HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/06/12 Agenda Packet
"o'.;,,,re under penalty of perjury that I am
,nployed by the City of Chula Vista in the
, Ice of the City Clerk and that 1 posted this
n the bulletin board accorolng to
uirements.
.,~L~S;(Jned
~~f?-
:-~- ~
c! .-=-~~~
~ ---
~ ~- - ~
CITY OF
I' CAULA VISTA
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember David R. Garcia, City Manager
John McCann, Councilmember Ann Moore, City Attorney
Jerry R. Rindone, Council member Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
Steve Castaneda, Councilmember
June 12,2007
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
City Hall
276 Fourth Avenue
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
.
REPORT BY CHUCK COLE, PRESIDENT OF ADVOCATION, INC., ON STATE
BUDGET AND FISCAL PROJECTIONS
.
PRESENTATION OF MASTER MUNICIPAL CLERK DESIGNATION TO LORl
ANNE PEOPLES, SENIOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK, BY KAY VINSON, MMC, CITY
CLERK'S ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR AND
CITY CLERK OF MURRIETA
.
PRESENTATION OF "EXCELLENCE IN ENERGY SAVINGS" AWARDS TO
LOCAL BUSINESSES FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE CHULA
VISTAlSDG&E BUSINESS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
DID YOU KNOW...THAT THE NATURE CENTER IS CELEBRATING ITS 20TH
ANNIVERSARY? Presented by Dan Beintema, Nature Center Director
.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 5)
The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion,
without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these
items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to
the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be
discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar,
1. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING A $50,000 GRANT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
On April 17, 2007, the County of San Diego approved a Community Project award of
$50,000 to the City of Chula Vista in order to provide for preliminary engineering
services for the J Street to Stella Street segment of the Bayshore Bikeway. Adoption of
the resolution accepts the funds and authorizes the City Manager to execute the
agreement required by the County. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
2. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE
AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD A GRANT
BE A WARDED FROM THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO
ENHANCE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT MAJOR
INTERSECTION NUMBERS I THROUGH 16
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE
AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD A GRANT
BE AWARDED FROM THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO
ENHANCE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT MAJOR
INTERSECTION NUMBERS 17 THROUGH 31
As part of a citywide assessment program, "Major Intersection Safety Program," thirty-
one street intersections have been identified for potential enhancements. As included in
the March 27,2007 citywide grant list report, an application for grant funding from the
Highway Safety Improvement Program, matched with Traffic Signal Fee funds, was
submitted to fund a project that will enhance safety (pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular)
and/or traffic flow at those intersections. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
3. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR PHASE I (AREA A
FENCING) OF THE LAUDERBACH PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PR-295)
TO ATLAS FENCING, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO
EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN OF PHASE 2 (AREA B
FENCING, RESTROOM CONSTRUCTION, LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AND
TOT LOT SURFACING) OF THE LAUDERBACH PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PR-
295) AND RETURN TO COUNCIL IN JULY OF 2007 TO APPROPRIATE
ADDITIONAL STATE RECREATIONAL GRANT FUNDS AND RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TAX FUNDS FOR INCREASED COSTS TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECT
Page 2 - Council Agenda
httn:/lwww.chulavistaca.Q:QV
June 12,2007
On May 15, 2007, the General Services Director received informal bids for this project,
which is the first phase of the Lauderbach Park Improvement Project, funded through a
State Recreation grant and the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program.
Adoption of the resolutions awards the contract for Phase 1 of the Lauderbach Park
Improvement Project, and directs staff to proceed with the design of Phase 2 of the
project, and to return to Council for appropriations necessary for project completion.
(General Services Director, Public Works Operations Director)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULA
VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING JOINT OPERATION OF
THE DYNAMIC AFTER SCHOOL HOURS (DASH) AFTER SCHOOL
RECREATIONAL PROGRAM, AND THE SAFE TIME FOR RECREATION,
ENRICHMENT, AND TUTORING FOR CHILDREN (STRETCH) EXTENDED
SCHOOL DAY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) between the City and the Chula
Vista Elementary School District, in effect until June 30, 2007, authorizes the operation
of two after school programs at elementary school sites. The STRETCH program, with
its emphasis on literacy and arts enrichment, is currently offered at seven district schools.
The existing MOU also authorizes the operation of a structured sports and recreation
program called DASH (Dynamic After School Hours), at 25 district schools. Adoption
of the resolution approves the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 MOU, and includes expansion of
the DASH program to one new site (Wolf Canyon Elementary). (Assistant City
Manager/Library Director)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
5. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF THE MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY AND
APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL NON-MANAGEMENT
CLASSIFICATION STUDIES AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
(Continued from June 5, 2007)
Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation
study of positions in the mid-management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67
classifications. The study included a review of the work performed, scope and
complexity of assignments and overall responsibility of each position. In addition,
department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non-
management positions represented by the Chula Vista Employees Association and
Western Civil Engineers. (Human Resources Director)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
Page 3 - Council Agenda
http://www .chulavistaca.gov
June 12, 2007
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject
matter within the Council jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State
law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the
agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or
refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following item has been advertised as a public hearing as required by law. If you
wish to speak on this item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the
lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
6. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER VII RECREATION
PROGRAMSIF ACILITIES OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The Recreation Department last updated fees in June 2003. Staff is proposing fee
increases and new fees based upon the Consumer Price Index, informal surveys and
assessments of what increases would be appropriate in the Chula Vista market, and City
cost increases. The new fees and/or increases are proposed for facility rentals, athletics,
aquatics, and miscellaneous services. (Recreation Director)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, and adopt the following
resolutions:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES TO
EXISTING FEES AND THE ADDITION OF NEW FEES FOR RECREATION
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES TO
EXISTING FEES AND THE ADDITION OF NEW FEES FOR AQUATICS
OTHER BUSINESS
7. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
8. MAYOR'S REPORTS
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Page 4 * Council Agenda
htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.!!oy
June 12,2007
ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting, Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
with the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and Redevelopment
Agency in the Council Chambers; and thence to the regular meeting of
June 19,2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access,
attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at
least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is
also available for the hearing impaired.
Page 5 - Council Agenda
http://www .chulavistaca.gov
June 12,2007
S'~"(lL Ci'ZV'rs of tt'LL llitl
io -/l-07 PiJ'i1dt:- Nleef,rvj
A
ADVOCATION
June 12, 2007
To: Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox,
Members of the Chula Vista City Council
From:
Chuck Cole, Advocation, Inc. ~ ~
Status of 2007-08 Fiscal Year State Budget
Subject
On Monday, May 14, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released his proposed May
revision to the 2007-2008 state budget. The May Revise, generally is positive for
cities, with the budget funding a number of critical programs.
The following are some issues of importance to local governments:
Transportation
Proposition 1 B Funds. The appropriation of Prop. 1 B funds increases from $7.7
billion to $11.5 billion on a three-year appropriation schedule. This includes $600
million for Local Streets and Roads in FY2007-08 year ($300 million proposed for
FY 08-09 and $150 million proposed for FY 2009-10 for a total of $1.05 billion in
a three-year appropriation schedule).
Spillover from Sales Tax on Gasoline. The May Revision increases take-away
from the Public Transportation Account (PTA) by $200 million, for a total of $1.3
billion. This amount is proposed to offset General Fund (GF) expenditures for K-
12 home-to-school transportation, debt service on transportation-related General
Obligation (GO) bonds and transportation services for regional development
centers. PTA spillover revenues occur when growth in revenues from the sales
tax on gasoline exceed the growth sales tax revenues from other taxable goods.
Proposition 42: The May Revision contains no changes to the Prop. 42
allocations reported in January, which fully funds Prop. 42 as follows:
. $684 million to the Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP)
. $699 million to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
. $175 million to Public Transportation Account (PTA)
6/12/2007
Page 2 of 8
Cities and counties will not receive any local streets and roads maintenance
funds from Prop. 42 in FY 2007-08 pursuant to a formula in current law and
under a longstanding agreement that provided cities and counties with local
streets and roads funds in FY 2001-02 and FYI 2002-03. However, per the
existing formula, cities and counties will receive approximately double their prior
allocations beginning in FY 2008-09.
Public Safety
COPS I Juvenile Justice Grants. The Governor's May Revise proposes to
continue the critical Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS)/Juvenile Justice
Grants Program. The budget funds this program at $238 million, the same level
as 2006-07.
Booking Fees. In accordance with last year's AB 1805, the budget also includes
$35 million for an alternative to traditional booking fees called "jail access fees."
This is the same level of funding as last year. For an explanation of AB 1805.
Anti-Gang Efforts. Under the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
$8.5 million is proposed in the budget for the Criminal Intelligence Analysis Unit;
$3.3 for Regional Gang Task Forces, creating three pilot programs in Los
Angeles, the Bay Area and the Inland Empire.
In addition, under the Office of Emergency Services, the May Revision proposes
using $4.9 million of federal funds to establish four new federal anti-gang grants
as part of gang suppression efforts; $446,000 to support a State Anti-Gang
Coordinator position; and $7 million in General Funds for Local Anti-Gang
Programs. The details of these proposals will be released in the next few weeks.
Resources and Environment
Air Quality. The May Revise allocates $111 million from Prop. 1 B to fund air
quality improvements along California's main highways and trade corridors (port
electrification and diesel truck retrofits).
Williamson Act. The $40 million Williamson Act local property tax backfill
program to counties is eliminated in the May Revise.
Debt Repavment and Local Government Finances
Economic Recovery Bond Repayment. The May Revise includes a $1.6 billion
increase in Economic Recovery Bonds (ERBs) prepayments, for a total of $3.1
billion prepayment in the 2007 budget. Prop. 57, the Economic Recovery Bond
Act, authorized the state to issue ERBs and established the "triple-flip"
mechanism for repayment of those bonds.
611212007
Page 3 of 8
Triple-flip uses a quarter-cent of the local sales and use tax for debt service,
replacing that money to cities and counties with additional property tax. The
Administration plans to fully repay the ERBs by August 2009.
Yacht Tax. The "Yacht Tax" loophole, which would result in GF revenue gains of
$35 million in use-tax obligation, is being permanently closed by the May Revise.
Mandate Claims. The budget has no funding for mandate claims for costs
incurred by local governments in FY 2007-08. Payment of these claims would be
deferred to FY 2008-09. This is the same proposal as released in the Governor's
January 2007 Budget.
Commission on State Mandates Process. The May Revise proposes
changing the current process by which the Commission on State Mandates
determines mandates and the reimbursement guidelines.
The May revise also includes:
. $654,000 for additional support to the Public Employee Post-Employment
Benefits Commission including contracts with an economist, health care
experts, actuaries and other staff and operating resources.
. A $950,000 appropriation and the creation of 10 new positions in the
Public Utilities Commission to be used for implementation of the Video
Competition Act, AB 2987 (Nunez/Levine) from 2006.
General Notes on the Mav Revise
Overall, the May Revise proposes to increase GF spending in FY 2007-08 by
$1.5 billion or 1.5 percent above the level of spending in FY 2006-07. Gov.
Schwarzenegger said "we got creative" when putting together the revised
budget, which included several new ideas:
. A proposal to sell EdFund - California's student loan guarantee agency --
which would account for a net one-time increase in state revenues of $980
million.
. A proposal to consider selling a long-term license to operate the State
Lottery. The Administration believes a competitively bid lease would
provide billions of dollars in additional fiscal benefits to the state's GF. The
Governor cited this as a potential source of revenue to payoff the
Economic Recovery.
Infrastructure Bond Implementation Update
Proposition 1B: $19.92 billion on various transportation projects to rebuild
California. Of this total amount, $1 billion is allocated for cities and $1 billion for
counties for local streets and roads improvement projects.
6/12/2007
Page 4 of8
. Siqnificant potential open issues: Allocation schedule of $1 billion for cities
for local streets and roads; development of $2 billion State-Local
Partnership Program; development of $3.1 billion "goods movement" and
air quality programs; allocation schedule of $4 billion for public transit,
intercity and commuter rail and waterborne transit.
. Current update: The allocation of the Prop. 1 B local streets and road funds
have been held as an open item in the Budget Conference Committee.
This means that it will require further debate before a decision is made.
The League is sponsoring SB 286 with the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC). This legislation establishes accountability and oversight
for the use of the bond money. SB 286 passed off the Senate floor with
bipartisan support and is now heading to the Assembly.
5B 286: League-sponsored SB 286 (Lowenthal and Dutton) sets forth specific
accountability, transparency and deliverability requirements for Prop. 1 B funds to
ensure public funds are spent responsibly and on projects the voters were
promised. In addition, the measure stipulates that the funds must be spent within
three years, allowing the public to benefit from the projects sooner rather than
later.
The League has asked city officials to contact their legislators, urging them to
support the full $1 billion to cities immediately. In the next 10 days, let them know
that supporting the full funding to cities keeps faith with the voters intent when
they passed Prop. 1 B last November. It is important that they know that
transportation-related projects are ready to go.
. Earlier today, the League of California Cities sponsored a series of news
conferences on Proposition 1 B funding implementation, beginning in Elk
Grove. They received extensive coverage in the electronic media;
providing members of the public with a better understanding of what cities
are attempting to do.
Why Full Funding of Prop. 1 B to Cities is Important
Every trip starts and ends on our local streets and roads which is why voters
overwhelmingly supported Prop. 1 B last November at the polls. They voted to
allocate $1 billion of the total $19.9 billion state transportation bond money for
city needs. Solid streets and roads, and efficient transit systems are vital to both
quality of life and economic vitality.
A survey conducted earlier this year by the League found that every city in
California has local transportation-related projects on the drawing board, waiting
for funds to improve local traffic conditions and make street and road repairs.
Cities are requesting the allocation of the full $1 billion this fiscal year. Because
cities will not receive any Proposition 42 funds (gasoline sales tax) this year, the
full allocation of Prop. 1 B funds will enable cities to continue funding projects
already underway without interruption.
6/12/2007
Page 5 of 8
Proposition 1C: This measure allocates $2.85 billion for housing projects.
Approximately half of the bond ($1.45 billion) is going out through existing
programs such as the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Emergency Housing
Assistance Program (EHAP), and the Building Equity and Growth in
Neighborhoods program (BEGIN). The remaining funds ($1.4 billion) are
designated for infill infrastructure ($850 million), parks ($200 million), transit-
oriented development ($300 million), and innovative programs ($100 million).
. Sianificant potential open issues: One of the most significant issues
outstanding is who will be eligible to apply for infill infrastructure funding.
. Current update: The infill infrastructure fund has attracted the most
legislative attention, where two bills have emerged as the front runners.
AB 1053 (Nunez) distributes $450 million to a competitive infrastructure
program administered by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD).
. The remaining $400 million is split evenly between the Infrastructure Bank,
a workforce housing program administered by HCD, MHP, and the Cal-
Reuse Brownfields program. As a result, a total $750 million will go
directly to local agencies for infrastructure related to housing.
. SB 46 (Perata) on the other hand creates a single competitive grant
program for infill infrastructure and affordable housing that can be applied
for by local governments and nonprofit housing developers.
Proposition 10: $10.5 billion for performing school building repairs and
providing innovative learning facilities for California students, including seismic
retrofitting and classroom repairs.
. Sianificant potential open issues: Allocation of $29 million to fund joint-use
projects for construction of K-12 school facilities.
Proposition 1E: $4.09 billion for critical river levee repair and construction, flood
control projects and the updating and repair of old water mains and sewage
systems. The allocation also includes $290 million for the creation of flood
protection corridors and floodplain mapping.
. Siqnificant potential open issues: Effort to include water storage into
funding categories; addition of liability link to allocation of levee
improvement funds.
. Current update: The Budget Conference Committee has created a Water
Working Group that will address most, if not all of the Prop. 1 E and Prop.
84 flood and water issues in the budget process. This group may also
address flood management issues.
6/12/2007
Page 6 of 8
Proposition 84 : $5.4 billion for improving natural resources and water programs
including state projects and flood control, safe drinking water, water quality
improvement, integrated water management, water planning and sustainable
communities.
. Siqnificant potential open issues: Further definition of elements of the
$580 million for climate change, including $90 million for incentives for
planning; how the $1 billion for local agencies to meet local water needs
will be spent and anticipation of a possible effort to redirect $400 million in
park funds to create a per capita grant program for grant funds.
. Current update: There are several legislative proposals to further refine
the allocation of dollars under Prop. 84. The most significant of these
proposals is SB 732 (Steinberg).
Proposition 42 Funding Again at Risk
Last November, when voters passed Proposition 1A, it was with the belief that
funding for transportation through the sales tax on gasoline (Proposition 42,
passed in 2002) was protected. This is not the case.
Due to a significant increase in spillover funds recently, these funds continue to
be a target in times of state budget shortfalls. There are a number of proposals
on the table that seek to protect the spillover funds so they remain dedicated to
transit funding as originally intended.
This year, Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed to divert spillover funds away
from transit, leading to discussions about long term protection of spillover funds
dedicated to transit.
A proposal has circulated around Sacramento that would change the Prop. 42
formula funding, giving cities a lower percentage. The current Prop. 42 formula
consists of 40 percent for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
20 percent for cities, 20 percent for counties and 20 percent to transit. The new
proposal reduces STIP to 35 percent, cities to 15 percent, counties to 15 percent
and increases transit to 35 percent.
The new proposal, which passed out of Assembly Budget Subcommittee #5 last
week, bases the changes on increased "spillover" funds. Supporters argue that
the proposal would capture these funds and put them into Prop. 42, thus
increasing the amount of funding cities receive, despite the decrease in overall
percentage.
A key sticking point, however, is that projections have only been done for three
years and spillover funds are subject to numerous changes. This would make
any alteration of the funding formula a risky proposition for cities, because there
is no guarantee that cities would be allocated a consistent amount of money.
6/12/2007
Page 7 of 8
What this Means for Cities
On its face, the change appears positive because it includes the addition of
spillover funds to Prop. 42, so lowering cities' percentage share may result in
increased funding for the foreseeable future. In the long term, however it is
impossible to project spillover accurately.
The spillover money is, by its nature, highly volatile and unpredictable. If there is
a leveling-out of gas prices, and cities have a lower percentage of the spillover
funds, this change could sacrifice the long term stability in favor of a short term
gain. There were 13 years within a 17-year period from 1986-2003 with no
spillover.
In addition, although Prop. 42 funds have achieved Constitutional protection; the
same is not true for spillover funds. Spillover funds are still vulnerable. During
any budget cycle, the state has the ability to divert the funds for other purposes,
leaving less money available for cities, counties and the STIP under the
proposed formula change.
In a year when the spillover funds go to Prop. 42, per the proposed formula,
cities will share a smaller portion of a larger pot of money. The concern arises in
years when the state attempts to use spillover monies for other purposes
because this means that cities are now sharing a smaller percentage of a smaller
pot of money.
Consequently, cities face significant risk being at the whim of the state. Any
reliance on funding with this sort of turbulence will create uncertainty, confusion
and distress in local budgets. Cities also need to consider that in the long term
there are other, better options to provide increased funding to transit.
The League of California Cities has proposed the following suggested
talking points with respect to the proposed formula revision:
. Cities were recently made aware of a proposal to change the Proposition
42 formula.
. The Legislature should not change the existing formula. Cities counties
worked hard to pass state ballot measures protecting these funds for our
local streets and roads.
. Changing the existing Prop. 42 formula goes against the intent of voters
when they supported Proposition 1A in 2006.
. Current Prop. 42 formula: 40 percent to the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), 20 percent to cities, 20 percent to counties
and 20 percent to transit.
. Proposed Prop. 42 formula: 35 percent to STIP, 15 percent to cities, 15
percent to counties and 35 percent to transit.
. While some may say that the addition of "spillover" funds to this formula
means more money in the short term for cities, we see no stability in the
long term.
6/12/2007
Page 8 of 8
. Spillover is by its nature extremely volatile and unpredictable. There was
no spillover in 13 of the 17 years between 1986 and 2003.
. Any reliance on spillover funding with this sort of turbulence creates
uncertainty, confusion, and distress in local budgets.
. Cities deserve the stability of being able to rely on these funds in the
future as promised to us.
Cities clearly support transit funding. But the proposed change Prop. 42
destabilizes local street and road funds may not be the way to go.
Budget Conference Committee
Budget Conference Committee is continuing to meet and it is expected that they
will present a budget to the Floor shortly which when rejected will require the Big
Five to meet and negotiate the final open budget issues. Three of the biggest
issues remaining are the social service issues including the CalWORKS funding,
the issues relating to the Global Warming measure, AB 32 (Nunez), and the
Proposition 1 B funding for local government.
, . The sources for this memo include the League of California Cities, Governor's Department of
Finance, the Legislative Analysts Office and numerous new articles concerning the budget.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
06/12/2007
Item--L-
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A $50,000 GRANT FROM THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND AUTIlORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
CITY ENGINEER '7J ~
INTERIM CITY MANAGER II
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
4/5TIIS VOTE: YES D NO ~
BACKGROUND
On April 17, 2007, the County of San Diego approved a COImnunity Project award of $50,000 to
the City of Chula Vista in order to provide for preliminary engineering services for the J Street to
Stella Street segment of the Bayshore Bikeway. Tonight's action accepts the funds and
authorizes City staff to execute the agreement required by the County.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a
"Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines at this time because it
involves only the acceptance of a grant and authorization to proceed with engineering and
environmental studies for the project; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3) of the State
CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Once the project has been fully defined,
environmental review will be required and a CEQA determination completed.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the Resolution accepting a $50,000 grant from the County of San Diego
and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement with the County of San Diego.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
On April 17, 2007, the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors approved several Community
Project awards recommended by Supervisor Greg Cox including $50,000 to the City of Chula
Vista in order to provide for preliminary engineering services for the Bayshore Bikeway portion
1-1
06112/2007, ltemL
Page 2 of 4
from J Street to Stella Street in Chula Vista. This $50,000 grant will supplement an anticipated
$50,000 in City of Chula Vista TransNet funds proposed for this project in the Fiscal Year
2007/2008 Capital Improvement Program budget.
The Bayshore Bikeway Working Group is chaired by County Supervisor Greg Cox and was
established to promote improvements to the approximately 24-mile bikeway around San Diego
Bay. It consists of an elected official from each of the Cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial
Beach, National City, and San Diego, and from the County of San Diego. Council Member
McCann has previously served on this working group; currently, Council Member Ramirez
represents the City of Chula Vista. Working Group members also include the Metropolitan
Transit System, the Port District, and a representative of the region's bicycling community.
The Bayshore Bikeway consists often segments around the San Diego Bay (see Attachment 1).
The southerly portion of Segment 6, all of Segment 7, and the northerly portion of Segment 8 are
within the City of Chula Vista. The grant is to be put toward the portion of Segment 8 that is
located within the City of Chula Vista ("Segment 8A"). The ultimate bike path segment along
the Coronado Beltline Railroad right-of-way corridor and west of Bay Boulevard from Stella
Street to Main Street is located within the city of San Diego and has been identified as Segment
8B. The interim bike lane alignment along Stella Street and West Frontage Road to Main Street
is generally located within Chula Vista.
Bayshore Bikeway Route Segments
The SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan breaks the bikeway into ten segments that can be
summarized as follows:
Segment 1: Ferry Landing to Seaport Village, within Port tidelands and subject to the
redevelopment plans of the Port District.
Segment 2: Convention Center Way to 28th Street is within tidelands, and within the City of San
Diego between Harbor Drive on the east side and the trolley right-of-way, bridging the railroad
tracks at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.
Segment 3: Between 28th Street to 32nd Street, the path continues on the east side of Harbor
Drive and likely will involve improvements to the parking areas that serve National Steel and
Shipbuilding (NASSCD) employees.
Segment 4: 32nd Street to Civic Center Drive transitions from the City of San Diego to National
City. This segment includes alternate routes along either side of Harbor Drive between 32nd
Street and the Naval Station Gate 7.
Segment 5: Civic Center Drive to the existing bike path at 32nd Street in National City includes
improvements that may involve Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF), and changes to the
west side of Tidelands Avenue.
Segment 6: From the bike path beginning at 32nd Street, across the Gordy Shields Bridge to E
Street in Chula Vista, no major improvements are recommended for this section.
1-2
06/12/2007, Item~
Page 3 of 4
Segment 7: E Street to J Street in Chula Vista is primarily through the bayfront redevelopment
area being planned by the San Diego Unified Port District and the City of Chula Vista. The
recommended alignment is within the San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) right-of-way where
transmission lines are currently being undergrounded.
Segment 8: J Street to Main Street where the proposed alignment is in the SDG&E right-of-way
and in the Metropolitan Transit System's (MTS) Coronado Belt Line right-of-way.
Segment 9: Main Street in Chula Vista to the City of Imperial Beach where the City of San
Diego currently is developing the project through the salt works, and to the west where Imperial
Beach would like to develop a bike path spur connecting to their beachfront.
Segment 10: The existing bike path and route in Coronado connecting to the ferry landing does
not require major improvements.
Each segment represents a portion of the route that has some independent utility because it
connects to an exiting bike path or it serves significant land uses. Some segments will be easier
to implement than others due to cost and right-of-way constraints. Consequently, the Working
Group has developed implementation priorities to facilitate a logical development of the planned
improvements. With this in mind, the Working Group would like to commence the preliminary
environmental assessment and preliminary engineering phase of work on Segment 8 (see
Attachment 2). Segment 7 is affected by the Bayfront Redevelopment project and this segment
cannot proceed at this time. The total estimated cost for Segment 8A is $1.2 million as shown in
the attached cost estimate (see Attachment 3).
Per a letter dated May 10, 2007, the County of San Diego grant requires the City of Chula Vista
to execute a grant agreement document (see Attachments 4 and 5). The grant funds must be
expended within twelve months of receipt.
Once this phase of work is underway and nears completion, it is expected that SANDAG will
then prioritize this project for regional bicycle funding sources. This phase of work will analyze
environmental issues, revise the cost estimate and determine the project scope for construction.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict exists, in
that Council Member Ramirez has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the
property, which is the subject of this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. This $50,000 in County
grant funds and an additional $50,000 in TransNet funds are proposed as project STL337
"Bayshore Bikeway" in the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Capital Improvement Program. These funds
will be appropriated with approval of the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Capital Improvement Program
budget. The $50,000 in TransNet funds for this project were included within the City's Fiscal
Year 2007/2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) approved by City
Council on April 17,2007 per Resolution 2007-111. The SANDAG RTIP is attached (see
Attachment 6).
1-3
ATTACHMENTS
06/1212007, Item f
Page 4 of 4
1. SANDAG key to Bayshore Bikeway Study Segments (Fig. 5-1 through 5-8)
2. Bayshore Bikeway Working Group Agenda dated April 5, 2007.
3. SANDAG Report for Segment "8A" J Street to Stella Street dated March 9,2007.
4. County of San Diego letter dated May 10, 2007.
5. County of San Diego Standard Grant Agreement between the County of San Diego and
City of Chula Vista.
6. SANDAG 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTlP) Draft
Amendment #6 dated 5/25/07.
(File: STL337)
J:\EngineerIAGENDA\CAS2007l06-12-07\Revised Bayshore Bikeway Grant.doc
1-4
ATTACHMENT I
.U.'S."NaVal
AirSh!Iiil~
I Segment 10 I
p.lcific Ocean
- Streams
Bikeways
- Bike Path
Bike Lane
- On-Street Bika Route
---- Ferry Connection
BAYSHORE BIKEWAY
Bike Patl1
On-Street Bike Lane/Route
~
o
3,900
7,800
Fill
FIGURE
DESCRiPTION
5-1
Key to Bayshore Bikeway Study Segments
Existing Bike Path IIIIIIIIlII
Broadway Pier
Ferry connection
to Coronado
Existing On-Street
Bike lane/Bike Route
Proposed New
Bike Path Alignment
-
Old Police Headquarters
Planned for redevelopment,
recommended Bikeway will
extend through parking area
(specific path alignment
to be coordinated with site
redevelopment plans)
Seaport Village Parking
Some bicyclists currently
ride informal route through
parking areas to bypass
prohibited promenade
FIGURE Broadway Pier to Convention Center STUDY SEGMENT
5-2 1. .1>. 1
.....
Convention Way
Recommended Bikeway
path along west side of
Convention Way, a low
traffic roadway providing
access to convention
center loading docks
FIGURE San Diego conv"c!:~~ Center to STUDY SEGMENTS
5-3 National ity imit Z and 3
Naval Station Frontage
West Side Bikeway path
alignment utilizes unpaved
shoulder area adjacent 10
Naval Station. Will require
undergroundlng utility poles,
potentially shifting Navy fence
for wider trailllanscaping
.J
BNSF ROW
Use of BNSF ROW for
Bikeway path is option for
more direct connection to
lldelands Avenue, but
need to address railroad
opera.tional Issues
Gordy Shields Bridge
ExIsting bike/pad bridge over
Sweetwater Channel, extends
from east terminus of 32nd St.
In National City 10 E Street in
ChulaVlsta
FIGURE National City limits to STUDY SEGMENTS
5-4 Sweetwa:er River 4 and 5
1-
Existin!l Btkl! Path _
Existin!lOn-StrI!l!t
Bikl! LaneJBikl! Routl!
Proposl!dNl!w
Bikl! Path Alilnml!nt
-
Chula Vista H.rbor Spur Trail
Optlonallrail alignment through
Chu[a Vista Bayfront area would
provide connection 10 Herbor
area. Specific alignment details
would be determined as part of
Bayfront Area redevelopment
FIGURE sweetwat~ !~er to STUDY SEGMENTS
5-5 Marina rk ay 6 and 7
ExistlllfBikePath _
ExistfnsOn.Street
Bike LanelBiI(e Route
Pl'tlposedN~
Bike Path AliJllment
Current Bike Path
Pl'tljects
--
South Limit of Undergrounding
The Moss Street alignment west
of 1-5 Is the south 6mit of the
SDG&E undergroundlng project
South of here, the Bikeway path
route will run adjacent to Bay Blvd.,
shifting to the east side of Coronado
Beltline ROW. Crossing of RR to
occur at existing service road
along Moss Street alfgnmenl
Coronado aelOlne ROW
Historic Coronado BelUlna
RailrQad ROW Is owned by
MTS and presents opportunity
for Class I path alignment. Path
would be setback from tracks
and not preclude future use of
Beltllne for rail service.
Current Project
Class I segment currently
under development, linking
Main Street to existing
Silver Strand Bike Peth
FIGURE SEGMENT
5-6 Marina Parkway to Main Street, Chula Vista 8
1-10
.
.
.
"ll~
~t
~5
.~
oJ!
U~
~
.
H
~.t
~~
I
~
.l!
.l!
'"
i!'
'Ii
.ll
.
li~
,li.l!
'i!
d~
I~
~~
I
!
~.-
z<!
~-:e
~~
~~
~,-,,-.~~,?:~~t~.:~.' >
. g'A "O.!!~ Ii
c.>...Q III 5i ~ ~ 2"~
.2-ol\fe.s~~'5"i5c
a..3 OltIJC/J"iI Q.o:lI
o w..5 ~ 11;= >,1:l()
.c.!!Jl:ZC:>iC""
~~ ai~i~3ffi~
~~.s.!~Ill=i~1&
:]1 llCD""~o ell ~ g'
i ~~~iIi~~ ~=1
:s"'e~i.s![5
_'_ ."i....., ~~Hig ~~'g~
;,:~1z.l.' itS gi~~6~ ~<<J1ii
~"', Q, l:! CD ,c.c
~,' E! c. E:;.s rs Ie ~
"....-'-""""_'......, I- Q ~ri: CD
""" . ....~ tIJ m:5
i Jl;,'t""":".~L.
-] (;j
0" j S'-
:5~c:~~i
.!l;~ ~~ E!e.
g~=5U
.!l.!l:J~a:I.c>
::I~.!!tnc.."5l::a
&!~!ii.s~8<1l
!'E~""I
.s 5r ~ In .
fI1'l'~I,g:~ ~
c 8= ojC/J ell ~:::I
o~-g~liiEla~
D1= CIl CD.2 iir.c u
c 11:1- :> - U:I "5i!"
:;il-;;<CI)!DliI<V
'iiic;~E.!e0'=
lIJ<u~.9jjj
~O~
....
z
~
'"
~'"
>
c
=>
....
~
","'"
~~
.~ ~
> 0>
",-"
-SiXi
""''t)
u"
. '"
tb
0>'"
b a;
'" >
.~ ~
::;:8
'"
0:,....
~~
"-
Existing Bike Path
Coronado Ferry Terminal
Ferry Connection to
Downtown San Diego
Continued from
Segment 10A, at left
FIGURE
5-8
Silver Strand to Coronado FerryTerminal
SEGMENT
10
1-12
4O1 B Street, Suite BOO
San Diego, 01 92101-4231
(619)699-1900
Fax (619) 699-1905
wwwsandag.org
MEMBER AGfN0f5
Citiesof
Canlbad
CJwIa "'"
C""",ado
DelMar
EICaJOfl
frtdnitiJ5
EJ<:Ondido
"-iJI a..d1
La Mesa
LemonGrol<'
NationafCity
Oceanside
-
5>r> Diego
~Mar(QS
5anfee
Soi.w a..d1
"<I,
,nd
County of 5>r> Diego
ADVISORY MEMBERS
fmperial CCtlflty
California Department
of Transportation
Metropoli:an
TransitSystem
North County
TransirDisrtkr
United States
DefJartm~fI( of Defense
San Diego
Unified Port Disrtict
s.m Diego County
WaterAulhority
5outfJ(>mG;tifotnia
Tribal Chai/'f'ne('J's AwciariM
_0
ATTACHMENT 2.
MEETING NOnCE
AND AGENDA
BA VSHORE BIKEWAY WORKING GROUP
The Bayshore Bikeway Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
2:00 p.m.
SANDAG, Conference Room 8A
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101-4231
Staff Contact: Stephan Vance
(619) 699-1924
sva@sandag.org
AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS
. CHULA VISTA SEGMENT IMPLEMENTATION
WESTERN SALT PROJECT STATUS REPORT
SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit.
Phone I-BOO-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will
accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in
SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at
(619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please
call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
1-13
BAYSHORE BIKEWAY WORKING GROUP
Thursday, April 5, 2007
ITEM #
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS
+3. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14,2006, MEETING
4. BAYSHORE BIKEWAY SIGN AND PAVEMENT MARKER
PROJECTS
The County of San Diego, through the office of Supervisor Cox,
has provided SANDAG with $2,000 to purchase additional signs
and pavement markers for the Bayshore Bikeway. Staff will
provide a status repot on the project
+5. CHULA VISTA SEGMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Staff from the City of Chula Vista are pursuing funding to develop
the next phase of the bikeway in Chula Vista. They have
developed the attached rationale and cost estimate for the
segment along Bay Boulevard from Stella Avenue north to
J Street.
+6. WESTERN SALT PROJECT STATUS REPORT
The internal review of the draft environmental impact report by
the City of San Diego has extended beyond the timeframe last
reported to the Working Group by the project development team.
A revised schedule provided by the consulting team (attached)
shows a significant delay in the environmental approval process.
An oral report will be provided by City of San Diego staff at the
meeting on the impact of this delay and possible strategies for
recovering time in the schedule, if any.
7. ADJOURN
+ next to an item indicates an attachment
2
1-14
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE
INFORMATION
INFORMATION!
DISCUSSION
INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT 3
Bayshore Bikeway
"Y' Street to Stella (Segment SA)
March 9, 2007
Bacl.ground
The Bayshore Bikeway Plan began in 1975 and is currently embodied in the March 17,
2006 plan approved by SANDAG's Bayshore Bikeway Working Group. The goal of the
plan is to identify off-street bike path alignments for the entire 24-mile loop around the
San Diego Bay. The concept is that each jurisdiction it traverses is responsible for the
construction and maintenance of the Bikeway. The rationale for prioritizing this segment
("J" Street to Stella) is that the construction phasing of the Bayfront is largely from the
north to the south. By pursuing this segment there is a belief that the entire Bayshore
Bikeway through the City of Chula Vista will be constructed sooner. Securing funds for
the design of this segment will help to realize the timing and alignment issues associated
with this segment.
Description ofthe segment from "J" Street to Stella
This 6,670-foot segment (1.25 miles) would follow either the SDG&E utility corridor or
the adjacent railroad right of way just west of Bay Boulevard (see attached). At the
southerly end of this segment the facility would need to temporarily connect back onto
Bay Boulevard. Ultimately the segment to the south of this segment is to be constructed
by the City of San Diego.
Justification of Need
The Bayshore Bikeway is justified on a number of levels. On a transportation level, this
facility is considered transpartatian demand management (TDM), that is to say it
removes auto commuter trips from the transportation network at the pea!l usage times to
allow the existing infrastructure to work more effectively. The facility also provides an
incentive for bicycle trips, which generate less greenhouse gases. From a safety
standpoint there have been 6 reported bike accidents on this segment of Bay Blvd. in the
last 6 years. This facility would have prevented all but one of these accidents, where a
bike crashed into a bike. Lastly, the project would have the potential to draw more
commercial activity as bicyclists traverse through the City on their way around the loop.
Cost Estimate
The Segment cost is embedded in a larger cost estimate of $1.9 million. We are
requesting the breakdown from SANDAG however, we believe tlle cost may range from
$700 thousand to $1.5 million. We expect to refine this estimate by the end of March
2007. A large line item in the estimate is a $450,000 storm drain along Bay Blvd. that
may be avoidable if the path is aligned further to the west. Additional large ticket items
are the crossings of two major watercourses at ''Y' street and "L" street. We estimate the
design cost for this segment to be $ I 00,000 however, there is environmental analysis
required which may be as high as $100,000 (see attached).
7
1-15
f 52' f 35' "
~ t~[=i ~ ~L !~lP~J lIlS 1
_ _ _ R/W.-- _ _ -'::!-_"':::1
- ------ - -\ /
EXISTING CROSS SECTION " _I
"- 8' -: 5', '--13'
52'
I,
35'
"
16'~
13'---, 4' ~9'-; 5','--14'
cw;s 1
PA'Ili
- ~ ~l
I , I
WSS/ : PARKING : BIKE : :_:
IlUSlIlESS lRAvtI. lRAvtI. PARKlNG
PARK LANE : LANE: INIE LANE :LANE: LANE
,. . I
CORllNADO
IllWlCIi
RAlLRO.\D
0:
\. PROP"'ED
STORM
DRAIN
~ t
Ii!>--
il
~
!
PROPOSED LAYOUT
FIGURE
LOCATION
FACING
SECTION
5-22
SA
Bay Boulevard North of Palomar
8
South
1-16
.
t
,
t
i
,
t
;
;
.
;
;
;
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
<<
.
.
(
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~$fi
cr~.E~lf
..,~
.,
-
~
-
...
.~.~
~
..
~
I
\
c-
""
/
/
/
<L
9
1-17
"
it
~
~ Cl oJ:
Z -
C3 ::)
~ I ~ 0
on
., I
L-------l
It
iJ I
iJ I
I "'0
'''"
I z"-
it ~~
I
iJ I "0
<ill!
II ~w
","
II ss
..
iJ
Ii "
z
i5 "'
It sg] 4i
~!l 41
..
Ii I ffi~ -
on
, ~u; -.
it .~ Ii :>!!!
I jjjili "'0
~ I ~ I c
Ii I o~ a
\ (!;J!' ::J:
.. lEiS z
! I I 0 c
\ ; ~ 41
i!i 41
I u ~
i!i 9 -
I 41
..l2
i!i ~
i!i 0
III
!!J ...
~ ell
it C!)
0
!!J on
!!J I -L
it I ,. 9~ AY~
- ~ BI:/CJHS.I. \1&
I {
it I
II I 1;! ~
II I
I
II I
I
II I
. I
~ ~ III z
it ~ III 0 <C
~
.. w "
I rn
ill I
.. \
I w
0: -
it I ::J C'f
Cl I
.. ii: U,
. 10
..
. 1-18
j; 0
:E 0 0
- 0 0
~ .; 0
0 .;
'" ... 0
.. '"
- ..
l; . i
::;;
<> r:::;:;;:: ~
~ 0 I
0
0
8 " .;
0
.. ~
N .., .. ~ ~.
J.\j.i
" c ~I
.. 0
CJ '" {4\'i;!
- " ~ ~
2
~ 10 "
z c " ..
0 E
u 0 .. E
U '" E
0 E ~
0 {'!. ~ '"
n; '" ~
E U Q.
.. .. .. ~
'" ;li 'e e
- 0 0. (!)
g 0
0 Km
'" .;
- 0
~
"S iili: -
.., C
- '"
;;
C ..
~ CJ
..,
0 j; @ 0
;;; .!9 ;; ::;; .. 0
C " 0
~;ii 0; " c e
U; 'U ~ '" ;;; ~
'" .. 0 -'! ~
ass: .9 2' .. :! ..
.. .. ;; - I- 0. '"
(; E Q. Q. Q. Q. ..
'" e E l; :J :J :J 0.
.c .. U; " ::;; "D "D "D
i-UJ E - f:t .... .- -'! -'! -'!
al ;:. 'E & & '0 0.
:! .a 5 a: '"
.. ..
... .. "
~ .. I
... c c E .
..
0 .. E "
0 .., e
N '"
.. 'S:
" '" C
.. W
CJ
.. 0 0 ..
C 0 ;;; ;;; ~ . ~
.. iU' @,
0 .. "D "D
~ "D 0 1<: '0
0 0 0
, .. ~ ~ '"
CJ N
- 0 8 8 0
;;; .. 8 .. "
0 0
C ci ci ci 0 " ..
0 0 ~ :il .. S E
"D ~ '" c;, 0 E
.. .. .. .. ~ c -'!
.~ a: :! ~
... '"
-
n;
C "
.. 0
.. E ti
.. .. C " 2 ;ii
E C e '" ;;; i:;
.. .. '5 'j " C ill
z " c ..
E w CJ 0 0
'" '" EM
0 .. l'IO
.. Ul
I- Ul'
.c
+ tir-
'" .!!.ili
N ... 1 1 e1ii
o.CJ
1-19
City of Chula Vista
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PROJECT DESIGN DIVISION
COST ESTIMATE
Project Number:
DATE:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
OIY Of
OUA VISI;\
Project Title: Bayshore Bikeway Segment SA (J 5t to Stella)
Adler
Description Unit Amount
Price
Pre-Project
1 Preliminarv Environmental Assessment 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
2 Preliminarv Enoineerino 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50 000
Subtotal: $ 100,000
Hard costs
I 1 Bikeway Excavation I Mobiiization 2,000 CY $ 20 $ 40,000
2 AC bikeway (2" (ci) 10' wide 6,300 iona) 63,000 SF $ 1.50 $ 94,500 .
3 Aoo. Base bikewav (6" (ci) 14' wide 6,300 lona) 88,200 SF $ 1.70 $ 149,940 .
4 Prefabricated Bridcle across J SI. channel 1 EA $ 135,000 $ 135,000
5 8' Retainino wall (ci) Teleoraoh Canvon Channel 800 SF $ 75 $ 60,000 '
6 Sionage 15 EA $ 400 $ 6,000
7 Fencinn 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000
B Stripina 1 LS $ 25.000 $ 25,000 .
B Traffic control 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
~ 10 NPDES 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
1
- Subtotal: $ 560,440
- ContinQency @25' $ 140,110
- Subtotal Hard Costs $ 700,550
Soft Costs
1 Rinht of wav I easement 2AC $ 20,000 $ 40,000
2 Final Environmental Document 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
3 Mitioation lands 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
4 Traffic control 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
5 MTS / Rail crossinn nermittina 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 i
6 Desinn Ennineerina @ Survev 1 LS $ 80,000 $ 80,000
7 Inspection 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
B Staff time for Port and costal Commission processino 1 LS $ 80,000 $ 80,000
Subtotal: $ 443,000
TOTAL: $ 1,243,550
Notes Reference: March 17, 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan
The major effort of the pre project work is to understand any environmental impacts and easement issues.
12
1-20
l:l N N N i)i ~ N N ~ ~ ;; ;; " <> <> ;: ~ " :: Q = = ~ = ~ ~ ~ N - 6
= ~ ~ ~ N
~ , ~ .~ i
,
" " " ~ ~ if ~ ~ ~
! 'I! 'I! 'I! i " z
I " ~ f ~ ~ '" " '" !f if " ~ :l " f -< ~ ~ il' '" c :l " i ~
. f. m . 'I! '" m '" 'I! i . 'I! m ~I ~ . '" . . 0 .
. ;;; .. " ~ !< . ;;; i . ~ . ~ [
~ il' : [ !!. '" " Ii ~
f " . . . 0 '"
~ .. 1l ~ ~ ~ f il' ii II i r 3, ~ il' . ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ "
~ il' 8 i ~ ~ .. . K ~ 1l ~ .
~ ~ '" . ~ ~ 3 ~
I ii .. ~ !!l [ '" ~ ~
0 f !1. .. c .. J> f
~ ~ ~ f ! '" g '" '"
! , .. I '" ~ '" ~ 1l
" 1 ~ ~ '" ~ J> ~ J> " "
0 '" . ~ .. il' ~ m
i!' .
~ l ~ 0 c " s.
" .- [ ~. ~
'" i< 0 a 1l '" . ~
~ ~ ii .
~ ~ ~ r ~ '" ~ ~
m :!: t . " '"
:l ;;; ~ ~ J>
m ~
~ ;;; ~ r ,
~
m
;;; .
~ ,
- I
0
i ~ Ii .
~ a ~ lol = = ~.
~ N ~ N N N ~ ~ N N N - ~ N N ~ N ~ N - ~ ~
i ~ ~ ! ~ ~ i ~ ~ - J, t . ! ~ ~ ~ ~ J, ~ t i ~
J, J, J, '<\ J, J, . '<\ J, . .
I ft t ~ ~ i i ~ '" ~ i ;;! ii ii -< -< ~ '" ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ii ii ;;! ii . . g . g '"
~ ~ o. ~ ~ o. "" g . g g . 0 ![
" ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ o. S S ~ ~ . = ~ :J ~ ~ " l'; l'; ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ '" ~ ~
~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . g ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ g ~
. . . . . . 0 . = g 0 - g g . g m
. ~ .. i " !'l . ~ '" . !'l ~ 0 ~ = ~ " l5 !'l ~ ~ ~ = ~ 0 ~ "
~ ~ !!: " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'li
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ;a ~ a "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
... ~
::::.:.:.:...:::::.:...::..:.:..::::........::..:...:f::..::........::::::.::.::.::r:. m
"'
~ ~
" d
-~ "...
~ ~~ n'
. ":IE
j 'l ~:
d 00'
] ...,
N .
iil In
~
r li:8 In
~
..
-~ i
~
" a
.. .. .. .... "d,.< I. . .. .. n.El
is;
-8
o~
t I~
HO'" .. .. . ~
:J
a;~
'"
iil
iil..
1::
N
~~
;;;
-... .. ... .....- ... .... ..~ '"
.
~i
<>8
~
~
... ... ... ....- ..-. P.." .. .. 0
~
~t
~N
-!J
0
13 "
Agenda Item #6
Bayshore Bikeway Working Group
Aprtl 5. 2007
1-21
ATTACHMENT L
DONALD F. STEUER
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
(619)531-5413
FAX (619) 531-5219
<1Inunt~ nf ~an ~i.egn
AUDITOR AND CONTROLLER
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY STE 352, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-2478
TRACY SANDOVAL
AUDITOR AND CONTROLLER
(619) 531-5413
FAX '6191 531-5219
May 10, 2007
City of Chula Vista
Attention: Elizabeth Chopp
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Elizabeth Chopp,
Congratulations! Based on a recommendation from Supervisor Greg Cox, the Board of Supervisors
approved a Community Projects award of $50,000.00 to your organization for preliminary engineering for
the J Street to Stella Street segment of the Bayshore Bikeway.
In order to receive these funds, you must enter into an agreement with the County that specifies the
responsibilities you have with respect to the use of these funds and accounting for them. Two copies of
the Grant Agreement are enclosed for your review and signature. Please read the grant agreement
carefully, sign both copies, and return them both to the Office of Financial Planning in the enciosed self-
addressed envelope at your earliest convenience. Upon receipt, I will sign and date them and will return
one of the original agreements to you along with a check for the amount of the grant. Please allow two
weeks processing time from when we receive the signed agreements from you to when your check will be
ready. If the agreement requires you to raise matching funds, the agreement and check will be sent after
you have submitted proof that you have obtained the matching funds. The effective date of the
agreement will be the date that we generate the check. You will have 12 months from that date to spend
the grant funds.
In addition to the executed Grant Agreement and the check, your packet will include a form titled
"Documentation of Grant Expenditures." As the agreement states, you must complete this form and send
it together with supporting documentation to my office as soon as the grant funds have been expended,
but no later than 13 months after the effective date of the Grant Agreement.
Should you have any questions regarding this process, please contact Kevin Pasali at (619) 531-4887.
JANEL E. PEHAU, Director
~~
Office of Fina'ncial Planning
OFP:JEP:kp
Enclosures
1-22
County office use only
ATTACHMENT ~
P -1001838
0- 15650
E - 53664
T-999
A -100123
Supplier # 11 04304
STANDARD
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND City of Chula Vista
This Grant Agreem~t is entered into between the County of San Diego, a political subdivision of
the State of California (County), and City ofChula Vista, a California Municipal Corporation (Grantee) and
is effective on
WHEREAS, the County wishes to reinvest taxpayer funds in the community to benefit the public
by providing grant funds to community-based organizations that assist in meeting the social, cultural and
recreational needs of County residents; and
WHEREAS, on 4/1712007 (10), the Board of Supervisors allocated the grant funding set forth in
this Agreement for the purpose described in this Agreement.
NOW, TIffiREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. PurDose of Grant. Grantee shall use the grant funds provided by County under this
Agreement solely for the following purpose: for preliminary engineering for the J Street
to Stella Street segment of the Bayshore Bikeway.
2. Term of Al!reement. The term of this Agreement shall be for 13 months starting on the
effective date as specified above.
3. Deadline for Use of Grant Funds and Documentation of EXDenditures.
(a) Grantee shall spend all grant funds provided by the County for the purposes specified in
Paragraph 1 within 12 months of the effective date of this Agreement as specified above.
(b) Grantee shall complete Documentation of Grant Expenditures setting forth Grantee's
total actual expenditures of the grant funds provided under this Agreement. Grantee
shall submit this documentation to the County's administrator promptly after spending
the grant funds, but in any event, before the end of the Term of Agreement specified
above. If the parties agree to extend the Term of Agreement, Grantee shall submit this
expenditure documentation before the end of the extended Term. If County's administrator
requests additional information regarding Grantee's expenditure of the grant funds, Grantee
shall promptly submit the requested information to County's administrator.
(c) If after reviewing Grantee's expenditure documentation, the County's administrator:
(i) determines that the Grantee failed to spend all of the grant funds;
(ii) disallows any expenditure by Grantee; or
(iii) determines that the grant funds provided exceed Grantee's total actual expenditures
authorized under this Agreement;
Grantee shall refund to the county the amount specified by the County's administrator. Grantee
shall make this refund within seven days after receiving a written request for refund from the
County's administrator. In its sole discretion, the County may offset the refund amount from any
payment due to or to become due to Grantee under this Agreement or any other agreement with
the County.
(d) If Grantee fails to provide the required documentation of expenditures as required in
Subparagraph (b) above, the County's administrator may request Grantee to refund to
the County all or any portion of the grant funds provided under this Agreement. Within
Rev. 12/15/05 1 t 2 3
seven days of receipt of a written request for a refund, Grantee shall refund to the County the
amount specified by the County's administrator. Grantee's failure to comply with this refund
requirement shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
( e) If Grantee incurs expenses before the County pays the grant under this Agreement, the County
will reimburse Grantee in an amount not to exceed the amount specified in Paragraph 4 upon
submission of documentation to County's administrator setting forth Grantee's actual
expenditures for the purpose specified in Paragraph I and approval of the documentation by
County's administrator.
(f) If Grantee fails to use all grant funds as specified in Paragraph I above before the deadline
specified in Subparagraph (a) above, Grantee may request an extension of the Term. Grantee
shall make any such request in writing at least two weeks before the deadline specified in
Subparagraph (a) above. Grantee and the County's administrator may agree in writing to
extend the Term of Agreement for a maximum of three months to allow Grantee additional
time to spend the grant funds for the purpose specified in Paragraph I.
4. Amount of Grant. The county agrees to pay Grantee a grant of $50,000.00. Under no
circumstances is County obligated to pay Grantee more than this amount. County shall pay
Grantee after County receives a signed copy of this Agreement from Grantee.
5. Administrator of Al!reement. The Office of Financial Planning in the Auditor and
Controller's Office shall administer this Agreement on behalf of the County, and Elizabeth
Chopp at (619) 691-5046 shall administer it on behalf of Grantee.
6. ~ All communications from Grantee to the County shall be sent to the Chief Financial
Officer as listed below. Any notice or notices or other documentation required or permitted to
be given pursuant to this Agreement may be personally served on the other party by the party
giving such notice, or may be served by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the following addresses:
County:
Chief Financial Officer
Office ofFinancial Planning
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway Room 352
San Diego, CA 92101
Grantee:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
7. Audit and InsDection of Records. At any time during normal business hours and as often as
the County may deem necessary, the Grantee shall make available to the County for examination
all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and will permit the County
to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and make audits of all
invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel and other data relating to all matters covered by
this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified by the County, said records should be made available
for examination within San Diego County. Grantee shall maintain such records in an accessible
location and condition for a period of not less than four years following receipt of final payment
under this Agreement unless County agrees in writing to an earlier disposition. The State of
California or any Federal agency having an interest in the subject of this Agreement shall have the
same rights conferred upon County by this Agreement.
Rev. 12/15/05
2-24
8. Termination of Al!I"eement for Cause. If Grantee fails to perform its obligations according to this
Agreement, the County may send Grantee a written notice of default that specifies the nature of the default. Grantee
shall cure the default within three days following receipt of the notice of default. If Grantee fails to cure the default
within that time, the County may terminate this Agreement by giving Grantee written notice of immediate
termination. Upon termination, Grantee shall promptly provide County's administrator with Documentation of Grant
Expenditures setting forth Grantee's total actual expenditures for the purpose of the grant as of the effective date of
termination. Grantee shall promptly refund to County all funds County paid to Grantee under this Agreement that
exceed Grantee's total actual expenditures for the purpose of the gran~ as determined by County's administrator, as of
the effective date of termination. The County may also seek any and all legal and equitable remedies against Grantee
for breaching this Agreement.
9. Termination for Convenience of County. County may terminate this Agreement at any time by
giving written notice to Grantee of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least 30 days before
the effective date of such termination. On or before the date of termination, Grantee shall provide County's
administrator with Documentation of Grant Expenditures setting forth Grantee's total actual expenditures for the
purpose of the grant as of the effective date of termination. Grantee shall promptly refund to County all funds County
paid to Grantee under this Agreement that exceed Grantee's total actual expenditures for the purpose of the gran~ as
determined by County's administrator, as of the effective date of termination.
10. Termination for Convenience of Grantee. Grantee may terminate this Agreement at any time by
giving written notice to County's administrator of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least 60
days before the effective date of such termination. On or before the date of termination, Grantee shall provide
County's admiuistrator with Documentation of Grant Expenditures setting forth Grantee's total actual expenditures
for the purpose of the grant as of the effective date of termination. Grantee shall promptly refund to County all funds
County paid to Grantee under this Agreement that exceed Grantee's total actual expenditure for the purpose of the
gran~ as determined by County's administrator, as of the effective date of termination.
11. Assilmment. Grantee shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether i:>t assignment
or novation), without the prior written consent of the County.
12. Interest of Grantee. Grantee covenants that Grantee presently has no interes~ including, but not
limited to, other projects or independent contracts, and shall not acquire any such interest, direct or indirect, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with Grantee's completing the purpose of the grant as specified in Paragraph
I. Grantee further covenants that in the performance of this Agreemen~ no person having any such interest shall be
employed or retained by Grantee.
13. Publication. Reoroduction and Use of MateriaL No material produced, in whole or in p~ under this
Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other Country. The County shall have
unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use, in whole or in p~ any reports, data or other
materials prepared under this Agreement.
14. Insurance. Grantee shall maintain insurance against claims or injuries to person or damages to property
that may arise from or in connection with the use of the grant funds by Grantee, its agents, representatives,
employees, volunteers or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by Grantee and coverage limits
shall be a minimum of $1,000,000 General Liability per occurrence/$I,OOO,OOO aggregate for operations, products
and completed operations for bodily injury, personal injury .and property damage; $500,000 Automobile Liability per
accident for bodily injury and property damage; and Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance as
required by the California Labor Code. County shall retain the right at any time to review the coverage and amount of
insurance required.
Rev. 12/15/05
13-25
15. IndeoendentCaoacitv. In the performance of this Agreement, Grantee and its agents, employees and
volunteers shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, agents or volunteers of the County.
This Agreement does not create an employment relationship between Grantee and the County.
16. Eoual Onoortunitv. Grantee will not discriminate against any employee, or against any applicant for
such employment because of age, race, color, religion, physical handicap, ancestry, sex, or national origin. This
provision shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer;
recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of payor other forms of compensation; and
selection for training, including apprenticeship.
17. Defense and Indemnitv. To the fullest extent permitted by law, County shall not be liable for, and
Grantee shall defend and indemnify County and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers (collective, "County
Parties") against any and all claims, deductibles, self-insured retention's, demands, liability, judgments, awards,
fines, mechanics' liens or other liens, labor disputes, losses, damages, expenses, charges or costs of any kind or
character, including attorneys' fees and court costs (collectively, "Claims"), which arise out of or are in any way
connected to County's provision of grant funds andlor Grantee's use of grant funds under this Agreement arising
either directly or indirectly from any act, error, omission or negligence of Grantee or its officers, employees,
volunteers, agents, contractors, licensees or servants, including without limitation, Claims caused by the sole passive
negligent act or the concurrent negligent act, error or omission, whether active or passive, of County Parties.
Grantee shall have no obligation, however, to defend or indemnify County Parties from a Claim if it is determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction that such Claim was caused by the sole active negligent act or willful
misconduct of County Parties.
18. Governin!! Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State
of California.
19. Comnlete A!!reement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Grantee and County
regarding the subject matter contained herein. All other representations, oral or written, are superseded by this
Agreement. Neither party is relying on any representation outside of this Agreement. This Agreement may be
changed only by written amendment signed by both parties.
20. Waiver. The failure of either party to enforce any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall
not be construed as a waiver of that party's right to subsequently enforce this, or any other term, covenant or
condition of this Agreement. No waiver shall be deemed effective unless the waiver is expressly stated in writing
and signed by the party waiving the right or benefit.
21. Consultation with Counsel. Each party has had the opportunity to consult with independent legal
counsel of its own choosing before executing this Agreement and has executed this Agreement without fraud,
duress, or undue influence of any kind.
22. Internretation. The provisions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed to effectuate its
purpose. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall be construed simply according to its plain meaning and
shall not be construed for or against either party.
23. Cornoration Oualified to Do Business in California. If Grantee is a California corporation, Grantee
warrants that it is a corporation in good standing and is currently authorized to do business in California.
24. Terms and Conditions Survive Exoiration of Term of A!!reement. Unless otherwise specified
herein, all terms and conditions of this Agreement shall survive the expiration of the Term of Agreement specified in
Paragraph 2 above or the termination of this Agreement under Paragraphs 8, 9 or 10 above.
[Remainder of this page left blank intentionally]
Rev. 12/15/05
f-26
25. Remedies. The rights and remedies in this Agreement are in addition to, and not a limitation on, all
other rights and remedies available at law or in equity, and exercise of one right or remedy shall not be deemed a
waiver of any other right or remedy.
WHEREFORE, the parties execute this Agreement on the date first written above.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
GRANTEE
1.
By:
By:
Date
Chief Financial Officer
or Designated Representative
Print Name and Title
Janel Pehau, Director
Office of Financial Planning
2.
By:
Date
Print Name and Title
[Note: if Grantee is a California non-profit corporation, need I signature from each of the following 2 groups:
(I) Executive Group: President, Vice-President or Chairman of the Board; and
(2) Management Group: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Assistant Treasurer or Chief Financial Officer.]
(Corp. Code ~ 5214.)
Return This Agreement
D-27
Rev. 12115/05
ATTACHMENT -(0
2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
DRAFT Amendment NO.6
San Diego Region (in $OOOs)
Chula Vista, Ci of
MPO ID: CHV36 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 06-06
TITLE: Heritage Road Bridge Studies Exempt Category: Other - Engineering studies
DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Engineering, environmental analysis and project design for future widening of Heritage Road
Bridge (DEMO ID: CA356; HPP No: 450)
CHANGE REASON: Revise funding between fiscal years, No change to programming
HPP AC
Local Funds AC
TOTAL
$2,800
$1,820
TOTAL $4,620
PRIOR
06/07 07/08
$2,240
$2,380
$4,620
08/09
$560
$(560)
09/10
10/11 PE
$2,800
$1,820
$4,620
RW
CON
P~'\C\, ::CT Fjr~IOR TO /"Mf"~_NfJMFNr
TOTAL
QGf{j(
n:J;O$
031<1S
D':i!1U
10/11
PE
Rii'1i
CON
,.of.'
HF'P
SL3L"O
i ()~n
s
,,; 1;;'0
S~:{:iO
, ~?O
t/kdl '-W!(Y
Elli'
1.0i;~ll ;':::xds
'hi 12;')
TOTAL
34,&2D
~4,SJfj
$4,G20
MPO ID: CHV39 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 06-06
TITLE: Traffic Signal System Optimization Exempt Category: Other - Intersection signalization projects
DESCRIPTION: This progr'am will provide funding to assist staff with upgrading existing traffic signal coordination to
improve traffic circulation, reduce intersection delays and reduce congestion throughout the City.
CHANGE REASON: New project
TOTAL PRIOR 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 PE RW CON
TransNet - L $150 $150 $150
TransNet . LSI $250 $150 $50 $50 $250
TOTAL $400 $150 $150 $50 $50 $400
MPO ID: CHV40 Capacity Status: NCI RTI P #: 06-06
TITLE: Bayshore Bikeway Exempt Category: Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
DESCRIPTION: This project will provide funds for preliminary engineering on Segments 7 and 8 of the Chula Vista portion
of the Bayshore Bikeway, which extends from E Street to Main Street
CHANGE REASON: New project
TOTAL PRIOR 06/07 01108 08/09 09J10 10/11 PE RW CON
Local Funds $50 $50 $50
TransNet. L $50 $50 $50
TOTAL $100 $100 $100
Page 11
Friday, May 25, 2007
1-28
RESOLUTION 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A
$50,000 GRANT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
WHEREAS, the Bayshore Bikeway is a designated 24-mile bikeway route
around San Diego Bay within the jurisdictions of the City of Chula Vista, (City)
City of Coronado, City of National City, City of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, planning for the bikeway began in 1975 with a final study
completed in 1976; and
WHEREAS, a number of key bike paths segments have been constructed
since the original Bayshore Bikeway feasibility study was prepared; and
WHEREAS, throughout the history of the bikeway, cooperation among
jurisdictions along the route has been critical to obtaining funding and getting
bike paths segments implemented; and
WHEREAS, shortly after the 1976 feasibility study was released, the Bay
Route Bikeway Steering Committee was formed by the County of San Diego
(County), the City, and the cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and
San Diego; and
WHEREAS, in 1989, the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) established the Bayshore Bikeway Policy Advisory Committee, now
known as the Bayshore Bikeway Working Group, which consists of an elected
official from the County, the City, and the cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach,
National City and San Diego, as well as Advisory Members from the Metropolitan
Transit System and the San Diego Unified Port District, and representative of the
region's bicycling community; and
WHEREAS, the County wishes to reinvest taxpayer funds in the
community to benefit the public by providing grant funds to community-based
organizations that assist in meeting the social, cultural and recreational needs of
County residents; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2007, the County Board of Supervisors allocated
$50,000 in grant funding for the purposes of preliminary engineering for the J
Street to Stella Street segment of the Bayshore Bikeway located within the City,
also know as Segment 8A; and
1-29
WHEREAS, the County requires the City to enter into a Grant Agreement
in order to receive the $50,000 in grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the City will establish a Capital Improvement Project entitled
"Bayshore Bikeway" (STL337) within the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Capital
Improvement Program that will include $50,000 in TransNet funds to supplement
the $50,000 in grant funds from the County in order to have $100,000 available
to complete the preliminary engineering and preliminary environmental work on
Segment 8A; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under
Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines at this time because it involves only
the acceptance of a grant and authorization to proceed with engineering and
environmental studies for the project; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA and once the
project has been fully defined, environmental review will be required and a CEQA
determination completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista as follows:
1. That it accepts $50,000 in grant funds from the County of San Diego.
2. That it authorizes the City Manager to execute a Grant Agreement with
the County of San Diego.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Scott Tulloch
City Engineer
L/LJ tLCv~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2007\06-12-07\Reso - Bayshore Bikeway Grant revised by ec.doc
1-30
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~f::. CITY OF
~~CHULA VISTA
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
6/12/2007, Item 0:<..
A) RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT
. OF MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE
BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD
A GRANT BE AWARDED. FROM THE HIGHWAY
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT
MAJOR INTERSECTIONS #1 - 16.
B) RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT
OF MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE
BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD
A GRANT BE AWARDED FROM THE HIGHWAY
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT
MAJOR INTERSECTIONS #17 - 31.
CITY ENGINEER ~
INTERIM CITY MANAGER !i
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO 0
BACKGROUND
As part of a citywide assessment program, "Major Intersection Safety Program," thirty-one
(31) street intersections have been identified for potential enhancements. As included in the
March 27, 2007 citywide grant list report, an application for grant funding from the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), matched with Traffic Signal Fee funds, was submitted to
fund a project that will enhance safety (pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular) and/or traffic flow
at those intersections.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project
qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 153301 (Existing Facility) of
the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves installation and/or upgrading of various traffic
improvements (traffic signals, pavement markings, cross walk lights, traffic calming devices,
etc.) within existing streets. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
2-1
6/12/07, Item ~
Page 2 of5
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopt the Resolutions certifying the commitment of matching funds from the
available balance of the Traffic Signal Fund should a grant be awarded by the highway safety
improvement program to enhance traffic signal and pedestrian facilities at major intersections.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a new Department of Transportation
grant program in 2007 (essentially replacing the Hazard Elimination Safety Grant Program).
HSIP is funded with Federal funds from the recently signed Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The HSIP grant
program was created to support safety improvements to local streets, roads, and
pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
During FY2006-07, City traffic engineers conducted Phase 1 of a Major Intersection Safety
Review Study of over 6,600 intersections (265 signalized, 6,402 non-signalized) located within
the City of Chula Vista. Using grant-funded accident tracking software in addition to Police
Department traffic data and other data collected by the Engineering Department, staff
evaluated intersections including the following:
.
Intersection volume and geometry
Approach speeds
Turning patterns
Collision history and accident analysis
Public input
Missing equipment and needed upgrades
.
.
.
.
.
Intersections were then prioritized considering these criteria and field investigations were
performed by Engineering and Police Department staff on the 31 signalized intersections of
highest priority. Recommendations for potential enhancements for both motorist and
pedestrian safety were developed. Potential technological enhancements to existing facilities
were also identified. These thirty-one intersections are listed by location (no priority should be
inferred) in Attachment 1, and include nine Northwest Chula Vista intersections, eight
Southwest intersections, and fourteen intersections in the Eastern territories.
Proposed Project: Phase 2 of the Major Intersection Safety Program involves making
physical improvements to upgrade the 31 critical intersections. All proposed improvements
are within existing, developed portions of City right-of-way. Improvements will include new
traffic signs, traffic signal upgrades, and pavement markings. The project will also make
improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians such as setback limit lines, enhanced pedestrian
crosswalk pushbuttons and indicators, video detection equipment able to detect all bicyclists
(unlike existing loop detection systems), and hardwired in-pavement crosswalk lights at two
non-signalized locations.
In conjunction with the signal work, the City will implement important traffic calming
techniques such as radar speed signs, and continue researching, and potentially implementing
2-2
6/12/07, Item--2
Page 3 of 5
(with Council approval), a red light running detection system (cameras) at certain intersections
with a history of red light running. The grant would also support the work required to update
traffic signal engineering plans for each signalized intersection in the City.
The grant would also allow continuation of the public safety education campaign launched last
fall with the popular "Stop on Red" theme, including street side banners, pamphlets, bumper
stickers and a targeted enforcement campaign.
Not all of the named improvements will be made at every intersection as each intersection has
its own unique needs. Individual intersection assessments were made allowing engineers to
make specific recommendations tailored to each intersection.
It is important to note that many of the scheduled improvements are at school intersections or
on school routes or at other intersections where there is heavy shared use by drivers,
pedestrians, and bicycles - particularly during peak hours. The many proposed improvements
at these key intersections are designed to improve driver awareness, reduce accidents and
promote pedestrian and driver safety.
Project Costs: The total estimated costs to upgrade the traffic signal systems, improve
bicycling and pedestrian facilities, and implement other planned enhancement at 31
intersections are approximately $1,000,000 (see Attachment 2). A grant application for
$900,000 (the maximum available under this grant program) was submitted to the HSIP to help
meet those expenses. The HSIP program requires the commitment of a minimum 10% City
match of total project costs. Staff therefore recommends matching funds in the' amount of
$100,000 from the available balance of the Traffic Signal Fee Fund.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council for Intersections #1 through #16
and has found that conflicts exist, in that Council members Rindone and Castaneda have
property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties which are the subject of
this action. Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council for Intersections #17
through #31 and has found that a conflict exists, in that Council member McCann has property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties which are the subject of this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
As noted above, the HSIP grant was included in the March 27,2007 grant opportunities list by
the City Grants Development Manager and an application was filed to meet the submission
deadline of April 13, 2007. There is no impact to the General Fund from this action. If the
grant is awarded, staff will return to Council with a recommendation to accept the grant funds,
expand the new project proposed in the FY2007/08 Capital Improvement Program, as well as
appropriate the grant funds and the match from the traffic signal fund.
ATTACHMENTS
I. City of Chula Vista Intersections Identified for Improvements
2. Proj ect Cost Estimate
Prepared by: Catherine Burciaga, City Grants Development Manager, and Jim Newton, Senior
Civil Engineer. Engineering Department
2-3
6/12/07, Item ~
Page 4 of5
Attachment 1
City of Chuta Vista Intersections Identified for Priority Improvements
Major Intersection Safety Review Study, FY2006-07
1. Bonita Road & Bonita Glen Drive
2. Broadway & E Street
3. Broadway & H Street
4. Broadway & I Street
5. Broadway & J Street
6. Broadway & L Street
7. Broadway & Moss Street
8. Broadway & Naples Street
9. Broadway & Oxford Street
10. Broadway & Palomar Street
11. Palomar Street & Industrial Boulevard
12. Third Avenue & L Street
13. Third Avenue & Orange Avenue
14. Fourth Avenue & E Street
15. Fourth Avenue & I Street
16. H Street & Fifth Avenue
17. H Street & Third Avenue
18. H Street & Hilltop Drive
19. East H Street & Hidden Vista Drive
20. East H Street & Del Rey Boulevard
21. East H Street & Paseo Del Rey
22. East H Street & Tierra Del Rey
23. East H Street & Paseo Ranchero
24. East H Street & Otay Lakes Road
25. Otay Lakes Road & Gotham Street
26. Telegraph Canyon RoadlOtay Lakes Road & La Media Road
27. Otay Lakes Road & Eastlake Parkway
28. Telegraph Canyon Road & Paseo RancherolHeritage Road
29. Olympic Parkway & La Media Road
30. Main Street & Melrose Avenue
31. Medical Center Drive & Medical Center Court
Prepared by: Traffic Engineering Division, City ofChula Vista, FY 2006-07
2-4
6/12/07, Item ~
Page5of5
Attachment 2
City of Chula Vista Major Intersection Safety Project
Project Cost Estimate
Proposed Costs Amount
Preliminary Engineering
Environmental 0
Plans, Specs, Estimates (PS&E) $ 50,000
Right of Way
Engineering 0
Acquisition 0
Construction
Construction Engineering $ 30,000
Construction $ 830,000
Subtotal $ 910,000
Contingency (10%) $ 90,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,000,000
Proposed Project Funding
Federal Funds (HSIP Grant) $ 900,000
City Match (Traffic Signal Fees) $ 100,000
TOTAL FUNDING $ 1,000,000
Prepared by: Patrick Moneda, Traffic Engineering Division, City of Chula Vista, 3/15/07
2-5
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT OF
MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF
THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD A GRANT BE
A WARDED FROM THE HIGHWAY SAFETY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT MAJOR
INTERSECTIONS #1 - 16.
WHEREAS, City staff has completed a citywide assessment of all street intersections
within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, thirty-one (31) street intersections have been identified for potential
enhancements; and
WHEREAS, the identified improvements and enhancements to these thirty-one (31)
street intersections, the "Major Intersection Safety Program", will improve pedestrian, bicyclist,
and vehicular safety and/or traffic flow at these intersections; and
WHEREAS, a list of the thirty-one (31) street intersections, City of Chula Vista
Intersections Identified for Priority Improvements, is attached to and incorporated into this
Resolution by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a new Department of
Transportation grant program administered by CalTrans which essentially replaces the Hazard
Elimination Safety Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the HSIP grant was included in the March 27, 2007 grant opportunities list
by the City Grants Development Manager; and
WHEREAS, the estimated costs for the Major Intersection Safety Program can be met
through a combination ofHSIP grant funds and local matching funds; and
WHEREAS, in order to be eligible for an HSIP grant, the City Council must certify that
matching funds are available within the fund balance of the Traffic Signal Fund that can be
committed for the Major Intersection Safety Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
that it certifies the commitment of matching funds from the available balance of the Traffic
Signal Fund should a grant be awarded from the Highway Safety Improvement Program to
enhance traffic signal and pedestrian facilities at major intersections numbers 1 - 16 of the
attached City of Chula Vista Intersections Identified for Priority Improvements.
2-6
Resolution 2007-
Page 2
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Scott Tulloch
City Engineer
~~~O~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 12th day of June 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2007- was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 12th day of June 2007.
Executed this 12th day of June 2007.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2Q07\06-12-07\RESO.HSIP.061207 #1 revised by ec.doc
2-7
City of Chula Vista Intersections Identified for Priority Improvements
Major Intersection Safety Review Study, FY2006-07
1. Bonita Road & Bonita Glen Drive
7 Broadway & E Street
3. Broadvvay & H Street
4. Broadway & I Street
5. Broadway & J Street
6. Broadway & L Street
7. Broadway & Moss Street
8. Broadway & Naples Street
9. Broadway & Oxford Street
lO. Broadway & Palomar Street
Ii. Palomat- Street & Industrial Boulevard
12. Third Avenue & L Street
13. Third AVel1lle & Orange Avenue
14. Fourth Avenue & E Street
15. Fourth Avenue & I Street
16. H Street & Fifth Avenue
17. H Street & Third Avenue
18. H Street & Hilltop Dlive
i9. East H Street & Hidden Vista Drive
20. East H Street & Del Rey Boulevard
21. East H Street & Paseo Del Rey
22. East H Street & Tiena Del Rey
23. East H Street & Paseo Ranchero
24. East H Street & Otay Lakes Road
25. Otay Lakes Road & Gotham Street
26. Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road & La Media Road
27. Otay Lakes Road & Eastlake Parkway
28. Telegraph Canyon Road & Paseo RatlChero/Helitage Road
29. Olympic Parkway & La Media Road
30. Main Street & Melrose Avenue
31. Medical Center Drive & Medical Center Court
Pr"l'"red 11.,.: Trotfie Engineering Di,.i.lioo. Cit,. orChllla Vista. FY 2006-07
2-8
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT OF
MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE A V AILABLE BALANCE OF
THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD A GRANT BE
AWARDED FROM THE HIGHWAY SAFETY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT MAJOR
INTERSECTIONS #17 - 31.
WHEREAS, City staff has completed a citywide assessment of all street intersections
within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, thirty-one (31) street intersections have been identified for potential
enhancements; and
WHEREAS, the identified improvements and enhancements to these thirty-one (31)
street intersections, the "Major Intersection Safety Program", will improve pedestrian, bicyclist,
and vehicular safety and/or traffic flow at these intersections; and
WHEREAS, a list of the thirty-one (31) street intersections, City of Chula Vista
Intersections Identified for Priority Improvements, is attached to and incorporated into this
Resolution by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a new Department of
Transportation grant program administered by CalTrans which essentially replaces the Hazard
Elimination Safety Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the HSIP grant was included in the March 27, 2007 grant opportunities list
by the City Grants Development Manager; and
WHEREAS, the estimated costs for the Major Intersection Safety Program can be met
through a combination ofHSIP grant funds and local matching funds; and
WHEREAS, in order to be eligible for an HSIP grant, the City Council must certify that
matching funds are available within the fund balance of the Traffic Signal Fund that can be
committed for the Major Intersection Safety Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
that it certifies the commitment of matching funds from the available balance of the Traffic
Signal Fund should a grant be awarded from the Highway Safety Improvement Program to
enhance traffic signal and pedestrian facilities at major intersections numbers 17 - 31 of the
attached City of Chula Vista Intersections Identified for Priority Improvements.
2-9
Resolution 2007-
Page 2
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Scott Tulloch
City Engineer
~ tL ~"Y!:>
Ann Moore
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 12th day of June 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2007- was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 12th day of June 2007.
Executed this 12th day of June 2007.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
2-10
City of Chula Vista Intersections Identified for Priority Improvements
Major Intersection Safety Review Study, FY2006-07
1. Bonita Road & Bonita Glen Drive
~ Broadway & E Street
]. Broadway L~ H Street
4. Broadway & I Street
5. Broadway & J Street
6. Broadway & L Street
7. Broadway & Moss Street
S. Broadway & Naples Street
9. Broadway & Oxford Street
10. Broadway & Palomar Street
11. Palomar Street & Industrial BOLllevard
12. Third Avenue & L Street
13. Third AVel1Lle & Orange Avenue
14. F OLLrth Avenue & E Street
15. Fourth Avenue & I Street
16. H Street & Fifth Avenue
17. H Street & Third Avenue
IS. H Street & Hilltop Drive
19. East H Street & Hidden Vista Drive
20. East H Street & Del Rey Boulevard
21. East H Street & Paseo Del Rey
22. East H Street & Tiena Del Rey
23. East H Street & Paseo Ranchero
24. East H Street & Otay Lakes Road
25. Otay Lakes Road & Gotham Street
26. Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road & La Media Road
27. Otay Lakes Road & Eastlake Parkway
28 Telegraph Canyon Road & Paseo Ranchero/Heritage Road
29. Olympic Parkway & La Media Road
30. Main Street & Melrose Avenue
31. Medical Center Drive & Medical Center Court
Prepured h,l': Trc!ffic Engineering Dil'isioll, Ci(l' ()j'Chllla Vista, FY 2006-07
2-11
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~\~ CIIT OF
'~CHUlAVlSTA
6/12/07, Item~
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE
CONTRACT FOR PHASE 1 (AREA A FENCING) OF THE
LAUDERBACH PARK IMPROVEMENT (PR-295) PROJECT TO
ATLAS FENCING AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING
AGENT TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED
WITH THE DESIGN OF PHASE 2 (AREA B FENCING,
RESTROOM CONSTRUCTION, LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
AND TOT LOT SURFACING) OF THE LAUDERBACH PARK
IMPROVEMENTS (PR-295) AND RETURN TO COUNCIL IN
JULY OF 2007 TO APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL STATE
RECREATIONAL GRANT FUNDS AND RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TAX FUNDS FOR INCREASED COSTS TO
COMPLETE THE PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY:
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ~~, d
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WO~ OPERATIONY L--
INTERIM CITY MANAGER j j
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2007, the Director of General Services received informal bids for the "Lauderbach Park
Fencing (PR-295)" project. This project represents the first phase of the CIP PR-295 funded
through a State Recreation Grant and the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies
for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State
CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor alterations to an existing
public facility involving negligible or no expansion of the site's existing use. Thus, no further
environmental review is necessary.
3-1
6/12/07, Item .3
Page 2 of5
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously endorsed this project on January 18, 2007.
DISCUSSION
The Lauderbach Park Improvements (PR-295) project was approved by the City Council on
April 17, 2007 (Council Resolution 2007-091). The project included various components such
as fencing, signage, a new restroom, security lighting and tot lot surfacing improvements.
In an effort to expedite moving a portion of the project forward as quickly as possible, staff
broke the project into two phases. Phase 1 was contemplated to be the fencing element of the
project. Staff sought informal bids for the installation of the fencing contemplated by the
project. The fencing element of the project was broken into two distinct components. One
portion known as "Area A Fencing" consists of erecting a 6' high fence with gates at the Oxford
Street side of the Boys and Girls Club. "Area B Fencing" is at the rear of the Boys and Girls
Club, where the park play area will be enclosed with a 4' high fence with gates (see Attachment
1).
On May 15, 2007, the Director of General Services received informal bids for the "Lauderbach
Park Fencing (PR-295)" project. Plans and specifications were prepared in house, and three
fencing contractors were invited to submit informal bids, however only one contractor
responded.
CONTRACTOR BID
1. Atlas Fencing
a. Area A Fencing $38,833
b. Area B Fencing $33 .925
Total $72,758
2. South Bay Fencing Non responsive
3. San Diego Fencing Non responsive
After reviewing the plans and visiting the site, San Diego Fencing declined to submit a bid.
South Bay Fencing also declined to submit a bid. The apparent lowest bid by Atlas Fencing,
$72,758.00, is above the Engineer's estimate because the level of custom fencing fabrication is
much higher than was originally anticipated. Also, the amount of$72,758 exceeds the amount of
a public works contract that can be awarded based on an informal bid. By bidding the project by
component, the City can award one of the components by informal bid since the amount is below
the $50,000 City Charter limit.
3-2
6/12/07, 1tem~
Page 3 of 5
In an effort to make immediate progress, staff believes that it is prudent to move forward on
awarding the bid for Area A Fencing and adjust the budget for the remaining components of the
proj ect.
Phase 2 Improvements:
As the budget documents for fiscal year 07/08 are already completed, staff is recommending that
the 07/08 budget changes contemplated in this action be brought back to City Council in July of
2007. Further, we are recommending that Council direct staff to proceed with design
immediately in order to avoid potential loss of available funding which sunsets in September
2007.
Upon passage of the second resolution, staffwill complete the second phase design and return to
City Council in July of 2007 for authorization to proceed with advertisement of the secondd
phase. The second phase will include the following elements:
1. Area B Fencing as described above ($33,925).
2. Public restroom facility. Since the adoption of Resolution 2007-91, staff has
further investigated the potential locations for the public restroom facility. This
effort has included discussions with the Boys and Girls Club and a more thorough
review of site conditions. The original plan for the restroom was that it would be
attached to the existing Boys and Girls Club, sharing a common wall and utilizing
existing electrical, water supply, and wastewater connections. As detailed design
progressed, staff encountered numerous complications in simply connecting to the
existing building including potential disabled access, plumbing and structural
problems. In addition, the Boys and Girls Club have raised safety concerns
regarding the original location, as it would be in close proximity to the tot lot play
areas and would have limited visibility from the street. The original cost of the
restroom was estimated at $165,000. The new, recommended restroom location
in the southwest comer of the parking lot, eliminates many of these concerns but
does carry with it additional costs for grading, extension of utilities, additional
walkways and other minor issues. The updated cost of the restroom is estimated
to be $320,000.
3. Lighting Improvements to increase security ($50,000).
4. Tot Lot Surfacing ($100,000).
The total estimated cost of Phase 2 Improvements is $503,925.
Disclosure Statement
Attachment 2 is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement.
Wage Statement
The source of funding for this project is a State Recreation Grant and the Western Chula Vista
Infrastructure Financing Program.
3-3
6/12/07, Item~
Page 4 of 5
This project is a prevailing wage contract. Bid documents included standard contract documents
used for state prevailing wage jobs.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings
within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property of which is the subject of this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
Breakdown of the fencing component budget and cost is as follows:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 1
A. Revised Contract Amount $38,833
B. Staff Costs $5,000
C. Contingencies (10% per City policy) $3,883
TOTAL FUNDS REQIDRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 'AREA A' FENCING $47,716
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 'AREA A' FENCING
A. CIP PR295 Lauderbach Park Improvements (Fencing) $47,716
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 'AREA A' FENCING $47,716
A breakdown of total project budget is as follows:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROJECT
A. Existing Funds, CIP PR295 $400,000
B. Additional Appropriation, (State Recreation Grant Funds) $140,740
C. Additional Appropriation (Residential Construction Tax Funds) $56.240
Total funds available for project $596,980
PROJECT COMPONENTS
A Area A Fencing $ 47,716
B. Area B Fencing $ 33,925
C. Restroom Construction in relocated position $320,000
D. Lighting improvements to improve security $ 50,000
E. Tot lot surfacing $100,000
F. Staff costs and contingencies $ 45,339
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROJECT $596,980
The additional State Recreation Grant Funds and Residential Construction Tax Funds will
require the deletion of three projects that are in the proposed FY 2007-08 Capital Improvement
Program Budget. Those projects are:
3-4
6/12/07, Item~
Page 5 of 5
. Replacement of Exercise Equipment at Bonita Long Canyon Park - $19,060
(RCT)
. Rohr Park Gazebo Renovation - $140,000 (State Recreation Grants)
. Eucalyptus Park Basketball Court Renovation - $37,180 (RCT)
The new restroom will require a higher level of maintenance for the Public Works Operations
Department and increased building maintenance demands on the General Services Department.
These costs will not be significant on their own; however, reduced staffing levels will have some
impact on these departments.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Fencing Plan & proposed new restroom location
2. Contractor's Disclosure Statement
Prepared by: Mary Radley, Landscape Architect, General Services Department
M;\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\Lauderbach Park\PR295 Lauderbach Park 6-6.07.doc
3-5
/
ATTACHMENT
Double 12' opening
pedestrian lockable
gate.
/';;-'r\:,'
l/j,) \
'q~~'
'...-.,.;.--'
,;1
i
i
I
~l.;-
Single opening
pedestrian iockable gate.
Symbol represents
mow strip to be
installed by others.
;.,..j
Singie opening
pedestrian gate.
Proposed restroom
i
,
.__.~
',.~.\i
if \' f:';~'~~'-~;;;7: ..''-~;7'' ",., ,...
.~: -/"
\ I '-../;{'-""
'I, /
lr<
,I'
i'
\, .
;
:'
.'
.~ -:~ ~
"'1
.
4 .
. ,-.
lP ",' ,/ ~
. .
"
.
lauderbach Park - Proposed Fencinq n.t.s
3-6
Existing above
ground utility
box
15' wide slide opening
locking gate for vehicle
access
FIRST PHASE
INSTALLATION
Area A
Proposed enclosure
with 6' high fence
with aates.
Additional fence & gate to
complete Area A
Area B
Proposed enclosure
with 4' high fence with
gates.
.~ "
ATTACHMENT
z,
City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action
by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of
certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista
election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a fInancial interest in the property that is the subject of the
;;:~oa~;;J~;c~;&z~~tra& materi~ supplier.
/ 7-
2. . If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ofall
individuals. with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
J/7/U ~ $Ccrr7
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustorof~Z
/
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent
contractors you have assigned to represimt you before the City in this matter.
~~ Gi""~"JCV}'
./);{f/fd M Rjo
.
5.
Has any person" associated with this contract had any fmancial dealings with an Qfficial*" pi ~e .
City ofChula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes~ No~
If Yes, briefly descn'be the nature of the fInancial interest the official"" may have in this contract.
6
M:\Gcncral Scnices\Contructs\PR 295 Lauderbach PnrkFencmg\Infonnal Prev Wage PR29S.d.oc
3-7
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current
member of the Chula Vista City Council? NoX Yes _lfyes, which Council member?
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City
of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (~ includes being a source of income, money to
retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes _ No '
lfYes, which official" and what was the nature of item provided?
Date: a~/4 ~7
r/Applicant
GRB 'PJCKSOiol
"O~"t'5tD~N'!
Print or typ<;]m.u>fffil1re~~pplicant
. d fin d . d' 'd al firm, h' .. PRESIDENT.. . I I b
Person 15 e e as: any m IVl u , co-partners Ip, Jomt venture, associatIon, SOCIa c u ,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city,
municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as
a unit.
,
"
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner,
Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
~
7
M:\General Services\Contracts\PR 295 Laudcrbacb Park Fencing\Infonnal PreY Wage PR29:S.doc
3-8
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE
CONTRACT FOR PHASE I (FENCING AREA A) OF THE
LAUDERBACH PARK IMPROVEMENT (PR-295) PROJECT
TO ATLAS FENCING AND AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASING AGENT TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
WHEREAS On May 15, 2007 the Director of General Services received informal bids for
the Lauderbach Park fencing project.
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that
the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor
alterations to an existing public facility involving negligible or no expansion of the site's existing
use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
WHEREAS, The City invited three contractors to informally bid on the fencing
improvements but only one contractor was responsive.
WHEREAS, The project was divided into two phases. Phase 1 was contemplated to be
the fencing element of the project. Staff sought informal bids for the installation of the fencing
contemplated by the project. The fencing element of the project was broken into two distinct
components. One portion known as "Area A Fencing" consists of erecting a 6' high fence with
gates at the Oxford Street side of the Boys and Girls Club. "Area B Fencing" is at the rear of the
Boys and Girls Club, the park play area will be enclosed with a 4' high fence with gates
WHEREAS, On May 15,2007, the Director of General Services received an informal bid
for the "Lauderbach Park Fencing (PR-295)" project. The price for phase 1 in the bid proposal
was $72,758.00. The price for the fencing work to Area A, the area in front of the Boys & Girls
Club only, was $38,833.00.
WHEREAS, The bid by Atlas Fencing, $72,758.00, is above the Engineer's estimate
because the level of custom fencing fabrication is much higher than was originally anticipated.
Also, the amount of $72,758 exceeds the amount of a public works contract that can be awarded
based on an informal bid. By bidding the project by component, the City can award one of the
components by informal bid since the amount is below the $50,000 City Charter limit.
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the informal contract to Atlas Fencing in the
amount of $38,833.00 and proposes authorizing the purchasing agent to execute the contract.
3-9
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby accept and award the contract for Phase 1 (Fencing Area A) of the Lauderbach
Park Improvement (PR-295) project to Atlas fencing and authorize the Purchasing Agent to
execute the contract.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Jack Griffin
Director of General Services
~~~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
3-10
RESOLUTION NO. 2007
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE
DESIGN OF PHASE 2 (AREA B FENCING, RESTROOM
CONSTRUCTION, LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AND TOT
LOT SURFACING) OF THE LAUDERBACH PARK
IMPROVEMENTS (PR-295) AND RETURN TO COUNCIL IN
JULY OF 2007 TO APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL STATE
RECREATIONAL GRANT FUNDS AND RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TAX FUNDS FOR INCREASED COSTS TO
COMPLETE THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2007 the Director of General Services received informal bids
for the Lauderbach Park fencing project; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that
the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor
alterations to an existing public facility involving negligible or no expansion of the site's existing
use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City invited three contractors to informally bid on the fencing
improvements but only one contractor was responsive; and
WHEREAS, the project was divided into two phases. Phase 1 was contemplated to be
the fencing element of the project. Staff sought informal bids for the installation of the fencing
contemplated by the project. The fencing element of the project was broken into two distinct
components. One portion known as "Area A Fencing" consists of erecting a 6' high fence with
gates at the Oxford Street side of the Boys and Girls Club. "Area B Fencing" is at the rear of the
Boys and Girls Club, the park play area will be enclosed with a 4' high fence with gates; and
WHEREAS, on May 15,2007, the Director of General Services received an informal bid
for the "Lauderbach Park Fencing (PR-295)" project. The price for phase 1 in the bid proposal
was $72,758.00. The price for the fencing work to Area A, the area in front of the Boys & Girls
Club only, was $38,833.00; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the informal contract to Atlas Fencing in the
amount of $38,833.00 and proposes authorizing the purchasing agent to execute the contract;
and
WHEREAS, as the budget documents for fiscal year 07/08 are already completed, staff
recommends that the 07/08 budget changes contemplated in this action be brought back to City
Council in July of2007; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council direct staff to proceed with design
immediately in order to avoid potential loss of available funding which sunsets in September
2007; and
3-11
WHEREAS, staff will complete the second phase design and return to City Council in
July of2007 for authorization to proceed with advertisement of the second phase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista direct staff to proceed with the design of Phase 2 (Area B fencing, restroom construction,
lighting improvements and tot lot surfacing) of the Lauderbach Park Improvements (PR-295) and
return to Council in July of 2007 to appropriate additional State Recreational Grant Funds and
Residential Construction Tax funds for increased costs to complete the project.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~s..'0l\~~~\\
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Jack Griffin
Director of General Services
3-12
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~ II.f:. CITY OF
'~CHUIA VISTA
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
6/12/2007, Item 4
-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FY 07/08
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULA VISTA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING JOINT
OPERATION OF THE DYNAMIC AFTER SCHOOL HOURS
(DASH) AFTER SCHOOL RECREATIONAL PROGRAM,
AND THE SAFE TIME FOR RECREATION,
ENRICHMENT, AND TUTORING FOR CHILDREN
(STRETCH) EXTENDED SCHOOL DAY EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE MOU.
DAVID J. PALMER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER!
LIBRARY DIRECTOR
INTERIM CITY MANAGER fffS {
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO [!]
The current MOU between the City and the Chula Vista Elementary School District, in effect
until June 30, 2007, authorizes the operation of two after school programs at elementary school
sites. The STRETCH Program, with its emphasis on literacy and arts enrichment, is currently
offered at seven district schools. The existing MOU also authorizes the operation of a
structured sports and recreation program called DASH (Dynamic After School Hours), at 25
district schools.
The intent of this report is to present an updated MOU between the City and the Chula Vista
Elementary School District for FY 2007-08 (ATTACHMENT "A"), which includes expansion
of the DASH Program to one new site (Wolf Canyon Elementary). The Chula Vista
Elementary School District Board is expected to vote on the FY 2007-08 MOU at their June 5,
2007 meeting.
4-1
6/12/07, Item~
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City ofChula Vista and
the Chula Vista Elementary School District regarding joint operation of the DASH (Dynamic
After School Hours) after school recreational program, and the STRETCH (Safe Time for
Recreation, Enrichment, and Tutoring for CHildren) extended school day educational program;
and authorize the Mayor to execute the MOU.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION
Conducted by the Educational Services Division of the Chula Vista Public Library since 1999,
the STRETCH and DASH programs continue to be a success. It is popular not only with
parents and school-age children, but with the City's partner, the Chula Vista Elementary
School District.
The City and the District are now ready to enter into a new Memorandum of Understanding for
FY 2007-08. The new MOU authorizes:
. Expansion of DASH from 25 to 26 elementary school sites. These sites include: Allen,
Arroyo Vista, Casillas, Chula Vista Hills, Clear View, Cook, Discovery, EastLake,
Halecrest, Hedenkamp, Heritage, Hilltop, Kellogg, Liberty, Thurgood Marshall,
McMillin, Olympic View, Palomar, Parkview, Rogers, Rosebank, Salt Creek, Tiffany,
Valle Lindo, Veterans, and Wolf Canyon (new FY 07/08) Elementary Schools.
. Increasing the number of children served in the DASH Plus program from 60 children
per day to 80 children per day to begin in January 2008. Each site will receive an
additional DASH Leader. These sites include: Cook, Hilltop, Palomar and Valle Lindo.
. Continuation of the STRETCH program at seven elementary school sites, including
Harborside, Lauderbach, Lorna Verde, Montgomery, Mueller, Otay, and Rice
Elementary Schools.
Additionally, the Library will purchase a van not to exceed $25,000, which also includes the
costs for yearly maintenance and replacement to begin in FY 09. This vehicle is to be used by
Educational Services staff for the delivery of supplies and equipment to all STRETCH and
DASH schools.
As in previous MOUs, the City will recruit, hire, train and supervise staff to conduct both
STRETCH and DASH. The District will actively promote communication, cooperation and
coordination among and between school personnel and city personnel.
4-2
6/12/07, Item-.!:L
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not
subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not
site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations
section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2007-08 budget for STRETCH and DASH is $2,534,031. The City will provide
$829,038 (plus in-kind expenses); the Elementary School District will provide $605,687 and
the State will provide (via the District) $1,099,306. These funds are appropriated as part of the
FY2007-08 budget.
Prepared by: Mariya G. Anton. Senior Management Analyst, Library
4-3
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
~y-~~~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Dated: ~VI\tl4) 'Lt'lC)l
Memorandum of Understanding Between the City ofChula Vista and
Chula Vista Elementary School District
to operate an after school recreation program
("DASH" - Dynamic After School Hours) and
extended school day education program
("STRETCH" - Safe Time for Recreation, Enrichment and Tutoring for
Children)
in Chula Vista Elementary School District schools in FY 2007-2008
4-4
Page 1 of2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
This MOD is entered into by the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Elementary School
District.
This is an agreement to operate an after school recreational program ("DASH" - Dynamic
After School Hours), and an extended school day educational program (STRETCH - Safe
Time for Recreation, Enrichment and Tutoring for CHildren) in Chula Vista Elementary
School District schools in FY 2007-2008.
The parties agree that the Chula Vista Elementary School District shall:
1. Facilitate communication of the DASH and STRETCH Programs' missions, goals
and objectives to all participating school sites, in particular to principals, PT As and
School Site Councils.
2. Actively promote cooperation and coordination among and between school sites and
all personnel involved in DASH and STRETCH activities.
3. Participate in the development and actualization of a plan to evaluate the DASH and
STRETCH programs.
4. Provide a staff liaison with the City as a key contact.
5. Coordinate the daily delivery of snacks for participating children through Child
Nutrition Services.
6. Provide the City of Chula Vista $1,704,993 in FY 2007-2008 towards the cost of
operating the DASH and STRETCH Programs, payable within 30 days of receipt of
four quarterly City of Chula Vista invoices of $426,248.25 each, on 9/3/07, 12/3/07,
3/3/08, and 6/2/08.
The parties agree that the City of Chula Vista shall:
1. Provide a Library Department Manager to oversee and coordinate the DASH and
STRETCH Programs' activities, in cooperation with District staff.
2. Facilitate communication of the DASH and STRETCH Programs' missions, goals
and objectives to all participating staff.
3. Actively promote cooperation and coordination among and between school sites and
all personnel involved in DASH and STRETCH activities.
4. Participate in the development and actualization of a plan to evaluate the DASH and
STRETCH programs.
5. Operate the DASH Program at the following 26 District Schools: Allen, Arroyo
Vista, Casillas, Chula Vista Hills, Clear View, Cook (DASH Plus), Discovery
Charter, EastLake, Halecrest, Hedenkamp, Heritage, Hilltop (DASH Plus), Kellogg,
Liberty, Thurgood Marshall, McMillin, Olympic View, Palomar (DASH Plus),
Parkview, Rogers, Rosebank, Salt Creek, Tiffany, Valle Lindo (DASH Plus),
4-5
Page 1 of2
Veterans, and Wolf Canyon (new FY 07/08) Elementary Schools. Note: DASH Plus
sites offer extended hours and curriculum.
6. Increase the number of children served in the DASH Plus program from 60 children
per day to 80 children per day to begin in January 2008. Each site will receive an
additional DASH Leader. These sites include: Cook, Hilltop, Palomar and Valle
Lindo.
7. Recruit, hire, and train 60 part-time DASH Leaders (plus "floaters" as needed), under
the supervision of 3 full-time DASH Supervisors.
8. Operate the STRETCH Program at the following 7 District Schools: Harborside (l00
students), Lauderbach (100 students), Lorna Verde (80 students), Montgomery (l00
students), Mueller (100 students), Otay (80 students), and Rice (60 students)
Elementary Schools.
9. Recruit, hire, and train 7 part-time, benefited STRETCH School Site Coordinators,
and 31 part -time Youth Leaders, (plus "floaters" as needed), under the supervision of
a full time STRETCH Supervisor.
10. Provide individual participating schools with detailed terms of agreement regarding
specific program hours, staffmg, programming, shared use of facilities, etc.
11. Contribute the following:
$829,038 in STRETCH/DASH budgeted general funds; City wide overhead (human
resources, payroll, [mance, MIS, purchasing, and other City Departments) - in kind.
12. Act as fiscal agent for the combined District and City funds, the duties of which
include but are not limited to budgeting, appropriating, expending, tracking, and
reporting funds.
The parties agree that a joint decision-making panel shall continue to govern the DASH and
STRETCH Programs. The panel is comprised of the following District and City employees:
Chula Vista Elementary School District:
Assistant Superintendent for Community and Government Services
District Director of Early Intervention
City of Chula Vista
Assistant City Manager/Chula Vista Public Library Director
Library Department Manager
The parties further agree to hold each other harmless against any and all claims asserted or
liability established for damages or injuries, including death, to any person or property,
including an officer, agent or employee of one of the parties, which arise from or are
connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the negligent acts or omissions of
the District or the City in carrying out the terms of this agreement; provided, however, that
no duty to hold harmless the other party shall arise or exist regarding the established sole
negligence or willful misconduct of that party.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL DISTRICT \ _
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Date:
4-6
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FY 07/08
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING JOINT OPERATION OF THE
DYNAMIC AFTER SCHOOL HOURS (DASH) AFTER SCHOOL
RECREATIONAL PROGRAM, AND THE SAFE TIME FOR
RECREATION, ENRICHMENT, AND TUTORING FOR
CHILDREN (STRETCH) EXTENDED SCHOOL DAY
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE MOU
WHEREAS, the current MOU between the City and the Chula Vista Elementary
School District, in effect until June 30, 2007, authorizes the operation of two after school
programs at elementary school sites; and
WHEREAS, the STRETCH Program, with its emphasis on literacy and arts
enrichment, is currently offered at seven district schools; and
WHEREAS, the intent of this report is to present an updated MOU between the City
and the Chula Vista Elementary School District for FY 2007-08, which includes expansion of
the DASH Program to one new site (Wolf Canyon Elementary); and
WHEREAS, The City and the District are now ready to enter into a new Memorandum
of Understanding for FY 2007-08.;
WHEREAS, the new MOU authorizes:
. Expansion of DASH from 25 to 26 elementary school sites. These sites include: Allen,
Arroyo Vista, Casillas, ChuJa Vista Hills, Clear View, Cook, Discovery, EastLake,
Halecrest, Hedenkamp, Heritage, Hilltop, Kellogg, Liberty, Thurgood Marshall,
McMillin, Olympic View, Palomar, Parkview, Rogers, Rosebank, Salt Creek, Tiffany,
Valle Lindo, Veterans, and Wolf Canyon (new FY 07/08) Elementary Schools.
. Increasing the number of children served in the DASH Plus program from 60 children
per day to 80 children per day to begin in January 2008. Each site will receive an
additional DASH Leader. These sites include: Cook, Hilltop, Palomar and Valle Lindo.
. Continuation of the STRETCH program at seven elementary school sites, including
Harborside, Lauderbach, Loma Verde, Montgomery, Mueller, Otay, and Rice
Elementary Schools; and
4-7
WHEREAS, additionally, the Library will purchase a van not to exceed $25,000 to be
used by Educational Services staff for the delivery of supplies and equipment to all STRETCH
and DASH sc; and
WHEREAS, as in previous MOUs, the City will recruit, hire, train and supervise staff
to conduct both STRETCH and DASH; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby approves the FY 07/08 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chula
Vista and the Chula Vista Elementary School District regarding joint operation of the Dynamic
After School Hours (DASH) After School Recreational Program and the Safe Time for
Recreation, Enrichment, and Tutoring for Children (STRETCH) Extend School Day
Educational Program; and authorizes the Mayor to execute the MOU.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
David J. Palmer
Assistant City Manager/Library Director
~~~\
Ann Moore '
City Attorney
4-8
CrTY COUNCil
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
~!~ em OF
((HULA VISTA
JUNE-5;2007, Item t.Y 5
I~ /"-'-
(A) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE
RESULTS OF THE MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY AND
APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE;
(B) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE
RESULTS OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL NON-
MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES AND
APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING . 'iA rI..
C011PENSATION SCHEDULE. iY U
MARCIA RASKIN, DIRECTO~HUMAN RESOURCE~YriJ
INTERIM CITY MANAGER Ii [.
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
Civil Service Rule l.02(A), briefly stated, provides for necessary reviews and necessary
changes so that the City's classification plan is kept current, and that changes in existing
classes, the establishment of new classes or the abolition of classes are properly reflected in
the classification plan. In the past years, Hwnan Resources staff has conducted a series
(phases I through VII) of Citywide classification and compensation studies of positions
represented by CVEA, the results of which were brought forward to, and subsequently
approved by, the City Council. As part of the City's long-time effort to maintain the
classification plan, Hwnan Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and
compensation study of professional and middle management positions in the Mid-
Management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications.
The Mid-Management Study, as it is called, included a review of the work performed, scope
and complexity of assignments and overall responsibility of each position. In addition,
department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non-management
positions represented by Chula Vista Employee Association (CVEA) and Western Council
of Engineers (WCE).
This report is being brought forward in conjunction with the budget process.
~5-1
/2-
JUNE'>; 2007, Item+r 5'
Page 2 of 12
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION
(A) Adopt the resolution to approve the results of the Mid-Management Study and the
corresponding compensation schedule to be effective the pay period beginning June
22, 2007.
(B) Adopt the resolution to approve the results of various individual non-management
classification studies and the corresponding compensation schedule to be effective
the pay period beginning June 22,2007.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
Human Resources staff recently completed a comprehensive study of professional and
middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of 131
employees in 67 classifications. The purpose of the study was to conduct a detailed
analysis of each position; determine essential job functions for each classification;
develop and/or revise class specifications to ensure that they were current, accurate and in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; allocate each position to an
appropriate classification; collect and analyze labor market data; and assess internal
salary relationships for any new or revised classifications. Several individual
classification studies of non-management positions represented by CVEA and WCE were
conducted concurrently with the Mid-Management Study.
Mid-Management Studv:
The Mid-Management Study encompassed a review of professional and middle
management positions found in the following departments: Budget and Analysis, City
Clerk, Communications, Community Development, Conservation and Environmental
Services, Engineering, Finance, Fire, General Services, Human Resources \ Information
Technology Services, Library, the Nature Center, Planning and Building, Police, Public
Works Operations and Recreation.
The methodology and processes used during the Mid-Management Study were those used
throughout Phases I-VII of the City-wide study of CVEA represented positions conducted
from 1999-2005. Each phase of the City-wide classification and compensation study was
brought forward to, and subsequently approved by, Council.
As with Phases I-VII, Human Resources staff met with each of the department heads prior to
the start of the study, to provide an overview of the process and identify any classification or
compensation issues. Informational meetings were then held with employees to provide them
with an overview of the study process, to answer any questions employees had and to
distribute position inventory questionnaires (PIQs), an instrument by which an employee
describes the duties and responsibilities of their position. Employees completed their PIQs
and forwarded them to their immediate supervisor for review and comment. Department
1 An outside consultant conducted the study of positions found in the Human Resources Department.
1) _,.-,_ :- -~".. __
J'J,..
JUNE.8, 2007, Item~
Page 3 of 12
heads were also given the opportunity to review and comment on the PIQs, prior to their
submittal to Human Resources. Human Resources staff then interviewed the incumbents for
additional information and to clarify any statements on their PIQs.
Class specifications were drafted based on the information gathered from the PIQs and
employee interviews and department heads were then given the opportunity to provide for
changes and comments. Employees were given their recommended allocation (classification)
with a draft job description for their position, as well as the opportunity to express their
concerns with their recommended allocation or to provide for any changes to the class
specification.
Human Resources staff reviewed concems and made appropriate changes. Final
recommendations were given to employees with a class specification for their position. If
the employee was not satisfied with the disposition of their concern, he/she had the
opportunity to submit an appeal. Two appeals were submitted and reviewed by an Appeal
Panel consisting of three Executive Managers. The Panel unanimously upheld Human
Resources' recommendations and the decisions of the Appeal Panel were final. Once the
classification component of the study was completed, Human Resources staff collected and
analyzed salary data from 18 comparable agencies in the Southern California region for each
of the positions under study.
Of the 131 professional and middle management positions reviewed, it is recommended
that:
. 14 positions receive a salary increase;
. 12 positions receive a salary increase and title change;
. 36 positions receive a title change only;
. 68 positions remain at their current title and salary level; and
. 1 vacant position receives a salary decrease.
Incumbents in positions that are recommended for reclassification to a higher class, and
therefore a higher salary, will be placed at a salary step that is five (5) percent higher than
their current rate of pay (per Civil Service Rule 1.07(A), Promotion). In reference to the
proposed salary changes shown on Attachment A, the percentage change reflects the
incumbents' actual salary adjustment for FY07-08.
Pending approval of title changes shown on Attachment A, the following classification titles
will be deleted from the classification plan effective pay period beginning June 22, 2007:
Assistant Transit Coordinator, Avian Specialist, Battalion Chief, City Arborist,
Communications Specialist, Conservation Coordinator, Design Specialist, Development
Services Technician, Disaster Preparedness Manager, Educational Services Manager,
Environmental Projects Manager, Environmental Review Coordinator, Lead Programmer
Analyst, Library Automation Manager, Library Automation Specialist, Library Public
Services Manager, Microcomputer Specialist, Microcomputer Support Manager, Park
Ranger Supervisor, Principal Management Assistant, Senior Building Projects Supervisor,
Senior Development Services Technician, Senior Employee Development Specialist, Senior
Management Assistant, Senior Microcomputer Specialist, Senior Recreation Supervisor and
Transit Coordinator. _1 i _'7 ~ _::>.. 5-:3
I~ LJ.-
JUNEX2007, Ite~
Page 4 of 12
Additional Classification Studies:
In addition to the positions reviewed as part of the Mid-Management Study, Human
Resources staff conducted department-initiated classification studies on individual non-
management positions found in Community Development, Engineering, Human Resources2,
the Nature Center, Planning and Building, and Public Works Operations.
After a thorough analysis, it is recommended that ten positions receive a title change and
eight positions be reclassified to a higher classification, and therefore receive a salary
increase. In addition, after a review of labor market data and an assessment ot: internal
salary relationships for the Painter, Plumber and Public Safety Analyst positions, it is
recommended that incumbents in these positions receive a salary increase.
Human Resources staff also recommends establishing the following new classifications to
meet the ongoing needs of the departments: After School Program Manager, Development
Services Counter Manager, Development Services Technician 1, Application Support
Specialist, Programmer Analyst, and Senior GIS Specialist.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is
not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of
Regulations section l8704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
Beginning in FY 2007-08:
(A) The total annual cost of implementing the results of the Mid-Management Study
is estimated at $102,000. This amount will be largely offset by a $74,000 increase in
staff time reimbursement revenues, resulting in a net general fund impact of $28,000
annually.
(B) The total annual cost of implementing the results of the individual non-
management classification studies is estimated at $80,000.
These costs were considered as part of the FY 2007-08 budget development process.
Given the budgetary constraints the City is facing, each department has agreed to absorb
these costs in FY 2007-08. As a result, the FY 2007-08 proposed budget document,
delivered to Council on May 24, 2007, contains no additional funding for the
recommended salary and classification changes contained in this report. If these
resolutions are approved, the final budget, to be presented to Council on June 19 for
adoption, would reflect the recommended title changes but no additional budget
appropriations.
The annual net cost of these recommendations will be included in future budgets
beginning in FY 2008-09. The ongoing costs of implementing these recommendations
will vary dependent upon the pay step (i.e. A through E) of the incumbents in each
position. The maximum annual net cost in current dollars is estimated at $178,000.
2 As mentioned previously, an outside consultant conducted the study of positions in the Human Resources
Department. .' .' !
.')' --,
5-~
I~ -
~~2007,h~~~
Page 5 of 12
Updated 5-year revenue and expenditure forecasts currently project a $4.5 million base
budget gap for FY 2008-09. Approval of these resolutions would increase the projected
gap to between $4.6 and $4.7 million, indicating some combination of unanticipated
revenue enhancements and/or program reductions will likely be required to fund the
ongoing costs of this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS
(A) Mid-Manag~ent Study Recommended Position Changes
(B) Individual Non-Management Classification Studies Recommended Position
Changes
(C) Proposed Salary Table (Monthly)
(D) Proposed Salary Table (Bi- Weekly)
Prepared by: Erin Bernal, Principal Human Resources Analyst, Human Resources Department
Ii r-;
/I
5~5
Title Change Only (36 Positions)
ATTACHMENT A
MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY
RECOMMENDED POSITION CHANGES
/)... 11.-
JUNEY,'2007, Item~~
Page 6 of 12
Communications
Communications
Engineering
Fire
Fire
General Services
General Services
Information Technology Services
Information Technology Services
Information Technology Services
Library
Nature Center
Planning and Building
Planning and Building
P1auning and Building
Police
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Communications Specialist
Design Specialist
Principal Management Assistant
Batta1ion Chief (7)
Disaster Preparedness Manager
Conservation Coordinator
Senior Building Projects
Supervisor (3)
Microcomputer Specialist (8)
Senior Microcomputer Specialist (2)
Microcomputer Support Manager
Library Public Services Manager
Avian Specialist
Principal Management Assistant
Environmental Projects Manager (2)
Senior Management Assistant
Senior Employee Development
Specialist
Assistant Transit Coordinator
Transit Coordinator
City Arborist
- 5-b
'I
~.
Special Events Planner
Senior Graphic Designer
Principal Management Analyst
Fire Battalion Chief (7)
E=gency Services Coordinator
Environmental Services Program
Manager
Building Projects Manager (3)
Information Technology Support
Specialist (8)
Senior Information Technology
Support Specialist (2)
Information Technology Support
Manager
Library Operations Manager
Nature Center Program Manager
Principal Management Analyst
Senior Planner (2)
Development Automation Specialist
Police Training and Development
Supervisor
Transit Operations Coordinator
Transit Manager
Urban Forestry Manager
I~ ~
JUNE,..8;"2007, Item X~
Page 7 of 12
ATTACHMENT A
(Continued)
Salary Change Only (14 Positions)
Co=unity Development Principal Co=unity Development Specialist (3) +0.57%
Engineering Real Property Manager +0.73%
Information Technology Services Operations and Teleco=unications Manager +5.23%
Information Technology Services Applications Support Manager +2.31%
Planning and Building Principal Planner (3) +0.57%
Planning and Building Code Enforcement Manager +0.57%
Police Senior Public Safety Analyst +4.32%
Public Works Operations Fleet Manager +1.03%
Recreation Principal Recreation Manager (2) +1.74
3 The percentage cbange reflects the actual salary adjustments effective June 22, 2007. s: 7
I~,- ,....-;
I)" ,I... -
JUNE%, 2007, Item~
Page 8 of 12
ATTACHMENT A
(Continued)
Title and Salary Change (13 Positions)
Budget and Analysis Senior Management Analyst Fiscal and Management Analyst +9.76%'
Finance Senior Management Analyst Fiscal Services Analyst +9.76%'
ITS Lead Programmer Analyst GIS Supervisor +10.00%
ITS Lead Programmer Analyst (2) Senior Programmer Analyst (2) +10.00%
ITS Lead Programmer Analyst (2) Senior Applications Support +10.00%
Specialist (2)
Library Educational Services Manager After School Program Manager -22.00%
Library Senior Librarian Library Digital Services +10.00%
Manager
Planning and Building Environmental Projects Principal Planner (2) +8.84%'
Manager (2)
Planning and Building Environmental Review Principal Planner +0.57%
Coordinator
Recreation Senior Recreation Supervisor (2) Senior Recreation Manager (2) + 1.71 %
New Classifications (No Incumbents)
Information Technology Services
New Classification
Programmer Analyst
Information Technology Services
New Classification
Applications Support Specialist
Planning and Building
New Classification
Development Services Counter
Manager
4 The percentage change reflects the actual salary adjustments effective June 22, 2007.
, Over the next one to three fiscal years, as an incumbent moves through the normal merit step process,
comparing E step to E step, the maximum increase for each position are as follows: Fiscal & Management
Analyst - 21.01%, Fiscal Services Analyst - 21.01%, Principal Planner - 20%, Land Surveyor - 15%,
Human Resources Technician - 21.03%, Nature Center Program Manager - 14.26%, and Parks Manager-
13.69%.
I'
l'P
&:" --'> s:-8
n- '5
JUNE~ 2007, ItemL
Page 9 of 12
ATTACHMENT B
INDIVIDUAL NON-MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES
RECOMMENDED POSITION CHANGES
Title Change Only (10 Positions)
Planning and Building
Planning and Building
Development Services Technician (9)
Development Services Technician II
Senior Development Services Technician (I)
Development Services Technician III
Salary Change Only (9 Positions)
General Services
Painter (2)
+5.00%
General Services
Plumber (2)
+5.00%
Fire
Public Safety Analyst
Public Safety Analyst (4)
+4.32%
Police
+4.32%
Title and Salary Change (8 Positions)
Community Secretary Senior Fiscal Office Specialist +5.00%
Development
Engineering Assistant Surveyor II Land Surveyor +9.52%"
Human Resources Senior Office Specialist Human Resources Technician +10.02%"
Human Resources Senior Office Specialist Senior Fiscal Office Specialist +5.00%
Nature Center Nature Center Speeialist Nature Center Program Manager +8.82%"
Planning and Building Office Specialist (2) Senior Office Specialist (2) +10.00%"
Public Works Park Ranger Supervisor Parks Supervisor +8.27%"
Operations
, The percentage cbange reflects the actual salary adjustments effective June 22, 2007.
6 See footnote 5:
" Over the next one to three fiscal years, as an incumbent moves through the normal merit step process,
comparing E step to E step, the maximum increase for each position are as follows: Fiscal & Management
Analyst - 21.01%, Fiscal Services Analyst - 21.01%, Principal Planner - 20%, Land Surveyor - 15%,
Human Resources Technician - 21.03%, Nature Center Program Manager - 14.26%, and Parks Manager-
13.69%.
I' '"' c:-_n
/ l _...", "'-"'" 7"
/~ ~
JUNE~ 2007, Item.Jt::.;?
Page 10 of 12
ATTACHMENT B
(Continued)
New Classifications (No Incumbents)
Information Technology Services New Classification
Senior GIS Specialist
Planning and Building New Classification
Development Services Technician I
1, ;.,,,,,,
$-/{)
\; . -'
/2 -
JU1{E~2007,liern;rrt5
Page 11 of12
ATTACHMENT C
PROPOSED SALARY TABLE (MONTlll. Y)
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM MANAGER 7032 MM $5,757.69038 $6,045.57490 $6,347.85364 $6,665.24632 $6,998.50864
APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3084 MM $5,366.20884 $5,634.5] 928 $5,916.24525 $6,212.05751 $6,522.66039
APPLICATIONS SUPPORT MANAGER 3083 MM $6,558.69214 $6,886.62675 $7,230.95808 $7,592.50599 $7,972.13129
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 4759 MM $7,087.53254 $7,441.90917 $7,8]4.00463 $8,204.70486 $8,614.94010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER MANAGER 4547 MM $5,773.16402 $6,061.82222 $6,364.91333 $6,683.15899 $7,017.31694
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN I 4542 CVEA $3,095.70889 $3.250.49434 $3,413.01905 $3,583.67001 $3,762.85351
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN II 4544 CVEA $3,405.27978 $3,575.54377 $3,754.32096 $3,942.03701 $4,139.13886
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN III 4545 CVEA $3,916.06566 $4,111.86894 $4,317.46239 $4,533.33551 $4,760.00228
FISCAL SERVICES ANALYST 3609 MM $6,612.93320 $6,943.57986 $7,290.75885 $7,655.29679 $8038.06163
FLEET MANAGER 6501 MM $6,398.24632 $6,718.15863 $7,054.06656 $7,406.76989 $7,777.10839
GIS SUPERVISOR 3082 MM $5,962.45428 $6.260.57699 $6,573.60584 $6,902.28613 $7,247.40044
HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 3315 CONF $3,564.65036 $3,742.88288 $3,930.02703 $4,126.52838 $4,332.85480
LIBRARY DIGITAL SERVICES MANAGER 7025 MM $5,757.69038 $6,045.57490 $6,347.85364 $6,665.24632 $6,998.50864
OPERATIONS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 3025 MM $6,558.69214 $6,886.62675 $7,230.95808 $7,592.50599 $7,972.13129
PAINTER 6434 CVEA $3,609.08937 $3 789.54384 $3,979.02104 $4 177.97209 $4,386.87069
PLUMBER 6432 CVEA $3,969.98624 $4,168.48555 $4,376.90982 $4,595.75532 $4,825.54308
PRINCIPAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 4061 MM $7,087.53254 $7,441.90917 $7,814.00463 $8,204.70486 $8,614.94010
PRINCIPAL PLANNER 4431 MM $7,087.53254 $7,441.90917 $7,814.00463 $8204.70486 $8,614.94010
PRINCIPAL RECREATION MANAGER 7410 MM $5,917.93633 $6,213.83314 $6,524.52480 $6,850.75104 $7,193.28859
PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3086 MM $5,366.20884 $5,634.51928 $5,916.24525 $6,212.05751 $6,522.66039
PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5254 CVEA $4,640.66666 $4,872.69999 $5,116.33499 $5,372.15174 $5,640.75932
REAL PROPERTY MANAGER 6035 MM $6,875.23962 $7,219.00160 $7,579.95168 $7,958.94927 $8,356.89673
SENIOR APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3054 MM $5,962.45428 $6,260.57699 $6,573.60584 $6,90228613 57,247.40044
SENIOR GIS SPECIALIST 3080 CVEA $4,927.65063 55,174.03317 $5,432.73482 $5,704.37157 $5,989.59014
SENIOR PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3087 MM $5,962.45428 $6,260.57699 $6,573.60584 $6,90228613 $7247.40044
SENIOR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5259 MM $5,336.76666 $5,603.60499 $5,883.78524 $6,177.97450 $6,486.87323
SENIOR RECREATION MANAGER 7412 MM $5,146.03160 $5,403.33318 $5,673.49984 $5,957.17483 $6,255.03357
~
..-' _-Ii'
~~ _.jl
_r,
0-
JUNEX2007, Item~
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSED SALARY TABLE (BI- WEEKLY)
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM MANAGER 7032 MM 2,657.39556 2,790.26534 2,929.n860 3,076.26753 3,230.08091
APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3084 MM 2,476.71177 2,600.54736 2,730.57473 2,867.10347 3,010.45864
APPLICATIONS SUPPORT MANAGER 3083 MM 3,027.08868 3,178.44311 3,337.36527 3,504.23353 3,679.44521
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 4759 MM 3,271.16886 3,434.72731 3,606.46367 3,786.78686 3,976.12620
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER MANAGER 4547 MM 2,664.53724 2,797.76410 2,937.65230 3 084.53492 3,238.76167
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN I 4542 CVEA 1,428.78872 1,500.22816 1,575.23956 1,654.00154 1736.70162
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN 11 4544 CVEA 1,571.66759 1,650.25097 1,732.76351 1,819.40169 1,910.37178
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN 1lI 4545 CVEA 1,807.41493 I 897.78567 1,992.67496 2,092.30870 2,196.92413
~ISCALSERV1CESANALYST 3609 MM 3,052.12301 3,204.72917 3,364.96562 3,533.21390 3,709.87460
FLEET MANAGER 6501 MM 2,953.03676 3,100.68860 3,255.72303 3,418.50918 3,589.43464
GIS SUPERVISOR 3082 MM 2,751.90198 2,889.49707 3,033.97193 3,185.67052 3,344.95405
HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 3315 CONF I 645.22324 1,727.48441 1,813.85863 1,904.55156 1,999.n914
LIBRARY DIGITAL SERVICES MANAGER 7025 MM 2,657.39556 2,790.26534 2,929.n860 3,076.26753 3,230.08091
OPERATIONS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 3025 MM 3,027.08868 3 178.44311 3,337.36527 3504.23353 3,679.44521
PAINTER 6434 CYEA 1,665.73356 1,749.02024 I 836.47125 1,928.29481 2024.70955
PLUMBER 6432 CVEA 1,832.30134 1,923.91641 2,020.11223 2,121.11784 2,227.17373
PRINCIPAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 4061 MM 3,271.16886 3,434.72731 3,606.46367 3,786.78686 3,976.12620
PRINCIPAL PLANNER 4431 MM 3,271.16886 3,434.72731 3,606.46367 3,786.78686 3,976.12620
PRINCIPAL RECREATION MANAGER 7410 MM 2,731.35523 2,867.92299 3,011.31914 3,161.88510 3,319.97935
PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3086 MM 2,476.71177 2,600.54736 2,730.57473 2,867.10347 3,010.45864
PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5254 CYEA 2,141.84615 2,248.93846 2,361.38538 2,479.45465 2,603.42738
REAL PROPERTY MANAGER 6035 MM 3,173.18752 3,331.84689 3,498.43924 3,673.36120 3,857.02926
SENIOR APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3054 MM 2,751.90198 2,889.49707 3,033.97193 3,185.67052 3,344.95405
SENIOR GIS SPECIALIST 3080 CVEA 2,274.30029 2,388.01531 2,507.41607 2,632.78688 2,764.42622
SENIOR PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3087 MM 2,751.90198 2,889.49707 3,033.97193 3,185.67052 3,344.95405
SENIOR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5259 MM 2,463.12307 2,586.27923 2,715.59319 2,851.37285 2,993.94149
SENIOR RECREATION MANAGER 7412 MM 2,375.09151 2,493.84608 2,618.53839 2,749.46530 2,886.93857
....
.5 -j.)...-
/ .' -" "
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF THE
MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY AND APPROVING THE
CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, Civil Service Rule I.02(A), briefly stated, provides for necessary reviews
and necessary changes so that the City's classification plan is kept current, and that changes in
existing classes, the establishment of new classes or the abolition of classes are properly
reflected in the classification plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the City's long-time effort to maintain the classification plan,
Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation study of
professional and middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of
131 employees in 67 classifications; and
WHEREAS, the Mid-Management Study, as it is called, included a review of the work
performed, scope and complexity of assignments and overall responsibility of each position. In
addition, department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non-
management positions represented by Chula Vista Employee Association (CVEA) and
Western Council of Engineers (WCE); and
WHEREAS, Human Resources staff recently completed a comprehensive study of
professional and middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of
131 employees in 67 classifications; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the study was to conduct a detailed analysis of each
position; determine essential job functions for each classification; develop andlor revise class
specifications to ensure that they were current, accurate and in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act; allocate each position to an appropriate classification; collect and analyze
labor market data; and assess internal salary relationships for any new or revised
classifications; and
WHEREAS, the Mid-Management Study encompassed a review of professional and
middle management positions found in the following departments: Budget and Analysis, City
Clerk, Communications, Community Development, Conservation and Environmental Services,
Engineering, Finance, Fire, General Services, Human Resources\ Information Technology
Services, Library, the Nature Center, Planning and Building, Police, Public Works Operations
and Recreation; and
1 An outside consultant conducted the study of positions found in the Human Resources Department.
! "'"
_"5"';-/~
, :
, ,
WHEREAS, once the classification component of the study was completed, Human
Resources staff collected and analyzed salary data from 18 comparable agencies in the
Southern California region for each of the positions under study; and
WHEREAS, incumbents in positions that are recommended for reclassification to a
higher class, and therefore a higher salary, will be placed at a salary step that is five (5) percent
higher than their current rate of pay (per Civil Service Rule I.07(A), Promotion).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby adopts the results of the mid-management study and approves the corresponding
compensation schedule.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Marcia Raskin
Director of Human Resources
~ '( G\\~\'I\u<A\Q\\
Ann Moore
City Attorney
....J. '.:J &::',;..,f 4f,~
") ; i W ut ~"
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF
VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL NON-MANAGEMENT
CLASSIFICATION STUDIES AND APPROVING THE
CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, Civil Service Rule I.02(A), briefly stated, provides for necessary reviews
and necessary changes so that the City's classification plan is kept current, and that changes in
existing classes, the establishment of new classes or the abolition of classes are properly
reflected in the classification plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the City's long-time effort to maintain the classification plan,
Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation study of
professional and middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of
131 employees in 67 classifications; and
WHEREAS, department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual
non-management positions represented by Chula Vista Employee Association (CVEA) and
Western Council of Engineers (WCE); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the study was to conduct a detailed analysis of each
position; determine essential job functions for each classification; develop and/or revise class
specifications to ensure that they were current, accurate and in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act; allocate each position to an appropriate classification; collect and analyze
labor market data; and assess internal salary relationships for any new or revised
classifications; and
WHEREAS, several individual classification studies of non-management positions
represented by CVEA and WCE were conducted concurrently with the Mid-Management
Study and
WHEREAS, in addition to the positions reviewed as part of the Mid-Management
Study, Human Resources staff conducted department-initiated classification studies on
individual non-management positions found in Co=unity Development, Engineering, Human
Resourcesl, the Nature Center, Planning and Building, and Public Works Operations; and
WHEREAS, after a thorough analysis, it is reco=ended that ten positions receive a
title change and eight positions be reclassified to a higher classification, and therefore receive a
salary increase; and
I As mentioned previously, an outside consultant conducted the study of positions in the Human Resources
Department.
! / ,.- c::~/6
.......... - ~ .
WHEREAS, in addition, after a review of labor market data and an assessment of
internal salary relationships for the Painter, Plumber and Public Safety Analyst positions, it is
recommended that incumbents in these positions receive a salary increase; and
WHEREAS, Human Resources staff also recommends establishing the following new
classifications to meet the ongoing needs of the departments: Development Services Counter
Manager, Development Services Technician I, Application Support Specialist, Programmer
Analyst, and Senior GIS Specialist; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the CityofChula Vista
hereby adopts the results of various individual non-management classification studies and
approves the corresponding compensation schedule.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Marcia Raskin
Director of Human Resources
~fQ~~'[~~~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
,! !"..s: J.,
~ ';6
/ t ~ .~,
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
JUNE 12, 2007, Item2
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARlNG: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS
TO CHAPTER VII RECREATION PROGRAMS/FACILITIES
OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
a) RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER
FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES TO EXISTING
FEES AND THE ADDITION OF NEW FEES FOR
RECREATION
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
b) RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER
FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES TO EXISTING
FEES AND THE ADDITION~ 0 FEES FOR
AQUATICS
DIRECTOR OF RE~ATIO
CITY MANAGER [JI
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0
BACKGROUND
The Recreation Department last updated fees in June 2003. Staff is proposing fee
increases and changes, and new fees based upon: (1) the Consumer Price Index (CPI); (2)
informal surveys and assessments of what increases would be appropriate in the Chula
Vista "market"; and (3) City cost increases. New fees and/or increases are proposed for
Facility Rentals, Athletics, Aquatics, and Miscellaneous.
Costs have increased across the board in all areas of Recreation: in salaries and wages; in
benefits; for supplies and services; escalating utility costs; and higher equipment costs. In
light of these increases staff believes that the fee increases are reasonable and necessary.
It should be pointed out that the proposed increases will not cover actual costs of program
delivery and are a balance of community need and business necessity.
6-1
JUNE 12, 2007, Item~
Page 2 of?
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed actIvIty for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined
that the activity is not a "Project" as defmed under Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines because it does not involve a physical change to the environment; therefore,
pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject
to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolutions amending the
Master Fee Schedule to effect changes to existing fees and the addition of new fees for
Recreation and Aquatics, as shown in Attachments "A" and "B", respectively.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the staff report and recommended
adoption of the proposed fee increases at its May 17, 2007 meeting. A nnmber of the
Commission members suggested staff consider further raising the fees for Youth Sports
Council teams, tournament fees, field rentals, and out-of-season sports. Attached, as
Attachment "C", is a draft copy of the Commission meeting minutes.
DISCUSSION
Recreation fees have not been revised since 2003 although costs of operations and service
delivery have risen substantially. Staff supports the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) which asserts that fees and charges should be reviewed for factors
such as the impact of inflation, cost increases, the adequacy of the coverage of costs, and
current competitive rates, and then fees should be updated, if necessary. As part of that
review the full cost of providing a service should be calculated in order to provide a basis
for setting the charge or fee.
Operatine: Cost Calculations
Costs can be calculated by taking the FY06-07 Recreation Department budget (not
including indirect costs allocated to the Recreation Department from support departments
such as building and custodial maintenance) and allocating these costs across the board to
various recreation programs. The total program costs can than be divided by the
available programming hours for each facility type to come up with an hourly cost.
Program hours for this purpose include only those hours that facilities are open to the
general public.
For the current fiscal year the pools program 5,744 hours annually (3,040 at Lorna Verde
and 2,704 at Parkway). Total recreation center programmatic hours are 27,540 annually
(10 centers/gyms). The fully allocated cost per program hour for aquatic and center
facilities is calculated by taking the total costs for facility operations divided by the
number of program hours:
6-2
JUNE 12,2007, ItemL
Page 3 of7
Pools: $1,085,448/ 5,744hours = $188.96 per hour
Centers: $3,728,099/27,540 hours = $135.37 per hour
The full cost of providing services is calculated in order to provide a basis for setting the
charge or fee for services. The Government Code prohibits cities from charging more
than the full cost for services, and the fees proposed herein do not exceed the cost of
providing the services. The review of fees and charges is also based on factors such as
the impact of inflation, other cost increases, the adequacy of the coverage of costs, and
current competitive rates.
Recreation Fee Increases Based on CPI
Automatic fee increases based on the CPI that are provided for in the City's current
Master Fee Schedule, per Attachment "A", have been previously approved by Council by
Resolution 2003-194. The Department is instituting these fee increases starting in July
2007, as shown in Attachment "D", and has provided the actual fee increase amount for
information purposes only. The CPI from July 2003 to July 2007 is 11 %; therefore, the
Department is raising fees listed in the Master Fee Schedule by 11 %. Please note that in
the future the Department will be updating fees per the CPI on an annual or every other
year basis, depending on the CPI, so as not to have such a large increase at one time.
The CPI fee increases include fees for recreation center rentals, swim lessons, Youth
Sports Council (YSC) Leagues, tournaments, class registrations, Adult Athletic league
maintenance surcharges, and Therapeutics program memberships, as shown in
Attachment "D". The daily pool entry fees will remain the same, as the 11% CPI
increase does not round the fee up to the next dollar.
Proposed New Recreation Fees
Recreation Center Rentals
The current Master Fee Schedule lists all recreation facilities with their rental rates, with
the exception of the recently opened Salt Creek, Montevalle, and Veterans Recreation
Centers. Given a year's experience with rentals, staff is now ready to propose final rental
rates for addition to the Master Fee Schedule, as shown by facility, in Attachment "A".
The proposed room rates take into account the size and capacity of the rooms, and the
availability of air-conditioning and kitchens. Staff also recommends setting rental fees for
classrooms and conference rooms at Norman Park Center, which have not previously
been established. In addition, the fees for fitness centers built at Norman Park Center and
Salt Creek need to be added to the fee schedule, which match the fees for the fitness
center at Otay Recreation Center.
Alcohol Use Fee
A new fee being added is a $100 non-refundable alcohol use fee that will be charged to
facility renters at applicable facilities where alcohol consumption during rentals is
allowed. Council approved amending the City ordinance to allow permitting of alcohol
6-3
(
JUNE 12,2007,Item~
Page 4 of7
at additional recreational facilities at its May 15, 2007 meeting. This proposed $100 fee
was mentioned in the May 15 Council report.
Proposed Fee Increases and Chanl!es
Athletics
Staff recommends increasing the rental fee for unlighted and lighted fields by
approximately 30% rather than the 11 % CPl increase, due to increased staff and utility
costs. As previously mentioned, members of the Parks and Recreation Commission
suggested that fees for Youth Sports Council (YSC) teams, tournament fees, field rentals,
and out-of-season sports be further increased. Recreation Department staff and Parks
Division staff will be meeting to discuss field management, maintenance, costs, and fees,
based on the Commission's comments at its May 17 meeting, and may be recommending
further changes to the fee schedule at a later date. For now, staff recommends adjusting
the YSC and tournament fees by the 11 % CPl, and the field rental fees by 30% as
mentioned above.
Aquatics
A number of fees are proposed to be adjusted, as detailed below, and per Attachment
"B", at the City's two family aquatic centers: Parkway Family Aquatic Center and Lorna
Verde Family Aquatic Center.
Daily Admission Fees:
Staff recommends adding an Infant (6 months - 3 years) category to the daily fee
schedule, for no charge when accompanied by an adult. This practice has been in effect
for a number of years and should have been added previously.
Summer Swim Lessons:
Staff recommends increasing the sununer swim lesson session fee by another $2 starting
with the sununer lessons beginning in June 2008. The fee would thus increase from $33,
per CPl starting in June 2007, to $35 beginning June 2008.
Private Lessons:
The private lesson fee is proposed to be reduced from $200 to $150. The hourly rate is
actually staying the same; however, the number of session hours is being reduced. The
sessions will be based on five 45-minute classes. The fee is being prorated to provide
personnel savings and increase profit, while offering a program structure that is more
effective for private lessons. Non-residents will no longer have the opportunity to receive
these private lessons.
Adult Lessons:
Adult lessons are proposed to increase $1 beyond CPl to be consistent with the $5
increase that will be in effect for youth swim classes starting summer 2008. Adult lessons
will thus increase from $35 to $40 per session for residents, and from $53 to $60 for non-
residents.
6-4
I
JUNE 12, 2007, Item~
Page 5 of7
Annual Swim Passes:
Staff is recommending the elimination of the annual pass, since there is insufficient
programming during the non-summer months to warrant charging this fee. The fees for
annual passes were dramatically under priced ($90, $135, $175, and $225 for Child,
Senior, Adult, and Family, respectively), and to correct the fees would have required a
substantial and unrealistic increase. The family and child annual passes are particularly
problematic because there is insufficient recreational swim in the off-season to justify this
type of payment option. We recommended eliminating the annual pass rather than the
quarterly pass because the quarterly pass provides the customer with more flexibility. The
quarterly pass provides a more reasonable fee with a lower percentage increase for most
users.
Quarterly Swim Passes:
Staff recommends increasing the quarterly pass beyond the CPI. The proposed increase
for a child is based on $1 per visit (50% discount from daily admission), and consistent
with prioritizing youth access to aquatics. The proposed fees for seniors and adults are
based on 35 visits per quarter and offer a minimum 25% discount from the daily
admission fee for the 35 visits. The proposed fee for families is based on the price of one
child and one adult pass; however, up to seven people residing in the same household
may utilize this pass. Shown below is a table with the current and proposed quarterly
pass fees for residents. Staff recommends offering the quarterly and summer passes
exclusively to residents, thus eliminating the non-resident option, to give residents more
of the benefit.
Quarterlv and Summer Pass Current Fee Pro Dosed Fee
Child $30 $35
Senior $40 $50
Adult $50 $75
Family $75 $110
If we increased quarterly passes only by the 11 % CPI, an increase of $4 for seniors and
$6 for adults, the cost per swim for a senior that swims three times per week would be
only $1.22 and $1.55 for adults. That is a 39% discount for seniors and 48% discount for
adults. The reality is that many of these pass holders swim 4 to 5 times per week so the
discount increases proportionally to $0.92 per visit (4 times weekly) and $0.73 per visit
(5 times weekly) for seniors, and $1.17 (4 times weekly) and $0.93 (5 times weekly) for
adults. The increase proposed by staff provides a pricing system that demonstrates a
systematic relationship between fees, is more consistent with other fees in the region, and
provides the appropriate revenue in relation to increasing costs of operation. Individuals
who do not use the pool as frequently can still receive savings by purchasing a 10-visit
pass.
Quarterly and annual passes are purchased mainly by our lap swim customers. The ideal
operating hours for lap swimmers are not during times when multi-programming is
possible, which makes lap swimming the most costly program that the Aquatic Division
offers. In fact, the annual expense to provide lap swimming represents one-half of the
6-5
JUNE 12, 2007, Item~
Page 6 of7
operating cost to offer swimming lessons to thousands of children. The fee increases are
necessary to ensure that programs that utilize the passes as a means of admission meet
budgetary expectations, or a 40% recovery of personnel expenditures. The current fees
coupled with increased personnel costs make 40% recovery of lap swimming virtually
impossible. A continuation of the current fees could imply that our top priority is not to
provide swim and water safety instruction to children, but rather to provide a venue for
lap swimmers.
Ten-Swim Passes:
The ten-swim pass is also proposed to be increased above the CPI. Nevertheless, the
proposed fee for a child still equates to a 40% discount from the daily rate. The senior
and adult fee equates to a 20% discount form the daily rate. Staff does recommend
retaining the ten-swim pass option for non-residents. Shown below is a table with the
current and proposed ten-swim pass for residents and non-residents.
Ten-Swim Current Current Proposed Proposed
Pass Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Child $10 $15 $12 $18
Senior $15 $23 $16 $24
Adult $20 $30 $24 $36
Pool Rentals:
Staff is also recommending changes to rental fees and categories. The current Master Fee
Schedule lists rates for full and partial use of the pools, and rental rates for the Olympic
Training Center (OTC), Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD), and
Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) teams. Staff proposes to eliminate
those categories and replace them with the following three new categories: non-profit and
long-term shared use; exclusive use of pools; and shared pool use. This fee structure will
streamline our fee schedule.
The proposed non-profit and long-term shared usage fee replaces the SUHSD, CVESD,
OTC specific fees which were the same rate for each group. Long-term rentals with a
minimum of 40 hours monthly will receive the non-profit and shared use rate. Non-profit
groups must be residents in order to receive the reduced rate. This fee will increase from
$25 per hour plus staff costs to $28 per hour plus staff costs. Most of our shared use
renters fall under the non-profit and long-term shared use category.
The exclusive use fees would apply when user groups request the facility outside of
normal operating times. A minimum of two staff is required for a rental outside of normal
operating hours, with splash parties requiring a minimum of three staff. This cost will
increase from $50 per hour plus staff costs to $56 per hour plus staff costs.
The shared use rate will increase from $28 per hour to $56 per hour, the same rate as the
exclusive use. Very few renters, if any, will fall in this category, as all of our shared use
renters to date have been non-profit and long-term users.
6-6
1-
JUNE 12, 2007, Item~
Page 7 of7
Staff requests the Council's approval of these fees, which the Department believes are
equitable and necessary.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict
exists, in that Council member Castaneda has property holdings within 500 feet ofthe
boundaries of Parkway Family Aquatic Center property which is one ofthe subjects of
this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
The impact of the proposed Master Fee Schedule changes is approximately $30,000 in
additional revenue to the Department, which has been included in the proposed FY07-08
Recreation Department budget. These fee increases are being used to maintain service
levels given increased costs for labor, utilities, maintenance, and services and supplies.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Master Fee Schedule with proposed fee increases and changes and new
fees for Recreation
Attachment B - Master Fee Schedule with proposed fee increases and changes and new
fees for Aquatics
Attachment C - Draft Minutes of the May 17, 2007 Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting
Attachment D - Master Fee Schedule fee increases per CPI
Prepared by: Shauna Stokes, Assistant Director, Recreation
6-7
CHAPTER VII
Recreation Prol!rams/Facilities
Attachment "A"
A. NON-RESIDENT POLICY
1. Fees for various Recreation Diyision Department programs and classes
shall be composed offees applying to legal residents of the City ofChula
Vista and fees for non-residents. A resident shall be considered any
person residing within the City limits, and who can show proof of
residing, as defined in Chapter VII.A.2; and/or any person paying property
taxes to the City of Chula Vista, and supplying proof of residency or
property ownership, as defined in Chapter VII.C.2. The resident and non-
resident fee schedules will apply to the Master Fee Schedule Chapter VII,
B.1, B.2, C.1, C.2, and C.3.
2. Proof of residency in the City ofChula Vista shall be one of the following:
a. Valid California Driver's License displaying City ofChula Vista
address on license, or official I.D. card issued by the Department
of Motor Vehicles for non-drivers.
b. Current year utility bill listing name and address of current
residence or property in Chula Vista on which property taxes are
being paid.
c. Active duty or retired military identification card.
d. Property tax statement.
B. PROGRAMS
2. Other
Fees for Recreation Diyision Department activities and classes shall be set
in consideration of the City's full cost including overhead. Non-Resident
surcharge for activities and classes will be 25%.
[Resolution 2003-194, effective 05/13/03}
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation Programs/Facilities
Page 19
6-8
C. FACILITY USE
Recreation facilities are available to groups only when City programs are not
scheduled. Policies and regulations governing facility use permits are provided in
Council Resolution 12343. An employee or City-appointed representative must
be present during use oflisted facilities.
1. General Facilities - Use Permit
a. Group Priorities
Facilities are available for recreation activities under the following
order of priority based on group classification. Non-Resident
surcharge is 100%.
Classification 1:
Classification 2:
Classification 3:
Classification 4:
Classification 5:
Classification 6:
City programs. Non-Resident surcharge not
applicable to city sponsored uses.
Chula Vista community service
organizations related in purpose to
recreation and the furtherance of community
leisure programs.
Chula Vista civic and social organizations
which are democratic in character with
membership open to the general public or
designated elements thereof.
Private resident groups requiring large
facilities for special events not open to the
general public. If applicant is a Chula Vista
resident, the Non-Resident surcharge will
not apply.
Unions, employee associations and special
recreational groups and non-residential
groups requiring public facilities for fund
raising to perpetuate special interest. If
applicant is a Chula Vista resident, the Non-
Resident surcharge will not apply.
Private individuals or groups offering
recreational type activities for the purpose of
monetary gain. If applicant is a Chula Vista
resident, the Non-Resident surcharge will
not apply.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation ProgramslFacilities
Page 20
6-9
b. Basic Fee Schedule
The Basic Fee is based on the group's classification as described in
Section A above for Classifications 2 through 6, and includes a
Facility Use Fee and an Hourly Staff Fee. There is no charge for
groups in Classification 1. The Facility Use Fee is charged on an
hourly rental rate basis, per the Schedules outlined below. Hourly
Staff Fees are also charged, at the prevailing hourly staff rate, for
any activities requiring supervision, room or facility set-up, or
custodial services. There is an additional charge if special services
are required.
Facility Use - Fee Schedule I:
Community organizations in classification 2 or 3 shall be granted
use of facilities without charge if no additional staff is required and
if an admissions fee/contribution is not collected. If additional
staff is required, the community organization will be charged
prevailing Hourly Staff Fees.
Facility Use - Fee Schedule II:
Community organizations in classification 2 or 3 can use facilities
on an actual cost basis if a contribution/fee is assessed for
charitable purposes.
Actual costs are the Hourly Staff fees for personnel and a
minimum utility charge as shown in fee schedule II.
Facility Use - Fee Schedule III:
Resident organizations and individuals in Classification 4 not
qualifying for Fee Schedule I or II will be assessed the Facility Use
Fee shown in Fee Schedule III, plus the Hourly Staff Fee.
Facility Use - Fee Schedule IV:
Those individuals or groups in Classification 5 and 6 will be
assessed the Facility Use Fee based on Fee Schedule IV or 30
percent of gross receipts, whichever is larger, plus the Hourly Staff
Fee. A financial report must be submitted one week after the
activity is held if an admission fee was charged. If applicant is a
Chula Vista resident, the Non-Resident surcharge will not apply.
Non-Resident surcharge will be applied to fee or 30% of gross
receipts, as applicable.
For the Non-Resident surcharge for Facility Rentals, all hourly rates listed below will be
increased by 100%.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation ProgramslFacilities
Page 21
6-10
FEE SCHEDULE
Facilitv II III IV
Per hour Per hour Per hour
1. Parkway Gymnasium
a. Gvnmasium $17 $67 $133
2. Parkway Community Center
a. Auditorium/Main Hall $17 $56 $Iil
b. Classroom $il $33 $67 .
c. Dance room $il $33 $67
d. Kitchen facilities $6 $il $22
3. Herita~e Community Center
a. AuditoriumlMain Hall $17 $56 $ill
b. Outdoor/stage $17 $56 $1 il
c. Craft Room $il $33 $67
d. Kitchen $6 $il $22
4. Norman Park Senior Center
-Cornell Hall $ill $222
a. Class Room 9, 10, II $10 $20
b. . Class Room 6, 7, 8 $5 $10
c. Life Options and Conference $10 $20
rooms
5. Lorna Verde Recreation Center
a. Auditorium! Assembly Hall $17 $56 $ill
b. Classroom $il $28 $56
c. Dance room $il $33 $67
d. Kitchen $6 $11 $22
6. CV Community Youth Center
a. Gvnmasium $17 $56 $Iil
b. Classroom $il $33 $67
c. Dance Room $il $28 $56
7. CV Women's Club $83 $167
8. Other Recreation Facilities
a. Memorial Bowl . $67 (2 hr $133
minimum)
9. Otay Recreation Center
a. Gvnmasium $il $56 $ill
10. l>,-Fitness Centers Fee for 12 week session
Otay, Salt Creek, Norman Park Centers Resident Non-Resident
Adults/Seniors $;!'!;28 $~56
14- 18 $H17 $~33
.. [Effective FY99/00][Resolution 2003-194, effective
05/13/03J [Resolution 2004-257, effective 08/04/04J
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation Prograrns/Facilities
Page 22
6-11
FEE SCHEDULE
Facilitv II III IV
Per hour Per hour Per hour
12. Salt Creek Center
a. Gvmnasiuro - full $35 $85 $170
b.. Gvmnasiuro - half $20 $50 $100
c. MultioUTDose Room - full' $30 $75 $150
d. Multipurpose Room- Y, with $10 $35 $70
kitchen
e. Exterior oatio only" $60 $120
f. Outdoor Basketball Court $50 $100
g. Tennis Court $50 $100
h. Soccer Arena $50 $100
i. Equipment-
Sound system $50 flat fee
Lectern $10 flat fee
TelevisionlDVDNCR $50 flat fee
Dry Erase Board $10 flat fee
'Includes use of2 kitchens and exterior patio. Non-exclusive use included with any
room rental when center is open: Exclusive use included with any room rental when
center is closed.
" Non-exclusive use of patio included with any room rental when center is open:
Exclusive use included with any room rental when center is closed. Patio Fee will be
applied to rental of just the patio.
13. Montevalle Center
a. Gvmnasiuro - Full $35 $85 $170
b. Gymnasiuro - Half $20 $50 $100
c. MultioUTDose Room - North $25 $60 $120
d. MultinUTDose Room - South $25 $60 $120
e. Multiouroose Room - Middle $15 $40 $80
f. Multinurnose Room - 2 room combo $30 $75 $150
g. MultioUTDose Room - 3 room combo $50 $100 $200
h. Craft Room $15 $40 $80
i. Dance Room $15 $40 $80
i. Interior Court Yard' $30 $60
k. Fire Pit" $40 $80
1. Exterior west "View" Patio*** $10 $20
ill. Outdoor Basketball Court $50 $100
n. Tennis Court $50 $100
0.. Equipment -
Sound system $50 flat fee
Lectern $10 flat fee
TelevisionlDVDNCR $50 flat fee
Dry Erase Board $10 flat fee
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation Programs/Facilities
Page 23
6-12
· Non-exclusive use of courtyard included with any room rental when center is open:
Exclusive use included with any room rental when center is closed. Courtyard Fee will
be applied to rental of just the courtyard and only when the center is closed.
.. Available only during exclusive Interior Court Yard use.
*** Non-exclusive use included with rental of multipurpose room: exclusive use
available at prevailing staff cost
FEE SCHEDULE
Facili'" II III I IV
Per hour Per hour I Per hour
14. Veterans Center
a. a;;;;;;;asium - Full -c- $35 $85 $170
b. Annex $30 $75 $150
c. Multinnrnose Room - Full $30 $75 $150
d. Multinurnose Room - Y, ill ill i1Q
e. Multinnrnose Rm - Y, with kitchen $17 $45 $90
f. Dance Room $15 $40 $80
---;;: Court Yard · $0 $0
h. Equipment-
Sound system $50 flat fee
Lectern $10 flat fee
TelevisionIDVDNCR $50 flat fee
Drv Erase Board $10 flat fee
· Exclusive use included with alll/room rental when center is closed.
15. Sunset View Park
a. Roller Hockey FaciiiiV $50 $100
c. Cancellation Fee
Recreation office must be notified of cancellation a minimum of 48
hours prior to scheduled time for activity. Failure to do so will
result in forfeiture ofthe fee.
d. Required Deposits (Non-Resident surcharge does not apply to
deposits).
A cleaning /damage deposit of $200 may be required for certain
activities.
An additional deposit of $1 00 will be required of groups granted
permission to have alcoholic beverages.
A non-refundable alcohol use fee of$l 00 will be required of
groups granted permission to have alcoholic beverages.
e. Variations
Variations of stated fees must have approval of the Recreation
Director.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation Programs/Facilities
Page 24
6-13
f. Custodial Fees
Chula Vista Women's Club - $60.00 per rental
Norman Park Senior Center - $25.00 per rental
Chula Vista Community Youth Center - $60.00 per rental
Otay Recreation Center - $60.00 per rental
2. Picnic Shelters
For the Non-Resident surcharge for Picnic Shelters, all Reservation Fee
rates listed below will be increased by 100%.
Small Medium Large
a. Reservation Fee $30 $ 90 $120
b. Cleaning/Security Deposit $25 $ 75 $100
c. Maximum Group Size 50 100 200
d. Commercial vendor permit $30 $ 30 $ 30
e. Cancellation Fee - All groups that cancel a reservation will be
charged a $5 handling fee.
[Resolution 2001-141, effective 05/15/01]
3. Ballfields
For the Non-Resident surcharge for ballfields, all reservation fee rates
listed below will be increased by 100%.
Lighted Unlighted
a. Reservation Fee - Full Field $;Q40/hr* $~25/hr
b. Reservation Fee - Partial Field $-M20/hr* $-W12.S0/hr*
c. Cleaning/Security Deposit N/A N/A
c. Maximum Group Size N/A N/A
d. Cancellation Fee - Groups that cancel a reservation will be charged a' $6
handling fee.
[Resolution 2004-257, effective08/03/04}
* Additional fee of the prevailing hourly staff rate for staffto turn on
lights, field preparation requested and turn offlights which will include
travel-time to site location.
$.J400..l5.00 per hour charged for lighted fields for Youth Sports Council
organizations during regular seasoned activities.
4. Adult Athletic Leagues
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation PrograrnslFacilities
Page 25
6-14
Adult Athletic Leagues shall pay a Maintenance Surcharge fee of $56 per
team per season. For non-resident leagues, the Maintenance Surcharge fee
is additionally increased by 50%.
[Resolution 2003-194. effective05/13/03}
5. Therapeutics Program
All persons who wish to participate in a city sponsored Therapeutics
Program shall pay an annual membership fee of $44.00; $56.00 per year
for non-residents.
[Resolution 2003-194, effective 5/13/03}
6. Youth Sports League Fee - $ll1teamlseason
[Resolution 18356, effective 7/9/96}
7. Tournament Field Use Fee - $22/teamltournament
[Resolution 18356, effective 7/9/96}
8. Facility use permits for the use of special equipment for private parties in
City parks.
Resident Non-resident
a) Commercial Vendor Permit - A $30 Commercial Vendor Permit - A $60
fee will be charged for the use of an air fee will be charged for the use of an air
jump, pony ride, llama ride, petting zoo, or jump, pony ride, llama ride, petting
similar product. zoo, or similar product
b) $50/permit/day for business offering $100/permit/day for business offering
recreational-type activities for profit. recreational-type activities for profit.
b) [Resolution 2001-141, effective05/15/01}
b) [Resolution 18356, effective 7/9/96}
9. Special Interest Classes
Contractual classes shall have a $6.00 registration fee per participant
[Resolution 2003-194, effective 5/13/03}
D. FEE ADJUSTMENTS
All fees in Section B and C hereinabove shall be adjusted annually by the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), San Diego All Urban Consumers, in June of each
year, rounded to the nearest dollar, and effective for the start of the summer class
season. [Resolution 2003-194, effective 5/13/03J
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter VII - Recreation Prograrns/Facilities
Page 26
6-15
Attachment "B"
CHAPTER VII
Recreation Prol!rams/Facilities - AQuatics
B. PROGRAMS
1. Swimming
a. Aquatic Classes
Fees for various aquatic Recreation Di'lision Departmentprograms
and classes shall be as follows. Non-Resident surcharge is 50%:
RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT
ADULTIYOUTH ADULTIYOUTH
1. Summer Learn To $ 33/participant $ 50/participant
Swim $35/oarticioant $53/oarticioant
effective fIrst summer effective fIrst summer
session. 2008 session. 2008
2. Summer Tiny Tots $ 33/participant $ 50 /participant
Swimming $35/oarticioant $53/oarticioant
effective fIrst summer effective fIrst summer
session. 2008 session. 2008
3. Summer Parents & $ 33/participant $ 50/participant
Tots Swimming $35/oarticioant $53/oarticioant
effective fIrst summer effective fIrst summer
session. 2008 session. 2008
4. Spring-Fall Learn $30/participant $ 45/participant
To Swim
5. Spring-Fall $ 30/participant $ 45/participant
Tinv Tots
6. Spring-Fall $ 30/participant $ 45/participant
Parent & Tot
7. Adult Lessons $ ~ 40/oarticioant $ g.60/oarticioant
8. Private Lessons $ ~ l50/oarticioant . . N/A
[Resolution 18356. effective 7/9/96J
[Resolution 2003-194, effective 05/13/03J
b. Pool Passes
Summer Pass (Memorial Day through Labor Day)
Family $75
Other Dates - Purchase Quarterly Pass or Daily
Family m $1l0
Senior $4G $50
Adult $W $75
Child ~ $35
Not available for Non-Residents
6-16
Quarterly:
Quarters:
Family - $B-$110
Senior - $4G$50
Adult - ~$75
Child - ~$35
Not available for Non-Residents
Other Dates - Purchase Daily Admission or other
swun pass
Quarter 1:
Quarter 2:
Quarter 3:
Quarter 4:
c. Ten Swim Pass
Child $-W12
Adult $;W24
Senior $H16
d. ,^.rUlaal Pass
Family $225
Child $ 90
},dalt $1 75
SeIlier $135
Daily Admission Fee
Infant (6 mos - 3 yrs):
Child:
Adult:
Senior:
&d.
C. FACILITY USE
January - March
April- June
July - September
October - December
Free with Adult
$2.00
$3.00
$2.00
W.ll. Swimmine Pools RENT STAFF AS NEEDED
a. Lema Verae
Full Peel Shared Use $W561hr Prevailing hourly staff rate
Partial Pee! Exclusive Use plus Prevailing hourly staff rate
$~ 56.hr
plus
b. Parl~ \Fay $5941I plUG Pr..vailiag hearly Glaff rate
l'uU Peel ~s P-Fe'o'lliliHg-hellfly-slafHate
P-aFtial Peel
c. Realal by -'.RCO OTC" P-3-281hr Prevailing hourly staff rate
Non-profit and Long-Term Shared Use plus
-4-R..,nlal ey CVE>:D or glJHS.j:)ll I'f<>' . . ",Hate
.. [Effective FY99/00J [Resolution 2003-194, effective
05/13/03J [Resolution 2004-257, effective 08/04/04J
6-17
ATTACHMENT C
Thursday - 6:30 p.rn
Public Works Operd
,
7.2007
axwell Road CV
Meeting called to
Statt Present: Buck Martin. Director of Recreation
Dave Byers. Director of Public Works Operations
Jack Griffin. Direct9r,;qf;@E1r:t r j.S ""
Shauna Stokes. A~si, '. . ~ion
Rick Hopkins. Assi~ ublic Works Operations
Larry Eliason. Park$' ace Manager
Ed Hall. Principal ~ nager
John Gates. Seni . Supervisor
Ted Nelson. Recr~ sor III
Manuel Gonzalez: ervisor III
1. Roll Call/Motion to Excuse
ndi. Commissioner Rios.
Members
Members
Commissioner Searles
ht's meeting
2. Approval of Minutes -
a. January 18. 2007 - Movl~'
b. February 15. 2007 - Mo
I
c. Proposed Fee Incr!t(ls ,artment - Ms. Stokes (Assistant Director
of Recreation) inform t the last fee increase for the
Recreation Departfflef) e increase is based on the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) whic~ r in the Master Fee Schedule. and setting up
.
fees for the Departmen ew facilities (Veterans. Montevalle. and Salt
Creek). which are not ( ee Schedule. Other fee increases. higher
than the CPI increase. . ed are for athletics and aquatics. In
addition. Ms. Stokes als'd) costs have increased across the board in all
areas of Recreation. and feels that the fee increases are reasonable and
necessary .
,"
I
.
Ms. Stokes reviewed the!f
equated to 11 %. Review
and Miscellaneo
some of the new
Alcohol Use Fee of $100
$11; eliminating the Ann
Also. changes in rental f
would be gained overall
I
in detail and said that the increase is
creas s at Recreation Centers. Athletics
reviewed. In particular. she noted
nted. and they include: New-
tals. Youth Sports League Fee from $10 to
uatics. and keeping the quarterly pass.
implemented. In total. $75.000 annually
ase.
6-18
Parks and Recreation Commission - May 17, 2007
Page 2 of 7
It was the consensus of all of the commissioners present that the fee increases are
necessary .
Mr. Martin (Director of Recreation) noted that the fee increases would be
revisited within one year. and could possibly be increased yearly, or every other
year.
3. Information Ifen]
I
a. CostPr()j~~tl
Spal:lEl"M !!!i'l'el1'll!1l a watering and cost for
Discovery Park is $100 - $110 per night. Mr. Eliason noted that 1.2 million gallons of
water are used r- . .
C .. R' k I
ommlssloner 10S as e
os, Searles, and Scott absent) to
. ()sed fee increase
Mr. Eliason resp6Eiillfil~'-
the moister in the air.
..-.... . leS do change with the season, and per
Commissioner
certain portion 0
knock that t,ClP;'
watering of tf:i'
moisture in the air me
fields heavily, and tear up
in those spots, it is very easy to
at that he feels that additional
, and not rely on the
could help the con I Ion of fields tremendously.
Commissioner Salcido distrjb k that he took 3 months ago
(prior to the February Par eetingj, and on May 13.
He also noted th(jlt:f , the condition of the fields from 3
months ago to now are, special note, he stated that some areas of
the fields will not recover ar and tear, and will require resodding and
reseeding. He also remi' ne that Discovery Park was shut-down for almost
one-year after re '.. ",91i\~iMi~ar ago, and asked about the cost
related to the resodding and work towards the fields last year. He also asked how or
what the city did to allow the fiel>(ilet into the current condition. The money that
is spent on the fields on renov ., sted money, because there is no upkeep.
Commissioner Salci ..- .---...... and staff that he recognizes
that there are budgetary sent, however, staff needs to look for
alternative funding for the, e fields, th9Jwould bring the fields up to
appropriate playing condit." 0 one i~ e noted in comparison that
Mr. Martin (Director of Recre .... 01 at Recreation centers to bring
in extra revenue; what can be done at Discovery Park to bring extra revenue for
watering purposes and upkeep of the fields? Another note he made is that A YSO
116 (soccer) and Bonita Valley Girls Softball are the two sports that create the most
wear and tear on the fields.
Commissioner Salcido asked and made the suggestion that the teams that utilize the
fields the most should be able to adopt the park or field. The adoption of the fields
6-19
Parks and Recreation Commission - May 17, 2007
Page 3 of 7
would include general mainfenance of the fields, upkeep of the grass, sod, reseed as
needed, etc. Can the City carry out such a suggestions?
Commissioner Salcido also distributed photographs of pictures taken of Veterans Park
3 months ago and present. He noted that the park was in horrible condition 3
months ago, and that present photographs indicate that it's nothing but dirt due to
lack of watering and lack of maintenance. The issues for this park include: the City
has only had this park for l-year, how could this happen to a brand new park, and
hoyv ... .. .ks? 0 we charge additional fees for
the use 0 9 current fees just
approved? . rk. Problems
with boosterl pumps
which, woul'
Mr'~Yl:lr~JD.1
belflfgmw'" . . irIleFl'Wr- , ack of rain in the winter, and
cutting back on the watering, the fields were going to take a hit. With regards to the
booster pump, th~.;lRlI-'- 'nTeiojlq';';:;,f0~;watering the whole park.
I 1~.I;;""I"";;"""'I'liII.'
.""iUEiliihitilltit&q;
Commissioner Salcido s<jl issues with the fields is not about finger-
pointing, it's about what . as an organization, as a municipality, to
alleviate these tyliDe&IGf, "esbassociated with the fields. The City
cannot continue to use the same format as being used now with maintaining the
fieids.
t utilize the fields the most don't
would only be allowed to use
he other year that is not
e, and they have the capability
Commissioner
want to adop
the field eve
being used. These organlza Ions
of charging extra.
Commissioner Salcido on the fields. He
stated that there, tilize the fields, and they cause a lot
of damage to the Ie s'. - ays, he fields are heavily used on a
constant basis. One su harge tournament teams, for example: The
City should charge the utilizing the fields for their tournaments, and the
fees should inclu n the fields to the standard of a pre-
playing condition. The City needs to look for other alternative funding to keep the
fields in proper playing condition.
.. ..... - .. tly taking place (copper theft)
eras should be installed, and violators should
the law allows. What is the cost of a
F'
Commissioner Salciqlil,iigj~~m~.
in the parks in the City. SurVeil
I'>'!!
be prosecuted to the fulle~t"
camera?
Commissioner Salcido noted that he asked parks maintenance department along
with Recreation and meet to come-up with alternative funding for maintaining the
fields. How can these issues be resolved?
Commissioner Salcido also stated that he became aware that the football
organization, National Youth Sports Organization from La Mesa utilizes the fields
without proper authorization from the City, and they are not part of the Youth Sports
6-20
Parks and Recreation Commission - May 17, 2007
Page 4 of 7
Council. Signage should posted in the parks to read: "No organized sports with out
proper permit". Park Rangers cannot cite them for improper use of the fieids.
Coordination with the Chula Vista Police Department should be taking place when
unauthorized organized sports, utilize the fields. When condition of park is being
reviewed, the City should look at who is utilizing the park. The City needs to be pro-
active with the maintenance of the fieids.
Mr. Byers (Director of Public Works Operations) noted that the parks currently have
si9r:'l
Ina lion,!
Departmen~
park rangers
fields, as thel
~~~:~~~~;~.
Commissioner Perondi stated that policies for fieid usage need to be developed
before someon ':'-'€f~it~~,!the opinion of the City
Attorney is needed wit. ting ~~~ields to only Chula Vista
residents, and Chula Vis!' . The popuiation in Chula Vista is now 230
thousand, and hard de e made with regards to usage of fields. The
fieid usage neeGSh.t0li!i>' . ;1.i6ilforward in a structured way with
organized usage vs. community usage. He further stated that the new parks were
built for the com'3JU . jswanting to be insulting to the
organized sport~, ge that is currently happening,
it appears thatth the fields due to the heavy
programmi , ,a spect of park programming
changed. "
Ted Nelson {Recreation Supervisor JJD,informedJhecommission that most of the parks
have discontinued organize<:j;,p[Z " parks are available to the
community. /'
Mr. Byers {Director 0 Pub
Veterans Park is closing'
$6,300. In addition, he ri
play, and stated,
fields independently for use.
era Ions Informed the Commission that
7 for 5-6 months and the cost to hydro seed it is
jor damage is caused by soccer practice and
reation centers were programming
Commissioner Salcido statecjJh
condition due to th'" "
seeded, etc.
Vista High School fields are in very good
rts users. They are watered,
i'~-"":'.I
Mr. Byers responded that tl\1 ve th,eJr~~i1!W/n to close the gates to their
fields, thus not allowing open an~formatlon item to Council is
being sent in the upcoming week informing them of the condition of Veterans Park.
Mr. Byers again reiterated that the Department cut back on watering the fields, no
rain this past winter, and having 2-weeks of hard freeze, caused a lot of the problems
with the fields. None of these weather elements helped the fields citywide. In
addition, he stated tl\1at it is very obvious that the fields at Veterans Park had
incredible usage, in that all 3 fields were programmed with 6 planned soccer games
going crossways, then later, adult games were planned going the other way. He also
6-21
Parks and Recreation Commission - May 17, 2007
Page 5 of 7
informed the Commission of his conversation with Matt Little, of General Services, that
after this field was established, it stayed closed for l-year, to ensure the turf was
strong and roots were deep. It was agreed by all that this wasn't going to work well
with all the new parks, where the fields would be fenced off, so the City tried to
monitor and carefully program the fields. It is his opinion thaf the City began
programming the new parks too soon, and too much programming is taking place.
Commissioner Cien-Mayer asked how long Discovery Park was closed for, and how
10 wOScit 10 . . -tob€l,d differently at Veterans, than
who was Dce.
I....
Mr. Byers res renovation
was June 1, . yers
responded t ass is
establish<?g) II not be allowed,
an!:J'~0i'e,.~i!l 'l!lf1'~pei' er supervisors are not over-
programming the fields separate from the youth league.
Council should be
ugh for usag€l of the fields. These organized
. y higher fees to the Youth Sports Council, and
Commission€lf Cien-Ma
higher than the $11; thisl
sports have funds and q
additional fees ~12l
b. KP JCV Kids";" ager) provided information on
a partnership Kaiser Permanente entered
into. The'prO (KP/CV KIDS). This program is
for famili' . to provide families
with the knowle ge an S] 0 lead a hea y I es ye. The program runs for six
weeks, one session per week, fgrJ.,Y.. bours.per.s~ssion and typically includes a
staff nutritionist, behavIPr' " . This program is off€lred at
various recreation ce? d the cost of the initial six-
week progra. . oose, shop and prepare nutritious,
healthy and we 1- a s, games and physical activities for the whole
family.
c. CV POWERjC "with Recreation - Mr. Ed Hall (Principal
Recreation Manager) provided information on the CV PWER/Chula Vista
Physicians Working with Recre.'o He informed the commission that Healthy
Eating Active Communities Commissioner Searles, and Recreation staff
were teaming Ulilii_~' .-. ree exercise program to help
parents and children fi e further stated that participants have an
opportunity to enter e~ e Fit programs and regular drop in activities
at Community Centersii . He als,,' med the Commission that
doctors would fill out pre scription pads to bring to the
recreation facility to get children exercising and moving. Currently the initial
program is limited in scope, however, the program is expected to be expanded
in the future once the pilot program is compl€lte.
d. Results of April 19,2007 Council Budget Workshop - Recreation - Mr. Martin
(Director of Recreation) informed the Commission, that it was required to cancel
the April Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, as department directors
6-22
Parks and Recreation Commission - May 17, 2007
Page 6 of 7
were required to be in attendance at the Council Budget Workshop. Mr. Martin
discussed the results of the Council Budget Workshop that was held on April 19,
2007 as it pertained to Recreation. Mr. Martin informed the Commission thot
each City department was given a net cost of budget reductions. The reduction
for the Recreation Department consists of: reducing hours of operation at
selected recreation facilities and making various operation changes, Service and
Supply Reduction, and Increase Recreation Fees.
e. Results. erations - Mr.
Byers (Dif t's service
impacts i ublic Works
9pergtio ct Service Impacts
L€lI'I'€Fi~e Sqili'!l)jreelriSS nclude: Reducing Park
Maintenance Levels to include eliminating four vacant gardener positions, and
reduced wate~,liJ.~~~i~" El. -'~i:j~j~ffif!~!.i.the turf, litter pickup will take
longer to complete"r .. c1eal'ltq~i~e parks, etc.; Reduce
Street Sweeping Se : reets will not be cleaned as often: Reduce
Tree-Trimming Serviq number of trees trimmed will be reduced by
15%; and Se'-"--' ...: iLiiiltions. Development Services impacts
include: Reductions in Deveiopment Services positions, and Service and Supply
Budget
The
on and thanked Mr. Byers for his
f. Proposed FY 07- apl a mprovement Progra - ark and Recreation Project
Funding Summary - Mr. Jack c;riffin(Dir:ectoLoLGeneral Services) briefly discussed
the Capitallmprovemi~l}tF'~~i:lr"ff!-e;:!'ti ecreation projects. The
total proposed budgE1:t' He ret . e projects that were
distributed in t. . cts include: Outdoor Sports Courts
Renovation, Par wa,! op Park Renovation, Rohr Park Gazebo
Renovation, etc.
4. Unfinished Business: i.JiC~,J
5. New Business: None
6. Written Communications: None
7. Commission CommentS~;*jh~jiii~i,'.e
.
I
Commissioner Perondi informe:
Commission meeting, which w
their hard towards creating new F, d jokingly stated that although he
enjoyed naming parks, he was saddened that a park was not named after him. He also
noted that he enjoyed his tenure on the Commission, and wanted staff to know that
there are not enough aquatic facilities. With regards to earlier discussion on field
conditions, Commissioner Perondi stated that the City really needs to take a firm look
and make firm decisions with regards to field maintenance, the conditions the tields are
in, and usage of tields, "Lay Fallow" Field Plan, before someone gets hurt. He also
reminded everyone that when he first began his tenure on the Commission, field usage
6-23
Parks and Recreation Commission - May 17, 2007
Page 7 of 7
and field maintenance were an issue, and back then, he asked that the City review their
policy on field usage. Perhaps, charging an out of season-fee or in-season fee would
help. Perhaps looking at volunteers to maintain parks, and hopefully, this would not take
away permanent positions in Parks Division, however this would deal with labor issues. In
addition, to Mr. Byers' statement about the schools closing their gates to the fields,
Commissioner Perondi suggested that a letter be sent to the Board of Trustees on behalf
of the Department and/or Commission with regards to field allocation.
CommissioflerSgI
, ~!iWlMUMj1Jrt0'itiDfu;~1;:
8. Staff commentf
a.
he
tic Supervisor II,
01 Council Agenda
b.
Mr. Byers (Dif,,~jQ!:~\ll" .... 'l1i[i~!i~ii:lf;~fLl;Ied the Commission that
vandalism has occu e pa~~~bndals are stealing the
copper wiring. To d as been $25,000, and General Services has
been working with c;l ice Department. In addition, Shelter Fee
increase is beliii~b"iilmreservation software is being
researched and considered to make park reservations a bit easier for customers.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p
Margarita Cella no'
6-24
ATTACHMENT "D" FEE SCHEDULE
Current Fees 11 % CPI Increase Julv 1, 2007
Facilitv II III IV II III IV
Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour
1. Parkway Gymnasium
a. Gymnasium $15 $60 $120 $17 $67 $133
2. Parkway Comm Center
a. Auditorium/Main Hall $15 $50 $100 $17 $56 $111
b. Classroom $10 $30 $60 $11 $33 $67
c. Dance room $10 $30 $60 $11 $33 $67
d. Kitchen facilities $5 $10 $20 $6 $11 $22
3. Heritage Comm Center
a. Auditorium/Main Hall $15 $50 $]00 $17 $56 $11]
b. Outdoor/stage $]5 $50 $100 $17 $56 $111
c. Craft Room $10 $30 $60 $11 $33 $67
d. Kitchen $5 $]0 $20 $6 $11 $22
4. Norman Park Center
a. Cornell Hall $100 $200 $111 $222
5. Lorna Verde Rec Center
a. Auditorium/Assembly $15 $50 $]00 $]7 $56 $111
Hall
b. Classroom $10 $25 $50 $11 $28 $56
c. Dance room $10 $30 $60 $11 $33 $67
d. Kitchen $5 $10 $20 $6 $11 $22
6. CV Comm Youth Center
a. Gymnasium $15 $50 $100 $17 $56 $111
b. Classroom $10 $30 $60 $11 $33 $67
c. Dance Room $10 $25 $50 $11 $28 $56
7. CV Women's Club $75 $150 $83 $167
8. Other Rec Facilities
a. Memorial Bowl $60 (2 br $120 $67 (2 br $133
mininaum) rnininaum)
9. Otay Recreation Center
a. Gymnasium $10 $50 $100 $11 $56 $111
10. Fitness Center Otay Fee for 12 week session Fee for 12
week session
Resident Non-Residen Resident Non-Residen
Adults/Seniors $25 $50 $28 $56
14-18 $15 $30 $17 $33
6-25
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO
EFFECT CHANGES TO EXISTING FEES AND THE ADDITION
OF NEW FEES FOR RECREATION
WHEREAS, the Recreation Department last updated fees in June 2003; and
WHEREAS, staff is proposing fee increases and changes, and new fees based upon: (I) the
Consumer Price Index (CPI); (2) informal surveys and assessments of what increases would be
appropriate in the Chula Vista "market"; and (3) City cost increases. New fees and/or increases are
proposed for Facility Rentals, Athletics, Aquatics, and Miscellaneous; and
WHEREAS, costs have increased across the board in all areas of Recreation: in salaries and
wages; in benefits; for supplies and services; escalating utility costs; and higher equipment costs; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines because it
does not involve a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060( c)(3) of
the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the staff report and
recommended adoption of the proposed fee increases at its May 17, 2007 meeting; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
amends the Master Fee Schedule to effect changes to existing fees and the addition of new fees for
Recreation.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Buck Martin
Director of Recreation
'\~\.\'(Q{\\\~'fk\\
Ann Moore -
City Attorney
J:\Attorney\RESO\FINANCE\Amd Master Fee Schedule Recreation.doc
6-26
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
TO EFFECT CHANGES TO EXISTING FEES AND THE
ADDITION OF NEW FEES FOR AQUATICS
WHEREAS, recreation fees have not been revised since 2003 although costs of operations
and service delivery have risen substantially.; and
WHEREAS, staff is proposing fee increases and changes, and new fees based upon: (1) the
Consumer Price Index (CPI); (2) informal surveys and assessments of what increases would be
appropriate in the Chula Vista "market"; and (3) City cost increases. New fees and/or increases are
proposed for Facility Rentals, Athletics, Aquatics, and Miscellaneous; and
WHEREAS, costs have increased across the board in all areas of Recreation: in salaries and
wages; in benefits; for supplies and services; escalating utility costs; and higher equipment costs; and
WHEREAS, the proposed increases will not cover actual costs of program delivery and are a
balance of community need and business necessity; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the staff report and
recommended adoption of the proposed fee increases at its May 17,2007 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it
does not involve a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060( c )(3) of
the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is
necessary; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
amends the Master Fee Schedule to effect changes to existing fees and the addition of new fees for
aquatics.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Buck Martin
Director of Recreation
~'S~~{~~~.
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J:\Attomey\RESO\FINANCE\Amd Master Fee Schedule Recreation.doc
6-27