HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/05/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING/'WORKSESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Thursday, May 27, 1993 Council Conference Room
4:10 p.m. Administration Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton (left meeting at 5:40 p.m.), Moore, Kindone,
and Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Vicki
C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk
BUSINESS
Mayor Nader stated Council had two full business meetings already during the week. The agenda had not
been voted upon by Council or called for by the Mayor as provided for by ordinance. Therefore, it was his
understanding that unless there was some urgency Counc~ was without authority to act on the items on the
agenda except for the item continued from the 5/25/93 meeting on solid waste. He questioned whether
there was an urgency that would require Council's action on the other items.
David Palmer, Acting Library Director, stated he would like Council to take action on the design of the
library because there was a very tight schedule regarding deadlines for the State grant.
MSUC (Naderfrlorton) to find an urgent need to take action on the approval on the design of the h'brary.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated there was no legal urgency in terms of action required by Council
regarding the GMOC report. Council had directed staff to schedule the review of the report in a workshop
setting in conjunction with the budget process. Therefore, information based on their recommendations
could be considered during consideration of the budget.
2. REVIEW OF DESIGN OF SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY - The design architect, Kichard Legorreta,
and interior designer, Marshall Brown, will present the report on design plans of the South Chula Vista
Library based upon input received during the design process. Staff recommends acceptance of the design.
(Acting Library Director)
MSC [Moore/Nadec) to accept the report and approve staff recommendation. Approved 4-0-1 with Holton
absent
3. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
(GMOC) 1992 ANNUAL REPORT - Pursuant to requirements of the CiVfs growth management program, the
annual report reflects the outcome of analysis of information presented by various City departments and
external agencies regarding the impacts of growth on each of the eleven facility and service topics covered
by the Threshold Standards. The report serves to identify whether or not the City is in compliance with each
of the standards, to make related recommendations to Council on any actions believed necessary to remedy
identified deficiencies, and/or ensure continuing compliance. Staff recommends Council accept the 1992
Report and direct the undertaking of those subsequent actions necessary to implement the recommendations.
(Director of Planning)
Mayor Nader stated staff would reschedule the review of the GMOC 1992 Annual Report for another
meeting.
ORAL COI~fvlUN~CATIONS
None
Minutes
May 27, 2993
Page 2
4. {.j'IY MANAGER'S REPORT{S) - None
5. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None
6. COUNCIL COMMF2qrS
Councilman Rindone:
· Request for excused absence from Council Meetings of 6/5/93 and 6/8/93 in order to perform
representative duties for MTDB.
MSC CNader/Moore) to approve the request to excuse absences for Councilmember Rindone on 6/5/93 and
6/8/93. Approved 3-0-1-1 with Horton absent and Rindone abstaining.
7.A. REPORT LIPDATE ON REGIONAL SOLID WASTE ISSUES - on 3/3/0/93 AND
4/20/93, Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement.
Since that time, a San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) committee of elected officials has been
meeting to negotiate the revised agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and acceptance
of the report. (Administration) Continued from the meeting of 5/25/93.
B. RESOLUTION 17129 APPROVING AGI~RF. MENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABLISHING AN INTERI1VI SOLID WAb-i-I~ COMMISSION
AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WA:>-iI:, AND COMIMH-HNG FIFTY PER CENT OF THE
CITY'S WASTSTREA~I TO THE COUNTY
Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant, informed Council that nine cities had approved the
agreement and four cities had rejected the agreement (Escondido, Encinitas, Carlshad, and Oceanside).
City Manager Goss stated the agreement as proposed to Council initially required approval by all cities. One
of the agencies that voted against the agreement did so due to the Grand Jury report. After review of the
report he felt it was very biased and not only criticized the County but the cities in the County for not being
able to get together to put a system together. He suggested Council adopt the resolution with conditions
included in the 5/27/93 staff report. The first condition dealt with the solid waste facility fee. The second
recommendation dealt with the remaining uncommitted 50%. An additional condition should be added
where authority and responsibility would be vested in the same body. He felt the issues of siting authority
within the permanent governing authority needed to be worked out before the final agreement. Protecting
the City~s General Fund should also be negotiated.
MOTION: eqader} communicate to the County that the City was willing to join the agreement and commit
50% of the City's waste sueam to the County at this time with the initial Conditions 1 and 2 that were in
the revised staff report {5//27/93); and with the additional condition that a mechanism be provided to the
City's satisfaction whereby the City would have the ability to review any requests for cost increases for
reasonableness in light of alternatives before approving. Motion died for lack of second.
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether staff had looked at all alternatives to the agreement.
City Manager Goss stated he was unaware of viable alternatives. There was nothing he felt comfortable with
to break out of the overall County system. The County had looked at the alternatives in much more detail.
Councilman Rindone expressed concern regarding the commitment by the City for a twenty year agreement
and the possibility of greater costs to the rate payers in two, five, or ten years if cheaper alternatives were
discovered during that time. He was concerned that alternatives had not been assessed as adequately as they
should have been. He was trying to ascertain as to whether there were other alternatives and information
Minutes
May 27, 1993
Page 3
received from Mr. Chase indicated there were. He felt he had a responsibility to get clarification due to the
importance of the issue.
City Manager Goss responded that over the last ten years there had been battles over issues and throughout
it all nothing had come up. Now, at the last minutes there were suggestions of alternatives. He felt the
burden of proof had to be on the other alternatives. What he had seen was not convincing.
Councilmember Rindone stated two other issues should be reviewed: 1) Orange County was currently
charging $32.75 per ton and would guarantee that for five years which included a $10.00 host fee; and 2)
Laidlaw owned a landfill in Los Angeles and charged $24 per ton and he questioned whether something
could be negotiated.
City Manager Goss stated the North County cities would be better able to take advantage of that. It was his
understanding that after review they rejected it. The most recent recommendation was by Waste
Management Systems of E1 Cajon which stated they had technology where they could avoid a transfer station
and haul it to their site in northern Los Angeles County. Laidlaw was indicating they could possibly do the
same for the City. It was new information. He felt private industry was frustrated in their discussions with
the County.
Councilmember Rindone stated he had discussed with Supervisor Bilbray the possibility of the South County
forming their own JPA. He did not see it in the recommendation and felt it was an option that should be
seriously looked at.
City Manager Goss responded a JPA was technically feasible.
Councilmember Moore stated the main thrust to consider should be the present system in effect. The system
had been operated by the County, for the cities, for decades and the cities could not just dump it. Checks
and balances could be built in. The question was how the current system could be kept going without going
bankrupt. That could be done with a 50% commitment by the cities of their waste flow. That would allow
time, through an interim commission, to pursue other alternatives. If anything, the County should be
criticized for not increasing their tipping fee years ago to cover the system from "birth to death~.
Councilmember Fox stated an analysis of alternatives was not available to make ajudgement and he did not
feel comfortable with the proposal. He was concerned regarding the City Attorney's comments regarding
the agreement and did not see how the recommendations in the staff report addressed those concerns.
City Manager Goss stated he had not seen an analysis of alternatives to prove there were viable alternatives.
It had also not been shown that there were not viable alternatives but he felt the burden of proof should
be on those stating there were viable alternatives. He also had concerns.
Councilmember Fox felt there was a perception problem with the bonding of twenty years for a facility that
had a seven year life.
Councilmember Rindone stated it may be true that there were no other viable options but Council wanted
to be sure they had options, and not be locked into an agreement where in three, five, or ten years those
options would not be approachable due to the twenty year term of the agreement.
Brian Bilbray, Supervisor, San Diego County, stated Council was not voting on a County proposal but the
cities' consensus. The regional consensus was that there should be a joint group to address the issues. The
three cities that asked for the agreement did a study on alternatives and their consultants stated they should
stay with the County. The cities, working as a regional body, voted that on 7/1/93 if the document was not
signed the County would place as 50% surcharge on the waste stream of all of the agencies. It was not set
b~the County but by the joint bodies. If the City stayed on the outside, the cities that signed would develop
that participation. Coronado, National City, and Imperial Beach had signed the agreement and ifChula Vista
signed, and the four southbay cities stuck together, they could protect their constituents from the rate
increases better than any other part of the region. The County could not give the City the right to vote on
Minutes
May 27, 1993
Page 4
)
the rate schedule because the County was the agency and the agency holding the liability had to have the
final authority. They had agreed to that if a JPA was formed. If the City did not sign the agreement they
would not be able to be pro-active regarding alternatives, the City would become only a consumer.
Mayor Nader felt there were a lot of legitimate concerns expressed and that there were alternatives that if
not ready now, would be w/thin the terms of the agreement. For staff to state the burden of proof was on
someone else to show there were alten~atives was falling short of the type of analysis he wanted to see. He
felt his motion would have made the 50% commitment the County was asking for but would place certain
conditions, i.e. reviewing authority. Then if there were alternatives and the County refused to look at the
alternatives the cities would have a safety valve.
Supervisor Bilbray stated the intent of Mayor Nadefs motion was fair and equitable. He wanted the City
to share the responsibility of setting rates.
Councilmember Fox expressed concern that with four cities not signing the agreement the JPA would come
back and say more than 50% was needed.
Supervisor Bflbray stated that was possible. There was no game pIan, if they had 100% of Chula Vista they
would not need any other city in the region. Then, if Chula Vista pushed for voting power on how much
waste they committed to the system, which is what he had fought for, the City would have more conttol
than any other city.
Councilmember Rindone requested clarification of the twenty year bonding period for a facility that had a
seven year life.
Lin Wurbs, Program Manager, Solid Waste Division, County of San Diego, stated it was a replenishment of
the fund. Expenditures had already been made. i.e. the Vista transfer station. The San Marcos landfill had
an expected life of ten years, the CUP had been granted for seven years, It was not unusual to bond to
replenish a fund for expenditures made. They were increasing the funds availability to spend money in the
future on capital needs for the rest of the projects.
Councilman Rindone questioned if the City were to approve the agreement with the three or four conditions
recommended by staff if it would meet the intent of the agreement since other municipalities had passed
the agreement with other conditions. He also questioned if it provided the basis so the bonding capacity
could be legally issued.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the different division of the host fee the current staff report was insignificant.
The agreement stated it was to be a 10% host fee in effect on 1/1/93. The host fee was about to go up at
the time the agreement was executed. The proposed agreement stated $2.80 not $4.30. The second
proposed condition, regarding the City keeping the second 50% was insignificant. If the City was committed
to give one ton, any percentage, to the system and the system had the right to set the price for that ton, it
did not matter what percentage the City gave because they could increase the tipping fee to cover the cost
of operation. The problem was that it was a technology intensive system with the NCRA facility. He was
not certain the rate reviewing authority suggested as part of Condition #3 was necessary unless the City had
the tight to control the cost the system approved, i.e. capital improvements as they came on line.
Mayor Nader stated it was his intent that the review be similar to what the City exercised with a franchisee
or the State PUC exercised with a regulated utility. He did not see how that type of reviewing authority
would fail to provide protection. If the County had specific investments in mind that would later be used
as the basis for a rate increase, they would have to consult with the participating agencies or each
representatives before committing the funding.
City Attorney Boogaard stated if the City could control capital facility planning and rates then there would
be conlzol.
Minutes
May 27, 1993
Page 5
Supervisor Bilbray stated the issue was that there was a regional consensus to work together. He agreed
if the City gave direction to their representative, that should be the first item addressed by the new agency,
A letter had been mailed to the agendes that had signed which stated the regional partnership that was
proposed in the interim agreement was still the approach that would be taken although all the cities had
not agreed to participate, With eight cities, it was enough to carry-on a partnership, When he was
negotiating the region he wanted all the southbay cities together, A non-action on the agreement would
be perceived as a "no" vote by the City,
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the formation of a south county JPA would be in the best
interest of the south county,
Supervisor B~bray stated National City and Coronado had agreed to 100%, Imperial Beach had agreed to
S0% and stated they would give 100% at any time. If the City did not sign they would not be at the table,
The south county cities had already signed the agreement, except Chula Vista.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the agreement stated "all cities had to signH, At the attorney's luncheon the
agreement was discussed and he asked if the cities that had committed to the agreement on the theory that
everyone had to join were still committed if they did not all join. There was concern expressed that there
would be a reconsideration given the fact there was not unanimity, He did not feel the City had to say they
would not be at the negotiating table with the County simply by not signing the agreement,
Councilmember Moore stated if conditions were placed on the agreement the City really had not made a
commitment, He was eoncemed that the addition of conditions would start the process over again,
Councilmember Fox questioned if Council adopted staff recommendations 1-4 the Council could sign the
agreement.
Supervisor Bilbray stated the unanimous vote of the cities was to assess a S0% surcharge to those cities not
signing the document by 7/1/93. A letter was being mailed assessing those cities that withdrew their
approval.
Mayor Nader stated there needed to be assurance that obligations were not going to be thrust upon the City
until the "living document" had evolved to the point where there was some kind of mechanism for protecting
the rate payers.
RESOLUTION 17129 OFp-P, RED BY COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived,
Councilmember Horton stated there had been no reasons given as to why the City should not work with the
other cities to try to do what was best for the citizens.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the resolution meant the City would be working with other cities or
binding the City to the agreement.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that adoption of the resolution would accomplish nothing, except a moral
and psychological commitment to work with the County. The agreement itself said it was invalid unless
seventeen cities signed.
Mayor Nader stated he was satisfied with that. He wanted it understood that as the City went through the
process of working with the cities and the County they would be working toward a system that provided the
type of protection he had been talking about. He did not want a guaranteed result but a guarantee of a
right to review.
Supervisor Bilbray responded there was a right to review but the cities did not want the final responsibility.
Once the resolution had been approved the process could move forward. The County then had a reason to
say "why should we punish someone who signed just because someone else did not sign". Those that signed
would not get the surcharge, those that did not sign would get a surcharge.
Minutes
May 27, 1993
Page 6
Mayor Nader stated the City would be signing an agreement that would get the City out of a surcharge on
7/1/93 but was not binding because the terms had not been executed, i.e. other cities had rejected it.
Therefore, the City had time to negotiate some of the concerns expressed.
City Attorney Boogaard responded he did not know what was driving the ability of the County to assess a
surcharge. He recommended Council pass a resolution urging the City to negotiate to commit to work with
the County on an agreement that was acceptable to the City to commit it's flow to the County.
Councilmember Rindone stated what the City Attorney was recommending was what Council could concur
with, i.e. join in with the discussion to reach a resolution. Even if the Council voted 5-0 to approve the
resolution it was invalid because the conditions within the agreement were not met. Council's action would
show the City was interested in joining, participating, but had concerns.
Supervisor Bilbray stated the five members of the Board of Supervisors would look at who made a good faith
effort. If the document was not worth the paper it was written on, until it was renegotiated, from that point
on the Board would treat the City with all the benefits of being a signator. He had no doubt that he could
get three votes to treat the City with the benefits.
Mayor Nader stated that was agreeable to him.
VOTE ON RESOLLrFION 17129: approved unanimously.
MS CNader/Fox) to direct staff to immediately commence negotiations with other interested cities in the
County using Resolution 17129 as a basis for the negotiations but to develop an agreement that would
provide speri~city as to rate reviewing and setting authority in terms of the reasonableness of rates.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would like to incorporate, as part of the basis of negotiations, the five
previous recommendations from staff.
Mayor Nader stated he was unclear which recommendations Councilmember Rindone referred to. There
were two in the 5/27/93 staff report.
City Manager Goss recommended the two recommendations on the 5/27/93 staff report and the first three
recommendations on the City Attorney's list.
Councilmember Rindone stated he could support the recommendation.
Mayor Nader stated he would not support the friendly amendment. His motion pertained to the two
conditions that were on the 5/27/93 staff report: 1) a solid waste facility fee be paid to the City of Chula
Vista on the entire tonnage entering the Otay landfill, except for 10% to be aside to eventually incorporate
the closed landfill into the Otay Valley Regional Park, and the fee to be paid for the duration of the flow
control covenant or the operational life of the landfill, whichever is sooner; 2) the remaining uncommitted
50% be retained by the City without penalty of surcharge during the time that the final governing authority
is being determined; plus, the condition regarding some accountability in terms of review of decisions that
lead to rate adjusnnents. Accountability meaning there had to be some mechanism whereby those making
the decisions set the rates and it was understood the City was out of that picture or, that the City had
equitable representation on a body that had authority to do both
Councilmember Moore stated he could support that. He read into the record "The Board of Supervisors
would not oppose Commission action, once formed by all cities that commit 50% or more of their solid
waste, minus recycling. One city, one county vote on all solid waste matters which included tipping fees
and budget but not routine operational matters", He felt those were items that should be negotiated.
Mayor Nader stated his motion remained as offered. He clarified that the motion included the two points
on the staff recommendation plus a mechanism for rate review and accountability that would give the
citizens of the City equitable representation.
Minutes
May 27, 1993
Page 7
* * * * Councilmember Horton left the meeting at 5:40 p.m. * * * *
Councilmember Rindone stated he would support the motion but did not feel it went far enough.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent.
MS (Rindone/Fox) include Item #2, *Give the City the ability to terminate the flow control covenant without
penalty at cost at such lime as the cheaper alternate tipping fees become available to the City*.
Mayor Nader stated the reason he did not agree to incorporate that into his motion was because if the City
entered into an agreement with other entities they would be committing the flow so the system could be
coordinated on a regional basis. Presumably, that would allow the regional entity to get the cities the 'best
deal". Under his motion the City or a representative would have authority to review whether rates were
justified by wise business decisions. One of the advantages of committing only S0% of the flow would allow
the City to do whatever they wanted to with the remaining 50%. Some security needed to be provided to
the new entity being created.
Councilmember Fox felt that in reality the commitment would be more than 50% to make the proposal work.
He did not want to be placed in a situation where there were cheaper alternatives available and the City was
forced to go somewhere else. He felt it was their responsibility to at least negotiate. Until he was satisfied
that negotiations had been exhausted, he would support the motion of the floor.
Councilmember Rindone stated the purpose of the motion would provide flexibility to the negotiators. He
did not want to tie their hands.
Councilmember Moore questioned how the City could break the contract without a law suit.
VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-2-1 with Moore and Nader opposed and Horton absent.
ADJOURNMENT
MSC (Nader/bloore) to declare an urgency based on the CityAttorney's recommendation to discuss the Daley
Rock Quarry CUP. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent.
The City Council recessed at 5:55 p.m. and met in Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Institution of litigation against
County of San Diego regarding Daley Rock Quarry CUP.
ADJOURNMENT AT 6:16 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 1, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers and thence to a City Council Tour and Joint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation
Commission on Saturday, June 5, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly A. Authelet, CMC, City Clerk
Vicki G. Soderquist, Deputy .,~l~erk