HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1991/12/19
U] <j~~~'~-~ ~}fI~.r-,.. f:,-:;na1-::y of ~e'l"':'.!t.y th~1; I g,m
em' . , _; "."'" ,:~-! "~ ""1 :;~ -::na
~ :;:,,-j
. ,_,"; '~,:J t~-'~; ", u :3:t
Thursday, December 19, 1991... . :"";-:l/lCO. Eu',c:iT; z~j 8, CliX, iH311 onCouncil Conference Room
4:00 p.m. I.);,,~~ /;;?' /zr/ '1/ 5'::;";:00; Y/7- "Administration Building
Adiourned MeetinS( of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROlL CALL: Councilmembers Grasser Horton ~ Malcolm _' Moore ~ Rindone ~ and
Mayor Nader _'
2, APPROVAL OF MINlITES: None submitted.
3. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The stoff recommendatio1I regarding the following items 1isted under the Consent Ca1endor will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a CounciJmember, a member of the publU: or City stoff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak 011 one of these items, p/uJse ftll out a 'Rl!L[IIeSt to
Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the stoff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the stoff
recommendation.) Items puUed from the Consent Ca1endor will be discussed after Action Items and Boards and
Commission Recommendations. Items pulled by the publU: will be the first items of business.
4. WRITfEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as publU: hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, please ftll out the .~ to Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the stoff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the stoff recommendation.) Conrments are limited to five mi1wtes per individual.
None scheduled.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunily for the general publU: to address the City Council 011 any subject matter within the Council's
jurisdU;tion that is not an item 011 this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from
taking action 011 any issues not included 011 the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council 011 such a
subject, please complete the yellow 'Rl!L[IIeSt to SpeaIc Under Oral Communications Form' available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your 1I/J11U! and address
for record purposes and fol/ow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
Agenad
-2-
December 19, 1991
ACllON ITEMS
The items listed in this section of tire agenda are expected to e/U;jJ substa1JtiaI discussions and deliberations by tire
CoundI, staff, or members of tire general publk. The items will be considered individually by tire Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in tire alJenuJJive. Those who wish to speak, p1elJse fill out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City CIerlc prior to the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes.
5. RESOLUIlON 16441 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONfRACT FOR GROUNDS
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT - Bids were received and opened on 11/5/91
for the purchase of grounds maintenance equipment approved in the FY
91-92 budget. The equipment consists of one turf tractor with front
mounted mowers and two turf tractors with grass collection systems. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) Continued
from the meeting of December 17,1991.
6. REPORT ON WATER MASTER PLAN STUDY FOR EASTERN CHULA VISTA - (City
Manager) Continued from the meeting of December 17, 1991.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time tire City Council will consider items whii:h have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of tire City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ITEMS PUIJ.ED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is tire time tire City Council will discuss items whii:h have been removed from tire Consent CaIeruIar. Agenda
items puUed at tire request of tire public will be considered prior to those puUed by CounciJmembers. Public
comments are limited to five minutes per individual
OTHER BUSINESS
7. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
8. MAYOR'S REPORTCs)
9. COUN(JL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Otay Municipal Water District
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on January
7, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
/
// C i
/(.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
11.4 ~ \
Accepting bids and awarding contract
equipment
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance ~t
IlEYIEVED BY, City 0""'1 ~ 11 1</5th. Vot" V"----""ll
Bids were received and opened at 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1991 in the office
of the Purchasing Agent for the purchase of the following grounds maintenance
equipment:
ITEM TITLE:
;r ,.-/
Item ~
;;<) j'1.
Meeting Date IV17i91 7/'1;1/
for grounds maintenance
lID!
1
2
ill
1
2
DESCRIPTION
Turf Tractor with front mounted mowers
Turf Tractor with grass collection system
RECOfMENDATION: That Council accept the bids and award the contract to San
Diego Turf in the amount of $49,222.36.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Bid proposal forms were mailed to prospective vendors with two submitting the
following bids:
ITEM 1 - Turf tractor (I) with front mounted mowers
BIDDER
UNIT
fRill
$12,453.10
$16,857.00
SALES
JAL
$1,027.38
$1,390.70
AMOUNT
$13,480.48
$18,247.70
C.R. Jaeschke, Inc., San Diego
San Diego Turf, San Diego
The low bidder, C.R. Jaeschke, Inc., submitted a bid on a Steiner Model 420
Tractor/Mower. The unit does not meet specifications. Bid specifications
requested a minimum 80 inch cutting width, center deck with a minimum 54 inch
cutting width and hydraulically operated wing decks for transporting and
cutting at various widths. The hydraulically operated wing decks make it
possible for the operator to raise one or two cutting decks while mowing
narrow turf areas. This enables the cutting widths to be adjusted to cut in a
54 inch, 71 inch or 88 inch swathe. It is also advantageous to be able to
lift both decks when transporting the equipment to other park sites allowing
more storage room for other equipment on the trailer. The Steiner has a
single 72 inch cutting width deck with no wing decks. The Steiner tractor is
powered by a 17 HP engine where specifications required a minimum 22 HP
engine. A 22 HP engine was specified to adequately handle the drive unit and
hydraulic system. Wing decks require more hydraulic equipment which requires
a higher horsepower engine to operate the equipment.
The unit bid by San Diego Turf is a Toro Groundmaster 322-D, meets the
requirements of the specifications and is acceptable to the using department.
~5-/
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 12/17/91
ITEM 2 - Turf tractor (2) with grass collection system
BIDDER
UNIT
PRICE
X 2
TRACTORS
SALES
TAX
AMOUNT
C.R. Jaeschke, Inc., San Diego
San Diego Turf, San Diego
12,408.00 24,816.00 2,047.32 $26,863.32
14,307.00 28,614.00. 2,360.66 $30,974.66
The low bidder, C.R. Jaeschke, Inc., submitted a bid on a Seiner Model 220
Tractor which does not comply with City specifications relating to the grass
collection system. Specifications also call for a one piece high density
polyethylene hopper with two piece cover with automatic release cover latch.
High impact polyethylene will not rust and with an automatic release cover
latch does not require the operator to get off his seat to open and close the
latch. The Steiner unit is a sheet metal hopper with manual cover latch.
The unit bid by San Diego Turf is a Toro Groundmaster 220-0, meets
specifications and is acceptable to the using department.
FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of purchasing the equipment is within the amounts
budgeted in the FY 1991-92 Equipment Replacement Fund. The equipment being
replaced will be sold at auction.
WPC 030SU
~ ~)..
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, at 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1991, in the office
of the Purchasing Agent, the Purchasing Agent received bids for the
purchase of the following grounds maintenance equipment:
nm:I
Qll
DESCRIPTION
Turf Tractor with front mounted mowers
Turf Tractor with grass collection system
1
2
1
1
WHEREAS, two bids were submitted for Item 1 as follows:
Bidder Unit Price Sales Tax Amount
C.R. Jaeschke, Inc. $12,453.10 $1,027.38 $13,480.48
San Diego
San Diego Turf $16,857.00 $1,390.70 $18,247.70
WHEREAS, the low bidder, C.R. Jaeschke, Inc., submitted
a bid on a Steiner Model 420 Tractor/Mower which unit does not meet
specifications; and
WHEREAS, the unit bid by San Diego Turf meets the
requirements of the specifications and is acceptable to the using
department; and
WHEREAS, two bids were submitted for Item 2 as follows:
Price for
Bidder Two Tractors Sales Tax Amount
C.R. Jaeschke, Inc. $24,816.00 $2,047.32 $26,863.32
San Diego
San Diego Turf $28,614.00 $2,360.66 $30,974.66
WHEREAS, the low bidder, C.R. Jaeschke, Inc., submitted
a bid on a Steiner Model 220 Tractor unit does not meet
specifications; and
WHEREAS, the unit bid by San Diego Turf meets the
requirements of the specifications and is acceptable to the using
department.
1
~S3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula Vista does hereby accept said two bids and does
hereby award the contract for Items 1 and 2 to San Diego Turf, who
has assured the City they are a licensed contractor who can prOduce
a performance bond in the State of California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said contracts for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by
Approved as t
vbvk
Bruce M. Boogaa
Attorney
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
C.\RS\qr maint bid
2
~ 5-Lj-
COUNC:U. AGENDA STATEMENT
XTEK TXTLE:
U_~0
lIeeUnq Date I.y/, t/9/ i~1)'j1
Report on Water Master Plan study for Eastern
Chula Vista
Resolution authorizing a study to Evaluate the
Otay Water District Master Plan and the cost
effectiveness of their future plans as it
relates to the Chula vista General Plan Area
and, if necessary, to determine remedial
action, and appropriate funds therefor
city Manager -...l4 ~f!!]j
(4/5ths Vote: Yes-X-- 50___)
SUBMXTTED BY:
About two years ago, when you adopted the General Plan, you
expressed concerns about water availability, supply, storage and
quality, as well as proper planning for the total infrastructure of
the community. since then, I have given you reports over the past
few years dealing with water issues facing Chula Vista as this
relates to the Otay Water District.
In summary of those reports, I think it has been recognized
by both those in the County Water Authority and other water
districts that, over the long term, the Otay Water District has not
shown a proficiency for future planning. In the past, the District
had the reputation of "living off the pipeline."
As you know, the otay Water District has had a reputation, and
probably will continue to have a reputation, of having higher costs
than the other major water provider in Chula Vista, the Sweetwater
Authori ty. This is in part because of new facilities being
constructed by Otay,whereas the Sweetwater Authority facilities
are pretty much in place. On the other hand, Sweetwater has an
older system, which is requiring major maintenance expenditures as
compared to the part of the Otay Water District in Chula Vista
which does not.
In recent years, we believed that there had been a major
effort to turn that around, with the hiring of new General Manager,
and with the planning of the District infrastructure, including the
preparation of a new Master Plan for the District.
However, recent events have focused new concern over the
planning and cost efficiency decisions of the otay Water District,
and the general impact this will have in Chula Vista and its
environs.
1
~ &~I
It_ 1'/
.eetiDq Date 12-17-'1
While the own has finally prepared a draft master plan for
its district operations (a copy of which we have received only
recently), it has not yet prepared an Environmental Impact Report
for this plan, and yet are beginning to implement portions of it,
such as the purchase of some 49 acres from the Baldwin to construct
a tank farm. While there may be a good reason for this purchase
(it certainly was a good economic deal for the district), it
appears to Staff, as lay observers, that this is a much more
expensive way to accomplish water storage than obtaining lake
storage rights by working with the Sweetwater Authority or the City
of San Diego.
Because of this action by the District, especially without
evaluating the economics of other alternatives, at least from what
we have been able to determine, we have a concern that present and
future Chula Vista water ratepayers may be spending millions of
unnecessary, extra dollars in developing water infrastructure just
for these water projects, compared to other infrastructure needs
that will be required to build this part of the community. This
ultimately will mean higher costs for property owners coming into
the community.
It should be pointed out that this is an area of concern and
that the Otay Water District is now willing, apparently after the
fact, to prepare an EIR on the land acquisition for the Tank Farm.
While this is all well and good, it would be good public policy to
develop additional independent data as to whether or not the action
of buying land and ultimately building such a massive tank farm, is
going to be in the best interest of the overall public.
The above comments are made recognizing that the City and City
staff are not water experts, and at this point we are only raising
concerns which we feel should be addressed because these actions
may have significant impact on the overall cost of infrastructure
in developing new areas to the east of the City.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to conduct a two phase study of the impacts of
recent actions of Otay Water District, the first phase of
which is to determine if the planned facilities are adequate
and the most cost effective to be able to keep the costs to
current and future Chula Vista customers at the lowest
possible level. If phase I determines that there are negative
adverse cost impacts on the development of Chula vista by
actions of the District, then the City Manager is authorized
to conduct phase II which is to determine options for the City
including developing significant detailed information to
2
ft4 ~-;(
...ting
It_ 5~
Dat. ~1 J~i1/
respond to the two EIR's which hopefully will be prepared by
the District.
2. Authorize the city Attorney to commence litigation against the
Otay Water District to require them to a) rescind the action
to purchase the 49 acre reservoir site, b) conduct a master
plan of their water system, c) conduct an EIR on their Master
plan and d) conduct an EIR on the proposed reservoir site.
3. Appropriate $50,000 for the CEQA suit and $110,000, $10,000
for phase I and $100,000 for phase II for the Water Master
Plan.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A
D:ISCUSS:ION
As stated above, staff has been concerned for several years
about the ability of Otay to advance plan their facilities to
provide water when needed and at the lowest costs to our citizens.
It wasn't until a new Director arrived two years ago that they were
able to enter into a contract with a conSUlting firm to complete a
master plan.
We have recently learned that it is an adopted policy of OWD
to provide a 5 day, 380 Million Gallons, of terminal storage in
concrete storage tanks. They also purchased a 49 acre site from
Baldwin without an EIR, and are planning to purchase additional
property from EastLake. Based upon advise from water Engineers and
staff from other water purveyors, this much concrete storage is too
costly and difficult to maintain the water quality.
Chula vista does not have staff that are experts in the water
service business. But staff is concerned that otay is giving
adequate and economical service to our existing and future
citizens. staff believes it prudent to hire experts to guide us in
evaluating Otay's plans. The problem is that if these alternatives
are too expensive, it will take resources away from other major
infrastructure needs such as sewer, streets, schools, parks,
libraries and fire stations.
Tank Site EIR
The District Counsel has indicated by letter that they will do
an EIR on the Master Plan. Also, the Otay Water District has
tentatively agreed to perform an EIR for the tank site purchase.
They have not agreed to rescind the purchase nor have they agreed
to place themselves in the same unbiased position they would have
3
~ ~;-3
zt_ I '-I
.eetinq Dat. 12-17-91
been in had they environmentally reviewed the Master Plan and the
Tank Farm purchase prior to acquisition. Our legal advisors
believe it in the best interest of the City to file a lawsuit prior
to the expiration of the CEQA statute of Limitation to achieve the
following:
1)
Perform an EIR on the 49 acre tank
design on the storage reservoir.
alternative sites and alternative
storage.
farm site prior to any
This would include
solutions to concrete
2) Complete the Master Plan for their facilities.
3) Perform an EIR on the Master Plan, including cost benefit
analysis.
4) Rescind the purchase with Baldwin, or at least enter into an
agreement with Baldwin to let either party back out of the
deal.
Conclusion
There may be concerns that Otay Water District is moving in
the wrong direction in implementing Terminal storage facilities.
They have just completed a Draft Master Plan for the District.
However, an EIR for the Master Plan needs to be accomplished prior
to its adoption. Also, the District is purchasing land for
Terminal storage facilities prior to the Master Plan being adopted
and environmental review being conducted. The Master Plan shows
approximately $225 million in capital improvements to be installed
during the next 10 years. Of that amount, $118 million (over 50%)
is for terminal storage alone. I believe other options for
terminal storage should be considered and we should retain
expertise to review their Master Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be an immediate cost to the General Fund of $10,000 for
the first phase of the study. The litigation and the second phase
of the study is expected not to exceed $160,000. However, there
could be savings to the public that could exceed several million
dollars over the next 10 years if a less costly alternative for
terminal storage is found.
4
~ &-'/