contract be negotiated with D. J.
smith Associates.
1
,
1'1. .>
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve an agreement with D. J.
smith Associates for advocacy and planning services on connection
with the Transportation Development Impact Fee, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No.___ (to be
completed by the City Clerk in the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
document for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $90,000
appropriated from the Transportation Development Fee
Account 621-6212.
Bruce M.
Attorney
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
c: \rs\dj sdth
2
/11' ~
..
PARTIES AND RECITAL PAGE(S)
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
D. J. SMITH ASSOCIATES
FOR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING SERVICES
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes of
reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise
specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit
A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3,
and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business
form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers
are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
Recitals
Whereas, on November 27, 1993, City held a public hearing on the matter of updating
the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program, and
Whereas, at said hearing, testimony was taken as to the need for a consultant to identify
funds and obtain funds to supplement TDIF funds, and
Whereas, the City issued a Request for Proposals for such a consultant, and
Whereas, D. J. Smith Associates submitted a proposal titled, "Proposal to Provide
Transportation Consulting Services", dated January ~1, 1994, and
Whereas, City staff has determined the proposal to be responsible and has negotiated an
agreement based on the proposal, and
Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City
within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement;
(End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.)
WPC M:\h....~11l6U.
JI./-7
Page 1
OBliGATORY PROVISIONS PAGES
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A,
Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties" , Consultant shall also
perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and
Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames
set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of
this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of
Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "DefIDed Services". Failure to complete
the DefIDed Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate
to terminate this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the
DefIDed Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City
and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a
corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the DefIDed Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the DeflDed Services ("Additional
Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by
Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth
in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fIXed fee is otherwise
agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed.
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether DefIDed Services
or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in similar locations.
WPC },I,_'..._\I864.!14
)1/"8"
Page 2
- -
F. Insurance
"
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in
connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by
the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified,
policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V"
or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage
in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied
separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City
and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant
in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9,
unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
G. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(1) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of
Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled
without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance
Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
H. Security for Performance.
(1) Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately
preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the
City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager
or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance
Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. '
WPCM:_~864,"
Il/ - '1
Page 3
-
(2) Letter of Credit.
"
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately
preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City
an irrevocable letter of.credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to
the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the
terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and
amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space
adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(3) Other Security
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to
provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark
in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"),
then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with
Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
.
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of
the Defmed Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to
achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities,
files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City
agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph
10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30-
days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifJab1e delay in the
Consultant's performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than
monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate
Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth
in Exhibit A, Paragraph II, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by
a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set
forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses
as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
WPC N:_',.._II864,"
17'-/t?
Page 4
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the
. . propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder
is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A,
Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment.
3. Admini~tration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit
A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract IIdmini~trator who is authorized by said party to
represent them in the routine admini~tration of this agreement.
4. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory
provisions hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 14.
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this
Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in per-
formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate
for delay.
Failure to complete the Defmed Services within the allotted time period specified in this
Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess
of the time specified for the completion of the respec.tive work assignment or Deliverable, the
consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated
Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by
the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior
to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon
the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work
unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC f1ler", Consultant
is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest
and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required
Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15
of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
Page'
WPC W:Ihamo\qilllol\186U4
)'1" / /
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not
make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence
a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a
financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants
and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political
Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this
agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest
during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by
the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if
Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which, may result in a conflict of
interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate
family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have
any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter
of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries
of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited
Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement.
Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of
this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
WPC M'___l....94
I J/, /.)...
Page 6
-
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest
within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or
for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and
appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the
Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution
of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole
negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's
indemnification shall inelude any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred
by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the
same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written
request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents,
or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or
subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfIll in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that
event, all fmished or unfmished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and
other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of
the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of
Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages
caused City by Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence,
errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expeilse
to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions,
Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing
herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement.
)0/,,) :J
Page 7
WPC )4,-."""_.....94
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific
written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and
unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City,
become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided
in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such
termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation
arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
11. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any
interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment
or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment
of the portions of the Defmed Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the
subconsultants identified thereat as .Permitted Subconsultants. .
12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures,
systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole
and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part
under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant
in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City
shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions
of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in
part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced
under this Agreement.
13. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services
required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's
work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are,
for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be
an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees
are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation
benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal
income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely
responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto.
WPCN,__186U4
1'I-J4(
PageS
.
.
14. Admini~trative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City
unless a claim has fIrst been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the
City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by
this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in
the implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the
purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
15. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the claim,
including costs and attorney's fees.
16. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document in performing the Defmed Services, Consultant shall
include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and
cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report
or document.
17. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent' City
Unless specifIcally authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to
act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals
is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker
or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals
are licensed real estate Drokers or salespersons.
C. Notices
AlI,notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall
be deemed to have been properly given or served ifpersonally served or deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certifIed, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identifIed herein as the places of business for each of the designated
parties.
WPC 104:_"","*,,1864.94
14/"),5'
Page 9
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated
herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended,
modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against
which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that
it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement,
and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this
Agreement.
F. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable,
the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page.]
WPCM:_~864.9'
/'/-/"
Page 1 0
SIGNATIJRE PAGE
TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CBULA VISTA AND
D.l. ASSOCIATES
lOR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING SF.RVlCES
IN WITNESS WHRROOF, City and Consultant have executed this Apeement thereby indicating
thallhty hllve fIlId 8ml undersUlOd same, 1UHl indir.a" tbcU M1 pd oomplete CODJent 10 Its
tt.nrI8l
Dm-d:
,19_
City of Chula Vista
By:
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authe1ct, City Cle.rk.
Approved as to fonn:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Dated: I;d 2. r . 19li
By:
By:
Exhibit List to Agreement
(X) Exhibit A
( ) Exhibit B
Faa' ]]
WI'C ,,;_,,",_1I~."
/1-/. /7
. I
..
EXHIBIT A
TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
D. J. SMITH ASSOCIATES
1.
Effective Date of Agreement:
2.
City-Related Entity:
(X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California
() Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the
State of California
() Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
() Other:
form]
, a [insert business
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant: D. J. Smith Associates
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(X) Corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
915 L Street, Suite 1440
Sacramento, CA 95814
Voice Phone (916) 446-5508
Fax Phone (916) 449-1692
WPC M:\HOME\EN<mmBR.\186S.9S
1'1-/ Y
Page 1
7. General Duties:
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. Detailed Scope of Work:
Task 1. PlanlPro......m Review
This task involves review of existing documentation programs and all related
plAnning area data, including traffic projections and development projections to
allow consultant to fully understand Chula Vista's transportation expectations and
needs.
Timeline: Begin Immediately.......Complete 4S days following execution of
agreement .
Deliverables: Inventory of expectations of proposed improvements.
Documentation of existing facility fmancial plans in terms of
dollars and schedule
Task 2. Stratelric Plan
This task is to develop a strategy for providing the required improvements for the
Eastern territories of Chula Vista. As a part of this effort. consultant will identify
planned projects in terms of scope, cost and schedule. This document will define
a practical, phased approach to project implementation that will be coupled with
an achievable financing plan. The strategic plan v.:ill be developed under two
separate scenarios, one utilizing the exi.~tence of the proposed toll road (SR-125),
and one excluding the toll road.
The strategic plan will defme the network of required transportation
improvements the Eastern Territories and will include scope descriptions for all
projects at a sufficient level of detail to reasonably assess costs. The fmal
document will also include cost estimates and an implementation schedule which
will reflect construction needs, phasing requirements and available funding (or
potential available funding). This task will also involve working with other
agencies to identify potential additional funding for required improvements. It
is recognized that a goal of this task is to maximize the availability and timing
of any and all sources of funding for transportation facilities
Timeline:
Begin immediately.... Complete Draft document for comments
July, 1994
Complete fmal document November, 1994
WPC N:\ROME\ENOINEER.\1865.95
/t/"/1
Page 2
. .
Deliverables: Draft Strategic Plan for review (25 copies),
Final Strategic Plan (50 Copies?)
Task 3. Advocacv Effort
This task involves an ongoing effort to identify and secure alternative sources
of funding for transportation improvements for the Eastern Territories, with the
focus being coordinated with the development of the Strategic Plan, and funding
opportunities identified in development of the plan. .The level of activity
associated with this task will vary in intensity from month to month, but this
work will proceed on a constant basis in parallel with the other tasks.
Timeline:
Begin immediately...... task is ongoing
Task 4. Monitorinl!
This task involves ongoing involvement in transportation issues in the South Bay,
including Toll road progress and issues, Otay Mesa and NAFTA issues as they
relate to Chula Vista, and transportation developments in the South Bay as they
relate to Chula Vista. As a part of this activity, consultant will attend meetings
with City Staff and property owners on a monthly basis, or as requested by the
City, not to exceed twelve meetings during the duration of this one year contract.
This task will also involve general assistance on issues related to project
management and process resolution.
Timeline:
Begin immediately.... Task is ongoing
Compensation
Compensation for performance of this contract shall be $78,000, plus
transportation expenses described below. Compensation shall be paid in 12
monthly installments of $6,500 each. Said compensation is based on a presumed
effort of 30 hours per month by J.J. Smith Associates and 15 hours per month by
Urban Systems Associates.
Each month, consultant shall report the actual hours of effort involved in the
project. If said actual hours are less than the presumed hours, City shall accrue
a credit of hours amounting to the difference between said actual and accrued
hours. If said actual hours are more than said presumed hours, consultant shall
accrue such a credit.
If consultant accrues a credit of hours worked for a period of 6 months,
consultant J:I1U request an adjustment in payment. When City receives such a
request for adjustment, it may:
1. Seek authorization from the City Council for such adjustment, or
2. Direct consultant to reduce his effort to correct such accrued credits.
WPC M:\BOMl!\llNOINllIlIlI1865.9S
I J/ ..,2.0
Page 3
TrAncnortation Comoensation: Transportation to and from Sacramento will be
compensated on an actual cost basis for Meals, Lodging and transportation costs.
Expected transportation costs not to exceed $12,000
Total contract amount not to exceed $90,000.
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
() Other:
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
Deliverable No. I:
Deliverable No.2:
Deliverable No.3:
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
Consultant services shall be completed within 12 months effective date of this
agreement, except that, by mutual agreement, this agreement may be modified to
provide for additional services, extending past said -12 month period, but not to
exceed a period of 36 months. '
9. Insurance Requirements:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial
General Liability coverage).
Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:
(X)
(X)
(X)
( )
(X)
Transportation Development Impact Fee Report
SR-125 (HNTB) Report
Chula Vista General Plan
Growth Management Ordinllnce
WPC M:\HON1!\ENGINEIl1I.\l865.95
1'1-.2/
Page 4
11. Compensation:
A. () Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defmed Services by Consultant as herein required, City
shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables
set forth below:
Single Fixed Fee Amount:
, payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable
Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
B. () Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the DefIDed Services by Consultant as
are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of
Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant
shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for
a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase
Fee for Said Phase
I.
$
$
$
$
2.
3.
4.
C. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the DefIDed Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay-
Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said
Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the
following terms and conditions:
(I) () Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in
excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant
will perform all of the Defmed Services herein required of Consultant for
$ including all Materials, and other "reimbursables"
("Maximum Compensation").
(2) (X) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials
Arrangement
WPC M:\HOME\BNOJNEBR\186S.95
I 0/ ... ,? ,;J.
Page 5
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal
to $78,000 ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any addi-
tional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved
by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional
Services at Consultant's own cost and expense.
Category of Employee of
Consultant Name Hourly Rate
Principal D. 1. Smith $150
Principal Will Kempton $150
Principal Transportation Andrew Sch1aefli $105
Consultant
Rate Schedule
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of
services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
( ) None, the compensation includes all costs.
() Reports, not to exceed $
() Copies, not to exceed $
() Travel, not to exceed $
() Printing, not to exceed $
() Postage, not to exceed $
() Delivery, not to exceed $
() Long Distance Telephone Charges,
not to exceed $
(X) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs:
TransportationlLodging, not to exceed $12,000:
, not to exceed $
Cost or Rate
13. Contract Administrators:
City: Charles Thomas, Senior Civil Engineer
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5021
WPC M:\ROME\EN0lNBBR\1865.95
/0/ ~.2.3
Page 6
Consultant: Will Kempton
D. J. Smith Associates
915 L Street, Suite 1440
Sacramento, CA 95814
14. Liquidated Damages Rate:
( ) $
( ) Other:
per day.
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
(X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
() FPPC Filer
() Category No.1. Investments and sources of income.
() Category No.2. Interests in real property.
() Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of
income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the
department.
() Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income
which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale
of real property.
() Category No.5. Investnients in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City
of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment.
() Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
() List .Consultant Associates. interests in real property within 2 radial miles of
Project Property, if any:
None.
WI'C M:\BOMI!\I!N<JINEl!RIl865.9'
/i/'~tf
Page 7
.
16. () Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants:
Urban Systems Associates
18. Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
() Monthly
() Quarterly
() Other: Weekly
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
() Frrst of the Month
() 15th Day of each Month
() End of the Month
() Other: End of week
C. City's Account Number:
19. Security for Performance
() Performance Bond, $
() Letter of Credit, $
() Other Security:
Type:
Amount: $
() Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the
contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the
City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention
Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention
Release Event, listed below, has occurred:
() Retention Percentage: _ %
() Retention Amount: $
Retention Release Event:
() Completion of All Consultant Services
() Other:
I J/ .; ..2. .> ~
Page 8
Wl'C M:\ROYE\l!NGINEI!ll\l865.95
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Itemfl
Meeting Date 5/10/94
ITEM TITLE:
a)
Public Hearing to consider the waiver of Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees for the proposed Marina Golf Center (Assessor's Parcel
Number 760-048-59)
Resolution I 7'1 Y.5 Approving the partial payment of Public
Facilities Development Impact Fees for the proposed Marina Golf Center
(Assessor's Parcel Number 760-048-59) and authorizing the City Engineer
to execute an agreement with the developer for the collection of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee
b)
SUBlVllTfED BY:
Director of Public w~~
City Manager~~~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
REVIEWED BY:
Johnson International is a prospective lessee of 14.7 acres of an 18 acre parcel located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of J Street and Marina Parkway (see Attachment A). The prospective lessee
is requesting that Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PDIF) be waived for his proposed
temporary golf driving range.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council hold the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving
partial payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees in yearly increments in the amount
of $4,515.00 armually with the initial payment equal to the term of lease with the San Diego Unified
Port District and authorize the City Engineer to execute an agreement with the developer to this end.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. .
DISCUSSION:
Back!!round
The project site is located in District 7 of the San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD) and is currently
undeveloped. The SDUPD land use is industrial business park. Johnson International ("Developer")
proposes to lease the property for a minimum of 3 to 5 years with an option to renew on an armual basis
up to a maximum of 10 years after which the lease terminates. The developer states that he expects an
initial lease of a firm 3 to 5 years, after which the continued use of the site is at the sole discretion of
the Port District. The SDUPD will reserve the right to terminate the lease after the initial 3 to 5 year
period should a more appropriate development become feasible. The developer is waiting on the
outcome of this fee waiver/reduction prior to fInalizing a lease agreement with the SDUPD.
The Developer intends to construct a golf driving range, pro shop, practice area, and parking lot on the
parcel. This project is intended to be a "holding site" for a better use in the future. Due to the
/7~1
Page 2, Item I"')
Meeting Date 5/10//94
project's temporary nature and the minimal area that is actively used, the Developer has requested that
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees be waived (see Attachment B).
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PDIF)
The City's PDIF ordinance as set forth by Ordinance No. 2554 is intended to fInance public facilities
needed to "accommodate increased population created by development within the City of Chula Vista. "
New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public facilities in direct relationship
to the amount of population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or
industrial land in the development. The PDIF fee currently stands at $10,750 per acre and, for this 18
acre parcel, would constitute a $193,500 fee.
Section 3.50.160 of the PDIF Ordinance No. 2554 does allow for the modifIcation or reduction of the
fee by Council when a developer contends his development project does not adversely affect the City's
public facilities.
Waiver vs. Reduction
The Developer contends that PDIF fees are not applicable to a temporary project and that all impacts
will be minimal and "offpeak". The Developer has therefore requested that the entire PDIF be waived.
Staff does not recommend a waiver of the fee as the proposed development will create adverse impacts
on the City's existing facilities that must be mitigated. These impacts are, as outlined in Ordinance No.
2554, the City's need for:
~ Civic Center expansion
~ Police Department expansion and improvements
~ Corporation Yard relocation
~ Library systems expansion
~ Fire Suppression systems expansion
~ Geographic Information system development
~ Mainframe computer system expansion
~ Telephone system upgrade
~ Records Management system development
The need for these systems is based on new development and lli!t off-peak patronage of a project. The
City has a need for the expanded facilities at the time parcel develops.
It is recommended that, in lieu of full payment of the fee, that it be based on the "operational area"
rather than the entire acreage. This" operational area" approach has been used in the past for Eastlake
Greens golf course (160 acres). The operational area was determined to be the site intensive use of the
golf course clubhouse and parking at 4.7 acres which translates into roughly 3 % of the area used to
/ '?~~
Page 3, Item /1
Meeting Date 5/10//94
determine the feel. The passive golf course area, which depends upon the activity at the clubhouse
site, was, thus, not included in the DIF payment calculations. This approach was outlined in Figure
4 of Section 2 of the previous PDIF Report dated 12/12/90 which was approved by Council. The
driving range herein under consideration has an operational area of 4.2 acres and a gross acreage of 18
which translates into 23 % of the area used to determine the fee. The golf course percent is lower due
to the larger amount of land needed for the same number of users. This "operational area" approach
provides a method to assess land intensive facilities which require passive use of large land areas in
proportion to their adverse impacts since most of the facility consists of open land. The operational area
for this project shall be defined as that area covered by the pro shop, parking lot, range tees and the
practice greens, totalling 4.2 acres for a current total fee of $45, 150.
Further, in accordance with the Master Fee Schedule, Ordinance 2547, Council must find that a peculiar
economic hardship or other injustice would result to the applicant which outweighs, when balanced
against, the need of the City for revenue and the need for a uniform method of recovering the same
from those against whom it is imposed. It is recommended that Council fmd that the partial payment
of the fee corrects an injustice in that the fee collected is in proportion to the mitigation of the burdens
of the development, as required by the Master Fee Schedule.
Annual Pavment of the Fee
All new developments are required to pay the full fee prior to building permit issuance; however, due
to the temporary nature of this land use, it is recommended that the applicant be allowed to pay the fee
annually in increments (based on 10% increments per year). The PDIF is based on a 20 year period,
however, the need for expanded City facilities is caused by new development at the beginning of the
period and, therefore, the 10% annual increment is recommended. The annual fee rate under this
proposal for the initial years is $4,515.00 per year, however, the PDIF is revised annually and this
increment may change from year to year if Council changes the fee. The initial PDIF fee payment
would be based on the number of years of the "firm" base lease from the Port District. Thus, if
Johnson International received a 5 year "firm" base lease before the Port District reserved the right to
take back the property for another use, they would pay $22,575.00 (5 years at $4,515.00 per year) The
following years' incremental payments shall be consistent with the interim land use of this project and
would be paid at the PDIF rate then in effect. Staff believes that this yearly payment will offset any
temporary impacts this development will have on the City's public facilities.
Impact to the PDIF
The current PDIF program (April 1993) will be effective for another year, after which the methodology
for calculating the fee may change, at Council's discretion. When this parcel is developed to its
ultimate use the new development will be charged at the new rate for the entire parcel's acreage less
'The Public Facilities Impact Fee in effect at the time was $2150 per BDU and defined the Clubhouse population
factor to be 5.6 BDU's per acre as established by the supplemental Developmental Impact Fee Report referred to
in Section 2(e) of Ordinance No. 2320. This Ordinance has been superseded by Ordinance No. 2554 which kept
the fee at $2,150 per BDU but changed the population factor for a Special Land use to 5 BDU's per acre.
17<3
Page 4, Item I 7
Meeting Date 5/10//94
the acreage for which fees have been paid by the driving range. The PDIF, therefore, will not be
adversely impacted by this temporary land use in the long run. If for some unknown reason the lease
for the driving range is extended beyond the 10 year period, staff recommends the balance of the fee
be due at that time. This clause will be included within an agreement between the City and the
developer which has not been fInalized since the developer seeks to waive the fee prior to obtaining the
lease. If at any time the developer is in non-conformance with the agreement for the lowering and
phasing of the PDIF as outlined above, the City will be able to revoke the developer's business license.
Notice
Under Ordinance 2547, which adopted the Master Fee Schedule, Council must conduct a public hearing.
The notice of the hearing is not required to be published. Notice is required to be given to the applicant
and any other party or parties requesting notice. The developer, Johnson International, and the
Construction Federation Industry have been noticed.
Recommendation
Staff concurs with the Developer that his intended use is "land intensive" and consequenlly recommends
that calculation of a fee based on the entire acreage of the parcel would create a fee that is higher than
the development's impact. Staff supports a fee based on the "operational area" to be paid in increments.
Staff recommends that the developer be required to enter into an agreement with the City to make
payments based on 10% annual increments. The annual increment will be based on the PDIF fee in
effect at the time of payment, as adopted by Council. The fIrst payment shall be collected prior to
issuance of a building permit and the following payments due in one year increments from that date for
as long as the Developer maintains a lease on the property or until the developer has paid the full fee
based on the 4.2 acres. Staff further recommends that Council authorize the City Engineer to execute
said agreement with the developer for the collection of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
in yearly increments. The fee reduction shall be contingent upon execution of the agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the resolution will provide for the collection of $4,515 in Public
Facilities Impact Fees annually and forego $148,350 in possible PDIF fees. However, if the full fee
was levied, the Developer has stated they would not be able to pursue the temporary project and the
PDIF would lose $4,515 annually until a permanent development takes place. The PDIF will not be
impacted once the property is developed to its ultimate land use.
TAlFile No.: HX-031
Attachments: A) Map of proposed development
B) Letter from Developer requesting waiver/reduction ,,().,. :; ill/A) AJ GJ>
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\lSOg.94
17'~
RESOLUTION NO.
/7'18".>
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING PARTIAL PAYMENT OF
PUBLIC FACILITIES D~ELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR
THE PROPOSED MARINA GOLF CENTER (ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 760-048-59) AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE SAN AGREEMENT WITH
THE DEVELOPER FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE IN YEARLY
INCREMENTS
WHEREAS, Johnson International is a prospective lessee of
14.7 acres of an 18 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of
the intersection of J Street and Marina Parkway; and,
WHEREAS, the prospective lessee is requesting that Public
Facilities Development Impact Fees (PDIF) be waived for his
proposed temporary golf driving range; and,
WHEREAS, under Ordinance 2547, which adopted the Master
Fee Schedule, Council must conduct a public hearing, which has been
noticed for April 26, 1994; and
WHEREAS, staff concurs with the Developer that his
intended use is "land intensive" and consequently recommends that
calculation of a fee based on the entire acreage of the parcel
would create a fee that is higher than the development's impact and
supports a fee based on the "operational area" to be paid annually
in 5% increments ($2,257.50); and,
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the developer be required
to enter into an agreement with the City to make payments annually
in 5% increments which annual increment will be based on the PDIF
fee in effect at the time of payment, as adopted by Council with
the first payment being collected prior to issuance of a building
permit and the following payments due in one year increments from
that date for as long as the Developer maintains a lease on the
property or until the developer has paid the full fee based on the
4.2 acres; and,
WHEREAS, staff further recommends that Council authorize
the City Engineer to execute said agreement with the developer for
the collection of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in
yearly increments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the plan recommended by
staff for the partial payment of Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees for the proposed Marina Golf Center (Assessor's Parcel
1
)7"'>
Number 760-048-59) as outlined in the Council Agenda Report dated
and presented for Council app~oval May 10, 1994; and authorizes the
Mayor to execute an agreement to be prepared by the City Engineer
and approved by the City Attorney with the developer consistent
with said recommendation, and which shall, at a minimum provide,
and shall not have provisions inconsistent with, the developer's
payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee ("PDIF")
prorated for 4.2 acres ("Prorated Acreage") of the 14.7 acres, and
payable according to the following schedule:
A. Commencing upon the withdrawal of building, permits, an
initial payment in an amount equal to the number of firm years
in the developer's initial lease with the Port District not
including option periods ("Initial Term") times the current
PDIF times the Prorated Acreage times 10%.
B. Commencing upon any extension period ("Extension Term") of
the lease which is for a multi-year period, at the beginning
of such Extension Term, the payment in an amount equal to the
number of firm years in the Extension Term not including
option periods times the then current PDIF times the Prorated
Acreage times 10%.
C. For any year of oqcupancy by the developer after the
Initial Term which is not covered by a multi-year lease, the
developer shall pay, at the commencement of such year, an
amount equal to the then current PDIF times the Prorated
Acreage times 10%.
The agreement shall adequately secure
shall be made at the times indicated.
payment
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\Johnson
2
/7- "
DIF Rate Full Lot Active Area Annual Fee
0.03 14.7 4.2 0.1
1 $10,750 $158,025 $45,150 $4,515
2 $11,073 $162,766 $46,505 $4,650
3 $11,405 $167,649 $47,900 $4,790
4 $11,747 $172,678 $49,337 $4,934
5 $12,099 $177,859 $50,817 $5,082
6 $12,462 $183,194 $52,341 $5,234
7 $12,836 $188,690 $53,911 $5,391
8 $13,221 $194,351 $55,529 $5,553
9 $13,618 $200,181 $57,195 $5,719
10 $14,026 $206,187 $58,911 $5,891
11 $14,447 $212,372 $60,678 $6,068
12 $14,881 $218,744 $62,498 $6,250
13 $15,327 $225,306 $64,373 $6,437
14 $15,787 $232,065 $66,304 $6,630
15 $16,260 $239,027 $68,293 $6,829
17-7)11-9
AnA~~ A
I
"
II
u
l~lA~OOOO'ij IA .. ~O'ij~ fP[L,1A1NI
liYAlb\U~UINJA\ @@I!.IF ~IEINI"ii'1E1Rl
@Jg@If.l@[! JJ@IHIIN1~@1NI OINl'U'l!lf.llNlbl"ii'O@lNIbll!., UINI~.
~~I fl)
SCALI: 1" . 1W (APPROX>>
I 7, C;
\'
A\w.c.h. WI.~~ ~
c1J
_.::. .,7,-.:.....
:. .'" ...i ' ': ~
,<- ..
. 1 Sit.
. L I,. ,;- .'~..'~, ...;~.pT
April 8, 1994
;;):'1 AFR 12 AM tJ: 45
Mr. Cliff Swanson
City Engineer
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for the
Marina Golf Center (Proposed).
Dear Mr. Swanson:
We are the prospective lessee of the golf center project to be located on the east side
of Marina Parkway on San Diego Unified Port District tidelands within the City of Chula
Vista. We understand that the City of Chula Vista has a fee imposed on non-
residential developments within the City equal to ten thousand seven hundred fifty
dollars ($10,750.00) per acre - the referenced fee. We hereby respectfully request
that the City of Chula Vista waive this fee for this project.
The Pon Master Plan calls for this property to be used for industrial or business park
purposes. Our proposed project is, therefore, an interim use and consists of a
temporary golf driving range with a small pro shop and practice areas for chipping
and putting. The entire site is approximately 14.7 acres but the "operational area" is
only about 4.2 acres. The "operational area" is the area covered by the shop, parking
lot, range tees and the practice greens. The balance of the property is the driving
range which will be mostly grass, and substantially undeveloped.
The Board of Port Commissioners granted conceptual approval for this temporary
project provided the Port retain the right to cancel the lease should market conditions
justify development of the parcel for industrial or business park uses as contemplated
in the Port Master Plan. We believe we v.ill be granted a guaranteed minimum period
of operation which will be three to five years. We also expect to obtain options to
renew on an annual basis for a total of ten years after which the lease terminates. Due
to the temporary nature of the project, and the mi~imal area actively used, we feel
that the City fee should not be applicable to our temporary project, but be reserved
for full payment by the ultimate and permanent user.
This temporary project is a recreational amenity to the area and the minimallraffic it
generates will be at "off peak" times. Any other impact will be minimal and "off
peak". We realize this request is somewhat unusual but we believe the temporary use
/7-/1/
~J~ JnD. . .i.ucfff. gl.ea~~oul.e,va,d. .'/l..o/.tulak,~ ~ ,y.),9.i.l; .(oc'? ).9.93-.1.1(}()
-
/J
Mr. Cliff Swanson
April 8, 1994
Page two
we will have requires a waiver in what was envisioned by the City as a fee for a
permanent commercial use of City Facilities.
Thank you for your consideration.
GHj:cgb
/7'/1
~J~.Jb. . 5.Y.tOf!. Yka.PBOld.euad. YcoUMIaIe., ~ <f.'.!'.i.ll .(60.!' )998~1.f(J(J
-
INDWELLER
INfrastructure Dealing with Waste WELL Earth Restoration
a non-profit mutual benefit corporation
May 10, 1994
Bruce Henning
Director of Solid Waste
Phoenix, AZ
(602) 534-3333
Dear Mr. Henning,
This not-for-profit corporation has been presenting independent studies to
the City of Chula Vista for over four-years in the development of source-
separated material resource recovery. Upon the request of Council we are
gathering this information. Thank you for your cooperation.
Q. Do you have a landfill and in what form of ownership is it in your
jurisdiction of Phoenix?
R. The City of Phoenix owns two landfills.
Q. Do you have curbside recycling and how are the collection services
contracted?
R. Yes, the City has an implementation program at 80,000 homes. The
City collects garbage and recyclables in four of five districts. One private
company collects in one. Every seven years the City competes with
private enterprise for one district.
Q. What is the percentage of participation and the rate of recovery for
recyclable materials?
R. We estimate a 90% participate rate and because it is in it first program
year, a final study of the recovery rate is not available.
Q. Have you investigated transfer stations and Material Recovery
Facilities?
R. Yes, a transfer/MRF combination was open in Aug./Sept. 1993. 1. The
transfer station for refuse receives the once a week collection of a two
two barrel system. The MRF receives commingled recyclables another day
of the week. A commercial waste collection for source-separated
materials has also been provided a sort line.
1433 Nadon Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911-5513
PH~~~~~ ~!
INDWELLER 2 of 2 pages B. H. AZ
Q. How were these facilities evaluated and with what criteria?
The University of Arizona, evaluated the components of the waste stream.
The $125,000 study presented the criteria for development of a
Transfer /MRF combination.
Q. Under what circumstances would you find a transfer station necessary?
R. If the distance of the landfills were greater than the 21-45 mile criteria
of cost. The cost savings provided the capital costs of the facility. We will
be retiring one of the landfills.
&J ~-;2
INDWELLER
INfrastructure Dealing with Waste WELL Earth Restoration
a non-profit mutual benefit corporation
May 4, 1994
John Labrie
Director of Solid Waste
Beaumont, TX
409-842-1483 FAX 842-1722
Dear Mr. Labrie,
This not-for-profit corporation has been presenting independent studies to
the City of Chula Vista for over four-years in the development source-
separated material resource recovery. Upon the request of Council we are
gathering this information. Thank you for your cooperation.
1. Do you have a landfill and in what form of ownership is it in your
jurisdiction of Beaumont?
2. Do you have curbside recycling and how are the collection services
contracted?
3. What is the percentage of participation and the rate of recovery for
recyclable materials?
4. Have you investigated transfer stations and Material Recovery
Facilities?
5. How were these facilities evaluated and with what criteria?
6. Under what circumstances would you find a tranfer station necessary?
Your prompt response to these questions is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Teresa Aland
Executive Director
1433 Nadon Avenue, Chula Visla, CA 91911-~13 /) /J
PHONE (619) 422-1145 FAX t!J~ U7rt - J
--'
'-'
,.8& Otg 1 %um;ont
Mey 4, 1994
Ms. Terese Aland
Executive Director
INDWELLEA
1433 Necion Avenue
r.hlll. VI.... (".II. 91911li5U
Dear Ms. Aland:
I have attempted to answer your questions on the attached sheets. The numbers
rehrte to your qu"stion numbers.
If I can be of further nslstence, pleese notify me.
ninety, ~
-crie
Director, Solid Waste Management
.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
RECYCLING LEARNING CENTER
P. O. Box 3827 BeaumDnt. Tex..s 77704
@. 1I'~INfl.I1I'/l4I1l"C:'r(:If;n>'..,:'1
{)~~~ ~t/
,
'-"
'-"
1 . LANDFILL
The City of Beaumont owns end operates a 328 acre landfill that was. parroitted. -
by the State of Texas. We have approximately ten (101 years of ramainlng life
at the site. The site is located within the city limits of Beaumont.
2. CURBSIDE RECYCLING
Curbside recycling Is provided to all single family households within the city.
Recyclables are co-mingled in a twenty-four (24) gallon racycllng bin and placed
at the curb for once-a-week collection. Collection personnel separate the
material at the curb using a compartmentalized truck. Items collected are clear,
green and brown glass containers, newsprint with advertising inserts, steel and
aluminum cans, and plastic beverage containers. These Items are collected by
Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) under a contract that requires BFI to collect and
merket ell products. Revenues received from the sale of items are shared
equally (50% - 50%) by 8FI and the City of Beaumont. The current cost is
$1.43 per month per household on the route. There are approximately 33,000
single family households In the City.
3. RECYCLING PARTICIPATION Atl.l2 BlUe Qf BEC:;OVERY
Participation is approximately 60% and approxlm8tefy~%-of-r6"5tdentla!-w.!!ste.m_..
Is recycled through the curbside program.
NOTE:
In addition to curbside recycling, we also collect yard waste at the
curb end recycle It through a composting operation that is located
on the landfill. Approximately 175.000 cubic yards of yardwaste
enters the compost site annually representing 25% of the waste
stream.
4. TRANSFER STATIONS lISJ. Atl.l2 MATERIAL RECQVERY FACILITIES 1MBEl
We have not investigated the use of TS because we own e landfill that is
located In our city. Our furtherest haul distance from a collection route Is eight
(81 miles.
We have Invastlgatad a MRF. It was determined that a MRF's capital and
operating cost as compared to our landfill cost was not beneficial. The malar
reason is that we own our landfill and disposal cost is only $12 per ton.
Looking long range, the cost of land In our area is relatively cheap so It will be
beneficial to site a new landfill in the future. We also determined that a landfill
. will always be needed to dispose of residual waste from a MRF or ash from a
burning plant.
We will continue to monitor the cepltal and operating cost of a MRF because
{)4~ ~,~
User:
Application:
Document:
Date:
Time:
Printer:
PrintMonitor
Fax 5/10/94 2.06 PM
Tuesday, May 10, 1994
3:13:21 PM
HP LaserJet
vA ~ t
.
, .
'-"
---
Page 2
we feel that technology and market competition will lower cost In the future.
At this time the cost out weighs the benefits for our city. We are seeking to
achieve waste reduction in other ways that are more cost effective.
5. See #4 above.
6. NECESSITY QE A TRANSFER STATION
Based upon my knowledge and experience, e transfer station's purpose is to
reduce the number of trips to a disposal site. EXAMPLE: Waste collection
trucks that have a capacity of 20 cubic yards must haul the waste to a disposal
site that is 50 miles lIway. Locating a transfer station within 10 miles of where
the waste is collected will reduce milaage and manhours rSQuired to go to the
disposal site for ell collection trucks. Wasts from four or mora collection trucks
can be transferred to a .ingle tractor/trailer rig that makes only one trip to the
dispoSllI site.
In summary, a transfer station may be beneficial if the disposal site is a long
distance from the collection areas. A COst/benefit analysis is necessary.
Factors considered ere capital and operating cost of trensfer station and cost
savings eChiaved by reducing distences collection trucks travel.
{/~ ~. 7
INDWELLER
INfrastructure Dealing with Waste WELL Earth Restoration
a non-profit mutual benefit corporation
May 4, 1994
Frank Espino
Supervisors of Solid Waste Management
Lubbock, TX
806-767-2485 F~
Dear Mr. Espino,
This not-for-profit corporation has been presenting independent studies to
the City of Chula Vista for over four-years in the development of source-
separated material resource recovery. Upon the request of Council we are
gathering this information. Thank you for your cooperation.
Q. Do you have a landfill and in what form of ownership is it in your
jurisdiction?
R. City owned.
Q. Do you have curbside recycling and how are the collection services
contracted?
R. Municipal Ally System of land use for utilities, three cu yd. bins for
residential use, with one bin to every 4 households, blue bag commingled
recyclables set by dumpster for once a week pick-up with refuse pick-up
twice weekly.
Q. What is the percentage of participation and the rate of recovery for
recyclable materials?
R. First year of citywide curbside recycling was 40%,with increases from
last-year's 4% from a population of 190,000.
Q. Have you investigated transfer stations and Material Recovery
Facilities?
R. No, because of the close proximity of the landfill only 3 miles North of
City. Tipping fee 18/ton plus a $1.25 to State for Subtitle 0 requirements.
Revenues to an enterprise fund from monthly fees.
1433 Nadon Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911-551\ I:? ~ ,,/
PHONE (619) 422-1145 FAX c:;7~~. - y
INDWELLER page 2 of 2 EE. TX
Q. How were these facilities evaluated and with what criteria?
R. Three pilot programs were implemented. Two as drop- off, one as a
permanent site, and one mobile drop-off collection, Third program was
the blue bag system. Findings based on amounts recovered, and
participation rates.
Q. Under what circumstances would you find a transfer station necessary?
R. Distance, and infrastructure.
vA~ -;;
DocumeRt: hM 5/11/94 4.13 PM, From: 511 235 1198, Created: 5/11/94 4:13 PM
1....,1 J.U J..J.J'" J...........J .....'~1 ....."- nLJIu.n
......LtJ c.....J..J tJ.L.JU I.U.L
Page I of2
Gw<-.h.w.....- - !, I -x-l -fk.."../s-q' ~>~. d I ~(..+tu
draft sent by (u tor quick con..nent, please.
May 10, 1994
Mic}lee1 Brown
Brown, Vence, and Associates
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94104
~~'. MiYf\k0r---Pr-Li\N>(J pt)
Dear Mike:
Urban Ore has been contacted by Teresa Aland, a recycling activist and
entrepreneur who has proposed a serial materials recovery facility for the
City of Chula Vista. After reviewing the site plan and design she sponsored,
we think her proposal has merit and deserves to be evaluated seriously.
However, today she sant 118 an analysis by Brown. Vence, and Associates that
recommends against the Serial MRF concept that Ms. Aland has proposed.
There are levera! statemanta in the BV A report that I beUeve are misleading
or inaccurate. I would Uke to take this opportunity to comment on them.
. It is true that the serial MRF "requires a major shift in solid waste
practices." But that is exactly the intent of California's AB 939, as
revised. The shift. that AB 939 requires is the shi4 from managing
discards'as waItes to manaaingthem al resources. We think the serial
MRF could help make this shift occur reliably and cost-effectiyely.
. Tbe serial MRF relies on -small business cooperation-, and for that
matter also on the cooperation oflarge businesses, institutions, and the
general public. The tone of the BVA 1'8port SUiPsts that this is a
disadvantllie, but of course it is not. Operatore in a serial MRF
succeed by meetitIi the needs of their customers, exactly as any other
kinds ofbusines6eS do. We use favorable rates, communication, and
convenience to pull materials away from wasteful destinations.
. The BV A report suggests that the serial MRF has been tried "on a
small scale, (but) notmon the large scale that Chula Vista would
1'8quire.. As you know, the serial MRF that operate. in Berkeley is a
regional facility that operates in close cooperation with a ma,jor refuse
transfer station. When we surveyed six major materials recovery
operators in the Berkeley RMDZ last year, we found that they
employed over 90 people fulltime, handled about 85,000 tons per year,
&~ ~ . ---)tJ
Document: Fax 5/11/94 4.13 PM, From: 511 255 1198, Created: 5/11/94 4:15 PM
IIMI A.IU J....J..J'"t J.......'"t.... Ul'.un~ Ul"_ M.LIfI.lI'
.....L1tJ IC....,J.... IUJ......V 1.t:.J<:.
Page l ofl
and generated about $8.5 million in total income. Since then, most of
these operators have continued to expand their throughput. Although
we know the Berkeley serial MRF is not complete, I submit that
collectively we are having a considerable impact on reducing the waste
stream in our area.
.. I have not read the written part of the Mother Aland proposal, but I
can tell you that developing markets for recovered materials is
something that each business in the Berkeley serial MRF takes full
responsibility for. We do not rely on the City or County to sell our
products for us, as your analyst seems to imply. One of the reasons we
have been 80 successful over the years is that we have developed high
quality feedstocks and products that move well in the marketplace.
.. We believe that there are many serial MRFs operating in the United
States, znost of them not on contiguous sites but rather in decentralized
regional clusters. The problem of finding working examples is
basically one oflearnin&' to recognize the geographic patterning of
these source. separated materials recovery business clusters. The name.
"serial MRF" was coined by Tom Padia, Recycling Coordinator for
Alameda County.
I hope that these remarks help to restore the validity of the serial MRF as an
option for the City of Chula Vista. A feasibility analysis could show how the
various components of the serial MRF milfht be conillfured given the discard
. composition ofChula Vista, and the location and functions of the materials
recovery businesses already operating there.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel Knapp, Ph.D.
President and General Manager
cY~~-//
TOTAL P.02
.. W N ....
~ . 'G') i> ' '"'0 '0 iQ i!il ,en '"Tl '0 '0
,.=(i) 1Z :0 j..... liD .~ :.0' :0 !i" :p) i-f
8 i.=1: l,~ iZ 1;:! i-8.. 1'< !'< ~~ lt: i.lm- l.:i i:J i)>
'..... 0 -, c:: . - . '0 i)> i 0 '::J '('i ,<
"'~ c: i.... ;en '.'_ 'r- ,;:I. ",'m ',O! ',m i,~ ',.:a.. :,0.. .::J .
_ ~ ,:I: ,.ID<" '8''< '" - '" .. i,,,, i,JlOo
,.<!m j.. ')>:(1) .CD '", is>> :"C !C/)
',:11' :.)( 1. ','..- ','m "'" '.-_. ......
1,Z- _ :.' l~' j,~ 1cn lo !c.,) :.'"'T"I ...... :.~ '.0 !,~' ::J :-
,..,.. :< ,:I> ,,:.i::, "';< ..iiil ;.'~",c:. i 0 '.''>> io i:a ! 3" '0 ;~ i::c
WI 0 j r- ' _ i. 0", ::1!. 0", ! CD . (1) !. Q 10 i )>
i.lJ) -0 i.:I>z :,.:::' ';0 '.C: i.e: '.C: ;3 i::J - '0 '.z
1...... m i 0 ",.""", cn1ll1 l c5" l,....... j _ 1,:.~.. i [ : c:!: i 2l !, ::J_CII ! Z
'.',+ a j i::J j~ !;r j~ :... ",.!",:m
8 ! !~ l~ jCD !=!a ><
i~ ~ , i~, , . 1::J!i Ig jg'
nnr....:.=t...:.=ni........!......nr~..'......i:"rn ni.........!.......::l......i.......T.'ninnr.......r.....'j......'rnnl~n
~ :.......'" ~~U1 ~~ ii:/t 10 j,~.. j""',,, ! :..."'0 ,0 !~ j0.. '! ~
!.fllo. 1:: j~ l~ !~ iUl;O ~,_g ig i,.g' i~ i~ ; I i:1:
!~ Len j...a Leo 1 en iUS l!-" :~ ..!~0U1 1~ i US
jNjUJjOOj(,,)i'"[Cft [0: l: jO[Ojo[: [0::!!G)
, ,O,I\).CD .N ,m, , .0,0 ,0 ,0.0,0,0 ,-EIt .0 ,0 ,-0,-0 ,-E.9.
'n'i.....I.~'nl;....i.=..n!:.....i':'nl~'..i'...'rnr~..iQ...'r.Q..'ignl9."'i..Q..tQn:gn+9."r9...+Q"'rn:~..n
i.~ !,:t i~ : ~ i~ !.~.. !.~! I, j !~ ! i, !.:. :..-
I\) UJ 100 !: . U1 0 l~
1011\) lOJ :1\) i~ I..... 10 iQ :0 :{,9:0 1-0:-EIt l{h :$: :{fl 10 1$1.....
tlli-tilili-r-~!g-rrtg+oti9-1;tQfOllr
, .0,1\).00 ,I\) .0). , .0._.<69.0 ,{It ,-0 ,. ,-69 ,fIt.o ,-E9 ,-0.0.
"m:mml;"'!';"l:"m::""r:m'j;ml"""li,,!Qmti"'r"rni.Q"i.9.'m[Qmj.Qn;:"i.Qmj.Qmj.Qnr.! n;nn
i.J:l.:....I. !~ :1\) :ce~: :0 i01 : i<.n:CQ
:~ !~CD iw"'" i CD [wco!CO 1wo LO 1 io [~
i~ !~ [: 1~ ~g; !.CQ jg 1* 12 f(fl!*!Q!{fl j- 10 19 i-[- j- lCQ
. ie,.) iO !W it,) :0, . :0 iO lO :0 iO iO 10 :0 10 :0 :0 :0 :0:
Ti~ll~-lililiri~TiiTTTTT:~Trilr
il\) iN :0 il\) lQ): : 10:* iO .-!*!* i* :-69 :-69 iO !ifl!* :0:
...._.f:Z.l.Q...l-Q...t.Q._._-[-Q.....!.Q.._.!-~...i......f.Q..-f.9....f.9...y?...i.9...j.9...j.9....f.9..._j.-Q'--j..g._.j.Q"'i".Q...j.Q-"I"~'-"-'
,m,... '... '... ' ,0 ,... " .., ,0
i~!<.n 1~ !....L i{fl !. i..... iN !0 !-(fll. . !-ffl i.....
, I~ I~ i~ !~ i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ I~ i~ I~ I~ i~ I. ~
:U) d\) :-" :01 Len : j01 La:o:o LO jO L5" LO La:
[0, fa 1(", !~ it.) j 1'"0 :0 1'"0 l'"o :0 ro :0 iO : :0 i
. it.):O lCoJ :-" il'\J ! :o!{fl io :0:0 :0 :0 !{fl io :0 !(fl i{,9 :0.
: 11\):0:1\) :1\) :0 : :0:0 :0 :0:0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 10 :0:
...mtm...j........imn...+.......mt_m.....+...muf........r......f-..m.fnn....+...___.+mn.jn.....+.......j__m..__f__.....+......+._m.+m....j.......+..._...f_mnm..
:~j 'j' i ' i j' i ! i i: i
!~I !
i~i
tP~~
- leA
~ ~ ~ I\)
U1 0 Ul 0 Ul
0 0 <:> 0 C>
0 C> <:> 0 0
0 0 0 0 <:>
0 0 0 0 0 <:>
1
..
oj)
Clll :I:
(Q ~.
0
-<
0
-
c}
~ ;I
;I
oj) ~
(Q
0 CD
c
!.
<'
CD
~
CD
CI.
.. 0'
oj) 3:
oj)
- II>
~
5'
CIl
III
;I
;::;:
III
-<
- ."
U) ~
U)
~ :;
""
(5'
'"
-
to
Clll
to
,
~
.... to
(Q ~
U)
w
.
~
;I
'"
0'
.
c}
;I
en
;;
....
!!l
CI.
-
=
:::J
.....
o
;I
en
:Jl
CD
n
'<
n
cr
CI.
tJ~~. JJ
.
URBAN ORE, INC.
REUSE. RECYCLING. RESEARCH. CONSULTING
~
I \ \
I, ,/
R,gUSE EMPOR.!UM.
...fEWER 1REASURES WOULD BE' "fURNED INTO -rRASH.
For more than a decade, Urban Ore's employees and customers have been serving as just such a jury. We prevent
reusable goods from being wasted, conserving the materials, energy, and skill emodied in them.
Urban Ore salvages still-useful things discarded onto the City of Berkeley's transfer station floor. We also buy
some reusable goods for trade credit or cash, and accept others as free drop-offs.
People who dispose of unwanted goods at Urban Ore reduce their dump fees or even earn a few dollars. Those
who buy things find vintage and modern goods at bargain prices.
Very little that Urban Ore accepts goes to landfill.
What others say about us...
.....8 precedent-setting recycling operation still
growing vigorously in Berkeley, California."
- J. Baldwin in the Whole Earth &olog
Best Dropofr, 1990 (award)
- California Resource Recovery Association
Best Salvage Yard, 1990 (award)
_ San Francisco Bay Gumdian newspaper
"Urban Ore, Inc., is one of ibe most successful reuse
organizations In ibe U.s."
- Material Reuse Facility Design Project.
Wbatcom County. Washington Solid Waste Division.
Prepared by Sound ResoUICe Management Group. Inc.
Best second-hand furniture store,
East Bay, 1992 (readers' choice)
_ San Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper
recycled paper
tJ~~.I'I
URBAN ORE'S DIVISIONS
GENERAL STORE
At the General Store, a 17,OOO-square-foot ware-
house, we carry stock that changes quickly but
usually includes furniture, rugs, housewares,
books, tools, bicycle parts, books, art, records,
antiques, jewelry, hardware, kitchen cabinets, and
office equipment such as typewriters, desks,
chairs, and ruing cabinets. Manager: David
Seabury. 1333 Sixth Street, Berkeley, CA
94710 (510) 559-4450. Open 8:30-5:00, 7 days
a week.
DISCARD MANAGEMENT CENTER
Conveniently located ahead of but next to the
Berkeley transfer station, the Discard Management
Center is where we receive dropoffs of reusable
goods and scrap metal, and where we recycle
appliances. We do not sell items at the Discard
Management Center. Manager: David Seabury.
1231 Second Street, Berkeley, CA 94710 (510)
559-4451. Open 8:30-4:30, 7 days a week.
INFORMATION SERVICES
Through Information Services, we answer inquir-
ies about Urban Ore, conduct recycling research,
distribute publications, and work on a consulting
basis. Manager: David Stem. 1333 Sixth Street,
Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 559-4454. Open
8:30-5:00, Monday through Friday.
*
BUILDING MATERIALS EXCHANGE
At the Building Materials Exchange, a two-acre
outside salvage yard, we trade in vintage and
modern doors, windows, lumber, sinks, tubs,
toilets, bricks, tile, glass, pipe, and hardware.
Manager: Claudio Osomio. 1333 Sixth Street,
Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 559-4460. Open
8:30-5:00, 7 days a week.
OUTSIDE TRADER
Our Outside Trader offers a convenient pickup
service for people who have certain types of
reusable goods to dispose of but cannot or do not
want to bring them to our sites. The Outside
Trader may pick up a few items to help someone
clear out a storage space, liquidate an estate, or
responsibly dispose of excess building materials
from a construction or remodeling job. Manager:
Rosemary Galiani. 1333 Sixth Street, Berkeley,
CA 94710 (510) 559-4461. Open 8:30-5:00,
Tuesday through Saturday.
CORPORATE STRUCTURE
Urban Ore, Inc., became a California "S" corpora-
tion in July 1981. Its Board of Directors:
Daniel Knapp, Ph.D. - President
Michael Casady - Vice President
Mary Lou Van Deventer - Secretary
*
*
"Recycling is a form of disposal. If you had to dispose of your parents' estate, you wouldn't lump it all
together, dig a hole, and bury it. You would parcel it out in an organized way. That's how recycling
disposes of things. "
- Daniel Knapp, co-founder and President of Urban Ore
?J~ ~ -I:)
URBAN ORE. INC. . 9/93 . Contact: David Stem at (510) 559-4454
PURPOSE
We reuse
Urban Ore's primary purpose is to keep reusable
things in circulation and out of the dump. First we
divert goods from landfIll by accepting or buying
them before they are dumped. But if still-useful
things are dumped at the City of Berkeley's trans-
fer station, we are licensed by the City to salvage
them from the dumping floor. We sort our incom-
ing goods, price them, display them, and sell them
to customers who repair them or reuse them as-is.
Our kind of reuse facility differs from traditional
salvage and secondhand stores in that it is dedi-
cated not to selling a small, highly salable inven-
tory, but to handling as much volume as possible
in all ranges of quality. Our reuse center is de-
signed not to maximize profits but rather to pre-
vent waste and minimize landfilling.
Reuse conserves more energy and materials than
recycling does because discarded items do not
need to be broken down chemically or mechani-
cally and then reconfigured into new products.
Instead, reuse simply uses a product again in its
original form. Doing so also conserves the skill
and cultural value inherent in an item, thereby
conserving more economic value than recycling
does. For example, a filing cabinet may be worth
one dollar as scrap steel, but one hundred dollars
as a piece of office furniture.
~. .:
. .ro"~
We recycle
When we cannot sell an item for reuse, we try to
scrap it for recycling. We recycle metals, wood,
glass, paper, and ceramics - porcelain, brick, and
concrete.
We spread the word
To encourage more effective recycling elsewhere,
we exchange theoretical and practical information
with other businesses, with governmental agen-
cies, with activist and community groups, and with
individuals trying to change the way their area
handles discards.
Through our Information Services division, we
respond to public inquiries, conduct recycling
research, speak around the country, distribute
publications, and work on a consulting basis.
Urban Ore's consulting services are based on a
belief that discards should be managed as a supply
of refmed resources that can contribute to ecologi-
cal sustainability,local economic development,
and overall social value.
ORIGINS
City-sanctioned salvaging in Berkeley goes back
to 1923, when the City opened its municipal fill in
San Francisco Bay and the contracted operators
ran an informal salvage effort. Urban Ore's
founders started salvaging in 1979, when they took
over the contracted operator's small salvage and
sales operation. They incorporated as Urban Ore
in July 1981.
The salvagers pulled reusable items from the
material that small haulers and self-haulers
brought in, then sold these goods right there at the
landfill. They did not salvage from the packer
trucks, because the packers' hydraulic systems
crush and mix discards, rendering them unusable.
In 1979 the tipping area was a pit, and any goods
not destroyed on impact had to be hoisted back out
to be recovered. In California's wet winters, the
pit collected water and became a muddy sink.
Later, when the landfill operators fIlled the pit and
created a flat tipping area, fewer goods were
destroyed, and working conditions improved.
Not everyone goes to a landfill to shop, however,
so Urban Ore opened a dropoff-buyback and sales
center on a commercial street in Berkeley. That
site grew into our Building Materials Exchange
(BMX). Then, when the City of Berkeley closed
its landfill and opened a transfer station in town,
we moved our landfill salvaging and sales area
there. This became Ollr Discard Management
Center.
tJ~~.~/t
URBAN ORE,INC.' 9193' Contaot: David Stern at (510) 559-4454
URBAN ORE TODAY
Today we continue to salvage from Berkeley's
transfer station under City license, as well as to
receive dropoffs next door at our Discard Manage-
ment Center. In October 1991 we moved the
DMC sales area to our new General Store, a large
warehouse next to our Building Materials Ex-
change.
This 2.2-acre combined site is one of the nation's
largest and most diverse reuse centers. Bay Area
residents and businesses can now conveniently
dispose of and purchase reusable household goods,
furniture, office equipment, art, books, music,
collectibles, and building materials in one location.
We also frequently pick up materials from busi-
nesses, homes, and construction sites.
TONNAGES
Most of the material we process is delivered to our
yards by homeowners, businesses, and small
haulers. We do not weigh this material, so an
accurate measure of our tonnage is unavailable.
We do know, however, that we salvage about 325
tons a year from the transfer station, and we pick
up another 300 tons a year on outside jobs. All
together, we estimate that we process about 3,000
tons of material a year.
GROSS SALES
Our most accurate long-term measure of effective-
ness is our gross sales; rising sales suggest that
fewer goods are going to the landf1ll. Gross sales
have risen steadily since we opened, and in 1992
we sold more than $1,000,000 worth of materials.
SAFETY
People often ask us whether salvaging from a
transfer station is dangerous. Like any business
that moves materials with heavy equipment, it has
hazards. But we have never had a serious accident
in over 12 years of salvaging because we strictly
follow safety principles.
CUSTOMERS
The typical Urban Ore customer...isn't! We see
remodeling contractors, landlords, homeowners,
real estate agents, property managers, building
maintenance people, students, artists, collectors,
discard haulers, teachers, electronic and computer
enthusiasts, home repair people, gardeners, retired
people, inventors, flea market vendors, and people
who resell items in established secondhand and
antique businesses. Some of our customers shop
at Urban Ore almost daily.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Urban Ore employs 20 staff. The company en-
courages high levels of motivation, cooperation,
self-discipline, and good judgment in its employ-
ees by paying them well. In addition to hourly
wages, all employees share equally, according to
hours worked, in a bonus pool based on tonnage
received and gross sales. All fulltirne staff are
eligible for a company-paid health plan for em-
ployees and all family members.
LOCAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Urban Ore contributes to the local economy by
creating jobs (20 and growing) and collecting sales
taxes for state and local jurisdictions (over $80,000
in 1992). We also pay considerable sums to
people who sell us their goods. In 1992 we paid
out more than $150,000 in cash and trade credit.
Our suppliers and customers are almost all local,
so the vast majority of our economic impact is in
the local community.
Since we do not repair or ref'tnish the materials we
handle, local craftspeople and tradespeople earn
income from adding value through reconditioning.
We also donate money and goods to local schools,
artists, and community groups.
()~~ .-/7
URBAN ORE. INC. . 9193' eon....: David Slern at (510) 559-4454
DANIEL KNAPP, DAVID STERN, AND MARY LOU VAN DEVENTER
Commodity buyers don't
like dirty materials.
That's why the cleanest,
most predictable supplies
bring the highest income.
It also explains why
re-users and recyclers not
only prefer to keep unlike
materials separate,
but search for smaller
sorting fractions that can
be sold for higher prices to
specialized niche markets.
42 . MSW MulquIeat
ne handbook on metal scrap
lists over 170 subcategories.
each an element or an alloy,
each with a handling proto-
col that is common to the
industry. Recent literature on
textiles reclamation (called the "wiping
cloth" or "rag" trade, although it is much
more than that) suggests that more than
100 product categories are routinely rec-
ognized. These recycling industries have
been around for hundreds, if not thou-
sands, of years. They are healthy, and they
have a voracious appetite for discarded
materials.
As newer reclamation industries get
under way, the same kind of product dif-
ferentiation is happening in each ofthem.
Back in 1982 when Urban Ore started one
of the nation's first brush composting busi-
nesses, it had one product for sale -
uncomposted mulch. When it closed in
1986, it had a half-dozen. A spin-off soil-
blending company, American Soil Prod-
ucts, now sells over 30 products. This
increasing complexity is clearly necessary
for the economic health of recycling, or
it would not be so generalized a phe-
{!}~~I -IV
nomenon across such a wide range of
. materials. But processing and fine sorting
take space, so recycling is a space-inten-
sive business. The spaces have to be appro-
priatel y sized and configured for the mate-
rials to be handled, or production is
automatically curtailed.
Waste Management and Commingled
MRFs Are More Compact
Managing discards as wastes has the space
advantage in town. Pursuing the goal of
fast handling with minimal recovery has
led to the pit-type transfer station, the
incinerator, and the sanitary landfill, which
treat most kinds of material as though
they were the same and use a single space.
Working upstream toward the source, effi-
ciency has been produced using increas-
ingly sophisticated collection and pack-
ing systems. Where rural landfills are
space~intensive, in-town or nearby trans-
fer stations and incinerators are compact.
Materials already compacted in trucks are
speedily and efficiently dumped, then
crushed again to compact them some
more. They are then taken out of town to
be landfilled.
March/April 1994
I
I
,
,
! '
i
"
,
There are endless variations in the for-
mula, but mixing is the common denom-
inator. It is natural,therefore,that as waste
managers have moved into recycling, they
have brought along some techniques of
waste management complete with spatial
advantages. Indiscriminate mixing has
been cut back to limited mixing, called
commingling. It has generated commin-
gled-materials recovery facilities, garbage
composting plants, and recovery systems
for construction and demolition materials,
which unfonunately stan to operate only
after structures are smashed up and their
pans rendered useless.
II strategies can work, but
some will run into environ-
mental difficulties and others
i'nto technical and design
problems. All can produce
resources, but many products
have limited uses because,of contamina-
tion or minimized value. All can make
money. but some may not survive unless
operators can lock up market share, ser-
vice fees, and financing.
Can they compete over the long haul
with more space-intensive systems that
process source-separated materials? It
remains to be seen, although early indi-
cations are that source-separated process-
ing offers enough advantages to overcome
its spatial disadvantage, especially if the
components are decentralized. Much
depends on whether the competition is
encouraged or even allowed to develop fur-
"This serial MRF
has become a
regional draw
for materials"
ther. Significant issues such as flow con-
trol are currently being tested in the couns
and legislatures. So far, garbage and waste
technologies have been losing, pUlling
more pressure to' perform on recycling
systems that handle either commingled or
source-separated materials.
A Big Idea Needs a Big Space
Maximum recycling is a big idea. Many
recyclers believe recovery rates on the
order of75% are feasible. A few go all the
way and think everything is potentially
recyclable, given a few product bans and
continued progress in designing for recy-
clability. Recycling, however, is space-
intensive in the increasingly crowded
cities. The questions are, how much space
is required, and where will it come from?
The literature on recycling is all but
silent on the broader issues of economics
and geography, but the impression is that
if operators were interviewed in depth on
obstacles they face now or have faced in
the past, finding and holding onto decent-
sized sites would be among the most dif-
ficultto overcome.
Recycling's history and development
in Berkeley, CA, illustrate the point. Mate-
rials recovery in Berkeley was designed
only in pan by coherent central planning.
It evolved largely as a collection of inde-
pendent businesses whose owners made
decisions based on self-interest and com-
munity service. The res~lting system func-
tions well. But shonage of space has been
a continuing difficulty, eventually solved
(to the extent that it can be solved) by
decentralization.
The reason space is dear is that Berke-
ley is embedded in a metropolitan context.
44 . MSW Mlnqement
,\.~~~ $@Il(UJ7r$O~~
We have the experience and capability to
customize or combine our equipment
for special applications
· Glass lit Can Crusbers
· Magnetic Separators
· Can Blowers
· Plastic Perforators
· Conveyors
Circle #48 on Reader Service Card
~~~. -Ie;
Call for details on custom designs
for special applications or problems
The C.S. Bell Co.
$' P.O.Box 291.
TIft1n. Oft 44883 U.S.A.
Phone: 419 448-0791
I'AX: 419 44IH203
March/April ]994
"
.,
,
i
.;
:1
!:
I'
,
,
,
, I
I !
. i 1
I
I
r I
I
I
II
j i
,
I!
I
l
I I
It has 103,000 residents in 43,000 house-
holds packed into 10,9 sq, mi., a density
of nearly 10,000 per sq. mi. Although the
quality of buildings is similar to many
other places, real estate prices in Berke-
ley have been among the highest in the
nation, on a par with New York City or
Honolulu. There is no usable rural hinter-
land. Berkeley is bounded on the east by
parkland and on the west by San Francis-
co Bay. To the north, south, and across the
bay are over 70 more cities and about 7
million more people.
In 1983, Berkeley's 90-acre 400 tpd
bayfill closed to become a park, and the
city opened an in-town transfer station
occupying the equivalent of three city
blocks. The site had originally seemed
plenty big to the city's waste managers
because they intended to provide only lim-
itedon-site space for recycling. Their plan
was to build an incinerator and haul the
residue to a rural landfill, and space for
a small recycling depot was included.
But citizens voted down the incinerator
option in 1982, leaving materials recov-
ery and long-haul to fill the service void
and the site.
When the facility opened in 1983, it
housed not only the buyback, but also a
re-use business and the citywide curbside
recycling collection service for source-
separated materials, along with the city's
flat-floor transfer station.
But even with more than half of the site
allocated to recycling, there was not
enough land in the transfer complex to
house all the operators who might have
wanted to locate there, and only four mas-
ter categories out of 12 could be accom-
modated. (Master categories are major
categories of material; in this case reusable
goods, paper, metal, and glass.) Mean-
while, Urban Ore's 6,000 cu. yd. per month
compost farm sat on 6 1/2 acres of the old
landfill, and at least three other re-use
operators were active on private parcels
near the transfer station.
How Source-Separated Processing
Configured Itself in Berkeley
Before the new transfer station opened a
decade ago, all the recycling businesses
in Berkeley were based firmly on source
separation, Most of the operators had
developed close working relationships dur-
ing the incinerator controversy. One design
principle they had all agreed on was that
re-use and recycling should be "front-end
systems," meaning they should be physi-
cally located at the head of the disposal
line. Mark Gorrell, an architect and recy-
cling activist, put these ideas on paper in
a facility design that was widely circulat-
ed at the time and published later in the
Sierra Club's Sierra magazine. Customers
would reach the refuse transfer station
only by driving past long rows of bins for
separated materials on either side of a
broad apron.
orrell's design could have
been built on the site, but only
by abandoning the original
site plan while keeping the
transfer station building. In
the design the garbage option
was clearly at the end of the line for cus-
tomers. Haulers entering the complex
would have their choice of unloading
areas, which could be organized to recei ve
a wide range of discarded materials, The
biggest difficulty with the design was that
it assumed a lot of off-site processing
space that didn't exist.
In the end the city accepted some of the
ideas but not others. The few operators per-
mitted onto the site configured it to their
processing needs. The Ecology Center,
which provided citywide curbside recy-
cling collection for cans, bottles, and news-
46 . MSW Ma"""'"
quality bales than a two-ram
baler, it produces them last-
er as well. And priced about
$200,000 less than many .
two-ram systems, the
8043 is the best buy in the busi-
ness lor baling recyclables.
Find out how our nationwide sales and
service network can help you with all your
baling needs.
AMBACo- 8043
Serle. wlds mouth
auto-tier 1M,.,.
AMERICAN
BALER
For more inlormation on how to make the
best-quality bales at a single low price that's
twice as nice, call 1-800-843-7512, or in
Ohio, call 419-483-5790. And be sure to ask
lor your FREE video.
COMPANY
Circle #5/ 011 Reader Service Card
(}~~
~;20
March/April 1994
When baling recyclables, two rams are just too
many. That's why American Baler developed the
AMBACO 8043 single-ram baler. It produces
denser, better quality bales laster than convention-
al two-ram balers, lor about half the cost.
By lorming bale against bale, our unique
extrusion chamber design eliminates the
need lor a second ram. The 8043 produces
maximum p.s.i. on the ram lace every stroke,
lor denser, top-quality bales, Only this system
enables you to vary bale lengths, and change
grades quickly without bale contamination,
maximizing throughput, productivity and
profitability.
Not only does the 8043 produce better
RECYCLE IT... PROFITABLY.
paper, used the site for unloading, processing, parking, and main-
taining its truck fleet. Community Conservation Centers, which
offered dropoff and buyback facilities for the same materials,
designed and operated a baling facility that processed the Ecol-
ogy Center's materials as weU as its own. The two operators,
both nonprofits, shared a site manager.
Urban Ore initiaUy used about an acre to seU re-usable goods
that it received as dropoffs or that it salvaged from the trans-
fer station's flat floor. It also processed scrap metal, as did the
city's transfer station operator, Browning-Ferris Industries.
he operations grew slowly at first, partly because
the city and its recycling operators were engaged
in a political conflict that took several years to run
its course. A casualty was the Urban Ore Compost
Farm, forced out of business in 1986. One princi-
pal difficulty was that it was supposed to move off
the closed landfiUto make way for a park, and it had nowhere
to go. BFI's operating contract ran out, and the city took over
the transfer station.
In 1989, the city took the initiative and brought the trans-
fer station's recyclers and its own refuse division together in
a working group to discuss strictly managerial issues such as
internal boundaries and site redesign. The group's charge was
to find a way to accommodate expansion and new equipment
within the finite transfer station complex. This working group
laid the groundwork for a comprehensive and continuing pro-
cess to redesign and refit the whole facility. There have been
at least a dozen configurations of the facility so far.
Another development is that the city has now joined the
ranks of recycling operators by selling up new collection pro-
grams of its own. Its curbside crews pick up yard debris using
a pay-by-the-bag system, and it coUects recyclables from com-
mercial accounts such as Berkeley's 700-plus restaurants. The
city has also set up a used-oil and oil-filter reclamation depot
just after the transfer station fee gate, and has arranged for the
nonprofits to process some of its curbside materials on-site
and then seUthem as well.
Expanding services have squeezed the operations. In 1991,
a privately owned warehouse became vacant. Urban Ore leased
it and moved its retail operation off city land, retaining only
a small part for scrap processing. That move aUowed Ecolo-
gy Center to expand its space, its curbside fleet, and service,
adding mixed paper, cardboard, and magazines to its weekly
curbside coUection.
ack of space eventiJaUy forced Recycled Wood
Products to close its Berkeley operation. The clo-
sure came too early for the company to move onto
an even smaUer piece of city-owned property being
groomed for wood and plant debris processing. That
property was still undergoing toxics remediation at
the time; Berkeley expects an operator to be on the site some-
time in 1994. Meanwhile, the city takes its collected yard
debris across the bay for processing at the Marin Sanitary
Service materials recovery facility, but landscapers hauling
bulk loads of brush have suffered another interruption of shred-
ding service, and another recycler has been forced to close
for lack of space.
During this development, other recyclers in Berkeley were
expanding their tonnages on private land. Omega Salvage,
which deals in high-end used and antique building materials,
opened a second retail store a block from its first one along
the commercial strip on San Pablo A venue. It bought out a
former salvage operator who had gone into catalog sales of
reproductions and no longer wanted a retail outlet. American
Hustler Conveyor designs and manufactures complete
turnkey systems that turn SOUd waste into profits and
that meet your volume requirements and budget.
Just give us your specifications and we'll provide you
with a complete resource recovery system totally inte-
grated for superior operating efficiency, long service
life, and profitability. We'll also proVide individual sys-
tem components to meet your replacement or expan-
sion needs.
/!!!:!?!!!!:-
4985 FyJer Avenue
51. Louis. MO 63139
Phone: 314/352.6OOQ
Fax: 314/352-0355
READ IT... FREE.
Hustler Conveyor offers you its detailed product literature
absolutely FREE. Products include custom and turnkey
solid waste or scrap recovery systems or individual sys-
tem components; steel bett conveyors, chain driven rub.
ber belt conveyors, flat belt sliders, oscillators, magnets,
trommels. bale breakers, vibratory screens. turntables,
stackers. A-frames, and more.
Hustler Conveyor guarantees you an economical, cost
saving system that will provide years and years of effi-
cient, reliable operation.
/!!!:!~-
4985 Fyler Avenue
81. Louis, MQ 63139
Phone: 314/352-6000
Fax: 314/352-0355
Circle #52 on Reader Service Card
48 . MSW Management
I
,
i
~
t
r
~
\
cJ~ ~ -;2/
March/April ]994
Soil Products began composting and sell-
ing shredded plant debris and wood feed-
stocks from Marin Sanitary Service.
Urban Ore began hauling scrap ceram-
ics to American Rock and Asphalt's quar-
ry in Richmond, where old toilets and
bricks are made into sand and gravel.
"
A 1993 Profile of Berkeley's Serial MRF
The opportunistic development of a clus-
ter of discard-handling facilities has
become a regional draw for materials.
The recycling businesses refer customers
and materials to each other, and togeth-
er they have combined to form what fits
the definition of a materials recovery
facility despite the relative absence of
commonly cqnceived-of features: elab-
orate elevated picking lines housed in
huge buildings; a single, well-capital-
ized operator; and fleets of collection
trucks dumping grossly commingled
materials onto floors or belts for sorting
by hand or machine.
The most recent redesign of the recy-
cling-transfer part of the city-owned facil-
ity does call for two small picking lines,
one limited to containers and the other to
paper. These two picking lines are pri-
marily dedicated to "negative sorting" for
curbside-generated materials. The purpose
of a negative sort is to remove minor con-
taminants to meet the highest quality stan-
dards, not to separate one commodity from
another or from garbage.
om Padia, Alameda County's
Recycling Coordinator, sup-
plied a name for the type of
MRF it has become. "You
could call it a serial MRF," he
suggests, "because haulers
unload at a series of tipping areas," refer-
ring to the sequential performance ofmul-
tiple operations. Indeed, multiple pro-
cessing operations arranged in sequence
are what serial MRFs are all about.
The idea of the serial MRF was pre-
sented at a national meeting of recyclers
in early 1993, where SCOll Bernstein of
Chicago's Center for Neighborhood Tech-
nology offered to fund a study of the phe-
nomenon, which was completed in Octo-
ber. The results were distributed at the
National Recycling Congress meeting in
Nashville, TN.
The study was limited to six business-
es located close enough to the transfer sta-
tion and with sufficient size to be perceived
by an average materials supplier or buyer
as being a part of the serial MRF. This
excluded about a hundred small re-use
businesses, including a 15,000 tpy horse-
manure composting operation at a region-
al race track, on-site recycling by busi-
nesses such as grocery stores and auto
repair shops, and ceramics processing at
local quarries.
The six serial MRF operations have
various ownership structures, including
one proprietorship and five corporations,
which divide further into a municipal cor-
poration, two private nonprofit corpora-
tions, and two private for-profit corpora-
tions. All together, in 1993 the six
operators occupied about 10 acres ofland,
offered haulers 19 different tipping areas
for unloading, and diverted about 83,000
tpy from being landfilled. Much of it was
generated outside Berkeley. They also pro-
duced about $8.5 million in cash flow and
employed 94 people full time.
For perspective, the city's refuse divi-
sion now hauls about 90,000 tpy to land-
fill (only 7,000 tons more), employs 90
people full time (4 fewer people), and has
an annual budget of about $11 million
($2.5 million more).
The essence of the serial MRF is a
series of tipping or processing areas where
separated materials may be unloaded.
I,r:,..#",..,. COMPOST
WI4U~ World's Largest Manufacturer of TURNERS
3 TYPES to choose From:
250 thru 4250 tons per hour
PROVEN DEPENDABLE -operating at hundreds
of sites world wide
SIMPUCITY - less moving parts -less
downtime .
DURABIUTY . heavy duty drum with flxed
flail design
FLAILS. the heaviest on the market
VERSATILITY - operating on unimproved sites
Is a breeze for the Wildcatl
MOBILITY. use a standard trailer
without the need for over size permits.
TURN . FLUFF . AERATE . PULVERIZE . BLEND
Wildcat Compost Turners are used worldwide, by
contractors, state and local municipalities, mllltary
establishments and foreign governments.
MAKING MOLEHILLS OUT OF MOUNTAINS
FOR OVER 20 YEARS
50 . MSW Mo_
Circle #73 on Reader Service Card /1)_ /J /'
V/'J-dV( ~ -:2;;' MarchlAprill994
Because so many of the Berkeley opera-
tors have had to find land wherever they
could, the precise sequence of unloading
depends on what is most convenient for
the hauler. This in turn is influenced by
what materials are being hauled and espe-
cially on how they are packed into the
truck. Haulers respond to the varied menu
of recycling options by packing their loads
so they are stratified with a particular
unloading sequence in mind. Then the
hauler visits each relevant recycling facil-
ity in turn and gets rid of residue at the
refuse transfer station.
The primary reason haulers take the
trouble to load their trucks according to
an unloading sequence is that it saves
them or pays them cash, or both.' Eco-
logical considerations are clearly sec-
ondary, although they playa role and con-
tribute heavily to goodwill. It feels good
to do good, when doing good is afford-
able. Typical suppliers include small busi-
nesses, contractors, homeowners, prop-
erty managers, real estate people, and
scavengers driving an assortment of auto-
mobiles, pickups, vans, trailers, and big-
ger trucks.
The reward of cash savings or pay-
ments is, however, reserved for those who
can meet the recyclers' specifications.
Operators inspect and scrutinize both loads
and unloading behavior. People with loads
that are too contaminated sometimes have
the option of going off-site to clean up their
loads, but mostly they are directed to the
Each of the recyclers
is a specialist, with
more to gain from
cooperation with
others than from
competition
refuse transfer station, where they are cur-
rently charged $57 per ton. Hauling is a
cash business and cash savings translate
immediately into money in the pocket, so
most haulers learn quickly how to load and
pack following advice given them by staff
at the sites.
Specialization Produces Cooperation,
Quality Products, Economic Growth
Each of the recyclers is a specialist in col-
lecting, processing, and marketing certain
materials. Where there is overlap in the
materials received, there is still consider-
able specialization as to how they are han-
dled. For example, Community Conser-
vation Center stays with dropoff and
buyback, and Ecology Center does resi-
dential curbside exclusively, while the
city's curbside efforts concentrate on com-
mercial accounts, principally restaurants.
The result is a pattern of niche business-
es with more to gain from cooperation
than from competition.
All operators are acutely aware of the
quality imperative. They limit contami-
nation by insisting on source separation
as a condition for accepting materials, and
by further cleaning, sorting, and upgrad-
ing materials as necessary to make them
even more desirable to downstream buy-
ers. When asked about unrecyclable
residues, all but one operator estimated
residue tonnages at I % to 3% of the total
they handle. One operator had no estimate
or negligible unrecyclable residues.
The study did not include estimated
capital costs, but they are believed to be
THE PRIEFERT TIRE EATER
· MOBilE
Self-Propelled
Segmented Blade
Design
Fully Hydraulic
Diesel Powered
Compressor Roller
Feed
Variable Speed
Conveyor
· 5T A TIONARY
Electric Powered
Fully Hydraulic
Integrated
Conveyor
System
Low Maintenance
Segmented Blades
...To this point, tire shredding equipment that processed a significant
number of tires has meant a substantial capital investment. Recogniz-
ing the need for beller, more affordable volume reducing equipment,
PRIEFERT MANUFACTURING has designed mobile and stationary
shredders with many outstanding features.
CONTACT: JAMES JETER
FAX: 903-S72-2798
March/April ]994
1-800-742-0090
PRIEFERT MFG. CO.
P.O. 80X lS40 - MI. PI.asant, TX 75456-1S40
Circle #46 on Reader Service Card
t9~~-,2J
MSW Management. 51
"
substantialIy lowerforthis kind of disposal
system than for any other because the
equipment used is relatively simple and
most operators find ways to make do with
smalI machinery, existing buildings, and
paved areas. Anotherreason for these cap-
ital savings is that source separation exter-
nalizes to the generator the primary costs
of keeping materials coherent.
The benefits to the local economy are
substantial. Although no precise estimate
is available, the users' savings in avoided
tipping fees are thought to be in the neigh-
borhood of $4 million to $5 million annu-
alIy. This is money not drained from the
area. Although some of the tonnage han-
dled is shipped to distant buyers, most of
it is sold locl!lly, keeping money in local
circulation. Blended soils, for example, are
used by the surrounding communities'
landscaping and real estate markets; re-
usable building materials by local remod-
eling and building rehabilitation contrac-
tors; re-usable household and office goods
by local people and businesses. Some re-
use customers buy things that they reselI
at flea markets, garage sales, thrift stores,
or colIectibles boutiques. Some do repair
and refinishing work. The value added is
reflected in the difference between what
they pay for something and what they get
when they selI it. The difference, minus
expenses, is their income. For many
reselIers this is their primary occupation.
No one has studied the secondary eco-
nomic impact of these transactions on the
Each small unit,
each piece of the
puzzle, is more
adaptable
than a large
centralized
facility
local economy, but there is apt to be a sub-
stantial multiplier to the base impact in
avoided cost and cash income.
Employment is spread relatively even-
ly between the different operators. The city
employs 16 people fulItime in recycling;
the dropoff-buyback operator has 15; the
residential curbside collector 18; the soil
blender 18; and the two re-use business-
es employ 27. Nearly alI hire outside con-
tractors as well. The biggest user of con-
tract services is the soil blending firm,
which spends more than a half-million
dolIars annualIy on \rucking.
Cash flow is also relatively evenly
spread. The city's expense budget for its
recycling effort is $2.2 million; the non-
profits projected 1993 revenues of $2.5
million, including city service fees; and
the three for-profits generated about $3.8
million. The fact that there are substantial
retail sales also generates sales taxes for
local and state governments: a 1992 total
of $38,000 for the city of Berkeley, and
$292,000 for other units of government
such as transit districts and the state.
The Serial MRF's Advantages:
System Stability and Flexibility
Despite alI this activity there are still many
service voids, as measured by the 90,000
tpy still going to landfill. But voters
approved a substantial new source of cap-
italization by passing Alameda County's
Measure D, a charter amendment inilia-
Circle #60 on Reader Service Card
52.tlSW.........-
InIroduclng !he Rill Bag Opening Device That Really Worksl
the Au9tr .8.og Burster
,^:-:From this
t3~~
-...---
~
N NEIl PAl'll
~----
2*w--.._.CIwKn:l. ON<I....lll6
(210)1914IOOfAll:(2161191.1m
1;r156 on Reader Service Card
MarchlAprill994
tive that put a $6 per ton surcharge on
garbage landfilled in the county, with near-
ly all the money required to be spent on
expanding materials recovery across a
wide range of materials. Measure D was
held in abeyance for over two years due
to various legal challenges, but survived
thanks to the Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund. It is now being implemented.
A parallel statewide effort to recognize
and develop Recycling Market Develop-
ment Zones is also expected to help fill
out the Berkeley serial MRF, because West
Berkeley, where all the current serial MRF
operators are located, was among the first
RMDZs the state recognized. Measure D
monies are just starting to flow; the first
deadline for submitting proposals was
December 17,1993.
Berkeley's Recycling Coordinator, Jim
Liljenwall, commenting on the Berkeley
serial MRF from the city's perspective
says that he considered its most important
advantages to be adaptability and overall
system stability. He says, "If you make a
mistake with your one big facility, you're
in big trouble. But when problems creep
up in these small elements, you can work
on the localized problems without threat-
ening the entire system."
He also says, "I've always believed
that what we're building here in Berkeley
is more stable in the long run. Each small
unit, each piece of the puzzle, is more
adaptable than a large centralized facili-
ty. Instead of building one answer to all
our questions and praying it works, we're
cultivating smaller, more flexible solu-
tions to a complex problem - and getting
great results."
hat can municipal man-
agers do in a situation
where there are so many
diverse operators? "The
City of Berkeley has
played a big role in
developing this serial MRF. We've been
a facilitator, coordinator, and operator, but
I'd expect this role to differ from com-
munity to community. Berkeley's serial
MRF shows what can be done when you
emphasize source reduction and source
separation and get the private sector and
the public sector to cooperate."
As Berkeley gets closer to handling all
its discards as refined resources, new recy-
cling operators will be required to com-
pete for scarce land with other interests,
just as their predecessors have done. No
study has been done yet estimating the
land area that would be required to pro-
cess all the discard stream as resources.
Ten acres are in production now, and many
more are needed. The RMDZ will help by
giving more of a regional focus to local
collection. Berkeley's refuse transfer sta-
tion may turn into even more of a recy-
cling transfer station, with separated mate-
rials mostly hauled to off-site processing
facilities in neighboring Oakland, which
is Berkeley's partner in the recycling zone.
Experience shows that siting will con-
tinue to be a serious problem, and land
costs in the form of high rents and short
leases will continue to destabilize busi-
nesses periodically, to impose tight con-
trols on expenses, and to restrict profits
and operating capital. Despite these diffi-
culties, the potential for recycling is vast.
To develop it, enterprising people in both
the public and private sectors will contin-
ue to solve these problems. They will build
re-using and recycling into the dominant
and preferred disposal modes: MSW
DanielKnapp is president of Urban Ore,
lnc.. David Stern is site manager of the
Discard Management Center, and Mary
Lou Van Deventer is special projects
manager.
WOOD WASTE
SOLUTI.NS
SIMPLIFIED WOOD & YARD WASTE DISPOSAL
LOGEMANN BALERS SATISFY THE
NEEDS OF RECYCLING MARKETS
Logemann now offers the expertise needed to cost-
effectively aid in the recovery of materials and disposal
of wastes. Whether you are building a new waste
handling center or modernizing an existing facility, you
can depend on Logemann as a supplier of reliable
balers and associated equipment
For additional Information or a proposal
for equipment to satisfy your needs,
contact Logemann's sales department.
. .
RECYCLE WASTE WOOO INTO USABLE PRODUCTS
AND REDUCE AMOUNTS CURRENTLY BEING LANDFlllED.
_t~~~?~~~~~~
Creating wood waste solutions for over 30 municipalilies
and private companies throughout the Uniled Stales!
LOGEMANN
BROTHERS COMPANY
3150 Wesl Burleigh Slreel
Milwaukee, WI 5321D-1999 U.S.A.
Phone: Sales 414/445-3005
FAX: 414...a45-1460
Circle #55 on Reader Sen'ice Card
March/April199-4
./) f) /? _ Circle #62 011 Reader Senl;ce Card
L,;:/~ ~ o-?~ MSWManagement. 53
Reuse, Recycling, Refuse
and the Local Economy
A case study of the Berkeley Serial MRF
DocUMENTED BY URBAN ORE, INc. AND THE CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TEcHNOLOGY . OcTOBER, 1993
Berkeley serial MRF at a glance
City of Berkeley, CA: pop. 103,000. Alameda County: pop. 1.3 million
City of Berkeley...citywide refuse collection. refuse transfer station wnh dump-and-pick
salvaging and motor 011 dropoff...commerclal curbside recycling...residential plant debris
pickup. Ecology Center...non-profn. citywide, mulli-materlal residential curbside recycling.
Community Conservation Centers (CCC)...non-profn. drop-off. buyback. materials
high grading and marketing. Ohmega Salvage...for-profn building materials and house parts
salvage. Urban Ore...for-profn reusable goods salvage and recycling business. American
Soil Proclucts...for-profn business producing soil amendments, blended soils. and mulches.
Tipping areas .............................19 TPYof refuse to landfill.......90.000
FTE employees..........................94 Recycling annual cash flow ...$8.5 m
Organizations ...............................6 Refuse annual cash flow ...$11.0 m
Acres of sites .............................10 Cash budget, 1 ton recycling ....$102
TPY diverted ..........approx. 83,000 Cost of 1 ton landfilllng ..........$122
Note: ITIIJCIJ oIlhe mfuse 8J1d f8Cydng tonnage 8boII8 is gentNBted outside /he City oI8erkel8y.
A recycling phenomenon
BERKELEY. CA - In the late 19705, a
municipal incinerator was slated to be
built in West Berkeley. a mixed residen-
tial. commercial. and industrial part of
this city of 103.000. Citizens protested.
and after a long struggle. a recycling and
refuse transfer station preempted the
burner. Today, the would-be bum plant
site is the epicenter ofa regional materi-
als recovery phenomenon: the Berkeley
serial materials recovery facility (MR!').
Public policy shifted from building an
expensive. centralized facility to encour-
aging community and private enterprise.
Now a network of independent but
complementary reuse. recycling. and
composting operations receives discards.
adds value to them. and markets high
quality resources. The result: a regional
MRFthatrecovers material. creates jobs.
supports local for-profit and non-profit
businesses. adds to the tax base, and
gives haulers a convenient, economical.
and environmentally sound way to dis-
pose of their payloads.
The Berkeley serial MRF demonstrates
how materials recovery can be used as a
community development tool. This
prompted the Center for Neighborhood
Technology (CNT) in Chicago to hire
Urban Ore's Information Services divi-
sion to conduct this study.
CNT and Urban Ore hope the study will
help planners. community-based orga- We sent a list of questions to a highly
nlzatlons, and industry professionals see placed manager in each organization
the full potential of existing serial MRFs and asked for their best estimates. They
and how their principles might help responded in writing or in telephone
maximize recovery and community ben- interviews. We made follow-up calls to
eflt of all discard management facilities. fill out our database and check facts.
I {}&A BIG THANKS TO EACH ORGANIZATION
1 V';.lt FOR FREELY SHARING INFORMATION!
Why call It a serial MRF?
The Berkeley configuration recovers
materials by diverting them from
landfilling. so it operates as a materials
recovery facility. Uke most MRFs. it
has conveyors. magnets, and a baler.
But it didn't make sense to draw a line
around only this equipment and call it a
MRF. because the entire network clus-
teredaround 1hetransferstationtogether
works as a MRF.
So we drew a line around a core cluster
of businesses and programs. We call it
a serial MRF because haulers unload at
a series of tipping areas.
Methodology
Chronology in brief
The Berkeley serial MRF has grown
overtime in response to politics. chance.
individual activism, legislative mandate,
and entrepreneurship.
1923: Berkeley landfill opens. Salvag-
ing begins sometime thereafter.
1969: Ecology Center founded.
1971: Precursorto CCC' sdropoff opens.
1973: CCC established; Ecology Center
curbside newspaper collection begins.
1975: Ohmega Salvage opens.
1980: Urban Ore starts at landfill. Ecol-
ogy Center expands to glass and cans.
1982: Citizens defeat proposed mass
bum plant. CCC opens Buyback.
1983: Berkeley closes landfill. opens
transfer station. Urban Ore opens Com-
post Farm.
1985: American Soil Products opens.
1986: Urban Ore Compost Farm closes.
1989: Recycled Wood Products opens.
1990: City's commercial recycling col-
lection program begins.
1992: Plant debris program citywide.
1993: Recycled Wood Products closes.
City'smotoroildropoffopens. Ecology
Center: magazines. OCC, mixed paper.
Supplying the Berkeley MRF
A key missing link appears to be a local,
large-scale plant debris compostlng fa-
cility. Since Recycled Wood Products
closed early in 1993, landscapers have
used a less convenient alternative: tIp-
ping their plant debris on a portion of the
The Berkeley serial MRF handles an City's transfer station floor. The mate-
astounding array of feedstocks, includ- rial is then trucked to a composter.
ing organic materials, soils, construc-
tion materials and other reusable goods, The further development of the Berke-
appliances, glass, plastic, and metal con- ley serial MRF may be aided as the West
talners, scrap metals, scrap ceramics, Berkeley Area Plan takes effect. The
many grades of paper, motor oil, oil Berkeley/Oakland Recycling Market
filters, refrigerants, and compressor oils. Development Zone has already helped
See the chart on page six for a rendering finance equipment to increase capacity.
of the services prO~ded '7 this compre-
hensive MRF. V ~~./;I. 7 Variable tipping fee
This material comes from homeowners, Haulers separate their loads primarily to
renters, businesses, institutions, trades- save money on garbage tipping fees.
people, restaurants, landscapers, con-. TIpping fees at local transfer stations
struction contractors, manufacturers, range from $49 to $58 per ton. Haulers
Berkeley's hauling structure
The Berkeley MRF feeds its appetite for
discards in two ways: by picking them
up where generated, and by setting up
convenient, cost -effective receiving sys-
tems for other haulers to use.
Collection infrastructure. The City of
Berkeley picks up residential and com-
mercial refuse in compactor trucks, front
loaders, and roll-off trucks. It also col-
lects commercial recyclables, residen-
tial plant debris, and bulky goods at
curbside. The Ecology Center picks up
residential recyclables at curbside on the
same day as trash pickup. The other
organizations have a much smaller but
still vital truck fleet to reach out and
secure supply. American Soil Products
subcontracts most of its trucking.
Small- and self-haul culture. A lot of
material enters the Berkeley MRF
through smaIl- and self-haulers. Small
businesses, contractors, homeowners,
scavengers, and a host of other people
bring material to the system in automo-
biles, pickup trucks, vans, trailers, and
larger flat bed trucks.
This extenstve hauling infrastructure
provides several collection tiers - for-
mal and informal - with a wide variety
of ways for materials to enter the system.
Feedstocks
warehouses, laboratories, the military,
and more.
Source separation
The system is geared to handle clean
feedstocks. Operators maintain quality
by inspecting each incoming load. Haul-
ers learn - enthusiastically or grudg-
ingly - to stratify their loads to pass the
quality screens of recyclers' receiving
systems. The penalty for failure is high
tipping fees later.
The main goal of thorough load screen-
ing is to provide a high quality end
product without costly mechanical sepa-
ration equipment Instead, energies are
devoted to upgrading and otherwise add-
ing value.
What is left out
The Berkeley serial MRF is not com-
plete, which means there are service
voids.
At this writing, full or partial service
voids exist for the following commodi-
ties: wood, plant trimmings, putrescibles,
soils, ceramics, textiles, plastics, and
chemicals.
reduce their costs by tipping clean mate-
rials at the other operations, which may
charge no tipping fee, a lower tipping
fee, or even pay cash for certain materi-
als.
Besides reaping fmancial benefits, many
haulers know their payloads have value
and hate to see good stuff wasted. This
Is especially true for homeowners, con-
tractors, or landscapers, who often buy
the MRF's products to use In their
projects.
Face-to-face education
When a lower tipping fee or common
sense fails to pursuade haulers to stratify
their loads, asometimes-cheerful, some-
times-confrontational process of face-
to-face education takes place. Opera-
tors patiently explain their quality re-
quirements - whythey1l acceptthis door
and not that one, or why this load of
brush won't produce a clean mulch. At
times, the operator has no choice but to
reject a load from the most well-
intentioned person, sending him or her
down the street to pay the going garbage
disposal rate.
The good news is that haulers respond
well. They know agood thing when they
see It: save money, make money, and put
things to good use.
Regional draw
Much of the material entering the Berke-
ley MRF comes from within Berkeley,
but the system pulls materials from the
nearby cities of Oakland, EmeryvlIle, El
Cerrito, Richmond, and Albany. Be-
cause of the combination of a lower
tipping fee, range of materials accepted,
and the sale of attractive retail products,
the Berkeley MRF draws people from
around the Bay Area, and as far away as
Southern California and Oregon.
It's possible that this regional pull is
responstble for increasing the garbage
flow at the Berkeley refuse transfer sta-
tion when nearby dumps with fewer
recycling opportunities are experienc-
ing declining garbage.
Local economic development
Supply-side benefits
Local economic benefits start upstream
on the supply side. where suppliers save
or even earn money on the material they
dispose of. The Berkeley serial MRF
gives haulers an opportunity to increase
margins or lower their collection fees.
either way making their business more
competitive. Homeowners. individuals.
business people, andcontract0r8 cansave
or earn money. too. The avoided dis-
posal cost of this MRF is quite large,
probably somewhere in the range of $4
million to $5 million annually compared
to landfilling.
Jobs, jobs, jobs
The MRF puts spending power Into the
local economy through its 94 employ-
ees, many of whom enjoy well-paying.
sldlled jobs with excellent benefits.
Berkeley Serial MRF Jobs
(Full-time equivalent, includes collection)
City of Berkeley ..............................16
CCC dropoff/buyback .....................15
Ecology Center ................................18
American Soil Products ...................18
Ohmega ............................................. 7
Urban Ore ........................................20
TOTAL ....____......______94
J
Independent contractors
The Berkeley serial MRF operators also
support many specialized Independent
contractors vital to the reuse and recy-
cling operations. Urban Ore uses con-
tractors to clean bricks and evacuate
refrigerants and appliance nils. Ohmega
Salvage uses about a dozen subcontrac-
tors to rebuild plumbing, rebuild doors.
and make stained glass. American Soil
Products contracts out over $500.000
worth of trucking each year.
Demand-side benefits
Local economic benefits flow down-
stream through demand markets. too. In
the reuse business. providing a steady
supply of low-priced, authentic house
parts enables homeowners. restoration
contractors. and property managers to
make repairs that might otherwise be
unaffordable.
The same is true for the soil amendment
business. Beautiful landscaping adds to
property values. and good soils are the
foundation for landscaping. The effects
are felt throughout the real estate Indus-
try and eventually raise the tax base.
A substantial number of reuse custom-
ers buy things that they resell at flea
markets. garage sales. thrift stores, or
collectibles boutiques. Many do repair
. and refinishing work; some do consider-
able research to find the best market for
items they purchase. The value they add
is reflected in the difference between
what they pay for something and what
they get when they resell it The differ-
ence. minus any expenses, is their in-
come. For many resellers, this is their
primary occupation.
Other reuse customers are contractors
who use the MRF's products in their
specialized trades. They may upgrade a
door by painting or repairing it, then get
paid again to install it Landscapers and
gardeners use bricks. stones, soils, and
scrap lumber to create pleasant outdoor
spaces for homes and businesses.
Economic powerhouse
The Berkeley serial MRF circulates a
substantial amount of money through
the local economy.
Annual Cash Flow
of the Berkeley Serial MRF
(includes collection costs)
City of Berkeley.............. $2.2 million'
Non-profits ...................... $2.5 million'
For-profits .......................$3.8 million'
TOTAL __________.$8.5 mlUlon
'Expense budget, FY 1993-1994
'Projected 1993 revenues; inc!. City of
Berkeley service fees not c:ounted above.
'Estimated 1992 reven~ /) r-/
/,,~. f~ -6-
1bis money circulates through the local
economy by way of employees. contrac-
tors. suppliers. customers, public tax
coffers, and owners' proflts.
Tax revenues
In an age of tight budgets. this serial
MRFaddsdirectly to the public revenue
in the form of business license taxes and
state and local sales taxes. While data
were not available for every business.
aggregate estimates were available. and
are presented below:
The Berkeley Serial MRF's Annual
Contribution to the Tax Base.
City license fees ....................... $5.700
City's share of sales taxes ......$38.000
Balance of sales taxes ..........$292.000
TOTAL __......__................$335,700
. taxes paid on revenues only. not taxes paid
on supplies aDd equipment purchases.
Space: the missing frontier
The flip side of the robust and cosmo-
politan economy of the Bay Area is the
litnit to growth imposed by dense settle-
ment. Lack of affordable space for recy.
cling has long plagued Berkeley serial
MRF operators.
TheCity of Berkeley operates andleases
about three acres to recyclers, but this
land was originally acquired as a site for
burning garbage and has proven to be far
too small for maximally effective recy-
cling.
Urban Ore lost its compost site in 1986,
and in 1991 it vacated one of its retail
sites to make room for other recycling
operators. Recycled Wood Products
lostltssitelnear1y 1993. Today,Ameri-
can Soil Products' site is threatened by
complaints about odors and dust.
It is ironic that the citizens of Berkeley
united to oppose a mass burn plant in the
early 19808 but have not been able to
solve the land problem for their recy-
clers.
CITY or ~I~ 1::1 rl
1"'J2AtU~ ~ c.o,^~
Municipal corporation owns and operates a transfer
station, where loads are consolidated for trucking to
Vasco Road landfill near Livennore.
Includes several materials recovery activities:
. motor oil dropoff
. scrap metals salvaging
. reusable goods salvaging
. city-wide commercial recyclables pickup
. residential plant debris pickup.
....
", -'.
. '.:"
~ '.': ~ :
Ulte.t.N ~ ~ Wt~ttEKr ~
For -profit business runs attended drop-off area for reus-
able goods, appliances, and scrap metals. Features re-
frigerant removal and metal upgrading.
COMMU/iCTY ~~""\IoN ~\6'(Z.'"
~~. ~ ,6,H\:> ~.0f'F
Non-profit corporation runs buyback and drop-off center
for several grades of paper, container metal and glass, and
scrap metals. Processes some materials collected by
Ecology Center and City ofBerkleley's commercial pro-
gram.
....~..
. " : ":':\:-'. .: '::':~"":":'~~':';;"'"
. .... -.' ". '.
. . .
,A.M~CAN ~L- "PIZoR.-'c.""{"';:>
For-profit business receives discarded organic materials
and blends, mixes, ages, or resells them as-is. Has
developed a wide variety of soil amendments, blended
top soils, and mulches for specific agricultural and land-
scaping applications.
. ':', ~'.:.2'
. ',-."
. i:~:'~'''''''.' .
..~:.~;.. . '
C::'14M5.6A: ~1-V.46e-
For-profit business buys and sells medium- to high-end
building materials and house parts. Does hand demoli-
tion and refurbishing of many items.
'~
Ec.o I-o<!!ty C~
Non-profit corporation ru
curbside recycling progra
and container glass and il
glass, and metals. Also r
~
:::;:,'.?,....:..\t\
Scale: 1" = a
()~~ -,2;
~~
.s the City of Berkeley's residential
,., lumber, sinks, bathtubs, toilets, pipe, tile, glass, and other
p ~ '1 wuuu~D~ _"_"""'Plw-','-"
\.Jc::.J U 0I01Ze-
F fi b . . I' \' \LJ_.....
or-pro t usmess buys, sells, and trades housewares, fumi- I..---' I.----' \..--'
I')l> ___J_."",boo"-_,_' ~
~~o~-""::;:;:b:~ "
_ ~ C::::2~~ ~ c::::J C:::JP~ r::::::J 00 ~
==li---r.---J t:::::Jlil~ .---. \ ...-----' IlrJ !
-JU E::J c:::::l~ OHMru;A Ta>c:> i
50 c:::::J ~ I' For-profit business buys and sells high-end used and antique ,---. r-:J l'-
~ 'I building materials and house parts. Hand demolition and C :J
J~Lt refurbiShingJ. 70% reused ::::s, 30% reproductions. ..~ ~ 0 \ll
, \ ;n L,l = :S~(JCv~ c:JE:?~lIflf\r
~l- j~O~l)DL r O\DTI c:. ~ ~=ML~~~I"F~E.
J D~\ \ \ \ I \1 0 ~ D Non-profit corporation operates dropoff site for sev-
1'1 ,UUU Oc:J 0 ~ -----1~ eral grades of paper, container glass and metal, and
IU c:5 ~ \ --) ~ ---' ~ scrapsteel.
@~rQ2 ~-~U)L
C \~~ -==11::: C;;;f)~
\r ~~~~~LkW
'fox.20oo' "''''' ~T,", A L."~ Ki:fWO(2.l'..e>F 1r('DE.l'EN0eHt" tr.ec.'(a.a~ GP4 '4lt2.A"l\DH~
.
II
o~ ~ 'JtJ
Estimated throughput
Operation Materials Throughput Landfilled
(tonslyear) (tonslyear)
City of Berkeley
Curbside plant debris grass clippings, leaves, brush 2,000 nla.
Commercial recycling paper, container metal and glass 1,200 nla
Transfer station recovery:
oil dropoff motor oil and oil fitters nla nla
scrap metal ferrous and non-ferrous metals 764 nla
1 Ecology Center glass containers; steel cans; aluminum cans and 5,784 Avg 0.6%
Citywide residential curbside foil; newspaper, mixed paper, cardboard, and
magazines
i
l Community
, Conservation Centers glass containers; steel cans and scrap; aluminum
1 MLKlDwight dropoff, cans, foil, and scrap; newspaper, mixed paper, 1,848 Avg 0.6%
,
1
2nd/Gilman dropoff, and cardboard, magazines, and wMe ledger; PET 1,860 Avg 0.6%
2nd/Gilman buyback redemption containers 3,480 Avg 0.6%
, American Soli Products mixes, blends, and ages a variety of soils and 62,293 <1%
i organics; sells soil amendments, blended top (Most generated
soils, and mulch in bulk or by the bag outsitI8 BmfreIeyj
Ohmega Salvage, Ohmega Too building materials, house parts and fixtures - 1,250 <1 %
mid-range to high-end
,
Urban Ore Discard appliance recycling (refrigerants, oils, metals); nla <1%
Management Center scrap metals; batteries; cardboard; 447 <1%
reusable goods dropoff/transfer station salvage 325 <3%
I Urban Ore General Store and reusable$. building materials, household and of.
, Building Materials Exchange fice contents; antiques, collectibles, appliances; 1,664 <3%
i recyclable$. ceramics, metals, wood, textiles 373
:i
&~.-t~ -3/ . nla =
TOTAL MATERIALS RECOVERY 83,288 I not available
, Not Included: Until tt lost tts lease in 1993, Recycled Wood Products chipped, shredded, and screened wood, limbs,
leaves, and grass, then sold the products as mulch or as fuel for cogeneration. Recycled Wood Products processed
approximately 12,000 tons of material per year, and reported residues landfilled of well under 1 % of total throughput.
Highest and best use
Conserving value
The Berkeley serial MRF implements
the principle of highest and best use.
The founders who started each business,
program, or service had to find a practi-
cal way to take one or more discarded
materials up a few notches oil the scale
of worth.
. Ecology Center started as aninforma-
tion center, then added its collection
service to demonstrate the effectiveness
of curbside recycling and to give the
public a chance to do something for the
environment that had linmediate, per-
ceivable results. The nonprofit has col-
lected ever-increasing tonnages for two
decades.
. Community Conservation Centers in-
corporatedin 1973 to operatetwodropoff
centers supported by City funding, then
added the Buyback later. The resulting
configuration maximizes tonnage and
quality control while offering thousands
of small collectors a chance to augment
their incomes.
. The Ecology Center started a bottle-
washing business to demonstrate reuse.
The spinoff, called Encore!, has grown
Into a $2 million per year concern oper-
ating In a nearby city.
. Urban Ore's retail sales business for
reusable goods replaced an earlier land-
fill scrap recovery operation.
. American Soil Products started as a
splnofffrom Urban Ore'sCompostFarm,
taking bulk agricultural materials from a
variety of sources and producing custom
soil blends with specific nutrient levels,
textores, and even colors.
. The City of Berkeley's curbside plant
debris collection program uses special
compostable paper bags for its custom-
ers. When Recycled Wood Products
lost Its processing site, the city found an
alternative out -of-towncompostproces-
sor that is still much closer than its
landfill, and Is continuing Its source
separated service for plant debris.
Product development
Each processor w seen its products
proliferate as markets are developed.
. American Soil Products sells five ma-
jor categories of recycled organic prod-
ucts, and these are further broken down
Into 34 subcategories.
. UrbanOre'scashregisterscollectsales
Information dally on 41 categories of
reusable goods, from doors to hardware
to toys.
. The City's refuse transfer station pro-
duces more than refuse: four categories
of scrap metai; bulk loads of clean plant
debris; recyclable motor oil; and nearly
a ton of reusable goods each day.
. Berkeley's two nonprofit recyclers sell
four grades of paper, five types of glass
containers, two types of metal contain-
ers, and mixed meta1 scrap.
Many of these products are soid iocally,
for local use. One manager cal1s these
"handshake markets," because they are
friendly and personal.
Quality
Recycling obeys the laws of the mining
economy: high-quallty products gener-
ate the most revenue. The enterprises
that make up Berkeley's serial MRF
have generaDy been able to keep materi-
als. moving despite market fluctuations.
Variable disposal fees drive the system.
Fluctuations In demand markets can be
countered with fluctuations In rates.
Source separation pays off downstream.
Processors get away with minimal sort-
Ing because materials arrive In a fairly
pure state.
Each operator who was able to estimate
their tonnages estimated residues of less
than 3% of total throughput!
Front-end screen
The princlple of highest and best use
creates a huge differential in prices
among products. At the low end are
broken toilets and broken bricks, given
away to a local quarry. Solis and soil
blends at American Soil Products are
worth $18 to $42 per cubic yard, or $50
to $150 per ton. Studies Urban Ore has
done show Its overall materials are worth
$400 to $500 per ton. At the high end,
Ohmega Too takes the prize for the most
valuable finished product - a floral
terracotta bathtub, vanity sink, and foot
stool worth $48,OOO!
The reuse operators serve as a value
filter for recycling. What doesn't sell for
reuse generates clean recycling feed-
stocks from dismantling, cleaning, and
quality control. Materials recovery fa-
cilities that put reuse ahead of recycling
will enjoy higher Incomes, and their
unrecyclable residue will be less.
What the customer sees
Customers entering West Berkeley en-
counter a thriving mixed industrial, com-
mercial, andresldentlal district withthou-
sands of people on the streets in trucks,
vans, cars, andonfoot, transporting sup-
plies or hauling things for hire.
Home enhancement and enjoyment Is a
major theme in the area. Restoration-
oriented businesses and bulk suppliers
like lumberyards and sand and gravel
companies abound, along with upscale
eateries and specialty shopping bou-
tiques. One of the city's largest home-
less shelters Is here, too.
The disposal businesses that make up
the Berkeley serial MRF conform to
local zoning, energy and sign regula-
tions. They try to make their premises
efficient and enjoyable for the custom-
ers. They educate the public every day,
teaching people how to take advantage
of all the recycling opportunities. .
The Berkeley serial MRF extends the
notion of value-added services. By in-
creasing the Information content of the
entire disposal and reclamation system,
it maximizes value conserved and value
received. tJ~ ~ :1,;z
Helping the Local Economy Grow
For more information... ~~ ~ -3' J
Urban Ore, Inc. ...............................................................................510-559-4454
The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) ..........................312.278-4800
The City of Berkeley, Department of Public Works ........................510-644.8892
American Soil Products, Inc. ..........................................................510-540-8011
Ohmega Salvage, Ohmega Too.....................................................510-843-7368
Community Conservation Centers, Inc. ..........................................510-524-0113
Ecology Center, Inc. .......................................................................510-527-2580
PIPpIIW/ by 0nId Sttlm 6I1d /J8nII/ KnIpp, UtIMn 0.... MIIp by IfIIdr GomIl
EdH<<I by WlHI61n Eyring, CNT; MIllY /.tJu V8I1IMV8I1IN6I1d Mk:hMI Casady, Urbtin 01'9; Kathy
EV8I18, CDfI8UII8J1I; Jim LHj8I1w8/t CIty of 1hdrs/8Y.
Serial MRFs help local growth
Serial MRFs such as Berkeley's offer
the local economy opportunities to grow.
Participating organizations may have
various backgrounds. InBerkeley'scase,
non-profit businesses run drop-off,
buyback, and residential curbside col-
lection programs. Locally owned for-
profit businesses salvage for reuse and
blend soils. All help the community by
serving local buyers and suppliers, cre-
ating jobs, hiring local contractors, and
supplying low-cost marerials to upgrade
housing and businesses.
Operators work together informally, re-
fer customers to one another, and occa-
sionally form working groups.
Public/private partnerships
The City of Berkeley has shaped the
Berkeley serial MRF by devoting land
around and in its transfer station to recy-
cling. It lets contracts with the Ecology
Center and CCC for curbside, dropoff,
buyback, and processing services. It
contracts with Urban Ore for reusable
goods salvaging and appliance recycling.
Recently, the City signed a long-term
contract with the Ecology Center that
guarantees a rate of return sufficient for
them to make major capital investments
in trucks andmachinery with confidence.
Communities can do a lot to help serial
MRFs grow. For example, they can ask
businesses to interview people from lo-
cal placement programs. They can pur-
chase the programs' products to repair
City property. They can coordinate re-
quests for state or federal financing. They
can help with siting. They can insert
information about services into munici-
pal mailings to all residents. They can
use the existing programs' success to
attract more businesses.
Entrepreneurial zeal
The structures of the Berkeley serial
MRF organizations are different: a mu-
nicipal corporation, two non-profit cor-
porations' two for-profit corporations,
and a sole proprietorship. A common
theme among them, however, is that
leaders have stepped forward to start and
grow each program. Some leaders took
the personal risk of the entrepreneur.
Most of the leaders have the power to
makequickdecisionsasnecessary. Some
are deeply motivated to help the planet,
conserve resources, and build the com-
munity. All must be sensitive to diverse
interests to do business in Berkeley.
Many of the Berkeley serial MRF opera-
tions owe their survival to an individual
or two willing to fight passionately for
the survival and expansion of a vision.
Aspiring participants may needsuch able
champions to survive and prosper.
TIps for success
Focus on a niche. The Berkeley serial
MRF works well partly because each
operator occupies a different niche, re-
sulting in superior service yet minimal
local competition.
Focus on your customers. Whether a
supplier or purchaser, their satisfaction
is the foundation of your success. For
suppliers, charge a lower tipping fee for
well-prepared materials; pay cash to
some people; pick up materials if you
can. For buyers, accept cash, check, or
credit cards. Keep a list of what people
want; develop products to match wants.
Stay open seven days a week.
Add a fourth "R" - reduce, reuse, re-
cycle, and RETAIL Expand your mer-
chandising concepts. Get ideas from
thriftstores,junkyards, warehouse clubs,
boutiques, hardware stores, mail order
cataIogs...anywhere! Sell, sell, sell!
Be thereforyour politicians. Give your
officials accurate information regularly,
not just when a big decision is pending.
Help them educate the public. Go to
important meetings. Explain industrial
issues in plain English. Cultivate long-
term relationships. The Berkeley serial
MRF was put together through two de-
cades of political give and take.
Find a good long-term site. Moving
costs money and sales. If the area is
likely to gentrify around you, be careful;
you may be priced out of the market.
Leverage the grass roots
Community support may be a recyclers'
greatest asset. Remember that in nego-
tiating joint ventures with other compa-
nies, your community presence is part of
your "goodwill," and can be expressed
in dollars. Use your history of commu-
nity service to increase your clout in the
fishbowl atmosphere of discard man-
agement, where pliblic officials can win
or lose elections over recycling issues.
Many of the Berkeley serial MRF opera-
tors came together initially in a grassroots
campaign to defeat a mass burn plant.
This coalition powerfully shaped the
future by passing three initiatives in ten
years that paved the way for the MRF's
development. The citizens of Berkeley
voted for recycling.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 5/10/94
I~
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS for 1994-1995 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, including consideration of funding requests for public services,
community development, and capital improvements.
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C. )' .
REVIEWED BY:
City Manage:;r
(4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No X)
Council Referral # 2794
BACKGROUND:
The City of Chula Vista will receive $1,812,000 in CDBG entitlement funds for FY 1994-95
and will have available $9,000 in unallocated funds from FY 1993-94 making a total of
$1,821,000. These activities will primarily benefit low and moderate income families, with a
minimum of 70 percent of the funds targeted to benefit low income households. The 1994-95
Notebook contains the Program Summary, Funding Recommendations, and Project Descriptions.
Page references in this report are to specific pages in the CDBG Notebook.
This public hearing provides an opportunity for citizens to comment on how CDBG funds can
be allocated to meet the City's housing and community needs. No staff recommendations are
being made at this time and the City Council is not expected to take any action on the proposed
budget other than to give desired direction. After thorough consideration of public comment,
staff will prepare an additional report presenting funding recommendations for Council
deliberation and action at the May 24, 1994 meeting.
Council Referral #2794 directed staff to look at the possiblity of designating a percentage of
CDBG funds to agencies or ventures to operate child care facilities in the City. Staff has
prepared a response outlining how CDBG funds can legally be used to fund child care activities
and how this use could impact other CDBG eligible activities (please see Exhibit A).
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing on housing and
community development needs and accept the staff report on the 1994-95 CDBG program, and
direct staff to return on May 24, 1994 with funding recommendation report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Commission on Aging, Human
Relations, Childcare and Youth Commissions have reviewed the social service funding requests
and have made funding recommendations (see page 20). The Housing Advisory Commission
has reviewed the three housing related proposals under Social Services (SD Home Loan
Counseling Service, Shared Housing Program, Casa Nuestra) and made comments. All minutes
from the Commissions are included in the Notebook (pages 23-43)
18" /
Item I Y
Meeting Date 05/10/94
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Introduction: ProDosed Budlzet
For the 1994-95 CDBG program, the City of Chula Vista has total estimated revenue of
$1,821,000. The total amount of funding requested, which includes all funding requests from
community organizations, is summarized as follows:
Administration and Planning (6 requests)
Social Services Funding (32 requests)
Section 108 Loan Repavment (Norman Park)
Capital Imorovement Proiects (8 projects)
Community Proiects (6 projects)
TOTAL OF ALL REQUESTS
$ 282,145
$ 568,074
$ 259,500
$ 870,000
$ 144.133
$2,123,852
The total amount of funding requested exceeds the total amount of CDBG revenue by about
$303,000. Program regulations place a 15 percent cap on social service funding, which will
limit the social services allocation to $271 ,800; this is $296,274 less than the total amount
requested. A detailed preliminary 1994-95 CDBG program budget is in the Notebook (page 1).
In order to be eligible for block grant funding, a project or service must address at least one of
the CDBG national objectives which are: 1) Benefit primarily low and moderate income families,
2) Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, 3) Meet other community needs
having a particular urgency.
The 1990-91 to 1992-93 Community Development Plan was adopted by Council last year
without any changes as the 1993-94 to 1995-96 Community Development Plan (see page 2).
This plan outlines the City's specific community development goals and objectives for the CDBG
program and provides guidance for making allocation decisions. In order to fund two of the
Community Project proposals (Chula Vista Building and Housing Community Appearance
Program, SBCS Graffiti Eradication) the City will need to make a finding that these activities
are necessary and appropriate in order to meet the goals and objectives of the City's Community
Development Plan.
Ailm;n;~tration and pllmn;nl' Smnmarv
The following is a summary of the 1994-95 CDBG staff administration and planning activities
totalling $282,145 which include the following:
.
Staff Administration
$165,000
These administrative costs represent less than 10 percent of the total budget and include staff
costs for coordination, accounting, monitoring sub-recipients, environmental review, and
reporting requirements.
/8";2..
Item
Meeting Date 05/10/94
Page 3
l'r
In addition, the City has received six (6) requests for funding which are eligible planning and
administrative activities; these requests for funding total $117,145. The requests for funding
from the San Diego Fair Housing Council, Chula Vista Human Services Committee and other
applicants are included in the Notebook and are summarized as follows:
.
Chula Vista Fair Housing Program
$39,645
CDBG regulations require the City to undertake proactive Fair Housing activities. In order for
the City to fulfill this commitment, the San Diego Fair Housing Council will provide a
comprehensive fair housing program. Their proposed activities include education and outreach,
a tenant-landlord hotline, follow-up on discrimination complaints and rental dwelling
discrimination testing. This program is designed to comply with HUD requirements.
.
Chula Vista Human Service Council
$25,000
The Human Services Council builds coalitions among Chula Vista area social service providers
in order to bring more funding for needed services into the South Bay. The funds are requested
to hire a part-time coordinator (see proposal - Tab L)
.
Castle Park B Committee
$5,000
Staff is considering the recommendation that the Castle Park B Committee be granted $5,000
to begin their volunteer community revitalization and beautification efforts in conjunction with
the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP). Castle Park B is the new NRP area replacing
Otay Town. A 16-member committee has been formed and activities are being planned for the
first year.
.
Parks and Recreation Human Services Coordinator
$15,000
This coordinator facilitates the provision of social services and coordinates information and
referral at the Norman Park Senior Center.
.
SD Regional Task Force on Homeless
$2,500
This grant will assist the task force with important regional homeless reports and special studies
which are regularly incorporated into local documents such as the Housing Element, CHAS and
grant proposals for federal and state funding.
.
Section 108 Loan/Loan Guarantee Program
$30,000
Funds will be used to hire consultant services to assist staff to prepare a HUD Section 108
application for economic development and to develop a related Chula Vista Business
Development Loan/Loan Guarantee Program. (see program description in Notebook - Tab 0)
/1)"3
Item
Meeting Date 05/10/94
Page 4
Irr
Social Service Funrlinp Requests
The City received 32 eligible requests for social services funding from non-profit community
organizations, totalling over $568,000. All of the requests for funding are included in the
Notebook under the Social Services Projects section and a summary of all the proposals is found
on pages 6 to 18. For 1994-95, the City may allocate up to $271,800 for social service
organizations, based upon a 15 percent cap of the entitlement funds.
All 32 of the funding requests from social service organizations are CDBO-eligible as they meet
the national objective to primarily benefit low income families. The Commission on Aging,
Human Relations, Childcare and Youth Commissions have reviewed the social service funding
requests and have made their recommendations (see page 20). Staff has prepared a Proposal
Comparison Spreadsheet for the Commissions and Council to use in evaluating the proposals (see
inside front cover of Notebook).
It has been a trend for several years now that CDBG Social Service funding requests from
community organizations greatly outweigh the amount of funds available each year. This has
made funding decisions very difficult. As a general policy the City has sought to discourage
dependence on CDBG funding and to encourage seed funding for new programs. The Chula
Vista Human Services Council completed a Human Services Needs Assessment which was
published in December of 1992. This assessment listed the following needs as being the greatest
in the City: (1) Affordable Health Care; (2) Drug and Alcohol Abuse; (3) Crime; (4) Domestic
Violence and Child Abuse; (5) Unemployment and Homelessness. A breakdown showing new
and previously funded programs is in the Notebook (see page 21).
Canital Imnrovements Proiect Summary
The 8 proposed capital improvement projects by staff total $870,000. In addition, the City must
make the final payment of the Section 108 loan for the Norman Park Senior Center Renovation
($259,500). All of the CIP detail sheets are included in the Notebook under the City Capital
Improvement Projects section and are summarized as follows:
.
South Chula Vista Library
$291,924
FY 94/95 appropriations would provide for balance of the equipment required by the grantor.
.
Parkway Complex Renovation
$100,000
FY 94/95 appropriations would be for renovation of gym and pool areas which will provide
ADA compliance and will reduce concerns raised by the County Health Department.
/8'~1
Item
Meeting Date 05/10/94
Page 5
I~
.
ADA Modifications
$100,000
FY 94/95 appropriations would provide for the modification to City facilities as required by the
ADA making them accessible to individuals with disabilities. This includes signage, doors,
public access routes and restrooms.
.
ADA Curb Cuts
$50,000
FY 94/95 appropriations would provide for the construction of an estimated 47 concrete
wheelchair ramps throughout different locations in the City. Curb Cuts are a requirement of the
ADA.
.
Nature Interpretive Center Road Surfacing
$30,000
FY 94/95 appropriations would provide for installation of AC pavement (no curbs or sidewalks)
on Gunpowder Point Drive from Bay Blvd. to a point approximately 700 feet west of Bay Blvd.
.
Dtay Park Renovation
$229,393
FY 94/95 appropriations are for the construction of the first phase of improvements
implementing the park's master plan. The park renovation will include new irrigation, play
apparatus, picnic shelter, sports fields, restrooms, landscaping, running paths and more.
.
Eastern Aquatics Complex
$50,000
These funds are for the development of an aquatics facility in the eastern section of the City
being proposed by the YMCA.
.
Norman Park Senior Center Game Facility
$18,750
This funding will provide staff time reimbursements for the Master Planning of an improved and
expanded shuffleboard court and game area which was originally built in 1962. Renovation will
meet ADA health and safety standards.
Community Proiects Summary
The Community Project requests total $144,133 and include the following types of activities: 1)
neighborhood revitalization; 2) capital improvements for non-profit facilities. All of the requests
for funding are included in the Notebook under the Community Projects section and are
summarized as follows:
/Y,f'
Item / r'
Meeting Date 05/10/94
Page 6
Nei~hborhood Revitalization
.
Community Appearance Program
$15,000
In cooperation with local neighborhood groups, the Building and Housing Department proposes
to continue their neighborhood beautification campaigns. The funding requested will pay for
staff coordination, dumpsters and equipment.
.
Graffiti Eradication
$33,600
South Bay Community Services (SBCS), in partnership with the Chula Vista Police Department,
is requesting funds to continue their community effort to eradicate graffiti painted on private
businesses and residences. Youth offenders and community volunteers provide the labor. Funds
are requested for the Program Coordinator position.
.
Home Repair for Seniors
$24,533
Lutheran Social Services is requesting funds to continue providing health and safety home repairs
to seniors. Most of the labor is donated by local south bay contractors.
.
Capital Improvement Program - Contingency and Cost Over-run
$65,500
The intent of this program is to provide a source of funds to supplement CDBG eligible capital
improvement projects.
Capital ImDrovement for Non-profit Community Facilities
.
Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista
$5,500
The Boys and Girls Club is requesting funds to install new volleyball standards in the
gymnasium at their Oleander Center.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive $1,812,000 in CDBG entitlement funds as well as
$9,000 in unallocated funds from FY 1993-94 making a total of $1,821,000 available for FY
1994-95. The 15 percent cap on social services funding will limit the social services allocation
to a maximum of $271,800. In addition, the City is obligated to a final loan payment to HUD
repaying in full the Section 108 loan for the Norman Park Senior Center. The total amount of
this payment for 1994-95 is $259,500.
/T'?
EXHIBIT A
Use of CDBG Funds for Child Care Pr02I"Am/Facilities
At the August 10, 1993 Council meeting the Child Care Commission recommended that the City
prepare an amendment to the General Plan and any applicable ordinance provisions to
accommodate the placement of Child Care facilities in existing and future public City building.
At the same time, Council directed staff to look at the possibility of designating a percentage of
CDBG funds to agencies or ventures planning to operate child care facilities in the City.
As per CDBG regulations, the City can fund child care programs/facilities under the following
three categories:
(1) Public Services: Under the public services category up to 15% of the CDBG annual
allocation can be used to fund the operation, equipment and supplies needed to run a
child care center. Over the past 10 years, Council has used this 15 % cap to fund
approximately thirty social service agencies a year that provide a whole spectrum of
social services to the community. Every year the demand for this source of funds has
far exceeded the amount available.
(2) Capital Improvement Proiects (CIP): Under the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
category, CDBG funds can be used for the acquisition, rehabilitation or development of
property or facilities. For example, CDBG funds could be used to build publicly-owned
child care facilities. Historically, CIP funds has been used to build public libraries,
community centers, parks, streets and sidewalks in targeted neighborhoods. On an
annual basis, the demand for public improvement funds has also far exceeded funds
available.
(3) Communitv Proiects: Under the community projects category, CDBG funds can be used
for social service and physical improvement programs for Child care. For example, as
an economic development project, the City could fund a child care center for both the
physical improvements and operations as long as low/mod jobs were created as a result
of the City's investment. Historically, the City has used Community Project funds for
activities such as neighborhood clean up campaigns and graffiti eradication programs.
In summary, CDBG funds can be used to pay for child care related projects/activities; however,
as explained above, to use a percentage of these funds for these activities would have an impact
on other community needs and projects and would require a significant change in the current and
historical use of funds. Staff feels that child care activities have full opportunity to compete with
the other CDBG eligible activities in the above categories, and that such competition would be
preferable to setting aside specific funds for child care. If a specific set-aside for child care
existed, there would be a possibility that inferior proposals could be funded in some years over
more worthy non-child care proposals.
/8" ? /18-8
THE (HULA VISTA CONNECTIO
"JE1GHBORS HELPING NEIGHBORS
?J NO SECOND AVE CMULA VISTA. CA '.l1'.l10
PHONE (619) ..27-98)7
~. ~'.:.L
Ii! fjl R n \;7 ~ -I. \
D lC; l1J L~ u.~-i..,:n~j
I,ll'!
__ _. __J
cln CC',/1. ,; c. .<~3
CWjU, ViSTt, C,lI,
Facility License # 370-806520
Fed/st. Exempt # 1853686
May 9,1994.
We, at The Chula vista Connection have assisted the people
of this community in need with our self supportive staff.
Enclosed is information pertaining to one of our major
accomplishments-low cost childcare.
Our Childcare Center which consists of a:
Toddler program -
Preschool age
School age
18 months - 30 months
2 1/2 years - 5 years
6 years - 12 years
Was organized to help parents with
we provide transportation services
school.
many issues.For example
for children to and from
We provide full meals
BREAKFAST 8:30 a.m.
SNACK 10:00 a.m.
LUNCH 12:00 noon
SNACK 2:00 p.m.
DINNER 4:00 p.m.
P.M.SNACK 6:00 p.m.
and snacks at no extra cost to parents
Low cost childcare as low as $10.00 per week. $2:00 per day
Full day for persons on welfare or other government programs
and collage students with little or no income.
As of today we are giving childcare to 170 childre~ part-time
full time and drop-ins clients.
Racial Date attached has Ethnic balance of what race parents
Identifies Child with.
In the best interest of all children we included a Camera
System to observe and tape daily activities through out the
Facility including outside. (Contract Inclosed).
Our request for funding is highly needed for the expansion
plan to accomodate more children in need of our services.
I ~-;
~
.
. '
~~i~
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA T10N
721 Capirol Mall: P.O. Box 944272
Sacramenro, CA 94244-2720
February 10, 1994
CHULA VISTA CONNECflON (THE)
(CHILD CARE FOOD PROGRAM)
1512 MELROSE AVENUE'
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911-5913.
Dear ELIZABETH STILLWAGON:
Agreement Number:
Vendor Number:
372441-3A
P891-00
Your application for the Child Care Food Program (CCFP) has been approved effective March 1, 1994
through September 30, 1994 (pending annual recertification) under Al!reement Number 37 2441-3A.
Please use your Agreement Number on all correspondence, claim forms and all other documents which you
send to this office.
Enclosed are your copies of the approved Child Care Food Program Application, Agreement and
Schedule A. The Agreement is the official contract between your agency and the Child Nutrition and Food
Distribution Division for the Child Care Food Program. The Agreement details the requirements of th~
CCFP and your responsibilities as a sponsor. You are advised to carefully review the provisions of this
Agreement because any noncompliance to Program requirements could result in loss of reimhursement and or
termination of your sponsorship.
The Schedule A is the official program document which lists your approved site names and site locatio:'ls.
Reimbursement can only be claimed for those sites listed on the Schedule A and sites subsequently appro\".:
in writing by the Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Division.
Under separate cover you will receive a CCFP T~chnical Assistance Package (TA Package). The packc~::
will contain required program forms and informational aids. Please note specific information regan:.:-.;
program records as detailed in the "Guidelines for Recordkeeping and Reponing Procedures". This do(urr.c -.
outlines records that must be completed and retained for all reimhursements claimed. The Child !\utri: . ;-.
and Food Distribution Division's personnel will call for an appointment in lhe near future to revie\\ your -:- .:..
Package with you and explain your participation responsibilities.
We are pleased to have you as a new sponsor in the Child Care Food Program and look forward to y '. -,
participation. If you have any questions, please call the Child Care Food Program staff at (916) 445-0Ssr. C
toll free at (800) 952-5609.
Sincerely,
~i". Di "0<
Child Nutrition and Food
Distrihution Division
MB:ks
enc.
/2"/)0
MAY 5,1994
RACIAL DATE UPDATE
WHITE - Non Hispanic = 42
BLACK - NOh Hispanic = 20
HISPANIC = 26
ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER = 4
AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE = 0
~
OTHERS ( mixed ) = 5
TOTAL " 102
THE OTHER 70 FAMILIES REFUSE FILL OUT DATA INFORMATION
J?;///
--
INTRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIENT: THE CHULA VISTA CONNECTION
-----------------------------------------------------
ATTN:
Elizabeth A. Stillw<;igon.
------------~----------------------------------------
DATE:
02/16/94
Thank you for allowing us to propose the ACCOUNTABLE Closed Circuit
Monitoring System
Our goal is to make your business more efficient and secure.
The ACCOUNTABLE system is based on a cost-effective, closed circuit
television system that monitors and records activity in any area of
your business where 100% monitoring by management personnel is both
impractical and uneconomical.
Our proposal contains the following:
* COMPONENT PLACEMENT
* INVESTMENT SUMMARY
* OPE~~TION / INSTRUCTION
* WARRANTY AND SERVICE
/ ~//J-.
ccountable
Business
3!5Systems
COMPONENT PLACEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
'.
. .CAMERAS
CAMERA 1 - OVERVIEW OF TODDLER ROOMS
CAMERA 2 - OVERVIEW OF TODDLER ROOMS
CAMERA 3 - OVERVIEW OF PRE-SCHOOL AREA
CAMERA 4 - OVERVIEW OF PRE-SCHOOL AREA
CAMERA 5 - OVERVIEW OF PRE-SCHOOL AREA
CAMERA 6 -
CAMERA 7 -
CAMERA 8 -
AUDIO PICK-UP -
MONITOR(S)
OFFICE
SWITCHER/OUAD PROCESSOR
OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL TIME LAPSE VCR
OFFICE
/ t'/ / J
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1
(5) Toshiba Chip - BB-104 CCD Cameras
(5) CCTV Lenses
.
(1) Mitsubishi HS-54~4 24 Hour'Time Lapse VCR
(1) American Dynamics 1476 8 Camera Duo-Quad Multiplexer
(1) Sanyo 16" High Resolution Monitor
(5) Camera Bracket
(5) 24v Power Supplies
All cable, materials and fittings are included
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
Eight Camera sequential switcher instead
of Eight Camera Multiplexer
SYSTEM PRICE $ 3,800.00
SALES TAX 294.50
$ 3,200.00
248.00
SUBTOTAL
LABOR
$ 4,094.50
850.00
$ 3,448.00
850.00
GRAND TOTAL $ 4,944.50
$ 4,298.00
LEASE OPTION:
36 MONTHS: $ 175.00
48 MONTHS: $ 145.00
60 MONTHS: $ 130.00
Per Month $
" $
" $
155.00
128.00
110.00
Monthly payments include applicable sales tax.
10% Purchase Option at end of lease term.
$50 Documentation fee with first payment
Lease payments are approximate
J~//7
,
ccountable
Business
_Systems
INSTRUCTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of Accountable's design recommendatio~s. are made by qualified and
experienced security consultant~. We will provide training to. you at
the time of installation. We recommend (for purposes of security) that
a minimum number of employees participate in the training.
Topics during training will include:
* General system operation
* Daily shift research
* Identification of suspicious activity
* Tape changing and log operations
* Proper maintenance and trouble shooting
A 30-day follow-up session will be scheduled in order to check system
usage and effectiveness.
./
/~---I?
WARRANTY & SERVICE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARRANTY AND SERVICE
The equipment is cover~d by a One Year Warranty against defects in
materials and workmanship. . The recording head on the Time Lapse VCR s is
warrantied for a period of 90 Days from date of purchase. Accountable
Business Systems is responsible for the warranty and ongoing service. Lens
cleaning and adjustments will be performed during the warranty period, as
the need arises.
After the warranty period expires, a yearly service contract may be
purchased, or service may be requested on a per call basis.
RESPONSE TIME - WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE CUSTOMERS
Accountable Business System's response time is same day service for calls
received by 12:00 PM.
SERVICE COST - PER CALL BASIS
* $ 30.00 Per 1/2 Hour
* $ 50.00 Per Hour Service Fee
YEARLY SERVICE AGREEMENT PLANS:
CALL FOR MAINTENANCE PLANS AND RATES
/t//?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
1C1
5/10/94
TITLE:
REPORT Update on Solid Waste Issues and Final
Report on Proposals for Services
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager KremPlh~ ~
Principal Management Assistant Snyder
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No-L)
This report concludes the RFP process for alternative solid waste
services which was begun in December, 1993 and first reported at
the 4/5/94 meeting on the preliminary evaluation of the five
proposals received. At the 4/26/94 meeting, Council received the
results of an economic analysis of the cost of staying in the
County system. The report for that meeting also included a
comparative analysis of the cost of six proposal options (three
prospective contractors and four landfill sites) to the County
system costs.
Council provided input on the assumptions used for the analysis and
raised a number of questions to be responded to in this final
report. Staff has also been directed to include information in
this final report regarding pros, cons and cost estimates for a
Ci ty-owned transfer station or possibilities for assuming City
ownership after construction.
This report transmits the final documentation from the consultant,
Brown, Vence & Associates (BVA) regarding the entire process of
requesting and evaluating proposals, and comparing costs to the
City's option of remaining a user of the County system. Additional
information in this report will focus discussion on a range of
options and policy issues on the subject of the City's solid waste
services to be addressed by the Council when deliberating upon the
proposed Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the County system. That
item is scheduled for the Council meeting of 5/24/94.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve, in concept, the staff recommendation
to proceed with a transfer station, and 2) direct staff to return
on 5/24/94, during the report on the proposed solid waste JPA, with
an outline of the process to begin implementing Council's preferred
course of action.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
,q. ,
page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 5/10/94
DISCUSSION:
Presentation of Material
Questions on the wide range of assumptions and uncertainties of
these issues were raised by Councilmembers at the 4/26/94 meeting.
(Minutes included with this report.) Those questions and the
responses are noted in Attachment A. Page references in the
consultant's final report (Attachment B to this staff report) are
identified, where appropriate, in order to provide a fuller
explanation.
In the final report, Council's attention is directed to the
"Executive Summary and Recommendations" found on pages ES-1 through
ES-7. For ease in reviewing the remainder of the report, it is
noted that, since this report documents the entire process, much of
the information has been presented to Council at the two previous
meetings of 4/5/94 and 4/26/94.
It is noted that the "base case" data for estimated County tip fees
which was originally presented to Council on 4/26/94 has been
recalculated to reflect a change in the NCRRA debt payment as a
result of the Board's recent decision not to move forward with the
equity refinancing. The projected tip fee for FY 1994-95 was
originally presented as $64.15 and is now projected as $65.33.
The Table of
information.
interest:
Contents in the final
The following sections
report identifies new
may be of particular
o
o
o
o
o
o
2.3
2.4
3.4
3.5
4.5
5.0
Transfer Station Siting Issues
Feasibility of Disposal Options
Interviews
Final Assessment
Sensitivity Analysis
Conclusions
Update on the La Paz Countv Landfill Alternative
At the 4/26/94 meeting, the question was raised about the
possibility of using landfill alternatives other than those
forwarded by the proposers during the clarification and interview
process. The La Paz County Landfill in Arizona was of particular
interest. Staff has met with representatives from La Paz County
and the partnership firm of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI)
to receive information about this landfill.
It is noted that this landfill opportunity was alluded to in the
proposal the City received from Mine Reclamation/Browning-Ferris
Industries of California (MRC/BFIC) which was deemed to be non-
l~ -2.
page 3, Item
Meeting Date
\q
5/10/94
responsive to the City's RFP. (See page 2-7 of the final report.)
As explained by the principals in the recent meeting with City
staff, the La Paz Landfill offer would have been premature at the
time of the City's RFP in December, 1993, but circumstances have
now changed.
The landfill site is currently permitted and in use. The
partnership is one in which the landfill is owned by the County and
leased for operations to BFI. Near future plans are to upgrade the
site to EPA Subtitle "D" requirements and be available for
acceptance of additional waste by September 1994. The existing
site has a lifespan of at least eight years.
Plans are underway for the acquisition and development of BLM land
within the next two years which would give the landfill a lifespan
of 60 to 80 years. A projected gate rate at the landfill might be
$20/ton and the hauling distance from Chula Vista is about 250
miles, or about 70 miles further than the current out-of-County
options being evaluated (75 to 180 miles).
This information is offered as additional evidence of the changing
nature of options for solid waste services. It is the opinion of
staff that this (or any other) option could only be considered if
the City formally closes the existing RFP process.
Transfer Station Alternatives
Council has requested information on the pros, cons and a possible
cost range for City ownership of a transfer station. Attachment C
is a technical memorandum from the consultant which discusses such
advantages and disadvantages, as well as commenting upon some
choices for development of a facility through a public-private
partnership.
During the interviews, all proposers were asked to comment upon
their willingness to participate with the City. The responses
indicated that all three proposers were very interested and willing
to work with the City in any way possible, subject to further
details and clarification of the City's desires.
Options and Recommendations
The findings of the final report indicate that there may be
potential cost savings of up to 20% or higher if the City leaves
the County system. However, the City faces a dilemma as to which
way to proceed at this point in time.
On one hand, the current County system is in a state of disarray
and faced with such issues as lack of adequate long range planning,
management issues, the NCRRA facility, failure to site future
\~. 3>
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 5/10/94
landfills and uncertainty as to where fees are headed beyond a
current two year budget. The most recent estimate anticipates an
immediate and significant tip fee increase from approximately $43
to $65 a ton. Additionally, there are risks and concerns regarding
the draft JPA document prepared under the direction of the Interim
Solid Waste Commission and now being deliberated upon by various
jurisdictions.
On the other hand, the County of San Diego has served the City's
solid waste needs well in the past. The County is a "known
entity," and projected budget data for the system's next two years
is available as a result of the work of the Interim Commission.
Chula Vista has the opportunity to continue to participate with
other jurisdictions under the umbrella of a total systemwide
approach. In addition, one of the County's major landfill sites,
the Otay Landfill, is located within the City and is extremely
convenient for haulers' and residents' use.
To assist in this difficult decision-making process with as much
factual information as possible, the City has sought and received
well-qualified proposals through an RFP process. These proposers
are willing and able to offer alternative solid waste approaches.
To the best of our ability to analyze the options, it appears that
the total package of services needed by the City can be provided in
a more cost-effective manner through the private sector than
through the current County system.
However, as fully documented in this and previous reports, what
makes this decision so difficult is the unpredictability of future
events and costs. There are many uncertainties which cannot be
predicted and many assumptions which have been clearly identified
and modeled. If actual circumstances in the future are different
than the assumptions considered here, the results could be more
costly for the City.
One critical set of assumptions involves use of the primary
disposal site of Campo Landfill. This site is not yet developed,
although it would be the closest site and, therefore, least costly
from the transport perspective. The status of the Campo Landfill
is uncertain even though approval to construct has been received.
Construction has not begun and further obstacles of concern to the
City would be the uncertainty of ultimately receiving an operating
permit and the disposition of ongoing lawsuits from the County and
County residents. Environmental concerns about the landfill have
been raised and the financial integrity and stability of the
company have been publicly questioned.
Other disposal alternatives to the Campo Landfill have been brought
forward by some proposers but need further analysis. An argument
could be made that the breadth of options received through the RFP
\'\. ~
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date
'C1.
5/10/94
process was not as extensive as the City might have hoped. Other
opportunities are currently available or might surface in the near
term.
How then should the City proceed? City staff and BVA have outlined
the some choices in a recommended strategy. The strategy clearly
rests on three fundamental understandings:
1) The Citv's Role in the County System. The City should not
abandon the County system at this time, but participate in the
County system short term as a user, rather than as an owner
(i.e. a member of the JPA). This choice would keep Chula
Vista's options open. A number of cities will probably also
choose this option. Some of them, like us, may clearly want
to pursue or at least have the option to pursue other options
at some point in time.
There are other cities who will probably also choose to be a
user and not join the JPA as a full member, but will desire a
longer-term relationship with the JPA. The decision of those
cities will be predicated on the fact that they are satisfied
wi th the current services provided by the County and want
those to continue but do not want to assume the liabilities
and risks associated with being an owner of the system.
2) Proceedinq with an Option Outside the County System.
Likewise, the City should not commit waste flow to an
alternative at this time. There are too many unknowns and
uncertainties. New information and potentially new options
are evolving. Additional time will be a key factor in the
resolution of the concerns about the Campo Landfill.
3) Staff Recommendation. The City needs to position itself,
so that a long-range decision can be implemented
expeditiously, effectively and with the least financial impact
on the ratepayers. This strategy involves taking the initial
steps to proceed with siting, conceptual design, environmental
review, and permitting of a transfer station, either as a
City-owned facility or ultimately within a public-private
partnership.
These actions would allow the City to maximize certainties for
longer-term decision-making. The City could subsequently
decide to: continue as a user of the County/JPA system, rejoin
the County system if a JPA is formed, or proceed independently
with other options.
1'1-5
Page 6, Item~
Meeting Date 5/10/94
FISCAL IMPACT: The refuse and recycling collection rate for the
single-family resident is typically used to describe the fiscal
impact of a choice upon the ratepayer. The following illustration
is provided to help give a sense of the range of impact on the
ratepayer for the options discussed in the consultant's final
report.
Option
Tip Fee
Est. Monthlv Rate
Stay in County system
$43
$65-98
$56-89
$14.43
$17.47-21.99
$16.20-20.69
CURRENT SYSTEM
Leave County system
These proiections are based on the followino assumptions:
1) Estimated monthly rates only show increases attributed to
higher solid waste system costs (currently this accounts for
about 25% of the $14.43 monthly rate).
2) "Tip fees" shown for leaving the County system include
proposal costs plus $10.12/ton for additional programs and
obligations to provide complete system costs.
NOTE: Reoardino the fiscal impact of proceedino with the staff
recommendation with respect to a transfer station, this action
could involve additional consultant charges as well as processing,
design and environmental costs. Staff will define a range of costs
in greater detail at the 5/24/94 meeting, should this be Council's
direction.
$~HG RrrAe~.~OT~e~~~61
\C\-<a
Attachment A
Follow-up Ouestions and Responses
1. A. Clarify the number and types of services currently
received from the County which are included in the proposal
costs, i.e. proposers tip fees.
R: As described in Section 4.3 (page 4-5) of the final
report (Attachment B), the proposals from Sexton, Mid-
American and Laidlaw include the costs for development
and operation of a transfer station, hauling services
from the transfer station to a disposal si te, and
disposal. These costs include all required closure and
post-closure costs, and all required State-required and
LEA fees for the proposed landfills.
B. Clarify the services and describe the process used to
determine which (currently provided) services were not
included in the proposals, and therefore, needed to be costed
as additional "programs and obligations."
R: Services other than those reported above which are not
costed in the proposals are specifically identified in
the "Programs and Obligations" section found on page 4-5
of Attachment B. This list of additional services was
determined by City staff and BVA through a line-by-line
examination of the County's Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
projected two-year budget. Each line item function was
given consideration about whether it was: 1) something
the City would no longer pay the County for once the
system was exited (and, therefore, needed to be paid for
directly by the City or included in the proposal costs),
or 2) an obligation to the County system that the City
might retain even after leaving.
2. Clarify how each proposer addresses the indemnification issue.
Include: extent of indemnification, requirements of successful
bidder, impacts to ratepayer.
R: Indemnification ideally desired by the City, offered by
the proposers, and associated risks are discussed on
pages 2-6 and 2-7 of the consultant's report.
3. Can Chula Vista benefit from a lower green waste tip fee
($21/ton) now being charged by a new private composting
facility as opposed to having the residential yard waste taken
to the County's "Clean Green" program and paying $25/ton?
R: Laidlaw has reported to City staff that they began taking
the City's residential yard waste to Organics Recycling
West (ORW), instead of the "Clean Green" program operated
at the County landfill. The contract cost, is $21/ton and
Laidlaw indicates that the additional transport costs to
\~-l
Attachment .l!.
Follow-up Questions and Responses
Page 2
the new location on Otay Mesa make the cost of the
service the same as under the County's program. As
provided for in the franchise ordinance for the yard
waste program, actual service costs (contract, transport,
etc.) will be carefully reviewed during the next rate
review period for the program and adjustments to the
future rate will be made at that time, if appropriate.
There are important additional benefits to the City of
using this new market, and the entire issue is discussed
more fully in an Information Report included in the
agenda packet for this 5/10/94 meeting.
4. How can the costs of this program be mitigated with host fees?
Discuss a range of options, reasonable expectations, potential
impacts, how to initiate them, etc.
R: It would not be unusual for the City to charge a host fee
for use of the transfer station by other jurisdictions or
non-City users. At an estimated $2/ton and excess
capacity of 30,000 to 60,000 tons per year, this practice
would generate $60,000 to $120,000 per year in additional
revenue. The funds could be used to reduce the
collection service cost paid by City ratepayers or to
reimburse the City for various expenditures.
Another option might be to enter into a contract with any
other interested jurisdictions at the beginning of the
transfer station project and have them participate
financially in the project. Once a Council direction is
established, staff will again contact neighboring cities
to explore their level of interest in such a plan: the
Cities of Imperial Beach, Coronado, National City, and
Lemon Grove. (The City of EI Cajon is already pursuing
an independent option of their own.)
5. Describe in more detail and justify the administrative and
staffing costs included in the City'S additional "programs and
obligations", i.e. the Solid Waste Coordinator position.
R: If the City exits the County system, there will be
additional staffing needs which are not provided in the
City's current personnel base. For purposes of comparing
costs between the options, a projection of salaries and
benefits for three positions is included in the analysis.
This is not intended to be a budget. A discussion on
actual numbers of staff, appropriate classifications and
justification will need to take place at some future time
if Council takes action to leave the County system.
\C\-~
Attachment A
Follow-up Questions and Responses
Page 3
Salaries are projected at comparable levels for the
industry and benefits are estimated at 30% of salary,
comparable for City positions. Two staff members (at
combined salaries of about $61,000) are projected to be
needed for managing the scalehouse facility during all
hours of operation, including billing. This function is
recommended to be handled under City staff to ensure
maximum control over records and fees.
One other staff member is included to provide overall
coordination of all services, contract compliance,
facility management, permitting and enforcement issues,
and general administrative functions, at an annual salary
of about $58,000.
6. For the key assumptions listed on Page 6-2 of the 4/26/94
staff report, indicate a range and probability of the change
occurring, i.e. , County system tonnage decrease due to exit
of cities, impacts on tonnage due to the economy and
successful recycling programs, the possible loss of permit for
San Marcos landfill, etc.
R: The sensitivity analysis described on pages 4-10 through
4-15 of the final report discusses the results of having
changed some of the key assumptions and modeled the
potential economic impact if those changes were to be
realized. The possible changes analyzed include:
o Chula Vista waste quantities
o Other cities leaving the County system
o County system costs not realized
o Proposal costs not realized
o Premium tip fees paid to the county system for
non-participating members
o Additional transfer station capacity used by
other jurisdictions paying host fees
Regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the San
Marcos landfill, the San Marcos City Council will be
reconsidering the extension of the permit for one year at
their meeting on 5/10/94. Although the County has
contingency plans in the event that the extension is not
approved, there are no known cost impacts which could be
introduced into this analysis at this time. Council will
be provided with information on the San Marcos City
Council action and its impact as soon as it is available.
lC\ -~
Attachment A
Follow-up Questions and Responses
Page 4
7. A. Can you provide estimates cost estimates on the two
alternative sites submitted by Laidlaw, i.e. El Sobrante and
Suburban (Yuma, AZ)?
R: As noted on page 2-2 of the final report, Laidlaw has not
yet provided any disposal cost information for the use of
either of the two alternative sites named above, although
they have stated that they would do so. Their proposal
originally identified the company-owned Chiquita Landfill
in Los Angeles County as an alternative site in the event
that the Campo site did not become operational. During
the interview, Laidlaw staff restated that the Chiquita
site was the preferred alternative. They have further
indicated that they expect the EI Sobrante and Suburban
costs to be comparable to the $25/ton gate rate at the
other sites, with the main difference being the change in
hauling distance.
B. Provide more information on proposed transfer sites in and
around Chula Vista, including discussion of projected land
costs.
R: Proposed transfer sites are described on pages 2-4 and 2-
5, and a discussion of estimated land costs is included
in the "Cost of Proposed Services" section, at the top of
page 2-4.
8. Describe the range of usual problems associated with the
siting and permitting of a transfer station.
R: See the "Transfer Station Siting Issues" section on pages
2-4 and 2-5.
9. A. Page 6-2 of the 4/26/94 staff report states that "the
City's plan to meet the State's AB939 goals ... are factored
into the analysis... ." Explain the comment-and justify how
those goals can be met.
R: Page 4-5 of the final report states that, for "purposes
of this economic analysis, BVA used the waste quantity
disposal projections in the SRRE that assume AB939
diversion rates will be achieved." It is pointed out,
however, that the economic analysis does NOT include the
costs of a MRF which could eventually be necessary to
bring the City into compliance with the State's goal of
50% waste stream reduction.
The RFP required that proposals include capacity for the
transfer station to be expanded into a MRF by 1998 if the
\ ~ -\(')
Attachment A
Follow-up Questions and Responses
Page 5
City determined it was necessary. Because of the
uncertainty, there are no costs included in the proposals
for a HRF. However, for the purpose of comparing costs
to the County's system, it is noted that the County's
costs (Le. capital program) also do not include the cost
of a HRF to service South Bay cities, as in the PIA
project currently being discussed by the County. Some
would argue that the County HAS included the cost by
building the NCRRA facility to service the entire County,
although the use of that facility located in North County
may not be acceptable to South Bay cities.
B. How has the City already progressed towards meeting the
AB939 goals?
R: The City's residential recycling programs are currently
diverting 25% of the residential waste stream or 9.7% of
the total waste stream. The 9.7% residential rate does
not yet show the full impact of two relatively new
residential recycling programs, yard waste collection and
multi-family households.
There are other challenges to accurately assessing the
City's AB939 progress. The City does not yet receive
commercial recycling reports. County reports demonstrate
that Chula Vista is landfilling 30% less waste than it
was in 1990. With less than 10% of that source reduction
attributable to residents, it is clear that there is
undocumented source reduction from commercial and
industrial generators. Additionally, it is not possible
to determine from the existing data how much of the
reduction is due to: economic changes, implementation of
recycling programs, increased practice of source
reduction at the consumer level, etc..
A significant and continuing part of the work plan for
the City's Conservation Coordinator is to encourage
participation in the existing residential programs,
provide technical assistance to businesses, and to
develop a permit system for commercial recyclers in
accordance with the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. These
actions will provide the tools needed to monitor and meet
the AB939 goals.
\C\~\\
Attachment A
Follow-up Questions and Responses
Page 6
10. Comment on the likelihood and legal position of the
assumptions that:
A. To use the County system for two years, Chula Vista (as
a non-member agency) would pay the same tip fee as member
agencies; and
B. We would have no ongoing responsibility for the NCCRA
facility (debt service), active landfills, etc. once we
leave the County system.
R: Although the assumption was made in the "base case" that
the City would pay the same tip fee as other JPA members,
pages 4-14 and 4-15 of the final report discuss the
impacts on potential savings of changing that assumption.
One case describes the impact of changing only the tip
fee and uses two different cost possibilities, 20% and
50% premiums on top of the "base case" tip fee.
The second case describes the combined effect of the City
having to pay higher tip fees at the same time that
cities may be leaving the County system, Le. system
tonnage decreases and fixed costs are spread over fewer
users. This situation may be a more practical
possibility and, therefore, have a higher likelihood of
occurrence.
Regarding a legal op~nJ_on on the occurrence of these
assumptions, the City Attorney will respond either under
separate cover or verbally at the Council meeting.
11. What guarantees will there be in the contractor's agreement
that would assure the City of retaining control of the waste
and the fees?
R: See page 2-4 of the final report regarding prov~s~ons
which should be negotiated between the City and a service
provider in order to protect the City from increasing
transfer, hauling and disposal costs. All three
proposers indicated that their costs were fixed and that
they would assume responsibility if the costs were
underestimated. The City Attorney may wish to make
further comments about the City's ability to control the
waste.
\C\-I2-
Attachment .!l
Follow-up Questions and Responses
Page 7
12. What impact would closure of the NCRRA plant have on the
County's costs?
R: The only cost projection we can make at this time
regarding the impact of the closure of the plant is
illustrated in a sensitivity analysis included on page F-
20 in Appendix F of the final report. It is noted,
however, that this model was calculated by removing two
NCRRA line-item operational costs (0 & M and hauling)
from the "base case" calculation. The NCRRA debt service
payment remains in. There is no confirmation from the
County that these assumptions accurately represent what
might be the actual decreased system costs if the plant
were closed.
13. Provide an update on the permitting and development process
for the Campo landfill, particularly with regard to
implications of availability.
R:
as is now known
permitting and
Page 2-2 includes as much information
about the status and schedule for
development of the Campo Landfill.
14. What is the capacity (useful life) of the alternative disposal
sites? What are the known factors of these sites, and their
uncertainties, including any existing restrictions on
accepting out-of-county waste?
R: The feasibility of the disposal site options is detailed
on pages 2-5 through 2-7 of the final report. All
existing and potential sites should have a minimum of 20
years capacity and there are currently no known
restrictions on the importation of waste.
15. Discuss the impact of volume on both the County and the
proposal rates.
R: The impact of volume on rates is illustrated a number of
times in both the comparative analysis of the "base
case", as well as the sensitivity analysis which
addressed (among other variables), possible changes in
tonnage for both the County system and the City. In
particular, see pages 4-11 through 4-13 on the
sensitivity analysis.
\q..\~ / Cj-/~
05-05-94 02: 57 PM FROM BROWN, VENCE & moc TO 16195855612
POOZ!004
Attachment C
Inwn, VOIlCO
__III..
E_and
w....__
EPainutl
TECHNICAL MEMORANDtlM
120 1oI0d01l1n01Y_
_'000
aan m.nc1leO CiII. 941 04
TO:
George Krempl, S~ Snyder
'.~.~
".......",.
r~j..;~'-ql ift(;)M~
, ifl' "~' "~" " , " ,,' '" ""'", '" 41~FAX
"T~;;~~' '-rq~ , ,.... ~,;~,~w~"'~'~^;~;1';~':~;~I-"~"-";';:""""''-'':;;~''[''v:!~;";~;""'.....hliio:-"~1;.i'oI&"iilti~::':._'._''',' ~;".'""':""",:",_"".,;
t. . .". .0. 1 ' .,1. \. , .,,~ ~ ,J .. ,~ '" . - . ,-
DATE: May 4, 1994
RE: Transfer Station Owncubip hsuCJ
",r:,,",r.
If Chula Vista decidell to leave the County system and seek altemative disposal options, the citY '
will need a transfer station to provide a location to consolidate its waste stteam for shipment to
a distant landfin. The City is in the poaition to own the facllity or allow a private contractor
to own the facility. In assessing Its options, the City needs to understand the issues suITOunding
ownership of the traD8fer station., At the City's request, Brown, Vence, & Associates has
reviewed the primary baues related to City ownershiP and has grouped them into advantages and
disadvantages. The discuSsion assumes that if the transfer station is City owned, the City will
arrange operations through an agreemont with a priv-.w: oonuactor.
ADVANTAGES OF CITY OWNERSHIP
. The City maina oontrol over the siting, design, pem1itting, and construction of the
facility by perfonUing the wod: uing in-house staff or contracting with engineers,
environmental consultants, and constroction COll1:l1lCtOrs. 'l1Ie City retains control over
the operations through contn'etual agJ.Wm.euts with a private operator and slw:es the
respon~hi1ity ofpe1formance with the private operator.
. The City has assurance that sufficient capacity is avaibWle to handle its waste stream.
. The City retains cootrol over the customers that use the faclJity. thereby ensuring that
,the facility, is accessible tl) all baulers in a, deIlned area, inc1udingself-bauleTli...... M
Roeydod
Pac>>r
F:'3~Ol\CO~owtfDIW1IIl'.Tc:H OSI05lP' :3"2,. 1
1C\- \S
05-05-94 02: 57PM FROM BROWN, VENCE ~ ASSOC TO \6\ 95855612
P003!004
. The City retains control over the types of ma",,"lIll accepted at the facllity through
COI1lm;tual agreements with the private opemtor; thus, the City bas greater freedom
to expand the waste collection serviceS available at the site. For example, the City
could acid a drop-afflbuy-back mcycling center, a WlI5W IlltCbangc program, or
bousehoId hazardous waste drop-off operation.
. The City can predict costs over a period of time through contral;tllal arrangements and
itq deht Rervioe.
~ ~ <""\1"., ": l
. At the end of the debt period, the City owns the facWty; it is an asset.
. The City can negotiate an opemting contract with Hmited tenDS (e.g., five or ten
years) or a perlo4lc :renewal clause; thetefole, the City can limit the :dsks often
~'7 1;"'\1 as~imd~jijth,pv"~~~~ ,~~~r~tirtr~~hllttcfentr-- ,
. "~:~m'all(jw ~City-1O rcpw:c a pli*6pcrator in a' . . 1e time frame
if the contractor's peIformantc is net satisfactory.
. The profit of the private operator is limited to profit on operating expenses and does
not include profit on the facllity capital costs.
. The City benefits jillllndlllly from the increased effici~ and lower wage scales of
.' ... t ,_ - - I.
the pItvate operator. "" ' . .'. .
,-
. TheC!tYcan arrange for facility fUl8Jl~ wid11~stdebt than the prlvaiD
opetator typically can obtain; therefore, the overall cap1ta1 cost of the facility may be
~~. '
,
. The City would have direct control over facility site selectioll because the City can
exercise its power of eminent domain to obtain a desiIable location.
. Tax beMt'its may exist for City ownership.
. The ~ty !IIa, levy a hoist community reo on waBto quantitic:s recoivod ftom other
cities that use the transfer station. '
DISADV AN1'AGES OF CITY OWNERSHIP
. The elected officials must make a lon&-teQn financial commitment to the facility.
. The City must proVide long-tCrm financIII~ and be respollB1blo for guaroin~lng ....
debt service payments over the financing term.
. 'I11e City n~ to eStablish a fee structure to tepay the debt.
. The City Mains responsibility for aelec:ting the site location.
P'IllWl93032.01\COR",,!,ioW1'II111SHlP.TCK aIIOIIlM Z;4~", 2
\~- \~
05-05-94 02:57PM FROM BROWN. VENCE ~ ASSOC TO 16195855612
P004!004
. The City Jetains the responsibility of not QII1y ......".lnl~ local zoning but also
obta1ning and mai"",inlng all nece83lIIY penni.ts, including the Solid Waste Facility
Pennit.
. The City bears the risks associated with waste supply, waste composition, and cbanges
in laws and rogulations.
",,,,"-,.,,. .,'.,. ~. ."... ,,~'.H.. .,. . . . ~._,..,._ ,;..",.. <I,__~:,,;;.~h....,.....,....n.,,..."
" .-:" -CI&hd--~MbHJp~'iL6ishiP ~t~:a.re r&c; ~'ti, the City. ~~p1e, a priVa.18
contractor could site, design, permit, conatmction, and operate the facility and at some point sell
or give the fileility ttl the City. Ancthe.r altemal:ive the City oould pursue is owninr the property
and lea5ing the land to a private company, which would be IeSpOIISible for the siting, design,
permitting, construction, and operation the facility. If the City proceeds with the transfer station
development, these optioos should be investigated further.
. The City beam the risk of teclmolo:y or design failures that cause the facility not to
opcn1te as expected (although the :risks lWOclated with tramfcr station technology are
D1inimal).
. The City bears the risk aSsocUte<l with force majeure such natural ~, war, and
sabotage.
p,ISWIPJI)32.01IeOUllS\O_Klp:rQl GIlIlll'" "'... "" 3
\~-\\ / {q- 2tJ
~n tau Qlountu ~onrb of ~uperui50rs
601 11TH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX C
PARKER, ARIZONA 85344
(602) 669.6115
October 28, 1993
GENE FISHER
DISTRICT .1
JOAN BIGHEAD
DISTRICT _2
GREG UPTON
DISTRICT .3
FAX (602) 669.970<>
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERH:
. On October 25, 1993, the Board of Supervisors of La Paz County
Arizona voted unanimously to enter into contract negotiations for a
Public/Private Partnership with Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) to operate our
160 acre landfill on the Arizona/California border. Our County views this
partnership as a tremendous economic development opportunity through the creation
of local jobs and the enhancement of our tax revenue base.
La Paz County has a very unique asset in its landfill. It has
excellent geographical considerations, including proximity to major highways and
rail lines, and the site is over fifteen (15) miles from its nearest neighbor.
Under a fast track schedule, we are in good faith negotiating the final operating
agreement and are planning for a May, 1994 date to begin receiving municipal
solid waste from outside the County. Although we are fully permitted and
receiving local waste today, we will spend the next six (6) months bringing the
landfill up to subtitle D federal standards. Working together with BFI, we are
confident that we can provide an environmental and cost effective solution to
communities waste disposal needs for a minimum of twenty (20) years.
Over the coming months, we are looking forward to meeting with
municipalities who want to team up with us for long-term environmentally safe
disposal.
Please feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss this
unique opportunity in more detail.
&:0121. jh
LA PAZ COURT! BOARn OF SUPERVISORS:
2/~ ~~J
Gene Fisher Supervisor District 1
/~
i
'-
...
19- 2-\
Railhaul Projects for Southern California Communities
LA PAZ COUNTY LANDFILL PROJECT
Background Information - The La paz County Landfill Project has been created
through a partnership between La Paz County, which is located on the western border
of Arizona, and Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). The partnership brings the resources
of a national company with extensive experience and expertise in the environmental
industry plus a municipal partner who is sensitive to the challenges unique to
governmental entities. The terms of the agreement define a public I private
partnership in which La Paz County retains ownership of the site and BFI accepts the
responsibility to construct a Subtitle D state-of-the-art landfill and assume its'
operations. From a geological perspective, The Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) considers the site an excellent location for a landfill. The groundwater
is more than 500 feet below surface and the nearest resident is located over fifteen
miles from the landfill. Although remotely located, the site is readily accessible by both
national rail carriers and major highways.
Rail access is provided by the Arizona California Railroad which receives se,rvice from
Santa Fe and Southern Pacific. The nearest communities, both located approximately
fifteen miles from the. site on Highway 95, are Quartzsite, Arizona and Parker, Arizona.
The landfill is fully permitted and covers one hundred sixty (160) acres, with
approximately 5,000,000 tons of permitted airspace. La Paz County has started the
process of acquiring additional acreage from The Bureau of Land Management - the
same entity that originally transferred the one hundred sixty (160) acres to the County.
An analysis of the property which is contiguous to the permitted area shows unlimited
potential in terms of expansion opportunities - which would e.xtend the life of the
landfill for well over twenty years.
The County and BFI received final permit approval for the new landfill in April of 1994
and construction has commenced on the new Subtitle D facility. The new landfill is
expected to be open to receive waste in the fall of 1994. Environmental controls
feature a composite liner system comprised of two feet of low permeability clay, a high
density polyethylene liner and a leachate collection system which underlies the entire
landfill. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's (ADEQ) permit does not
set a daily limit on tonnage allowed into the site. The La Paz County Landfill is
permitted to accept municipal solid waste as defined by RCRA and various special
waste categories allowed under the Arizona State permit. For California communities
with aggressive recycling programs, waste will be accepted after it has gone through
the recycling process.
The company initially anticipates operating the site at 2000 tons per day, although it
has the capability of increasing in the event that additional contracts are secured. At
2000 tons per day, the expected life of the landfill is eight years. County officials are
currently working together with SFI to market the landfill to munil;:ipal customers. SFI is
taking the lead for marketing the landfill to commercial and special waste-customers.
\ q -'l2..
The partnership is focused on tailoring programs that addresses each individual
community's situation, including transportation arrangements and development of
transfer capabilities. The tipping fee at the landfill is expected to be $25 at the opening
of the facility in fall of 1994.
Status of the Project
Landfill - In April of 1994, The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
approved a minor modification of the existing permit to construct a new landfill on the
one hundred and sixty (160) acre site. Construction has commenced and the new
lined landfill is expected to be open and operational in fall of 1994. BFI will exhume
all of the in-place waste from the County's prior operations at this site and place it into
the new lined landfill. At that point, BFI will indemnify the County from future
environmental liability. Plans to expand the landfill for future growth are now
underway and the preliminary permitting of this expansion process has started.
Expansion capabilities include both horizonatal and vertical growth.
Transportation - For those customers that elect to use the Arizona California Railroad
to access the landfill, BFI plans to use a rail siding located five miles from the site for
the purpose of trans.ferring containers from the rail to trucks for the short haul to the
landfill. In addition, the County is exploring the benefits of building a private road from
the main rail line to the landfill to provide trucks an alternative route instead of using
Highway 95. This would allow the use of heavier containers, since there would be no
weight limitations on the private road. For better efficiencies in the future, La Paz
County has started the process to acquire land from the Bureau of Land Management
between the main rail line and the landfill for the purpose of constructing a rail spur
directly into the landfill site to eliminate the need for trucking. Specially designed
vehicles would lift the containers from the rail cars at the landfill and deliver them to the
active cell for disposal.
Citizen Approval - As part of the evaluation process for determining how to manage
the Countys' solid waste in the future, La Paz County officials met with the majority of
residents to receive input and possible concerns about entering into a partnership with
BFI that would include the importation of waste from outside the region. Since there
was already a precedent for bringing California waste into the. area, the importation
issue was not considered a major concern to the residents. Because .the topography
of the site is compatible with hosting a mega-landfill and given that the nearest
resident is over fifteen miles from this location, the local community has become very
supportive of the new partnership. The agreement allows for the County to share in
revenues while creating jobs and stimulating demand for local services.
Concerns - One concern is the pending federal legislation that seeks to influence the
flow of waste across state lines. Because of its proximity to California communities on
the Arizona border, La Paz County has been accepting waste from out-of-state for
several years. The community does not perceive a problem with these flows
l" . 23
continuing into the future. In addition, the partnership between SFI and the County has
a signed agreement that specifically addresses the issue of out-of-state flows into the
La Paz County Landfill and the importance of those flows continuing from a business
practicality standpoint. Although no federal legislation has been passed on this issue
as of this date, it appears that the existence of a signed agreement between a host
community and a solid waste facility helps to create a strong legal foundation which
can protect a projects' future viability.
19-2~ Ilq~.E'3
T
'.e..',..',
, ,
#/9
M.'V 1994 file 011,0 OU',f'rVC' P"9" :1
Mid-Atp.ericaalsat: it again
"Thatjllstseemedto .onjirmall
the rumors we hadhcardabouI how
Mid.Ameri.all was light with local
officials." '
It was about (his lime, In fa.!.
that Colunlbus took a 11I.nliive pilot
re<:yding projOCl awayfrOln the low
biddenmd gllve it 10 Mid-AIl1eri\:Qn
wilhoul explanation,
It was also abQil! Ihis lime ll\at
Mid.Ameri.anl~f1icials and I'Ilhcrs
affiliated with the rompany plimpcd
up to $36,000 il!to thc .ampaign.or-
lers of thcn-City Council President
Cindy La~aMls,
Purecl,iJl~idcllee, La/nnls n'nd .
Mid.Amcrican officia\sSaid.
Coi n.idencc, perhap's, but not .
acy' to violat~ federal cnvironmcmal
laws and calloo for anillvestigation
10 dCICt\lline if thc lrasll divcrsion
SometimeS headlines are almost
enough to tell the story.
" 'Clean hand~' or dirty
deals?" The Observer asked in a
February articlc about Ohio-based '
Mid-American Wasle Systems' con.
\!'ovcrsial history,
ft$2 million t..a~h contraet ille-
gal," The Ci1lumbu~ Dispatch an.
swered in an April 5 front.page story
about how Columbus had been allow-
ing Mid-American to dU\\lp '30 per-
.elllotth~cily's, trash sinc:eJan, 24
uader a socret unbidt:9ntraOt.
Offi.iflls for Columbus and Mid.
American began tripping al,l over
themselves after City Councilman
M,D. Portman exposed lhc'(;()n-
tract's cllistenre and demanded an.
swers 011 how it ever came about
Without the required approval'of city
~dl
The more they tried to juslil)llhe .' Thc formerelllployee said'he and
deal, though, th~ marc the(Jfticlltls'.~~ hiS ~Ife discovered that thc mmorcd
answers about supJlQScd savings and eOZlll~S betweenSWA<;Olllld Mid-
Mid-American's alleged ability to Amencan waHo~ l'eAlwhe,nthcy
rccyclcup 10 30 porcent oftlw trash called .thc au111l)Tny!lfier hc Wl\sfired
didn't make sense ' 1a..tsUIIl1lI~r: '
About the onl~ possible answer ' "I triod 10 ,tet,t thcm' aboutJlow .
that dldll1ltke se.use, insidet$sllid. ' t~ash t~at was Sl1ppo~ed to gOlo the'
WllS thai Mayor Greg Lashutka . I'rankllll County I~D~ll ,was being
jumped tho gun on hisplari tooventu- sellt t~ Mld'ADlcnca.ll J.and~~~lhe
ally let the self-proclaimed "clean' rceyelmg center lI~at aUows,tlie~m'
hands" waste COillpany take over , pany to send w~at s len QVm;,IO Its
trash collection for the city to keep , landfill was basl~ally nJokoilhc for,
the .ity's most-tOxic waste from go- mer :mployee said. .'
iug to its trash-burning powcr plant '. allt \lO'O~IC at S WACO. wanted
during II Mar.h test burn by the U.S. .' to bSl~~; They toldrnc to get ~ '.
EllvirollmClltalProlcctioll Agcncy. la~~~. . . .
U.S. EPA JlnalystWilllam San- h lhc fomler ol~plo>'ec's wlfc saId
jour, whose mcmoaboutdallgerously s e got the SlIme kl1ldofreac.llon
rug] d" ". I' 1 when she c.11lcd SW ACO.
I. 10Xl1l emisSionS' at t Ie pant '''n 'd'd" , ,
prompted the test. suggested bill .' ,IC>, I n t ~dnt, tohedr <~:lY-
O tl t th M'd A '" . d'-' thmg bad ,Ibou! Mld-Amencan, she
mem la e 1 -. m,rlcan "" 'd
"miglll cOJlSlltute a criminal ~'onspjr.' '1 sal .
~kewed the Icst resllUs,
SpurlC\l by the .0nlrovCl'SY. city
officials beflllll askillg qucsti(lIlS thaI
Mid-American had ,tTOublcanswcring
abo\ll how m\l(;h waste Was ~tua.lly
re<:ycled and how much was sent to .
its Fairfield County lanclfilI,
Any full and j~partial investiga-
jioncould open a canofworlll8'that
Mid-American might have trouble
closing, OnC forrncrcmpl!lYoc$aid.
The fomlor emploYee said he was
often asked to doctor reCords about
bow rnudl~S1e wIIS b~ing.~umped
at I ~e company' s .I~ndf\ll rather Ulan.
as required, at the one in Franklin
County run bythc Solid Wasoo Au- ,
thority of Ce.iltral Ohio. .'
/9"~
'-
I trie.d tQ teUthem
. a~out how trash
that. wa~ sup,posed
-to gototh~
. F,.,i' -q
"rankUn ,(JOI,IUtyi !
'. 'andfill Wasbe~fig
. sentto Mid~ - . .
Ameltican'sown' i'
latidtJU'n~ how','
. th e r+~YC~~Il'gce.P_:,.J
te..t~ataUows thei.
".' ' ,:': '. L
'tomp,agyto$~n4Ai:
wblltts 1~tf6ve'rto ;
its laildfurwa.sba-,
, ' ,: :,' ~. , ' ',' t
skaU's . ol(.e; ..'1'
.!..J,.... ;.
poge 4 Till' Ohl(l Ohserver M,JV 1'1<)4
"
necessaril>: pllf~, iiJdUstiy and politi~
cal sourc~ replied.
The money was supposedly do. .
Rated at arocCptiOll hO~(edby Mid- !
^inericanCE() Chris Whit.e,but 110
orj~ could remember where. I
"l'hat'sprobably because' there :
. wllslIO receptlon,"a wllste;industry
'souree said. .
.'thoSe who donated werc proba.
bly told to',send a cheek Md they scril
acbeck." . .. I
Mid-Artlcri~allcan hardly argue
that il doesh'tundersiand the iinpor;
lance offolJo.wing the. roles w\)en ob'
taining fi1~nicipa)contracts.
The company sucd Ihe city of I
Parma la~lfallafter city council
.awarded a' contract to Mid.
American!s main competitorill
northern Olhio, Browning Ferris In';
dustries, o\Icnthough Mid.Am~rica!l
p ......' .
had the lliWef'bid, The lawsuit was
. settled hI JaQi!iiywhen, Parma al1'
nouneed it'Wbuld' giveBFI a onc-year
ralher than three-year COfllract and
. rebid;the',fest" '.' .
. , , , " ": -. - I " . ~ ' , . , _', ' , '
, t', MiU-Mrilirican;meanwhile, 'con-
tinues to rtlCCl. 8lrOllg resistance to its
ellJla/lsion ,in o\l1Cr pa1sof ~e coun-
\/Y. ,.r. '. '
. . .. III iIliooii. the Wayne County .
Board rceentlyrejcclilll1l1e com.
pany's request toe,,:Pand its regional
landfill near. Jlahlleld.
The \lQard ,no! only rojectodtho
originalexpansiOIl plan, but also
voted uot to consi4er a scaled-back
proposal for vertical expunsion,
. InJIIljlalla, ~pponenls oi the
Mid-America.roll Gary Landfill said
lhe IX'mpany was violatillg the
mayor's ban onlluoking in waste
. from other slates.
, And'in.southcrn CullfOl'n!a, the
company's developmcllt of a lalldnU
on an Incijan .reservatitlll on the U.S.-
Mexican border was officially
protested l('.lhe U,S, Slale Depart-
ment by the governmenl of Mexico.
The San Diego C/IUlllY BOai'd of
Supervisors also voted to ailPeaJ a
federal court dccision that allowed
the proposed Campo landfill project
lo.proceCil,
The suit, f1ed1as1l'car, charges
lhallall~1l pr9ponlinlS did IlOl pro-
ducean accurate .linvirollllleutallm-
pacl SLalel11enl.
. . Second Oistriet Sl!Pervisor Di-
anile Jacohsaid,that Jullllc 1l'llJu
Gonzalez "did nollllle on whether
the Jandfiltwll5 safe,"buton
"whether lh.e j's were dOlled and the
t's werecl'ossed."
Jucob said she believes iliat, "The
highercou[\ ",ill bcmorothorough. J
thhlk rhere will be a fairer hearing of
all.l6e issues, ,.
) 9 --;)("
(1)
::J
(f)
(f)
.-
(1)
'oJ)
"C
:::::1
-
(f)
C
::.-.. 0
0-. (/)
()-.. J...
........ (1)
--- --- ::
---
(f)
1 c
ro
J...
0
f \to-
~
ro
+'I
4 (1)
J...
(.)
C1)
(/)
J...
0
.-
J...
<J.)
+'I.
e:
-
(f)
~
(/)
ro
~
C1)
-
"C
e:
ro
(.)
(.)
::
o ~...!2): -.c: \II "" . ~
~r;~.2 ,gc,;!~"'ii
O.~41 c-:l_c
:JE.o eEe-tO.
l!"1!1,,- -=~~'l'!
;'eE~ ~~]~<j
~~~~ ~til~1:Co."
cO c: ., 0 ~
.- t.I to '- t : ~ E < ...
~~~~ ;;~-1Ol~=
.=5';a~ 3.,g:;=:;'i
F'^=;-' ~'-__I.l
t: f.I'-'" .::: "t:l 0 ... .s
~5~~ "'~:t~.5t
QJ c to 5"'C.,! :i"t:l.: ;j
"'0 :;:.c 3 .- (J t'l ILl t:lC
"t:l EJ :J "0 3: E l:.I e "Ill ~ 'c
~ to C ~ .~
l'llG.lII:J~ .~~=lU~ -Co
o--E"'Cl~-E.c...c
o:l"ii)Ct.I:lCZ:;t....f-oLoC"ll>,lU
_ 0.::1:0.0:.. C"II)::
o""-l:o~ --o.8,,,:~...
=g:;-E='"e~"' .D~
CI...=,g(J:L~ ~::r!::l<
88 &..55 .8 g ~'i ~.:
C....
oe
!;"
CUI
~g
"'::>
~....
III
.~ ..
= ..
:.0&1)
.Q
'"
'"
'"
ctJ c-o
Uj '" ~
-' u-
Q rl.5
~ 'C.:.
CJ t.~ ~ ~
~ I'll ~~~
c;;c
... tlco_
~.=f.,1.l 'Il~Cc''''I:''''-l'll
_..c: " tIS ::l - .... t: c
L.o' ....~ - 0 E - (J 0
~ 8 t ~ ::J ,c QJ ....c lU t'I ... .-
.... 91 ... .- ~ ~ ;; 5 i > t e ~
~ E .!! ~ L...c ~ ~ ~ ~~"
.~ :; ::J ~ ~ ~ 0 .:: ~ ~ ~. ~ .~
~ Lt.. :;:; ~ r;I '0 -' QJ ;g ~ l'll ~ E
"9 l'll ~ - - "0 lir. : fJ - E E.=>
"0=.0= C ",-"'C -
ce <0.1 _r.l'll~r,;lUCJC-=
C"II 0 ILl u: :0:;....- "C QJ > (,J e .,
~u== t"c];,""EE":;U
tOO ."E....~~-O'"'~'2flU
~.: g ~ ~ ~ E:5 l5...2 l'll ~ ~
tOO~~~ 8~~~;g.~
&
.
~
Cl'
:;8 ~!~:~ ~;.~g~
.:; 8 3:8 ~ :2 .;; !:: 'i ::.: ~
= f::!! a.'~ ~ .r:: k = > .-
tl ~ ~ .~ ~ . ~ .: ~ .i2 ~ ~
.s.X ,,~C~.: ~i)i.;;'"
~ ~::'''''-i .9-...e~~
~ ~ .g g ES ~ :2 ~ ~ c.-zl -'
111 "t:I-' -u~ k Q,> cJ...."C
.0 ~ "CI ~ 1: U ~ l: till.... tie
>'L.~:S:'ll~ _ ."OQ:;)
il = ~ - -s tIC - ... eo.: ~ l: C
:i 2.f: e.o f:::. S-: ~~~.:!'5
CE _025.r:! ,,4J-'~
.l! 8" C~.9.::t E "':e=~ .
a: :,iillll-;;t!,,2 .s"'~'>~
"]f5~fU~8.:'lI"O .l:~ 0
~ ...:tl;l.OoC::~~~3!t\I...::
o ll.>1..13f:: ~.c::"'l:"<.!!
i; " i'~ ~ 1! ~ 5 ~ E"> .!< iii 6:.
f:~-;;;t:~:'lIIo,.S e~'i"'~
~ e "! F': !j.E';.9 ~ > -5 c;
Pg 1::- O"o~$OE~
-.Co1!!. ",C~:g"f-Q;;'c~
,gelS g"O.!i~3 8~.:E
t.HT~ ~ ~.~~.J~
~~~.::f~ >-.sE 3
'iE~!;gf- ]~c &.
::E :: e ~g ~ t: "0 I-.~ ~
... <> ~-
-0'" ~g "it' j
<-.:;- clJ ]
. c.' =';;::: n:I CI 0
~~;;;.5~;;;;.'i] ..,i
0: t8o~.~~g31~~
o I ~:<l;o[:;j"ii.SI1
cc 2:~E~cEC%:.!i .El:lCl
~ c'- /Y ::1.2 C C%: [::."" c:
_c:: ....... _0 '-"'r;
:c ::l f- (1 en t\I tJ ,!! . -i c 1:
1Il.'-~ - "'~c-oo
.; ..:.5 0 ~.5! ~ c: II Q,> _C!! ....,.
....t:..- ->.r::--::::cc5il
.... ~=~ ~ Co",- M1!.~~_
;:) Vi...c...:oc:~~ ~ -
"" ,!l -<." Q ,. .~ .- <2. 13 .!!
0.. ~"'e ::o-.t:-eo....CD.
..l ... ~ .- !..E . l'C,of:; ~ ::S"
m_ t\lO n:lCi.!!~ ~ ~CXl2i
" '" 2 0 '"
E~E~..8
o .. U Q.
~....t&.. 0 Q./
w K~:2~
80u"Z
EU~"'c
4,lCu=;;
.J:: 00.... _ .
:i'Ecof::c
Q 0.... I.., &I
V)ClO~oE
<"O_~~E
a;;ox->
. C o~ 10,.
~>'&I"O'O
.l::; t.I "'0 .c:: ~.....
oJ ~ <ii l'3:::: VI
4.0 O,.t VI_
'0 .<" ~8 2 ~
.WI" 'II
~.!:I e r
o...Sl'"
"" C ~
c:.2 ... ...
D:e;;!t:
C'",:g
.. ~ "
'WI;,.. J5 ...
.5~ oJ >
c' "" "
K . ".Q
0:'S! till:""'
lX" C
~ 0
...0....."
~".
;-..;;1 L.........
- ll.l"'C'Il
~f!5
~~ ...
7...: _ ~
:~:,~
.8.!< ._
\
/9~;2 7
e:!'Cc!:~g 38S~~3
.g:;!Eo~ ec~fr ~
....tJ....8"ot ll.l'1.le~"O-SE!
O,.tN 1..,e;::J'c IVI '-C
"t:I _ ...._ ... cr ... tJ ~ "' tr 0
.... .III > ... .... is.. ~ L.o
~-f!!f~": ~.;::~g.....>
:-ta..o ctJ;2c.:::tS=
~.::c-~~..... 1Illl.l~_",ll.l
::t 0 111._ :"""2"' >'.0 < =
tJ 61 veL.. 111_
.. C.u-.... C'Il::l 11'10 :.-.,>...... 0
loCO 0'- O,.t~.cC
61 c ~'2'8 E 'Go!! E ~'E-
c.-"'",-E c" :.: 1!
C'IlOC'll cO tlbolll ~.-
Q./-,-;::S-ou ~~]:2 15
:'::'=........"'>. E"'lX-
Q.~ 4) >. !$ .'::: _ _ c .
Vl._~__.... C'Ilt-_.....:,:3VI'"
YVl4,l'-'''O 1o,.0"_VljtJ
061....-- C &1_ .- ....--...-
I.., l: ii _.- 11 ... ~ :::: '11\ Cl. ~
o...oj;;~E....~=.2:;:w......
s~~ '.51~~~~ ....Q'~g.S~~ E
~E5 "O~ ~::tO,.to .-._C'Il 61
Ul OJ t'Il.:..,...,g'iL.o Q./~vo.'Eg- "0
t\I~L.o Vl~E~"'....8 ~ ~~....= c
~~~ ~~~g...3 ~-ov::t"' ~
VI c._ ~O,.t....o ...tIII... ~v C
;..... t\I .0 .... ~ c C'U go..o O,i - 'r:
Q) ~ c; ~ ~ ~ 0 JJ ~:E:2 .:: 'OQ_ .... :: v ~
;O,i... "'WoJ-C'Il-U ~Q./5~g~ ::t
_L.oE;, .cE5 ....~ 4,I...ci;:li.... In
"'1'\< ~ E.., .~ 0 O.:!5 8..5 ="8"',=~.!: -0
~E",e~11~~~t"O~.... E~~~~~ c~
~ 0 __c l.. ~c...o 0-(0 E
~ _=...n;~t)..."'~ l.._....,,~&.
::s ;-:!.E~t:;;~~tl:&~ :;al5~.H1J ,0
~C'Il" ~"'~~~~'E C'Il W L.o ~
~ "';0 -,1 5:-::J.~ ~ .C ~ ~'"
- :8 t ~ .2 g 'G .~ till oJ ~ ~ ~ 5'0 ..8 g~ .!l 'M .~
(J) Ii:; >'3 i!.';E..a,~ is,;..:. 0 ~o t -1;;,1;-.8 ,,>
Uo~~. ~~~~~~~ ~o<~~~
..~..~--.-..-:
9~t~g 16
. VV:t: "I'-'r~~ ~:""V'l"ry" -i> ......:.prodv"':'.rp
~ ~'(T'" V,rr r or-f'"" !fVVOJ-~ ~~l(
e vWV ,"'0 rn-"""'" V'""+"VOJ-.v ''("OOl e.":+~IVo-"'J
'........... :r:~"~ ;.n'i ~ . '>. b1aM ,...( rrFVJW
. vY>-V 7Jf.~" ~r~V ~ hwr "Y'{J ~ 0"" ) 'IrV"i'YI
. " " ' C'
~Ou ~ . F ,.r:"-Hl WI (k V':at' ""r"~O" UO -;'''0
7"-.'" "''''''''''-: ~(1 . 10 UQ.'"'+ "'-"' ':> r ?;IaN ~
""".:r~J DOJ rov 71-fT' 7:""; '+ ~ ~ -'-(1
l. ~r~
;POT" "'-" ..........:p-.u..~ "--0 """'"V/oo:"+'VJ''rO',h;
'1~ ':+-~'J f' ~ ~O" VyW ~ . "-'<:f"'VV.~, f-:" ",~.1
1* r-v'r.".,....,h ~V"O'I'rurvJ~ rvwv~ .
r''-' ---
-- -,..../
~,~rO()l ~ o-r-'L
1:)3rens
.ON .YiS'~OOI::l
~Nt
I 0 551'r/ I tf3arinN 3NOHd ,
.ON .nSl~OOl::l I
~4
F.W J +0<' ('1
l'iOl::l;:l
~~L~
~)1 ,O~)J
~~Ol
-hb-~I-:P I
31'0
h61H .^3l::ll OO~ .OlS
OW3W 3:>1:l:lO
Y1NI::lO;:ll1YO :10 31 Y is
c:rv-""n V ,-8-'-'tfY' JS ;;<.II..!. ('Io.;;>W -u?\lf! )}lI7.!S .-f ..J.LJJ;:;1 d
'2 ;) 11 ty) S -vr>? h../l tt )") :;tV PI rll 0
-\fcl3-7 Vt.7 ' ~o ':j1Y 3' :;;1340 \' I 1A.l yVQ
- '-.........,..-.
,.
.
) ~ "026
-lc
\,..".
I
i
I.
I
~~
f?7~
~ /97 Y
its feet, Indians say
i
IEPA dragging
I By PAUl R, HUARD
The Desert Sun
THER~AL - The Torres~~arti-
i DeZ Indians are losing patience with
t the Environmental Protection
t. Ageocy. which they say is dragging
1 its ree\ on action to clean up a pile
. of sludge on reservation land.
t And top EPA oHidals in Califor-
nia won't talk about the mountain
of . sludge at the Chino Corona
Farms Co. operation.
:'oleither will local Bureau of Indi-
an Affairs olficials. That agency's
Southern California supervisor has
declined to return repeated phone
calls since Wednesday.
M.ary Belardo, tribal spokes.
woman for the Torres-Martinez
Bclnd of Desert Cahuilla Indians,
said EPA oHidals made two visits
to t.be controversial sludge mound.
whicb California Regional Water
Quality Control Board oHidals
blame (or groundwater contamina-
tion. But they said nothing, asked no
questions and performed no tests,
she said.
'I"be EPA representatives lis.
t~ned to company oHicials and the
co-owner of the tract used by Chino
Corona describe how they planned
to remove the operation to ma ke
way for another waste-disposal
company. she said.
., All tbe EP A did was sit there
and listen to Vincent ([banez, oper-
ator oC Ibanez Farms, which is lo-
cated on a tract owned by his wife
Geraldine, a Torres.Martinez tribe
member):' said Belardo, who was
at both meetings. "He and Gordon
Cooper l vice president of Chino Co--
ronal tried to explain away every..
thing and all the EPA did was
listetL"
Lois Grunwald, a spokes"\\'oman
raine Walker. his secretary, said be
was "in a place wbere be canoot be
reacbed b)' telephone" aDd DO one
at the BIA's Riverside office was
authorized to talk to tbe media.
At the JaEl.. %7 meeting, 8elardo
said she asked Ibanez, "What are
you going to do about 1.hr moun.
taiD?" reCerring to the SOO.OOO-ton,
50.Coot-higb mound of sewage
sludge transported to the site by
Chino Corona between 1989 and
1993. Tbe company was under con-
tract with the city of San Diego to
remove sewage waste from Fiesta
Island and process it as compost.
"Vincent said be bad a ~ oper.
ator aod be would clean up the site,
but it would take some years to do
i~" Belardo said.
EP A otncials walked arouod tbe
sludge site, but performed DO tests
or asked any questions about the
operatioDS. Belardo said.
Belardo acd Gnmwald said lour
EP A offl<'ia1s relw-ned 011 Feb, 3 to
meet ,,;th tribal leaders.. three more
BIA offICials. Gordon Cooper aod V.,.
cent lba.oez. ,~gain, Ibanez cletailed
his plans to bring Terra Farms. a
company be said would bag the
sludge, to the Ibanez Farms lnCt.
Belardo said the EP.4. officials
dido't want to go back to tht sludge
site for a second loot.
"'!bey didn1 .'ant to get ~udge OIl'
the w.s of their car" Belardo said,
Belardo said she is "sick and
tired of the whole sludge thing,"
and tbe tribe bas tried since last
year to get the BIA to shut down tbe
Chino Corona operation... She said
sbe is disgusted with the EPA's
inaction.
"v."hen does the light bulb come
00 and these people re.aliu there is
a problem'!" Belardo said.
Boiling water won't kill
pollutants, officials say
toile samples lor.",. signs ol
\.ainU.... said Dale _
berger, director 01 eagilleerlDl
lor the Coacbella Valley Water
District.
Bohnenberger said there are
several compaDies in Riverside
County that perform the tests
and they can be lound Ia the
telephone dlredory,
Be estimated the cost lor .
chemical pollutants test s_
at about $$0.
Drinkln& waler /10m wells
nsed by the dislrlct II sale to
drink. Bobnenberger said. EDgI.
neen cooUDue to monitor t.be.
purity 01 drlnkiag water used by
district customers, and there is
no indication that grouDdwater
pollution lound allbe Cblno C0-
rona site bas tainted supplies, be
added.
By PAUl R. HUARD
The Desert Sun
Soillog water will DOl remove
cbemical pollutolots such as ni-
trates and arsenie, engineers
with the state Regional Water
Quality Coolrol Board said
'!banday,
Boillng waler win only klI1
disease bacteria. !bey said.
'!be chemical cootamiDaDLI
are among thooe lound ID
groundwaler tests tlletlla July
Ia east Coachella VaDey, 0111-
,clals lrom the water quality
board said the sludge mound opo
eralod by Cbino Con>aa FanDI
Co, oear TbeJTOllI Is the 0<ltlI<e
of the contaminaUoD.
Residents who live Dear the
sJudge mound and draw thelr
water from private ..ells caD
bave an independentlaboralor1
!
j
I
I
I
j
1
!
Specialist John Rydzik Crom the bu-
reau's Riverside office, was held at
the tribe's office.
During the meeting. Ibanez told
tbe EP A officials be has a new op-
erator be wanted to locate at the
site, she said.
for Lbe EPA. repeatedly bas re-
fused to release any information
about the meetings.
"That meeting was between the
tribe aDd our agency's oHicials."
Grunwald said Wednesdav. "I don't
have some- kind of preconceived no-
tiOD of wrongdoing about Chino C0-
rona Co., and we aren't going to
deal with the situation in tbe press."
Rydzik refused to comment
about the meeting. "Only the super-
intendent (Virgil To~nsend) is au~
thorized to comment about this is-
sue:' R)"dzik said.
Repeated telephone calls
Wednesday and Thursday to Virgil
Townsend were not returned. Lor.
Chino Corona officials repeated.
Iy have refused to commeDL
Belardo said the meeting, which
also included Bureau oC lndian Al-
Cairs Environmental ProtectiOD
/9 ~,21
.-'
~~
nc..-.dZ l./) /9'i Y"
,,;, '"I ':II "::m1
Sludge site's shutdown order got buried
-....;.:.....
. ... ~- ,,~!
SPECIACREPORT
:r,/:.
. " . '>" '"","),(i~~~
".....,_..'.._.;.>,.:~_ ...-.'"_~..,;\..l~'~~ "
,'., ..: ~;.-~., .~. :.~..~~':::?:~~'~" ';~i~4~:
':',',
BIA
:...."'t.~.....~
nMEl.JNE
He tell. Belardo he rescinded the
cease-and-desi.t order.
Continued from A1
Act. Townsend also Il1formed t~
company that its eompostmg SILe.
operated joinUy with Vincent Iba-
net. lhe husband of I Torres.Marti-
ne1 lribe member, never received
approval from tbe U.S. secretary of
the interior.
Townsend's letter ordered Chino
Cornoa to shut down because it was
i.D violation of a tederallaw requir.
Lag a lease. Belardo said Jeage!'
told ber in January 1991 that only
4Ul eflvironmental assessment was
necessary. Belardo said Jeager
then told her he would withdraw t:be
ce.ue.and-desist order. He offered
no other explanation tor his deci.
sian. she said.
Two years later, Science Appli-
c:atiOft International Corp. ~can.an
environmental assessment of the
Chino Corona site for the BIA .lft
elght.month process that jncl~ded
examination of potential pollution
haz.anb. noise and public comment
~boot the composting ope:ratlol1. ID
\he report, engineers said odor
from the Chino Coron~ operation
was minimal, dust and flies did not
affect nearby residents, and sludge
piles were IS feet high.
Res!dents in nearby Thermal.
Co.achella and on the Torres-Marti-
Del reservation have complained of
flies, dust and odor SiDCe the site
opened in 1989, said Joey Acuila of
CoacMlIa.
And dried sludge at tM 40.~cre
Chino Corona site is piled higher
than SO fet't in some places.
Opponents of the Chino Corona
operation and Redlands-based
Pima GroSys.lems Inc.'s efforts to
espand sludge-processinl opera-
tions in the east Coacbella Valley
slud the letter proves tbe federal
government h.as known for years
about pollution at the site.
'1'bis is esentially a smoklnl
gun," said Doug Kopp of Palm ~
sert, . businessman who OppoMl
sludge composting in the valley.
"We've heard about this mystery
letter for a long time, but DOW we
have it."
Residents have asked the bureau
and the federal EnvironmenLaI
Protection Agency to interveoe..
But BtA and EPA officials say tbey
hOlve limited jurisdiction becallle of
Indian sovereignty.
Townsend bas repeal.edly sajd
3ince'J~nu.arythatthetribeisrespoo.
Sible for deYelopUlg its own ~
mental sLandards and any c1e.arup
effort must respect lhatSOYet'el.pty.
""'0 federal laws - United Stata
Code TiUe 26:81 and the National ED-
vironment.al Protection Act of 1969
- l'l!quire BlA regulation of tribal
~ lhat have potential elm-
ronment.al impact.
...-...-
Ofte.\SuI'lALEPtfOTO
S~e)Yale' Qualrty Control Board offlctals say Chino CaoN farms' slvd(e mound the size of tvoo foolball f\.elcIs is poI1utlr1g grouocIw~ter.
Violations found
four years ago,
report shows
By PAUL R. HUARD
The Desett $uti
The Bureau of Indian Affairs consid-
er~ Chino Corona Farms eo:s sludge-
pr~mg sile on the Torres-~rtinez
lI)!han Reservatioa in violation 0{ feder.
al environmental regulations four years
aJl). a letler obtained by The Desert Sun
shows.
Vet the buruu's rqional office re-
scinded the 1990 eease-~nd-desist order
wltll little explanation, said Mary Be..
lardo, spokeswoman for the Torres-
Martinel Band of Desert Cahuilla
Indians.
State Reponal Water Quality Control
Board officials say the sludge mound,
which is lhe size of two football fields. is
poJlutinC groundwater.
Tbe letter to ChiI'lO Corona from Vir-
gil Townseod, then actin, superinten-
deflt of the BlA's Southern c.lifornia
office, seems to show the BIA iJOOred
ill own environmental regulations for
Indian lanel. Also BlA officials appar.
ently disrf'garded a requirement of an
approved luse trom the interior secre-
tary for a joint operation betwet'n a
tribal member and private enterprise.
The letter also raises questions about
tM BIA's response to the sludge mound
after the discovery 01 arsenic. lead.
ehromium and nitrates in the aquifer.
Those matenala can eause iHness and
death ~fter proloaged exposure.
. 1989: Chino Corona Farm. Co.
opens a eludge-pfQCeJsing plant on
the Torm.Martinel Indian
Reservltion. dumping dried sewage
sludge truclr.ed in Crom San Diego.
San Diego pays the company S3 mil.
lion a Yl!'Jr to dump 400 to 500 tons
dally RelIldentl in Thermal, Coachella
and on the reservation soon complain
or mes, dusl. odor and noise.
. Now. 27.1990: Then-Acting Bureau
or Indian Affairs Superintendent
Virsil Thwnaend iuueJ a cease-and.
dellllt order to Chino Corona, telling
the company it il in violation or feder.
al enVironmental laws and it dou not
have a lease approved by the seere-
taryoCLhe interior.
. J-.ry 1991: Ronald Jeager, area
directoroCLhe BtA. t.ellsTorre&-
Martinel Indian Tribal Spokellwoman
Mary Belardo that the company need.
to provide an environmental aaseea-
ment to remain open, Belardo say&.
. JMlMII'J 1993': The BlA orders
Science Application International
Corp. to begin an environmental
a~ment ofLhe Chino Corona site.
Results: Little effect to nearby M-
dtnu.
. A9tO 1993: Chino Corona .top.
dumping on the reaerv.tion site. Soon
sl\.er. the company file. Cor bankrupt-
0:)' protection.
. Jufy 1993: The- CaliCurni. Rt.-gional
Water Quality Control Board di&eOY.
ers (1'Oundwller pollution below the
eludp mound.
. Jan. 10. 1994: The Thrre,-Martiner.
Indians isaue a tribal resolution call.
iD( on the BlA to implement a
cleanup oC the Chino Corona aile. n..
tribe demands that the area be enVl.
ronmentally clean in one year.
INSIDE
. IHAcnON: ,'ribe says EPA slow to
move on sludge violations/AT
. CONUMlNATtON: Boiling water
won't kill chemical pollutants/A7
Oeospilt repeated attempts Wednes.
day and Thursday seeking comm!!'nt
from Townsend and BIA Area Dire<'tor
Ronald Jeager in Riverside and Sacra-
mento. tbe two BIA omclals did not
return phone calls.
Lorrallle Walker, secretary for To..
seod. s.aid Thursciay no other people are
authon1ed to comment on the sludle
SIte or the cease.and.desist order.
Townsend sent lbe cease.and-desist
Of'der to Chino Corona on NoY. 27 IttO
In It, be notified the San Juan Ca~
trano-based company that its operatioll.
wbkh prodlK'ed a SOO.OOO-ton mound 0(
sewage sludge. was in violation of the
National Environmental Protection
See BIA..A7
/9-]0
"
'.
~
~...... ..
r
-,'.' '..\
/9/31
f'
,,'
,.
I,
J~"/1e4dC ~
3 ;. 5"-1 If
3';;J.~- 9'1
OUR VOICE
BIA fails
t~ protect
Indian lands
\
OUR VOICE
Agencies duck
responsibility
to the public
Federal officials should ~. ; . "
be required to explain .
their actions In sludge.
dumping case. ;
Disclosure that a Bureau .
of Indian Affairs official VALLEY
foor years ago overruled his \ I S SUE S
own department's order blocking the dumping
of more sludge waste on a Thermal.area
Indian reservation only confirms the incredi-
ble level of irresponsibility displayed by
federal agencies involved in the case.
Tbe letter proves the BIA knew in 1990 that
the sludge-processing site operated by Chino
Corona Farms on land owned by a Torres.
Martinez tribal member failed to meet envi.
ronmental regulations.
State water quality officials last year traced
dangerous chemicals found in nearby ground.
water to the huge 50-foot.high sludge mound.
TIle rllldings have prompted protests from
resideots concerned about pollution of their
water supplies. .
Torres.Martinez tribal spokeswoman Mary
Belardo said the 1990 letter from Virgil
Townsend, who at the time was acting superin-
teodent of the BIA Southern California office,
accused the operation of violating federal
eIl"ironmentallaw and ordered it shut doWlL
.But BIA Area Director Ronald Jeager in
Januar)' 1991 told Belardo that he would
wltbdraw the order. He offered no explana-
tion. sbe said.
n.e letter is clear evidence of the obvious lack
of c:oo<:ern and poor judgment demonstrated by
agencies and officials who have consistenUy
failed to guard the public's interest.
Neither Townsend and Jeager returned The
Desert Sun's calls seeking explanation for
their actions. Their a !tempts to duck account.
abilit). are typical of the way this enUre ease
bave been mishandled.
Tbe BIA's ineptitude is matched only by tbe
... EDvironmental Protection Agency's apath). in
dealing with a situation that poses such a clear
danger to public health. According to Belardo,
EPA officials have toured the site but haven't
aSed questions or performed tests.
Legal action, such as the belated effort by
the BLo\ to force Chino Corona Farms to sign a
lease agreement that will allow enforcement
of environmental regulations at the site, is
long o,'erdue.
To aDow the situation to continue is intoler.
able. U's time these agencies and individuals
"""" held accountable for their failure to address
what bas become an urgent environmental
problem for the eastern Coachella Valley.
To 'fOk. your opinion. writ. to:
. EPA Admlnlatrator Carol Srown.,. 401 M St. SW.
Waahlnatftft. DC: :2Q4.80.
Federal agency ducks re- ~.,.
~ponsibility to stop dump. ,.-
mg operations. "
B)' in}" standard of gov.
ernment conduct, !be River.
side OffiCf of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs bas reacbed a VALLEY
new low in irresponsibility. I S SUE S
. Representatives of Riverside County Indian
lnbes and environmental groups on Fridav
attempted to voice to the BlA legitimate roo.
cems about sludge dumping on reser....ations.
What did the agenc:,;.s bureaucrats do? Ther shut
down the office and left ~;thout a word..
No explanation from employees. No state.
ments from supeni..'l:.Ors. Workers just locked
the doors and dro\.e away.
That's consistent with the shamelesslv un.
c~ring attitude the BL-\. and its managers.ha\'e
dlSpla)~ed toward the serious environmenUl
problems counly Indian tribes face. The bu.
reau should be a pla~ where tribal members
C3D come to get help. not the cold shoulder.
~Iembers of the Torres-Martinez Indian
band ba\'e been pleading wilh the BL~ lor
years to get a controversial sludge.dumping
operation off their reservation. Tests b\' state
water-quality ageocies indicate toxic n:.ateri.
als (rom the hal!.million-pound mound oC
sludge have leak.ed inlo the underground
water supplies beneath the site.
That has tribal memb..~rs and nearb\' resi.
dents worried about the bng.range erCe-ct on
their drinking water. But instead of getting
help in soh.iog the problem. they're repe,Hedly
slonewalled by BL~ ollicials.
As long ago as 1990, agency officials
confirmed the sludg~processing site cperated
by Chino Corona Fanns failed to meet Cederal
environmental regulations.
That same year. BIA officiaJs ordered the
operation sbut do'lll"l1.. But area director Ronald
Jeager in January 1991 told the tribal chair.
maD the order would be wilhdra wn. Si.Dce
tben. the sludge pile has contiDued to grow.
Othe< COOlJly tribes are wresUing with the
same problem. Waste disposal companies have
stnJck lucrative deals with individual tribal
landowners in the Soboba l>lnd near San Jacinto
1000 the CahuiUa band near Anza. These compa.
nies are deliberately targeting Indian lands for
their dwnping. They know supervision /rom
government agencies like the BlA is virtually
DOnexisl<nL
The Rio;erside office ollhe BlA has demoo-
strated its incompeteoce io dY!aling with tbis
growing problem. Inlerior Secretary Bruce
Ba.bbitt. whose department supervises the
BIA, should order an investigation into thjs
scandalous abuse of the sovereign rights of
Indian tribes.
Alto.....ing reservations to become dumping
grounds (or toxic wastes is wrong. The BIA
must protect IndiaD land, not allow it to be
sold to tbe highest bidder.
~~ 0 ,I
/'t; ~ / '1) J 7 7' T
Tribes' sludge
protest falls
on deaf ears
. 'WE'RE CLOSED': Torres
Martinez Indians join 75
others for rally, but BIA
officials lock the doors, turn
out the lights and leave.
By PAUL R. HUARD
The Oe~rt Sun
RIVERSIDE - Torr~.:'otartine2 Indi-
ans tried Frida)' to tell Bureau of Indian
Affairs offici..u.lo halt sludge dumping on
tribal land.
On<<> problem: The BIA wasn't Iisteninji!
When some Torres-Martinez tnbe
members joined about 75 other Indi,ans
(rom Southern California tribes protest.
ing sludge dumping on resen'.aUoru:. BLA
o(fjcials locked the doors. lurned oct tbe
lights and s.curried to their cars without
expl;.ln,Hion.
"We're closed today," an unidf;>nllfied
emplo)'ee lold reporters at the door of the
bureau's oHi~ in Riverside. "That's all
I'm gOing 10 $a)' ..
She saId BIA Superintendent Virgil
To.....nsend was in a mt-eling. but would DOt
say .....here he was or when he might re-
turn. She said the BIA office is normally
open on Fnday.
"This is a p13C'f' where Indians come to
get help - it's ror my people:' ~id Joe
Lava a Torres.:\lartiner. tribal member
who questions why the BfA allowed Vin-
cent lbaner.. C(H)wner of Ibanez Famu, to
go into a joint venture with Chino Corona
F.ums Co.
"When thev close down like this, a U it
tells me is the Department of the Intenor
{the federal department that ad mints--
trates SIAl i.s not doing the duty they y,'er!'
invested w-Hh."
The bankrupt San Juan Capi!ltrano-
based Chino Corona Farms Co. was reo-
sponsible lor dumping 470,OOO-tol\.1 of
sewage sludge from San Diego on the
reservation near Thermal. Engineers with
Protest
o...rt Sun photo by Rodrl(o Pw\a
SlUDGE PROTEST: SaUie Lareau joins marchers FncJay at the alA office In RlversKje
cemonstratlng agamst Sludge dumping on Indian lands.
!..be Regional Water Quality Control Board
in July detected excessive levels of ni-
trates and heavy metals in the groundwa-
ter under the sludge pile.
Since January, the tribe has tried to get
the bureau to determine '/1,'110 is responsible
fOf' cleaning lip the site,
ContInued from Al
Officials with Chino CoroRil
Fanm Co. triU not return caUs.
Alt.bouCh BlA employ~ were
DO( there to lisl~n, Torres..Martinez
Indians, tribrt m~mbrtn from the
Soboba Baod 01 Mi..ssioa Indians and
(be Cahuilla Indians marthed
pa~fuUy and chanted 3logans in a
eourtyard beneath the BlA office,
~ BIA is I"UIU1ing with the
waste disposal companies." said
EImer Duro. 0( the TOC"feS.Martinn
tribe.. "I think tbtT'@' are some v~rv
crooked people Ul that office. or lhey
just don't want to do their job,"
They were joined by representa-
tives from the environmental group
Creenpeace and members of th~
California Indians lor Cultural and
Environmental Protection.
Indians and environmentalists
said the problem oC sludge dumping
goes beyond Chino Corona on the
Torres-Martinez Reservation..
'''The waste industry is specificaUy
targeting Indian lands for dumpinC
waste," said Brad Angel, of Green-
pe:lce. "'What is going on at TorTeS-
Martinez is happening at the Cahuilla
R~rvation and at reservation:s all
/9 ~ Jc2
Despitt' the results of environmental
tests, Ibanez continues to deny that the
sludjl:e is causing water pollutIOn. He plans
to bring atlt)tMr sludge ptoC'e$SOr, Santee-
based Te-rra Farms Inc., to the tract be
owns on the reservation.
See PROTEST, A6
across the Southwest."
'-nus Is toxic racism. at Its most
obvious," said Marina Ortega. a
spokeswoman lor Calilornia Indi-
ans for Cultural and Environrn~_
tal Protectlon.
Despite rt"Ceivlng tbe C'Old shool-
d~r from bureau officials, Torres-
Martinez tribe members vowed to
continue the fight against sludge
dumping on their land.
"I'd like to see this whole issue
addressed by a hig~r cool'1." Duro
said. "We want OUf" children to live
on our land. Thev won', ~ able La it
this dumping g~s on,"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
..
7~ ~-....:::
EVALUATION OF
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SOLID WASTE SERVICE
OPTIONS
May 4, 1994
Prepared for
City Manager's Office
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Prepared by
Brown, Vence & Associates
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 434-0900
) 7 -J f
.,
.
Policy .,
l
Statement j
"
Brown, Vance
& Associates .,
encourages the use
of recycled paper and ""
double-sided copying.
We also practice reuse, ..,
reduction, and recycling
of materials used as part ""I
I
,
of our daily activities. j
,
j
""I
i
j
"'"
""I
@ 199. by
Brown, Vence "'"
& Associates i
"
.,
All Righls
Reserved
""
I
.
.,
Printed on
.
Recycled
"'!
Paper
I
"
""
);-33'
""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
Section
New
Page Information
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ES-l
1 INTRODUCTION................................ 1-1
2 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Key Elements of the Proposals' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Costs of Proposed Services' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3 Transfer Station Siting Issues .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.4 Feasibility of Disposal Site Options .................. 2-5
2.5 Overview of Nomesponsive Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
*
*
*
3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 Initial Screening' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Detailed Evaluation' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.3 Clarification Process ........................... 3-4
3.4 Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.5 Final Assessment ............................. 3-5
*
*
*
4 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ........................... 4-1
4.1 Methodologyb ............................... 4-1
4.2 Costs of Participating in the County Systemb . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.3 Cost of Options Outside the County Systemb . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.4 Results of the Economic Analysisb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
*
5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ 5-1
*
. Presented to City Council on April 5, 1994.
b Presented to City Council on April 26, 1994.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
i
/9 -JJ,
""I
Contents (cont.)
""!
..
APPENDICES
A Key Elements of Proposals
B Proposed Costs and Tipping Fees
C Detailed Evaluation Criteria
D Preliminary Scores of Detailed Evaluation
E Final Scores of the Detailed Evaluation
F Economic Analysis Information
"'j
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
-
...
...
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
ii
/9-37
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures
Figure
Page
3-1 Evaluation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
iii I<}'.J r
""
Tables
...
Table
Page
...
2-1 Summary of Cost Proposals . . .
4-1 Summary of Economic Analysis
4-2 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis
...
. 2-3
. 4-9
4-12
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
..,
...
""
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:58 pm
IV
/9/3 ;J
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Chula Vista (City) currently relies on the Otay Landfill, a landfill in the San Diego
County solid waste disposal system (County system), for its disposal capacity needs. The
County system is in transition; it is facing some significant changes that may result in increased
revenue demands, which could increase the cost per ton fees at County landfills. To minimize
the impact of the increased revenue demands, the County needs to secure waste commitments
from cities currently using the County system. Chula Vista, as well as the other cities in the
County, is faced with making a decision to join a Joint Powers Authority (JP A) and commit its
waste stream to the County system. In making its decision, Chula Vista has chosen to explore
its other disposal options outside of the County system. To identify its options, the City issued
a Request for Proposals (RFP) for solid waste services on December 16, 1993. The RFP sought
proposals from qualified contractors to provide a transfer station, materials recovery facility
(MRF) , transfer hauling, and landfill disposal services. On February 15, 1994, the City
received five proposals in response to its RFP. Brown, Vence, & Associates (BV A) was
retained by the City to conduct an evaluation of the proposals and compare the cost proposals
to the option of participating in the County system. BV A's evaluation had two objectives:
identify the most preferred option and provide guidance to the City on whether it should commit
to the County system or pursue other options. The evaluation and economic analysis are
presented in this report.
Responses to the City's RFP were provided by:
. Mine Reclamation Corporation/Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
(MRC/BFIC)
· Mother Aland
· Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (Laidlaw)
. Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. (Mid-American)
. Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Services (Sexton)
BV A developed a five-stage objective evaluation methodology:
. Initial screening process to ensure that the proposals met minimum requirements of
the RFP
G:\WPC\93032\OI\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
ES-1
/9-ytJ
..
· Detailed evaluation process in which numerous criteria were used to measure the
proposals' ability to meet the needs of the City
...
-
· Clarification period in which BV A requested clarification from proposers through
written correspondence
...
· Interview stage in which the preferred firms were interviewed to provide clarification
and further understanding of their proposals
-
· Final assessment in which the fmdings of the detailed evaluation, clarification period,
and interview stage were reviewed to develop a fmal ranking of the proposals.
...
Two proposals, MRC/BFIC and Mother Aland, did not meet the initial screening requirements
and were not recommended for further consideration under this evaluation process. A detailed
evaluation was conducted of the Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton proposals. Each proposal
offered a complete solid waste service package to Chula Vista that included a transfer station,
potential expansion of the transfer station to include a MRF, hauling services, and disposal
services.
""I
-
...
Each proposer identified potential sites for transfer station development. Conceptual designs
were provided for the transfer stations in each proposal and the designs offered the City transfer
stations with the required capacity to meet the City's short-term and long-term needs (up to 800
tons per day). Comprehensive hauling proposals from Laidlaw and Sexton offered both rail or
truck transfer to the disposal site. Mid-American offered truck haul to the disposal site. All
three proposals identified Campo Landfill as the primary disposal site. The proposed disposal
site is on the Campo Indian Reservation, 75 miles east of Chula Vista and is in the permitting
stage of development. If developed, the landfIll will be operated by Mid-American and will
have a permitted capacity of 28 million tons with a daily capacity of 3,000 tons. Laidlaw and
Sexton offered alternative disposal sites including Chiquita (Los Angeles County), El Sobrante
(Riverside County), Simi Valley (Ventura County), and Suburban Disposal (Yuma, Arizona)
landfills. The cost proposals offer a range of $43 per ton to $75 per ton for the transfer, haul,
and disposal services.
...
...
..
-
-
-
The evaluation process examined the strengths of the proposals based on various criteria
including qualifications, technical, environmental, contractual, fmancial strengths, and cost
proposals. At BV A's request, proposers provided clarification of items in the proposals. In
addition, interviews were conducted with the three proposers and the information obtained during
...
-
-
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
ES-2
/7 ~;1/
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the interviews was factored into the evaluation process. Based on BV A's the evaluation of the
proposals, clarification process, and interviews, BV A ranked the proposals as follows:
1. SextonlChula Vista Sanitary Services
2. Mid-American Waste System, Inc.
3. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
The preliminary evaluation information was presented to City Council on April 5, 1994.
The second phase of the BV A study involved assessing the economic advantage of remaining in
the County system or leaving the County system and relying on an option provided by the
proposal process. The costs of participating in the County's system were assessed using the
most recent available information provided by the Interim Solid Waste Commission
(Commission) for the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs and capital improvement
requirements. The County system costs and cost proposals could not be compared directly as
the options in the proposals do not include all the programs and obligations that would be
included in the County system. To make a meaningful comparison, additional costs were added
to the cost proposals to cover services not included in the proposals, obligations Chula Vista may
continue to share with the County even if the City is not a participant in the County system, and
increased costs that Chula Vista may incur in arranging for its own solid waste services.
The analysis of the County system costs relied on several key assumptions:
. All cities with the exception of EI Cajon and San Diego will participate in the County
system.
· Waste quantities will remain constant.
. A pay-as-you-go funding approach will be implemented rather than a debt fmancing
approach.
. Successful annual renewal of San Marcos Landfill's Conditional Use Permit.
. Annual O&M budgets and the capital improvement program requirements presented
by the Commission are reasonable.
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
ES-3
/9 -72
""
The analysis of the costs for leaving the County system relied on several key assumptions:
...
· The transfer station, hauling, and disposal services will be available July 1 of fiscal
year (FY) 1996/1997.
...
· During FY 1994/1995 and FY 1995/1996, the City will deliver waste to the Otay
Landfill at the same cost per ton as other jurisdictions.
...
· Potential obligations associated with inactive disposal facilities in the County system
were allocated based on population.
...
· The City will have no obligation to the NCRRA facility, active disposal sites, or new
facility development once the City leaves the County system.
...
· Waste stream projections were based on the Source Reduction and Recycling Element
estimate assuming projected AB 939 diversion rates will be accomplished.
"'\
...
The economic analysis projected the costs of the various options over a lO-year period. A
review of our analysis suggests that there are potential cost savings of up to 20 percent on a net
present value (NPV) basis (for a five-year period) if the City leaves the County system.
However, a closer look at our analysis shows that the assumptions used for both the County and
the out-of-County analysis are subject to clearly identified uncertainties.
...
...
Uncertainties that may affect the County system costs are:
...
· Number of cities that continue participating in the County system
..
· Waste quantities delivered to the County system
· Reasonableness of the projected County annual O&M budget
...
· Soundness of the projected requirements for the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
-
· Debt financing rather than pay-as-you-go financing for CIP
· Ultimate disposition of the NCRRA operating agreement
...
· Changes in the scope of services provided by the County.
...
Uncertainties that may affect the costs associated with leaving the County system are:
...
· Successful negotiations with one of the proposers
...
G:\WPC\93032\OI\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
ES-4
/j--'1';
""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Siting, permitting, and development of the transfer station
. Ultimate disposition of Campo Landfill and external factors impacting alternative
disposal sites such as environmental or legislative restrictions on waste importation.
This economic information was presented to the City Council on April 26, 1994. The City
Council voiced a number of questions, some of which are addressed in this report and others in
a separate memorandum. One item that this report includes is further analysis and evaluation
of some of the uncertainties. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the potential
impact of these uncertainties. Analysis focused on adjusting some of the assumptions to
determine the impact on the economic analysis. It addressed the following variables:
· Chula Vista waste quantities
· Cities leave the County system
· County system costs not realized
. Costs of leaving County system not realized
. Premium on tipping fees for leaving the County system
. No inactive landfill liability if City leaves County system
. Neighboring cities use Chula Vista's transfer station; host fee collected
. Cities leave the County system; premium for leaving County system.
In general, the sensitivity analysis showed that the variables associated with the economic
analysis will tend to increase the cost advantage of the options of leaving the County system over
the option of participating in the County system. The sensitivities that modeled the County
system costs not realized (annual O&M and CIP costs lower than estimated) and a premium on
tipping fees for leaving the County system showed a decrease to the cost advantage of the
options of leaving the system over the option to participate in the County system. The decrease
to County system costs resulted in an approximately 2 to 4 percent decrease in the cost
advantage. The premium on the tipping fees resulted in a significant decrease in the cost
advantage. Depending on the amount of the premium levied, the cost advantage will be
eliminated on a five-year NPV basis and reduced to 8 percent on a lO-year NPV basis.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
ES-5
/1-'/ i
""
The sensitivities that modeled the potential impacts of Chula Vista's waste quantities, cities
leaving the County system, County system costs not realized (annual O&M or CIP costs higher
than estimated), no inactive landfill liability if the City leaves the County system, and
neighboring cities use of the transfer station with collection of a host fee showed increased cost
advantage of the options of leaving the County system of up to 6 percentage points above the
cost advantage calculated under the base case.
"'l
"'"
-
Recommendations
The City needs to move forward with its decision-making process. Its immediate decision,
whether or not to join the JP A and commit its waste stream to the County system, must be
resolved by the end of May 1994.
...
...
The City has several options:
""i
1. Participate in the County system
...
2. Leave the County system; build transfer station
-
~
3. Phased approach; City takes initiative on transfer station
4. Phased approach; Selected proposer takes initiative on transfer station
"'"
5. Delay decision
..,
6. Rebid RFP
BV A suggests that the City focuses on options 3 or 4, phased approaches. Under this scenario,
the City would attempt to keep its options open for another year to examine how the County
system changes unfold and investigate the status of Campo Landfill and out-of-County and out-
of-state disposal site alternatives. To keep the option of leaving the County system viable and
implementable within a reasonable timeframe, the first phase of the transfer station development
would be initiated. The goal of the first phase of development would be to site the transfer
station, prepare a conceptual design of the facility, and perform the CEQA work. The City can
take these responsibilities on itself (option 3) through assistance from outside consultants as
necessary. If the City chooses this approach, at some point in time it should formally close this
RFP process and notify the proposers that no selection will be made. The City may also'
. consider negotiations with the selected proposer (option 4) to take the lead on siting, conceptual.
design, and permitting of the transfer station. The selected proposer could start the transfer
station development under an agreement with the City with a clearly defmed scope of work and
milestone dates that will allow the City to stop the project at several points if a review
-
-
-
...
...
"'"
-
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05104/94 5:16 pm
ES-6
-----
/1 ---tj);>
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
determines that the County system is the best option. This option may require the City to make
some expenditures on the transfer station development.
BV A does not feel that option I, participate in the County system, is a reasonable path for the
City because this option may commit the City to spiraling costs of solid waste services. The
second option of leaving the County system also has several uncertainties such as successful
negotiations with the selected proposer; the siting, permitting, and development of a transfer
station; the ultimate disposition of Campo LandfIll; and availability of alternative disposal sites.
The delay decision approach to this solid waste issue, option 5, is not a strategic approach for
the City. It leaves Chula Vista subject to the County system without any contingency plans.
Lastly, option 6, rebid RFP, might give the City a wider array of alternatives, particularly for
disposal options, but is not recommended at this time as it would disrupt the progress already
made toward a fInal decision.
G:\WPC\93032\OI\REPORT 05/04/94 5:12 ~m
ES-7
) 9,1 t-
~.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Chula Vista currently relies on the Otay LandfIll, a landfIll in the San Diego County solid waste
disposal system, for its disposal capacity needs. The County system is in transition; it is facing
some significant changes that may result in increased revenue demands, which could increase
the cost per ton fees at the County landfills. To minimize the impact of the increased revenue
demands, the County needs to secure waste commitments from cities currently using the County
system. Chula Vista, as well as the other cities in the County, is faced with making a decision
to join a JP A and commit its waste stream to the County system. In making its decision, Chula
Vista has chosen to explore its other disposal options outside of the County system. To identify
its options, the City issued an RFP for solid waste services on December 16, 1993. The RFP
sought proposals from qualified contractors to provide a transfer station, MRF, transfer hauling,
and landfill disposal services for approximately 175,000 tons per year of solid waste. On
February 15, 1994, the City received five responses to the RFP, from:
. Mine Reclamation Corporation/Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
(MRC/BFIC)
· Mother Aland
· Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (Laidlaw)
. Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. (Mid-American)
· Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Services (Sexton).
BV A was retained by the City to develop a detailed evaluation methodology, evaluate the
proposals, and perform an econotnic analysis of the options presented in the proposals and the
costs of participating in the County system.
BV A's evaluation methodology included the development of initial screening criteria, detailed
evaluation criteria, weighting factors for each criteria, and a scoring system. These evaluation
tools as well as a clarification process and interviews were used to develop a ranking of the
proposals.
BV A also performed a detailed economic analysis to assess the economic impact of remaining
in the County system or choosing to rely on one of the options presented in the proposals. The
econotnic analysis projected annual O&M costs and capital requirements over a lO-year period.
Based on the O&M and capital requirements, cost-per-ton rates were calculated for each option.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05104194 3:49 pm
1-1
/9 -'/?
...
"'"
Annual costs for the. City were estimated based on the cost-per-ton projections and projected
Chula Vista waste quantities. The annual costs for the options were compared based on an NPV
calculation to assess what option(s) would offer the most economical solution for Chula Vista.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to approximate uncertainties associated with the economic
analysis such as number of cities participating in the County system, projected waste quantities,
and annual O&M budgets.
...
-
This report presents an overview of the proposals received, the evaluation process, results, and
recommended ranking of proposals. It also presents the economic analysis, assumptions used
in the analysis, methodology, results, and sensitivity analysis. Lastly, BV A suggests a strategy
for how Chula Vista may want to proceed with the process of securing a cost-effective solid
waste management system.
...
...
...
The report is organized into five sections. This section provides background information and
a general introduction. Section 2 contains an overview of the proposals received. Section 3
describes the evaluation methodology and results of the evaluation process. Section 4 presents
the economic analysis. Section 5 presents recommendations on how Chula Vista may want to
proceed. The appendices contain additional information including key elements of the proposals,
definitions of the evaluation criteria, scores of the detailed evaluation, economic analysis
information, sensitivity analysis information, as well as other information related to the
evaluation process and economic analysis.
...
""'!
...
....
-
...
"'"
...
-
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05104194 3:49 pm
1-2
/9 -1(~
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSALS
This section provides a brief overview of the five proposals and discusses several key issues
associated with them. The discussion focuses primarily on the proposals that provided thorough
responses to the RFP and passed the initial screening stage of the evaluation process - the
Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton proposals. This section also includes a discussion of
several issues that are critical considerations for Chula Vista in making an assessment of the
viability of the proposals offered: costs of the proposed services, feasibility of the disposal sites
proposed, and transfer station siting issues. A brief overview of the two proposals, MRC/BFIC
and Mother Aland, that did not provide thorough responses to the RFP is also provided in this
section.
2.1 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSALS
Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton offered Chula Vista full-service packages including transfer,
haul, and disposal services as well as capabilities for future expansion of MRF capabilities.
Transfer station conceptual designs were provided in each proposal, and the designs offered the
City transfer stations with the required capacity to meet the City's short-term and long-term
needs (up to 800 tons per day). Transfer station buildings proposed ranged from 30,000 to
54,000 square feet. Both Laidlaw and Sexton included the use of stationary compactors to
consolidate waste to increase the carrying capacity of the transfer vehicles. Laidlaw and Sexton
offered transfer station designs that may allow for truck transfer or rail transfer operations. The
transfer station sites required from 5 to 16 acres of property. Each proposer identified potential
sites for transfer station development, several of which are located within the City limits. At
this time, no proposer owns a site or has a purchase option on property for this specific project.
Transfer station cost-per-ton proposals ranged from $5.90 to $18.67 including amortized capital
costs and annual O&M costs. (Refer to Section 2.2 for a detailed discussion of the proposed
cost for services.)
Hauling proposals were received from each proposer. Laidlaw and Sexton offered both rail or
truck transfer options, depending on the disposal site considered. Mid-American offered truck
hauling to the disposal site. Laidlaw and Sexton indicated that a subcontractor would be used
to provide the hauling services whereas Mid-American proposed to provide the hauling services
itself. Truck haul cost proposals ranged from $10.76 to $12.80 per ton or $0.144 to $0.173
per ton-mile for truck haul services. Rail haul cost proposals ranged from $14.65 to $17.49 per
ton.
G:\WPC\93032\Ot\REPORT 05104/94 3:49 pm
2-1
/9-1/
..
...
All three proposals identified Campo Landfill as the primary disposal site option. Campo
Landfill is a proposed disposal site on the Campo Indian Reservation, 75 miles east of Chula
Vista. The landfill, if developed, will be operated by Mid-American and will have a permitted
capacity of 28 million tons with a daily capacity of 3,000 tons. Campo Landfill recently
received its Authority to Construct permit from the Campo Environmental Protection Agency
(CEPA) and is scheduled to proceed with construction in the near future. Concurrent with the
construction of the landfill, Mid-American will be working on securing the Permit to Operate
from CEPA, the fmal, significant permit required in the process. The CEPA permit process
does not require the landfill operator to secure a Permit to Operate from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board. However, CEPA has committed to including state agency
review in the permitting process. The appropriate state agencies, including the California
Integrated Waste Management Board and State Water Resources Board, will review the project
to determine if it meets state requirements, and if so, will provide concurrence in the form of
functional equivalency. Each proposer offered cost proposals of $25 per ton for Campo Landfill
disposal services.
...
...
...
...
...
..
Laidlaw and Sexton offered alternative disposal sites. Laidlaw's proposal included the option
and cost proposal to truck haul waste to Chiquita Landfill in Los Angeles County. In addition,
Laidlaw indicated that the City could consider the use of El Sobrante Landfill in Riverside
County or Suburban Disposal Landfill in Yuma, Arizona. Laidlaw did not provide any disposal
cost information on these options; therefore, these options were not considered elements of
Laidlaw's proposal for the economic analysis. Sexton did not include alternative disposal site
options in its original proposal but did respond to the City Council's request for alternatives.
Sexton proposed the use of El Sobrante and Simi Valley landfIlls and provided cost proposals
for each of these options. The alternative disposal site options are existing, operating disposal
sites. Laidlaw offered disposal costs of $25-per-ton for Chiquita Landfill, and Sexton proposed
$25-per-ton rates for El Sobrante and Simi Valley.
..,
...
...
...
...
The key elements of the proposals are summarized in Appendix A. The key elements focus on
the type of service offered, site location and capacity, methodology, hauling information
including number of containers and vehicles provided, disposal facility location and capacity,
annual cost, and other factors.
...
...
2.2 COSTS OF PROPOSED SERVICES
BV A prepared a cost comparison of the proposals, which is provided in Table 2-1. The cost
comparison shows the tipping fees for each service as well as the total tipping fee for the
transfer, haul, and disposal services. The cost comparison shows the cost information as
presented by each proposer in its cost proposal. The proposers used different assumptions to.
-
...
*"
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
2-2
) 9 ~52?
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-1
Summary of Cost Proposals
(cost per ton)
Costs as Presented in the Proposals
Laidlaw. Laidlaw. Mid-American Sexton Sexton Sexton
EI Simi
Campo Chiquita Campo Campo Sobrante Valley
Transfer $18.67 $18.67 $5.90 $10.54 $10.54 $10.54
Haul $12.80 $31.17 $11.94 $10.76 $14.40 $25.92
Disposal $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00
Total $56.47 $74.84 $42.84 $46.30 $49.94 $61. 46
.
Laidlaw proposed two costs for transfer station services depending on the site conditions. The costs shown
in the table represent Laidlaw's lower costs. Laidlaw's higher cost for transfer station services would
increase the total cost per ton by $1.17.
Costs as Adjusted by BV A
Laidlaw. Laidlaw. Mid-American Sexton Sexton Sexton
El Simi
Campo Chiquita Campo Campo Sobrante Valley
Transfer $18.22 $18.30 $6.69 $10.90 $10.92 $10.97
Haul $12.80 $31.17 $11.84 $10.76 $14.40 $25.92
Disposal $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00
Total $56.02 $74.47 $43.53 $46.66 $50.32 $61.89
. Laidlaw proposed two costs for transfer station services depending on the site conditions. The costs shown
in the table represent Laidlaw's lower costs. Laidlaw's higher cost for transfer station services would
increase the total cost per ton by $1.17.
O,IWPC\9303210IlREPORT OS/04l94 ),49 pm
2-3
/9-5/
...
...
develop the capital costs for the transfer station property and acceptance testing and to calculate
the amortized capital costs. As a result, it is not reasonable to compare the cost proposals
without making adjustments to provide an equal basis for comparison. Therefore, BV A prepared
a cost analysis that made adjustments to the cost proposals so the proposals can be reasonably
compared. Specifically, BV A subtracted the land costs as estimated by the proposers from the
proposers' cost estimates and added a uniform allowance for land to each tipping fee. The
allowance for land assumed acquisition costs of $1 ,500,000 (approximately 7.5 acres of property
at $200,000 per acre). In addition, BV A adjusted the acceptance testing costs to included costs
that will cover a two-week start-up and acceptance testing period. Lastly, BV A calculated the
amortized capital using a standard methodology. Based on these adjustments, BV A calculated
tipping fees for each proposed option. BV A's analysis shows that tipping fees range from $43
per ton to $75 per ton. BVA's tipping fees are presented in Table 2-1. This tipping fee may
be affected by $0.50 per ton depending on actual site size and property value. The annual costs
and cost-per-ton information for the transfer, haul, and disposal services and the adjustments
made by BV A for comparison purposes are provided in Appendix B.
...
...
...
...
...
...
It is important to recognize that the proposers did not identify a specific site for construction of
the transfer stations. As a result, the capital costs of the transfer station may be subject to
change depending on the site conditions of the final site selected.
~
...
If the City selects one of the proposals, a contract will be negotiated between the City and the
service provider, which should include provisions to protect the City from spiraling transfer,
haul, and disposal costs. It is the intent of the City, as indicated in the RFP, that the cost-per-
ton fees for the transfer station and disposal facility and cost per ton-mile fees for hauling
services will be adjusted in accordance with a preestablished formula to reflect changes in costs
subject to inflation. The pre-established formula will recognize that not all costs are subject to
inflation or are subject to differential inflation rates (e.g., fuel, labor, and general items). The
service provider will be entitled to other cost adjustments only to address clearly defmed
extraordinary events such as force majeure, material changes in law, changes in scope of work
requested by the City, increased governmental or regulatory fees and/or taxes imposed on the
service provider by virtue of performing under the agreement, or change in location of the
disposal site requested by the City. No other changes to the cost-per-ton and cost per ton-mile
fees will be permitted. The proposers indicated that their cost proposals were fixed, that they
would assume responsibility if costs were underestimated.
~
...
...
...
...
...
2.3 TRANSFER STATION SITING ISSUES
The location of the transfer station may impact the permitting process and schedule. The
permitting process for a transfer station will require conformance with the California
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
2-4
/9~c2
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process involves an Initial Study that makes
a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project may have significant
adverse effect on the environment. The Initial Study assesses the impacts related to earth, air,
water, plant life, animal life, noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upset,
population, housing, transportation, public service, energy, utilities, human health, aesthetics,
recreation, and cultural resources. The fmdings of the Initial Study will dictate the requirements
under the CEQA process. The requirements may include preparation of a Negative Declaration
or an Environmental Impact Report; the Negative Declaration is the simplest and quickest path
in the CEQA process. It is not uncommon for a transfer station to meet CEQA requirements
by completing the Negative Declaration process. However, the CEQA requirements are
determined by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and each agency has its own guidelines.
Typical concerns for a transfer station include the land use, traffic impacts, noise, odor, and dust
issues. The sites identified by the proposers are all located in commercial/industrial areas;
therefore, the land use issue should not require an extensive assessment. The traffic impacts of
the transfer station operations may be a significant concern depending on the site access.
However, this traffic impact issue can be minimized by careful selection of the site. For
example, proposers have identified a site that is on the same route that the collection vehicles
use to travel to Otay Landfill. Under this siting scenario, no changes to the existing traffic
patterns would be made; the traffic issues should not be a significant impact.
Noise, odor, and dust issues are often primary issues for a solid waste project; however, with
a transfer station facility these environmental concerns are not significant issues. Potential noise,
odor, and dust issues will be minimized because the proposers provided enclosed transfer station
facilities and the state requires that waste will be moved within 48 hours of receipt.
2.4 FEASmn..ITY OF DISPOSAL SITE OPTIONS
Several disposal site options have been identified through the RFP process including Campo,
Chiquita, EI Sobrante, Simi Valley, and Suburban Disposal landfills. All the disposal site
options will cost the City $25 per ton at the landftll gate. (No cost information was provided
for Suburban Disposal Landfill; therefore, this option will not be considered further.) Since
disposal costs are competitive, the City will need to consider other variables to identify the
preferred disposal site option. Other considerations include landfill status, landftll capacity,
distance to landfill, environmental, or regulatory issues.
All the landfills, with the exception of Campo Landftll, are active landftlls that are permitted to
accept municipal solid waste. Campo Landfill is in the development stage and, therefore,
presents some risks to the City as to where or not it will be constructed and operational within
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
2-5
/'J~3
..
..
a reasonable timeframe. A group of local citizens are fighting the development of the Campo
Landfill because they are concerned that the landfill may threaten the drinking water supply.
...
The landfill capacity of each disposal site options ranges from a minimum of 20 to well over 30
years. The capacities of the existing landfill sites are dependent on receiving permits to allow
for expansion of the currently permitted capacity.
...
The distance to the landfills ranges from 75 to 180 miles (one-way distance) with Campo
Landfill offering the closest option. El Sobrante Landfill is a lOG-mile haul, and Chiquita and
Simi Valley landfills are l80-mile hauls.
...
..
.
Environmental and regulatory issues need to be considered in the selection of a disposal site.
Campo Landfill, assuming it receives the necessary permits for operation, should not pose any
significant environmental problems or regulatory issues. However, citizen opposition and
lawsuits challenging the landfIll development may obstruct the permitting process or operations
of the landfIll. Railhaul was considered an option for Campo Landfill; however, it is not
feasible because the rail route required travel through Mexico and the Mexican government has
denied such hauling. The use of the EI Sobrante, Chiquita, and Simi Valley landfIlls may raise
some concerns regarding increased traffic through the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD). The increased traffic through the SCAQMD air basin may necessitate the
purchase of air credits or funding of air pollution mitigation measures. Another possible
regulatory issue is any importation restrictions on out-of-county waste. The proposers indicated
that the SCAQMD and regulatory issues such as importation policies are not significant
concerns. The City should recognize that the regulatory climate is constantly in flux. The
extent of any concerns will only be realized if the City decides to proceed with a particular
disposal site and contacts the involved regulatory entities.
...
...
~
-
..
...
-
Indemnification of liability against problems arising at the landfIll is an important issue for the
City. Ideally, the City will want to receive full indemnification from the disposal site owner and
operator against any costs associated with personal injury and property damage resulting from
the operator's daily operations, closure or postclosure maintenance; any violation of
environmental laws by the operator; or any breach or violation of the contract between the City
and the operator. In addition, the City wants to receive full indemnification from and against
removal or remedial actions or actions for cost recovery under Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). All three proposers offer some form
of indemnification. In the case of Laidlaw and Sexton proposals, it is likely that indemnification
will be provided by the disposal site operator. Mid-American offers indemnification from and
against any claims resulting from a willful or negligent act or omission by Mid-American as well
...
...
-
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\OI\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
2-6
/9 '31
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
as all claims related to CERCLA. Sexton indicated that the City will receive indemnification
for all "environmental problems" at the Campo, EI Sobrante, and Simi Valley landfills. Laidlaw
also offered similar indemnification for the Campo and Chiquita landfills. The proposers were
not clear how changes in law would be handled.
The indemnification offered is only as strong as the financial ability of the landfill operator to
cover the claims. If the landfill operator does not have the fmancial resources to address the
claims, the City may be at risk. Therefore, the fmancial ability of the company to provide a
solid indemnification should be examined closely before the City commits its waste stream to
a disposal facility. Concern has been raised that Mid-American may be facing some fmancial
difficulties at this time. The current fmancial strength of the companies (Waste Management,
Western Waste Industries, and Laidlaw) that own and operate the alternative disposal sites
appears to offer a substantial comfort level in the area of fmancial assurances to stand behind
its indemnification policy.
2.5 OVERVIEW OF NONRESPONSIVE PROPOSALS
The MRC/BFIC and Mother Aland proposals did not address the requirements of the RFP. An
overview of each proposal, its services offered, and why the proposal was considered not
responsive to the RFP is provided in this section.
MRC/BFIe
MRC/BFIC offer Chula Vista options for long-term disposal at Eagle Mountain Landfill and
Recycling Center in Riverside County and La paz County Landfill in Arizona. Eagle Mountain
Landfill is in the process of obtaining environmental and facility operating permits and is
anticipating to be operating by early 1996. La Paz County Landfill is an existing disposal
facility that will be upgraded, and is anticipated to be ready for the receipt of waste by mid 1994
after the permit modification process is complete. MRC/BFIC also expressed some interest in
providing transfer station operations to Chula Vista; however, it did not provide any discussion.
The MRC/BFIC proposal consisted essentially of an informational letter to the City outlining the
two disposal options. The letter was not responsive to the RFP requirements: no company
qualifications, technical description, environmental issues, contractual, fmancial elements were
addressed. Disposal fees were not presented in the letter. The two disposal options may be
interesting possibilities for the City; however, since the proposal was not responsive to the RFP,
we recommended that it not be considered further in the process.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
2-7
/9-P-3
""!
...
Mother Aland
The proposal received from Mother Aland offered the City a "Green Design for the Future."
The proposal focused on developing a "Serial MRF," a MRF in which waste generators were
relied on to source-separate their waste into numerous categories that will be delivered to
numerous waste handling and processing stations/facilities. It will require a major shift in solid
waste practices. This type of system relies heavily on small business cooperation to source-
separate materials. The serial MRF concept has been implemented on a small scale; however,
it has not been proven on the large scale that Chula Vista would require. The proposal also
mentions composting yard wastes and asserts that the serial MRF and composting can bring the
City 50 percent diversion by 1995, and ultimately, 100 percent diversion.
...
...
...
...
The Mother Aland proposal indicates that the City needs to have an active role. In particular,
the City commitment may include fInancing the project, developing the markets for recovered
materials, purchasing recycled products, and entering into a public/private partnership for the
composting facility.
....
...
In general, the proposal was not clear, and did not address the specifIc needs defmed in the
RFP. Although the proposal offers waste management options, it did not address a particular
service package defmed in the RFP.
"'I
...
..
...
..
...
...
...
...
....
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
2-8
/1 :st
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 3
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
As presented to City Council on April 5, 1994, BV A developed an evaluation methodology to
assess the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. The proposals were evaluated using a
five-stage process: an initial screening process to ensure that the proposals met minimum
requirements of the RFP; a detailed evaluation process in which numerous criteria were used to
measure the proposals' ability to meet the needs of the City; a clarification period in which BV A
requested clarification from proposers through written correspondence; an interview stage in
which the preferred firms were interviewed to provide clarification and further understanding
of their proposals; and a final assessment in which the fmdings of the detailed evaluation,
clarification period, and interview stage were reviewed to develop a final ranking of the
proposals. All proposals were evaluated independently using a methodology that assessed the
proposer's qualifications; its technical, environmental, contractual, and financial strengths; and
the cost of proposed services.
The evaluation process is illustrated in Figure 3-1. A description of the five-stage evaluation
process and results is provided in this section.
3.1 INITIAL SCREENING
The first stage, the initial screening process, focused on several basic requirements to determine
if a proposal was strong enough for further consideration. The initial screening requirements
were defmed based on the proposer qualifications described in Section 5 of the RFP. Six initial
screening requirements were established; they addressed the overall completeness of the
proposal, the identification of a service package, technical feasibility, and fmancial strength.
For each initial screening requirement, the evaluator indicated "yes" or "no" as to the proposal's
conformance with the requirement. Lastly, the evaluator specified whether the proposal should
be considered for further consideration.
BV A's initial screening of the five RFP responses lead to the decision to proceed with a detailed
evaluation of three responses. The three proposals that passed the initial screening stage of the
evaluation process were Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton. All three proposers prepared
comprehensive proposals that met the requirements of the RFP, relied on proven technology,
and had the financial capability (based on fmancial statements included in the proposals) to
provide the services to Chula Vista. Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton meet all initial
screening requirements with one exception: Laidlaw failed to meet the profitability requirement.
The profitability requirement was used to determine if a proposer was profitable over the past
five years. Laidlaw was not profitable over the past five years. (It is worth noting that Laidlaw
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
3-1
/957
""!
Issue RFP
it
Receive proposals
it
Initial screening Disqualify
proposals
not meeting
, initial
Detailed evaluation screening
requirements
of proposals
meeting initial
screening
Weight requirements
criteria W
I Score proposals
W jl
Obtain clarification Interviews
information
I I
W
Review scores and
clarification and
interview information
t
Final ranking
of proposals
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
"'"
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Figure 3-1
Evaluation Process
...
~
3-2
J7'~~
...
93032.01T1 CVlEvaluatlon ProcessI457
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
did show a profit during three of the past five years.) Laidlaw did meet all other fmancial
requirements, technical, service package, and proposal responsiveness criteria, and therefore,
the proposal was recommended for further consideration.
Two proposals, MRC/BFIC and Mother Aland, were not recommended for further
consideration. These proposals were not prepared in a complete and thorough manner based on
the requirements of the RFP. In addition, the financial capability of MRC/BFIC or Mother
Aland could not be assessed because the proposers did not provide financial statements as
requested in the RFP.
3.2 DETAILED EVALUATION
A detailed evaluation was made of the three proposals that passed the initial screening using a
set of detailed evaluation criteria. The detailed criteria addressed several categories: company
qualifications, technical capability, environmental impacts, contractual issues, fmancial strength,
and costs. BVA assessed the proposal's ability to meet each criterion based on defmitions of
low, medium, and high responsiveness. The defmitions of the detailed evaluation criteria are
provided in Appendix C. Ratings of low, medium, and high were assigned for each evaluation
criterion. The low, medium, or high ratings were assigned a numerical value (score) of 1, 2,
or 3, respectively. The preliminary scores for the detailed evaluation are summarized in
Appendix D. (In the fmal assessment stage, Section 3.5, the preliminary scores were adjusted
to account for information received through the clarification and interview process.)
The results of the detailed evaluation were used to calculate a numerical score for each proposal,
which can be compared to the other proposal scores to determine a relative ranking of the
proposals based on the detailed evaluation criteria. To develop a score, each evaluation criterion
was weighted and a scoring method was developed.
Weighting Criteria
BV A reviewed the evaluation criteria and assessed the relative importance of each criterion based
on its understanding of Chula Vista's goals, objectives, and priorities in the procurement
process. A weighting scale was developed to reflect the relative importance of each detailed
criterion. A numerical value (weighting factor) was assigned to each criterion so that the total
points for all criteria equaled 100 points. The weighting factors for each criterion are presented
in Appendix D.
Scoring of Proposals
BV A completed a detailed evaluation (using the detailed criteria presented in Appendix C) for
the Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton proposals. As indicated above, ratings of low,
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
3-3
/7 'pi
.,
"'"
medium, and high were assigned for each evaluation criterion, and these ratings were converted
into a score of 1, 2, or 3, respectively. The numerical values assigned for the criterion were
used to calculate a total score for each proposal (Le., the total scores equals the sum of the
numerical values).
...
..,
A weighted score was calculated for each proposal using the criteria weighting factors and the
low, medium, and high scores assigned in the detailed evaluation process. The numerical values
assigned for the criteria (1, 2, or 3) were multiplied by the corresponding weighting factors for
each criterion. The sum of the weighted score for each criterion produced a total weighted score
for the proposal. The weighted scores were used to determine the relative ranking of the
proposals.
"'"
.,
...
The total and weighted scores determined by the preliminary detailed evaluation are summarized
and presented in Appendix D. The scores indicated the following preliminary ranking of
proposers:
...
1. Sexton
2. Laidlaw
3. Mid-American
""!
...
The preliminary rankings of the proposals were presented to the City Council on April 5, 1994.
The City Council directed that BV A refme the evaluation process through a clarification stage
and interviews.
...,
....
3.3 CLARIFICATION PROCESS
During the evaluation of the three proposals, BV A identified several issues in each proposal that
needed additional clarification. To address these items, BV A sent letters to each proposer
requesting information for clarification purposes. The proposers provided written responses to
BV A questions. The clarification process was conducted during the period of April 6 through
April 26. The information received through the clarification process was considered in the fmal
assessment stage.
...
....
....
3.4 INTERVIEWS
Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton were invited to participate in the interview process. The
interviews were conducted on April 26, 1994. Each interview was scheduled for 45 minutes.
Interviews were used to allow proposers to highlight key elements of their proposals, provide
clarifying information, or discuss any new developments associated with their proposals. The
interviews were also used as an arena to ask proposers questions and to request clarification of
...
....
....
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
3-4
)~-!,CJ
"'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the proposals. The City staff, BV A, and a representative from a neighboring city attended the
interview session and asked questions of the proposers.
The interviews were an important step of the evaluation process. The interviews allowed the
City staff and BV A insight into each proposer's level of commitment to the project, depth of
understanding and development of the proposed project, ability of management team to deliver
the project in the proposed timeframe, and ability of the proposer to build a trusting relationship
with the City.
The fmdings of the interview process were reviewed in the final assessment.
3.5 FINAL ASSESSMENT
A fmal assessment of the proposals was conducted after the interview process was completed.
In the fmal assessment stage, BV A reexamined the scores generated in the detailed evaluation
process based on information obtained through the clarification and interview stages. Scores
were adjusted as necessary to reflect new understanding of the proposals. The fmal scores are
presented in Appendix E. The fmal scores of the proposals were not adjusted significantly from
the preliminary scoring process.
This ranking is only a portion of the information that was used to make a decision on the fmal
ranking of the proposers and recommendations on how to proceed with negotiations if the City
chooses to leave the County system. The fmal ranking of the proposals focuses on the overall
cost competitiveness of the proposals, thellbility of the management team to successfully develop
the project, and other issues or concerns.
BV A considers the Sexton proposal, the highest ranking proposal, as the most preferred
proposal. In general terms, Sexton presented a sound proposal with a committed and qualified
management team, and offered alternative disposal site options. In particular, Sexton's proposal
to use El Sobrante Landfill is an attractive option for the City. Sexton's cost proposal offered
reasonable rates for the type and size of service being proposed. Sexton's costs were somewhat
higher than Mid-American's costs; however, City staff and BV A felt other elements of the
Sexton proposal and team outweighed the cost issue.
In BV A's final ranking of proposals, BV A placed Mid-American second on the list. Mid-
American was ranked above Laidlaw, although its score was less than Laidlaw, for several
reasons including costs, which were significantly less than Laidlaw's.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94- 3:49 pm
3-5
/9/ t /
""
...
Laidlaw was placed third among the proposals. Its costs were considerably higher than both
Sexton and Mid-American and there is concern (based on the interviews) about the strength to
carry this project.
...
BV A fmal ranking of proposals is as follows:
...
1. Sexton
2. Mid-American
3. Laidlaw
...
""
"'I
...
...
\
...
...
)'
..,
...
...
...
...
...
...
G,\WPC\93032\0I\REPORT 05/04/94 5,05 pm
3-6
/7 /t;L
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
In order for Chula Vista to make a decision to participate in the County system or seek
alternative disposal arrangements, an economic analysis is a critical portion of the decision-
making process. As presented to City Council on April 26, 1994, BV A designed an economic
analysis that projects the costs associated with the City's options including the cost of
participating in the County system and the cost of options outside the County system. The
economic model provides cost information that can be compared to assess potential economic
advantages of the option over the County system.
The method, assumptions, and the results of the economic analysis are presented in this section.
This section also discusses the uncertainties associated with this analysis and potential economic
impact of the uncertainties on the economics.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
In this economic analysis, the cost of participating in the County system (County costs) were
modeled to cover the services Chula Vista currently receives through the County, including costs
required for inactive and active landfills, expansion of active landfills, development of new
landfills, clean green waste program, household hazardous materials services, as well as other
activities. The County costs were evaluated based on the most recent information available from
the Commission.
The cost of options outside of the County system considered the options presented in the
Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton proposals. These options focus on developing a transfer
station in or near Chula Vista and hauling waste to disposal sites outside the County system.
The primary disposal site identified in the proposals was Campo Landfill with Chiquita, EI
Sobrante, and Simi Valley landf1lls as alternative disposal sites. Since the proposals identified
only transfer, hauling, and disposal costs and not the full range of services the County currently
offers, other costs were added to the proposers' tipping fees to adjust for programs that the
County currently covers and for potential obligations that Chula Vista may continue to share
with the County even if the City is not a participant in the County system. The adjustment for
the programs and obligations were estimated based on review of the Commission information.
In addition, costs were added to the proposers' tipping fees to account for internal administration
and program support that the City may need to provide to oversee the transfer, haul, and
disposal contract and to provide recycling education and market development support services
that will replace the programs currently provided by the County.
G:\WPC\93032\0l\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
4-1
/ 1--t;J
""!
,
.
"'"
The costs for the County system and the options presented in each proposal were projected over
a 10-year period from FY 1994/1995 to FY 2003/2004. The lO-year projection was used to
calculate the NPV of the annual costs to provide a fair comparison of the total cost for services
under different scenarios.
..
..
4.2 COSTS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE COUNTY SYSTEM
The County costs include two types of costs: annual O&M costs and capital improvements. As
indicated above. these costs were projected based on best available information recently prepared
by the Commission. BV A relied directly on the Commission's estimates of the cost
requirements and information related to the estimates. BV A did not perform any review or
make an assessment of the costs to determine if the Commission information was sound and
reasonable.
..
-
"""
Annual O&M Costs
The annual O&M requirements included annual costs such as labor, active landfill closure
reserve, active landfill operations, green waste program operations, inactive landfill expenses,
NCRRA service payment for operations and maintenance and debt service, County and
Department of Public Works overhead, and many other budget items. The annual O&M
information for the County system for FY 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 was estimated by the
Commission's Audit and Budget Subcommittee and presented as the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Program for FY 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 Budget Scenarios (Draft March 31, 1994). The
budget information for FY 1994/1995 was provided in current dollar values and FY 1995/1996
budget Was adjusted as the County staff felt appropriate for inflation at 3 percent.
"'"
..
..
"""
..
Since the available budget information covered only two of the 10 years required for this
economic analysis, BV A estimated the budget for FY 1996/1997 through 2003/2004. This
budget estimate assumed that the annual O&M budget provided by the Commission for FY
1995/1996 would remain the same with an annual adjustment to account for inflation. For the
purposes of this analysis, an inflation rate of 3 percent per year was assumed. County staff were
contacted and provided specific input that a few of the annual O&M budget line items would not
be required over the lO-year period or would not be subject to the impacts of inflation;
adjustments were made to reflect their input.
..
..
..
Capital Improvement Costs
The CIP requirements were examined by the Commission and presented in the Solid Waste
Capital Improvement Program FY 1994/1995 to FY 2002/2003, Draft Report, March 30, 1994.
The CIP addresses capital requirements for active landfills, inactive sites, and new facilities.
The report focused on three strategies for accomplishing the same capital improvements but
...
-
..
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
4-2
/9 ~~~
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
under different project schedules. Strategy I focuses on providing essential projects only and
postpones some required system improvements and new landfill projects. Strategy 2 includes
essential projects plus the required system improvements. Strategy 3 includes the essential
projects plus the required system improvements with an accelerated schedule for inactive site
closures. All three strategies were formulated assuming a pay-as-you-go funding approach. For
the purposes of this economic analysis, the CIP requirements associated with Strategy I were
used to project the County costs. The capital costs identified in the Solid Waste Capital
Improvement Program report were presented in current dollar values. As with the annual O&M
costs, the capital costs in this analysis were escalated at 3 percent annually to account for
inflation.
Total Costs
A cost-per-ton estimate for mixed waste was calculated so that sufficient funds would be
generated to cover the total annual County costs. The cost per ton necessary to cover the annual
O&M costs was calculated by totaling the annual O&M costs less the cost for the green waste
operation (because separate tipping fees are collected for clean green waste to cover the costs
associated with the green waste operation) less other revenue (collected by the County through
permitting fees, grants, etc. and used to offset the annual O&M budget for solid waste activities)
divided by the projected annual tonnage of mixed waste in the County system. The cost per ton
for the CIP requirements was estimated by dividing the annual CIP requirements by the
projected annual tonnage of mixed waste in the County system. The total estimated cost per ton
for mixed waste under the County system was calculated as the sum of the cost per ton for
annual O&M costs and cost per ton for CIP requirements. A cost per ton was projected for each
FY in the IO-year analysis.
The economic analysis for the County system costs is provided in Appendix F. The annual
O&M costs and CIP costs are identified for the IO-year period and the projected cost per ton
for mixed waste is calculated for each year.
Assumptions
The nature of the County system required that several assumptions be made in order to develop
a cost projection for the County system. The basic assumptions made in this analysis are:
. All jurisdictions will participate in the County system with the exception of the cities
of San Diego and El Cajon.
G:\WPC\93032\OI\REPORT 05104/94 3:49 pm
4-3
----
J 7 ~~..?
...
...
· Waste quantities will remain constant at 1,336,500 tons annually from FY 1995/1996
onward with mixed waste and clean green waste amounting to 1,236,500 tons and
100,000 tons, respectively.
...
· A pay-as-you-go funding approach will be implemented for CIP rather than debt
fmancing.
...
· Successful annual renewal of the San Marcos Landfill's Conditional Use Permit will
be achieved.
...
...
· Strategy 1 of the CIP will be followed as outlined in the Solid Waste Capital
Improvement Program FY 1994/1995 to FY 200212003, Draft Report, March 3D,
1994.
-.,.
· The CIP contingency for funding of the San Marcos Landfill Tier II and ill
acquisitions was not provided.
...
...
· The County will continue to provide the same scope of services that it provides
currently.
...
· Costs for a MRF or other future diversion programs that may be required to assist
Chula Vista in meeting AB 939 goals are not included in the analysis.
...
· The clean green waste program costs are covered by the revenue collected from clean
green waste tipping fees. The clean green waste program costs have been estimated
but are not included in the calculation of the County cost per ton projections.
..
...
· Annual O&M costs will remain constant (subject to inflation) from FY 1996/1997
onward.
...
· FY spans July 1 through June 31.
...
· NCRRA equity will not be refmanced.
..
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04194 3:49 pm
4-4
/7 -~'"
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 COST OF OPTIONS OUTSIDE THE COUNTY SYSTEM
The economic analysis of the costs associated with leaving the County system included two
components. The primary component is the proposed cost per ton (tipping fee) at the transfer
station, which would cover transfer, haul, and disposal services. The second component is costs
associated with programs the County currently provides that will need to be continued (through
the County or other party) and obligations that the City may share with the County system even
if it leaves the system.
Transfer, Haul, and Disposal Cost per Ton
The economic analysis relied on the tipping fees for the transfer, haul, and disposal services
obtained from the Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton proposals. The economic analysis used
the tipping fees with adjustments, as calculated by BV A (Table 2-1), to account for different
proposer assumptions regarding land costs, acceptance testing period, and amortized capital
calculations .
The three proposals offer several options to the City, depending on the selection of the disposal
site. To analyze these options, six scenarios were examined. Three scenarios focused on each
proposer's cost estimate to use Campo LandfIll as the disposal site. One scenario addressed
Laidlaw's proposal to truck waste to Chiquita Landfill. The remaining two scenarios analyzed
Sexton's proposal to dispose of waste at El Sobrante Landfill or Simi Valley LandfIll.
Tipping fees were escalated at 3 percent per year to account for inflation. The annual costs for
the transfer, haul, and disposal were calculated by multiplying the tipping fees by the solid waste
disposal projections. The disposal projections were obtained from the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) adopted by Chula Vista on December 15, 1992 in response to AB
939. For the purposes of this economic analysis, BV A used the waste quantity disposal
projections in the SRRE that assume AB 939 diversion rates will be achieved. (Although the
waste quantity disposal projections were based on the assumptions that AB 939 diversion rates
will be achieved, this economic analysis does not included all the costs required to bring the City
into full compliance with AB 939).
Programs and Obligations
Program and obligation costs were estimated to account for additional items included in the
County system costs that are not covered by the proposers' tipping fees. These costs included
annual O&M costs as well as CIP requirements. The estimate for the program and obligation
costs was performed by reviewing each budget item in the County annual O&M budget and the
CIP to determine if Chula Vista needed to provide for the programs through City staff,
arrangements with the County, or an outside contractor, or if Chula Vista needed to continue
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
4-5
/ i~;; 7
....
to provide funds for any continued obligations to the County system. In particular, programs
that the County provides that need to be included in the costs for leaving the County system
include:
..
...
· Clean green waste program
..
· Household hazardous materials program
...
· Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) services for active landfIll sites used by the City
and the transfer station (if it is located in City limits)
...
· Tire hauling and disposal services
· Public education services (e.g., I Love a Clean San Diego County)
...
· Scalehouse staff and billing services.
...
Costs to cover the clean green waste program and the household hazardous materials program
were estimated for the City based on tonnage and population, respectively. The costs for the
LEA services associated with the disposal site and tire hauling and disposal services were
covered in the tipping fees presented by the proposers. LEA services for the transfer station
were assumed to be included in the tipping fees presented by the proposers. Public education
services that the County system provides are assumed to be handled by existing staff and
additional costs have been included to cover the salary and benefits for a solid waste coordinator
to manage all aspects of the City's expanded responsibilities. For the purposes of this economic
analysis, annual O&M costs have been estimated to cover salaries and benefits for a scalehouse
staff (two positions) and start-up costs for the billing services as the tipping fees in the proposals
did not include the costs for these services (because the City reserved the right to operate the
scalehouse) .
....
...
..
..
..
It is not clear what the City's obligations, if any, may be for the inactive landfill sites because
no information is currently available on the quantities of municipal solid waste that Chula Vista
may have landfilled. For the purposes of this study, Chula Vista's potential share of the annual
O&M costs and CIP requirements associated with inactive landfills sites (as identified by the
Commission reports and County staff) were estimated based on the City's population compared
to the County system population (eXClusive of San Diego).
..
...
...
The annual costs for programs and obligations were calculated based on the combined total of
the annual O&M and CIP requirements. A cost per ton for these programs and obligations was
calculated by dividing the annual costs by the projected waste disposal quantities for the City.
..
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
4-6
/7~~~
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The economic analysis for the costs of the programs and obligations is provided in Appendix F.
The annual O&M costs and CIP costs are identified for the 10-year period and the cost per ton
for mixed waste is calculated for each year. These projections include an annual adjustment for
inflation at 3 percent per year.
Total Costs
A cost per ton for mixed waste was estimated by adding the tipping fee for transfer, haul, and
disposal and the cost per ton for program and obligations. The economic analysis assumed that
the transfer station would not be available until the start of FY 1996/1997. During FY
1994/1995 and FY 1995/1996, the City would continue to deliver its waste to the County system
while the transfer station was being permitted and constructed. The analysis assumed that the
City would pay the projected cost per ton of the County system during this transition period.
The detailed economic analysis of the total annual costs and tipping fees is provided in Appendix
F.
Assumptions
In performing the economic analysis for the costs associated with leaving the County system,
a number of assumptions were required. The key assumptions are listed below:
· The tipping fees for the transfer, haul, and disposal services will remain constant
subject only to increases associated with inflation.
· Tipping fees include tire hauling and disposal services and LEA costs for active
disposal sites.
· The transfer station, hauling, and disposal services will be available July 1 of FY
1996/1997.
· During FY 1994/1995 and FY 1995/1996, the City will deliver waste to the Otay
Landfill at the same cost per ton as other jurisdictions.
· Potential obligations associated with inactive disposal facilities in the County system
were allocated based on population.
· The City will have no obligation to the NCRRA facility, active disposal sites, or new
facility development once the City leaves the County system.
· Waste stream projections were based on the SRRE estimate assuming projected AB
939 diversion rates will be accomplished. Clean green waste quantities will start at
11,000 tons per year in FY 1994/1995 (based on Laidlaw's estimates) and escalate at
the same rate as the population increases.
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05104194 3:49 pm
4-7
/f/j,J
"'I
-
· Self-haul waste generated in Chula Vista will be delivered to the transfer station.
· Collection costs for delivering waste to the transfer station are assumed to be the same
as the collection costs associated with delivering materials to the Otay Landfill.
-
· Costs for a MRF or other future diversion programs that may be required to assist
Chula Vista in meeting AB 939 goals are not included in the analysis.
-
· If waste is hauled out of County for disposal, no additional regulatory or
environmental impact mitigation fees will be levied to increase the tipping fee as
presented by the proposers.
-
-
· The clean green waste program costs are covered by the revenue collected from clean
green waste tipping fees. The clean green waste program costs were estimated but
are not included in the calculation of the program and obligations cost per ton
projections.
""!
· Annual O&M costs will remain constant from FY 1996/1997 onward.
"'I
· City population projections are based on information obtained from the Chula Vista
Planning Department. Chula Vista is currently 9.9 percent of the County system
population (exclusive of San Diego) and will continue to make up 9.9 percent of the
County population over the 10-year period.
-
-
· FY spans July 1 through June 31.
-
4.4 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The results of the economic analysis were evaluated by comparing the NPV of the County
system costs and the six scenarios offered through the Laidlaw, Mid-American, and Sexton
proposals. The cost difference associated with each scenario was calculated in terms of a
percentage of the cost of the participating in the County system. A positive cost difference
indicated that the scenario costs, on a NPV basis, were less than the County system costs. A
negative cost difference indicated the scenario costs were more expensive than the County
system costs. The NPV was calculated assuming a discount rate of 0.07.
-
-
-
A summary of the scenarios considered in this economic analysis show the NPV of the annual
costs for services over a five-year period (FY 1994/1995 to FY 1998/1999), the NPV for a 10-
year period (FY 1994/1995 to FY 200312004), and the cost difference between the costs for
participating in the County system. In addition, the projected cost per ton for mixed waste is
identified for each scenario for the first year of the transfer station operations (FY 1996/1997).
This summary is provided in Table 4-1; the details of the economic analysis are provided in
Appendix F.
-
-
-
-
G:\WPC\93032\OI\REPORT 05104194 3:49 pm
4-8
/f-7o
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
'(jj
>-
(ij
c
<(
,,.
~ E
I 0
"" c
CD 0
-()
.ow
<11_
f- 0
>-
~
<11
E
E
::J
en
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.... CIl E
~-~
",0'"
O'>f-en
>-
u..
'"
u; ol5 (f1
<11 '" c:
~E,g
"'"'"
~ 0,:=
.- 0.0
::E~O
.0..
02
c:_
~ffi1O
. I'"
..:
_"''''
U,l 'U5'-
Ollie
()~o1l
f-
2l,
'"
-c:
lli "
,,~8
0<( .
"= 1i5 Q)
Q) 0 ~
o..()
ffi
'"
I '"
1Jj
0_0
-o()
>10
0.."
Z c:
~
'"
Cl
'"-
-c:
16 "
o
,,~()
0<( .
'C 1i5 ~
'" 0 0
o..()
ffi
'" '"
1Jj
1-0
",o()
>10
0.. "
Z c:
~
'" .
.S2~
2:';:
'" e
en 0..
1ll
'" '"
8.,'"
",en
is
,>1
ffi
c:
'"
(.)
en
~ -e
w "
~ 0
>- ()
en
>-
!Z
::l
o ~
~ 0
w
<
0..
G
~ ~
<(
0..
co
~
-
co
...
'"
;;
",'
0'>
-
",'
'"
...
o
'"
co
",'
...
"'-
-
...
...
o C') 0 U) co (I')
C') CD l.O tn """'
<<S ai M ai Lri 0)
"' "' CD CD .... co
~i40--&9-iR-fIt-
C\J t\I C\I C\I C\I C\I
..... ..- ,.... ..... .....
d 0 0 d d d
;;~;;;
co ~ ~ ~ ~ C;
<<S a) ("j a:i ui ai
~:~~~t;.
oe. cP. ct <P- '(/.. '#.
C\I en I.l) 0 v co
C\I ,......... I
..... ,..., co en 0) C')
,..... " 0 co f". (I)
C") ..... C'? cn "" .......
Cff erf cn~ (',f N Oh
IX) co ..... co ,... 1.0
CXt_ co C\I co co coA
.....r:rf(rfafCf'f.....
l() l.t) L() IJ) <D f"-..
*fh**.y:}fh
?P- cP. eft. '#. -ae. ';/!.
o co 11) C\I """' .....
'" -
co C') en 0 'It II)
o Lf.) co It) 0 it)
en C\l co ('I)A C\I C\I
'llf:t'A (J;)A OA 0- ",-
g N ~ ~ ~ M
"""".n<o~C>f
~~i4~~~
16
(.)
"C c: c: ~ c ~
CD 0 ~ '... 0 ".
E x x '6 x '6
<( '" '" 'Ill '" 'Ill
I en en -J rn ...J
"
:i1
::E
~
1ii
~
::l
o
()
~
s ~ as
8.8.~8.1jj"
!; !; .c !; > "
~ J c7l J ::E t5
w Ui
C\I (') V 1.0 <0 ,....
0'1
,
v
/1/7 !
...
Cl
I
~
::E
I
...
o
'"
~
~
...,j
~
<(
z
w
'!<
o
cO
8
'"
~
u.
OIl
OIl
The five-year and 10-year projections relied on a two-year O&M budget projection prepared for
the County system. The five-year projection is a more reasonable analysis to consider as the
projection of the annual O&M and CIP requirements over a lO-year period is subject to more
uncertainties as the actual needs of the system evolve.
..
...
A review of our analysis suggests that there are potential cost savings of up to 20 percent on a
NPV basis (for a 5-year period) if the City leaves the County system. However, a closer look
at our analysis shows that the assumptions used for both the County and the out-of-County
analysis are subject to clearly identified uncertainties that are outlined below.
..
..
Uncertainties that may affect the County system costs are:
...
· Number of cities that continue participating in the County system
· Waste quantities delivered to the County system
· Reasonableness of the projected County annual O&M budget
· Soundness of the projected requirements for the CIP
· Debt financing rather than pay-as-you-go fmancing for CIP
· Ultimate disposition of the NCRRA operating agreement
· Scope of services County provides are altered.
...
...
..
Uncertainties that may affect the costs associated with leaving the County system are:
4'
...
· Successful negotiations with one of the proposers
· Siting, permitting, and development of the transfer station
· Ultimate disposition of the Campo Landfill and external factors impacting alternative
disposal sites such as environmental or legislative restrictions on waste importation.
...
...
These uncertainties present risks to the City regardless of whether the City chooses to stay in
or leave the County system.
...
4.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
To assess the potential economic impact of some of the uncertainties above, a sensitivity analysis
was performed on the economic analysis. The sensitivity analysis examined the fluctuations
associated with the cost advantages of the options to leave the County system over the costs of
relying on the County system. The cost advantage is expressed as a percentage of the costs of
participating in the County system. The economic analysis, assumptions, and results as
described in Section 4.1 through 4.3 and presented in Table 4-1 are considered the base case.
The sensitivities performed are compared to the base case. The fluctuation that resulted in a
..
...
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
4-10
/'j~?~
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sensitivities cost advantage is expressed as the percentage points above or below the base case.
For example, the base case shows the Mid-American option as having a cost advantage of 20
percent over the option of participating in the County system. If sensitivity analysis shows that
the cost advantage of Mid-American increases to 26 percent, this result can be expressed as an
increase of 6 percentage points above the base case.
The sensitivity analysis addressed the following variables:
· Chula Vista waste quantities
· Cities leave the County system
. County system costs not realized
. Costs of leaving County system not realized
. Increased tipping fee for nonparticipating members of the County system
. No inactive landfill liability if City leaves County system
. Neighboring cities participate in Chula Vista's transfer station, pay host fee.
A description of the sensitivity analysis performed and the results are discussed below. Table
4-2 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis based on a five-year NPV. Results of the
sensitivity analysis based on a ten-year NPV are provided in Appendix F.
Chula Vista Waste Quantities. The economic analysis was performed using waste stream
projections based on the SRRE estimate assuming projected AB 939 diversion rates will be
accomplished. These waste quantity projections show the waste quantities decreasing
significantly over the 10-year cycle modeled in the economic analysis. If AB 939 diversion rates
are not achieved, the City will need to handle increased waste quantities. To assess the potential
impact increased waste quantities may have on the economic analysis, BV A performed two
variations (sensitivities) to the economic model. One sensitivity modeled the SRRE waste
quantity projection that assumes the, current diversion level remains constant. A second
sensitivity modeled the Chula Vista waste stream remaining constant. This assumes that the
waste stream may remain constant because the increased waste quantities associated with
population and economic growth will be offset by the diversion activities. The sensitivities
revealed that an increase in the costs savings were associated with the AB 939 waste quantity
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 5:07 pm
4-11
/9 ~7 3
>-
'-
C1l
E
E
:J
C\lCl)
~ .~
>-
al-
_C1l
.0 c:
~-;,
-
">
:;::;
"(jj
c:
al
CI)
E
al
-
CIl
>-
(1)CIl
'-
>-C1l
- al
c: >-
6 I
()LO
-'-
o al
>
CIl 0
"Ei al
().2
o~
--
-0 c:
al al
'- CIl
C1l al
0.'-
EO.
0-
()~
al c:
010
.l9-o
c: al
C1l CIl
> C1l
~.o
tl
o
()
6Q)~
'1(=....
'" III
(/)>
::0
1ii
;:o~
.!!!EC\l
"0 ~
.- III
jo
aJBrfl.
'l(ffi~
'" ~
(/).0
o
(/)
W
a 0 rfl.
'l(E~
'" III
(/)0
ffiO,*
.2 E 1il
~ III
~O
<(
I
:g
::0
'"
'"
.'"
'u
mE
'"
Q;1iS
>
.9!~
.~ E'
f!! "
OJ 0
>0
:0 c:
cn'~
C')1a
me.
co .-
> <( .2
:-2"0 i
~ ~ Co
OJ<..l~
(J) '~5
_ 0,_
a a: ca
c:_O
.Q <( W
-co"'"
'i:: (I) a.
<..l III '"
"'0 <..l
Q) ~ ~
O"'~
III
co
'*"*
C\lC\l
?f!.(fi.
C\l~
~ ~
"#.tf.
<!J<!J
~~
'#.?P.
00
C\lC\l
rfl.?fl.
C')C')
C\lC\l
?fl.?/<
<!JLtl
C\lC\l
a;
>
.9!
c:
o
.~
g;
'5
-
c:
l!!
'" ~
.! 5
'';::: -
ffi III
,,"C
oS~
OJ <..l III
..... .~c
'" 0 c:
III ~ 0
3: e._
came:
Ui~19
.- c (I)
>c:c:
III 0 0
""51--0
.c
o
~C\l
"*
C')
~
rfl.**rfl.
C\J~U')Q)
I I
rfl.rfl.
....C\l
I I
rfl.'#.
C')....
(fl.'#.
co~
~
*'*
C\lLtl
~ ~
rJl.rfl.
Ltl....
~~
'#.rfl.
....m
~~
"0
.~
m ~
~ ~
..... Q).2>
O.c.c
Z 01>'1
E:2b
S?fl.""
~o ~
(/)~O
0)'.;
z.",Ill
C -;'.Q)
5cD
0'- 0
e."C
Ol,9- c:
c: - III
'S: (I) en
~ CD E
-''''Ill
_o~
0e.0l
en e e
Ciia.Q.
o
o
com
"*"*
0C\l
~C\l
I I
?ft.*-
~C')
I~
(/.'(fl.
C')m
I
?f!.?fl.
....Ltl
I
#.rfl.
OC')
~I
(fl.'#.
C\l~
~I
E
'"
1ii
,.,
CIJ
Z.
c:
"
o
o
'"
-=
01
c:
.~ E E
OJ " "
-oJ'- .-
~ E E
o '" OJ
E Q. 0..
~(fl."#.
.- 0 0
EC\lLtl
l!!
0..
O~
~
"*
'<t
"*
C')
~
"*
....
~
'*
~
C\l
'*
'<t
C\l
"*
~
~
:a
'"
::J
15
ffi
-'
OJ
>
.'"
<..l
III
.5:
o
z
C\l
~
"*
~
"*
Ltl
I
"'"
...
...
...
...
...
..,
"'!
"'"
"'"
N
.....
,
'<t ...
...
'<t
m ...
I
~
::0
I
'<t ...
o
Q
~
z ...
ill
a:
a.
CIJ
Z
ill ...
'!J.
~
o
N
C')
Cil "'"
~
(fJ
-
LL ...
...
"*
~
C\l
(fi.?f!.'#.'cf<
OC\lq-C\1
~ ~
"*
'<t
C\l
*(ft.?fl.?fl.
v(QC')(Q
~~
"*
co
C\l
'#.rfl.?f!.tf.
coot'),...
,...C\I...-,...
"*
Cil
?f!.rfl.rfl.rfl.
ONCCC"J
C\IC\1,...,...
"*
C\l
C')
'*"*"*"*
C\Ivcc(C
NC\I,...,...
E
'"
1ii
,.,
(fJ
Z.
c:
"
o
o
g;
III
~
'"
!
<3
C')
"0 ~
Q) Q) '- -.
~"6,m~'-
m :2 '5,.Q ~
a:~:E*.!2
Obrflorfl.
Z""ll')""'l.l')
fl)CI)C\IC1)C\1
tScnE!cnEl
o 0 U) 0 (I)
UUOUo
E::;:';:::O';:
",0/1_0/1_
1iiOOOO
(fJ"'z.z.z.~
c: c: c: c:
Z. 0" "0 "0 0"
c:
,,0000
o
o
'o::t'lr.lCO,....
/9 - 7 'I
'*
co
"*
C')
"*
C\l
~
"*
<!J
"*
<!J
"*
m
"*
Ol
~
"*
C\l
~
"*
~
C\l
"*
C')
~
c:
o
.~
Iii
~
~
c:
III
~
'"
'Ill
1ii
:>
III
""5
.c
o
OJ
'"
::l
'"
.~
<3
Ol
.>;;
o
.0
.c
Ol
'ijj
Z
C')
~
E
OJ
-
'"
CIJ
c:
"S:
III
OJ
-'
~
.Q
E
"
"E
l!!
0..
E
OJ
-
'"
(fJ
c:
"
o
o
OJ
iii
~
'"
.~
<3
'<t
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
projections. The cost savings based on a five-year NPV, will range from 2 percent to 26 percent
at current diversion levels and 2 percent to 25 percent at constant diversion levels.
Cities Leave the County System. At this time, the County is attempting to secure commitments
from cities that use the County system. A critical assumption in BV A's economic analysis is
that all the cities with the exception of El Cajon will participate in the County system.
However, the projected County system costs per ton may be significantly impacted if the
participation level drops. A decrease in the participation level will result in a decrease of
projected waste quantities. This decrease in tonnage levels will reduce some of the County's
overall operating costs and may reduce the CIP requirements because landfIll expansions and
new facilities may be delayed or not required. However, many annual costs are fixed costs such
as costs associated with inactive landfIlls, the NCRRA debt service, public education programs,
groundwater monitoring of active landfIlls, and LEA services. These costs will have to be
covered by revenue from less tonnage. As a result, the projected cost per ton is likely to
increase with a decrease in tonnage. Assessing the impact of the participation level is a
complicated task because it requires reexamining the CIP requirements, identifying fixed O&M
costs and variable O&M costs. BV A did not have access to sufficient information on the County
system costs to perform a detailed analysis of the costs. For the purposes of this study, BV A
made some general assumptions regarding the annual O&M budget items that would be fixed
and those that would be dependent on tonnage levels. For the CIP, BV A made an assumption
that the CIP costs would be reduced each year by specific percentage.
To model a potential scenario of reduced participation, BV A considered the possibility of
Oceanside leaving the County system in FY 1995/1996 and Carlsbad and Escondido leaving the
County system in FY 1996/1997 (at the same time Chula Vista leaves the system). The tonnage
of Oceanside will reduce the projected County waste stream by approximately 160,900 tons per
year and Carlsbad and Escondido will further reduce the projected tonnage by 207,430 tons per
year. This is a reduction of 20 percent of the County's projected tonnage. Annual O&M costs
that BV A assumed were related to tonnage were adjusted accordingly and fixed annual O&M
costs remained the same. Without the ability to reexamine the demands of the CIP
requirements, BV A assumed that the annual CIP costs would be reduced by 20 percent. The
results of these adjustments to the waste quantity projections and the annual O&M and CIP
requirements resulted in increased cost-per-ton projections for the County system and, therefore,
showed additional cost benefits of 12 percentage points for leaving the County system (based on
a five-year NPV).
County System Costs Not Realized. The economic analysis relied on a two-year O&M budget
and projected CIP requirements. If these cost projections are not as projected, the cost savings
O,IWPCI9303210I\REPORT 05104194 3049 pm
---
4-13 /1-').5
'"
will be impacted. To assess the potential impact of increased or decreased O&M or CIP costs,
four sensitivities were performed. The sensitivities examined the impact of a 10 percent increase
to County O&M costs, a 10 percent increase to CIP costs, a 10 percent decrease to County
O&M costs, and a 10 percent decrease to CIP costs. The sensitivities that modeled increased
O&M or CIP requirements showed a higher cost advantage of leaving the County system,
whereas the sensitivities modeling decreased costs showed a smaller cost advantage of leaving
the County system.
...
,
,
.,
..,
I
...
Costs of Leaving County System Not Realized. The economic analysis of the costs of leaving
the County system included two components: the proposers' tipping fees for transfer, haul, and
disposal services and program and obligation cost-per-ton projections. Two sensitivities were
performed to examine how the cost advantage of the options of leaving the system are impacted
if the tipping fees are 10 percent higher than proposed or if the program and obligations are 10
percent higher than proposed. The increased tipping fee resulted in the cost advantage dropping
3 percentage points below the cost advantages for the base case for a five-year NPV. The
increase to the programs and obligations cost-per-ton projections showed an insignificant
difference in the cost advantage. The impact associated with the tipping fee was significant
because the tipping fee is approximately 85 to 90 percent of the costs of leaving the County
system where the program and obligations are only 10 to 15 percent of the costs of leaving the
County system.
...
.,
...
...
...
Premium for Leaving the County System. If the City chooses to leave the County system, the
City will need to continue to rely on the County system for two years while the transfer station
is being developed. The economic analysis assumed that during this two-year period, the City
would pay the same cost-per-ton rates at the County landfills as members that have made
commitments (participating members) to the County system. However, the County may decide
to charge nonparticipating entities a premium at the landfill to cover costs associated with long-
term liabilities. Two sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of the cost
advantages if a 20 or 50 percent premium was placed on Chula Vista's tonnage during the two-
year transition period. In the case of a 20 percent premium, the results indicated a cost
advantage of up to 12 percent over the County system on a five-year NPV. If the premium were
50 percent, the results of this sensitivity indicate that the cost advantage of leaving the County
system would be eliminated on a five-year NPV basis and significantly reduced to a cost
advantage of 2 to 8 percent on a 10-year NPV basis.
...
'"'!
...
...
...
...
No Inactive LandiIll Liability. In the costs for leaving the County system, the economic
analysis included costs (based on population) for potential obligations the City may have to the
inactive landfills in the County system. At this time, it has not been determined if Chula Vista
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\OI\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
4-14
/i--?t
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
should share in any of these costs. The economic analysis did, however, include a portion
(based on population) of the annual O&M and CIP requirements associated with the County's
inactive landfills in costs of leaving the County system. Since these costs may not be an
obligation for Chula Vista, a sensitivity was performed to determine the cost advantage if the
City had no liability to the inactive landfill sites. The sensitivity revealed that the cost advantage
of leaving the County system increases 6 percentage points (based on five-year NPV).
Neighboring Cities Use Chula Vista's Transfer Station. The transfer station conceptual
designs have the capacity to serve not only Chula Vista's needs but also other communities. If
other communities use the transfer station, the City can levy a host fee on the tonnage received
at the transfer station that can be used to offset the costs of the solid waste services for the City.
To assess the potential impact of a host fee, BV A assumed that the daily throughput of the
transfer station was 800 tons per day (the maximum design throughput of the transfer station)
and a $2 per ton surcharge is collected on each ton received at the facility. The host fee
collected on tonnage was assumed to offset Chula Vista's costs. The sensitivity analysis showed
that the cost advantage increases 1 percentage point over the base case (based on a five-year
NPV).
Cities Leave the County System, Premium for Leaving County System. A sensitivity
analysis was performed to determine the combined effect of two events occurring. The
sensitivity analysis combines the assumptions that cities may leave the County system and the
City will pay a 50 percent premium for leaving the County system during the transition period.
Under this scenario, the cost advantage decreased by 7 percentage points based on a five-year
NPV.
G;\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04194 3:49 pm
4-15
/9 - 7?
'I
, .
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS
The fmdings of this report indicate that there may be potential cost savings to the City of up to
20 percent or higher if the City leaves the County system. The cost savings associated with both
the County system and options outside of the County system are not sufficient to clearly provide
direction to remain in the County system or leave the County system because several
uncertainties are associated with either alternative. The County system costs may be subject to
changes depending on the number of cities that join the JP A, the waste quantities delivered to
the system, the requirements of and the financial mechanism for the CIP, and the disposition of
the NCRRA facility. Likewise, the costs of leaving the County system present uncertainties to
the City such successfully negotiating a contract with the selected proposer at the costs presented
in its proposal, timely siting, permitting, and development of the transfer station, and securing
an attractively-located disposal site.
The City needs to move forward with its decision-making process. Its immediate decision,
whether or not to join the JP A and commit its waste stream to the County system must be
resolved by the end of May.
The City has a number of options:
1. Participate in the County system
- Join the JP A
- Commit the City's waste stream to County system
- Accept fmancialliabilities of the County system
2. Leave the County system; build transfer station
- Negotiate agreement for transfer, haul, and disposal services with selected
proposer
- Negotiate short-term agreement with the County for disposal services until the
transfer station is operational and disposal site is available, or pay tipping fees as
a nonparticipating member of the County system
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05/04/94 3:49 pm
5-1
/9 - 7Y
. .
I
""
3. Phased approach; City takes initiative on transfer station
""
- City sites and permits transfer station
....
- Negotiate price extension with one or more proposers
:j
-
- Negotiate short-term agreement with the County for disposal services, or pay
tipping fees as a nonparticipating member of the County system
....
- After a one- to two-year period, review the City's disposal options to determine
if it will be best served by the County system or should proceed with the transfer
station and secure disposal services through other alternatives including Campo
Landfill, out-of-County disposal sites, and out-of-state disposal sites.
-
4. Phased approach; Selected proposer takes initiative on transfer station
....
- City negotiates with selected proposer to site and permit transfer station
....
Negotiate short-term agreement with the County for disposal services, or pay
tipping fees as a nonparticipating member of the County system
....
- After a one to two-year period, review the City's disposal options to determine if
the City will be best served by the County system or should proceed with the
transfer station and secure disposal services through other alternatives including
Campo Landfill, out-of-County disposal sites, and out-of-state disposal sites.
...
5. Delay Decision
""
- Negotiate price extension with one or more proposers
""
- Negotiate short-term agreement with the County for disposal services, or pay
tipping fees as a nonparticipating member of the County system.
,
""
6. Rebid RFP
""
Negotiate short-term agreement with the County for disposal services, or pay
tipping fees as a nonparticipating member of the County system
...
- Circulate new RFP and encourage additional proposers to participate.
BV A suggests that the City focuses on the option 3 or 4 - a phased approach. Under this
scenario, the City would attempt to keep its options open for another year to examine how the
County system changes unfold and investigate the status of Campo Landfill and out-of-County
and out-of-state disposal site alternatives. To keep the option of leaving the County system
viable and implementable within a reasonable timeframe, the first phase of the transfer station
...
...
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04194 3:49 pm
5-2
/ 'J-? I
""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
development would be initiated. The goal of the first phase of development would be to site the
transfer station, prepare a conceptual design of the facility, and perform the CEQA work. The
City can take these responsibilities on itself (option 3) through assistance from outside
consultants as necessary. If the City chooses this approach, at some point in time it should
formally close this RFP process and notify the proposers that no selection will be made. The
City may also could consider negotiations with the selected proposer (option 4) to take the lead
on siting, conceptual design, and permitting of the transfer station. The selected proposer could
start the transfer station development under an agreement with the City with a clearly defmed
scope of work and milestone dates that will allow the City to stop the project at several points
if a review determines that the County system proves to be the best option. This option may
require the City to make some expenditures on the transfer station development.
BV A does not feel that option I, participate in the County system, is a reasonable path for the
City to proceed with because this option may commit the City to spiraling costs of solid waste
services. Several uncertainties are associated with the County system including number of
participating cities, waste quantities, CIP requirements, ultimate disposition of the NCRRA
operating agreement, and others. The uncertainties of the County system raise serious questions.
Although staying with the County system does not require Chula Vista to take on new tasks and
responsibilities regarding its solid waste management needs, the risks appear too significant to
take on at this time.
The second option of leaving the County system also has several uncertainties such as successful
negotiations with the selected proposer; the siting, permitting, and development of a transfer
station; the ultimate disposition of Campo landfIll; and availability of alternative disposal sites.
BV A believes that the uncertainties surrounding Campo landfill development and the potential
for other disposal site options to arise in the near future suggest that the City delay on making
a fmal decision in this area until more information is available.
The delay decision approach to this solid waste issue, option 5, is not a strategic approach for
the City. It leaves Chula Vista subject to the County system without any contingency plans.
Lastly, option 6, rebid RFP, might give the City a wider array of alternatives, particularly for
disposal options, but is not recommended at this time as it would be disruptive to the progress
already made toward a final decision.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 5:09 pm
5-3
17' -!t(} / ;CJ- g /
'I
',~"-
'~"1~-,
'I'
"
'I.'
, .
",
-'-,
I~
'.1.
. "
-
"
",'
I,'
"',
, '.
I"
I
'I
I':.
I'
ql
,I'
I"
"
,I,
, ,
',';
," ,-'.
, ,
I":
"
~. ".
, q{
'.
','.
"
I'.
, ,
;,(i'!'l~:': ~~
' ::_>;~?~~j~:,',~l'
'-'.
:,-
----y.f7r,
'''.
"
.,'
-,,'
"
,~ ~
, , ,~\ , '
"-'"
'A
..,--.
-"'-
,,'
. ''';'F''- '",:(",
"-',"
~'w'~~';"~"'::'
. .
't ,,~.
.\t
..
" ,I:
',"'" .;.
- ~~.:
.,"'-'-"'..1.,
> ~ i.~'1. \'/'~';;:
-.;
, ,.
~ "
~'I
'iI"
(,:_ -t
, , ~
,";
. "....'
"..
:\'
,';"-"
-,;'.
:,; ~:-,
",
-, ~
. ':
,.
,e' ~", "','
,'.,- '.
'"
:-:,
",>
;:>
\'_;,1.\1
":."'--'
, \..
':":,::,,
'.
,
",j,
<,
'_',1:<-',,"'"
'.'\,
'I',
~' . ,','
.i
.',> ~
-');.:','\
"-<,
"~I:
"
'!.'
..
"
"
.;~4,;.............;
. "~~"""""M~ ,.
UV~." "'_' ".,' ::. ",',
' ,,1_,,, ,s. L,:., . ','. "
. ~.~
.',,'i':.' ,', ,.'" .'.:" "'''' '", " "
' . '~" - />~ :~.
-:\
.".
.' ,~ ,
- ~,
."
,~ -.
, ~,'
. '-,c,
,,'--
:,,;
\:
"~I'
. :"',
,., ":.'~ '~. '
,.,.J;-
.,:
,'.
, ..'.
. ,
'.,
-,~, '
T ~ ~
C',
"-.
'':' ',,'
.j,".
",
'.
','.,0
"
:'~ .i .,:
-".
"
.'
," ,
'. d':
"
':'.
'.,
"
'.
"":'
~ 'j' , ~"
'U,'
~'\: '
,. .~'~.
-...'
..
'-"
,
~. "; , .;,;'~'~ ':
"_-l ',.
;,
"
""
'J',
",e
- :~;
'I,"
'Y. J
,:,-
c t:,.
','
"
>
'"<
_v'
" "
','k'
,\',',
..
. '; ~ -~
,
, ,
'f'.. ~';
'-'.'
-,'d
;"',: .'~ ":,
" ',~ '
" '
'~
'" ;,
"\:
, '\i: ..~
";"
',." "
"",
~" .
",
"
"
'",
'--'~, .-
~",
"'\';'!
"
",'.',
"._.,.1:
'~-, '
'-'.' 'r"
:.."
, ,Y
','
">
,'~" .,
: -~ ~
,.-:-r_
"
o
,"
,
"
,
"
,"
_~l ;"
"1-
"
'.' ~ ,.
'"
, ',- '-~''''
'"
" '
, ,
"('It,
'c:
",'
,.,'
,
'-,','
',-"
\' ",
"
-,s;
h
"
",<
:~,\...:" -,
~ ,"/,~:; .-.-
'".J
"I',.
"
,,'
.- ~:,'
','
'.
C',
.
,-'
, . ~ -
, , ;" ; ~~
,-,
,~
,~,
->:",'r-. .
'i
;'1'_1
, ~;, .<
, ,.
'-;..,
'(
",
, "
I;:,
, ~;,.",
:'t,;~ ~,
~-: -
,c,: -,_' ~-
, ': ~ ~
'.
'"t,
,'~~ . -- ,)
,~: "
-,".':-':..,
. ".
-".':' ::~" ",;.'e:".
,:"-''.1. -,"
... -'<~",:':-'-"
'.;:
'. ,
",".
'" ";~',
;:'1:,"
"
",
.'".'
"J ~.
"
,,-:
",'
il.'.
.,,.(.
.','
\"
.-t'
",
-:;-,,"
" J~', "
',~~
- ~ ....';...
-' ;.~~ ?::
'",
'~ ;
\:
"-.
",'
~:
_t"
- ~, ~
,..'."",''"
-,'.',
:~':~}i::',"
'-...~,
'!,f;,
, , ' ~
':..(', ,~
;.,
"
C",
:,\-., .~
,.C,
,
'.
,
.:;:','
-' ~~:.
',','
,
;,,' " ;, "'lit'i-'fjl<
....i1~~~~~.j~""L,
"
,,;'
...'",'
'"
"
"'-
'A-',_
"
~ '~"; "
t'.~~,~.:'~,-:"" ~~,_
:::.:l';(: ~
< (":'::",
i./, '-,.1.._
'-:<.
'"'-
"
,.
"
'.
"'c
.
,
-','
"
" ~'
~_:
-, ~,
, ,
,\.'-
;-,
,,'
~ -\',
,r.'
"""-
<v;-
'I,'
,,,'
'\-,
"
- ,r,,~,
-'~ ;
'"
",
, ,
" ~,
".'"
>,
".t,
,-,.""
h ':
',t'.
'",
-'--
r:j
"
',.
'"
,
'.
, "
"
, - -(;
,"
",
'"
"'i"~-",
1.'~ \
- .~
:,<
.-~.> -- ,".'
j
I
I
,
,
i
I
j
I
I
i
J
i
,
i
I
>"
I,"
'11"
..
",
,
"..
>,
(.'
!
,
1
I
j
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I,
J.
1
J
:j
,
]
",~
]
,;
J
J
i
,
.i
I
1
I
I
I
I
.1
<
I
,I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
".,
,
iI
(-",
rI
-'
'.
~
;,
<~
,I
;' ~,
]
,
(,
J
,. ,',
";
I
.',i'
.;.
",~ ;1
I
'L~
3,"
tI'
"
]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<
><
~
"
""
~
'"
-
'"
'"
o
8'
A..
.....
o
'"
1:i
"
6
"
W
>-
~
~~
"Ci; "r;)
'" ....
~.... 1l
o
<.!:! ~
~ . {I)
~-~
'" OJ
C ~ =
~ ~ ~ ~
CJ ~\O\O
en ._,.....j-
-C"-".s
" 0 '"
"0 OJ)'-
'.0;>
~O.=g
.<;: ;.E
OCllU
~ <= <=
~.- .-
'"
..,
<J
..
...
..
..,
CIl
=
o
..
.....
<'lI
.....
CIl
..
~
'"
=
<'lI
..
"'"
""
'"
6
'"
]
U
; .5
OJ
'C r;n
" ~
6 .<;:
~ e
'" "
~ ~
'" .;
"O~~
4J .-.fA ._
t:::::-..(,f.)
.~ S ('f")
" '" ....
~>rS
....
o~
'" '"
'" ~
1;l OJ
'" '"
"'0
"'-
"
'" 0
.. ~
...
8~
A..,..,
'-'
'"
] ;
UCIl
.5 "B
~ '" '"
~ .~ ~
j -;u
is"';
> c
~ .S2
~
"" '"
J:!Z
- ...: 0
"c: ~ OJ)
" '" "
;5!>O
c
.2
~
'"
OJ
..2
'0
"
'"
o
8'
A..
'"
~
'"
gp
.;;:
{/) '0
~ OJ
OJ ~
'"
'0 13
- .5
o .0
~ 6
If'\ 0
'0 U
0]
~ '"
OJ
~iE
~ e
'" ~
1:lIl""
C ~ cd
..... ~ """
.~ 0.- ~ ~
lIJ'u = ~
'" al',:" "
~ 1-1 C OJ:) e
c.J "0 = e ......
eU ~.P B
o ._ _ {I)
,....j.Q-o
g e -; t;j
If'\ 8 ~ ~
'"
....
"
....]
~~
'" 1;l
~'"
'" C
1:lIl'"
<= '"
.. ....
> "
'i) '3
OJ '"
~..c
~ ~
e:E
'" g
fr'"
l,f") r.f.)~
'"
~
~
00
o
~
'"
.2
~
0;
6
I:lIl
" C
N '>
"(ii -
."
~ OJ
en ~
....
'"
OJ
-
.;
8~
If'\ '"
~..2
",,<=
{I) ~. S:::!
c U {I) _
=.d~ ~
'::.::! 2 ..c'
I*I"'lo .d ...... u
<~E;4:i%l
~ ~ en c:r ~
~ ~.~ 8'" ~
oc..cc_l,s
~ 6 1:i '.... ><
"",88~Jl
~
~
.~
~
'0
'"
..2
~
o
1:i
..
....
o
~
OJ
'"
""
6
o
U
'"
o
.,s
<1)
6
....
<.!:!
'"
c
'"
....
"'"
<=
'"
OJ
j~
, ....
""=
~8
.0
ill
'"
~ 0
5~
~ VJ~ =
>-.~ ,;:::2
C"i:;...
cncacn_
$< ~ ~ '6
o ..... lU l,f")
0" 0 en C1"l
,.., Z ~ ~
-
<1)
<.!:!
~
'"
&
'"
~
.<;:
gp
:a
....
~
....
o
~
'"
....
0;
""
o
/9/51.1-
<=
~
's
'0
....
~
c
o
gp
~
<1)
""
<1)
'"
'-'
c c
a s
's -;;- 's
08 If'\
. ..
oo.~ (".t
~'O ~
o c 0
~ 0 ~
,.., OJ ':t-
'<1)
r--.~ N
~ '" ~
-
'"
o
OJ
-;
-
'5.
'"
U
<=
a
's
<=
o
-
,..,
....
&
....
If'\
o
-
~
-
~
<=
.2
;:::
's
'0
o
~
<=
B
....
<1)
""
o
0\
If'\
~
-
,
<
c
B
....
<1)
""
....
00
0\
-
~
o
~
<=
B
....
<1)
""
r--
'0
00
-
~
~
<J;
~
:s
:;:
~
~
,.
N
~
rt
~
"
I:lIl
.5
~
'"
....
& J!
o
~ ~
~ t; .~
<8E::
<:
><
~
0)
0..
<'
---
oj
o
U
'-'
'"
";;j
'"
o
0..
:::
i:l..
......
o
'"
1::
0)
E
0)
~
;>,
0)
i.:
~
";:
..
..
I:Il
~
~
c::
o
-
><
0)
en
c::
OS
U
.-
....
0)
E
<:
,
"0
~
-
";;j
E
'"
o '"
o .~
....-
:E
<<::u
OS
&"0
'" 0)
'"
8~
....
00 0..
<t:
""
'"
o
8.
o
""
....
<8
""
'"
'"
.5
-
c:: ~
.~ "'0
.-::: ::s
~ .5
0) -
"0 os
'Cl-5
o 0)
''::: c
g:= E
t; ~ ~
C'~ >.
o '" '"
UO)OO
"0 g c::
c """ 'oool
os 0.."0
"0
"00 .~ ~
......c::
o 13 ~
~"OOS
00
c::
'Qi "'0
'" c::
0) os
g-
.... 0)
~~~
'C 8 ==
tj _ 1-0
::s r.I) 8
"'8 ~ 00
~ ::s c:
c; s;! '€
'-.= 0
~ '"
Q)~-
~ -5 ~
o 1:! ~
U:=E
"'C;
0) ::l
c:: c::
.- '"
- E
~
';j -g
'" os
<Ll_
U 0)
~~~
C;oU
..... ~ >.
C$ v ~
<Ll "0 c::
"0 0
';) .2 u
iU ~ ....11\
1.1.::: ~
o .-
~ 'iii t::
....-5~
001:!
c:.=
'€ 00
o c: .=: OJ)
~ r.I) 'r;,: u = c:
- - ~ ~ ,_5 ..'€
~ ~ 1) 1:! '" E 0
u ; 8 ._ 1-0 ~ CIJ
~ E 0.. ~.~ ~ ~
~1oooI-gO<<jOOC:
"O<8osu1::.5~
Q) """ "'0 0 c:l !:;
fU ._~ do) QJ <.) U "'0
~ _ ~ i"2 4) c
Q.. 00 ~.- _ t) C':S
~c"'08gfr.l.)~t-:
a)'(ij Go) 8,- ~!! ~
~ ~.~ 0 e "'0 ~ lU
.... U e (.) S .a'(,r.J >
SO I-;OU~C
en ~t)~u.sCJ 8
.5
-
....
o
'"
;.;~
., 0)
S~
'" >
~ c::
u 8
/9/YJ
.,
,
.,
"0
<Ll
'"
o
0..
:::
0..
.,
~
os
:;
.;
....:J
<t:
~
'0;
'"
.,
U
o
....
0..
...
0)
~
....
0)
;>,
0)
>
c::
o
U
~
'€
o
'"
";;j
is
os
:::s
.,
u
>
<Ll
-
U
<:::
.-
U
.,
0..
'"
o
Z
.,
""I
8
o
\Q
o
-
8
o
.,.,
0)
N
i:ii
00
c::
32
'5
~
~
'0;
'"
0)
U
:::
0..
1:!
o
....
.;
....u
<8 E
~ ~
-
'"
0)
~
00",
.5 ~";;j
~ .a E
0) U os
U c:: "
::: ..... '"
0.. "'8
os
..,
I
"0
0)
'"
o
0..
:::
0..
.,
00
c::
'0;
'"
0)
U
:::
0..
""
- .,
os 1;$
.~ ~
~
~]
U E
u
>
~
U
<:::
'g
0..
'"
o
Z
""
"0
o
..c::
-
0)
:::s
00
c::
'0;
'"
0)
U
:::
i:l..
N
,
<:
~
"'"
,
"'"
"0
0)
'"
o
0..
o
....
0..
"'!
u
>
~
U
<:::
'u
0)
0..
'"
o
Z
"'!
l
~
=
"'!
,
1
=
"
~
:s
...
'"
2
"'
~
9
N
~
2
~
'"
"'!
"'!
u
>
.3
e:-
O)
>
o
U
0)
P::
"'!
"'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-<:
><
~
8:
-<:
~
~
o
~
'"
-
'"
'"
o
0..
8
J:l...
....
o
'"
i:i
S
OJ
W
>.
~
~
'"
.-
>-
..
'"
00
CIl
=
.-
]
:::
>.
erg
o ~
'.:: =
0...-
o i:i
'" 0
OJ '"
t:: '"
OJ '"
...",
e OJ
o..;g
OJ 0.. ,
.dO 00
.- a "d" CI:I
o ...
- '"
, u
00 _
N .;
o ...
NO
-'"
<=
o
-
><
OJ
00
<=
'"
u
.C
OJ
S
-<:
,
'"
~
~
'"
::a
:3
~
...
u
g
-
.-
'"
~
~
...
u
2
E-
.~
-"3
=' '"
,2.d
...
:= 0
'" 2
~-
.
'"
o
..s
OJ
S
OJ)
.5
"3
'"
:::
...
o
'"
...
~
.~
o
u '"
- ...
o '"
.s u
, -
00 .-
'<t E!
N\O
"'N
OJ
:0
'"
u
.-
-
0..
0..
'"
-
o
Z
'"
...
OJ
<=
.C;
i:i
o
u
-
o
.s
.
-
='
'"
.d
-
~
'"
'" ...
...~
~
.; '2
... -
- ...
<tiB
<6 e
"'-
0'"
N-
'"
...
~
.C;
tl '"
....
'" u
>.2
.-
=' ...
u 0
, -
o u
- '"
-tl
00 N
--
..s
.~
el
OJ
-
.-
'"
...
-
...~
o ._
o u
<=[
OIl'"
<= u
.- <=
~ 0
'" -
~M
NN
- 0
-
o ,
-N
00 N
]
'"
'"
~
<;j
.C
OJ
0..
a
.....
'g
'"
o
OIl
OJ
is
<=~
~.E
]~
.d~
- -
'; ";
~>
,
'"
~B
. -
....d
~ .~
OJ ...
~ OJ
O.d
:::-
'"
OJ
= >-
'" ...
u ~ ....;
'C e u
S '" ~
-<:.:.l _
, ... 0
:2s~
;::!;-<:fil
<;j
.C
OJ
~
.....
'g
'"
o
OIl
OJ
is
<='"
'" ~
00..=
, .-
'"
]~
OJ
~~
...
OJ
'"
.;;:
o
...
0..
OJ
u
.E
OJ
00
gp
:;;l
()
~
>.
E!
"
.E
o
....
gp
;.;
='
]
.....,
...
'"
OJ
>.~
-
... '"
OJ -
5 0...5.
- <= '"
... 0 u
~ ~ "t:I
c.::: 1:l
~ S.t:
. - 0
~<<iS
~~ '"
"3
'"
.d
...
u
2
E-
'"
OJ
'"
o
0..
8
0..
-
o
Z
OJ
.J:l
o
-
gp
;.;
='
]
.....,
...
'"
OJ
>.~
...<;j
OJ -
5 0...5.
- <= '"
_ lo-4 0 0
~ '" &:=: '"
.a QJ :-= UN
.;:: '" S.-
....- \0 1::
Uc: '\00
2 OJ '<t . S
E-:2 ;:;~ '"
..:
B
u
'"
...
-
<=
o
~
='
'"
.
-
='
'"
:::
~
/'7~Yi
'"
OJ
.t:l
-
...
~
'"
gp
;.;
='
u
<= .5
.....,
B <=
... 0
&::
\O.s ~
r- _
00'\.-
.....-I......;~
~(Ao~
'"
.~
-
...
~
'"
OIl
<=
;.;
='
]
<=.....,
B <=
... 0 -
&= is
'<t .s:::::- 'g
~ _.~ j
- . 0..
-N",
~~u
'"
OJ
.t:l
-
...
o
S
'"
.s
'"
='
]
<=.....,
o
- <=
... 0
&::::
~ 'E~
. N-
N ,'a
-N",
~~u
"3
'"
==
",.
u
~
'"
,
-<:
o
~
C,)
...
.s
OJ
:0
.00
'"
~
OJ
.J:l
o
-
-
8
'"
.8
8
E
OJ
'"
~
-
<=
OJ
u
e
]
"
.
:!
::
"
~
:g
~
:;:
"'
~
;;;
N
~
~
~
ci
-
~
.
<:
><
~
OJ
""
~
~
i:i
o
~
'"
c;;
'"
o
""
:::
i:l..
....
o
II
I':
8
OJ
~
i>'
~
'"
:;
..c:
U
01':....
~.$ 0
.- "t:3 .....
o I': ~
- OJ
~ ~ 0 CI}
B CIl a~
::i .5 '" 6
CI) =utr)
,~ d) l"
~...c::'-"
I': - I':
"l I': 0
looool 0';:::
o >, '"
~- c:-:::-
6 I': OJ ..
::s v:l t;
t..s 0 d) ._
uuo::>
i!l
<.l
..
...
~
[IJ
'"
]
u
~;'O
'~:.o ....
; 0 I': ~
u I:: ~ iU
.- Cl3 0 (I)
OJ CIl "" OJ
e::::
j .5 '" 6
--6 =ul.f)
;,;; >.:::~c
,<; 13.. I':
~ = .9
~o_
o >, '"
Oot- i::-
6 I': OJ .:g
::l '"
= 0 d) .~
uuo::>
00.,.,
001':0'1
.5 'E::::
f~]
OJ i:l.. ....
001 . r.E
OJ OJ
..c: 00"0
- .:g OJ
.5 en '3
... c:: a3
]8"5
.9 c.. U'}
~ 0 c=
.... Qj .9
OJ > -
~Cl)~
0"0 ""
-"0 6
01':0
Z '" <.)
~.,.,
Oll._ ~
.5 :: _
.~.~ :2
t:: OJ 6
OJ i:l.. ....
c.. .<8
OJ OJ
..c: 00"0
- '" OJ
1':--
._ en ::s
-"0
.;....... c: d)
",OJ..c:
I': 6 <.)
o "" '"
'.;:j 0 c:
L: 1> .sa
8.>-
o ~-a
-"0 6
01':0
Z '" <.)
ooll'i
001':0'1
I:: '.0 0\
'.:::.:::-
.~ E]
OJ i:l.. ....
Po. . r.E
OJ OJ
..c: 00"0
- '" OJ
1':--
._ tI) ::s
-"0
...:....... = d)
",OJ..c:
I': 6 <.)
o "" '"
',:: 0 c:
S"O.9
OJ > _
c..d)~
0"0 ""
-"0 6
01':0
Z '" <.)
'"
a
'"
-
'"
>,
:=:
'u
'"
~
'"
-
i 8.
....
.~
OJ
....
<<'l
~
o
"0
OJ
'"
o
""
:::
""
.,
""!
-~
..,
;
I
..,
1
Q
o
-
....
"
""
.,.,
C'l
~
..,
!
;
..,
I
1
J
-
c:s
'"
=
""
'"
Q
'"
:;
..c:
U
aba'O
.~;a ....
o I': ~
I': - OJ
~ '" 0 '"
~ CI) c.. IU
:a 8 ;.::
'<;1 .5 '" 6
~ ::: U.,.,
t.t:a.>t'
"O-"'~
I': .. I':
"l I': 0
to-ool 0'.0
o >, '"
c.......>-
~ 3 t> s
~ 0 a3 .~
uuo::>
~
.~
- '" I':
.0 I': '"
~ S <.>
.... c: 'C
H;2 8
e ._ __ <(
- 60 -0
~ ~!=: ::E
'"
-
~ 8.
~
.;
0"
~
<<'l
~
o
"0
OJ
'"
o
""
o
....
""
l
I
..,
..
Q
o
-
....
"
""
.,.,
C'l
~
'<t
,
<:
..,
~
'u
'"
~
c;;
'"
o
""
'"
o
~
-
..
- '" I':
.0 I': '"
r35.s u
.... c 'C
~6 a 8
.- -- -<
- 60 -0
~ ~!=: ::E
'"
=
OJ
6
~ <<'l
'S --
0"
~
8
o
"0
OJ
'"
o
""
o
....
""
""!
~
.~
- '" I':
.0 I': '"
Jl B <.)
.... c 'C
6OJOJ:: 8
.- -.. <
-60-0
~ ~!=: i
c
'u
'"
""
'"
U
"0
OJ
-
.~
OJ
i:l..
""!
""'!
Q
o
-
.,
....
"
""
.,.,
C'l
~
~
-
"
~
a
....
'"
2
OJ
!!
;:;
N
~
"
~
~
~
~
o
""
OJ
<::l
....
~ ~
.... 'a
8. ""
o E=
..,
..,
/7~~5
..,
,:j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<(
,~
11
8:
<(
'"'
1:l
o
~
'"
-
CO
'"
o
c.
8
~
.....
o
'"
d
'"
E
'"
r:'l
>,
~
~ ,S E
.~ ~ = 8
'""'"3t;::C,j.,.j
~ ..c:: -0 V,)
,- U ::0 '"
~Ej]
c: .- 0 >,.
O - ~ .on 0
- ":=00
~ c.= CIJ - "'"'"
4J "OlU~-
en ~:=> >.
j E,S 1:l ,
'" 8 .- S '2
- CI) r\ -
a c;.......",.~
.... >, 0 co >
~Q'2a~
CJ')=tid:=
_ O'..-l C1J..c:
~u>>u
'"'
=
0:1
5:
~
=
~
=
.-
oW
=
Q
U
'-'
~
'"
.-
;..
..
<1.l
CI)
::0
co
'"
';::
'"
E
<(
,
"t:l
~
"t:l
'"
<.:::
'u
8-
'"
-
o
Z
-
0:1
'"
Q
Q,
'"
S
o
00
-
'-'
co
'g -2
",t;
~>
~ > co
:a .5"3
j ?- 0
..........
11 0
j,€
5 0
,_ ::0
&~
:.8=
U E
>,
:.=
'u
'"
~~
.~ ~
~ ~
<is
~
o
,-
-
'"
....
'"
go
11 as
'" ~
"t:l 8
~ V,)
'@ ~
'" 0
~ z
'"
~
,S:!
]:
'"
'"
:c
'"
,S:!
]:
co
-
o
Z
-
o
Z
,i!l
~
,9
e
~
11
co
"'0
B
'~
~
.::;.
'u
'"
c.
'"
'"
"t:l
B >,
.~ ~ ~
'" 8 l>
"""- """
~S< ~
'20 B
'; si 8
Eo '<T
2 . .
- '" ....
Q
-
o
N
....
<8
'"
"'0
'> .
e~
Q..'u
~ a
"0 oS ~
~ c..~
'" ::0 0
B .9 ~
'" "'....
:.= c <':S
~ co '"
o 0.. >.
Z &J g
'" .;
:c :c
'" co
'" u
.- .-
"a"'S..
~ ~
- -
Q 0
Z Z
'"
-
'"
;;
, '"
~-
coil
~u
~ ~
\0 -
. c.
~ ~
o 0
!;:::!;:::
.5.5
- -
= ::0
~ ~
::0 ::0
u u
- -
<(<(
o
'"
~
,9
-
.-
"'0
~
....
<8
'"
:c
';;;
'"
o ,
c.~
, ::0 0
~ .g - ~
~ ~ 8 '"
>. Cl:S._ =
c.- ~
:&J] j
'"
-
'"
'"
~
8
B
'"
~
-
=
'"
E
'"
Ol)
~
'"
::s
B
'"
co
~
B ,~
= "'-
'" ",-
.... '5 :>'
.g '"
CI) .a 's
~~cn~
'"
~
u
,-
-
c.
~
-
o
Z
>,
-
.~
a :l; ~
"'0 .g ~ ....
~ .5'S .s
.~ >.'; e
~ ~~ 8-
/;1- fJ-? I (Of- S7
'"
a
'"
-
tf.l
g
.~
~
d
o
-
....
'"
c.
.,.,
N
~
'"
:c
'"
,S:!
]:
co
.,.,
,
<(
-
o
Z
d
o
-
~
....
'"
c.
.,.,
N
~
=
=
;I;
~
:g
..
"'
a:
w
~
"
N
8
~
~
"
'"
<.!:!
Ol)
=
'a.
"""
E::
..(
'1,
I
I'
.",'
,"
I:
'I
",:
'.
'I';
.' '
..."
, "
',,'>:'
"1'"
,
','
"'1' "
'.
,,'
""I'
, '
I
'I'
. '.'
, ,
,>;.-'
'.,'.
,
."'-
>1,
, ,
"
"'1'::"';
. ."
". ,. ~
" >\ :-',
, - (.,
"",1:';
" , '-'!
; .~.'.
, ,,~,
'I'
. .
'.1" "
,:;!,.
- ",,"-,:',:1,...
'I' :
"
,,'
'1",
, .
, ' ,
'I~:.;" . ',....
'; '>';~tl~~\i;2,~'i:
, ~;
';
. ,
".;'.'
,,'
,,'
"
,"
~ "':',
'~~ ;
, ~ ," ,-
"
~,':':(
.:~'~~
...;,",
"'.,
, ,
~ "
,;" """,
'" ~ '\" -:: '
>,c,
'.
,.
"'P';,:,
"<,4:';
,'.-
..;',,:''''
~~r@~:,;};;;:\~"".":
~ '1
','" <, "." -. ",'
'" 1'" .-. -, ' ,':~"'.., .. " " . .
':j ; \ . 1 , ~" J '".:' :;'. '
.,;A~~'.~:2;S:~::/+'..""
" , ,."oJ': .'> :",.\'t~l~~_,')
"I':: _,',~~~,' '<,.':.;~t'.':'~L""}~"'>'~" "., ;' '~"-'1:",; _)'_~':'F'_~_
". <,\ - f:.:'-,,:;(,,"'" ~":,,.', ,'- '.
:~'i::""'-' '. ~ '", - ,,'~:~ ~ - ~ ^'
. :' -),.,,:.', ,
",:
...
",;
.",'
'.
-'J,;'
"
,:."
"""
,,"",.
:..:
,.....
',:.".-
"','
,~. '"
\".
.' "
, ..:~
,.,
,,'
','
~, ~
';;'.
'j.:"',
_'-t t
.. ~:>~:~:' ."
,..v"r
',.
"< ~ .. '" ( ,
~. ,~',.. .
:-~
';
, ~:t
,':'
"f;,' ..'.;',": IV" ""
-, , ,,; .~ ~"
,c
~'<1 ",'
'"
~ "
,,'
'::"rr:!;~/" .
"-".",
-1 .- ~'
.:\(.
,<.'
~'1:~~),\
, .
"
.,
"'..';,
-"i'~':":
',\:1
.,-,'
,,',
. ~ ~ ,''''
',.'"
" "
'" -.,
;,
'<"
"1,'<
",','
,-,-'.
".
, "
.. ,~, ..
Jd ""<
'J,',:" .: :~, "
:>'~
~;
,.
,: '/.,
.,...;....
"
..r, ,~
,"
" , ~.
:,.-;,-'
,.
,;!
,l-.
'to,'
,';' of,'
'''!.'
"".
",'
t, .'
,,'
--..:'
,,"
;~ ';
,..,'
"
:.."~ ~
'<,"';
. ~,.'
"
,,-.-.,-
,
o
"
~
~"-<:~ ,.<
'.'
'oj'"
," ,
.", '.';'.
.':
.,~ '
.~ J
. .,', '~ .-
"','.
-<; ".'
'.'.
',' ,
'.,'"
;.'
"
.. "
','..
:.:,f.",'
'\' ."
:' ,~ ' : '~,;
,{. *,~:._,,.! ,,'
~,.,~~:',':j. ;~' .'
,r 'J.' ,.,'~.~,/~;:ii.~~~,/:, "":,,
{ . ." > . . ~ -(~;;, );~~::.,:"~;
.;'.~.,',J,::,,"~~:i;~;:~:}.~?;,:>~.~,:. "'::'
'" ~ .,-~/i;I/.li._ _~III"" ";;.>.'f. .~~~_.
-', ~
;.:,J
'..,-
~ '
..'}'-.,
;,
" ~ .- { , ..
-',','
,
~"
,
,,"
'"
..'
,..,'
, "
" ~
,;.,
" ,
..
,r,.
",
'~" ,
">C" _'
"
,: ~,:
"" ;,
"
'"
. ~, .-
.,~,
"
,", "
:",'
.,
"."..
~ ~ .
;,'
.' '
,
"
.
',',
.>-..,:c
"
,""
"
.",
,',
,
, ~ '
.',
'.,.
,~ ,:-.'
.,' c"
, 'I~"
,
.,
"
,-.
.'
:.' , , ~ '
"
,--"..
f_'~'
,>'
,',
~, .'
t,,'
-'v
~'.
._,1 <, , I
j
j
, ,
I ('-' I
I c :/
j ,
, h
I I
I
l'
i ,
,
"
j
! I
,
I "
L' :
, -I't
i ,-; I
I ,:-'<
, ., .
, ".
I ]
I
1
',i.
" I
, .
I "
,
I I
'-', ,
"''', ",
,
. I
, " ,
I
j ",' ..
I ,..,'" I
I _:J>;
,,'
l
,
I " "
,
, i," <",
,
I I'
i ,'~
1 " '.
, " I
1
! , ~'
i
!
J , I
I ;/
I .
,
I ..
j ,-;
j .. I
,
j
! ',1,
,< ,
1'- --I
I ,
j ,
1 .'
I .,
j .. , I
j
I
I " .... I
" "
" ..
I .
! .' I
" .<
"
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'
" "'
.Q (])
i: "
,,"-
Cl)0l
_c
~'a
008.9-
",f-
=ai5-g
C"O '"
" C "'
25:ca1i}
<(:f8
"'"0
:c "
..:"'
,*8.
c e
i!!a..
f-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g ~ ~
x~~
.~>
"'u_
,=<
"::Q;
E
1:"'; a)
o ~ C
~.c(U
c.?t.o
2~
""Dj
E
g:i 9
X ~ e
. ~ rn
"'u"
" 0
....-
o
II
10
0:
.s
"
.
"
l>> ii:; ~
~.2 ~ e
CD ~ lU
E u"
~ < 2 0
011--
t;:g
,'3=<
:J;..;g,!
~ ~~
j:Ee
" -
o 0
:;;z
u
,
,=
~ &..~
'5~~
j U E
.s (;
~z
u
,
,=
(Q=:)C')_.
MN<:nNlr.I
0::1,"".,,":\1').6
0(\1<00)_
<<)(')<<)0)*
ltl\l1Nr--
"'f"~":"':
.. .. ..
COIOM_..,.
MNOINIO
=.t--.....o \1'). ci
0('\,1(1)0)-
(QC"'l(Q0l*
l()\nNI'.
'Of'.*.......,:
.. .. ..
(QCOM ..,.
MNOtN\I')
(C. 1'-. "':.l/). 0::)
ON(Qa)....
eoC?(QO)~
\()It')C\l1''--
..,.........:..:
.. .. ..
00000
00<0(00:>>
o.cc.m."':.ll':i
.-OC\l.w.
..,._Nt')
It)''''<OQ
ri~"*"':
.. ..
0(')0..,.....
O<Dmll')(Q
0.(0. ~(Q_a::i
\00<0,...
0)<00<0...,.
C\ICO...,.N
1"-""" N~';
.. .. ..
OMO""r-.
OlD(l)lI')<D
o.a:I.cn.~a::i
\DOCO/'o._
0)(00<0....
NCO..,.C\1
,..:* N- M-
.. ....
]j _'2
c.. :g.9
lU ()~
~S(,):iiii;
3(g-g~~.S!
16 (J..!::! c: Ol
~~~~i~
'ii;~~~~~
o
rn
,=
OOOONNO
............*I"-Ol(O
o ._
.",
0'"
.. ..
0000(\/00
w.__"""r-...,.o
o ._
....
0_
.. ..
OOOON<O..,.
............01"-""""""
00 .
. .0
"0_
"'....
"'.
..
OC:OInC'),.....,...,.
O..,.....N<0 <:>>,...
o. "':. to. _. '"':...:
MMr-....O....
0)..,...,.0).......
"""<00
..:......: N-
.. .. ..
OOl()lnMr-.O
*.w...,...,.r--,.,...co
~lI')_",:...: ..-
..,.."OM
1I')1t)...._
......
lO-1ri
.. ..
00 "'''or M <:)..,.
""""(0 (0"" CO""
C') (").... ..
.. .. . N
(DIDO_
MM........
"''''
Nt',j
.. ..
"
.!!
g
]I' "C
E E
- 1.-:::1
g 'lii 5 g ~
i g~~:
Ul$O~___o
~ ~ "C.., ~ QJ al :a
"c: 0 ~ 0 ~ oS!.!.i
Q) iii 'iii ItS gt~'O
~-a.~g-;Q..i5.:;
~~~~~~~:2
,
.
:I:
/9-- ~~
o
o
,,;
'"
..
~
...
;;;
..
o
o
"'
~
"'
~
o
..
o
o
,,;
'"
..
o
o
"'
'"
"
~
'"
..
...
~
'"
~
..
o
o
,,;
'"
..
o 0
" 0
<D '"
... '"
.. 0
:'
o
o
,,;
N
..
... 0
'" 0
oj 0
... ~
.. '"
...
~
..
o
o
,,;
'"
..
... '"
'" ~
.. ~
~ <D
.. ~
o
"
;;
o
o
,,;
'"
..
~ 0
... 0
<D '"
'" '"
.. '"
'"
~
..
;;
o
o
0.
o
is
~
.
~
~
.
o
E
o
o
o
0- "'
o ~
~ ~
'8
"
;;
,
o
o
'"
;;
'5
....
.
.
u.
'"
.so
0.
0.
>=
;;
'5
....
I
"
...
~
I
a
'"
,
0>
'"
"
'"
"
~
;!
;!
w
~
;;
'"
"
o
"
0>
;<
~
u.
"1'
'"
" '"
.\1 "
~ "
,,"-
C/l0l
C
::: m '0..
58.9-
"",I-
-'-'"0
co Cl c
x" '"
t5~2
c '"
Q) _- 0
o.=><..l
0.'""
<I",
'"
~8.
c e
"'0...
,::
~~~
~..:.:>
g:@
'::1);
.9
o , 0
o rO E
'0.00
'3)..:.::.0
'" 0 0
'",
~D:i
.9
nr
<( >< .c E
>Q).;:.;:tll
lDCI)(,;lO
2 0
.Q ....-
"
"
..
S
~ ~ '5 g
(.).g ~ E
III ell":':: rn
rO E DO
III <( 2 0
0011--
0"
">!
3 S g
~ ~~
(is:C rOE
~"
o is
-z
~
o
,
.::
~ &g
i3~~
jQ~
.2 0
~z
o
,
.::
"'OiOO~"'~
M'*.....OCO"'"O
co MO_<c(')
o' ..; o' C":I oi M"
ex) ",""ONO)'<t
\0 -- \0 C\I N .....
'<t" ..: ~*
.. ....
"'OiOo~m..
M""".....O'<tO\O
co <:')010__
o' '<t" o' \0 eo..i ""
(lQ "-'O,",C\It")
II) '-'10... C\I .....
.. ..-....
.. - '"
.. ....
g:!o(()'o~m~
M~""O""O(l)
ca MO_<DC\I
o' ..; 0............_"
co ~OC\lo)M
\0 '-'10.............
..; ....- ~"""
.. ....
OSO'O~_"
000000/'0.
OOaO<:C<C\D
..: o' (c" o' M co' aj
","0100010""
\0"'''''''\0_<0\0
.. """ --.. .. """
M_ ... ..,.
.. ....
OSSO"'~"''''
0000<010",,"
aOOOMMC\I
!D" o' o' o' C\I rri cD
0)\0000'<1'0)
C\IC\l...\oM.....r--.
r-.-C',ie":~(D-*
*~ """ """
osso~_~
00000)0)'0/"
OOOO\O\OlD
(C- o' o' o' co ,,</,'_-
O)L()OO","C\IlX1
NC\I-ll)'-lDl"--
......Ne..: f/J-*
.-.e. """ *
"
o
.
o
0.
o
"Ci.
OJ) 0) ~
:3..s: c
0.- 0
~e~ ~2
~ 0.. QI (.,l;g
0..$ (,l (I) ~ 0 lli
e;gi"iiilll:!'[
Q.oiig.:.c:
~2"C~"C~'~cr
(,l <II c:: () c: 1: 0 "C
.~ 8.:! rO!!! C\I"O ~
~lliZl~~~.!:;
Cii .'a.j.3 c:: a::.2. ~
'ti(g 3i~
o
o
.::
0>
.s
;;;
2)
~O~
mo..
"'0'"
<D-O cD
~~ .....
.. ;;;
~~~
mom
"'0'"
'DO 0 (D-
"'.....
C\!. ""':
.. ..
"'~~
mom
"'0'"
ctiocti
"'.....
~ '":
.. ..
~~:i5
m m
0" 0
N N
'" '"
.. ..
a:~8
m ..
co- te"
o 0
.. ..
N r:l,i
.. ..
~Slg
m ..
<Ii co'
o 0
.. ..
N N
.. ..
::!
..
00
.
0;;
2) ,
::E" E
..0",
oS"
- . 0
~ ~ (jj
c.... ,2.
o "
'" '"
"'...
....
0_ 0
o-
N"
".
;:;
00 "ro 0
*....0........
o
"
o
'"
o
o
"-
'"
~
~
..
..
O~NO
o..,O)o;t!
O.""':.n -
"'ON
~....
~
..
..
o
o
.,;
N
..
o
o
.,;
N
..
o
o
.,;
N
..
o
o
.,;
N
..
o
o
.,;
N
..
o
o
.,;
N
..
;;
.
o
0.
.
is
/'1 '':57 / /CJ - q()
"'N
..m
m .
.0
0_
- ..
m.
;;;
00 oro 0
........'0........
o
"
.
'"
o
o
o
o.
N
~
oj
..
O~OO
O~..,O
0_ '_
. ...
00-
N....
~
oj
..
m
~
;0
..
N
~
o
~
..
'"
~
<ri
..
..
~
~
"
..
..
...
..
..
...
..
N
o
<ri
~
..
.
o
8
o
o
o
" ~
o ...
~ ~
~ '8
~ "
0>
.0
0.
0.
>=
(; (;
'0 '0
.... ....
"'!
,
~
.~
...
""I
i
j
'"
m
o
..
~o
~m
<::0
'" -
0"
".
;:;
00 "'00
'104....'0........
o
"
o
'"
o
o
o.
~
'"
"'.
;;;
O""'(Dlr.I
0..,..........
0_ .
. .0
~O_
"'....
"'.
;:;
-
~
'"
~
..
"'"
....
~~
"!.cD
0"
~
;;;
00' 010 0
~~g~~
~~~;;~
:-eCl):~
.. ..
~
...
~.
...
..
~.
;:;
lnO""''''''
In(QCO.....
(D."",:,..:
NO_
... ....
o
N'
..
...
..
m
~
o
'"
:l
...
"'0
~~
N .
.'"
~-
0"
N
"
..
000100
........0........
o
"
"
'"
~
..
~-
..
~
..
.,;
..
lnM.....O
""',.......0;0
~""':,..:-
..o~
~....
..
.,;
..
'"
~
o
'"
~
.;
..
-
,
,
i
~N
~N
<O.a::i
"'-
:!"
~.
..
002)0100
........ ........
o
"
o
'"
..
~
"-
'"
~
N
oj
..
""'MO"'"
<0""'00"'"
~ - .
. . N
"'0_
~....
N
oj
..
"
.2
;;
;;;
:;
;;;
c
g
o
:;
.E
.
;;;
o
o
0>
.s
;;;
2)
o
o
o
o
a
"
o
o
.
"
:;
.E
"
"
"
"
o
.E
"
:;
0>
.s
.,;
o
.0
.E
.
;;;
o
u
'"
.s
;;;
2)
o
u
Ii
a
o
o
o
.
"
.0
....
0;
a
z
...
,
,
,
'"
"
N
'"
'"
...
..
N
,
'"
...
_ 0
. 0
0_
0"
-;j;
, 0
c_
o 0>
o 0
(;0..
'5 os.
........
"
o 0>
~.s
0.-
e~
a."
0>0
o 0
- 0
l3a.1Il
;~g
g ~ 0 7ii
;g~]!-a
1Ilg.:g0..~
~Q)8~~"O
':> 8 <1l C\l"O ~
- _ III III lU =
~ ~ ~.::! t; ~
~ g..... a..:6- g
30 <(<
o
:I:
::!
..
o
;;
,
o
o
'"
.-
..
g
~ "0
oe E
, -,
_ celli
III 0 0 III
O.!:::..!:::.<'ll
O....iA-lU
-'-''-'0
as Q) = c
g.!.!$
~ ~ ~s
ell Q,Q,"5
~ ~~~
""!
j
'"
'"
...
N
~
o
~
;;;
,
~
'"
m
"
o
'"
m
..
""!
-
..
m
,
Ci.
'"
I
m
N
~
:.:
;;:
~
~
w
:!!
;;
N
~
o
~
..
;f
:!!
u:
~
....
1
"'l
;;
,
c
o
'"
"'I
..,
"'"
i
I
.,
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
'1." .'
'. -'
I....
I
I
'-';.-''''- <..,...-,'
..},
~'C
.,- .'" 'I'>
~ J
_~1JfP~~j.m,,~
'"
i,',
,',
'-.,i
Jz;-'r;t2
,f'-
,",'.
"
'\',
".-"
, --,-;-;~ y
i
,
,
,
!
,
1
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
, "
I
j
I
~' .
I
,]
)
I
J
]
]
]
1
]
]
]
]
.]
]
!
3
]
3
J
I
i
I
I
,
\
!
i
j
,
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
,
i
I
I
i
J
I
1
i
,
j
l
i
i
j
I
i
j
I
1
I
!
1
1
I
j
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
i
I
i
"'
',.'Y
, ,~..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
DETAILED EV ALUA TION CRITERIA
QUALIFICATIONS
I. Company Qualifications. Demonstrated experience providing similar services in a
comparable-sized service area.
Low - Inadequate level of relevant experience in key aspects of the project.
Medium - Relevant experience in some but not all of the key aspects of the proposed
project.
Hie:h - Relevant experience consistently demonstrated for all aspects of the proposed
project.
2. Joint Venture and Teaming Arrangements. Teaming arrangements add strength to the
project or proposer does not propose team and is strong without teaming arrangements.
Low - Teaming arrangement adds no strength to the project. Team members do not have
demonstrated successful past working relationships.
Medium - Teaming arrangement adds strength to the project. Team members have some
experience working on projects together.
Hie:h - Team members have extensive experience working together on other projects;
teaming arrangement adds strength to the project. Proposer does not propose team and
is strong without teaming arrangements.
3. Staff Qualifications. Background of individual team members provides proven technical,
operational and managerial experience needed to handle the proposed services.
Low - Experience of key personnel inadequate in key job categories of proposed project.
Medium - Experience of key personnel appears adequate and may be sufficient to
undertake proposed project.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 11:11 am
C-I
/1"? /
"'"
...
Hil!:h - Key personnel have demonstrated (over 5 years) technical and managerial
experience needed to handle the proposed service.
...
4.
Understanding of Local Conditions. Extent to which proposer has a good
understanding of the local solid waste management conditions in Chula Vista.
....
,
Low - Did not demonstrate knowledge of and sensitivity to local area or local concerns.
...
Medium - Adequate understanding of local area and local concerns.
...
Hil!:h - High level of understanding of local concerns.
...
5.
Client Relationship. Client references demonstrate proposer's ability to maintain
long-term relationships with municipalities, including cooperation in providing requested
information in a timely manner and avoidance of litigation and arbitration in settling
disputes.
...
...
Low - Client references did not provide positive indication regarding the proposer's
ability to have a successful working relationship or no references were provided.
...
Medium - Client references did not identify any particular concerns.
....
High - Client references indicated that the proposer has the ability to work successfully
with municipalities and the reference would be willing to work with the proposer again. ...
6.
Minority, Women, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. Documented success in
obtaining minority, women, and disadvantaged businesses subcontractors' participation.
...
Low - Proposer has not included any minority, women, and disadvantaged businesses
subcontractors in the proposal and did not indicate that they made an effort to do so.
....
-
Medium - Proposer has not included any minority, women, and disadvantaged businesses
subcontractors in the proposal; however, indicated that they attempted to identify
businesses or indicated willingness to use minority, women, and disadvantaged businesses
subcontractors in the future.
...
...
Hil!:h - Proposer has included one or more minority, women, and disadvantaged
businesses subcontractors in the proposal.
..
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 11:11 am
C-2
/1- )~
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECHNICAL - TRANSFER SERVICES
1. Methodology. Proposed method or technology has been successfully operating in
projects of similar scale for at least two years. Overall methodology appears technically
viable and proposed services are compatible with the City's needs and service standards.
Low - Technology/methodology proposed is being used in fewer than two similar projects
for two years. or the proposed service method is not compatible with the City's needs and
service standards.
Medium - Technology/methodology proposed has been successfully applied in at least two
similar projects for two years, and the proposed service method is reasonably compatible
with the City's needs and service standards.
Hil!:h - Technology/methodology proposed has been applied successfully in extensive
number of similar projects for more than two years, and the proposed service method is
highly compatible with the City's needs and service standards.
2. Facility Capacity. The proposed facility has adequate capacity for the City's waste
stream.
Low - Facility capacity is not addressed at the level required (Le., 150,000 tons per year
up to 250,000 tons per year). Facility design can not accommodate projected capacity.
Medium - Facility design can provide the processing capacity to fulfIll the fIrst year
requirement (Le., 175,000 tons per year) but does not have adequate capacity to provide
for the fInal year of the contract term (Le., up to 250,000 tons per year).
Hil!:h - Facility design can provide the processing capacity to fulfIll the City's
requirements (Le., 175,000 tons per year for the fIrst year of operations and up to
250,000 tons per year at the end of the contract term) and has contingency capacity.
3. Materials Recovery. The proposed facility design offers a sound method for providing
reasonable levels of materials recovery capabilities.
Low - Proposed expansion plan for the transfer station, materials recovery technology,
and proposed processing equipment cannot feasibly recover the types and quantities of
materials specifIed (i.e., 20 to 25 percent of the waste received at the facility).
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05/04194 11:11 am
C-3
/1-1 J
.,
...
Medium - Proposed expansion plan for the transfer station, materials recovery
technology, and proposed processing equipment may feasibly recover the types and
quantities of materials specified (i.e., 20 to 25 percent of the waste received at the
facility); however, it is difficult to make a detailed assessment.
...
.,
High - Proposed expansion plan for the transfer station, materials recovery technology
and proposed processing equipment can feasibly recover the types and quantities of
materials specified (i.e., 20 to 25 percent of the waste received at the facility).
...
4.
Marketing Strategy. The marketing strategy presents a sound policy for marketing
recovered materials and shows a commitment to meeting AB 939 requirements.
""l
-
Low - The marketing goals and objectives were not addressed; or the proposer has no
relevant marketing experience.
...
Medium - The marketing goals and objectives were addressed; however, the plan does
not seem practical. The proposer has little relevant marketing experience.
""l
High - The marketing goals and objectives were addressed and the policy has the
ingredients for a successful program designed to address AB 939 diversion requirements.
The proposer has extensive relevant marketing experience.
...
..
TECHNICAL - HAULING SERVICES
...
5.
Hauling Methods and Procedures. The proposer provides a reasonable plan for hauling
waste that is compatible with transfer and disposal options.
..
Low - The hauling method does not provide a sound method for transporting waste or
the hauling method is not described in sufficient detail to make an assessment.
...
Medium - The hauling method provides a reasonable method for transporting waste but
has limitations relating to its compatibility with the transfer and disposal options.
-
High - The hauling method provides a reasonable method for transporting waste with
flexibility to work with any type of transfer or disposal option.
...
..
..
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05/04/94 lL11 am
C-4
/9-c;f
-
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Hauling Information. Ability of the hauling proposal (i.e., number of vehicles,
containers, trips per day, capacity, hours per day, etc.) to adequately serve Chula Vista's
needs.
Low - The proposal does not clearly defme the hauling information or the outlined
information is not realistic or feasible.
Medium - The proposal includes the hauling information and it appears reasonable.
Hil!:h - The proposal includes the hauling information and it appears to be particularly
well-suited for Chula Vista.
3. Contingency Plan, A contingency plan is presented and offers reasonable assurance that
waste can be transported to the disposal site under challenging circumstances (e. g. ,
vehicle breakdown, traffic congestion, or other disruptions).
Low - The proposed contingency plan does not seem to present a sound program for
meeting unanticipated events, or the proposed contingency plan is not provided in
sufficient detail to make an assessment of its reasonableness.
Hil!:h - The proposed contingency plan present a sound, reliable solution to challenging
circumstances.
TECHNICAL - DISPOSAL SERVICES
1. Disposal Capacity. Disposal capacity can be guaranteed for Chula Vista based on
permitted capacity, current inflow, other contractual obligations, and import restrictions.
Low - The proposal did not offer a guarantee for disposal capacity sufficient to meet the
City's needs (up to 250,000 tons per year); or the disposal site conditions (e.g., permitted
capacity, other contractual obligations, etc.) are questionable as to whether the capacity
guaranteed by the proposer can be met.
Medium - The proposal offers a guarantee for disposal capacity sufficient to meet the
City's needs (up to 250,000 tons per year); however, it is unclear as to the ability of the
proposer to fulfill this obligation due to disposal site conditions (e.g., permitted capacity,
other contractual obligations, etc.).
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 11:11 am
C-5
) 9 -9 ~
""
...
Hil!h - The proposal offers a guarantee for disposal capacity sufficient to meet the City's
needs (up to 250,000 tons per year) and the disposal site conditions (e.g., permitted
capacity, other contractual obligations, etc.) appear to adequately allow the proposer to
fulfill these obligations.
...
...
2.
Disposal Facility Status. Ability of the site to provide a sound method of disposal (e.g.,
meets Subtitle D requirements, does not have significant enforcement action or orders
against the site).
...
Low - The status of the disposal facility is questionable or insufficient information has
been provided in the proposal to make an assessment.
...
"'"
Hil!h - The disposal facility provides a sound method of disposal.
..
3. Indemnification. Extent to which the disposal site owner is willing to hold Chula Vista
harmless for any problems that may arise at the disposal site in the future.
..
Low - The proposal does not offer any sort of indemnification.
..
Medium - The proposal offers Chula Vista some level of indemnification; however, the
indemnification offer is limited in nature.
...
Hil!h - The proposal offers Chula Vista full indemnification from environmental and
regulatory issues that may arise in the future including problems related to the ...
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
,
4. Tipping Fee. Extent to which the tipping fee is predictable over the term of the contract.
..
Low - The proposal does not offer a tipping fee adjusttnent mechanism that allows the
City to predict its costs over the term of the contract, or the proposal does not identify
any events that may trigger an increase in the tipping fee.
'""I
..
Medium - The proposal identifies the events that may trigger an increase in the tipping
fee.
..,
.
Hil!h - The proposal identifies an annual adjusttnent mechanism or formula for the tipping
fee that allows the City to predict its costs over the term of the contract.
..
""!
G:\WPC\93032\01\REPORT 05/04/94 11:11 am
C-6
/7---7~
...
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL
1. Environmental Issues. Extent to which proposer addresses all environmental issues
(such as air emissions, dust, vectors, noise, and traffic) and mitigation measures.
.!.mY - Environmental issues are poorly addressed.
Hilzh - Environmental issues, including mitigation measures, are fully discussed.
2. Hazardous Waste Management. Clearly define identification, handling, and disposal
procedures for hazardous waste that will adequately protect employees and properties
from contamination or danger.
Low - Did not adequately describe a hazardous waste management plan.
Hilzh - Described plan for hazardous waste management identification, handling, and
storage and accepts management responsibilities.
CONTRACTUAL
1. Terms of Contract. Extent to which the proposer is willing to accept the terms outlined
in Section 4 and other portions of the RFP.
Low - The proposer took significant exceptions to the proposed contractual terms.
High - The proposer took a no or minor exceptions to the proposed contractual terms.
2. Risk allocation. Extent to which the proposer accepted the risk management proposal
and has demonstrated capacity to handle such risks.
.!.mY - The proposer is not willing to accept any risk associated with the project.
Medium - The proposer is willing to accept a reasonable amount of risk associated with
the project; however, does not seem to have the capacity or experience to handle such
risk.
High - The proposer is willing to accept a reasonable amount of risk associated with the
project and has demonstrated capacity to handle such risk.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 11:11 am
C-7
/1 - /7
~
"'"
3.
Project Schedule. Implementation schedule is reasonable and provides the services
within the City's requested timeframe.
..
Low - Project schedule is unrealistic or does not respond to the City's needs.
""!
Medium - Project schedule does not offer a near-term solution, but does offer a long-term
solution.
...
Hilzh - Project schedule meets the City's needs and provides both a near-term and long-
term solution.
...
FINANCIAL
""'I
1.
Financial Strength. Financial ability to take on the contract.
..
Low - Annual revenues for the last five years are not less than the anticipated revenue
of the contract; net worth is less than the anticipated capital costs for implementation of
the services; or the company has not been profitable over past five years or has been
profitable over past five years with less than three of those years showing a profit.
""'I
...
Medium - Annual revenues for the last five years are approximately equal to the
anticipated revenue of the contract; net worth is approximately equal to the anticipated
capital costs expected over the term of contract; or the company has been profitable over
past five years or has been profitable over past five years with less than three of those
years showing a profit.
...
...
Hilzh - Annual revenues for the last five years are well above the anticipated revenue of
the contract; net worth is well above the anticipated capital costs expected over the term
of contract; and the company has been profitable over past five years or profitable over
past five years with three or more of those years showing a profit.
..
...
...
2. Financing Method. Ability of proposed financing plan to meet the needs of the City.
Low - The financing method does not seem realistic, implementable, or attainable; or was
not clearly defined.
...
.
-
Hilzh - The financing method is reasonable and implementable.
...
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04/94 11:11 am
C-8
/7-ifS
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COST PROPOSAL
1. Reasonableness. The cost proposal is comprehensive (covers all expected costs) and is
reasonable.
~ - Cost proposal is not comprehensive or is unreasonable for the type of services
proposed.
High - Cost proposal is comprehensive and costs are reasonable for the type of services
proposed.
2. Competitiveness. The relative competitiveness compared to other proposals.
~ - Cost proposal does not offer the lowest or second lowest price option.
Medium - Cost proposal offers the second lowest price option.
High - Cost proposal offers the lowest price option.
G:\WPC\93032\Ol\REPORT 05/04194 11:11 am
C-9
/'J -77// 6t -! tJ 0
'I
I
I
,I
I:
"
,I
:1,:
, c.,
I
,I,
o "_
;,1
;<.
'I""
"', , ..
I
'I:
I
I
,:1
I:
I
I
LI::
,.;
'-",;-
, r:'~ibi;it'fj~~2-1'
"
~
""
~'.
,.,",' ....."
!'~1X-n'
,':",',"":;"',":''',- ,",\-'
'.~~;~"$!',ti:Nt~9("ijvAtV.""()N':
. :,<>.. .;,', .. ". ,':.... ',.:' ,.c_>. ,_ , ,"'-, ".,' '" .... ".~. '.: ,-, ,;,'" , .. ..
"
..,I-c'
',_"i
'i~
,'.
<;~':
: ~
"
0,
"F.'
.,'"
/'.
:i
.,
. '
,.- ~
.;:.;
.j.,
'~.'
;.,;'"
,-
r"
{'
"'1
l'
',4
. ' ,
'I'" <;:+'-","/,:, ~'" > '
:",' I', 'TV.V
,.., ,',
j:'.,,'~,.
;;,0
"- ,.'
'-CO
I
I Appendix D
Preliminary Scores of Detailed Evaluation
I Criteria Evaluation Results
Factor Laidlaw Mid-American Sexton
I QUALIFICATIONS
1. Company qualifications 4 3 3 3
2. Joint venture and teaming arrangements 2 2 2 3
I 3. Staff qualifications 4 3 2 3
4. Understanding of local conditions 3 3 2 3
5. Client relationship 1 3 2 3
6. Minority, women and disadvantaged business 1 2 3 3
I TECHNICAL - TRANSFER SERVICES
1. Methodology 6 2 2 2
I 2. Facility capacity 6 3 2 3
3. Materials recovery 5 2 1 3
4. Marketing strategy 3 3 1 2
I TECHNICAL - HAULING SERVICES
1. Hauling method and procedures 4 3 3 3
2. Hauling information 4 1 1 3
I 3. Contingency plan 2 2 1 3
TECHNICAL - DISPOSAL SERVICES
1. Disposal capacity 5 2 2 2
I 2. Disposal facility status 3 3 3 3
3. Indemnification 5 2 1 1
4. Tipping fee 2 2 2 2
I ENVIRONMENTAL
1. Environmental issues 3 3 1 3
2. Hazardous waste management 2 3 1 3
I
CONTRACTUAL
1. Terms of contract 3 3 1 3
I 2. Risk allocation 3 3 3 3
3. Project schedule 4 3 3 3
I FINANCIAL
1. Financial strength 6 2 3 3
2. Financing method 4 3 3 3
I SUBTOTAL SCORE 85 61 48 66
SUBTOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE
213 172 229
I COST PROPOSAL
1. Reasonableness 7 t 1 3
2. Competitiveness 8 2 2 3
I TOTAL SCORE 100 64 51 72
I WEIGHTED SCORE 236 195 274
/'7 -JIJ/ j;q-ItJ'Z--
I F:\SW\93032.0t\SCORESWK3 04-May-94 0-1
..'1""
, ,
.1
I'
I
I
:1
..1....
". ..
I
I
I
"'I"
, ,.
I
,
'I
,I
I
I.
I
I
-,,;
"" .~
,
"
0,
"
~::&."
!' >'.." -~. ; "': .. ,-' . .... ,.., " '.,
'ftNAL sroaariF"TBiDiFJrAlt.liO tWALVATlON
;,.-, -',"" ,,,.,. '~'>f":';" .. :,.,":' .0' ,..... J.... "., .....,:..:.__":,, .,:.<-". '.~.' ',- ':.; :.'" ,...... .,",
, ,
" .!
;;.'
" ,
,
,~.
"
,t-
"':
"r"-"
''.;;'
,
o
',;
';'j
;'
'!~'
',j.
,)
:>'
"'./
<.;.
. : ,:~'
">
,)~p lb..."!' ,....'
:/.',~' 'T. " ~.
,!" ~":~.'~.';':: " ._.'-"
~y'
';:-"
-":/
~" .
,'\"
"
-",,;::..n
.
.~, :
I
I Appendix E
Final Scores of Detailed Evaluation
I Criteria Evaluation Results
Factor Laidlaw Mid-American Sexton
I QUALIFICATIONS
1. Company qualifications 4 3 3 3
2. Joint venture and teaming arrangements 2 1 2 3
I 3. Staff qualifications 4 1 2 3
4. Understanding of local conditions 3 3 2 3
5. Client relationship 1 3 2 3
6. Minority, women and disadvanlaged business 1 2 3 3
I TECHNICAL - TRANSFER SERVICES
1. Methodology 6 2 2 2
I 2. Facility capacity 6 3 2 3
3. Materials recovery 5 2 1 3
4. Marketing strategy 3 3 1 2
I TECHNICAL - HAULING SERVICES
1. Hauling method and procedures 4 3 3 3
2. Hauling information 4 1 1 3
I 3. Contingency plan 2 2 1 3
TECHNICAL - DISPOSAL SERVICES
1. Disposal capacity 5 3 2 3
I 2. Disposal facility status 3 3 3 3
3. Indemn~ication 5 2 2 2
4. Tipping fee 2 2 2 2
I ENVIRONMENTAL
1. Environmental issues 3 3 2 3
2. Hazardous waste management 2 3 1 3
I CONTRACTUAL
1. Terms of contract 3 3 1 3
I 2. Risk allocation 3 3 3 3
3. Project schedule 4 3 3 3
FINANCIAL
I 1. Financial strength 6 2 3 3
2. Financing method 4 3 3 3
I SUBTOTAL SCORE 85 59 50 68
SUBTOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE 208 180 239
I COST PROPOSAL
1. Reasonableness 7 1 1 3
2. Competitiveness 8 1 2 3
I TOTAL SCORE 100 61 53 74
WEIGHTED SCORE 223 203 284
I /9/ /tJ3 (ID t{
F:\SW\93032.01\SCORESWK3 04-May-94 E-l \
I
I
I
I
:"
'.'
I,"
"
;1
I' '
. ,-"-
,,"
I
"
..,.
'I: .
t
:1",
,- '-
--T
I
:1
'I
,I
. " --::,...i;'
';,~1:;
";
"
,-'
:~lXF
~"."",.....,..,
, "AN" ms....'" .."" "
, , ' ...1<" ,~_u.o:~'
,'., .",~.,' ,.,. ,.Q.Li"'~~'~~I'" l
.', ::,-,;- '," :';','" ,"'--,~:),,;;"';<"" ,..:>'.",', '
"r;..
'"
;l:
;,{
"
.; . I~
,.
,
{' ,;.
'...'
'Ii
,.<.,
\"
"
"
~;.
':-'
"
"0:-
'-:,,','
.; ,
i~/1/!l1
~ .",
:-.-,",.(,
f. "
.,',
'j,'
"
,.."
~.., < .
,,~,
-'
..;t,.'
':'/
',,~
. 'Ii',
"
, -,'
,'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '"
,~ 'lii
'" 0
u.. >'()
I )( t1l E
'!l~'"
c:: 0 (;)
:!i 'E (fl
I 0.0>.
":c:_
o c:
" "
w 0
()
I
I
I
I
I
0
."
I >-
..
C
<(
~
0
~
I ()
~
0
~
CD
I
~ ~~g
000
0 ":...."0'
it 000
M.C\{....
- -
0 ",00
'" ~O
000
0 ....:"':0
it 000
~~_....
- -
g ~~g
;; 000
....-...:0.
it 000
"'_N_....
- -
0 ~:ig
<; 000
0 ""-.':0'
it 000
<'1.<:\1__
- -
!:! ",00
~O
m 000
m "':"':0
it 000
'".C\!.....
- -
~ ~*g
= 000
m ":"':0
it 000
M.C'I!.-
- -
~ 000
~~O
~ 000
m "':"":0'
it 000
M.(\I._
- -
!1! ~ig
0 000
m ":":0
it :il00
_C\!....
- -
il.' ii8
~ 000
m "':"':0
it 000
"lC'l!....
- -
e! 8S8
~ 000
m :iif:iifg
it ~..,_....
- -
~.......~(\I"'~.~O~~~~~~~~O~~~~"'~~~N"'OM~~mM~~=~o~oom~~I~
~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~q~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~
~~~~~~~~~~.~ga~.~~~~~N~i~~~~;~~.~~~~a~~ ~ ~~~ M
O.......~~S...~N~$&~~~~....~.....~~....=.Nm~....M..,~~........... W.... N =W'" 11~01
O~NN":~M~riN",:,,:W******WMM***M* M**",:*W_M * * * *
..._M____........___ _ _
~ ~~
m~o~~m~Nm..,~o.ON....~.......~..,~~....~~m~O~=~O....NOmN..,O~O~.O~~
~ia~N~$~~~8~o~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~;-~_~~~~M
;.~~~.~;t..:M~i~m~~s~~~Ni~i~;~~~~g;t~~:~$ ~ g;s
~~~I$~OC\lN~g.....~~~....~......$....=.N=*-..,..,~.--- w_ N =w~ ~
=~N~~~ri~riN~~*WW----*-ri*WWW* -*-~---- - - " " II~I
______W--W*W w W
~~
_N~NN~_~ee~=oe~~N~o~o~e~.~=_Q.~Q_~~~Q~=ooo~~=c~
g~~~~~~~~~8~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~g:~~~-;W~~;~~
~;~~=:~~~~ri~~~~~~~g~~~~~s~g~~~!~~gitg~t ~ g~~
.~~~m_i~N-8-~~~~_~._~~_=~N=__~N~~___ __ N =_N
=~~~~~N~~N~~W*WW**-**MW-*** __*~-*** * - * "
____***_____ * W
~~
;;;
~
~
~_OON~~~~Nomo~~o~~~~=~-omN.mm_m~OO~O~N=O~OO~4~=
~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~*~~~ g
-~~~~~=~~~~ag~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~oi~~~~;~~$ M ~~i ~
~~~~~~~~~~:~::~:*~:*:~~:~~:*~~~~:~~~ "~ ~ ~-~ ~
m~___~N=~N _ ~ _
-*-****--- - - * ~
~~
,~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~
~~.=e=~o~~..~~o_~~m~o~._~=m~=~~~NO._=~O _ ~NNY
~;~~~o~it~~~~~~~2&~~~~~2~~~~2~~~gi~i~~$ ~ ~~~
m.==~i=.NOmO.~~._~._~~_~~N=*_NN~.___ *_ N ~_N
~~~~~.N~riN-~IIIt*-*-----ri-*-*- ---~*--- - - - *
*-****---* * * *
~~
m
..
~
=ON~_N=~m~_~.~O_.N.~~~=.NN~~=mN__mo~.__o~o_=~~~1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~*~~~il~1
~O~~~'~~~~~O~8~~~;~8~~~~~~~~~;~-~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~:~::::;::;:~;~:~~IIIt;~~~:;;; W; ~ ~"~ _
CO~""__.N.~~_ _ ~... '"
____..**-....W lilt \oft lit ~
~~
=m.=~=o~mO=~~O_~CON_O=~ONm."'com.~oo~mN~=~OOOCO~OOCO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~;~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~-~*~~:~~
g~;~~=N~~~~~gt~~~~i$i~~;~~m~~~~.i~~$~~* ~ ~~g ~
~~~~~~~~~~:~:~::;::;:~;~:~~*;~~~;;;; ~; ~ ~*~ '"
:~;;;;;;~~~~;; ;; :; ;::,
~~
N~~~O=O~0~OO.O.~~OOO~N~O~=O~~OOOO~~=O~OOOOOO=q
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~
~i~$~~~i~~!!~~!:!2~~~~~~~~~:~~~,;~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~
~~~~~~N.ri~~*-*_-~W**W~_W-*W 1IIt**~W_*_ _ _ _ W m
*_*****........* lilt lilt =
~~
I
~
NOomOOQNmOoooo=ooeoOOOOO=NOCO~OOOO=.OOO=OOoooq~~
~~~~8~8~~~g8gg~~~gggg~~g~~g~~g88g~~~8~~-g*gg~-~
~~:t~~g~~=~~~~i~*ig8~~~~~~g~*oo~g~i~~g~ g ~g~ ~
m;~~~~~ON~=~~~.......~~.....~m_~~N~"_~~~.___ "~ N ~*N 0
~~~~~~N.ri~*~***~*W~**N~*~~lIt *~~~lIt*-* W"" W 0
1IIt**W___~""" _ **_ ~
~~
~OOOOOONmooooo~oooooooooo=o~COoooooooooooooooo~=
~000888._~OOOONOOOOoo~ooomo~N88800.08~~~O*OO~~lM
_~mm ~~~oo=om~~OOOOONO.~ON. O.~~ ~~ 0 O=~ 0
~~~Ro~O~~~8~$~i~~8i8~~~~~~g~~ooog~8i~~~ 8 ~~~ ~
~o~~~~S~N~com~~.._~~..."'m_~~_~*_~~~.~...... _... N ~...- ~
~~~~~.Nriri~*IIItIllt*W**W"**NW"*"- "~~~W _w * \oft www m
__*__*_--w lit *** ~
~~
"
!1!
o
'i t!
at ~ Ol
~ ] .~ !
Q,.a .$!.S! :Jl '"
~ ~ (II ~ :ll .a m
g 1; 5~ ~ ~~ &B ;j at S
::! at E?; :~l!!~! !a ;jg: J (II]
~ ~ .am ~~~~~ aj ~Q1;j - ~ ~ (II
CJ] at :ti15 ~ailia O/lS ~~~ g :i U <11-01
>-"Ii: Q.Ol Co::::.-N~ 1i III (II(J.- '-C -0 :a c
CJ] ij <II _O~ 1~Q1~~ lIIgS (II iE 5~~ SOl ~ ~ ~ ~
2: 3: 2: lIIua!ll <II~ lOS.=C &E'-..Q........ o.E oIJc !:!Q)CJ]
z& ~~ ~sg ~~........ lII~~:Jl~~~cO -0 a O~Q1~m~5 ES~ ~ ~ 0>>[ ~w
5~ Q~ !;~ ~8~~ l~~66:~8~ j1s~ ~$5~gg~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~c !~
Ug S000 ~~a ~i~: ~~<lI~~~~~~~c~~i iic~~~~ a@~ 2: ; ,-~e ~
~~ ~~~ ~~oo gf}.~~CIli~~~~~.7]~gg?;8[~.!~~~ll~ ~E~ ~- ;g;B~ ~:
~~~~f~ ~~;J;~~~~8~~~~==!!~1~~~~~a;~ssg~~~~ ! ~~~~I~!I~~
It"Q::l.~zQw ~'tI..!Bg.~~~.!oIJ888~.~~22]S.!-5:~ia:5;!~~[~fg..Ql9' &0(JQ)~1i ~...J
:J.Il:l Cl -Ol>-:;::I==<<<o~~~.l!iI:I:X"''- >-uce-~e~1;"tIOlfl&....CDOIqtlfl 01"".... .~~
<n!.-ga3~o%!'~;i&~=5a:a:a:s;uu(J1fI gg ]CO-Eg.~....g.u33"E1I:a"'jjl1!qt~g!3~~~~g
~~!5~roj~I~~~j~~~i~ii~~~~~~i8~~g~~:~~~~J5~~~~38~~j~~~~
< o~_N~.~~~como_N~.~=~~mQ"'N"'.~=~como_N~.~~~~mo"'N"'~~~o
~ ~m ",___",__"'__NNNNNNNNNN~"'~~~~~~~"'...~...~
~
~
I
>
,
"
I
M
o
M
~
<i
z
;Ii
w
~
o
N
M
o
:;l
~
~
)7 - JC:;~
'.
00"'(')11)00
'" ...~(')C\l(')......
000(')
0 ii'/i'ij
~ ~(,)C\l*
~~~
0-C\lC\l1'--00
N t/t1t)(()C\ld)'\It*
(()d)1'--1t)
0 1Z!'~.~t
~ ~(,)C\l'"
~~~
- OOCOC\l....OO(')
"'<.0"'<0 <'o'\It'\ltO..,.
0 <OC\l<.Oo:o -
~ ::i1li:8~
""(')C\l",
~~~
g 01'--C\l1'--1t)00~1l'I
...... <.0 M 10....<0
0 _1'--<.0...
0 ~~'g~'
~ ~(,)C\l*
~~~
OIOMd)OOOIt) 00 0
0; ......IOC"I......'\It ~~ M
d)<OC\l1t1 .
~ ~.~~~ m
~ ....MC\l..
~~~
1'--~1'O....It)OO
'" o <O-<OIt'I**M
~.....<.O.~~ <t:I
~ IZ!~~~N
~ "'~MC\l*
'\It***
M
;::
<II ~
.!!l en ~
<II 0
L4. ~ll
X ~ E ~ 0000000
" Q) '" C\l001t)0**0
c: t.:l U) QI 1'--0 1'--<0 It)
M ~. ci~. ~ g
Q) .- >. ~
a.EUl .....~(')C\l*
0.0", **'\It'\lt
<(C-
O C
" ::l
W 0 ;;;
II ~
~
g 000000000
. ggggggg08
~ ;'af~f~'~\f8'8'~ QI
~ ....(")(')C\l*...C\l :;:
***"" ~~
.
.~
OJ
c
'"
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
CO
o
e
.
'"
iil~
.~ 01$
. .
> .
'u .~
. .
.5 >
_'0
; .~
-gl
a.~ Ql
t ..s:~ 01
!!! C Ql c:
id 0 <:1=
..! ~.~ iii n
-o~..c~
;i a..S;;] ~ e a
a.E Qj ~ :)l :I (I)
5~:- .aU)....
o-.!ij 1ii m ~.2 0
QI E:i: C Ci) 0 Q;
~Ql Gi~W~.2 E.!!!
~"">"'CO"'C2:._ U_Q.
Ql ..!!! 0 -0 a.. 0 CD 0:1 :s Ql QI
J:u..t.:l<z:i:cn ]0..0:0:
....C\l(")....It)(()I'--Q) W"'N
a:
'"
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
N
, ...
'"
...
...
...
...
...
~
M
,
>
.
"
,
M
o ...
J1~/!:)!'
~
;;i
z
;1 ...
w
~
o
~
M
o
M
M ...
~
~
'"
~
w
'"
w
a:
3
o
w
a:
;:
w
z
...
.
.!!!
'.
~
o
~
"
,
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
"
I Cii
>-
rn
>-
C
::l
I 0
()
'"
"
~
~
I <1l
.!!! 1i5
~5
u. 1ll<1l
x ~~
I 'e
c: .Il ()
1l.E ""
~o"
c: i!!
0.-
" ::l
I wCJ"
i!!
'"
E
<1l
I c,
0
ct
<n
c:
0
I ~
Ol
ii
0
I
I
I
.
I .;;;
>-
..
c
..
.
.
.
I (J
.
.
.
OJ
I
g 10"''''0
M S.~.~_;;
0 01 lD"" (I)
Ii: ~"'...~
12 ...""<001
N ~-~-~.~
0 IO<nC\l<?
Ii: $?"'-'::;
~ .".COfOtD
~. ;::.lS.::O
0 r--,IONO
Ii: ;!:"'-~
"'- ....."'CON
0 ~_~_t;;:;;
0 <O"'NGCI
Ii: om_/D
!;\. 0..,.<0.....
0 ~~~~
0 .Ncill'i
Ii: ;:;!:....~
~ N,...lt)O)
. :;.~-;;.~-
0 .....It)NN
Ii: :;:;!:...~
~ _1Ot')1t)
O_COIO
~ <D CO,... en
0 r-:<n-....-ao
Ii: ~:::-~
" <DOfDO
. ~_~_;1;_:e
0 COlD_1tl
Ii: ~~....~
!i '<l'NC\I""
~ ~-=-~::'!
0 <:I),..........
Ii: :;!~....~
~ 1t)100r-.
~ ~_~_8.~_
0 .....CD....G;I
Ii: ~:;!....:;!
. .
C E
.~ ~
,g'e
.co.
0..
00.20000000~0.2~"'>9.2~oogoo.2~~OOO~0.2~O""0000.2~OOOOOOOO~oOi~
_M ~wwo**w~w lOOt ~w~w~ _w*~ wowwww WWWWWMMW_" ~
~.! ,.... .x ..z_"':.i..! i !.3 .Q 1::] 1: Nl
Ql QI ~ Q1..; -' QI C QI III II III C"l Ql III "';1
~ ~ : c?J JJ;;~u~ 8 JJ~ ~Jl " c?J JJ lal
~O~OOOOOOO.ll~O~<D>O.ll~OOOOO~.llOO~~O""OOOO.llOOOOOOOO~OO
~W~"WW~MMM *1~o~ w*~w*1Q1*w~1*~****Q1********Q1*~1t)
.Q.Q f'oo," A .Q1lI-i~1: .b ..Q.Q .0.0 ~.o .0 I~
Gl (II 0 QI is!""....: c: 0IiI C III QI QI Q1'" QI Gt ....
JJ Jj : ~ Jj ;; ~ 8 ~ 8 c?J JJ ~ rZ" JJ Jj II~
;o~ooooooooo~lt)>g~ooooo~~oon~o~0000ooioooooo~~90
G*~***~***G*~~~~~**~**~~**~~*~****~* ******~*~~
~ ~ $ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ g ~ ~ ~
~ ~ : ~ ~;s8~ 8 ~~ ~~ * ~ ~
~O ~ooooooo nO 0"" > a ...00 noo... ...oo.~-i!oooooo ~oooooooo !o 0:::;;: !?I,..
~*~***o***~*_oou~**~**~~**~ *~****~********-*~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i~] s ~~ ]~: z ~
III III ,... III III $ -' c: ~ C 111 III CI QI ('II QI QI :3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~8~ 8 ~~ ~~ * ~ ~ ~
OOOOOOOOOO~O~"">g~OOOOO~~OOo!.2~O-OOOO!OOOOOOOOO~OOC
_*_***o***~*_~o~~**~**__**_ *"'****_********_*~M
A ~ ~ Z ~~is~ s ~A ~~ ~ ~ ] ~
~ QI ~ III uta.... c OIl c: OIl QI III Gl N QI III
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~8~ 8 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~
~020000000~O~~>9~oo2oo~~OO~~O"'OOOO~OOOOOOOO~~~N
lIl*u***i**-IIl-IIl~O~G**~**$$**i.-~****1********~*~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i~~ ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ M
III III M III 1lI.....c:~ c: ~II) 0Il1I) N III II) -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~8~ 8 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~O~OOOOOOO~O~~>g~ooooo~~OO~~O~OOOO~oooooOOO~q~M
~*~***O***-*-~2u~**~-*--**--*O****~********-*~~
]] ~ ] ]~~~A s ~] ~~ ~] ~
QI II) N II) II ~.... c: III c: III II QI III N QI III :8
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~8~ 8 ~~ ~~ * ~ $
~O~OOOOOOO~OO~O"">g~ooogoo~~oOO~~ONOOOO~OOOOOOOO...OO~
~*~***o***_*_~o~_**~**~_**~~*_****~********~**
! J ~ ] J~is~ s ~~ JJ ~ J J ,~
III III 8 III GJ~....C:1Il c: 1Il~ ..~ N GJ III ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;s8~ 8 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
M
I
U.
2a~aiagiai~i~~~g~iigii~~ii~~igaaaa2aaaaaaaa~a~~
III QI ,... II" o~ Ji GJ ~ III II GJ Ill"" III III ~
~ ~ - ..c. ~ -"S..Q S ..Q..Q ~~'..c. ..c.
III ~ i III 1Il~....C:1Il c: III III GlIII ~ III OIl ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~8~ 8 ~~ ~~; ~ ~ ~
~O~OOOOOOO...Oo~>2...0000ooo0onoOoOoOoooOOOOOOO~~9~
_*_***o***~*__Oo~**~**__**~_*o****_********_*~
] J ~ J J~igJ s JJ JJ ~ J J
II) QI ..... QI Gl -...; c: ~ c: III <ll III ll> ~ G) III
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~8~ 8 ~~ ~~; ~ ~
~
c: c:c:c: C:C:l:: t:c: c:c c:c c c:c:cc ccecc:ccc ce
~~~~ii ~~i~9~ ~~~ ~~~~i~~~~~i~~~~~~i~ii~~~~~
en QlOCII aao 0 CIIC11 OOt ClCl 0 OOlClCl OIClCllOlCllCllOlCl CIl!!l
~~i~~~ ~~~i~iG~ml~~G~~~i~~ii~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~i~'~'
~~c:~~~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~5~~5~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
o
"
~ .
'i ~ .~ i
~.2 S S 51 M
Qj m rtI a ~ oa In
c.;:; ~~ ~ ):): &~ III lD s;:
2 ~ e~ ::!J:!!3~ !!iiJ ~&l ~ Ill]
g ~ ~5l ~~~~~ ~$ 1Il~~ ~ ~ ~ III
;<C (lI ii1i r.laitil:~... GIS,':: ,!~~ lIi_ ~ U S! '@
r-... Q.ll> !:~-liI<l1 0 1D<lI"" "'c ~ "'0 ill ~
!i:2 :Ii G) _0"tJ 1~IllI:t: V1~.g G liiE S;:S;:~ ~lD rtJ ~ ..l: LL.
:> ):~lIIQ~11 1Il~ G~.::.c &eo..c....... c.E GISt: ~1Ile/)
5& ~"tJ mso g.::....... n..l:oZgSnc:o "tJ i OTlll.<lI<lIij e~&l ~.2 :g.a i
5~ g& ;~~ 8~[1 l]~~~i~~j~!~!~ ~~~i~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ iii (lie/)
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ i f & ~ ; ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 [~ j ~ I i 1 ! ~ t ~ ~ : ; i :.~! 19,
ilii~1 i!j!lliiJ!IIIII~~~if!~!;lj;!llllti!.i ililli~~
il:iS~",~~~~~~~~~!iiiG~~~~j..l:tB~[~~[i5S~~&-~~:ir~~~~"tJo<
~~~d~~!iI!f]~~~~li!!~~~~~~~8~~!I~~~dd~j~~~j~~8~~~~~~ll~I
~ ~~_N~~~~,..~m~~~~:~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~:~~ISI
~
~
I
I
,
M
o
~
;;i
~
w
!!l
"
N
M
o
a
~
u.
/9//tJ?
E
<l>
<n
,.,
Ul
,.,
"E
:J
o
c..l
'"
<l>
~
2
t1l
.!!l1ii
~5
LJ..CIlt1l
.e~~
C:oc..l
~"E ~
0.0'0
<( '= ~
8'3
lJ.Je"
~
'"
~
-
'"
e
~
c:
o
~
'"
:8
o
. .
C E
.~ e
ge
~..
0..
o
.;;;
~
<i
=
<(
.
o
.
o
.
o
.
OJ
M
o
t::
.2..9.2ag.Q.Q
OIl 111 QI II) l1I OIl
.Q..Q.Q "';.c..Q
lU Gllll "IS! GI
UJl JlJl
...
I'ooNOO
~M
0", ~
ggf
-~
~
o
~
N
..
~
~~M
0_~
caOal
.......~
"'"
N
o
t::
.2.Q.2ag..2.2
111 llIlU '^.G1l11
..Q..Q..Q ....c.c
<U III Ql .-tQl Ql
JlJlJl U
;;
o
t::
.2.Q.2a;:.Q..!20
lD 0>> QI .. GI QI
..o.Q.c ...;.o..Q
QI 11I Ql "' III lit
~c8Jj ~Jj
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
~
I...
U-
...
000
~O '"
o
0;
~
~
...
o
a
o
.Q.Q.2a~.Q.Q
11I111 <II """,Ql 031
.o..Q.c .....0.0
QllII QI lO'to>> l1I
~JJJJ ~c?l
;;
C
:8 ,g
.
.".
:c ~
o 0
~~~
. .
. .
>->-
C
o
l~'
~ .!.
o 0
o .
Z C
...
t::
0;
"
t::
.Q.Q..Qar::.Q.QO:::
QI 41 OIl ~ III III
JJ.c.c ..:.0.0
III Q141 .....Q) 111
~JjJj J!JJ
~
.
o
o
"
"
~ffi
.'"
:i a4
. . .
> . .
,.,,:1: :l::
o . .
<II QI ~
~~ .~ (f.I
t~ .~ 1
"51 13'"
3 l! S"Jjj
Q.MUI :iE
I l:I.,g Cl E;:'
OJ c: II) l: Qlen
:Q 8 ~ '5 > e
3>'~<Il:ll~"'20
ce~~.!.!~:' QllD
CD 0..5'y C: 0>> ~ 0 E::l..,
EE"':JCD... - ~
0.'- <Il E ell :J .-_
"3 ~== ..Q rn ...
cr'a <If -a ."..2 0
:E~.~a; ~~
>Illlll-W:=,--
~ :; i;:g ~ -g ~"iij
J:iI(J<Z~JJ
_NM"'Il)(Q,..
.
o
o
.
"
'"
>-
Z
We
~~~
~3G1
o .
w '5
0:
~'O~
~ Ol ~
0:
"
o
0:
..
'"
"
t::
.Q.Q.Qa~.Q.Q
Ql Cll Ql .., Ql III
.a.Q.c .....-.0..0
Q) (I,l QI vtl1l Q)
~~Jl JJ~
'"
...
"
c
S
c
o
o
o
~
f!!
'"
8
'"
~
"
o
0:
..
in
z
Q
~
"
:J
'"
o
/:
z
::>
8
~
i:!
c
o
'0
.
'5
u-
o
u-
c
o
~
!
,Q
c
o
'"
.
g
!
o
0:
..
"
~
'"
t::
.Q..Q.Qaa:l.Q.QO
Ql l1I 0,1 ~ cu III
.c.a.c ...;.c.a
Ql Q) Ql ....41 Ql
rJJrJJrJJ rJJrJJ
...
~
'"
I
j
I
M
0",
i
<i
~-
W
'!l
<;
oj
M
o
"
'" ...
;<
!'1
Ii
'"
"
'"
t::
000000000
Gj Qj Qj vt ~_ Qi Qj ~
.Q..Q.Q .....c..c .....
111111111 lo'tllllll
~~~ ~~
/9-/~Y
...
o
'"
it
..Q..2..2~"..2.Q
III CIl III ~Ql Ql
..c..c..c .......c..o
III CIl CIl lo'tlll III
III III III Ql Ql
CIlCf)Cf) Cl')Cf)
"'
'"
it
..Q..Q.Q~=..Q.QO
CIl CIlIll "':1Il1ll
..c..c..c ......c..c
III CIl III iIt ~ .
CIl CIl CIl III
Cf)CI)CI) CI)
c
~~~.~~~~.~
g!~g!g~~g!:.:
'.;:l.';= '.;::l..c <=........
:d :d :d ~ :d :d :d 0
l:l:C:ZC:C:l:
f!!
z
W
"
W
g;
::>
o
w
0:
;:
W
Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.~
]j
,
. 0
~ a
~ o:l >
~ ~ ~
o 2 ~
~ E <=
~ g :
8 .
w 8
~
o
o
<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
~
.
~
~
M
o
>-
~
~
>-
~
~
<;
>-
~
g
8
>-
~
~
o
o
>-
~
.
1;
.
>-
~
.
~
.
>-
~
~
i
>-
~
~
.
>-
~
~
"'-
~
>-
~
~
.9
> ~
~ ~
,
~
~
..
>~
~ ~
~
. .
H
Jl e
0-
..
s!!
ttUi
is
..
~
.
~
re
.
~'
8~
~~
w~
~
w
~
~
o
.-
o
~~
~"
w::
~
~
~
.-
.
~-
ON
r-: o.
O~
~-
M
,,;
~
o
~
M
~
:2i:l
~ ,
::IN
N
:I
~
~
N'
~
0_
-:~
h
~
0'
~
~
.
~
~
-N
M_
Ii ~-
~~
.
0'
~
.
;;
~'
~~
0;(\1.
:u
~,
;;
g
.
'"
~
~~
..
i~'
M
"
;;
~
o
~
:2
~O
~-
,,-
~"
~M
~
,,;
~
~
~
'"
~
~::
~~
:I
>;
"
o
'<
'"
~
.
~
"
g
.
,
o
o
.
~
.
~
...
o
0:
g
;;
5
::>
5
~
~
':i
~
'"
w
~
~
~
o
.,
2
5 $
- .
. 8
8.
S ~
o 0
~<
~
w
~
'"
~
::>
8
;:;
w
<
0-
n
~
0-
J>
o
8
~
s
o
M
;;
"
'"
~
o
M
.
'"
~
~,
i
"
w
~
~
::>
8
w
>
~
M
~
:I
~B:3re
5~~~
8 :I
g
:I
/,--101l)
(JJ~"l:~
o ." '
Z;.l:I~:!
o ~
8 z;
~
o
o
;;
~~~~
!.. ,
- ~-
-~-
o ~
o '
o :;;
~
.-
;;
"''''<21(\1
:H~~ g
li~:~
o '
" :;;
~
~
;;
~-m~
. ~ . ~
!~5~
8 i
~
~
'"
;;
~~Vii
!::!,,~ <:If
;:;~.~
8 ti
o
.
M
;;
~gS'"
"':I.>,n"".
~~t;~
8 t
~
"
;;
~~~;
m <ll!! _
:lb.::
o .
8 :I
.
~
"
;;
o ~,...=
~s~~
:l8~~
:I
g
:;;
~ ~~ ~
aai:if
~
,,;
~
~
.
o
o
~
.
"
~
o
o
:~
~
o
J>
o
8
:
o
~ .
~ ~
; .. i
-~.
ill'~.2 ~
:. Q. t; 8
.! 8 8 ill
! ~ B ~
~c1I~-i
>;-
~:S
80
~
~
...
~
~
}
~
j
il.
.
a
N
gg:!~
:&~!i;'
..l:I~N
o ~
8 ~
~ -~. ~
-.2Q)as
Iti ~:.t .
:l~..~
8 :
;Xs;Q:S
fi<.:lcoi-
..~i~
8 :I
~~~~
~~!ire-
o M,
" ::I
,.....-In
""~.,,...
a~~~
8 g
~~~~
~~iii....
-c:-li!
8 i
r-"'''''_
~~~8
~!Jig
o _
8 ~
~Pi
i~~~
o _
8 :;
;z.a-lti~
I~~g
~
.'
~
:!J>~::
. = . lO
\":1:::1 ~ _
;l8~~
:I
~
"
~
m'
~
~
i
i!
..
.
o
~
:6 B
~ <
~~ ~
~'~.2 ~
...::: ... - 0
Jf 8' 8~
~ ~ i ~
~c1I.2~
~
o
~
.
a
M
~fll~
9:,,12:<"1"
;:;'::O...N
o .
8 li
::2:;;;::
m ~ a:i~_
....::o~,..
o ~
8 :I
~.9~:R
,..;~r-:i}
1l~::I_
8 i
N-N~
,....2cocs
~~R~
a8ai
~s;!j;;
a~li'
<3 ~
~~'CO~
~~i'i~
~I;-""
<3 i
~g::r!~
~jit
o ~
<3 :;
2g~~
!!la
o "
o '
" :;;
~~&:i~
<:D;l0'"
$8t9~
.'
~
~J>~::
.1; OlD
!8!g
~
zi
~
M
'"
"
",
ii
~
~
'"
::l
:
o
~
~ Xl
'g "~
~.8 ::
~.~.s ~
.c:: .. _ 0
Jr 8":3 ~
! ~ S ~
~~~.i
j
o
~
.
a
~
~-~~
'":.~ '0
iZ...g
O~M
8 ~
w
U~ll!
lli:;:g:}
...1:1_10
o~ .
<3 i
~2l8~
.,.,;u"",co
aZ~g
a-i
st2S~
UH
ow.
8 :I
~st!l~
.~~~
~;~
8 S
~
~.9F:ig
i!!g
8 e
..
~"<:D<:D
.,.,;~;ri~
::I~i~
8 ::'
~
q~~~
e IGO) 2"
~~:~
o '
" ;;
- b>""lO
~e~-
(1);10-
~8~~
0'
~
~ ~~ ~
~;lll'Io"'
t983:B
:I
~
~
'"
~
'"
.
w
"
"
N
..
N
a
:
o
~
~ ~
o .
~H
~~.s~
.,;- a. ~ 8
.!38<l1
! ~ S E
~rX~~
}
~
j
~
>
J;[
tl
~
~~~~
igS;t
o N
8 ~
~5~"
,..,...N=
g~~.,..:-
""'::'''N
o 0
8 ~
~.9~8
iij~i
o~~
8 :I
~~~~
o \tIO.
(I),g,..,x
""e""5
<3 :;
~2F:i~
!!5g
o ~
<3 ~
~o:!~
~h-
",,~<I~
o '
" :;;
810(1)-
"'0 "':~
~....
U'2~0
8 ~
~2g~
g :i&j"".
..~..~
8 :I
~.b''''1O
lOo:\tI_
""':;10-
~8t9~
..
w
~~~;
~8~g
~
:I
M
.
~
"
~
~
~
"
N
'"
;;
N
;l
:
o
~ .
~ II
~ Qj ;
-~ .
;~.2 ~
.c::.. _ 0
.,;-Cl.0u
.! III 8"1l1
~~ S ~
.:=JJ~~
~
.
.
s
o
.
~
~
'"
.
IO'-CItQl
,..g..,o
g~8~
4i.:o~.
o ~
8 ::I
0"1110
:~,.:~
~~=F:i
8 i
N -. S
~~-:~
~ IldR,..,
.'::'.0)
o _
<3 :
858-
coi1Soj:!
~lli~
o M
8 ::I
:ei:ilft~
~~'i;;
~,.l:J~~
.3 ::I
lSa=:8
UF
.3 ;
l'J'-t'J..,.
IDS..,....
,.: u,.,; on
iZ:;:;
o ~
8 i
l8.9~~
iit~
8 ::I
1O.b'''''CO
,.. e 10_
ri8~~
~
o
~
~
,
~
~~~ ::
i8~~
o
~
~
of
N
~
o
~
;;
~
.
.
i
N
.-
M
W
~
~
.
ill
~
..
.
o
~ .
~ ~
; . ;
~~~s
~ 2= ~
..' CI. 0 u
.!88<a
l!!~j a
~cB~~
~
,
f
,
"
o
o
~
.
'"
~
~
~
z
w
'!)
;;
~
~
'!)
u:
:
~
"
0;
~
/9 -/IJ I
U)
'w
>-
u.. 16 >-
XC'-
15<(<ll
C 0 E
Q)'- E
a.E::J
a.o(/)
<(C
o
o
UJ
...
Qi
>
Q)
C
o
'w
'-
Q)
>
'5
'" <D '" <D - ... '"
." ~ '" '" - '" ... ""
_ E - N .,; 0 .,; N on
Q2. '" '" '" '" '" <D <D "" '"
<D o .~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
'" f-CJ)
>-
!:!:-
'" '" '" '" '" '" '"
1ii "" "" '" "" "" ""
'" 011 '" .,; .,; <D .,; ~ .,;
:s: c '" '" '" '" '"
'" 0
"0 E "'"
~ 5,.2
::E 0:0
- 0:0
0
-
c :;
0 '" 0 '" '" <D -
f- "'ctl - '" '" ... <D 0
I~ :J:'" .,; a; oi a; on a;
-' ~ ... ... '" ~ <D ""
'" '" '" '" '"
1ii '" '"
'00
0 c
<.J ~01I
f-
'" "* "* "* "* "* "*
~~ '" '" C\j '" '" '"
'" '" - I
~ 5
"0 "O<.J
0 <( -
.'" u; ~
'"
CL o 0
<;;<.J
I~ 0 '" '" '" C;; <D ...
'" ... 0 - ... '" '"
I 10 '" - "', - - - <D
0 158 "'" N - ",' ...' ",' <D'
- '" - <D ... "" 0 ""
'" "', '" <D ... '" '"
>- M' ",' ",' <D' M' ",'
CL'" -
Z ~ - '" '" '" '" 0 -
- '" '" '" '" ;; ;;
c '"
<(
'" "* "* "* "* ~ "*
g'.? <D '" 0 <D '"
'" '" '" - -
~ C
::J
> 0
"0 "O<.J
0 <( -
:c 1ii ~
'"
CL 0 0
<;;<.J
~ '" - '" '" '" '" <D '"
I 1ii ... "" - '" 0 '" '"
- 0 "', 0 "" "" '" "" '"
'" O<.J ",' N ",' 0; ",' .;
-
>- '" '" '" ... "" '" '"
CL '" '" "". '" o. "" '" <D,
Z ~ N <D ",' 0 ",' ",' -
C <D ... ... '" '" '" <D
<( '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
a
'" (j; () ~ ~
::;;: >- "as 5 c 5
.~~ i:: 0 '" '"
w E x x '6 x '6
- > f- 5
'" 0 (fJ <( '" '" "<il '" "<il
"'c: >- <.J I CJ) (fJ ...J (fJ ...J
CIJ "0
>- ::;;: ::E
f-
Z W '"
f- >-
Cil ::J CIJ 0 0 ~ 0 '" .l1!
~$ 0 >- >- a. a. a. 'ffi '3
<.J '" CIJ E E .0 E > 0-
a..- a
",CJ) :;:; ~ '" '" 0 '" ~ :E
i5 <.J <.J CIJ <.J <.J
w Uj w
~ ::J
0
0 CL <.J
- U
'" w
c f= - > '" '" ... '" <D ""
'" a: <(
()
CJ) <( w
CL ...J
...
...
'"
I ...
>-
'"
::;;:
I
'"
0 ...
'"
>::
:s:
-i
<(
Z ...
<(
z
w
(fJ
-
;; ..
oJ
'"
0
'"
9J.
:s: "'"
':!2
u.:
....
...
...
...
....
...
...
...
<D
I ...
u..
...
...
-
C
Q)
'-
'-
::J
o
-
<ll
Q)
OJ
'"
C
C
~
~
Q)
U)
<ll
U
.<::-
":>
:;:::
"w
C
Q)
(/)
/9/"//0
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '"
'Cij
:>.
u.."1ii 2:-
xc
,- <( ell
I -guE
Q)'- E
a.E:;J
~gU)
I 0
u
w
I
I
Q)
I OJ
ell
C
C
0
l-
I -
C
ell
-
'"
C
0
I ()
C\l
Q)
'"
I ell
()
.z.
'5
'.;::l
I 'Cij
c
Q)
U)
I
<Xl '" <Xl '" ~ .... ~
;::: "' 0 '" N '" '"
caE ~ M <0 0 <0 C\i to
~ _S ~ "' "' '" '" ,.. ~
'" o .~ ... ... ... ... ...
'" 1-(1)
>-
~
<D ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,..
10 <Xl <Xl <Xl <Xl '" <Xl
'" "" '" ~ ~ <0 <0 ~ <0
3: '" C ... ... ..
"0 E ,g
\!l '" ,~
rn.-
~ oZi
~ 0:0
0
-
C :;
0 <Xl 0 ~ '" '" ~
I- "'ti! ~ "' .... '" 0
~ J: '" <0 m M m on m
~' ~ .... .... "' "' '" ,..
... ... ... ... ... ...
- <D '"
'" tnQ
0
(,) ~""
I-
<D *- *- *- *- *- *-
~~ <Xl .... 0 .... <Xl '"
N N N ~ I
~ 5
"0 "0(,)
0 <l: ~
'C 10 g;!
<D
Cl. o 0
<0(,)
~ '" <Xl '" .... "' '" N
'" '" '" 0 '" N ~ '"
I 10 '" .... .... .... ...., ....,
0 _0 0" 0" ",' ",' ~ ,..' ~
- 0(,) ~ '" - "' 0 '" '"
.... "' - N ,.. '" "'
>Cij cO ",' N cD N ",' ri
Cl. ::l 0 ,.. '" '" '" '" ~
Zc <i> ... ... ... ... ... <i>
c
<l:
<D *- *- *- *- *- *
~~ "' '" 0 '" ~ N
N N N ~ -
~ 5
"0 -6(,)
0 <l: ~
'C -g;!
<D
Cl. ~ 0
<0(,)
~ '" '" '" 0 N .... '" ....
I 10 ,.. ~ ,.. ,.. - '" <Xl
"' - 0 '" '" ,.. '" 0 .... ~
0(,) ,..' 0' ",' "," N' ...: ~
>- .... N '" ,.. '" '" '"
Cl. '" ,.., '" '" 0 ,.. '"
Z ::l ",' ,..' ",' N' ..,: 0"
c -
c '" .... .... .... "' "' '"
<l: .. .. .. .. ... ... ..
c
'"
~ C,) ;= ;=
<D <D ::E >- 'C l5 l5 l5
.~ :E i:: <D '" '"
w E X X '6 X '6
~ > f- ::l
<D 0 (f) 0 <l: <D <D 'ill " ti!
(1)0: >- (,) I (I) (f) ..J (f) ..J
(f) "0
>- ::E ~
f-
Z W S
::J I- >-
<'ll (I) 0 0 a 0 <D .!
'" 0 >- >- 0. 0. 0. 1ii ~
oS (,) '" (I) E E ~ E >
0.'- a .Q
",(f) :;!!; ~ '" '" 0 '" ~ .<=
is (,) (,) (I) (,) (,)
w W 1ii
:;: ::J
0
0 Cl. (,)
~ G
'" w
c i= ~ ~ N '" .... "' '" ,..
<D a:
C,) <l:
(I) w
Cl. ..J
,..
I
u..
....
'"
1
>-
'"
::E
I
'"
o
'"
:.:
3:
....i
<l:
Z
<l:
Z
w
(f)
-
~
o
C\i
'"
o
'"
gl.
3:
(f)
.,-:
u..
/9-)//
CfJ
'(jj
>-
LLC1l'>.
X c: '-"
,- <c C1l
-guE
1])'- E
o..E::l
0..000
<CC:
o
u
UJ
r:: E
Q?!!
<CO!"
(J)I-~
>- en
<!:
OJ
~ cd rJJ
5:"'C:
"C ~,g
.~ OJ~
:::\Ee..o
~a..O
,g
c:_
o :J
1-<1l..
~~;g
~,~ ~
(fJ (I) .-
8lijCl
~o1l
I-
gj,
<1l'~
- c:
lij :J
-g~8
'I:: <( ~
OJ-OJ
a.. 8'" >0
~
<1l
OJ
I~ J!l
0_8'"
~o
>..
a.. :J
Zc:
~
E
I])
-
CfJ
~
>-
-
c:
::l
o
()
I])
>
C1l
..92
CfJ
I])
'';::;
G
OJ
~g
lij :J
"C~8
.2 <( W
cut)>
a.. 8 0
Of
I ~ J!l
1-8'"
"'0
>..
a.. :J
Z c:
~
o
'C:
<1l
c:
OJ
"
en
:i: ~
~ 5
~ 8
en
;::
Z
:::>
o
() ~
;1; 0
w
~
a..
i3
i= --
a:
<(
a..
o
'"
cD
o
~
...
....
<0
....
sf
~
co
...
<0
'"
....
~
'"
cri
'"
...
o C') 0 lt) co en
C") (0 ll) ~ r--. __
to ai M 0') lfi ai
1O LO co <D f'. co
E:l9-fT.t-69'~fhfh
C\I C\I C\I (\J
,... ..... ,... ,....
o
~
...
'" '"
~ ~
o
~
...
"'I
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
co
I
u.
...
OJ ~
" OJ
'c:~
OJ e
en a..
C')
I])
CfJ
ro
()
~
'S;
'';::;
'(jj
c:
I])
00
..
'" OJ
8.,,.
",en
c
o 0 ci ci
,.... ..... .,- .,...
69- t/7 69- U)-
co 0 co C') co .....
.,.... 1.0 C") V tq: q
to c:r.i M ai Ll) en
~~~~~I;;
'#. '#. '#. '#. '#. (/.
co '" 0 co .,- ,...
C"') C"') (l') C\I C\I .....
co v co <.0 " .,...
LO co m LO co to
..... 0') 0 /"00. l.l) lO
r::: f2- ::i' ~- 8- ~-
C"') C") """" '" ,... .....
c\.r~<<fo~v-C\f
LO U') IJ') (0 co ""
fh69-fh69-ER-fh
*' *' *' *' *' *'
C\I 0 co v .,- C')
C") '" C\I C\I C\f ,...
'" ~ ....
(J) '" "'
<00<0
sf t l~f
.... .... ....
g3of~
... ... ...
[:) ~ ~
,... en. o.
Ri [;; 0
"i:. ,... at
" en- t\I
'" '" '"
... ... ...
...
...
..,
....
'"
(J)
I
~
:i:
I
'"
o
Q
5:
~
i3
l:i:
<(
g.
~
o
oJ
'"
o
'"
~
CIJ
.,-:
U.
"'I
lij
"
'c: c: c: ~ c: ~
~ ~ ~ ,g ~ ,g
<( OJ OJ 'iij OJ 'iij
I (fJ (f) ...J en ...J
"C
:i: ~
l:!:!
en 0
>- 0.
en E
;:: <1l
Z ()
:::>
o
()
w
~
~
.!!l
8.~8.
~ .g ~
() en ()
iij
>-
OJ l!l
1ij ,-
~ ,~
:i: .c
- ()
en
...
...
..,
...
/9/1/d-
...
'" '"
'" "'
<0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
'Uj
>-
u. ro -,..
XC L"
'l5<(CO
cuE
Q) ,- E
a.E::l
a.oen
<(C
o
u
UJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;:::: E
cnroQ)
-- -
'" 0 !!!
O'l I- '^
>- cn
!:::
OJ
1n
"'oil '"
~ '" g
"OE=
.~ ~~
::;0.0
\000:0
o
-
"'-
o "
~ca(ij
~ :c '"
1J. - 0
_ w ~
III 'ti)--
0",0
ue~
I-
OJ
g'.z:
- '"
~ ~
"O"O()
.9: <( '-
CD en ~
0... 0 0
(;j()
OJ
f J!l
a_g
-o()
><il
0... "
Z '"
'"
<(
~
Q)
.c
OJ
:.c
~
:5
OJ
S~
Iii ~
"C-E;O
,2<1: Q;
Qi t; ::so
0...00
(;j()
g; J!l
I_g
"'O()
5:16
ZE
'"
<I:
~
'"
t=j
o
u
::2
06
o
>-
-
C
::l
o
()
OJ ~
" OJ
':> :s!
~ >
OJ 0
cno:
<t
Q)
'"
co
()
~
'S:
'';:;
'Uj
C
Q)
en
ill
g~
c.,-
",cn
Ci
..,.
o
,..;
co
...
'"
r--
"'.
-
-
r--
o
r--
...
co
'"
co
co'
'"
'"
..,.'
..,.
...
o C') 0 1.0 co M
C') <0 tn l() ,..... .,...
cD a) M a; uj a)
U') 1.0 <0 c.o ,.... co
*~*~0~
C\j C\J (\/ C\I C\I C\l
-------
d d d d d 0
;;;;;;;;;;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
cO a) M O'i Lri ai
"d'" .qo l.O 1O <0 "
*0**00
* * * * * *
l.O C\I en C') CO M
C\I C\I ,....,.... I
f'. C') ~ LO lO en
~ ;: ~ ~ ;;: ffi
~:f a:f 'f:t~ ,.....~ r..: 1f)-
..... C\I CO 0 If.l 0>
C\I C\I ll) N.. 0') 0')
C'f 1/)- "R ,.... '<:t'- C\,r
LO 1.0 lO c.o CO f".
-"9- "9- "9- 09- 0 ~
* * *
g: ~ ~
'* * '#.
..,. 0 N
- -
C\I 0') to CO 0 ,....
"=t" eo 0 a) 'l:t 0)
CO ,... ex) C\l ,.... .....
of ..... lif (0- 1/)- o:::f
'<:I" co C\I co 0') l.O
<0 L() co (\J 0') <0
'<1:1'- lif (0- <<J- of (f)-
C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l ..,.
* -fA- * ~ iA- *
'"
'"
,sa
::; ~ Q; 5 g ~ 5 ~
w ~ E ~ X ~ X ~
~ 8 1 ~ ~ j ~ 3
en "0
~ ::E ~
Z w
::> ~oo-Eo~~
o >>>- a. 0. co a.~'S
()"'cnEE.oE>o-
~ 0 ~ J J ~ J ~ 6
~::> W en
~ 0
13 ~
~ - ~
<I: w
0... -'
o
'!:
'"
'"
OJ
"
cn
C\I C") ~ l.O co ,...
'"
I
Ll..
J'J///J
..,.
O'l
I
:>,
'"
::;
I
C'l
o
C'l
~
~
....i
<(
Z
<(
Z
UJ
~
-
o
oJ
C'l
o
C'l
9l.
~
en
.,-;
Ll..
(/)
Ow
>-
u. Cii >-
>< c ....
0- <( ell
-guE
Q) 0- E
a.E:J
a.oCl)
<( c
o
u
Ll.J
"_E
~S!.m
'" 0 !!'
"'I-",
>- CIl
!:,
Q)
1n
"'015 '"
$:"'5
" Eo",
Q) '" ~
.?::S a,.=:
::Eo"'
~c':O
o
-
c_
o ::J
I-ro(6
~:r: '"
~ ~. ~
t? ~ .~
o~O
Q",oIl
~
Q)
~.z:
- c
lij ::J
> 0
""<..l
.2 <( '-
W en ~
c.. 0 0
Oi<..l
~
"C .l!l
I '"
0_0
-o<..l
>(ij
c..::J
Z c
c
<(
ffi
..c
OJ
E.
~
ih
C\I
(/)
-
(/)
8
c..
()
>-
-
C
:J
o
()
Q)
~~
lij ::J
"0-68
02 <( ~~
~-
Q) '"
c.. 0 0
Oi<..l
~ $
T '"
Lt)o8
>-
c.. '"
z2
c
<(
'"
'"
<Xi
~
o C"') 0 It) co (')
(") CD Il) LtJ ...... .....
<.0 mMoi lrioi
~~~~rA.~
..
...
~
~
..
...
..
~
..
...
o
-
I
u.
..
Q) ~
<.) Q)
0:; 31
~ >
Q) 0
CIlC:
I.()
Q)
(/)
ell
()
C
05
""
Ow
c
Q)
CI)
1'il
~.m
0.0-
",CIl
C5
C\I C\J C\I C\I C\I C\J
------
d d 0 c5 d 0
~~;;.;;.;;.;;
co 0 co (I') <0 .....
,.- l,{J M V CD 0
c.O a) M ai .n 0)
v v Ll) l,f.l co ......
-{;R.iR-.u:}0-~iA-
?fl. #. ?fl. (/!.
~ ~ ~ ~ .....
?f.. #.
o '"
I
c;;
'"
",.
...
....
-
I'-
....
v 0 C\J C\I C\l CD
cnOMO")OCO
,... 0 ,.- ...... co Il)
......~ r--- crf (DR (0- V-
1;; r;; N :g g ~
C\I- ~ r---- 0- .q-- C\I-
1.0 Lt) Lt) CO CO ......
V9--Efl.**iR-0-
~
...
...
2!
:~
J::
<..l
...
'"
I...
>-
'"
::;;
I
'"
o ..
'"
::.::
$:
.J
<(
Z ~
<(
Z
w
CIl
-
o ...
N
'"
o
'"
~ ...
~
u.
?fl. ~ #. '#. (/!. *'
V ~ 0 CO C\I "It
C\I C\I C\I ..... .....
...
'"
-
r..:
-
-
.n
...
....
CI) <.0 C") en ...... CO
C\I ...... 0') ...... C\I .....
...... 0 <0 ..... 0 0
CO- 0- V- It) V- ......-
0') ..... ...... ('I') V 0
C\l C\I C\I 0>_ <.0 (I')
.q-- l/'J- (DR ...... (1)- rn-
~~~~~a
11-//1
..
o
.~
c
Q)
<.)
CIl
c
'"
<.)
:E-E' '~a6~6~
~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> U I ~ m ~ m ~
CIl "
~ ::E:E
z ~ Q) >-
=> en 0 0 'E 0 Q)
o>->-o.o."'o.'1\i
<..l '" CIl E E ..0 E >
~ 0 ~ (3 (3 ,jl (3 ~
~:::> OJ 1ii
<( 0
6 <..l
i= ..... ~ C\J
a: <(
<( w
c.. -'
'"
... "'
'" I'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
'en
>.
L.L.. Cil ":>.
>< c: L"
,- <t: Cll
-guE
Q) .- E
o..E::J
o..oCf.)
<t:c:
o
u
UJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I;:::: E
~SS
eoo~
'" f- ..",
>- m
I\::
$
~ Co!S en
~ '" 6
'CE=
" '" ~
.~ o,'_~
::Ee..o
~o...O
.E
c:_
o "
,-rJ7a
:oJ: '"
0. . S2
'::-Qit;t
fJ)"t;j:.=:::
Oc:L..!
Uead
f-
"
N~
a; "
> 0
'C'Cc.J
.g...t: 0-
,,1ii !!!
0...00
a;c.J
r Ja
o_~
-0c.J
itca
z~
c:
<(
'-
Q)
~
o
>R.
~
~
"
g'.z:
- c:
a; "
"C~8
o <( ~
"ai U) ~
0...00
a;c.J
~ .$
T '"
lDo8
>'ii'l
0... "
Z c:
c:
<(
en
-
en
o
u
~
06
o
>.
-
c:
::J
o
()
" ~
" "
'S; :2
~ >
" 0
me:
(0
Q)
en
Cll
()
.z.
'5
'';:;
"en
c:
Q)
Cf.)
'ii'l
:g~
0.'-
",m
is
N
-
cD
....
.,.
'"
...
o
C'i
....
eo.
-
eo
.,.
o C') 0 U') eo c":l
C') CD l.l) 1.1) """' ..-
cO 0) M a) ui 0)
"' "' eo eo .... 0)
~ ~ ~ ~ fA- fA-
N C\I N C\I N C\I
..- ..- ..- ,... ,... ,...
ci 0 0
*~~
ci ci ci
- - -
.,. .,. .,.
co 0 eX) C') <D ,...
,... LO C') "d" co q
<.0 0) C'i en ..0 m
~~~~~~
*' *' *' *' '#- '#-
co LO .,.. lJ') ,... v
,... .... T"'" I I
~ :; ~ ~ ~ ~
"=t N C') 0 co co
af r:o- V- aJ- """'~ u;
C') C? r-.. .,... <.0 0
l.t) L() co It) C\I C')
0- "r V- 00- C\f 0-
I,() 1O It) l/) <D """'
w-*****
(j. rfl. (j. (j.
co <.0 ('I') 0)
- - -
(fl. (j.
... "'
I
(') 0,.... C') M co 0)
~ SiM_~:;~C:;
eo- cn-..... U)- (IJ- t.tf <<:J-
..- U') ""' CO) 0) 0 co
0) "tcocnLt)C')O)
co- .... C\I- cYf Lif r--..- o-
M M C"') C") C') M "l:t
* ******
a
"
=<-E' ';;:;15~~5~
W" Ei(x'Oi('O
~ 0 < m m "a m "a
m>- c.J I m m ~ m ~
m 'C
~ =<:i1
z ~ S >-
:J CIJ 0 0 c 0 Q)
O>o>a.a.<<Sa.=ffi
c.J J!l m E E 15 E >
~ 0 ~ J J cil J :E
~::J W Ui
<( 0
G c.J
W
~ - :;(
<( W
0... ~
o
.~
c:
"
"
m
N C') ~ U') <0 "
-
-
I
u..
J!l
'5
,9-
.t:
c.J
...
'"
I
,.,
'"
=<
I
C')
o
C')
>::
:?;
.J
<(
Z
<(
Z
UJ
'9
-
o
N
C')
o
C')
9}
~
~
u..
/1--//5
Ul
'w
>.
ll.<tl>.
x c ~
.- <( <tl
-guE
()).- E
a.E::::J
a.oU)
<(C
o
u
LU
I;:::: E
"'iil",
CEo~
"'f-"
>- CJl
I!t:
$
~ <<S (I)
s: '" :5
-oE..
'" '" !!!
.~ o,.~
::;:0:0
....0:0
.g
e_
o '"
f-"'iil
~:r: '"
1? ..: 2
- Q) ~
r.tJ (;;'-
oeo
O"'o<l
~
'"
g>~
- e
~ 5
"C"CO
.2 <( .....
CD U; ~
0.. 0 0
toO
'"
f 1)
o_~
-00
>iil
0..",
Z e
e
<(
~
())
s:
o
cf.
I.()
C\l
Ul
-
(f)
8
Cl...
()
>.
-
c
::::J
o
()
'"
~~
[Ii '"
> 0
"C"CO
,51 <( Cii
a; (ii :>
0.. 0 0
toO
I ~ ~
'T'"
lOo8
5:iil
Z E
e
<(
"
co
""
,....
'"
o MalO to CO?
(") <'! lO en f'-,. .....
<0 0) crj a) Lri ai
lO U') (0 (0 ,.... a)
io9-.fA-iR-w.~~
,
C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I
.,... ...... ..... .,... ..... .,...
o 0 d d d d
~Z;Z;;;;*
co 0 co CO? co ......
...... LO M <::t (0 0
cO a) ("'j a:i ui a)
<::t -q- LO lO co ......
-&9-iR-***-&90
(/e '#- (/!. '* oR. ?fl
co C"') 0> C') C'? (0
..... ..... I .,...
I
...,. ...... v 10 I,() co a
0) v lO OJ o::t' U') o:t'
M It) M_ v ..... en 0)
C\I~ m~ en lif ar co~ CDh
v to O:J C\I <0 ...... LO
0) co a) N OJ <0 co
0- 0- C\I- LO~ r;o- C\Ih 0-
<0 LO Ii) LO It) <0 "-
~ ******
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
,
...
'"
1 ....
u..
...
..
...
/7 - //?
"
'"
I
>-
'"
::;:
I
'"
o
'"
><::
s:
.J
<(
Z
<(
Z
w
(f)
-
o
'"
'"
o
'"
9J.
s:
'"
""
u..
...
'" ~
" '"
'5 :s1
~ >
'" 0
CJlQ:
r--
())
en
<tl
()
~
'5
'';:
'w
c
())
U)
1ll
8s
0.'-
",CJl
is
*' '#. ?fl. ?fl. ';fi. ?fl.
<0 C"') ..... (0 C\l to
..... ..... ..... I
,.... M 0 co co ..... C\I
~ ~-~;;~~~
0- .,... C".f 1"-- "",- <0- m-
~ c;; gJ re ~ ~ ~
o::r C\f (Of v- \11- ,....,-
C"') CO) M C"') M M :;
* ******
ffi
"
::;: ~ '~i5:5 ~ :5 ~
~ 5 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
> 0 I ~ ~ ~ W ~
CJl "C
~ ::;::E
z ~ .sa >-
~ woo c 0 ~ S
O>.>o.c.tt1o.1tj.s
O"''''EE.oE>c-
~ 0 ~ J J ~ J ~ S
~::::J ill iii
<( 0
0..
U 0
w
~ ...... ~
<( w
0.. ....J
o
.~
e
'"
"
CJl
'" '"
" to
co i'-
...
...
...
...
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I (/)
'm
:>,
u... co e:-
xc
,- <l: <ll
I -guE
OJ'- E
a..E::l
a..oCl)
<l:C
I 0
U
Ll.J
I
I m
.s:::
OJ
:c
I ::,g
b
~
(/)
OJ
OJ
I -
OJ
C
'15..
a..
I i=
<Xl
Q)
(/)
I <ll
()
~
'5
'';:::
I 'm
C
Q)
CI)
I
oo '" oo ... 0 ~ '"
I~ E ~ Ol '" oo '" 0
~ 0 " cD .n (\j ,..;
I~! .sa oo (!J (!J (!J '" oo Ol
(!J 0 ,~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Ol....
~ (J)
'" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~cIl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ '" c: <i> <i> ~ <i> <i> <i>
E,g ...
'0
II ~,~
::E 0]5
.g 0:0
c: '3
0 0 (!J '" oo '" ~
.... "'- oo ... '" '" '" Ol
18 J:~ 0 " cD .n (\j <ti
..:~ '" '" '" ~ '" oo
... ... ... ... ...
(ii '" '"
1iia
0 c:
0 ~cIl
....
'" *' *' *' *' *' *'
g'.;: '" ... 0 ... '" '"
- c: ~ ~ ~ I ~
1ij ::l I
'0 > 0
'00
0 <(~
'C: (ii !!/
'"
a.. o 0
a;O
~ '" '" ... '" '" (!J Ol
.$ ~ '" (!J 0 '" '" 0
I C'l (!J ... '" '" 0 '"
0 '" ",- ..,: ...- ..,: ",- ,..: ",-
- 0
~ 00 Ol (!J (!J '" ~ (!J 0
~ (!J oo ... '" ...
>- (!J- ...- (!J- Ol- ri ",- (!J-
a.. '"
z~ (!J '" '" '" (!J (!J '"
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
c:
<(
'" *' *' *' *' *' *'
g'~ '" '" '" oo '" '"
~ ~ ~ I
-c:
1ij 5
'0 -60
0 <(~
'C: -!!/
'"
a.. ~ 0
a;o
~ '" ~ (!J oo (!J ... ... 0
I (ii Ol '" '" oo '" oo
'" '08 oo '" oo Ol ... '" "'-
",- N ..,: ",- ",- N ~
>- ... '" '" ... '" '" oo
0..'" "'- '" '" '" '" ... ...
Z ::l ...- ",- (!J- oo- 0" ..,:
c: ;;;:
c: '" C'l C'l C'l ... ...
<( ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
ffi
1l a; " ~ ~
::;: >- 'C: c: ~ ~
c '" 0
os: :2 w E X X '5 X '5
~ > .... 5
'" 0 en <( '" '" 'a; '" 'a;
en 0: >- 0 I en en ...J en ...J
en '0
~ :::;: ::E
z w J!!
::J .... >-
1ll en 0 0 c: 0 '" 21
'" 0 >- >- a. a. '" a. 'a 'S
oJ!! 0 '" en E E ~ E >
a.'- is .0 C'
",en ~ ~ '" '" 0 '" :E :2
is 0 0 en 0 0
w w en
~ ::J
0
0 a.. 0
'C: 13
'" w
c: i= ~ ~ '" C'l ... '" (!J '"
1l a:
en <( w
a.. ...J
C'l
~
I
u...
/1 ~ /) ?
...
Ol
I
>-
'"
::;:
I
C'l
o
C'l
~
~
.J
<(
Z
<(
Z
w
~
-
o
(\j
C'l
o
C'l
gJ.
~
~
u...
en
'(ii
>-
L.L. Cii '"
x C L'
,- <( <ll
-guE
(]),- E
a..E::l
a..oUJ
<(C
o
u
UJ
;:: E
Q!roQ)
<Do'Pi
'" I- '"
>- CIl
!!:
"
OJ
"''''' VI
~ VI a
'OE""
" '" ~
,~ Ol.:::::
::;:0:0
....0::0
.E
e_
o ::J
I-ctIca
- J: VI
" 0
I~ of g
(I) 1ii'-
OeD
O~od
I-
"
al'.z,
- e
Iii ::J
> 0
'O'OC,)
,9: <( .....
Q5ti)~
c.. 0 0
~C,)
If $
o_:g
-OC,)
><il
c.. ::J
Ze
e
<>:
ijj
.r::
OJ
E
*'
o
~
"
al'~
- e
Iii ::J
-0>8
0'0
'c:<>: ;;;
Q) u; >
c.. 0 0
~C,)
f ~
t.Oo8
5:<il
Z ~
~
<Xl
"1
-
<Xl
'"
C\l 'Ct C\l f"-.. 0) ~
M to ~ l() ,.... ....
,....: d ~ 0 cO d
U'l <D <D '" '" '"
iflo fAo ~ ~ ~ (;090
'"
-
CO) M C"') C"') (")
~ .... -; .... -;
"'"
""
~
...
""I
...
...
...
...
;
...
1
u..
...
en
C
o
W
,Ql
..a
o
"
C
<ll
en
E
<ll
~
OJ
o
~
c...
0>
(])
en
<ll
(,)
~
'S:
'';::;
'(ii
C
(])
UJ
" ;;;
.~ ~
- >
" 0
CIlQ:
11l
:g.m
0.'-
VlCIl
o
...... ...... .... ..... ..... .....
~0*;;;;z;.
~ 5S ~ ~ ~ 0
cO a) M ai Lri a)
~:.~~~~
'#. ?fl. '#. #.
.... 0) ~ Q')
'" - -
?f!. '#.
'" '"
1
'"
-
'"
",'
'"
-
cD
<D
'"
co C\l ~ ..:r l/) O:J
C') ~ i' C') .q- C\l
0') "'" co IJ') C') C')
",- r--.~ C")- ,....~ /"-~ tn-
"=t v co C\I ,.... .....
L() l.O co_ Lt) C\J en
".r -.:t- to OR "<:f'- C\I-
l{) L!) Lt) co co ,....
fAo ~ * -ER- t.9- W.
.,
...
""
..,
Jc;---j/Y'
...
'"
I...
>-
'"
::E
1
'"
o ...
'"
~
s:
.J
<>:
z "'!
<>:
z
w
CIl
-
o ..
C\i
'"
o
'"
5!l
~ ...
~
u..
?fl. '#. rfl. 'if. '#. #.
0) f'-.. 1.0 ..... f". C\I
,... .... ,......... I
o
'"
<Xl
",'
...
"',
-
...
'"
~ ~ ~ :g ~ :$
v ,.... V_ aJ_ "" ,......
ltf (0- ,.... .... 0- C"'f
C\J C"') 0 co r-. C')
(0 Ll)(O_C\IO')CO
C"'f V- It) "",,- CfJ- C',.r
C') C"') C"') C') CO) v
* * ~ io9- * 6lt
e
'"
,S!
::E E ;;; a a ~ a ~
W::J Exx=Cx=C
tno <(Q)Q)'ffiCO'ffi
> 0 I ~ 00 ~ 00 ~
CIl '0
>- ::E::O
I- w
Z I- $ >-
~ 00 0 0 c 0 Q) S
o >>> 0. C. as c.=a 'S
C,)"'CIlEE.cE>o-
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ 8
~:::J w iii
<>: 0
c..
o C,)
~ .... ~ C\I C') V IJ') co ,....
<>: <>:
c.. ~
...
o
.~
e
"
"
CIl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ul
'(ii
>-
1.1- C6 '>-
xc <:...
'O<(co
cuE
Q)'- E
o..E:J
o..oU)
<(c
o
U
LlJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~_E
~;g~
'" 0 (!'
"'I-..::
>- en
!:
~
<JJ
"''''' <JJ
~ <JJ 5
"'C E,,,;::
.~ ~~
:;0.0
....0:0
,g
c:_
o :J
I-"'Cil
~:J: <JJ
11 ...: Q
- Q) U)
~'inC5
uffi""
~
I-
Q)
g'.z;
- c:
"0 ~ 3
0"0 U
.- <:....
mQiS!
0..00
i;;U
~
I ~
0_0
-ou
>...
0.. w
ZE
c:
<(
E
Q)
-
Ul
>-
Ul
>-
-
C
:J
o
()
OJ
C
'S;
co
.S!!
~
..Q
E
:J
'E
Q)
~
0..
~
~
C\J
o
~
Q)
g'z;
- c:
lij :J
"'C~8
o ~ ~
'c:- Q)
Q) 1i)::>
0.. 0 0
i;;u
~ .l2
I _ ~
"'ou
>Cil
0.. :J
Zc:
~
Q) ;;;
'$~
~ >
Q) e
en 0..
ill
~s
0.'-
<JJen
is
Q)
Ul
co
()
.z-
'S;
'''''
'(ii
c
Q)
U)
co
"<
o MOlt) co C?
M (0 l.O l.t) r--: .....
r.ci ai M ai ll) en
~~~~~m
-
co
""
C\I C\J C\I C\I N C\I
?"' ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
o 0 0 ci 0 d
~;0*~;
co 0 co C? co ,....
,.. ll) C") ~ (0 0
<D ai M ai u; ai
~~~~~Zi.
'if!- 'if!- 'if!- 'if!-
<0 (') 0 "1:1"
- - -
'#. '#-
- ...
I 'j"
'"
-
'"
N
'"
-
",-
'"
""
..... ex) Q') 0') 0 "It
~ ~ ~ ~ r:: m
CIJ- r.:t)- 'f!t'- .....- r--.- t()-
to (0 0 "d" 0') C")
C') CO') ,.... C') 0 .....
It) r--.- of C") .....- 11)-
'" '" '" '" '" ....
~ ~ -oct (Ro ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
- -
'if!- 'if!-
_ 0
I 'j"
o
'"
co
",-
...
....-
-
...
""
..... "It a 0 ll) (0
C") co 0 co C") co
co ..... CD C\J ..... ..-
~- (5 ~- ~- ~- ~-
..... ..... ,.... .qo ..... ,....
~-~-~-~-~~-
409- 4h- .w. W- 0 *
c:
'"
:;~ '~55~5~
~::3 Exxi5x;;
cnO <{Q)Q,)'C8Q)'aJ
>- U I en en ~ en ~
en "0
i:: :;:E
z ~ .sa >-
:J en 0 0 ffi 0 Q) ~
UO;;:-.>-c..a.....c..1ij.S
wenEE.oE>a
~ 6 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 ~ 8
~ ~ w Ci5
<( 0
0..
o U
~ ..... ~ C\I M "It It) co .....
<( i:5
0.. ~
o
i;;
c:
Q)
<.)
en
'"
-
I
u..
17-/1;
...
'"
I
:>.
'"
:;
I
'"
o
'"
><:
~
.,j
<(
Z
<(
Z
LlJ
en
-
;;
N
'"
o
'"
~
~
u..
en
"w
>-
L1.ro-"..
x C <..
'ij<(ro
cuE
Q)"- E
o.E::l
~gOJ
o
U
w
;:: E
"'roQ)
(OO~
'" f--.-::
>- rfl
'==
Q)
c;;
"'~ '"
;:: '" i5
"CE;
Q) '" !!!
,~ o,.~
::;:0.0
...0:0
.E
c_
o ::l
I-ctS(ij
~ J: '"
1\ ~- 2
'= Q) t:i
;gen(5
()ffi~
~
f--
Q)
:?z
- c
~ 5
"C"C()
.2 <( ...
m 7ii ~
0.. 0 0
~()
It J!l
o_~
-o()
1;:ro
z ~
c
<(
E
Q)
-
en
>-
en
>-
-
C
::l
o
o
Cll
c
":;;
ro
.!!!
"-
.2
E
::l
"E
Q)
"-
a..
#-
o
L()
Q)
:?z
- c
iij ::l
> 0
"C"C()
"2 <( ~~
~-
Q) '"
0.. 0 0
i;;()
~ ~
'I '"
10'08
>-
0..'"
Z ~
~
Q) a;
.~ :E
~ >
Q) 0
rflC:
<Xl
~
-
<Xl
'"
'"
c;;
N
'"
-
co-
co
'"
o
'"
<Xl
0>"
...
.....-
-
...
'"
o CO) 0 1.0 co M
CI') (0 It') Lt) ,..... ,...
to ai M a) Lri ai
"' "' co co ..... <Xl
~***0W.
C\/ C\l C\I C\I C\l C\I
.... .... ,... .... ,... ....
o 0 d d d c:i
;;~0;~*
co 0 co C') (0 ,...
..... lO C') o::t (0 0
cO ai M ai to en
q- .q- lO LO CD ,....
*~~0*~
"#. '#. '#. (j.
eo lO C\I ''It
I
?fl. *-
'" N
I I
,.... o::t U) to (0 0
0') 0 cr) 0') 0 en
c.o It) co~ C\I ..... 0
LO- U"J- ..... 1i'J- ",Ll'; M-
0> 0) C"),..... (0
Lt) 1..0 0) 1.0 C"') ('l)
0- C\r "IIIt'- c:o~ C".f 0-
eo c.o c.o (0 ,.... co
-tA- -w- ~ ~ -E.'t iR-
tfl. (j. *- ?fl. *" *
..- C") lO 0) C") C\l
I I I I - '"
I I
C") 0 (0 co ,... C\l
C") co m ,..... C") IX)
C\I It) .... co 1.0 It)
r---- c:o- ",- C'f C\,f 10-
,... C\l en Ll) <.0 C\J
Oo)o)(o_MO_
C\/- <"of crf LO ,.....- ....
..qo o::t "lilt' '<:t 'It' IJ')
0000i:R-fA-
c
'"
">!
::;:-E' a;5i5~5~
UJ;3 Exx:Cx=O
~ 0 1 ~ ~ 3 ~ j
rfl "C
i:: ::;::E
z ~ Q) >-
~ ~ 0 0 = 0 ~ s
o >.> Q. a. <<J o.lO'S
()"'rflEE15E>c;
~ 0 ~ J J ~ J ~ 6
~::J iiJ 1ii
<( 0
0..
i3 ()
w
~ ..... ~
<( w
0.. ...J
""
...
...
""!
""
""!
...
...
...
co
I
u..
...
~
~
C'il
~~
c. "-
",rfl
(5
o
.~
c
Q)
"
rfl
C\l C') ..... 1O c.o ,....
...
...
..
) '7 ~).20
...
'"
I...
,.,
'"
::;:
I
'"
o ...
'"
0<:
;::
.J
<( ...
Z
<(
Z
W
rfl
-
o ..,
'"
'"
o
'"
~.,
en
"'"'
u..
Q)
en
ro
o
~
"5
:;:::
"w
c
Q)
OJ
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ul
-(jj
>.
u. ro ">.
x c: <:.."
'O<(<ll
c:uE
CD-- E
a.E:;
a.oen
<(c:
o
u
lJ.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ir:: _ E
'" Cll '"
~O~
'" ... .-:::
>- <n
I~
"
<:;
Cll"" <J)
$: <J) 5
1:1 E',;::
'" Cll ~
.~ a,~
::EO.o
lo.C:O
o
-
c_
o :;J
...Cllctl
~ J: <J)
1i ~. ~
_ '" <J)
IJ) -.-
o~o
UCll""
~
'"
g'.?;
- c
(ij :;J
"0 > 0
o"U
.- <( ...
:u (;) ~
"- 0 0
CliU
'"
f .!!l
o_(g
-ou
>ctl
"-:;J
Zc
C
<(
>.
:!:
:0
_!!1
"
g'.?;
-c
~ 5
,,"u
o <( ~
.~ 1ii ~
"-00
Cliu
g; .!!l
I_~
",Ou
>-
"- Cll
z~
c
<(
""
"0
c:
.ill
CD
>
:;:::
U
<ll
c:
o
z
C\i
~
~
'" '"
,~ 32
~ >
'" 0
<nO:
ctl
:g.S:!
0.--
<J)<n
C5
CD
Ul
<ll
()
~
-5
-.;:::
-(jj
c:
CD
en
l\i
"
::E >- -c c c ;: c ;:
'E Q) 0 0 co 0 ('Qi
w ~ E X X ~ X ~
~ 8 1 ~ ~ j ~ j
<n "
~ ::E:E
z ~ ~ ~
::J <n 0 0 l\i 0 '"
R ~>- Q.Q.... Q.1a
~,.<nEE.oE>
;J;O~t3t3~tL::E
~::l W (jj
<C 0
"-
(3 U
~ ..... ~
a: <c
<c w
"- ...J
-
~
o
-"
Cll
C
"
"
<n
co
~
'"
0;
co';
'"
-
<0
co
...
o
'"
co
",'
....
"'.
-
....
...
C\I ~ C\l f'.. 0 ''It'
(") <0 Lt) I,() co ....
ai N <0 N a:) N
''It' LO L.l) to to co
-b9- iR-.... ~ ~ ~
M C") C"') C? C'? t')
.... ..... ,.... ..... ..... ....
zizizizizizi
co 0 co ("') (0 ...-
..... L() M <q' (,0 0
cO ai M a) an en
~ v Ll) U') co ,.....
* * ~ io9- ~ ~
"#- "#- "#- "#- "#- "#-
0) (0 C\l r-- ,... .....
C\I C\I C\I .... .... I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
vC\lC')oco~co
~~ ~~ :~f fi 0 ~f
00 "1:1"_0 coco
"'~ m- "... 1/')- CX)- fD-
.... .... "' "' "' co
~V9-~*0*
'"
-
I
u..
'#. '#. '#. "#. (/!. rfl.
(0 qo ,.... """ M -.:t
C\I C\l C\I .... .....
co MO)O) "It ll)
ll) 0 .... en an 0
..... L() ..... It) v to
a::f 0)- ~ oq.- cr3- (D-
O) en co C\I C"') en
COf'.._COLOC\lCO
~f ;; ~ c;- ~sf ~f
*****0-
....
'"
I
>-
Cll
::E
I
'"
o
'"
:.::
$:
.J
<c
Z
<c
Z
w
~
-
o
oJ
'"
o
'"
gJ.
$:
<n
-c:
u..
l!l
:~
.s=
U
C\I M .qo U') CD .....
jiJ;/02/
(J)
'(jj
>-
~~ ~
.- <( III
-guE
(]).- E
o..E::J
o..oU)
<(c
o
u
UJ
;:::: E
"'Ol",
(OO~
'" f- .~
>- m
!:,
'"
en
"'011 '"
:;:"'5
"OE""
.~ ~.~
::;:0:0
....eto
o
-
c
o
...,
III
tl
....
(])
-
(J)
c
~
-
(J)
Ol
tl
:>
III
"5
.J::
()
(])
(J)
::J
(J)
(])
'..,
'(3
OJ
C
'C
o
.0
.J::
OJ
'ijj
Z
c_
o "
~ctlCi3
~:r: '"
I ~ ~. ~
-~U)
;g~i:5
(,)~~
f-
'"
~~
lii "
> 0
"O"O(..J
.Q <( '-
Q;cn~
c... 0 0
ffi(..J
'"
f .\!l
o_~
~O(..J
~(ij
Z ~
c
<(
<Xl
"<
~
<Xl
...
o C'? 0 l.O co C')
C'? (0 ll) ll) ,..... ?-
cD a) M a) uj 0;
1.0 1.0 (0 <0 ,..... co
W-iA-*i:l9-~~
...
"'"
"'"
"'"
...
-III!
...
..,
"'"
<Xl
i'"
ll..
...
"'"
...
,
/9-/;2.2
...
'"
I
~"'!
::;:'
I
'"
o
"'."
><:
:;:
a::
o
CD...
I
C:l
W
z
-
0'"
N
'"
o
'"
~..,
m
.,-:
ll..
'"
g>~
- c
lii "
> 0
'C'C(..J
.2 <( Q;
Q) t:i >
c... 0 0
ffi(..J
~ !2
'I co
ll)o8
fi:0l
z~
c
<(
Q) Q;
.~ ~
~ >
" 0
me:
(")
~
1ll
;g.m
c..-
corn
i:5
("IJ N C\l C\J C\l t\J
.,... .,... ... .,... .... .,...
o d 0 d d 0
~~;;;;Z;;;
co 0 co C") to .,...
.,... l.O '" ~ (0 0
t.O a) M C>> Lri 0;
~~~~~t;
'if/. 'if/. 'if/. 'if/. 'if/. 'if/.
M 0 (0 .... ll) ,.....
C\I C\I .,......... I
C'? ,..... M Lt) lJ') l.O 0>
.,... 0...... <::t 0 .,... 0>
C") 10 C'? "d" .,... 0> co
C\r 6 o~ (Oh 0 (j)h 1"----
0> C') C") <D .,... 1.0 C>>
.,.... .....,.... o:t ..- co co
<0- ..- r:rf ll)R 0> C".t 0-
(0 l.O It) l.O l.() (0 ,.....
~ .fo9-~~-E.9-4I9-*
'#. (fi.
N ~
'#. ?fl. ?fl. '#.
(0 C\l co ......
~ ~ I
...
(])
(J)
III
()
~
'5
'..,
'(jj
C
(])
U)
o
'"
<Xl
",'
...
.....
~
...
...
(0 ~ ~ C!; m ~
a o:t a It) C") 'I:t
m- o~ L()- r.o- <::t- ,.....-
en ..... ""'" C') "It' 0
0)0')0)<0_"'0
C\I- M- "!j"- (0 af C\f
('I) C"') C'? C") C"') v
******
o
ffi
c
2l
m
lii
o
::;:f 'a;55~i5~
wg Exx=O'X=O
~ U ~ ~ ~ j ~ j
m 'C
i: ::;: ~
Z ~ Q) >.
::J moo C 0 ~ ~
O>.>-a.a.ctlQ.tij-
(..J '" m E E ~ E > l
~ 0 ~ J 8 ~ J ~ 8
~:::l W (jj
if. 0
u (..J
~ .,... ~ C\l C'? o:t It) (0 ,.....
cr: <(
<( w
c... -'
I
0 g '" 0 '" a) '"
... "! '" Ltl ..... -
I ....._E <ri ffj C'l M ~ .,; m
C'l '" '" 0 '" CD ..... a)
-1- -
CD 0 '" - ... ... ... ... ... ...
C'lf- ...
>- en
u..
I '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~~ (/) - - - - - -
0 0 0 0 0 0
$:"'C - - - - - -
"0 ~.g ... ... ... ... ... ...
'" '"
I x -
._ 0)=
::<0.0
\oo.n:O
.E
C_ a) 0 a) '" CD
I o ::l -
f-"'1il - "1 '" ... CD 0
-::c '" cO C'l M m .,; m
'" , ... ... '" '" ~ .....
- ... ... ... ... ...
_.S!cn
(I) (/) .-
I 8ffio
_oil
f-
0) <II- <II- <II- <II- <II- <li-
I '" ... '" C'l Ltl 0 0
- C '" '" - - -
ffi ::l
"0>8
0"0
E .- <( -
- '"
",-
I Q) a.'" >
- (08 0
III
>.
III '" ..... C'l '" CD ..... ..... -
z. '" CD ..... a) - ..... a) .....
I - ..... '" - '" C'l ....., .....
I III c 0_8 gf !\i 1:;;' [l' ~ ~ ~
.m :J - 0
0 >1il - "', '" CD 0 0.
>. ",' ",' a; ri
I.l.. Cii ~ () - - -
a. ::l a) CD CD CD CD ..... a)
x c OJ Zc ... ... ... ... ... ... ... C'l
.- <( 11l ~
I -guE c -
.S: I
Q).- E 11l u..
a.E:J .!!!
a.oU) ~ '" <II- <II- <II- <II- <II- <II-
<(c 0 0) '" '" C'l CD '" Ltl
I 0 - "'- - - I
U E - C
UJ ffi ::l
:J "0>8
.E 0"0 -
Q) .'" <( '"
I ~ ",1ij >
a. ~8 0
E '" '"
Q) I_~ CD ... - ..... a) '" '"
... - CD ..... Ltl - CD
I - ..... C'l N a) "', '" N
III '" 0
>. ~ ~' ~' ~ ~ ~ ri
III >-
Z. a.'" '" ..... CD ..... 0, .....,
Z2 ?i' N ri .f CD' a) - ...
c ~ ... ... ... ... ... Ltl C'l
I :J ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I
0 ~
() ffi ::<
Q) '" - () ~ I
> ::< ~ .'" C C ~ C
11l () '" '" ~ ~ ~ ...
I .!!! .c:~ I:!! C ~ '6 '6 0
::l
'" e en 8 '" '" .co '" .co Q
III en a. 6i I en en ...J en ...J
Q) "0 $:
.'"
U ~ ::< ~ ~
I Z ~ m >- (3
<:t 1il :J 0 0 ffi 8- '" '" ~
~ '" '" 0 >- ~ -
() ~ en a. a. - .s
Q) 8..'" - ~ ~ .0 E 9-
I III ",en ~ 0 ~ 0 '" :;: :e
11l i5 () () en () () -
() w Z (jj (jj 0
:;: ::l N
~ 0 '"
.S: 0 a. () g
.'" (3
I .'" '" w ~
.m C ~ - ~ N '" ... Ltl CD .....
'"
c () /9 - /.2J rJJ
Q) en <( ~ ~
U) a. u..
I
CIl
"ijj
>-
u.. ro .,..
x C L
"B<(<U
coE
co"- E
o.E::J
o.oU)
<(C
o
o
UJ
r:::_E
0> <ll Q)
COO~
0> I- ."
>- rfJ
Ii:::
Q)
en
<ll~ '"
~"'5
"E""
Q) <ll 2!
.~ o,.~'
::;:0.0
....0:0
a
-
c:_
a ::>
I-caCij
~:r: '"
I ~ - 2
I': Q; t;
~1i)a
Diij~
~
Q)
g>Z
- c:
~ 5
""D
.2 -< ....
Q) (;] ~
!l.oo
laD
~ .'!l
o_~
-aD
>-
!l. <ll
Z ::>
c:
c:
<(
""0
CO
CIl
o
o
~
II:
U
z
Li-i
~
'"
g>Z
- c:
~ 5
""D
.g <(
C1) en ~
!l. a a
laD
5'" .'!l
I '"
1.0'08
><6
!l. ::>
Z c:
c:
<(
o
o
a;
to
...
o M 0 l.l) co C?
C") to I.t) 1.0 ,...., <p'O
cO o:i (Ij en lri a)
U1 U1 to to r-- <Xl
{,9ofFt-~fFt-fFt-fFt-
C\I C\l N C\J C\I C\I
..... ..- .... ..- ..- ..-
ci 0 0 ci d 0
;;;*;;
eo 0 !Xl '" (0 ..-
..- U') M v (0 0
cO a) M ai Lri m
v 'd" 1.0 Lt) to ,....,
-&9-fFt-fFt-fFt-V'7fFt-
'#. '#. '#. ?fi
T"'" OJ "" C"')
- I
'#. '#.
o U1
_ C\I
I I
"'!
...
"'!
...
~
...
...
~
~
.
~
I
u...
...
'" :;;
.~ :E
~ >
Q) a
rfJQ:
OJ
<Jl
<U
U
.2:-
"5
:;::
"ijj
C
OJ
U)
1'6
3~
0."-
",rfJ
i5
o 0 ""'" co ex) en C')
..... co co ..- ,...., co ,.....
"It a) c.o~ to 'd" C\I C\I
1/)- f'.,-""" (t'f ,....,~ r--.- I.t)-
co C") C') ,...., ..- to 0
co I'-r--.._Or-...VLO
v- r.:tJ- a ",,- (,0- 0- co-
Lt) V LO l.O l.() (,0 co
fFt- fFTfFt-fFt-fFt-fFt-fFt-
r--
C\I
0>
0>-
<0
<Xl
.,.-
'"
...
tfl. (jl. rfl. ?fl. '#. of!.
v ..- OJ (") C\l C\I
,... ..... r 7
<0"'0>
; ~ ~
(1)- 0- l!)-
U1 r-- '"
,... 0_ T-
o- ('\,f
M ;; M
... ... ...
0> .,. U1
U1 _ to
<Xl r-- r--
l,()- v- ,.....-
0>0<0
r-- U1 _
C",- ttf 0')-
'" '" '"
<I> <I> ...
c:
<ll
o
::;: f "~iS is ~ is ~
w 5 E x x ~ x ~
~" < C1) C1) 'ffi C1) ~
> _ J ~ 00 ~ 00 ~
rJJ "
~ ::;:::E
z::: Q) >.
~ 00 0 0 c 0 ~ S
0>.>- 0. Q. co a.Cij'-
D<llrfJEE.oE>"
~ 6 ~ J J ~ J ~ ~
~:J [j US
<( 0
[5 D
w
~ ,... ~
<( w
a. ..J
"'!
...
..
J~~/.J.i
.,.
0>
I "'!
>-
<ll
::;:
I
'"
o
'"
::<:
~
..J
<(
Z
<(
Z
W
rJJ
-
-
o
C\i
'"
o
'"
9J.
~
rJJ
.,-;
u...
a
.~
c:
'"
o
rfJ
C\J M "d" I.() (0 ""'"
"'!
~
...
...
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
.m
:>.
u.. -
l\l
X C
15<(
c:>.
Q) :'!:::::
a.>
Q. "'"
<{ "en
C
(])
(I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
(])
-
en
:>'en
(I)....
:>.l\l
c~
~ I
00
u~
- ....
o (])
~ e;
en (])
o ~
u_
.9~
-0-
(]) C
.... (])
l\l en
a.(])
Eel:
0_
u(])
(])z
C1JC
l\l 0
c"'O
l\l (])
> en
-0 l\l
<(.0
1il
o
u
5",*
~=...
'" '"
(f)>
~
Ci.i
:::0*
.!!lEO
""0 ~
"- '"
ju
6S~
~ffi~
'" '-
(f).o
o
(f)
jjj
50*
~E~
'" '"
(f)U
c:o*
'" "I
.>2 E "I
'- '"
~u
<l:
I
""0
::E
'"
.~
"0
(\j E
.;.:(1)
~ en
.Slit
c:~
.9 l:
'" :J
'- 0
~U
'6 c:
m'~
~1il
c.
al"-
. -"
~ ~.-
:1:: '0 'fa
~ s a.
","~
en .~c
_ e.Q.
oa.'"
c:_u
.g~jjj
'C ~ a
" '" '"
tlJO ~
'" '" '"
c"'_
I~
*"*"
"''''
I I
*"*"
"'<Xl
-oe'#.
"'...
~~
*"*
C\i/il
*"*"
"'...
"1"1
*"*
<Xl <Xl
"1"1
~
.Sl
c:
o
.r;;
'-
'"
>
'6
-
c:
l!!
'" '-
.~ ~
.'" "
- -
ffi '"
:J""O",
oSC)
'" " '"
- .!:tc::
~ 0 c
3: i5..B
<u Q) c:
u; ~ s
.- c: tI)
>c:c:
'" 0 0
:p-u
.c:
U
~C\1
*"
*"*"**"
C')C\J~(Q
I I,........
~
~
*"
~
"I
*"**"*"
CDO,...C')
~ I I
*"
co
"I
"#.ffl-tfl.tfl.
C')1.t)lJ)(I')
~~
*"
l'l
*"**"*"
m 0.,... 0)
~C\I~
*"
[:5
*"**"*"
"I"'''''''
C\IC\1,...,....
*"
~
*"*"*"*"
l.t)COCDCC
NC\I,.........
E
'"
-
'"
>-
(f)
~
c:
:J
o
U
~
.3
'"
.!
(3
'"
"0,-
Q) Q) ... "-
,l;;!-e,"'~Q;
1ll._-e,0:::
a:.c:._-o
*".c:*"_
ootfl.o'#.
ZT""'I.O"'-I.t)
cnU)C\IcnC'\J
tlu;<ntntn
oo1i) 0 ti)
00000
E=-~=-~
",a/l_a/l_
100UOU
(f)>-~~~~
c c: c c:
....:J:J:J:J
....0000
5UUUU
o
U
"I:f"lt)(QI'
*"*
"''''
~I
I
*"*"
"I'"
I
*"*
...'"
*"*"
0'"
~~
*"*
...<Xl
~~
*"*"
....-
~C\1
"0
'"
.!::!
(\j
'"
a: Q;
-'-.c:
0"'0>
Z -e,.-
E"- .c:
"':;;*"
-",0
"'o~
>-~ '"
(f)",c:
~",.Q
s';rti
o c:: ,Q)
U "0.:0
0),9- 0
.~ ::- cd
~ t!! en
'" '" E
...J"'",
_0,-
oc.o>
tI) e 2
(;ja..a..
o
U
<Xl'"
?fl.'#.
...-
~C\1
I I
*"*
~'"
I I
?f.tfl.
......
I
tfl.?fl.
0"1
~
*"*"
"''''
~
*"*"
co <Xl
~
E
'"
10
>-
(f)
~
c:
:J
o
U
'"
.c:
-
0>
c:
"~ E E
'" :J:J
~.- .-
'- E E
o Q) e
EO-a.
:J*"*"
.- 0 0
EC\I'"
l!!
a.
O~
~~
;9 - /;2~
*"
~
*" *"
- '"
-
*" *"
.... -
- -
*"
"I
"I
*"
co
"I
*"
'"
"I
~
l5
'"
:::;
;g
ai
...J
~
.'"
"
'"
.s
o
Z
"I
~
*"
....
I
*"
o
*"
o
~
*"
'"
~
*"
co
~
*"
Ol
~
*"
o
"I
.*
"I
"I
*"
~
*"
...
"I
~
"I
I
u.
c:
o
~
liS
~
ai
~
'"
.",
10
:>
'"
"3
.c:
U
'"
'"
::l
'"
.!
(3
0>
c:
.C:
o
.0
.c:
0>
"iii
z
'"
-
E
.s
'"
(f)
c:
.5
'"
.3
'-
B
E
:J
.E
'"
0:
...
'"
I
~
=-
I
...
o
52
~
z
w
a:
a.
(f)
z
w
~
~
o
N
'"
o
'"
~
~
u:
E
'"
10
(f)
c:
~
U
~
'"
'"
...J
'"
!
(3
...
~
I
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.: 22..
MEETING DATE: 5-10-94
ITEM TITLE: Report Concerning the Citywide Graffiti Abatement Program, A
Proposed Graffiti Education Program and A Graffiti, Adopt-A-Block
Program
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Building and HOuif V
REVIEWED BY' City M",ag'J (4/5 Vole' Yes_NoL.)
BACKGROUND: At the January 4, 1994 and the February 8, 1994 City Council
Meetings, Staff was directed to return to Council to address Graffiti Abatement activities
currently conducted within the City. Staff was instructed to prepare a Report outlining
current enforcement of the Property Defacement Ordinance and provide applicable
recommendations, if any, for modifications for improvements to the Ordinance.
Council also instructed Staff to investigate the potential for establishing an Adopt-A-Block
or Adopt-A-Community Graffiti Program and to consider awards for civic groups and/or
schools which contributed to Graffiti Abatement Programs or which were most successful
in keeping their areas Graffiti-free.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the Report and approve staff
recommendations for Anti-Graffiti Program Enhancements.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
DISCUSSION: This Report consists of two components. The first component is
specifically directed to address the current state of graffiti enforcement within the City,
the financial impacts of graffiti abatement and the issues encompassing the enforcement
of C.V.M.C, Chapter 9.20 - Property Defacement. The second component of the Report
addresses Staff's recommended actions to enhance the current level of graffiti abatement
via a comprehensive graffiti awareness education campaign designed to capture
community involvement through volunteers.
ComDonent Number One: Current Citywide Graffiti Abatement Enforcement
1. Departments Involved in Graffiti Abatement:
:2..2.- I
Council Agenda Statement
2
Graffiti Abatement Program
Four City departments are involved in Citywide graffiti eradication: Building and
Housing, Police, Public Works and Parks and Recreation.
Police Deoartment: The Police Department contains the physical location of the
graffiti "Hotline". This is the published telephone number (691-5198) which
complaints are placed on a pre-recorded message when the Graffiti Coordinator
is not at his desk. The complainants are typically responded back to by the
Coordinator for further information (color, size, etc.) and placed on a listing for
removal by individuals assigned by the Juvenile Courts to perform Community
Service Hours per the criteria established under C.V.M.C. Section 9.20.040.
Under the direction of the Graffiti Coordinator, this Program assigns eight to ten
individuals to remove graffiti, which typically occurs on Saturdays. This program
has proven successful in eliminating graffiti on residential and commercial
properties on a weekly basis. The Graffiti Coordinator position has recently
experienced a personnel change and in meeting with the newly appointed Graffiti
Coordinator, he advises that are working towards initiating two paint-out days a
week starting at the latter part of May 1994.
The Graffiti Coordinator position is the individual financially shared by the City and
by South Bay Community Services to perform several tasks, inclusive of
counseling juveniles sentenced by the Courts to perform Community Service
Hours. He is assigned to coordinate and transport the juveniles to the various
locations to remove graffiti and to record both the number of complaints received
and the number of "paint-outs' performed throughout the City.
In calendar year 1993, the Graffiti Coordinator identified in excess of 5,000 graffiti
complaints received via the Graffiti Hotline. Of this quantity, approximately 1,500
were transferred to either the Department of Public Works or to the Department
of Building and Housing. Public Works handles all the graffiti located in the City
right-of-way whereas the Building and Housing Department handles graffiti
complaints occurring on commercial property. Of the remaining 3,500
complaints, approximately 1,000 were located outside the City limits, requiring the
Coordinator to refer the complaint to the responsible agency where the graffiti was
located. As for the balance of approximately 2,500 complaints, the juveniles
serving their Community Service Hours restitution removed graffiti from those
locations.
As an example of the Graffiti Coordinator's community outreach beyond the once
a week paint-outs, is that he has also interacted with students from Bonita Vista
High School, Swim Team to perform graffiti removal upon and around the High
School campus vicinity at Otay Lakes Road and East "H' Street.
:22 -1--
Council Agenda Statement
3
Graffiti Abatement Program
Public Works Deoartment: The Department of Public Works performs graffiti
eradication on all City right-of-way and City-owned structures, although typically
not Parks and Recreation buildings which is removed by Parks and Recreation.
Ted Larson, Senior Public Works Supervisor and two full-time crew members
assigned to the Traffic Signage and Striping Division are actively abating graffiti
by responding to one of several reporting mechanisms. First is the direct method
whereby a graffiti complaint is received by Public Works from either the public,
the Graffiti Coordinator or by any member of City staff. Until recently these
complaints were not recorded in a comprehensive data base due to the fact that
they are usually without address, and more typically identify a storm drain
channel, utility box, City sign, etc. The Deputy Director of Public Works has
instituted a graffiti activity recording format which accurately identifies all graffiti
related activities performed by the department.
The second and more frequent method of graffiti abatement utilized is that when
the crew sees any graffiti at random, the supervisor has a standing directive to the
crew to stop and remove the graffiti as quickly as possible. In calendar year
1993, the Department of Public Works received in excess of 1 ,900 complaints and
committed over 4,100 staff hours towards graffiti abatement. Staff estimates that
approximately 700,000 sq. ft. of surface has been sandblasted or painted over to
eradicate graffiti from public right-of-way and storm drain locations throughout the
City.
Parks and Recreation Deoartment: The Department of Parks and Recreation
performed graffiti removal on Parks structures identifying approximately 1,100
incidents of graffiti. In calendar year 1993, staff members from the department
estimated that over 1,000 staff hours for graffiti removal and $4,300 was allocated
for paint and supplies. As evidenced throughout the City, graffiti vandalism to
Parks and Recreation structures have experienced a significant increase over the
past five years. Previously, the department did not record graffiti abatement
activities in a centralized recording format, however, the department now records
all acts of graffiti vandalism for time and material accountability.
The department has identified that graffiti vandalism is occurring in each of the
City's Parks. Unfortunately, the incidents are typically random in nature and
without specific pattern of graffiti incident, assigning a Parks and Recreation Staff
member or Police Officer to continuously monitor each Park 24 hours-a-day would
prove economically infeasible at this time due to the varied levels of incidents.
Buildina and Housina Deoartment: The Department of Building and Housing
records all graffiti complaints received by the department in the Code
Enforcement complaint tracking system data base. The component which
specifically identifies and tracks graffiti complaints was completed in September
'22.~3
Council Agenda Statement
4
Graffiti Abatement Program
1993. Since recording graffiti complaints as an autonomous category, the
department has received 727 graffiti complaints over the past seven months,
averaging in excess of one hundred complaints monthly.
The Department of Building and Housing enforces graffiti on commercial/industrial
structures whereas the Police Department Graffiti Coordinator performs the
majority of abatement on residential properties. Building and Housing utilizes a
notification system which exercises automated correspondence sent to the
affected business owner and property owner upon receipt of each complaint.
Code Enforcement Officers then schedule on-site inspections to insure
compliance.
During the last year and in particular the past seven months, graffiti complaints
have escalated to represent approximately 20 percent of all complaints received
and handled by the Code Enforcement Division of the Department.
2. Cost of Graffiti Abatement - 1993:
Staff estimates that in excess of 8,000 complaints or graffiti paint-outs have been
handled in some manner by City personnel. The cost of graffiti removal to the
residents of Chula Vista, Inclusive of staff time at full cost recovery, vehicles,
trailers and graffiti removal supplies for calendar year 1993 was In excess of
$200,000.(1) Total square footage of graffiti removed/covered by City crews,
combined with the total area abated by Building and Housing's Code
Enforcement staff Is In excess of 800,000 square feet Citywide. Cost
estimates for calendar year 1994 are anticipated to exceed 1993 levels by three
to five percent due to rising material costs, fuel costs and labor costs. This
calculated amount for calendar year 1994 represents an estimate of direct costs
to the City without any increase in current graffiti activity.
3. Graffiti Activity Levels - Calendar Years 1988 to 1993:
The citizens and members of the business community of Chula Vista have
experienced annual increases of graffiti vandalism during each of the past five
years. While recording the graffiti complaints and locations have become a
necessity for City departments over the past year, a historical graffiti abatement
table is represented by the following (estimated from 1988 through 1992):
1. Direct cost to the City is substantially less than this amount. Also, much
of this cost is for time spent by existing staff who spend the balance of
their time on other City projects, so it would be difficult to extract this
money directly from the operating budget. This amount, however, gives
you the general magnitude of the use of City resources on the problem.
j..1-tt
Council Agenda Statement
5
Graffiti Abatement Program
Year
Number of Comolaints/Paint-outs
Cost of Abatement
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
150
300
1000 (instituted Hotline)
2500
6500
8000
$ 8,500
$ 10,000
$100,000
$125,000
$160,000
$200,000
Attached to this report for City Council's information is Chief Emerson's response
to Council Referral #2741. Diversion of Graffiti Removal Funds to Youth-Based
Alternatives. As identified by the Chief's report, of the three-phase proposal by
Councilman Moore, Phases I and II have been completed. The Police Department
believes that replacing the "paint over paint" component of the City's Graffiti
Abatement Program with an alternative, positive youth orientated sports program
is recognizingly a tedious process, but a positive process in which continued
efforts will be conducted.
Councilman Moore's request to divert any savings of graffiti abatement monies to
City youth activities such as Chula Vista Police Activity League will be
continuously assessed by staff on a quarterly basis. The difficultly, however, is
that the only designated staff individual for graffiti abatement is the Police
Department's Graffiti Coordinator funded at $20,000 annually. All other City staff
involved in graffiti abatement are multi-tasked positions (Code Enforcement
Officers, Street Stripping Crews, and Parks and Recreation Leaders).
Consequently, the identified $200,000 (which reflects City's cost at the full cost
recovery rate) expenditure for graffiti abatement are funds which are
encompassed within each department's budget, but are not specifically
designated as autonomous, line-item accounts within department budgets. Staff
has incorporated graffiti abatement as an additional duty, task and responsibility
to their individual positions, such as street stripping, Code Enforcement Officer,
etc. Hence, to calculate an estimate of financial contributions from future savings
of the Graffiti Abatement Program is unknown at this time. Savings in elements
such as paint and supplies, are also unknown at this time.
4. City Initiated Pro-Active Graffiti Measures Implemented To-Date:
22-5
Council Agenda Statement
6
Graffiti Abatement Program
. Placed Graffiti Reporting Forms in all City Vehicles. The forms specifically
instructs the reporting party to which department the complaint should be
directed to for abatement.
. In October 1990, the Police Department adopted '911' for graffiti in
progress and also published the Chula Vista Graffiti "Hotline' telephone
number in the Star News newspaper and The Chula Vista Quarterly Bulletin
identifying additional numbers to report crimes in progress (691-5151) and
another number to report graffiti (691-5198) locations.
. The Public Works Department purchased two trailers specifically designed
to permit volunteers to abate graffiti. The trailers are lightweight, fully
stocked and available to service clubs, civic organizations and/or any
interested resident(s).
. In December 1990, the City Council approved a program to allow the
Public Works Department to reimburse costs for cellular phone graffiti in
progress calls.
. The Department of Building and Housing has recruited volunteers to walk
the Third Avenue Business District and along portions of Broadway to
contact commercial properties affected by graffiti. Their role is to report
the graffiti sightings to the department and to contact merchants about the
City's Graffiti Abatement Program. Upon abatement, staff is notified of the
removal to close the complaint. Although only in its second month, the
program appears to be a success and optimistically will represent a model
for future volunteer efforts.
. The Public Works Department has installed "No Graffiti" signs at various
locations City\yide. This informational sign identifies the penal code
section and states that graffiti is a Crime.
. Rosie Bystrak, Public Works, and South Bay Community Services joined
forces to form "Citizens Against Graffiti" - A volunteer based group
established for anti-graffiti activities.
. City staff have been active participants in the San Diego Regional Anti-
Graffiti Task Force to collectively address issues with fellow public entities,
inclusive of CaI- Trans. The direct benefit to the City has been the reduced
costs for common shares in paint from the County of San Diego as well as
the introduction to graffiti removal products and surface, graffiti resistant
materials.
?-2 _fJ
Council Agenda Statement
7
Graffiti Abatement Program
. City staff from Public Works, Building and Housing and Police Departments
have been actively involved in community based, graffiti volunteer efforts
by supplying paint materials, trailers and maps to key areas frequently
targeted by graffiti criminals. An example of such efforts is the upcoming
Chamber of CommercelPacific Coast Board of Realtors community paint-
out day scheduled for Saturday, May 14, 1994. In conjunction with City
staff, an estimated 250 to 300 individuals are anticipated to participate in
graffiti eradication throughout the City.
. The City of Chula Vista and the South Bay Community Services financial
partnership has produced an individual to staff a full-time, Graffiti
Coordinator position. The focus of this individual's assigned duties, tasks
and responsibilities is to coordinate graffiti eradication efforts with juveniles
sentenced to Community Service Hours by the South Bay Juvenile Court.
Pursuant to C.V.M.C., Section 9.20.040 - Punishment Provisions, this has
proven effective in graffiti removal activity on thousands of residential
properties vandalized throughout the City.
. City staff has established communication channels with the utility
companies for purposes of reporting graffiti for rapid removal on utility
boxes and structures placed in the public right-of-way such as those
owned by Pacific Bell, Cox Cable, San Diego Gas and Electric, etc. Staff
reports location to appropriate organization which in turn, targets the
removal of the graffiti within three working days.
5. Enforcement of C.V.M.C., Chapter 9.20 - Property Defacement:
City Council's amendments to Chapter 9.20 in 1992 is an enforcement tool for the
Department of Building and Housing to exercise the Due Process provisions for
compliance. While the Ordinance is well structured in content and enforcement
provisions, staff has experienced difficulties in two areas.
First is the difficulty for citizens and the business community to accept the fact
that, as victims of a crime against their property, thev are responsible for removal
of graffiti located on their property. In conjunction with this dose of reality, is the
fact that if the removal of the graffiti does not occur in a timely manner, financial
hardship may result by the City removing the graffiti at the property owner's
expense. This issue has resulted in public relations difficulties in handling the
concerns of the victims of such property crimes.
To date, the City has not exercised on the Ordinance's collection component
contained in Section 9.20.055. The preferred avenues for abatement in such
cases are to simply remove the graffiti by either the Police Department Program
].2-1
Council Agenda Statement
8
Graffiti Abatement Program
or by Public Works crews. This is not to suggest, however, that City staff does
not exercise the content of the enforcement provisions of the Ordinance with
skills of diplomacy to encourage rapid removal of graffiti by the property owner.
Staff will, however, opt to utilize the collection and lien provisions as a last
recourse of action as necessary.
The second area of the Ordinance which has not promulgated a success rate is
Section 9.20.045(A)1 - Detection Provisions; Reward Authority. Specifically, the
reward of $150 has not attracted individuals to participate in giving information to
the Police Department for the arrest and conviction of those guilty of graffiti
vandalism crime(s). Staff believes that this component is under utilized to the
extent which City Council originally intended. Staff will initiate efforts to promote
the reward component of the Ordinance as a positive reinforcement mechanism
to optimistically reduce graffiti crimes.
Staff does not recommend any amendments to the Ordinance regarding graffiti
removal.
Summary: With respect to the aforementioned issue of public relations involving the
responsibilities of property owners to remove any and all graffiti on their property, the
Department of Building and Housing has initiated efforts to produce public awareness
pamphlets identifying the civic responsibilities for rapid graffiti eradication on properties.
The Department will be coordinating efforts with civic groups, service clubs and
members of the business community to develop pamphlets for distribution through
several mechanisms such as direct interaction with the community on graffiti complaint
responses, availability at business locations, placement in print media and distribution
to both children and adults at Parks and Recreation Centers to identify a selected few.
Fiscal Impact: Unknown at this time due to level of business partnership opportunities.
The Department of Building and Housing estimates that approximately 15,000 to 20,000
Anti-Graffiti pamphlets would serve the needs of promoting graffiti awareness throughout
the City. However, the department believes that all costs associated with development,
reproduction and distribution of the graffiti pamphlets can be absorbed within the
department's proposed FY 1994-95 Budget, given the anticipated financial assistance
from the aforementioned entities. The Department of Building and Housing anticipates
that the first draft of these Anti-Graffiti pamphlets will be completed in approximately 60
days, with distribution set for 30 days after. The target date for the public distribution
will be set for on or about August 1, 1994.
Component Number Two: Anti-Graffiti Program Enhancements:
)..l~'i
Council Agenda Statement
9
Graffiti Abatement Program
The goal to establish a Citywide Anti-Graffiti Campaign designed to enhance the City's
current Program is highlighted with the following four objectives for program
enhancements:
. Objective # 1 - Citywide Anti-Graffiti Education Programs
. Objective # 2 - Citizen and Business Community Involvement: Adopt-A-Block,
Adopt-A-Wall and Adopt-A-Community Anti-Graffiti Programs
. Objective # 3 - Graffiti Program Manager Position: FY 1995-96
. Objective # 4 - Community Service Hours: South Bay Municipal and Superior
. Courts
Obiective # 1 - Citywide Graffiti Education Proarams:
An instrumental component of the successful graffiti eradication program studied by staff
was the consistent focus on community oriented, Anti-Graffiti Education Programs.
Specifically, participation throughout the community to focus attention on the fact that
graffiti, or Property Vandalism, is recognized as a Crime. This has proven effective as
both a deterrent by raising the consciousness of school children and to also develop a
household awareness that such crimes occurring in the community are expensive
(everyone pays), are not socially tolerated and need to be abated quickly. Organizations
targeted for community-wide promotion of Anti-Graffiti Education Programs are the
various civic and service clubs, print and video media, the business community and the
academic community. Targeting the aforementioned groups would necessitate the City
to promote a publiC relation campaign to attract individuals to volunteer in various
capacities. Staff believes the extensive use of community volunteers to promote the Anti-
Graffiti Program's Goals and Objectives will produce a greater level of success towards
long-term graffiti abatement because of citizen participation.
To establish a City-wide Graffiti Education Program, the following five Action Steps are
proposed:
1. Establish a date for the First Annual, GRAFFITI FREE WEEK The Graffiti Free
Week would be highlighted with a community-wide recognition of wearing or
posting of a GREEN Ribbon or other such color designated to attract attention to
graffiti eradication, similar to the red ribbon symbol for the drug free week. The
fundamental goal of Graffiti Free Week is to eliminate all graffiti with a "Zero
Tolerance" awareness campaign involving the City and the Community.
2. Coordinate with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union
High School District for:
-;2. 2 .. 'J
Council Agenda Statement
10
Graffiti Abatement Program
a) Coordinating Art Poster Contests among various ages of children
highlighting Graffiti Free neighborhoods with awards and Mayoral
recognition at City Council Meetings.
b) Coordinate with high school, service club representatives such as Key
Clubs, Builders Clubs, Interact Club, etc. to promote Graffiti Free areas
around their particular schools with signage identifying that particular
Club's contribution to eradicating graffiti in that vicinity.
c) To coordinate an Anti-Graffiti Summit for junior high students to develop a
specific 'Wipe-Out-Graffiti. campaign targeted to this age group for positive
community reinforcement of family values and civic pride. Tee-shirts, art
posters, .Rap. songs, etc. designed to focus on the positive influences of
a Graffiti Free community.
3. Establish a network of Graffiti Volunteers to distribute Graffiti .Free" pamphlets and
related public relations items. Specifically, the Graffiti Free wallet sized cards
identifying telephone Hotline numbers and refrigerator magnets, in conjunction
with winning art posters for display in supermarkets, local businesses and related
areas of high public visibility.
4. Contact with local graphic artists to develop a Chula Vista Anti-Graffiti Logo for
pamphlet and letterhead identification.
5. As stated previously, staff has initiated efforts to obtain outside funding sources
to assist the City in offsetting publication costs of Anti-Graffiti education materials
with paid advertisements or endorsements.
Implementation Time: Implementation of one or all of the five Action Steps with City
Council acceptance would initially occur within the next ninety to one hundred twenty
days. As referenced under the previous section for development of Anti-Graffiti
pamphlets, staff believes the implementation of the Action steps is feasible without
amendment to the Department of Building and Housing's proposed FY 1994-95 Budget.
Staff believes the measurement of a successful Citywide Anti-Graffiti Program is not the
amount of revenue that the City or the community can generate, but with maximum
commitment from the community for recognizing the need for a dedicated effort to
eliminate graffiti vandalism on properties via personal and collective involvement through
the various Anti-Graffiti Program methods.
Obiective #2 - Citizen and Business Community Involvement: Adoot-A-Block. Adoot-A-
Wall and Adoot-a-Communitv Anti-Graffiti Proarams:
?-1- _10
Council Agenda Statement
11
Graffiti Abatement Program
Per the suggestion of City Council to review the merits of an "Adopt" component of the
Graffiti Abatement Program, Staff believes this form of graffiti awareness presents an
outstanding opportunity for citizen involvement which, in turn will generate a positive
reflection towards increasing community pride. Staff believes that a format, similar to the
tremendously successful Neighborhood Watch Program, of empowering a Block Captain
or Community Captain to coordinate local volunteers will prove most effective.
Volunteers will receive a City issued, photo identification card designating their name
and participation in the Graffiti Abatement Program.
While the Adopt programs certainly have merit, they are not without some direct costs
to the City. Specifically, the cost of erecting a sign highlighting the neighborhood or wall
involved is approximately $100 to $150 per sign. This direct cost may be offset by
sources of donations, which the sign would identify both the sponsor and the Anti-Graffiti
organization. Coordinating the communications to designated Graffiti Block Captains will
result in a commitment of staff time. Education and training, information on paint
sources and coordinating planting efforts for anti-graffiti plantings represent the level of
commitment the City would encumber. Staff recognizes that the value of this level of
commitment once invested, will reduce the number of complaints, the number of paint-
outs and the number of hours staff currently commits to the Graffiti Abatement Program.
The obvious benefactor is increased citizen participation results in faster graffiti
eradication.
Relative to sign placement and sign quantities, an estimate of approximately 25 to 30
designated neighborhoods and/or walls would be set for "Adoption" in calendar year
1994. Hard costs for signs are anticipated to range from $100 to $150 each. Depending
upon the number of signs designating identified blocks, walls or communities, annual
costs will range from $2500 to $3750. Staff would retain control on the number of
parcels or geographic size of the designated block or community and incorporate
provisions for time frames, performance standards as operational Program guidelines.
The exciting value of this form of community involvement will be to recognize those
neighborhoods or communities which contribute to elimination of graffiti from their areas.
An award program to recognize this level of community involvement could be structured
as follows:
1. Monetary recognition - Presentation of three awards: $300, $200 and $100
respectively to the group that establishes the highest level of graffiti abatement
within their area or the lowest level of reoccurrence. While this would represent
a capital outlay of $600 annually, the cost of reduced City services may justify the
costs. Obviously, presentation at a City Council Meeting with positive media
exposure would accompany the award winning groups.
'J-?- -II
Council Agenda Statement
12
Graffiti Abatement Program
2. Civic Pride Awards - Presentation of medals, trophies or plaques to the award
recipients at a City Council Meeting with the same positive public relations as
previously mentioned. Cost of awards for presentation could be set at not to
exceed $300 annually.
Establishing the criteria for designating award winning neighborhood or
community Anti-Graffiti Adopt Programs would be structured about factors of area
size, amount of graffiti removed/painted out, average time graffiti was allowed to
remain, etc. Staff is capable of producing the Anti-Graffiti "Adopt" Program
information, program guidelines and distribute for community participation by
August 1, 1994.
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to
Incorporate an Adopt component, such as Adopt-A-Block, Adopt-A-
Community and/or Adopt-A-Wall as an element to the City's Graffiti
Abatement Program.
Fiscal Impact: Staff has identified that the start-up costs associated with the first
year of an Anti-graffiti "Adopt" Program of approximately $3,750 which may be
encumbered within the proposed FY 1994-95 Department of Building and Housing
Budget.
Obiective #3 - Graffiti Proaram Manaaer for FY 1995-96:
Given the success of the current graffiti abatement efforts ongoing in the City, the
selection of an individual to manage such efforts could have some benefit in managing
the graffiti problem. Obviously, the designation of a Graffiti Program Manager will not
stop or completely eliminate the City's graffiti problem. Optimistically, given the
enthusiasm and outstanding level of commitment which has been demonstrated from
members of each City department involved with graffiti abatement, providing a central
figure could better coordinate their efforts as well as implementing several, if not each
of the proposed Anti-Graffiti measures contained within the five Action Steps which will
enhance and increase public awareness, community volunteers and full community
exercising of anti-graffiti campaign promotions.
As a program manager, this individual would perform the necessary duties, tasks and
responsibilities of interdepartmental coordination and the community outreach programs.
For Fiscal Year 1995-96 staff believes that in-lieu of a full-time employee to fill the role
of Graffiti Program Manager, that a 20-hour per week employee (not to exceed 999 hours
annually, w/o benefits) compensated at an hourly rate similar to that of a journey level
Code Enforcement Officer position, at approximately $20.00/hour is a viable Program
option. Staff estimates that cost to be approximately $20,000 annually.
22-12.
Council Agenda Statement
13
Graffiti Abatement Program
Another option is to draft and distribute a Request For Proposal (RFP) for purposes of
selecting a management company to work with staff as the Graffiti Program Managers.
Staff's intent is to seek maximum services for equivalent dollars to that of the 20-hour per
week employee ($20,000). Such services will include all community education and the
related programs previously discussed. The potential value to this RFP approach is that
it may allow for an expanded level of service from the vendor beyond that which may be
offered from a single individual. .
Recommendation: While Staff believes that a Graffiti Program Manager could have
some merit, the department Is sensitive to the current economic climate affecting
the State and our City. Introduction of an Individual or a management company to
perform the program managerial duties, tasks and assigned responsibilities may be
necessary once the graffiti abatement program has been Implemented. Thus, staff
will assess the merits of this position during the Budget process for FY 1995-96.
Obiective #4 - Community Service Hours - South Bav Municioal and Suoerior Courts:
Staff contacted the South Bay Municipal Court regarding the potential for additional
individuals to perform Community Service Hours in-lieu of payment of levied fines. This
was specifically directed to the adults sentenced for various offenses rather than juvenile
offenders. The response from the Court was very favorable in that the Court was very
receptive to sentencing to Community Service Hours based on a rate of $50.00 per day.
Hence, an individual which committed an offense to warrant a fine of $250.00, would be
sentenced to five days (8 hour days) of Community Service. The benefit to the City,
besides the labor force, is the fact that the individuals are adults and would be
responsible for their own transportation to and from various graffiti removal sites within
the City.
NOTE: Currently the Graffiti Coordinator from the Police Department who works with the
juvenile offenders through South Bay Community Services transports the juveniles on
Saturdays in a City van to each of the graffiti locations.
Obviously, the Graffiti Program must be in a position to accept these adult offenders
from the South Bay Court to maximize their contribution to graffiti removal. This is will
require both coordination by a Graffiti Program Manager and physical material such as
paint, rollers, brushes, etc. and an individual to supervise the crews, but the opportunity
to accept these individuals to assist in the overall Graffiti Program is one which staff will
continue to pursue.
Recommendation: That Staff continue communication with the South Bay Municipal
Court and Superior Court to develop a Community Service Hours work plan for purposes
of graffiti removal. Direct costs to the City are for materials and a supervising individual
12../3
Council Agenda Statement
14
Graffiti Abatement Program
to direct the participants. Preliminary estimate is to establish two individuals to function
as supervisors to direct crews two days a week (16 hours) for graffiti removal.
Fiscal Impact: Unknown at this time. Staff will continue to explore this expansion into
this form of human resources for graffiti abatement.
KGL:yu
(B2:\WP51\GRAFmA.113)
2. 2. _/lf
May 2, 1994
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor & City Cou~1
Councilman Leonard M. Moore~
MEMO TO:
SUBJECT: GRAFFITI ERADICATION BUDGET. REALLOCATION
REF: COUNCIL MINUTE ACTION 3/23/93 (COpy ATTACHED)
It is my considered opinion that the best and possibly the only way to make a major
reduction in graffiti, is to entice peer pressure. If peer pressure is effective for illegal
actions, why can it not be also effective for the good.
In order to pursue this program, a funding source is needed. The only one that can be
reallocated without adverse effect is the Graffiti Eradication Budget. The "carrot" to stop
graffiti is to use graffiti eradication savings toward something taggers can relate to.
RECOMMENDATION: I respectfully request the Council initiate action to formulate a
Council Policy similar to the following: .
"The Chula Vista City Council hereby pledges to commit all SAVINGS of
the present graffiti eradication fund that can be contributed to reduction in
graffiti, to our City youth via an approved oversight activity such as the
Chula Vista Police Activity League, for a period of 5-1 0 years using 1993/94
as the base year."
The program!facilities to which funds will be allocated must meet the
following criteria:
(1) Shall not be a duplication of other programs provided by the City,
YMCA, Boys & Girls club etc.
(2) Both the youth and oversight governing body mutually agree as to
program!facility.
2?-~/~
(3) Must be used in established and mutually agreed priority.
(4) May be used for liability insurance and/or supplement City insurance
programs.
A potential listing of programs/facilities is suggested: Teen club(s), Skateboard/Roller
Blade Park, Art Classes, Wrestling Programs. Joint use of private/public facilities with
fair share of equipment may be an asset.
LMM:pw
Encls.
429
22~//'
Minutes
March 23, 1993
Page 2
)
c. Letter requesting City participation in Regional Graffiti Eradication Program - Councilman Leonard
M. Moore. Staff recommends that this proposal be approved in concept and be referred to staff to work with
Councilman Moore on the implementing details.
Sc. This is a request from Councilman Len Moore seeking Council's approval to
divert a portion of the funds now allocated for graffiti removal towards
youth-based a lternat ives. IT IS RE-cOMMENDED THAT THIS PROPOSAL BE
APPROVED IN CONCEPT AND BE REFERRED TO STAFF TO WORK WITH COUNCILMAN MOORE
ON THE IMPLEMENTING DET.4.!'.S.". J,':;;" ;<i,',':.t
?-'l,M
DATE:
March 14, 1994
The Honorable Mayor and city council
John Goss, City Manager 0 ~;~
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of P01iC~
Council Referral '2741, Diversion of Graffiti
Removal Funds to Youth-Based Alternatives
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
This referral originally contained three phases for graffiti
reduction as outlined in the attached memorandum dated March 16,
1993. Phases I and II have been completed. Phase III was
presented by Councilman Moore to the P.A.L. Board of Directors~ft
March 9, 1994.
Essentially, this plan would involve an organization such as
P.A.L. working with those who commit acts of graffiti. As
originally planned, if such an organization succeeds in
directin~, entertainin9 and soliciting a major reduction in the
app1icat1on of graffit1 on a sustained basis, those funds will be
made available to bring specific programs to fruition. If it can
be shown, there is a 50% minimum reduction towards graffiti costs
based on FY-92 figures, then 30% of these savings will be made
available for programs geared towards at risk youth involved in
committing acts of graffiti. It is felt such a plan may
significantly reduce city costs towards graffiti cleanup, and at
the same time provide an attempt to.direct youth in a positive
vain.
""\.
We are continuing to work towards eliminating the paint over
paint component of graffiti eradication and move towards the
concept of reducing the desire to vandalize by providing positive
programing and activities for young people. This proposal is an
ongoing process that gains support at a slow rate as people begin
to realize the band-aid versus long term approach to quality of
life issues. The police department continues to work on this
issue with Councilman Moore. We will continue periodic updates
as appropriate.
2')..,/1'
~u?-
~
~~~~
~ -
mY OF
CHULA VISTA
March 16, 1993
RECEIVED
'P3 w.q 18 P12:26
CITY OF CHULt. \% T A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Honorable City Council
City of Chuta Vista
274 Founh Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Council Members:
, am seeking your approval and commttment to contribute a portion of funds the City of Chuta Vista now
allocates for graffiti eradication in a more positive manner wtthout risking more than 1/2 of 1 ow. of monies
now spent. I can guarantee extensive personal hours working with those who have Ip8CiaI talent,
experience and conneC1ions to ensure our efforts have high chance of success, and as we gradually
reduce the placement of graffiti, our costs should also be reduced. The following explains more, please
give this proposition your sincere consideration:
Several representatives from the City recently attended our roundtable discusSion on ways to curb the
..nseless and expensive cycle where grafftti is temporarily reduced in one location only to proliferate
somewhere else. I was very pleased wtth the large turnout for this meeting, and that many major
organiZations, agencies, and businesses which are direC11y lmpaC1ed by this problem and were able to
attend or send a representative. Unlike meetings in the past that focused on Gralfrti removaI,or drafting
a 'get tough' graffiti ordinance, this meeting proposed a truly workable solution which conceivably could
reduce graffiti by 30% In the first six months and sustain a. similar. ~UCl1on In the first year.
The plan would Involve the major viC1ims of graffiti, utility companies, school clistriCts, etc. In a program
to allocate a percentage of graffiti monies now expended, (1/2 011 ow.) the first year, 10% to 30% thereafter
and up to 75% over five years. At a minimum, this would result in a lUIlalned recfuction d at feast 50%.
n is estimated in our city of Chula Vista alone, that close to $250,000 Is spend on ramovIng gralfiti. These
are hard dollars spent each year by organiZations, including utility companies, municipalities, Cal Trans,
major developers, business communities, and many others. n doH not begin to fncIude the decrease
In property values and lost real estate sales that also result from the acMlrM ImagI n scourge of gralfiti.
(A budgeted item is one thing, however full cost recovery for eracflClllorl monies IP8I'IIII wNI makes this
program unique).
By utiliZing 75% maximum pledge funds that would otherwise be spenl on gndIili removaf (over a five year
commIlment) this program couIcI fend .self to any number d pclIItive youlh-baad 8Ilem8llveS which
would be welcomed by the young end very young people who perpel/'at8 grafIItl. wh8ltler gangs,
'Wannabees' or otherwise. A boxing facility is one of many eampIes that II often Cllad 1$ the type 01
facility that would attr8C111C1ive young people. Other poaIbIlltfes lric:Iucfa a Ms pi og. .,.~ a 8cIance lab.
a skateboard faciltty, a workout room with weights, a wrastIlng program. racquIlbaII COUItI, karate end
the like. Such 8C1ivilies coordinated by a Police AC1ivity League In conjunc:tIon with ather Youth
OrganiZations would target, but not necessarily be Iimlled to those active young people who would
otherwise devote their time to gralfit!. (See also Attachment A).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIO.NS
271 FOURTH AVENUEICHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA ....101(111) ..1.~....5C, - ,J
?,,2.../ 'f
- -- --
-
Uke any proposal, however, II's success or failure will depend on the commitment and dedication of key
people, whO are organized and dedicated to making this program a success. Following the recent coun
decision where Sherman Williams Paint Company unsuccessfully challenged the LA. ordinance, all
municipalities now have the option for a much stronger and judicially ICCepled ordinance to reduce
accessibility and availability to the contributing causes of graffiti.
A recent meeting with William C. Pate, Presiding Judge, Juvenile Superior Coun hils rHlforced the
community service ISpect of this program; lnyolving both juvenile and parent COlIC8IT11, the results of
which could deter a number 01 thoSe apprehended in committing acts 01 graffiti and Cllher vandalism.
Although we are but one 01 many communities tackling the problem 01 gralf'1ti (HI lIltactvnenl B), our
lOIution. If successful, COUld be one of the most Innovative In Southam California. The .Ioglc 01 conllnuIng
to spend graffiti eradication monies In an andless cycle of painting and re-painllng demands thII wa find
a workable altemative. With proper suppon and dediclllion. this proposal can be thII altemativa. without
any increase in expended funds.
Yours in Community Service,
~~lI.L.
Leonard M. ~
COUNCILMAN
CC:
Terry Mullrady, VP/GM, PacKic Bell
Don Blind, General Manager, Laidlaw Waste System
Don Bradfield, Regional Manager, CalTrans
John Vugrin, Superintendent, Chula Vista School District
George Waters, Mayor, National City
Pat Cavanaugh, President, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
John Rindone, Superintendent, Sweetwater UnKied School Dist
Tom Larwin, General Manager, Metro Transit Oavalopment Board
T. Page, President, San Diego Gas & Electric
Rann Santos, President, Eastlake Development
Richard Reynolds, General Manager, Sweetwater Authority Board
.2:2." 2.0
...sc ~~-
.
Invest 7S'lO of Your Annual Graffiti Eradication Program Funds
In People Versus Paint
If we pOOl the average annual South County public and private funds allocated to eradicate graffiti;
whll would that sum be, $1 million or more? If we pledge 75% of the average annual funds to a South
County Police Activity League program for five years, we could lave $5 million dollarl for a people
program versus a 'paint and repaint' program. Allow me to present the following scenario:
Phase I: The major organizations now eradicating graffiti in the South County pledge 112 of 1 %
d present eradication annual dollars. Organize a group of dedicated people who when combined, are
very knowledgeable In working wlth the young II risk. recreation programs. organiZllion. finance,
government, security, leadership etc. Allow them to know ttlat If they succeed In directing, entertaining
and soliciting a major reduction In the application of Graffiti on a suataintd balls, tNIt funds will be
available to bring specific programs to fruition. Call this group the South COUnty Poliet Activity League
wlth I Board of Directors authoriZed to pursue programs desired by those at risk, wlthin a specific listing.
The programs may well include boxing. wrestling basketball, track, weight rooms. skateboard facilities,
Irt rooms. sCIence labs, locker rooms and showers Facilities/space could also be provided by public and
private entities including cities schools, physical fitness facilities, YMCA, Boys and Girls club and the like.
Upon reaching a 30% sustained reduction in graffni you, the grantors, would lnere..e the Initial 1/2 of 1 %
to 10% WhiCh WOuld represent a typical reduction in eradication costs.
Phase II: Facility agreements would be closed, a percentage of equipment procured, users would
be organized into teams, sessions, schedules made. insurance policies obtained, Instructors committed,
programs formulated. etc.
Phase III: Will be triggered when a sustained reduction in graffiti rtlchts a minimum of 50% of
which time you will be requested to increase reallocation of Graffiti eradication lunds to 75%, lavings
permitting. If your continued cost in eradicltion exceeds the remaining 25%, tI'len your reallocation will
be reduced accordingly. The fund commitment Ind eradication fund total Shall no! exceed present
average year total now spent in FY'92 dollars.
With a committed fund, programs can be improved, facilities updated, paid staff augmented by
volunteers with police staff being the mainstay. Equipment and athlatic gear would be expanded with
increased youth involvement; one or more skateboard facilities might be COI'llItNCted, tIong with a boxing
ring or other shared facility. Another possibility to defray expenses would be appropriate.
Although funding would be broken down by that spent within a given c:lty atc., tI'le organiZation
would remain South County. Board members will be from aach clly thereby retalning Ioint usage,
SCheduling, purchasing and liaison with those at risk to austain a reduction in gr8Iflli thuI ~ funding
aource.
There is little doubl wlth the commitment by those at rIak to rtduct gretrlll at . aultalntd 50-80%,
would result from thOlt and other Police Activity League programs. We will tlIo KtWvt an tltrntnt that
deters crime and help develop our youth into an Improved 1OCiety.
By reducing the cycle of graffiti and increasing youth palticlpation in PoIict Activlly League
programs, cities may well subsidiZe facility construction and Incorporate ttltM and Olhtr valuable
programs,
Attachment 'A'
;2;;2 -,2(
~
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Infonnation Item
May 5, 1994
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA:
John D. Goss, City Manager
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreati~
Update on the Regional Open Space and Park District
FROM:
SUBJECT:
This is a follow-up to questions the Council raised at the May 3, 1994 Council meeting, about the
County's effort to form an Regional Open Space and Park Assessment District. Council indicated there
were two questions regarding this issue:
1. Has the Council taken a position on the Open Space and Park District?
2. Has staff or the Park and Recreation Commission attended any meetings with the County
concerning this proposed district?
Council Action - At the March I, 1994 Council meeting, Council did not support a parcel tax for the
project under any circumstances (minutes attached). It is staff's understanding that this infonnation has
been conveyed to the County.
Attendance at County Meetin2s - Staff was involved in the early planning stages of the fonnation of
the Regional Open Space and Park Assessment District; however, due to concerns expressed by the City
about the financing mechanism, there was a period of time when staff was not involved in the County
meetings. Nonetheless, staff has been in contact with, County staff regarding the content of these
meetings, and a presentation was made to the Parks and Recreation Commission, by County staff. The
County has not had a meeting since mid-April. The County does not intend to conduct any more
meetings at this point in time, until they receive responses from a letter that was sent to all City Managers
in the county, by the County Chief Administrative Officer. If the County does not receive any support
from the cities, it is possible they may pursue an Open Space District on their own. Staff will attend any
future meetings as they occur, and keep the Council advised of this project.
JV:
Attachment:
Minutes of March 1, 1994 Council meeting NOT SCANNED
{A1l3.district.mem]
;l~- /j.:/5Q-4..-
,\
MiDutes
March I, 1994
Page 2
.
Councilmember Fox stat.... staff was looking for dinoction and felt the City needed to participate without taking a
position on the regional park and open space district i...ue.
MS (Fox/Moore) the City not take a position on the County Regional Purk Open Space District issue but send
a member of the Council to attend the first meetilll.
City Manager Goss stated the proposed County initiative would be on the November ballot. The initiative on the
June ballot was a S2 billion bond issue statewide.
Mayor Nader stat.... it iDclud.... SIO million for the Otay Regional Park which Council had taken action to endorse.
If the motion on the floor was passlld it should not be constru.... as lack of support for funding of parks and open
space acquisition. The staff report led him to believe that Sopervisor Slater was reconiinending a property tax
fundiDg mechanism, but he did not see that included iD \!Ie letter.
City Manager Goss stated AB 27 enabled the County to propose an assessment district and their staff made it clear
iD their analysis that they wanted to do something similar to what LA County did. The discussion at the staff level
was clear that the County was looking at a parcel tax. His concern was that at the same time they were looking
at a parcel tax for the radio system and a County service area for pre-hospital emergency mlldical services. It
appeared there was a lack of coordination on all the parcel taus that were coming forth from the County.
Mayor Nader stated there was also a proposed parcel tax on water storage by MWD.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (NuderlHorton) to appoint Councilmember Fox as the Council representative
to attend the meetilll.
Councilmember Fox stat.... he would attend the first meeting and report hack to Council.
.
Councilmember Rindone felt the Council representative should address the inadequate funds in the proposal to
maintain the parks and open space projects once they were constructed.
City Manager Goss stated there was some money in the program for operation and maintenance. In his judgement
it was not enough and there would have to be other funding found. He felt some of the money would also be
diverted to special programs which would be envisioned as part of the 'package.
Councilmember Fox stated that while recreation was helpful in tht!'battleagainst gangs and the problems the children
faced he felt what the money was really need.... for was being disguised. It should be called what it was, i.e. money
for parks and open space. That would be one thing he would make clear at the meeting. He would also not support
a parcel tax for the project under any circumstance.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimolfily,
,
6. ORDINANCE 2589 AMENDING SECTION 8.25.090 "COMPOSTING" TO ESTABLISH A
MINIMUM DISTANCE OF SIX FEET THAT A COMPOSTING BIN MUST BE PLACED FROM
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (second reudinl!and adontionl - On 9/14/93, during the public
hearing on the yard waste recycling franchise and related ordinance amendment, Council dinoct.... staff to establish
a minimum distance that a composting bin must be located from adjacent property in order to avoid nuisance
complaints. The ordinance establisbes a six foot minimum distance that a composting bin must be plac.... from an
exterior entrance to an adjacent residential structure. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second
reading and adoption. (City Attorney)
.
7. RESOLUTION 17400 AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES ON APRIL 29, 1994
FOR A PARADE SPONSORED BY PALOMAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Palomar Elementary School is
.2~-..2..
"
,,,,,<
--
r --." .
@(~:_ 2 519;;,?
,J; CITY C'iJ;:;"7""';~;~",..J
CHutiVl~TX,r CA~d
I ~
!
ROBERT R. COPPER
DIRECTOR
(6191 894-3030
ClIouttt~ of ~att ~i~go
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
5201 RUFFIN ROAD. SUITE p, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123-1699
April 18, 1994
Mr. Robert Fox, Councilman
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910-2631
Dear Councilman Fox:
This is in response to issues raised in a written communication to the Mayor and City
Council of Chula Vista from the City Manager regarding a proposed Regional Open Space
and Park District. County Supervisor Pam Slater sent a letter to your mayor inviting a
representative from Chula Vista to join her to discuss whether it would be of benefit to
Chula Vista to place a bond issue on the November ballot.
The communication indicated that the County City Managers Association expressed concern
that the proposal was moving ahead without consultation with the City Managers, that with
tight budgets a $15 parcel tax was extremely unwise, and similar funding proposals were
being considered for the 800 Mhz radio system and emergency medical services.
When I spoke at the County City Managers Association meeting in November, 1993, I
described the County's effort to explore the feasibility of creating a District. There are a
number of tasks which must be accomplished in order to consider whether or not to place
a measure on the November, 1994 ba]]ot.
The first task is to develop a preliminary needs assessment, by community, to determine
unmet regional and local needs. We have been meeting with the park directors in
preparation of a feasibility study for a benefit assessment report. This report would
accompany the Resolution of Intent by the Board of Supervisors if the Board agrees to place
the measure on the ba]]ot.
A second task is to conduct polling to determine voter support. That po]] took place in mid-
November. Decision Research who conducted the po]], summarized the results by indicating
a majority of county voters would likely support an open space and park district for
primarily open space issues but the number of voters increases if the ba]]ot issue responds
to safety issues like providing safe places for children to play and responds to youth-at-
..), sA- .. J
Councilman Robert Fox
-2-
April 18, 1994
risk and gang prevention issues. Based on the summary provided by the pollster and the
belief that upgraded park facilities do contribute to safer communities, the County continued
to pursue the feasibility by working with the jurisdictions to accomplish tasks. A second poll
will be conducted after the June primary to reassess voter support.
A third task is to prepare a feasibility study in preparation of the Benefit Assessment
Report. The study will indicate how much revenue will be raised for capital projects and
how much will be raised for operations and maintenance. It will develop the benefit
assessment formula. The poll indicated voters will support $15 per household for parks and
open space projects. Using the $15 figure, we should know very soon how much will be
raised for each community.
A fourth task is to form a Citizens Advisory Committee to oversee development of the
ballot measure and advise the Board of Supervisors of placement of the measure on the
November ballot. The Cities of San Diego, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Carlsbad, Poway,
National City, San Marcos, Vista and the County have identified citizens to participate on
the Advisory Committee. Mark Nelson, Inter-governmental Relations Director for San
Diego Gas and Electric, and April Boling have agreed to chair and vice-chair the committee.
A fifth task is to develop the ballot measure language and identify projects to be included
in the measure. County Counsel is developing the legislation. We continue to communicate
with all jurisdictions, urging them to join us in development of the ballot measure.
In response to your question about moving forward without total support, I apologize for
the impression the County is moving forward without the support and concurrence of all
jurisdictions. Weare merely striving to keep all options open, given the strict time
constraints, and continue to communicate with all jurisdictions. In response to the question
on what other matters may appear on the ballot, no one knows the answer to that question
as of this date. However, it will be up to the voters to decide which issues they support.
The communication from the City Manager expressed concern that additional benefit
assessment fees would "push property taxes above the informal 2% of value limit that Chula
Vista has established in evaluating the size of assessment districts." We would be pleased
to ask the Benefit Assessment Engineer to address this concern in preparation of the
Engineer's Report.
One question expressed the concern that there would be inadequate funds in the proposal
to maintain the park and open space projects. The enabling legislation identifies up to 20%
of the annual proceeds can be used for operations and maintenance. The feasibility study
will identify what each community will receive based on population. If for example, a City
receives $lM for capital projects, up to $200,000 would be available for operations and
maintenance over 20 years.
:;5A-.~
Councilman Robert Fox
-3-
April 18, 1994
In response to the poll that citizens are more likely to vote for a parks issue that relates to
safe places for children to play, it is our intent to seek out projects that are compatible with
the voter's desires. It is up to the citizens to decide whether to support the measure at the
ballot box. The experience in Los Angeles, where 64% of voters supported a $540M bond
issue in the midst of a recession, demonstrated that voters will support issues when they
know exactly what they are voting for and how much it will cost. The Otizens Advisory
Committee will act as the community's guide to the development of the measure.
I hope this addresses the City's concerns and that Chula Vista will join us in exploring the
benefits that a Regional Park and Open Space District might offer your constituents. We
welcome two representatives to participate on the Otizens Advisory Committee as we
continue with the ballot formation. We are available to answer any questions you might
have. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
ROB . CO , Director
Parks & Recreation Department
RRC:jp
;.5 ~ .. f'
,
"
,,o]iI!
'I '
yo
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, Marcb I, 1994
4:06 p.m.
Council Cbambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader
John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Autbelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 4, 1993 (Special Joint Meeting of tbe City Council, Planning
Commission, and Resource Conservation Commission) and February 22, 1994 (City Council Meeting)
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to approve the minutes of December 4, 1993 and February 22, 1994 as presented.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
4a. Presentation of 1994 Ahwahnee Community Desian Award for the Otay Ranch 10 the City of Cbula
Vista and the County of San Diego from the Stale Local Govenunent Commission. The award was presented
by Anthony Lettieri. Mr. Lettieri slated Cbula Visla was one of only six awards given in tbe Slate. The award
recognized the City for its participation in the Olay Ranch process that included everytbing from tbe initial signing
of the Memorandum of Understanding, tbe neo-traditional approach to village design, tbe comprebensive resource
management plan, and the public transit component of the project. Even though tbe Baldwin Company was not
named on the plaque, tbe Commission recognized the Baldwin Company for their pioneering efforts witb tbe City
and the County in tbe planning process.
4b. Proclaiming the days of February 25-27, 1994 as Kent Froede Memorial Classic Days - Vice Mayor
Horton presented tbe proclamation to Mark Smolanovich, Co-Director of the Kent Froede Memorial Committee with
AI and Maryann Froede in attendance. Mayor Nader slated the original proclamation was presented at tbe beginning
of the event by Councilmember Rindone on bebalf of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: Sh and 9)
S. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Sa. Leiter of resignation from the International Friend.bip Commission - Mildred N. Knodt, 139 Fourth
Ave., Cbula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted and the City Clerk be directed
to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Oftice and the Public Library.
Sb. Letter requesting Council consider placing a measure, titled the County Regional Park and Open
Space District, before the voters and desianating staff and a councilmemher 10 work with County staff and
her to develop a list of worthy projects and activities the voters will support - Pam Slater, Cbairwoman, County
Board of Sapervisors, 1600 Pacific Higbway, Room 33S, San Diego, CA 92101-2470. Slaff is reviewing this
request and, under separate cover, will deliver a recommendation prior to tbe Council meeting for Council's
consideration. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
;Js;..--?
Minutes
March I, 1994
Page 2
Councilmember Fox stated staff was looking for direction and felt the City needed to participate withouttakiog a
position on the regional park and open space district issue.
MS (Fox/Moore) the City not take a position on the County Regional Park Open Space District issue but send
a member of the Council to attend the lirst meeting.
City Manager Goss stated tbe proposed County initiative would be 00 the November ballot. The initiative on the
June ballot was a $2 billion bond issue statewide.
Mayor Nader stated it included $10 million for the Otay Regional Park which Council had taken action to endorse.
If the motion on the floor was passed it should not be construed as lack of support for funding of parks and open
space acquisition. The staff report led him to believe that Supervisor Slater was recommending a property tax
funding mechanism, but be did not see that included in tbe leller.
City Manager Goss stated AD 27 enabled tbe County to propose an assessment district and their staff made it clear
in their analysis that tbey wanted to do sometbing similar to wbat LA County did. The discussion at tbe staff level
was clear tbattbe County was looking at a parcel tax. His concern was lbat at the same time they were looking
at a parcel tax for the radio system and a County service area for pre-bospital emergency medical services. It
appeared there was a lack of coordination on all tbe parcel tax.. that were coming forth from the County.
Mayor Nader stated tbere was also a proposed parcel tax on waler storage by MWD.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader/Horton) to appoint Councilmember Fox as the Council representative
to attend the meeting.
Council member Fox stated he would attend the first meeting and report back to Council.
Council member Rindone felt the Council representative should address the inadequate funds in the proposal to
maintain the parks and open space projects once they were constructed.
City Manager Go.. stated there was some money in the program t(lf operation and maintenance. In his judgement
it was not enough and there would have to be other funding found. He felt some of the money would also be
diverted to special programs which would be envisioned as part of the package.
Councilmember Fox stated that while recreation was helpful in the bailie against gangs and the problems the children
faced he felt wbat tbe money was really needed for was being disguised. It should be called what it was, i.e. money
for parks and open space. That would be one thing he would make clear at the meeting. He would also not support
a parcel tax for the project under any circumstance.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
6. ORDINANCE 2589 AMENDING SECTION 8.25.090 "COMPOSTING" TO ESTABLISH A
MINIMUM DISTANCE OF SIX FEET THAT A COMPOSTING BIN MUST BE PLACED FROM
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (second readin2 and adoDtion) - On 9/14/93, during the public
hearing on the yard waste recycling franchise and related ordinance amendment, Council directed staff to establish
a minimum distance that a composting bin must ~ located from ad.iac~nt property in ord~r to avoid nuisance
complaints. The ordinance establishes a six foot minimum distance that a composling bin must be placed from an
exterior entrance to an adjacent re....idential structure. Staff rccommemJs Council place the ordinance on second
reading and adoption. (City Allomey)
7. RESOLUTION 17400 AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES ON APRIL 29,1994
FOR A PARADE SPONSORED BY PALOMAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Palomar Elementary School is
.2 s;,.. - /
PAM SLATER
CHAIRWOMAN
SUPERVISOR, THIRO DISTRIO
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS
CHtlLA ~~sTi: CAt.~~
February 14, 1994
S2S2 ~
",,-4 ::0 .
-c-<
(")0 m rn
r-"""' (")
me") rn
:;:o~ -
:><:2 co -
-r- <
C/>~ "'0 rn
S?< N 0
~u; (.j
0-4
IT1> C'\
Mayor Tim Nader
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910-2631
Dear Mayor Nader:
In my January 11 State of the County message I stressed the importance of developing
an ongoing plan to ensure a better quality of life for every resident of the San Diego
region. Integral to this goal are our parks, beaches, and open space.
Clearly we are all in agreement that we must safeguard these important public resources.
That means developing innovative ways to enhance our ability to fund these services, with
the public good in mind. In my view, we must take action today.
Therefore, I am proposing that you join with me in considering placing a measure, titled
the County Regional Park and Open Space District, before the voters. This measure will
create a dedicated source of funding to enhance, expand and protect our parks and
open space in the entire San Diego region. Dollars would be pre-allocated to specific
projects and programs within every jurisdiction. Projects would be determined by local
priorities.
In this way we will be investing in parks during difficult economic times. As you well know,
parks provide a safe haven and clean diversion for our children. Accompanying organized
recreation programs offer our youth a clean, productive alternative to gangs and drugs.
In addition, buying, building, and maintaining parks will create sorely needed jobs.
(/1' / rr:.. L..;~ S~ t!A.'
L) 0. ~~~ON CENlER1600 PACIFIC HIGHW~ ~ DIEGO, CA.92101-2470 (619) 531-5533 TOLl FREE 800-852.7334
?/ m Prlnledonf.evcled~r
Such a parks bond initiative supported and crafted by the cities and the county may very
well be the answer. However, please let me make my position and intention perfectly
clear:
I will not support the creation of a new level of eovernment. And I will not support a
fundine mechanism controlled bv the County Board of Supervisors. I will onlv support a
measure crafted bv the cities and the county to benefit all areas of this reeion. And I will
onlv support a measure that euarantees everv iurisdiction its fair share.
Given this position, which I am certain you share, I believe that it is in the best interests
of all the cities to come together for discussion. Our goal will be to find the best funding
mechanism, agreed upon by the cities, and the best means for choosing worthy projects.
To further advance this task, I ask that you designate staff within your jurisdiction, and a
council member as your point person, to work with County staff and myself to develop a
list of worthy projects and activities the voters will support. This is an opportunity for each
city to develop and fund park projects. Mr. Mark Nelson of San Diego Gas & Electric has
graciously volunteered his time to serve as Chairman of this Committee. My discussions
with Mr. Nelson tell me that his goals are the same as mine. He has already held
meetings to discuss this issue with city staff. I am writing to you today to ask that this
cooperation continue. At some point, we will be involved.
At this time we have an opportunity to plan for a better quality of life through careful
planning and an appropriate, publicly endorsed funding source. Every step of the way
I plan to work closely with the cities to ensure teamwork.
I hope you will join me with full confidence that together we can do the job right.
Sincerely,
f~A
~~irwoman
Board of Supervisors
PS/jw
~ .;.5;.-1
~~
February 24, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager~
Written Communications - March I, 1994 Council Meeting
This is a letter from Supervisor Pam Slater, Chair of the County Board of
Supervisors, proposing that Chula Vista join the Board in considering placing a
measure, entitled the County Regional Park and Open Space District, before the
voters. The measure, as stated in her letter, is designed to create a "dedicated
source of funding to enhance, expand, and protect our parks and open space in the
entire San Diego region. Dollars would be pre-allocated to specific projects and
programs within every jurisdiction. Projects would be determined by local
priorities."
Along with a general description of the purpose of this bond issue, she makes it
clear that this would not entail a new level of government, or a funding
mechanism controlled by the County Board of Supervisors. There is also assurance
that every jurisdiction would be guaranteed their fair share of the funding.
Finally, she is asking that staff be designated within Chula Vista, as well as
a Council member to work with County staff and herself, to develop a list of
worthy projects and activities the voters would support. She indicates that Mark
Nelson, SDG&E, has volunteered to serve as Chair of the committee.
By way of further background, Bob Copper, County Director of Parks & Recreation,
met with CCMA (County City Management Association) in December. At that time,
the purpose of the report was described and it was indicated that the County was
conducting a poll to determine what elements would be required to have a
successful park and open space ballot approved by the voters. They indicated
that after the poll was conducted, they would get back into dialogue with the
City Managers to determine the next step before proceeding. Instead, via letter
of December 14 (which is attached), they transmitted the report of the County
bond survey which is self-explanatory. This indicated that a parcel tax at $15
could be supported by a majority of those surveyed, as long as this park and open
space proposal was oriented toward "park safety and gang prevention." In other
words, a measure focused on park safety and gang prevention would do better than
a measure centered on park improvements or beach restoration, although there is
a slim possibility the latter could also muster over 50% of the vote. There were
other findings as well, which include the fact that the voters think the County
is on the wrong track but their own community is on the right track. This means
that the County really needs the support of the cities in the County to make this
park funding proposal successful.
This was discussed at the January meeting of the County City Managers
Association, at which time the City Manager of Del Mar brought up the concern
that this proposal seemed to be moving full steam ahead without the promised
~ .;f;..--/P
consultation with the City Managers. More importantly, it was further felt that,
given today's economy and tight City and County budgets, pushing for a $15 parcel
tax was extremely unwise. This seems especially true at a time when similar
funding (a parcel tax) is being proposed by the County for the 800 MHz radio
system as well as for the formation of a County service area for pre-hospital
emergency medical services. There is the further concern that this and other
proposed parcel taxes could push total property taxes paid above the informal 2%
of value limit that this City has established in evaluating the size of
assessment districts, etc. for the eastern part of the City. There is the
further worry that there would be inadequate funds in the proposal to maintain
the park and open space projects once they are constructed. Also, there was a
concern that by wrapping this issue in a public safety cloak, this was not being
totally forthright and honest with the voters at a time when there is enough
distrust of local government without making it worse. Attached is a letter from
Mike Huse, City Manager of Solana Beach, advising David Janssen, the ,County CAD,
that from a staff perspective we were no longer going to be attending the
planning meetings regarding this issue, and would be asking our City Councils not
to support this issue.
Based on the letter from Pam Slater, and especially since we try to cooperate
with the County as much as possible, you may wish to refer this to staff to
determine what action other cities may take regarding this letter. Other than
this, you may wish to send a City Council representative to attend a meeting to
pass on whatever pol icy message you want to present to the County. It is
recommended that support of a park and open space parcel tax election be put on
hold or deferred, but that a Councilmember attend at least the first meeting
called by Pam Slater to express the abovementioned concerns, and determine if any
different direction should be proposed by the City.
JDG:mab
~j -7 -- .1~ -- //
ROBERT R COPPER
DI"ECTOfIl
..,., .....'030
e
-0.
,,' , "
''!,'''n':''f ....
. :eo
([oultill of ~Ctlt ;!Eli2g0
IE 2. 1m
'.
,/
"
.;
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
.201 "'UFFIN ROAD. 8UfTE ". SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 82123--'...
December 14, 1993
Mr. John D. Goss, City Manager
city of Chula vista
276 4 Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Goss:
SUBJECT: San Diego County Bond Survey Report
We have been meeting regularly with the Parks and Recreation
Directors from all of the local jurisdictions to explore the
placement of a Regional Open Space and Park District on the
November 1994 ,ballot. AB2007 enables the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors to place a measure on the ballot asking voters to
support and contribute to a regional open space and park district.
The measure requires a 50% majority vote.
The county Parks and Recreation Department hired Decision Research
to conduct polling to determine the extent of support by voters and
how much per household would voters be willing to contribute to an
annual benefit fee.
This is a summary of the polls conducted by Decision Research which
were financed by the County of San Diego Parks and Recreation
Department.
The sample consisted of 500 complete interviews with registered
voters by telephone in the County of San Diego. The sample is
derived by a computer-generated cluster sample of likely voters.
1) By a small margin, voters indicate they would vote for a
parks, beach and wildlife preservation measure. About 50%
would favor a park preservation measure with 33% opposed and
17% undecided. More voters would favor a measure worded to
focus on park safety and gang prevention, with 53% in favor
and 32% opposed and 15% undecided. When an election is this
close to 50%, every vote will count, so the Pollster
recommends that the ballot measure should be a safety-oriented
measure. The Pollster believes a November election offers the
best chance of success. When asked preference afte,r the
measure was explained, support for the safety/gang prevention
measure rose to 61% and to 53% for the park preservation
version.
~ ,;..<... -/~
'.
.
.
.
2)
3)
4)
5)
-2-
6)
It is clear throughout the survey that a measure focused on
park safety and gang prevention does better than a measure
centered on park improvements or beach restoration. Voters
are more likely to say that providing a safe place for
children to play and providing gang prevention programs is
more important than cleaning up beaches, providing more parks,
or building more ballfields.
The estimated annual cost of $15 is about right. Although
support is higher at lower levels, support does not fall
substantially until that amount is $21 a year or more.
San Diego voters are regular users of the local and regional
parks, with less than one quarter saying they never use the
parks, one quarter using the parks between once and five times
yearly, 27' using the parks from six to 24 times a year, and
26' using the parks 25 or more times per year.
Although most voters think the county is on the wrong track,
they think their own community is on the right track. This
has implications for the level of support for county-
administered versus locally-administered programs.
Voters who favor the "gang prevention" measure focus on the <'
need to fight gangs and crime more than on the need for open
space, beaches or park maintenance and improvement. Those
favoring the "parks" measure focus on the need for open space
and parks, and to combat development. Opponents of both
versions tend to express anti-tax attitudes or to have other
spending priorities. .
Voters generally agree that they have a responsibility to
future generations to set parkland aside, but they do tend to
say that parks currently are adequate. Combined with little
enthusiasm for tax increases, support for the bond measure is
limited.
7)
8)
The specific expenditures about which the voters are most
enthusiastic focus on park police, programs for at-risk youth,
and beach and .ewage cleanup. There is considerably less
support for park improvements (including neighborhood parks
and ballfields), as well as improvements for outdoor
enthusiasts.
Support for the bond measure is enhanced by assuring that the '
money goes where it is supposed to go, including assuring
local funding, guZ!rantee by an audit, and limited
administrative costs. Voters do D2t like the idea of a tax
based on proximity to the parks.
9)
~ d..!fA, - J.3
-3-
10) There are no strong message carriers identified who would/
could influence the voters on the bond measure. Voters are
most receptive to endorsements by public safety officers, the
Friends of the San Diego Zoo, and taxpayer and good government
groups.
11) Overall, the data show that a park bond measure would face a
close election. Voters are not feeling generous with tax
dollars at present, and they feel that park facilities are
already good. Voters are concernec!, however, with public
safety issues, and they are more willing to fund a measure
with a strong public safety component. Any measure must not
only focus on public safety, but must have guarantees so that
the voters can be assured the funds will be well-spent. Any
campaign for the measure must take into account the different
degrees of support among different demographic groups.
Based on the results of the polls, we are encouraged to continue to
pursue the feasibility of placing a measure on the November 1994
ballot. We are asking your support for your Parks and Recreation
Directors to participate in the continuing process of exploring the
feasibility 'of pursuing such a measure. We are developing a
preliminary list by jurisdiction of projects which would appear on
the measure. We are forming a citizens advisory committee to
review the ballot measure to ensure it reflects public support. We
are asking each jurisdictiolY' to provide names of citizens who
represent all aspects of thepommunity and who could ably represent
the specific concer oUr constituency.
........, . .
'ROBERT -R>~' Director
Parks & Recreation Department
RRC: jp
~ ..2~##-,) i
,"II '4 !O"'"
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
:380 STEVENS AVENUE. SUITE :305 . SOLANA BEACH. CALFORNIA 82075 . (618) 755-2888
1anuary 10, 1994
Jf..N I 4 1993
Mr. David 1anssen
Chief Administrative Officer
Room 209 County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101
~
Dear David:
I am writing on behalf of the City Managers in San Diego County to express our concern over the
direction the County is taking vis-a-vis the development of a Regional Open Space and Park District ballot
measure.
In his December 14, 1993, letter to individual City Managers, Robert Copper, County Director of Parka
and Recreation, reported on the results of a poll you recently commissioned to detecmine the extent of
voter support. The City Managers' interpretation of that poll lead us to conclude that voter support is
very tenuous, unless as Mr. Copper points out, the issue is wrapped in a public safety cloak.
We believe pursuing a measure for the November 1994 ballot is misconceived and ill advised at this time.
Therefore, our Parks and Recreation Directors will DO longer be attending the planning meetings and we
will not be asking our City Councils to appoint representatives to I citizen advisory committee as Mr.
Copper has suggested.
The City Managers were left with the impression after I presentation of this issue was made at our
December meeting that there would be an opportunity to discuss this after the poll results were known.
However, Mr. Copper's letter leads us to conclude that the train has already left the station. At this
point, we are not willing to get on board.
If we have misunderstood the County's intent or direction on this, please let me know.
Sincerely,
~
Michael W. Huse
City Manager
MWH/jp
cc: Robert R. Copper, Director of County Parks and Recreation
San Diego County City Managers
PRINTED ON RECYCLEO PAPER
~;25'e-'/5