HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-1994 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Cox Avenue Landscaping Improvements, Capital Project No.
9401 - Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Motion(s) : 1. Move to declare B &B Landscape
Contractors, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the
project. 2. Move to award a construction contract to B &B Landscape
Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $44,427. 3. Move to authorize
staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $6,000.
Report Summary: Sealed bids for the Cox Avenue Landscape
Improvements, Capital Project No. 9401, were opened yesterday'
morning. A total of seven contractors submitted bids for the work
and a summary of the bids received is attached. One of the bidders
has requested withdrawl of their bid since they did not incorporate
bidding information contained in an Addendum issued during the bid
period, (see attached letter) , and I have approved this request.
B &B Landscape Contractors, Inc. of Santa Clara submitted the lowest
bid of $44,427 which is 21.4% below the Engineer's Estimate of
$56,500. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the listed
references and has determined.. that the bid is responsive to the
Notice Inviting Sealed. Bids dated November 15. Therefor, it is
recommended that the Council declare B &B Landscape Contractors,
Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project, and award
the attached construction contract to this firm in the amount of
$44,427. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize
staff to execute change orders to the contract up to an amount of
$6,00.0 to cover any unknown circumstances or problems which may
arise during the course of the work.
Fiscal Impacts: The adopted budget contains $60,000 in Capital
Project No. 9401, Acct. No. 4510, to fund the construction work and
the requested change order authority. The total project budget of
$64,200 has been funded by the Traffic Authority. The City is able
to keep any surplus funds not used for the project.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing.additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: B &B
Landscape Construction, Inc. will not be declared the lowest
responsible bidder and a construction contract will not be awarded
to that firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare
another bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all
of the bids and direct staff to re -bid the entire project.
However, staff does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained
by re- bidding the project.
Follow Up Actions: The contract will be executed and the contractor
will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Work will most likely begin in
early January and last through mid - February, weather permitting.
Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. .
2. Letter requesting withdrawl of bid.
3. Construction Contract.
I CITY OF SARATOGA
I COX AVENUE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, C.I.P. NO. 9401
BID SUMMARY
ITEM N I ITEM DESCRIPTION I QUANTITY I UNITS
1-1 1-1-11
11. I IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPLETE I 1 1 LS
I I I I II
12 I LANDSCAPING COMPLETE 1 1 1 LS I I
1-1 1-1-11
I
I
I
GINEERS ESTIMATE I B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS I DIABLO LANDSCAPE, INC. I PACHECO BROTHERS GARDENING I
UNIT PRICE I TOTAL I UNIT PRICE I TOTAL I UNIT PRICE I TOTAL I UNIT PRICE I TOTAL I
N/A I $38,500.00 I N/A I $30,176.00 I N/A I $30.030.00 I N/A 1 $34,990.00 I
N/A I $16,500.00 I N/A 1 $13,251.001 N/A 1 $14,762.00 1 N/A I $20,850.00 I
I I I I I I I I
13. 160 -DAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PERIOD I 1 1 LS 11
I I I I II
N/A 1 $1,500.00 I
I I
N/A I $1,000.00 I
I I
N/A I $1.093.001
I I
N/A 1 $1.000.001
I I
I II
TOTAL I I
I I
1 $56,500.00 I
I I
I $44,427.00 I
I I
1 $45,865.00 I
I I
I $56,840.00 I
1-1
COX AVENUE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, C.I.P. NO. 9401
BID SUMMARY
ITEM N I ITEM DESCRIPTION
I
1. 1 IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPLETE
1
2. 1 LANDSCAPING COMPLETE
I
3. 160 -DAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PERIOD
TOTAL
1 ENGINEERS ESTIMATE
I LONESTAR LANDSCAPING, INC. I JOHN CLAY GENE
QUANTITY I UNITS I I UNIT PRICE I
TOTAL I UNIT PRICE I
TOTAL I
UNIT PRICE
1 1 LS 11 N/A 1
I II
$38.500.00 1 N/A 1
$44,877.00 1
N/A
I
1 1 LS 11 N/A 1
I I
$16.500.00 1 N/A 1
I
$14,304.00 1
N/A
1 1 LS 11 N/A 1
$1,500.001 N/A 1
$800.00 1
N/A
$56,500.001 1 $59,981.001
-1-1-1
I 1
TOTAL UNIT PRICE I TOTAL
1-1-1-1
1 $36,899.00 1 N/A 1 $48,000.001
1-1-1-1
1 $25,000.00 1 N/A 1 $39,000.001
1-1-1-1
1 $2,000.00 1 N/A 1 $2,000.00 1
$63,899.001 1 $89,000.001
-1-1-1
. il
T & L LANDSCAPING
630 Magdalena Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94022
Contractor Lic. 4584178
12 -7 -1994
Larry I. Perlin
Director of Public Works
City of Saratoga
RE: WITHDRAW OF THE LANDSCAPING BID
Tel. (415) 941 -5220
Fax (415) 941 -9940
Pager(415) 306 -2247
I would like to withdraw of COX LANDSCAPE IMPROMENTS BID,
I was unawage of the addendum wich i received at the last m�nite on 12 -6 -1994
Sincerely,
NGOC TRAN
Plea n Ae that 'f & 1, I andreyping is a Cully licvtsad aYrtractor with the Calillomia State Contractors licensing Hoard, and is a
Ix,ndal to untractor w idt die Sur 1\' Company of the Pacific Contractors are required by law to be licrosed by the Contractors State
I.iunse I card. For any yueStions LlnLLTning a axttractor may be referred to the registrar of dte Contractors state Lictnse Board at (916)
- 55-3900 or(40x) .77 -1244.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. '�+ l AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 7, 1994 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Performance Audit Report of Green Valley Disposal Company
prepared by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS(Sl: Accept and file the Final Audit Report of
Green Valley Disposal Company (GVDC) as presented and authorize
final payment for the work through the West Valley Jurisdictions'
Solid Waste Management Program.
BACKGROUND
The West Valley jurisdictions (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno
and Saratoga) entered into a 20 year Franchise Agreement
(Agreement) for refuse collection and disposal with GVDC in 1983.
The Agreement requires that a comprehensive performance audit be
conducted every five years by a consulting firm selected by the
jurisdictions. The last audit was performed in 1988. The language
in the Agreement concerning the Audit is very broad and allows the
City /Town an opportunity to make a complete analysis of the
franchisee's operations, including evaluating its management and
operational efficiency and identifying opportunities for
improvements and cost savings.
The West Valley jurisdictions and Santa Clara County jointly
participated in the request for proposals and oral interviews
process, since each agency has the same provisions in their
Agreements concerning an Audit. In January 1993, the firm of
Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson (HF &H) was selected by the agencies to
perform the Audit. HF &H 'worked with the public agency staffs and
GVDC to accomplish the desired objectives of the Audit at the most
reasonable price. A contract was executed with HF &H in June 1993
and completed in October 1994. The firm is very experienced in
this type of auditing process and contracts exclusively with public
agencies.
Scope of HF &H Contract
Several subject areas were addressed in the Audit, as required by
the Agreement, including GVDC's financial management practices;
procedures for the acquisition, maintenance and replacement of
equipment; staffing practices; and comparison of businesses deemed
similar to GVDC. In addition, staff from each jurisdiction agreed
to retain HF &H to:
Page 2 - Audit Report of Green Valley Disposal Company
1) determine the reasonable and necessary costs of GVDC's
operations;
2) determine each jurisdiction's cost of. service to establish
appropriate collection rates; and
3) develop a standard rate application and review process to use
for future rate reviews. When the draft Rate Review Manual is
completed, a copy will be provided to GVDC for discussion
purposes.
Findings
The findings and recommendations by HF &H are summarized in the
Executive Summary of the Final Audit Report. An overview is listed
below:
1) Use of a 91% Pre -Tax operating Ratio: The Agreement specifies
that an operating ratio method be used with a guideline of a.
5% after -tax return on revenue. A 91% pre -tax operating ratio
is consistent with that guideline in that it yields a 5.8%
after -tax profit on revenue, excluding franchise and disposal
fees. (Please see Attachment #1 for further information.)
2) Denial of $73,500. in Consultant Fees: The audit recommends
denial of this request since GVDC is obliged to provide the
information concerning the rate submittal at no cost to the
jurisdictions, as specified in Section 6(D), Franchise
Collection Rates of the Franchise Agreement.
3) Disallowing Profit on Franchise and Disposal Fees: The
recommendation to disallow any profit on franchise and
disposal fees continues a policy begun in fiscal year 1990 -91
when the four jurisdictions' Councils approved disallowing any
profit on the increase in disposal fees. In fiscal year 1992-
93, the jurisdictions applied the average per cent profit
earned by GVDC from fiscal years 1986 -1992 to operating
expenses, excluding franchise and disposal fees, so that GVDC
would not earn windfall profits on large increases in disposal
fees. The decision to disallow any profit on disposal fees is
due,. in part, to the increases in state and local surcharges
over the past several years. ( See Attachment #1 for additional
information.)
In addition, there are several recommendations in the audit
pertaining to collection efficiency which remain to be discussed by
the jurisdictions and Green Valley. Examples of these include the
use of standardized containers and fully automated collection
vehicles. These matters do not constitute a concern and it is felt
that they will be resolved during the course of the contract.
Page 3 - Audit Report of Green Valley Disposal Company
Resolution of Outstanding Issues
Findings 1 -3 listed above are unresolved issues. The Rate Review
Committee (composed of administrative staff from Campbell, Los
Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga) and staff from Green Valley
Disposal Company and Hilton, Farnkoph & Hobson have met numerous
times in an effort to resolve these matters prior to determining
the recommended rate adjustment due GVDC.. To date, no satisfactory
resolution of these issues has been achieved, and the Rate Review
Committee continues their negotiations.
Environmental Assessment
This is not a project as defined under CEQA, and no further action
is required..
FISCAL IMPACT
Accepting the attached Final Audit Report has no fiscal impact on
the City of Saratoga.
Attachments:
1) Supplementary Information
2) Final Audit Report
3) Qualifications of Consultant, Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson
4) GVDC's Response to Final, Audit Report
ATTACHMENT 1
Mayor and City/Town Council
Audit Report of Green Valley Disposal Company
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ATTACHMENT #1
Key Agreement Terms and Current Policies
The Agreement allows each jurisdiction to set service rates based on a review of financial and
operational data submitted by GVDC. Other significant provisions of the Agreement include:
1) Operating Expenses: In reviewing the submitted information, the Agreement gives each
jurisdiction the right to "... take into consideration the acceptability of expenditures." (Section
6(E)(i)).
In addition, the Agreement specifies that each jurisdiction's Council "... shall determine what
are the proper expenses to be used in the calculation of a rate base for a rate adjustment after
COMPANY has been given an opportunity to provide documentation to CITY's administrative
staff and the City Council." ((Section (G)(i))).
The term "rate base" as used in Section (G)(i) of the Agreement refers to the expenses that
GVDC is allowed to recover through the refuse rates, i.e., the total revenue requirement.
However, this term does not generally refer to the expenses on which profit is calculated, i.e.,
operating expenses. The distinction is important since the total revenue requirement includes
operating expenses, allowed profit, and franchise and disposal fees on which no profit is
allowed. The Committee recommends excluding franchise and disposal fees from the profit
calculation for reasons noted in item #8 below.
2) Franchise Fees: GVDC pays ten per cent of its gross revenue to the City/Town.
3) Profit: The Agreement specifies that an operating ratio method be used with a guideline of a
5% after -tax return.
Use of a pre-tax operating ratio is recommended for two reasons:
a) ease in administration, due to the changes in tax laws, and taxable income changes in
the effective tax rate; and
b) ease of comparison with other jurisdictions' practices, since a pre-tax operating ratio is
the most common methodology used by regulatory bodies.
4) Disposal Tipping Fees: GVDC's primary disposal site is owned and operated by Guadalupe
Rubbish Disposal Company (GRDC). GRDC is owned by the same four stockholders who
own GVDC. Each of the West Valley jurisdictions has a separate Agreement with GRDC to
dispose of refuse at Guadalupe Landfill. The Agreement specifies that the tipping fee per ton
is determined annually based on a survey of tipping fees charged at other Bay Area landfills..
-1-
Mayor and City/Town Council
Audit Report of Green Valley Disposal Company
Findings
The consultant, Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson, recommends using a 91% operating ratio, excluding
franchise and disposal fees for the reasons noted below:
5) Compliance with Agreement: The rate review performed by HF&H complied with Sections
6(E)(i) through 6(E)(iii) of the Franchise Agreement concerning the rate review process to be
used in establishing a rate schedule for refuse collection services. These Sections delineate the
Rate Review Committee's responsibility in reviewing a service rate request and read as
follows:
"(i) Take into consideration the acceptability of expenditures, performance incentives and
sanctions, rate comparability, and other information as the Committee determines to be
appropriate.
When determining the profit level, use the operating ratio method with a five (5)
percent after -tax return (excluding tax credits and operating losses) as a guideline.
(iii) When calculating the revenue side of the operating ratio, exclude:
(a) Prior years' earnings from short-term investments generated from prior profits
or retained earnings in each fiscal year,
(b) Tax credits; and
(c) Prior year net operating losses."
6) Use of an Effective Tax Rate: GVDC files federal taxes under Subchapter S, paying no direct
federal income taxes, and pays only a state tax.of 1.5% of taxable income in 1994. The profit
is reported as income on the shareholders' personal income tax returns. In 1994, the effective
tax rate including the state S -Corp tax and federal taxes equivalent to those paid by a non -
Subchapter S Corporation was approximately 35 %, whereas GVDC's partners reported a
marginal tax rate of 49.5 %. A marginal tax rate is not assumed since taxes should only be
assessed on income generated on those services provided the ratepayers through the franchise
agreement, rather than the owners' additional income from other sources. Using the 35%
effective tax rate, the 91% operating ratio results in an after -tax profit of 5.8% of revenue,
excluding franchise and disposal fees.
7) Pre-Tax Operating Ratio zbd Risk Analysis: In determining the recommended pre-tax
operating ratio, the Committee took -into consideration the following factors:
a) the range of profit earned or allowed in 1992 -93 for various private and publicly -held
waste management companies (see Exhibit II in the Final Audit Report);
b) the Agreement's reference to a 5% after -tax return on revenue as a guideline;
0
Mayor and City/Town Council
Audit Report of Green Valley Disposal Company
C) the relatively low level of risk assumed by GVDC, including a 20 -year exclusive
franchise, use of a balance account to guarantee the allowed profit by adjusting future
rates to account for lower than allowed earnings, and a stable customer base.
8) Disallow Profit on Franchise and Disposal Fees: The Agreement does not specifically
disallow profit on franchise and disposal fees, sometimes referred to as pass- through costs.
Excluding these fees from profit is recommended for the following reasons:
a) GVDC's administrative costs to determine the franchise fees due each jurisdiction are
an appropriate operating expense on which profit is allowed. However, operating
expenses do not include the actual franchise fees paid the jurisdictions, since these
fees are not an expense for which GVDC is at risk or has any control over. In
addition, disallowing any profit on the actual franchise fees is consistent with many
other California jurisdictions.
b) Allowing GVDC to realize a profit on disposal fees is not reasonable since the
jurisdictions have an Agreement with Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company (GRDC)
to dispose of refuse at Guadalupe Landfill. This Agreement is significant for two
reasons:
o Because it was negotiated and willingly entered into by GRDC, it must be
assumed that GRDC believed that an adequate profit could be provided
through the negotiated disposal rates; and
o GVDC is not at risk for disposal rate increases or for any minimum tonnage
requirement.
Disallowing any profit for the hauler on the actual disposal fees is consistent with
many other California jurisdictions.
Audit\AudRptMM.Cni
-3-
ATTACHMENT 3
Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson
Resumes
and
Summary of Work Experience
L. SCOTT HOBSON
Partner
Education
Master of Accountancy, Brigham Young University
B.S., Accounting, Brigham Young University
Professional Certification
Certified Public Accountant
Range of Experience
Mr. Hobson's expertise lies in the solid waste and water disciplines of our consulting practice.
He has experience in performing financial feasibility studies, rate reviews, management
reviews, public policy development, and bid evaluations. In addition, he has performed finan-
cial analysis of capital and operating costs of solid waste collection, recycling, transfer and dis-
posal facilities. He also has experience in evaluating internal accounting controls, performing
audits and developing microcomputer applications.
Water Rate Management
Partner in charge of monitoring the compliance of the San Francisco Water Department with
its long -term suburban water sales contract. Performed numerous annual rate reviews for an
association of over 30 water users who purchase their water from San Francisco. Reviewed
revenue requirements, rate projections, City budgets, and City's auditor's workpapers
annually.
Supervised the development of a fully interactive spreadsheet model of the revenue
requirement, cost of service and rates for a large water district in Northern California.
Solid Waste Management
Reviewed financial projections related to a proposed $52 million waste -to- energy plant.
Reviewed support for and reasonableness of underlying cost elements and assumptions.
Compared plant economics to landfill and transfer station alternatives. Performed extensive
sensitivity analysis on each scenario.
Performed an audit of franchise fee payments to several jurisdictions by a private solid waste
company.
Managed the development of alternative rate structures for several California jurisdictions.
The rate structures were designed to provide incentives for rate payers to participate in
recycling programs.
Performed rate reviews on behalf of many jurisdictions responsible for regulation of solid
waste franchises. Reviewed multi-year revenue requirement and revenue forecasts.
Hilton Farnkopi & Hobxon:
L. SCOTT HOBSON
Page 2
Managed development of over twenty solid waste public policies for a Southern. California city.
These policies formed the basis for a revision to the City's solid waste ordinance and program
planning.
Developed solid waste rate regulation processes for several California cities. Reviewed
operations and financial systems of the private collection companies providing collection
services to the cities.
Performed a cost of solid waste collection services study for two large California counties and
two Southern California cities. Reviewed costs and projections of five�collection companies in
providing service to the unincorporated areas of one County. Developed the cost of residential,
commercial and roll-off service for another County based on cost accounting and operational
data Performed time and motion studies for the cities and used the resulting data to allocate
costs of service to customer classes.
Evaluated the responses to a request for proposals for commercial recycling and yard waste
collection services for a Northern California city. Assisted in the development and negotiation
of the proposed contract for services.
Assisted in the preparation of a request for proposal for a ten -year solid waste collection
contract for a large San Francisco Bay Area city. Assisted in the evaluation of the bids
received and the development of the rate setting methodology to be used over the contract
term.
Assisted in the preparation of a financial feasibility study for a materials recovery facility.
Prepared a projection of solid waste practices over the twenty -year life of the proposed facility.
Managed an operations and management review of a large subsidiary of Waste Management,
Inc. The review included an analysis of hiring practices, safety programs, project
management, organizational structure and operational efficiency.
Performed a review of the corporate and regional overhead allocation methodology of both
Waste Management, Inc. and Browning - Ferris Industries. Made recommendations regarding
the appropriateness of the methodology for rate purposes to local regulatory agencies.
Financial Analysis
Performed a review of the inventory system of a $20 million manufacturer of microwave
equipment. Proposed recommendations for improving inventory controls and documentation.
Calculated damages in support of a claim by a heavy construction company against the
company's former auditors.
Managed publication of several highly sensitive trade association reports. Project involved on-
going modification of report formats, market estimates and system methodology. Involved
significant client and participant interaction.
Hilton Farx&opf & Hobwn:
e
L. SCOTT HOBSON
Page 3
Audited accounting systems for a distributor, a wholesaler, a retailer, and several manufactur-
ers. Reviewed accounts payable, accounts receivable, inventory, fixed assets, equity, debt,
payroll and other accounts. Performed fluctuation and ratio analysis. Prepared financial
statements and notes. Supervised and reviewed the work of several staff.
Developed 130 multiple-choice questions for a Civil Service exam in governmental accounting,
generally accepted accounting principles and budgeting.
Instructed undergraduate students in basic and intermediate accounting, accounting systems,
and business math.
EDP Controls /Microcomputer
Developed and documented internal control procedures for a consulting firm in connection
with their implementation of new general ledger, accounts payable, and resource management
systems.
Taught introductory LOTUS 1 -2 -3 courses covering basic data entry, data manipulation,
spreadsheet analysis, database, and graphing techniques.
Performed a general and applications controls review for various companies. Proposed
recommendations for improving data processing controls.
Managed the implementation of a micro-computer -based financial accounting system for a
small consulting firm. Functions performed during the implementation included modification
of the chart of accounts, system testing, training, documentation, procedures development,
and implementation review.
Implemented a microcomputer -based billing and accounting system for a management
consulting firm. Maintained the books and records. Managed all accounting systems and
produced financial statements and other management reports.
Professional and Business History
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson: Partner, August 1989 to present.
Price Waterhouse: Management Consulting Services Department, Manager, July 1987 to July
1989; Senior Consultant, July 1985 to June 1987; Staff Consultant, September 1984 to June
1985; Audit Department; Staff Accountant, December 1983 to August 1984.
San Jose State University, part -time instructor, August 1985 to May 1987.
Professional Organizations
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
California Society of Certified Public Accountants
Government Finance Officer's Association
Solid Waste Association of North America
Hilton Farnkopt k Hoboon
DAVID L. DAVIS
Associate
Education
Caiirornia fltatn 11uiversity • rullarku, BA Pinanee 1963
Professional Certification
Curbification - Certified Mtuiagamont Aaoountant
Rnnge of Experience
mr, Davis' experience includes public and private sector accounting, refuse collection rate act -
ting, contract negotiation, landfill programs, waste diversion pivgrame, and rate design fcu-
eloctric and wator utilities.
Solid Waste Management
Responsible for budgeting, financial reporting and analysis, cost accounting, billing,
colloctiona, and of'tice administration. for disposal and landfill companies in Southern
California. Managed accounts receivable of 40,000 residential, commercial, and industrial
customers. Supervised a staff of twelve whose various duties ineludod accounting, payroll,
porsonnel, accounts payable, and billing customer wrvioe.
Served no a Project Controller for various capital projects, including Material Recovery
Facility, an ofiice/maintenanco facility, and a lancM11 oxpansion.
Participated in the acquisition of a sanitation and construction services company in Southern
California.
Participated in the administration of special waste identification programs.
Developed and proposed annual refuse collection rate adjustments. Made presentations to
Public Utility Board for their approval. Implemented control procedures to coordinate a city's
billing system with the service provided by disposal company.
l)evelopod and proposed an annual solid waste hauling rate adjustment for a Southern
California city. Made presentation to the City Council for approval.
Interacted with City Council candidates, cityhood committee members, and residents on
behalf of a disposal company.
Completed a residential refuse rate survey fbr a Southern California county. Prepared
disposal company's reply to the study. Supplied data for use in sub - consultant's waste
characterization study.
Participated in preparing response to an RFP for an exclusive residential refuse collection
contract. Developed bid prices and negotiated subsequent contract, including curbside
recycling, greenwaste, waste oil and household hazardous waste programs.
-- -- Hilton Fornk*pf k Hobeen
Davin L DAVIS
Page 2
Doveloped bid price opptions used in revpunve W an RFP fbr an exclusive commercial and
residential refuse collection Contract.
Developed irsgulatleuls for a City and County regiu%U g Wie issuallc a of refuse collection
permits to contractors serving Federal faeillLies.
Analysod and roportod on the cu:ubined hporating peribrmanee and fineuieial cuuditiun of it
group of investors in connoctiou w1Lh the assignment of a pity's exclusive refuse collection
agrecmont from one company to another.
Doveloped criteria for a city fbr use in evaluating tllo qualiricaLiuua ofd* p0osal companies itl
c�u:cectini3 with the issuance of a Request for QC""icatiuus for refuse collection service.
Researched the landfill Closure and Post- closure files of the California Integrated Waste
Macinsament Hoard. Compiled data about the Fivaucial Assurance Mechanisms used by the
26 larvesL landfills in the State of California.
Aem. anti ng and Budges
Supervisod tho luvluu atiuu of monthly financial statements fbr electric and water utilities,
Prepared an analysis of the uporating performance and financial condition of each utility for
the Roard of Publio Utiliti *s.
Su rvMd the preparation of tho cuuival operating and capital budgets for a municipal public
utility.
SuPet v1sed the accounting budgeting, and financial roporLiug of tai electric utility joint
powers agency with annum revenues of $80 million..
Rate Analysis and Rate Design
Supervised the preparation of cloctric and water cost of service bLudiea wind rate adjustment
proposals.
Supetwieed the analysis of various utility - related issues such as: water rates for customers
outside the city limits, a municipal utility's PILOT transfer to the general fund com aced with
other citios, and discounts on electric rates her large customers who take service at High
voltage levels.
Ravlowod the rate increase request of a refuse eollecuun, recycling and trauslhr company.
Dvaluated tho roasoscableuees of c:uut allocations and prgjeeted costa, Performed detail testing
of tho company's financial and oporational recurds, and made appropriate revisions to the rate
inerencu: rrduent.
0onductod a survey of the refuse colloetion rates of the 26 citios and special districts in
Rivnraide flcninty.
Participated in develuying a spreadsheet model used by a city to allumto colter of service and
design ratos for its n use collection and recycling operations.
..� hallos F&rftkW • Hok wn
DAVID L. DAVIS
Page 3
Infbrmation systems
Supervised the implementation of a local area network for a city's public utilities department.
Acted as a liaison to the information systems departmont on issues related to a city's customer
billing system.
Supervised the conversion of a customer billing system for a disposal company.
Supervised the conversion of a hauling company's manual routo books to a computerized
system.
Supervise* d the implemontation of a computerized landfill billing system.
Professional and Business History
Hilton Parnkopf & Hobson: Fremont, California, Associato,1992 to present.
City of Riverside: Riverside, California. Utilities Aocountinw7inanco Manager, 1991 to 1992.
Waste Management, Inc.: Hemet, California, Controller, 1988 to 1991.
Iifleen.FwrnkoT.[ � HoLwn �� _
TROY V. GARNER
Associate Financial Analyst
Education
B.S., Accounting, Brigham Young University
Professional Certification
Certified Public Accountant
Range of Experience
Mr. Garner's expertise lies in financial analysis, rate review and computer model
development.
Solid Waste Management
Performed numerous rate reviews of solid waste collection and disposal companies. The rate
applications filed by these companies were reviewed and recommendations were made to the
franchising agencies who were responsible for regulating the companies' rates.
Determined multi-year revenue requirements for collection and recycling companies, transfer
stations, and landfills and recommended rate adjustments and rate- making methods.
Evaluated the rate structure and developed rate adjustment models with several rate struc-
ture scenarios for several Bay Area and Southern California jurisdictions. Developed differen-
tial rate adjustment models for several Bay Area jurisdictions by customer service type.
Performed a statistical route audit for a large California city to determine the adequacy of a
multi-level billing system. Results were quantified and used to project future revenues.
Performed a time -and -motion study of commercial solid waste and commercial recycling
service. Results were used to prepare a rate structure based on cost of service.
Assisted in the development of a City's AB 939 1franchise fee including reviewing financial
records of several solid waste companies.
Assisted in the preparation,of a request for proposal for comprehensive solid waste collection
and recycling services.
Assisted in the evaluation of solid waste collection service bids received by several California
cities. Assisted. in the negotiations with the selected bidder, and development of the initial
rate structure.
Assisted in the preparation of solid waste collection and/or recycling contracts for several
California cities.
Assisted in the preparation of materials used for litigation consulting support to a city in
defense of rate regulation activities.
Hilton Farnkopf % Hobson;
G
TROY V. GARNER,
Page 2
Water Rate Management
Performed a rate review for an association of over 30 water users who purchase their water
from a major California city. Reviewed revenue requirements, rate projections, city budgets,
and city auditors workpapers.
Maintained a database of utility statistics for the association including semi - annual demands,
sources of supply, user class accounts and usage, population, and per capita consumption.
Financial Analysis
Audited accounting systems for numerous private and public companies. Reviewed accounts
payable, accounts receivable, inventory, fixed assets, debt, equity, payroll and other accounts,
as well as internal controls.
Performed financial statement audits on various industries including high -tech manufacturing,
office equipment manufacturing, oil and gas, retail, and toxic waste disposal.
Prepared financial statements and notes, prepared 10-K statements for annual SEC filings and
assisted in the preparation of 10-Q statements for quarterly SEC filings. Participated in
analyzing the purchase accounting issues related to determining the market values in several
potential and actual mergers and acquisitions.
Professional and Business History
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, Associate Financial Analyst, September 1989 to present.
Price Waterhouse, Staff Accountant, July 1987 to September 1989.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobmn
Alameda County Joint Refuse
1984 Reviewed the rate requests filed by the private comps y wmen
Rate Roview Commlttm
1986 provides collection, processing and disposal services under
(A joint powers authority
1987 agreement with the franchising agencies in Alameda County.
comp)iied of 13 jurisdictions
1988 During the conduct of these reviews, we have also re- cunuumded
1989 and documented procedures to be used in the rate regulation
Mr. ;::pry Rrvaux
19911 process reprding:
DinY'inr of Pinarim
1991 - Closure costa;
city of Oakland
1942 • Allocation of costs;
510/738 -3201
- Revenue analyses by serviev calcgory;
- Start -up and acquisition of new business activities;
s Acquisition of company by an international corporations
- Trvoinknt of corpurviv and regional cost alloostionsu
- Ikvvelopment of cvrt of service by jurisdiction.
1986 Studied the Wasiblllty of autvnutted and semi - automated
collection as well as analysis of raductlors from throe -to two -roan
routes.
1991 Performed a management and operations review of collection,
transfer and disposal activities.
Central Contra Cnsta 1985 Analyzed the rate rcquett of Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal
Sanitary District Cuinimny for callecilurn and disposal services.
Mr. Paul Mnncii 1989 Analyzed the rate tnrream rn:yucsl of valley Waste Management
Assistant Q%npral Manager which provides eullrctlon and disposal services.
510/229.7305
City of Glendale, Arizona 1991 listimated residential and cumunercial refuse collection rates for
tl*. Citys Sanlin lon Enterprise Tund.
Mr. Michael W. linyt
field OMratinns Director
002 /930 -766
City of Glendale, 1992 Performed a cost of wrvice study of automated residential
California refuse collection for 64 toil 100 gallon containers, and
commercial refusu colleettort of ore, two, and throo -cubic yard
Mr. Stephen Burn hint.
ExccuOve A- WAtant
(818) 54R -3900
City of Lon$ Beach 1992 Performed a east of servicm study of municipal collection of
residential and cvnnncndal collection mil disposal costs.
Ms ChrWino Davis
AdminiRtraiive. Officer
310/57(W -dA3
Hiltuo Fornkopf k llobson �.
A% of January 1994
�. rnJ v� ir,rirorne 1992 Reviewed the residential, commercial and recycling servic es rate
application submitted by South San Francisco Scavenger
Mr. Louis M. Sandrini Company.
Diroctor of Public Workp
415/259.2339
Novato Sanitary District
1990 Reviewed the rate application submitted by Novato Sanitary
1991 Disposal Company for solid waste collection and disposal
Mr. Charles Joseph
services.
General Manager
1990 Assisted in the review of Sunset Scavenger Company, Golden
415/892 -1694
1991 Gate Disposal Company, and Sanitary Fill Company's rate
City of San Bruno
1940 Reviewed the Triennial Rate Application submitted by San Bruno
Mr. Joseph F. Johnson
Gat'bage Company (a subsidiary of Norcal Solid Waste
Mr. Lewis Pond
Management Systems, InO for collodion and disposal, recycling,
City Manager
and household hazardous waste services.
415/877 -8880
evaluated its implementation.
City of San Buenaventura 1989 Reviewed the residential collection and recycling rate requests
1990 filed by E.). Harrison k Sons and Ventura Rubbish.
Mr. Terry Adelman 1991
Director of Management 1992
Resources
805/654 -7812
1992 Performed a cost of service study of commercial solid waste
collection and disEMI services for each customer classification.
City and County of San
1990 Assisted in the review of Sunset Scavenger Company, Golden
Francisco
1991 Gate Disposal Company, and Sanitary Fill Company's rate
request.
Mr. Joseph F. Johnson
Solid Waste Manager
1991 Developed the conceptual design for a productivity monitoring
415/554 -3400
system for collection, transfer and recycling activities and
- - _
evaluated its implementation.
City of San Ramon
1988 Reviewed the rate application filed by Valley Waste
Mr. William Lindsay
Management, Inc. for collection and' disposal sorvl.
Finance Director
510/275-2209
County of Santa Barbara 1988 Performed a cost of service analysis of Browning-Ferris Industries
Mr. Wilson G. Hubbell Channel Disposal, Health Sanitation, Marborg Disposal, and
Solid Waste Superintendent Suburban Disposal. This residential and commercial study
805/681 4340 evaluated the cost for each company to service each customer
-�, classification.
As of January 1994
llllton Farnkopf & I labson
±•
City of Santa Clarfta 1992 Reviewed the cost of serf- +automated residential single faintly.
services and multi - family bin services of Atlas Refuse Removal
Ms. I iasol )canes Co., Santa Narita Disposal and Western Waste. Recommended
Solid Waste Coordinator rates for adoption by the Uty Council. livaluated alternative
80.•91294 - 9.91 service arrangements for eumrnt:relsl eulimbim.
City of Santa Rosa 1985 ' Reviewed the rate request filed by Empire Waste which provided
collection and disposal aerviem under agraemenl with the Gily.
Mr. Stan 1-indaay
Director of Admin...iPrvirrx
707/543 -3085
South Aayside Trunrfer
1988
Analyzed Browning - Perris Industries of San Mateo County's
Station Authority
1989
application for collection, itcycling, processing and transfer
(A joint powers authority
199p
station rates to accordance with the rate review procedures
composed of 9 cities)
]991
developed by HF&H staff in 1988.
Mr. Michael 11. Carvey
1992
City Managcr
City of San Carins
415 /593 -8011
City of South $ae 1992 Pet-N -need a J*view of the residential, commerclal and recycling
rranciscao services rate application subenitILA by South Bail Francisco
Mr:. Amy Margrilis Scavenger Company.
Dire rinr of Finance!
415/877-85M
Clry of Sunnyvale In Process Conducting At cost -of- service study of residential slid cuuunercial
service.
Mr. Mark flowers
Solid Waste Program Manager
408/730.7421
City of 77tousatid Oaks 1992 Assisted Cite City in perforating it review of Valley Diapnsut,
Newberry Disposal, G.I. Rubbish, and Block Disposal's "ucst for
Mr. Sieve Mom residential and commercial solid waste collection and disposal
l)t�rn r4nancw rA wcirer rate Increases.
805/496.8658
City of walnut Creek 1987 Reviewed the rate application submitted by Valley Waste
1988 Murwgernunt, lne:., for nwldentlal &led conuru:rcial rwlid waate
Mr. tknald A. Illulmush 1989 colle ction and disposal aervicas.
City Manager 1990
510/943 -5812 1991
mom III Ilan Parnkerf k Ilnhann
As of )nnernry 1994
City of Albany 1992 Evaluated the CHy's curbside residential recycling collodion
program costs and revenues for reasonableness.
Mr. Daren Fields
Assistant City Administrator
510/528 -5710
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Mr. Paul Morsen
Assistant General Manager
510/229 -7305
1989
Evaluated alternative rate structures designed to encourage waste
reduction and recycling. Developed a.muldple rate structure
financial model.
City of Dublin
1991
Evaluated alternative rate structures designed to encourage waste
reduction and recycling. Developed a multiple rate structure
Mr. Paul Rankin
financial model
Asmistant City Manager/
Admin. Services Director
510/833.6650
City of Livermore
1991
Evaluated alternative rate structures designed to encourage waste
reduction and recycling. Developed a multiple rate structure
Mr. Leland J. Horner
financial model.
City Manager
510/373 -5140
City of Menlo Park
1992
Developed a uniform residential rate structure that was adopted
by the City Council.
Ms. Urea Chokkatingam
1)nancv Director
415/858-.U43
South Ra yside Transfer
1990
Analyzed Browning - Ferris Industries of San Mateo County's
Station Authority
1991
application for curbside recycling and material recovery services.
(A joint powers authority
1992
composed of 9 cities)
Mr. Michael P. Garvey
1993
For the cities of San Carlos, Belmont, Redwood City, Burlingame,
City Manager
and San Mateo, we developed a uniform solid waste rate strue-
City of San Carlos
tune for either immodiate implementation or a throe -year phased
415/593.8011
approach.
City of 19rousand Oaks 1991 Evaluated the City's pilot curbside recycling and drop -off
program costs.
Mr. Donald 11. Nelson
Director, Public Works Dept.
805/497.8611
Hilton Farnkopf cis Hobson
Aso( January 1994
City of Wah"wt Creek In Prucx ** Review of Pacific Rim's curbslde recycling rates.
Mr. TMnald A. Blubaugh
City Manager
510/943 -5812
City of Carlsbad
1992 Review of a site for use as a material recovery and transfer station.
Mr. Rnlph W. Anderson
Dirretor, Utilities and
Maintenance
619/438-77.35
Central Contra Costa
1990 Prepared a financial feasibility study for a rrwrticlpal -owned
Sanitary District
materials recovery and transfer station Including:
• Nojocting packaging, waste composition and recycling
Mr. Paul Mnrarn
trends;
Assistant General Manager
• Projecting waste streaut compusiflun and volume fur 20
510/229.7305
yMrs;
• Evaluating alternative transfer station designs;
• IIvalualing alternative materials recovery facility designs;
• Developing a conceptual design;
• 13stimating construction and equipment costs and financing;
• PrujMA116 the flnanclal results of operation for 20 years; and,
• Projecting processing rates,
Delta Diablo Sanitation In Process Performing a financial evaluation of a District proposed transfer ,
District and material recovery facility to that proposed by Waste
Managc!m&nt, Inc.
Mr. Paul H. Causcy
("wrtf -ral Manager
510/7784040
City of Glendale, 1993 Assistod the city as a sub- corioultant In the performance of a MRF
California feasibility study. Our role was to provide tho financial analysis of
five alternative aeemries, including public vs. private operation
M r. Tom flrady for each of the scenarios. We also investigated various financing
81818/5 48.3916 Planner
8 /5 inetl ods available for MRF6,
Hiltun Famkupt & Hubsun
As of )anuary 1994 0
City of San Buenaventura 1989 Developed and negotmtoo a trancntse agreement ror one
processing of mixed rccydables, and rocyclable -rich commercial
Mr. Terry Adelman collections through an IPC.
Director Management
Resources
reimbursement for landfill dosurc /post -closure costs. Analysis
80.5 /654 -7812
includes review of cost estimates for reasonableness, selection of
Western Ventura County
1993 Assisted the West Ventura County Cities in reviewing two
MRF Development
proposals for the construction and operation of a regional
Management Committee
material recovery facility.
Mr. Arnold Dowdy
in Process Assisting in negotiations with the private landfill operator
regarding the allowance of closure/ st- closure costs in the
City Administrator
g $ Po
City of .Santa Paula
regulated collection rates.
505/525.4478
City of Glendale,
1991 Reviewed and evaluated private and public sector proposals to
aNfornia
develop a system to utilize landfill gas at the City's power plant.
Mr. Kerry I.. Morford
Asst. Public Works Director
'
818/548 -3900
_
Tri -City Waste Management
1986 Performed a review of the projected results of operations of a 480
Committee
1987 tone per day waste- to-energy facility, revised the projections,
prepared projected results of operations for landfill and transfer
Mr. Roger C. Anderman
station alternatives, end performed a comparative analysis on a
City Manager, Fremont
net present value basis.
510/745 -2700
1— iiiiiiiiiiiiou 16-1 RE -
Alameda County Joint Refuse 1992 Performed an analysis of the private landfill operator's request for
Rate Reefers Committee
reimbursement for landfill dosurc /post -closure costs. Analysis
(A joint powers authority
includes review of cost estimates for reasonableness, selection of
composed of 13 jurisdic-
the most appropriate financial assurance mechanisms, and
tions)
development of a methodology for allocation of costs to
Mr. Gary Breaux
participating agencies.
Director of Finance
City
in Process Assisting in negotiations with the private landfill operator
regarding the allowance of closure/ st- closure costs in the
23Oakland
510/238 -3201
g $ Po
regulated collection rates.
Central Conga Costa 1985 Analyzed the rate increase at Acme landfill resulting from the
Sanitary District 1987 effects of "Subchapter 15 ".
Mr. Paul Morsen
Assistant Genera) Manager
510/229.7305
Hilton Farnkopf do Hobson
Ac of January 1994
City of Glendale, Arizona 1991 LX- mloped a oonoeptual fundhig methodology for the Landfill
Enterprise rued to estimate the life cycle most of landfill site
Mr. Michael W. Hoyt acquisition, operations, closure and post - closure monitoring.
Picid "w— rations Director
6W/930-2600
City of Litrermore. 1990 Reviewed the landfill mate renuest by BPI for the Vasco Road
1991 landfill.
Mr. Leland J. I lorner
City Manager 1993 Negotiated with BFI for long -turn disposal capacity at its Vasco
510/373.5140 _ Road landfill. _
Counl y of Merced 1991 Performed a financial projection and program analysis of the solid
waste entcrps -Ise. Proloct activities included:
Mr. Drank Murature • Psepanid a five year financial model;
Deputy Director Ul'W • Bvaluutsd long term financing alternative;
Solid WAAtI` Division s lvaluated alternative rate sch Jules;
Solid W .str • Evaluated alternative landfill cluaure mood host- cletsure
financing mellnutla; and
• Reviewed the urgauization and adrninisirailve structure of
— - _ the enterprise.
City of Ojai 1993 Assisted the City in purfurridng a financial analysis of the landfill
Operating A ocinenl being negotiated between tho County of
Mr. Andrew S. Belknap Ventura and the private landfill proponent.
City Manager
805/046 -5581
County of Orange. In Process Serving as the financial advisor to the Integrated Waste
Integrated Waste Managernmt Department. Developing a life -cycle landfill pricing
Man a8voie rtDept. model, recommending lung -term funding strategies, and
Mc.. Vicki Stewart evaluating the cost effectiveness of of alternative disposal systems.
Mgr. of Pinancial Control & In Process performing a cash flow analysis and debt service coverage
Adman.
714/8344147 analysis related to a $1W million bond rufunading.
County of Santa uarbara 1988 Developed financing plans, for the closure and post - closure
maintenance of the Cuunty'M four udciling landfift, as well as for
Mr. Wilson C. I lubbcll the development of a new regional landfill.
Solid Waste Suro"intendcnt
805 /0814340
City of Walnut (~reek 1988 Lvaluated the cast of alternative disposal options including the
coats of transfer station operations, hauling and disposal at
Mi. ihinaid A. Blubaugh altermtivo landfill sites.
City Manager
510/943 -5812
- Hlliuu Fauukopf do Ilobson
Av of )anuary 1994 0
West Contra Costa Solid 1986 Reviewed the rate application of Richmond Sanitary Service for
Waste Management costs of closure and post- dosure maintenancc, and regulation of
Aufliority the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill.
Mr. Everett Jenkins
Assistant City Attorney
City of Richmond
510/62(1{6509
City of Encinitas 1991 Assisted the City by preparing a Request for Propo"L Scope of
Services, and Draft Franchise Agreement. Assisted the City in the
Mr. Warren 1-1. Shafer selection of a contractor and negotiation of the Final Franchise
City Manager Agreement.
619/944 -5057
City of Indian Wells 1991
Mr. Kenneth H. Bell
Director of Public Works
619/346 -2489
Performed a review of the City's draft collection and disposal
contract; made recommendations to strengthen its terms and
agreements.
City of Livermore 1992 Assisted the City in re- negotiating its disposal contract with BFI at
the Vasco Road Landfill.
Mr. Uiand J. Horner
City Manager 1993 Assisted the City in negotiating a solid waste and recycling
$10/373 -5140 services franchise agreement with Livermore Dublin Disposal
Company.
City of Millbrae In Process Assisting the City in negotiating a solid waste and recycling'
services franchise agreement with South San Francisco Scavenger
Mr. 14mis M. Sandrirti Company.
Director of public Works
415/259.2339 -
City of Portland 1991 Performed a review of the City's draft collection and disposal
contract and made recommendations to strengthen its terms and
Mr. Steve Donovan agroernents. Surveyed state and local jurisdictions that regulate
Bureau Economist solid waste profits with an operating ratio.
503/796-7196
City of Iloway 1992 Assisted City staff with development of a procurement strategy
for selecting a franchise hauler to provide refuse collection,
Mr. Alan D. Archibald, P.R. curbside recycling, and yard waste collection services.
Director of Public Services
619/6794385
Hliton Famkopf % Hobson �•
As of )anuary 1994
City and County of San 1992
l'raneisco
Mr. 1.kn Gale, ULNA.
Director, Assmau of F.nviron.
mpntnl Mralth Scrviccs
415/554.2785
Developed wild waste collection and disposal permit procedures
for Woral lands.
County of San Mateo In Process Negotiating for long -teen disposal eapacily at Ox Mountain
1 andfill with API.
Mr. Neil Cullen
Avo. Public Works Director
415/3634100
City of Sian Buenaventura 1'!N i Assisted the City in the development of an RPO, evaluation of the
Statement of QuallfiLutions, selection of a hauler and negotiation
Mr. Steve Chase of a franchise agreement for sulid waste and recycling material
Attsidtunt to City Manager collection services.
805/654.7848
fifty of Santa Ana
MR. Teri Cable
Administrntive. .%rviccs
Manager
714/5651007
South flaysfde Transfer
Station Authority
(A joint powers authority
romlx)Ard of 9 cities)
Mr. Micharl 1'. Ciarvcy
City Manager
city of San (Arinc
415/593 -8011
1993
Assisted the City with devulupmunt Won RPP fur solid waste
cnlImMus► services Irorn residential and cornntorcial custonners,
Including refum, nxycling, and green waste diversion programs.
1987 Assisted the Authority In the nc otlution of a solid waste
collection franchise agreement, drafted memorandum of
understanding, and led neSotiations.
1988 Assisted the Authority in the negotiation of an agreement for the
pruvislun of cusloide residential recycling and into .. odiste
},rucossing center services, Including the review of
projected costs for the program.
1988 Assisted the Authority In the negotiation of an agreement for thv
lasovislon of curbside residential recyelin6 and Intermediate
processing center services, including the review of projected costs
for the program.
1992 Assisting the Authority in the• nugWationi of a Material Recovery
Facility.
Hilton Farnkupf & Hubsurn •!'-
Av of )onunry 1994
City of Sunnyvale 1990 Assisted in the preparation of solid waste collection, rocycling and
household hazardous waste RPP for a ten -year franchise.
Mr. Mark Bowers Specifically: developed rate review methodology and
Solid Waste Program Manager performance standards (including liquidated damages); drafted
408/7.30 -7421 franchise agreet, nt; drafted RFP documents; performed financial
analysis of proposals; and assisted in the preparation of a
contract.
City of Thousand Oaks 1992 Revised the City's solid wasto ordinance and solid waste franchise
agreoment with the four franchise haulers.
Mr. Donald H. Nelson
Director, Public Works Dept.
805/497.8511
Tri -City Waste Management In Process Assisting the Cities in the procurement of solid waste collection
Committee and disposal, household hazardous waste disposal, and
grcc, waste collection services. Specifically, developed RFP, scope
Mr. Roger C. Andcrman of services, and franchise agreements. Serving as lead negotiator
City Manager /Fremont for collection, processing, and disposal contracts.
510/745 -2700
City of Union City in Process Assisting the City in revising the terms and conditions of its
residential colloction contract with Iii -Ced Economic
Mr. Tom Tyner Development Corporation.
Assistant City Manager
510/471 -3232
City of Walnut Creek 1992 Assisted the City in negotiating a franchise agreement for
commercial recycling and yard waste diversion.
Mr. Donald A. Blubaugh
City Malinger
510/943-5812
City of Burbank 1993 Reviewed the City's AB 939 fee system, and verified proper
payment of the fee by the City's commercial waste haulers.
Mr. Steve Maggi
kocycling Coordinator
818/953.3152
City of Glendale, CA 1993 Implemented an AB 939 fee system based on gross collection
receipts to recover a portion of the City's AB 939 costs from waste
Mr. Tom Brady generators served by the private haulers.
Senior Planner
818/549.3916
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson
As of January 1994
City of Long Reach 1991 AssistLV W1111 tilt` Uty -8 AV 707 x=10 rraRC LAvcrrown a-aw-
• HF&tj Is particularly responsible tar proparation of the "War<<-
Mr. )orru c Kuhl Diversion Punding source portion of the City's Source Reduction
Manager, integratm and Recyrling Element,
Rmmrrm Bureau
310/570 -2850
City of Thousand Oaks 1WI Assisted the City in the devcloplltent of a waste manabernent fee.
Mr. nnnald H. Nelson
L111rctor, Thiblic Works Dept.
805/49741611
City of Torrance
Mm. Arlene barco
Walt. Mgmi. C srdinatur
310/781.6900
Alameda County joint Refuse
Rate Reuter) Committee
(A mint powers authority
mmtxned of 13 juriWic-
tiane)
1992 LX- veloprti and implemented an AS 989 fee collected by the City's
private sector eommurcial waste haulers to recover the cost$ Of
developing and implementing source reduction, diversion, and
recycling programs.
1987 Anulyra, -i the purchase of Oakland Smvenger Company by Waste
Marragentent, Inc., including mvluw of Pranchise Agroomonts.
Conducted a study of Wasty Mariageinent, Inc's. corporate and
19N regional indirect charges.
Mr. Gary Breaux
Dirwor of Finanre
City of Oakland
510/238.3201
City of Glendafep Arizona
1992 Developed and pmeented alternative solid waste mmnagernent
policies and program to tlw City Council, and developed a
Mr. Michael Hoyt
guidance document for tlw City to follow in developing its
Htrid Operations Director
Integrated Waste ManaSement Plan.
602/930 -2640
_ ... ._
County of Marin Hazardous
1991 Performed a study to deterinlne the feasibility and benefits of o
and Solid Waste joint
solid waste joint powers authority.
nou,ers Amihority
Ma. Dee Johnson
Dep+ity 0y. Administrator
415/499 -6726
litlrun Parnkuld as Ilobson
A% of January 1994 •
North San Diego County 1991 Assisted several cities located in North San Diego County by
Cities Joint Power identifying and evaluating alternative waste diversion and
Authority disposal alternatives, including composting, materials recovery,
transfer station, and landfills.
Mr. Warren H. Shafer
City Manager
City of Encinitas
619/944 -5057
City of Poway 1992 ltevisod City's Municipal Code to comply with the lntegratod
Mr. Alan D. Archibald, P.S. Waste Management Act of 1989 and the City's SRRE.
Director of Public Services
619/67911385
City of Carlsbad
Mr. Ralph W. Anderson
Utilities k Maintenance
Dirmtor
619/438.7753
1991 Developed it refuse rate index system for rate regulation of the
1992 company providing solid waste collection, recycling and yard -
waste services under agreement to the City and conducted a re-
view of the Company using this system.
County of El Dorado
Mr. Jon Morgan
Environmental Management
916/621 -6672
1992 Assisted the County in negotiating a rate setting methodology
with the County's franchised haulers.
City of Modesto
1987 Developed a solid waste collection and disposal rate review
manual (including LOTUS spreadsheet) and conducted a rate
Mr. Dole E. DAMS
review of two solid waste collection companies.
Solid Waste Program Mgr.
209/577 -5492
City of San Buenaventura
1988 Developed rate review procedures (including LOTUS spread-
sheet), trained staff and performed initial yoar rate review of two
Mr. Terry Adelman
companies providing solid wasto colloction and residential and
Director of Mgmt. Resources
commercial recycling services.
805/654 -7812
1992 Developed rate review procedures, forms and financial model for
commercial services.
` Hilton Parnkopf jc Hobson
As of January 1994
City and County of San 1991 Modified and documented the &solid waste colloction . and disposal
Francisco rate review methodology.
Mr.) nxcph E. ) ohnson
Soliel Wnste Manager
415/554 -3400
Mr. lien Galt, R.i.H.S.
lyy2
Developed procedures fur the determination of the need to issue
L)IreCtor, Bureau of HI1v1ron-
new collection purndts and for the evaluation of hermit
mental l lealth Servitrr,
applicants.
415/554.2785
South Ba yside Transfer
1986
Assisted the Authority In an attempt to revise rate review
Station Authority
procedures used in Ute regulatiom of BPI u! San Matco which
(A joint poweera authority
provides evlktitlon, transfer and disposal sorvices.
composed of 9 cities)
1987
Developed a rate regulation procedures manual for preparation
Mr. Michael 1'. Garvey
and review of rata ru%juwts by the eolloction company.
City Manager
City of San Carlos
1990
Conducted a study of BPI corporate and regional Indirect charges.
City of Sunnyvale
1992
Developed a solid waste rate regulation procedures manual for
use by both thy City aW t1se'company to apply for and review the
Mr. Mark Bowers
company's compensation fur solid waste collection and recycling
5014 Waste 1'mr ram Manager
scrvtem.
4119/7.30 7421
City of Thousand Oaks . 1991 Assisted in developing uiulturlying solid waste policy statements
and revised the City's current solid waste ordinances and rate
Mr. Donald 11. Nelson setting procedures.
Director, Public. WorkN Dept.
R0K /497 -8611
city n j Walnut Creek 1990 Performed an evaluation of alternative rate regulation
inetlwdologics and rate structures.
Mr. Donald A. Blubough
City Manager
510/943 -5912
latter rarnkepl Se Mubsun
As nf )anuary 1994
l�i 11-1
ATTACHMENT 4
g!v, < GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY. INC.
573 UNIVERSITY AVENUE P.O. BOX 1227 LOS GATOS, CA 95031 -1227 PHONE'(408) 354 -2100
O /spoi,
November 15, 1994
Bill Helms, City of Campbell
Regina Falkner, Town of Los Gatos
Carolyn Lehr, City of Monte Sereno
Paula Reeve, City of Saratoga
Dear Rate Review Committee Members,
I have received the final 1993 Performance Audit Report prepared by Hilton
Farnkopf & Hobson (HFH). Green Valley Disposal is very displeased with the
content of the audit report and its recommendations. The attached response,
prepared by our consultants, Barakat & Chamberlin, provides our specific
objections to the HFH report.
As detailed in the attached response, we have made numerous attempts during the
past year to correct the fact case and to establish contractually consistent
recommendations. I am frustrated, that at this late date, the Jurisdictions are in the
position of setting rates using a factually inaccurate and contractually inconsistent
method as recommended by HFH.
We at Green Valley Disposal remain available to work with the Jurisdictions to
adopt contractually consistent and factually supportable recommendations.
Sincerely,
C ^�
Gerard J. Wen
General Manager
cc: Dave Knapp
Mark Ochendusko
Harry Peacock
BARAKATOCHAMBERLIN
RESPONSE TO THE 1993 PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Prepared for.
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY
Prepared by:
Paul Eisenhardt, Cindy Kline
BARAKAT & CHAMBERLIN, INC.
November 16, 1994
pMM/Swd�rpA16
1800 Horn BARAKAT 0 CHAMBERLIN, INC.
sonSleet
Oakland
18th Floor
Washington, D.C.
Oakland, Califomio 94612
Toronto
(510) 893.1800
Portland, OR
Fax (510) 893 -1321
Boulder
San Diego
Dallas
Portland, ME
The final Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson (HF &H) 1993 Performance Audit Report was
issued on November 2, 1994, a full 9 months after the issuance of the draft report on
January 19, 1994 and a full 1 year and 2 months from the beginning of the audit.
The draft report recommended expense disallowances of $1,063,292. GVD and its
consultants met numerous times with HF &H and RRC' members, exchanged numerous
pieces of correspondence and documentation, and ultimately established mutual
agreement on the appropriateness of restoring all but $85,654 of the recommended
disallowance. The report states that the restorations were due to a "negotiated
settlement ". GVD believes the restorations were due to the fact that the majority of
the disallowances recommended in the draft report were found to be inappropriate,
unreasonable, factually inaccurate, or insupportable with industry data.
Unlike any prior performance audit, the performance audit performed by HF &H
required over 5 months to perform and over 9 months to resolve .the inappropriate
draft recommendations. Although the resolution process ultimately resulted in the
restoration of over 92% of the initial disallowances, the process was costly to both
GVD and the ratepayers. GVD believes the responsible preparation of reasonably
justified, and factually accurate draft recommendations would have facilitated a less
costly and more timely completion of the performance audit.
Although the majority of the expense disallowances recommended in the draft report
were appropriately restored in the final report, GVD still takes exception to much of
the language contained in the final report. GVD believes the verbiage contained in
the final report is unnecessarily. negative toward GVD. GVD does not believe the
fact case supports the negative tone of the HF &H report. GVD believes the fact case
documents and supports outstanding customer service, and reasonable costs of
providing service. The report states on page 13, "Based on discussions with the
RRC, we understand that the Jurisdictions' staff are generally not dissatisfied with the
Company's service performance." Although the HF &H assessment of Jurisdictional
satisfaction is negatively worded, one is left to assume that "not dissatisfied" means
the�Jurisdictions are satisfied. As a point of fact, at more than one of the RRC
meetings, members of the RRC have volunteered that "GVD does a good job, and
provides good service. We are generally satisfied with the service." The HF &H
report presents no documentation to the contrary. In addition to the negative tone,
GVD disagrees strongly with several other recommendations contained in the report.
I
1800HomsonStreet BARAKAT CHAMBERLIN, INC.
Oakland
18th Floor
Washington, D.C.
Oakland, California 94612
Toronto
(510) 893.1800
Portland, OR
Fox (510) 893.1321
Boulder
Son Diego
Dallas
Portland, ME
GVD disagrees strongly with the following specific recommendations contained in the
report:
PROFIT RECONIlVIFNDATION
As part of the performance review for the fiscal years 93 -94 and 94 -95, the
Jurisdictions requested that HF &H evaluate the reasonableness of the 5% after -tax
return guideline contained in the Jurisdictions franchise agreements. The scope of
work between HF &H and the Jurisdictions did not contain precise language stipulating
the steps or approach to be used in determining the reasonableness of the allowed
profit. However, there are general steps that have been defined by the court system
that are commonly used by responsible consultants. In fact, these common steps or
standards were outlined in a recent work product produced by HF &H for another
jurisdiction. As was shared with the RRC on November 7, 1994, a document
produced by HF &H for the Bi -County Task force, states, " We took the following
steps to determine the reasonableness of specific revenues, expenses and profit:
1. If the contract addresses the issue, we follow the contract.
2. If the contract does not address the issue, we refer to the parties to the
contract to determine their intent or understanding. Where the issue has
been the subject of some prior. common understanding between the
parties, we follow that understanding.
3. If the parties do not agree, we apply the practices used by other
jurisdictions. PUCs that regulate refuse rates, or common public utility
practices. "
Although HF &H did not follow these common or standard steps in formulating their
recommendation for GVD, the steps provide a useful framework for evaluating the
appropriateness of the HF &H recommendation and for presenting GVD's objections
to the HF &H recommendations. In performing this evaluation, the HF &H report
states on page 12, "we considered: The returns achieved by publicly -held solid waste
management companies; the returns achieved by private waste management companies
as reported in the annual Robert Morris Associates (RMA) survey; the returns granted
by other regulatory agencies to solid waste companies; and the RRC's assessment of
2
1800 Harrison Sheet
18th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 893.7800
Fax (510) 893.1321
BARAKAT (C CHAMBERLIN, INC.
Oakland
Washington, D.C.
Toronto
Portland, OR
Boulder
Son Diego
Dallas
Portland, ME
the quality of service provided by the Company to the Jurisdictions rate payers."
After consideration of these factors, the report states on page 14, "We believe that a
ninety -one (91 %) pre -tax operating ratio, applied to operating expenses excluding
disposal and franchise fees, provides a reasonable profit to the Company under the
terms of its franchise agreements with the Jurisdictions."
GVD disagrees strongly with the profit recommendation of HF &H for the following
reasons:
1. The Contract: The HF &H recommendation is admittedly contrary to the
terms of the contract. The contract between GVD and the Jurisdictions has
been in place for over ten years and runs to the year 2003. As stated on page
7 of the report, the contract between GVD and the Jurisdiction's states "When
determining the profit level, use the operating ratio method with a five (5)
percent after tax return (excluding tax credits and operating losses) as a
guideline." The HF &H recommendation results in approximately a 2.5% after
tax return. Given the language in the contract, GVD, does not understand how
the HF &H report can state on page 14, "We believe that a ninety -one (91 %)
pre -tax operating ratio, applied to operating expenses excluding disposal and
franchise fees, provides a reasonable profit to the Company UNDER THE
TERMS OF ITS FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH THE
JURISDICTIONS." An after tax return of 2.5% is definitely not consistent
with the 5% after -tax guideline established by the contract.
2. Past Practice: The HF &H recommendation is not in keeping with past
practice. The HF &H recommendation provides an after -tax return of
approximately 2.5 %. However, historical records indicate that in all years
prior to fiscal year 92 -93, the allowable profit for GVD was established as
5% after tax. In fiscal year 92 -93, the Jurisdictions took unilateral action to
change the allowed profit from the 5% after tax to an amount that was less
than the 5% after tax. This action was formally objected to by Jesse Jack, as
corporate counsel.
The HF &H report recommends treating the disposal fees and franchise fees as
"pass - through costs" which are not eligible for the profit calculation. As noted
on page 5 of the report, the contracts between GVD and the jurisdictions do
not contain any references to "pass through" costs. Furthermore, the
3
18O0 Harrison Street BARAKAT CHAMBERLIN, INC. Oakland
18th Floor Washington, D.C.
Oakland, Colifomio 94612 Toronto
(510) 893.1800 Portland, OR
Fax (510) 693.1321 Boulder
San Diego
Dallas
Portland, ME
jurisdictions have NEVER excluded all of disposal fees and franchise fees
from the calculation of allowable profit. As stated previously, in FY 1992 -93
the jurisdictions UNILATERALLY adjusted the allowed profit by excluding
franchise fees and a portion of disposal fees. This action was formally
objected to by GVD and can in no way be considered to be a mutually agreed
to modification of the contract or its proper interpretation.
At the November 7, 1994 meeting with the RRC, several RRC members
expressed different opinions regarding the fact case surrounding the 1992 -93
rate action. In an effort to work together with the RRC to resolve this
contractual issue, GVD provided the RRC with a legal opinion obtained by
GVD from its attorney, Mr. Stephen Lankes. In his letter to GVD, Mr.
Lankes points out that when the court system is faced with resolving a
contractual dispute, the courts look to the actions of the parties prior to the
dispute in order to determine the contractual intent of the parties. Clearly in
this case, the pre- dispute past practices of GVD and the Jurisdictions have
confirmed the contractual intent of allowing profits of 5% after -tax.
The report correctly states that historically the return allowed by the
jurisdictions has been guaranteed through the use of a balancing account.
HF &H reviewed the actual. results of operations from FY 1986 -87 through FY
1992 -93, in order to calculate the cumulative balance in the balancing account.
The final report states on page 15, "We reviewed the Company's calculation,
and, although we disagreed with their use of a marginal tax rate, we concluded
that, over the same period of time, use of the effective tax rate resulted in an
amount that differed only slightly from the Company's calculation. Therefore,
we have added $910,000 to the revenue requirement for FY 1993 -94." It is
important to note that the calculation of the $910,000 utilizes the 5% after -tax
method for calculating profit for the years 1986 -87, 1987 -88, 1988 -89, 1989-
90, 1991 -92, and 1992 -93. The confirmation of the balancing account total by
HF &H further supports the fact that the 5% after -tax on all costs method has
been used to establish the appropriate profit for GVD for ALL prior rate
reviews.
3. Industry Comparison: The HF &H recommendation is not supported by
general industry standards. The HF &H report included a review of the
operating ratios earned by fourteen publicly -held waste management
4
1800 Harrison Street
BARAKAT CHAMBERLIN, INC.
Oakland
1 Bth Floor
Washington, D.C.
Oakland, California 94612
Toronto
(510) 893.7800
Portland, OR
Fax (510) 893.1321
Boulder
Son Diego
Dallas
Portland, ME
companies, the average operating ratio earned by 266 companies included in
the Robert Morris Associates (RMA) survey, and the operating ratios allowed
by 12 other jurisdictions. The report states on page 13 that the range of profit
earned or allowed in 1992 -93 was between (87 %) to ninety five percent
(94.6 %)
It is interesting to note that the operating ratios calculated for all 14 publicly
traded waste management firms, and all 266 firms in the RMA study were
computed using an expense base that includes all disposal fees and all franchise
fees. In addition, 10 of the 12 other jurisdictions surveyed by HF &H allow
operating ratios that are applied to all or a portion of disposal fees. Despite
the fact that the overwhelming majority, 290 out of 292, of the comparable
operating ratios were computed using an expense base that includes all or a
portion of disposal fees, HF &H has recommended that a 91 % operating ratio
be applied to an expense base that excludes franchise fees and disposal costs.
GVD provided numerous pieces of correspondence addressing the
inappropriateness of the HF &H recommendation. GVD pointed out numerous
times that the HF &H recommended approach of applying an operating ratio to
a cost base that excludes franchise fees and disposal fees is inconsistent with
the data which HF &H provided as support. GVD provided documentation
showing that if the comparative jurisdictional operating ratio data provided by
HF &H were adjusted to be on a basis consistent with the recommended
approach of excluding franchise fees and disposal fees, the average operating
ratio of 90.16% shown in the HF &H survey would be 86.8%. It is
inaccurate, inconsistent, and inappropriate to recommend that the operating
ratio that will be applied to approximately 50% of total costs, and then attempt
to support the recommended operating ratio with comparative operating ratios
that have been applied to all costs.
At a meeting with the Jurisdictions on November 7, 1994, GVD and its
consultants verbally questioned Mr. Hobson regarding the inappropriateness of
his recommendation. Mr. Hobson acknowledged that while his
recommendation was not consistent with the majority of the comparative data
provided in his report, he believed his recommendation was entirely consistent
with apparently just ONE of the 292 comparisons provided in his report. In
Mr. Hobson's judgement, he believed the South Bayside Transfer Station
5
1800 Hanison Street BARAKAT CHAMBERLIN, INC.
Mond ,
18th Floor
Washington, D.C.
Oakland, California 94612
Toronto
(510) 893.1800
Portland, OR
Fox (510) 893.1321
Boulder
San Diego
Dallas
Portland, ME
Authority (SBTSA) provided an example of a regulatory situation most
comparable to the Jurisdictions and GVD. Mr. Hobson stated that, similar to
his recommendation for GVD, the SBTSA allows its collection company a
91 % operating ratio applied to a cost base that excludes disposal and franchise
fees.
GVD's consultants pointed out that the SBTSA collection contract was
negotiated simultaneously with the transfer station contract. Although the
hauler and operator, Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), accepted a 91 %
operating ratio applied to the limited cost base on the collection side, they also
were also allowed a 10.25% return on assets at the transfer station. Due to
the fact that the contracts were negotiated at the same time, it is useful to
evaluate the returns or profit allowance resulting from the combined collection
and transfer operations. The profits allowed on the combined collection and
transfer operations are equivalent to an 89.75% operating ratio applied to the
combined expense base that includes disposal fees. Although Mr. Hobson has
accurately described the collection portion of the, contracts, he has not
presented the entire picture.
Given the inconsistency of Mr. Hobson's recommendation with 291 of the 292
comparisons provided in his report, and the questionable comparability of the
SBTSA example, GVD has questioned the basis of Mr. Hobson's
recommendation. At the November 7, 1994 meeting, Mr. Hobson stated that
his recommendation was not intended to be statistically accurate, the
recommendation was based upon judgement. If judgement is the basis of the
HF &H recommendation, GVD believes the recommendation is based upon
very poor judgement.
GVD believes the issues surrounding the determination of appropriate profits can be
easily resolved by returning to the steps outlined on page 2. The contract and past
practice have clearly established 5% after tax as the appropriate profit allowance for
GVD.
6
4
1800 Harrison Street BARAKATO CHAMBERLIN, INC.
Oo1brd
18th Floor
Washington, D.C.
Oakland, California 94611
Toronto
(510) 893.1800
Portland, OR
Fax (510) 893.1321
Boulder
Son Diego
Dallas
Portland, ME
CONSULTING FEES
GVD requested reimbursement of $73,500 of consulting fees paid by the company to
consultants to provide assistance in responding to the unreasonable recommendations
contained in the draft report. The HF &H final report states that the RRC determined
that according to section 6D of the franchise agreements, the company was precluded
from recovering any costs associated with the preparation of the rate application. The
report states that the RRC directed HF &H to exclude the consulting fees from the
Company's allowed costs.
The consultant fees incurred by GVD had nothing to do with the preparation of the
rate application. GVD did not engage any consultants until after the receipt of the
HF&H draft report on January 19, 1994. As mentioned previously, unlike any
previous performance audits, the draft HF &H report recommended the disallowance
of $1,063,292 of costs, and recommended a profit margin that was contrary to the
contract, past practice and general industry standards. Given the magnitude of the
recommended disallowances and the presentation of supposed "industry standards"
GVD believed it was necessary to seek professional assistance in'responding to the
inappropriate recommendations contained in the HF &H report.
GVD's consultants have assisted in the restoration of all but $12,154 of the original
recommended disallowance. GVD believes strongly that it could have avoided the
need for professional consulting assistance if the original draft recommendation had
been prepared in an accurate, reasonable, and responsible manner. GVD believes the
consulting fees were a reasonable and necessary cost incurred as a result of the
HF &H recommendation, and believes the cost should be included in rates.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: _December 7; 1994 CITY MANAGER f r44-
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Rubbish Rate Adjustments to go into Effect on February 1,
1995.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS(S):
1. Hold the public hearing.
2. Approve recommendation to increase Drop Box rates by 15.5 %.
3. Direct the preparation of a resolution setting rates to be
acted upon by the City Council at the January 4, 1995 meeting.
BACKGROUND
Based upon the City Manager's September 7, 1994 report, the City
Council awarded the Contract for Yard Waste and Expanded Recycling
Services to Green Valley Disposal Company. These services are
scheduled to begin on February 1, 1995. The firm of Hilton
Farnkopf & Hobson has completed the performance audit to the extent
necessary for the City staff to calculate the rubbish rates which
go into effect on February 1, 1995.
Analysis and Discussion
As a result of the performance audit three major factors have
served to impact rates as they apply to the various service sectors
of the franchise which are residential, commercial and debris
boxes.
1. The time and motion study indicates that the cost to hard to
serve areas is 57% greater than for flat land service. The
City has historically only charged a 40% rate differential per
can.
2. The distribution of cost among the sectors: Based on the cost
analysis in the audit there has been a major shift in cost
away from the residential and commercial sectors to the debris
box sector. Green Valley Disposal Company believes that the
cost allocation model is not sophisticated enough to
accurately spread some costs appropriately. The result of
this is inflated costs for the debris box sector of the
franchise. It is the company's position that if the model is
applied as recommended, that the cost of debris box service,
some 1,640 boxes were ordered throughout the City last year,
will exceed the competitive market rate resulting in potential
users finding alternative, means of disposal. Such alternative
means are currently available to potential users if price
becomes the overriding factor. In addition, because the rate
adjustments to the drop -off box sector are significant, due in
part to the cost of providing 85 "free" boxes to the City, the
audit recommends recovering this cost by allocating a portion
of the expense to the residential and commercial sectors. In
an effort to resolve this problem, we have shifted the cost of
the free boxes from being fully paid for by the drop -off box
sector, by allocating 81% of the cost to residential and 19%
to the commercial sector.
3. The calculation of profit for the company: The audit
recommends a gross profit based upon a 91% operating ratio
exclusive of rubbish rates and franchise fees which are
treated as pass through items for profit calculation purposes.
The company disputes this approach indicating that it is, in
their view, inconsistent with the intent of the franchise
agreement which calls for a 5% net profit as a guideline to be
used in setting rates. The 91% operating ratio method results
in a 5.8% net profit on operating costs minus pass through
expenses. An example of how a change in the operating ratio
affects the required amount of profit paid to Green Valley
Disposal is listed below:
Operating Ratio Resulting Profit to Green Valley, Disposal
91% $174,744
90% $194,356
89% $214,008
In summary, for every 1% decrease in the operating ratio, an
approximate $20,000 increase in profit occurs.
In addition, a fourth item not related to the performance audit is
the calculation of the tipping fee allowed to be charged by the
Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company (Guadalupe) under the 20 year
landfill agreement with the four west valley jurisdictions. The
disposal rate in effect for FY93 -94 was $43.55/ton ($27.19 /ton base
fee + $16.36/ton as surcharges). In June 1994, Guadalupe requested
an increase in the tipping fee to $46.83 per ton.
The tipping fee is being disputed by the Rate Review Committee.
The Committee is presently working with Guadalupe representatives
to determine an appropriate disposal fee based on the evaluation of
surveyed data compiled from comparable landfills. The Rate Review
Committee maintains that the landfill should be calculating the
rates using the contracted fees paid by other jurisdictions as
specified in the Landfill Agreement, rather than the posted gate
rates paid by the general public at the disposal site. It is
believed that the rate allowed under the agreement should be no
less than $36.84 a ton, including surcharges, but may be as much as
10% higher, i.e. $40.52 once the issue is resolved.
Saratoga's annual projected tonnage by sector is:
SECTOR TONS
Residential 9,000
Commercial 3,000
Debris Boxes 7,000
19,000
In summary, a one dollar increase in the landfill tipping fee
results in an approximate $21,000. required revenue increase. This
is due to a 10% Franchise Fee being added on to the additional
cost. Therefore, a $1.00 increase in tipping fees results.in a
$1.10 cost to the customer.
Rate Structure
In an attempt to balance these factors and also account for the
cost of expanded curbside recycling, the staff has been able to
work out rates which will be sufficient to cover anticipated costs
through July 1, 1996. In applying these rates, the above factors
were taken into account. As a result, the only rate which needs to
be changed is the debris box rate.
The basic flat land curbside rate for residential service will
remain at $15.27 per can. The 40% surcharge presently levied to
cover the extra cost of providing service to the hard to serve
areas of the City will be raised to 57 %. Commercial rates for both
containers and dumpsters will remain unchanged. The rate for
debris boxes will increase by 15.5% from the current rate to meet
the total revenue requirement for Green Valley Disposal Company,
based upon the cost distribution model developed by the consultant.
These rates are inclusive of the additional costs for the expanded
recycling program.
In order to cover the possibility of an increase in the Guadalupe
Rubbish tipping fee or a decrease in the Green Valley Disposal
Company operating ratio, resulting in increased profit, a shortfall
reserve has been built into the rate structure.
As a result of our analysis, it is recommended that the City
Council conduct the hearing, approve the increase in drop box
rates, and direct the preparation of a resolution with findings to
be approved at the January 4, 1995 City Council meeting. The issue
of the operating ratio and the disposal costs are still under
review by the Rate Review Committee. However, in setting the
rates, we are assuming that any affect on the rates by these two
variables will be covered within the parameters of the established
contingency fund,.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 94 -95 Operating Budget assumes that all solid waste
management costs are borne by the rate payers.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 5�a AGENDA ITEM O
MEETING DATE: December 7, 1994 CITY MGR. /
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk
SUBJECT: 'Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by
Removal of Hazardous Weeds
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution ordering abatement.
Report Summary:
The attached resolution represents the second
abatement- process for this season. The Co
owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement
them that the weeds must be abated, either by
the County. The notice also informed them that
objections at tonight's public hearing.
Follow -up Actions:
step in the weed
anty has sent the
notices informing
the owners or by
they may' present
The final steps take place next summer, when the County
presents the Council with a list of properties whose abatement
bills have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any
objections, passes a resolution declaring liens on those
properties.
Fiscal Impacts:
None to City. County recovers costs from administrative portion
of fee charged.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Weed abatement could not be performed by the County. It would be
necessary to depend upon property owners to take care of their
own abatement.
Attachments:
Resolution.
(List of parcels requiring weed abatement is available at City
Clerk's office.)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. S�
AGENDA ITEM y4e7
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Joint Alternative Fueling Facility Project with West
Valley College
Recommended Motion(s) : 1. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing
City participation in the joint project with West Valley College.
2. Move to direct staff to enter into necessary agreements to
complete the project.
Report Summary: As part of a continuing effort to improve the'air
quality in the San Francisco Bay area, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ( BAAQMD) allocates.AB 434 vehicle registration
fees (Clean Air funds) to local sponsors of projects which promote
clean air. Sixty percent of the fees are allocated on a
competitive basis to project sponsors from throughout the region.
The remaining forty percent of funds are allocated proportionally
to each county. In Santa Clara County, the Congestion Management
Agency serves as the program manager for the 40% funds returned to
the County.
Earlier this year, the BAAQMD announced the recipients of the 60%
funds for the FY 94 -95 funding cycle. Among the projects funded is
an Alternative Fuel Vehicle Demonstration project sponsored by a
consortium of cities in the County along with several school
districts including the West Valley /Mission Community College
District. The project proposes to convert a number of fleet
vehicles to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fuel and to create several
satellite CNG fueling stations throughout the County. One of the
satellite fueling stations was envisioned to be located on the
campus of West Valley College.
Since the announcement of the grant for the project, West Valley
College staff has acknowledged difficulties in locating a suitable
site on the campus for the fueling station. Each of the potential
locations evidently carries with them high site preparation costs
which would not be eligible for reimbursement under the grant
program. As a result, College District staff has approached City
staff to explore the possibility of locating the fueling station on
City owned property. If a feasible site can be located, the City
would assume ownership of and operate the station, and would build
the station using the grant funds allocated to the College.
After researching the physical, mechanical and operational
requirements of a CNG fueling station, staff believes that the City
can support such a facility at the Corporation Yard.
Representatives from the College, PG &E and a company which
manufactures CNG fueling equipment have all seen the proposed Corp.
Yard site and believe that it is well suited to accommodate a
satellite CNG fueling facility. The station would be readily
accessible to the College, which plans to initially convert 16 of
their fleet vehicles to CNG fuel, as well as to the Post Office
which, in the near future, plans to convert as many as 25 of their
vehicles to CNG fuel. Of course, it is envisioned that -the City
would use the fueling station too as older vehicles are surplused
and new CNG fueled vehicles are acquired. In fact, the City has
been earmarked for at least one alternative fuel vehicle in FY 94-
95 (CNG or electric) by the CMA as part of a similar Alternative
Fuel Vehicle Demonstration Project financed by the 40% funds and
administered by the CMA. .
At this time staff is requesting Council's conceptual approval to
proceed with the project as outlined above. If the Council
supports the project, the Council should adopt the attached
resolution which would add the City as a co- sponsor of the project
with the College. This would enable the BAAQMD to release the AB
434 funds directly to the City to build the fueling station. It is
estimated that the fueling station equipment would cost $91,500 to
purchase and that this entire amount would be reimbursed with AB
434 funds. It is also recommended that the Council authorize the
City Manager to enter into any necessary agreements with the
BAAQMD, the College and possibly PG &E to complete the project.
Fiscal Impacts: Not fully known at this time. There will be some
site preparation costs for the fueling station which would not be
reimbursable through the grant funds, but which the College has
indicated that they would be willing to share with the City. The
City would purchase bulk fuel from PG &E, but would sell the. fuel at
a mark -up to cover administrative and operational costs, plus a
potential profit.factor. Long term vehicle maintenance costs may
decrease as the City's fleet is converted to CNG fuel.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City
would not participate in the project with the College. The City
would most likely acquire an electric vehicle as part of the CMA's
project.
Follow Up Actions: The resolution will be forwarded to the BAAQMD.
Design development efforts for the fueling station would continue.
Any implementing agreements between the various entities involved
in the project would be executed.
Attachments: 1. BAAQMD resolution. (TO BE DISTRIBUTED AT MEETING)
2. South Bay Clean Cities MOU.
3. Letter proposal from PCI dated November 14, 1994.
11
E1r:YQ {/ IYy4
SOUTH BAY CLEAN CITIES COALITION
1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This
non - binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between the City
1
of
Saratoga and thle South Bay: Clean Cities Coalition (SBCCC).
1
The
members of the SBCCC,�i consisting of federal,. state, and local
agencies
and private businesses, join together in the interest of:
1
1.
Reducing the South Bay Region's dependence on petroleum based fuels,
particularly for fleets ofl vehicles, as specified in the Federal Energy
1
Policy Act of 1992.
2..
Maintaining the outstanding quality of life in the Bay Region by
supporting and sustainir>g environmentally sound programs.
3. ..Complying
with the alternative fuel fleet provisions of the Federal
Energy Policy
of 1992.
4.
Complying with the California Clean Air Act which sets an
agg.ressive program for the introduction of Zero and Low Emission
Vehicles.
I
5.
Cooperating with the entire Bay Region in compliance with the
alternative fuel fleet provisions of the California Clean Air Act, and
J
the regulations of the Bay ay Ar ea Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) in continued `improvement of the air quality of the region.
S.
Educating fleet operators, businesses, and the public on alternative
1
fuels and available vehicies while encouraging their.usage.
I7.
Exploring through the SBCCC cost effective opportunities to com I
PY
with environmental mandates.
I
�
8.
Minimizing
g,fle_et
� conversion and operating costs for all fleet owners.
I9.
Stimulating the economic vitality of this region by encouraging the
9 9
use of the high tech
skills of the area in the development and
Iproduction
J
of improved transportation methods.
I
- 10. E
f stablishing self sustaining markets for alternative fuels that will.
provide the infrastructure to enable the general public to join in the to
1 emission efforts starteo .by the fleet owners, w
71. Showcasing the South Bay's readiness to join with the o
metropolitan areas of North' other
ern California in continuing improvement of
the air quality of this half of the state.
The undersigned enter into this nonbinding MOU in order to join SBCCC in
1 a
coordinated effort to promote and accommodate the acquisition and use
alternative fueled vehicle in the City of Saratoga of
the South Bay Region, includingg the establishment and joint usage ofout
refueling, training and servicing sites and facilities; to assit in
collection and analysis of environmental, economic, and perfor
n mance data
on alternative fuel vehicles;; to apply for funding or services from
federal government and other appropriate the
Cl
Clean Cities Project; and to'seekadditional resources o Sustain the SBCCC
1 recruitment of other public and private entities not the
SBCCC. be
of the
This Memorandum of Understanding is non - binding and is not intened and
does not create any contractual rights or obligations with respectto the
signatories or any other parties.
CITY OF SOUTH BAY CLEAN CITIES COALITION
by the Executive Committee:
City Manager
Approved as to form:
City Attorney zez
Attested:
- -= _� • �0�� ----- - --- --
City Clerk
represent nc
r resenting
representing __Qgx
F)c I
2311 Magnolia Street
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 444 -8081
November 14, 1994
Mr. Larry Perlin
City of Saratoga
Public Works Dept.
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA, 95070
Subject: CNG Satellite Fuel Station
Dear Mr. Perlin:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed CNG fuel
station site. It would appear to be an ideal location for both
the City of Saratoga and the neighboring fuel users. The fuel
itself is environmentally very safe,.and we are excited about the
potential for CNG as a motor fuel. This is an unusual opportunity
for the City to access the BAAQMD funds and to gain some
experience with the fuel.
The Satellite Station that PG &E is willing to lend in the
interim, prior to funds being released, is identical to the unit
described below.
The PCI Satellite Station consists of 1) a mobil storage module
(a tube trailer), and 2) station ground equipment.
1. Tube trailer is a reconditioned /recertified DOT regulated
trailer. Pressure rating is 2400psi. Capacity is 67,000 scf, or
about 670 therms. Pricing is subject to availability and current
market price of the used tubes. Current Coalition price is
$54.000.00.
2. The complete set of ground equipment includes the
sequencing /control panel, dispenser(card lock compatible), air
driven gas booster, 25 HP Nema 1 air compressor, and a remote
ESD. Coalition price for the above is $37,500.00.
Leases are also available on the trailers, which might be
preferable if availability of the used assets becomes a problem.
Hopefully this information helps. We are currently having some
literature printed, and will forward it to you next week.
Sincerely,
J nglish,
Sales Manager
m
z
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-
7 �W
'all
41,
....... .....
F,- P.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
1 A,
AM
40 SIM*
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
a TA3
MEETING DATE: December 7, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM /
CITY MGR.
SUBJECT: Amendments to City of Saratoga Conflict of Interest Code
Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution.
Repoi t summary:
As directed by the Council on September 16, staff has prepared a
revised Conflict of Interest Code. The attached resolution will adopt
the State model code, thus automatically incorporating any State law
changes into Saratoga's code. Employees who were previously required
to file Statements of Economic Interests are also designated in the new
code. In addition, consultants who participate in making decisions
which could foreseeably have a material effect on a financial interest
are also designated as now required by law.
Appendix A: Designees - Consultants specifically designated are the
City Geotechnical Consultants, the City Surveyor, the City Arborist,
and the Solid Waste Program Manager. There is also a special category
to cover certain short -term consultants. The law allows the City
Manager make the decision on reporting requirements for these
consultants, and that is the procedure staff recommends adopting.
Appendix B: Disclosure Categories - These have been set up to
correspond with schedules filed with Form 730, the Statement of
Economic Interest for Designated Employees.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Follow Up Actions:
Statement of Economic Interest forms will be provided to the newly
designated consultants, who will have 30 days to file the forms. In
addition, their contracts may need to be amended to include the filing
requirement. This may result in their charging the City for the time
required to fill out the forms, which would then be a State - mandated
cost for which the staff will attempt to obtain reimbursement from the
State.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Saratoga would not be in compliance with State law.
Attachments:
1. Resolution adopting model code.
2. FPPC Regulation 18730 (Provisions of Conflict of Interest
Codes)
P.
APPENDIX A
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Administration
Assistant to the City Manager
Public Works Department
Public Works Director
Street Superintendent
Parks and Buildings Superintendent
Community Development Department
Community Development Director
City Codes Administrator
DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
A through H -3
A through H -3
A through H -3 ( o n l y
those investments,
business positions and
sources of income of the
type which provide
services, supplies,
materials, machinery or
equipment of the type
utilized by the City of
Saratoga)
A through H -3 (only
those investments,
business positions and
sources of income of the
type which provide
services, supplies,
materials, machinery or
equipment of the type
utilized by the City of
Saratoga)
A through H -3
A through H -3 (only
those investments,
business positions and
sources of income of the
type which provide
services, supplies,
materials, machinery or
equipment of the type
utilized by the_ City of
Saratoga or which are
subject to the
regulatory, permit or
licensing authority of
the City of Saratoga or
which engage in land
d e v e l o p m e n t,
construction or the
acquisition or sale of
Recreation Department
Recreation Director
Finance Department
Finance Director
Consultants
City Arborist
City Geotechnical Consultant
City Surveyor
real property; interests
in real property in the
jurisdiction, including
within a two -mile radius
of any property owned
or used by the City of
Saratoga)
A through H -3
A through H -3
A through H -3 (only
those investments,
business positions and
sources of income which
are subject to the
regulatory y, permit or
licensing authority of
the City of Saratoga)
A through H -3 (only
those investments,
business positions, and
sources of income of the
type which engage in
land development,
construction .or the
acquisition or sale of
real property; interests
in real property in the
jurisdiction, including
within a two -mile radius
of any property owned
or used by the City of
Saratoga)
A through H -3 (only
those investments,
business positions, and
sources of income of the
type, which engage in
nd
la development,
construction or the
acquisition or sale of
real property; interests
in real property in the
jurisdiction, including
within a two -mile radius
of any property owned
or used by the City of
Saratoga)
Solid Waste Program Manager A through H -3 (only
those investments,
business positions and
sources of income of the
type which provide
services, supplies,
materials, machinery or
equipment of the type
utilized by the City of
Saratoga; interests in
real property in the
jurisdiction, including
within a two mile radius
of any property that is
or may be used as a
disposal site, transfer
station or resource
recovery facility in
which the consultant
provides planning or
technical assistance or
has enforcement branch
responsibilities)
Other Consultants*
*Consultants shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure
category in the code subject to the following limitation: The City
Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although
a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that is
limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with. the
disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written
determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties
and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of
disclosure requirements. The City Manager's determination is a public
record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner
and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.
Officials Who Manage Public Investments:
It has been determined that the position listed below manages public
investments. In accordance with Fair Political Practices Commission
Regulation 18720, adopted March 3, 1994, that person will file the Form
721 Statement of Economic Interests rather than Form 730, beginning
with the statement which is due April 1, 1995.
Finance Director
R
APPENDIX B
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category
A:
Investments not held through a business entity or
trust
Category
B:
Interests in Real Property not held through a business
entity or trust
Category
C -1:.
Interests in.Real Property Held by a Business Entity
or Trust
Category
C -2:
Investments held by a Business Entity or Trust
Category
D:
Income (other than loans, gifts and honoraria)
Category
D -1:
Income (travel payments, advances, reimbursements)
Category
E:
Income - Loans received or outstanding during
reporting period
Category
F:
Income - Gifts
Category
G:
Business Positions
Category
H -1:
Commission Income Received by Brokers, Agents and
Salespersons
Category
H -2:
Income and Loans to Business Entities or Trusts
Category
H -3:
Income from Rental Property
ATTACHMENT 2
(Regulations of-the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2,
Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations)
18730. Provisions of Conflict of Interest Codes
(a) Incorporation by reference of the terms of this
regulation along with the designation of employees and the
formulation of disclosure categories in the Appendix referred to
below constitute the adoption and promulgation of a conflict of
interest code within the meaning of Government Code Section 87300
or the amendment of a conflict of interest code within the meaning
of Government Code Section 87306 if the terms of this regulation
are substituted for terms of a conflict of interest code already
in effect. A code so amended or adopted and promulgated requires
the reporting of reportable items in a manner substantially
equivalent to the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 7 of the
Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000, et sea. The
requirements of a conflict of interest code are in addition to
other requirements of the Political Reform Act, such as the
general prohibition against conflicts of interest contained in
Government Code Section 87100, and to other state or local laws
pertaining to conflicts of interest.
(b) The terms of a conflict of interest code amended or
adopted and promulgated pursuant to this regulation are as
follows:
(1-)--Section 1.-Definitions. The definitions contained
in the Political Reform Act of 1974, regulations of the Fair
Political Practices Commission (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections
18100, et sees.), and any amendments to the Act or regulations, are
incorporated by reference into this conflict of interest code.
1
18730
(2) Section 2. Designated Employees. The persons
holding positions listed in the Appendix are designated employees.
It has been determined that these persons make or participate in
the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material
effect on financial interests.
(3) Section 3. Disclosure Categories._,. .This code does
not establish any disclosure obligation for those designated
employees who are also specified in Government Code Section 87200
if they are designated in this code in that same capacity or if
the geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as or is
wholly included within the jurisdiction in which those persons
must report their financial interests pursuant to Article 2 of
Chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections
87200, et sea.
In addition, this code does not establish any disclosure
obligation for any designated employees who are designated in a
conflict of interest code for another agency, if all of the
following apply:
A) The geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the
same as or is wholly included within the jurisdiction of the other
agency;
B) The disclosure assigned in the code of the other
agency is the same as that-required-under-Article 2 of Chapter 7
of the Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 87200; and
2 18730
' r
C) The filing officer is the same for both agencies.l
Such persons are covered by this code for
disqualification purposes only. With respect to all other
designated employees, the disclosure categories set forth in the
Appendix specify which kinds of financial interests are
reportable. Such a designated employee shall disclose in.his or
her statement of economic interests those financial interests he
or she has which are of the kind described in the disclosure
categories to which he or she is assigned in the Appendix. It has
been determined that the financial interests set forth in a
designated employee's disclosure categories are the kinds of
financial interests which he or she foreseeably can affect.
materially through the conduct of his or her office.
(4) Section 4. Statements of Economic Interests:
Place of Filing. The code reviewing body shall instruct all
designated employees within its code to file statements of
economic interests with the agency or with the code reviewing
body, as provided by the code reviewing body in the agency's
conflict of interest code.2
1 Designated employees who are required to file statements of
economic interests under any other agency's conflict of interest
code, or under Article 2 for a different jurisdiction, may expand
their statement of economic interests to cover reportable
interests in both jurisdictions, and file copies of this expanded
statement with both entities in lieu of filing separate and
distinct statements, provided that each copy of such expanded
statement filed in place of an original is signed and verified by
the designated employee as if it were an original. See Government
Code Section 81004.
2 See Government Code Section 81010 and 2 Cal. Code of Regs.
Section 18115 for the duties of filing officers and persons in
agencies who make and retain copies of statements and forward the
originals to the filing officer.
3 18730
(5) Section 5. Statements of Economic Interests: Time
of Filing.
(A) Initial Statements. All designated employees
employed by the agency on the effective date of this code, as
originally adopted, promulgated and.approved by the code reviewing
body, shall file statements within 30 days after.the effective
date of this code. Thereafter, each person already in a position
when it is designated by an amendment to this code shall file an
initial statement within 30 days after the effective date of the
amendment.
(B) Assuming Office Statements. All persons assuming
designated positions after the effective date of this code shall
file statements within 30 days after assuming the designated
positions, or if subject to State-Senate confirmation, 30 days
after being nominated or appointed.
(C) Annual Statements. All designated employees shall
file statements no later than April 1.
(D) Leaving Office Statements. All persons who leave
designated positions shall file statements within 30 days after
leaving office.
(5.5) Section 5.5. Statements for Persons Who Resign
Prior to Assuming Office. Any person who resigns within 12 months
of initial appointment, or-within 30 days of the date of notice
provided by the filing officer to file an assuming office
4 18730
statement, is not deemed to have assumed office or left office,
provided he or she did not make or participate in the making of,
or use his or her position to influence any decision and did not
receive or become entitled to receive any form of payment as a
result of his or her appointment. Such persons shall not file
either an assuming or leaving office statement..._..
(A) Any person who resigns a position within 30 days of
the date of a notice from the filing officer shall do both of the
following:
power; and
(1) File a written resignation.with the appointing
(2) File a written statement with the filing officer.
declaring under penalty of perjury that during the period between
appointment and resignation he or -she did not make, participate in
the making, or use the position to influence any decision of the
agency or receive, or become entitled to receive, any form of
payment by virtue of being appointed to the position.
(6) Section 6. Contents of and Period Covered by
Statements of Economic Interests.
(A) Contents of Initial Statements. Initial statements
shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real
property and business positions held on the effective date of the
code and income received during the 12 months prior to the
effective date of the code.
61
18730
(B) Contents of Assuming Office Statements. Assuming
office'statements shall disclose any reportable investments,
interests in real property and business positions held on the date
of assuming office or, if subject to State Senate confirmation or
appointment, on the date of nomination, and income.received during
the 12 months prior to the date of assuming office.or the.date of
being appointed or nominated, respectively.
(C) Contents of Annual Statements. Annual statements
shall disclose any reportable investments, interests-in real
property, income and business positions held or received during
the previous calendar year provided, however, that the period
covered by an employee's first annual statement shall begin on the
effective date of the code or the date of assuming office
whichever is later.
(D) Contents of Leaving Office Statements. Leaving
office statements shall disclose reportable investments, interests
in real property, income and business. positions held,or received
during the period between the closing.date of the last statement
filed and the date of leaving office.
(7) Section 7. Manner of Reporting. Statements of
economic interests shall be made on forms prescribed by the Fair
Political Practices Commission and supplied by the agency, and
shall contain the following information:-
6 18730
(A) Investments and Real Property Disclosure. When an
investment or an interest in real property is required to be
reported,4 the statement shall contain the following:
interest;
1. A statement of the nature of the investment or
2. The name of.the business entity in which each
investment is held, and a general description of the business
activity in which the business entity is engaged;
property;
3. The address or other precise location of the real
4. A statement whether the fair market value of the
investment or interest in real property exceeds one thousand .
dollars ($1,000), exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or
exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
(B) Personal Income Disclosure. When personal income
is required to be reported,5 the statement shall contain:
3 For the purpose of disclosure only (not disqualification), an
interest in real property does not include the principal residence
of the filer.
4 Investments and interests in real property which have a fair
market value of less than $1,000 are not investments and interests
in real property within the meaning of the Political Reform Act.
However, investments or interests in real property of an
individual include those held by the individual's spouse and
dependent children as well as a pro rata. share of any investment
or interest in real.,,property of any business entity or trust in
which the individual, spouse and dependent children own, in the
aggregate, a direct, indirect or beneficial interest of 10 percent
or greater.
5 A designated employee's income includes his or her community
property interest in the income of his or her spouse but does not
include salary or reimbursement for expenses received from a
state, local or federal government agency.
7 18730
1. The name and address of each source of income
aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value or
fifty dollars ($50) or more in value if the income was a gift, and
a general description of the business activity, if any, of each
source;
2. A statement whether the aggregate value of income
from each source, or in the case of a loan, the highest amount
owed to each source, was one thousand dollars ($1,000) or less,
greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or greater than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000);
3. A description of the consideration, if any, for
which the income was received;
4. In the case of a gift, the name, address and
business activity of the donor and any intermediary through which
the gift was made; a description of the gift; the amount or value
of the gift; and the date on which.the gift was received;
5. In the case of a loan, the annual interest rate and
the security, if any, given for the loan.
(C) Business Entity Income Disclosure. When income of
a business entity, including income of a sole proprietorship, is
required to be reported,6 the statement shall contain:
b Income of a business entity is reportable if the direct,
indirect or beneficial interest of the filer and the filer's
spouse in the business entity aggregates a 10 percent or greater
interest. In addition, the disclosure of persons who are clients
or customers of a business entity is required only if the clients
or customers are within one of the disclosure categories of the
filer.
8 18730
r
1. The-name, address,- and a general description of the
business activity of the business entity;
2. The name of every person from whom the business
entity received payments if the filer's pro rata share of gross
receipts from such person was equal.to or greater than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000). _
(D) Business Position Disclosure. When business
positions are required to be reported, a designated employee shall
list the name and address of each business entity in-which he or
she is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or in
which he or she holds any position of management, a description of
the business activity in which the business entity is engaged, and
the designated employee's position with the business entity.
(E) Acquisition or Disposal During Reporting Period.
In the case of an annual or leaving office statement, if an
investment or an interest in real property was partially or wholly
acquired or disposed of during the period covered by the
statement, the statement shall contain the date of acquisition or
disposal.
(8) Section 8. State Agency Prohibition on Receipt of
Honoraria. No member of a state board or commission, and no
designated employee of a state agency, shall accept any honorarium
from any source, if the member or employee- -would be required to
report the receipt of income or gifts from that source on his or
her statement of economic interests. This section shall not apply
to any part -time member of the governing board of any public
institution of higher education, unless the member is also an
elected official.
9
18730
Subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e) of Government Code
Section 89502 shall apply to the prohibitions in this section.
(8.1) Section 8.1 State Agency Prohibition on Receipt
of Gifts of $250 or More. No member of a state board or
commission, and no designated employee of a state agency, shall
accept gifts with a total value of more than two - hundred fifty
dollars ($250) in a calendar year from any single source, if the
member or employee would be required to report the receipt of
income or gifts from that source on his or her statement.of
economic interests. This section shall not apply to any part-
time member of the governing board of any public institution of
higher education, unless the member is also an elected official.
Subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) of Government Code
Section 89504 shall apply to the prohibitions in this section.
(9) Section 9.. Disqualification. No designated
employee shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt
to use his or her official position to influence the making of any
governmental decision which he or she knows or has reason to know
will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect,
distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the
official or a member of his or her immediate family or on:
(A) Any business entity in which the designated
employee has a direct or indirect investment worth one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or more;
10 18730
(B) Any real property in which the designated employee
has a direct or indirect interest worth one thousand dollars
($1,000) or more;
(C) Any source of income, other than gifts and other
than loans by a commercial lending institution in the regular
course of business on terms available to the public without regard
to official status, aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250)
or more in value provided to, received by or promised to the
designated employee within 12 months prior to the time when the
decision is made;
(D) Any business entity in which the designated
employee is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or
holds any position of management; or
(E) Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a
donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating $250 or more in value
provided to; received by, or promised to the designated employee
within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made.
(9.3) Section 9.3. Legally Required Participation. No
designated employee shall be prevented from making or
participating in the making of any decision to the extent his or
her participation is legally required for the decision to be made.
The fact that the vote of a designated employee who is on a voting
body is needed to break a tie does not make hi-s or her
participation legally required for purposes of this section.
11
18730
n
(9.5) Section 9.5. Disqualification of State Officers
and Employees. In addition to the general disqualification
provisions of Section 9, no state administrative official shall
make, participate in making, or use his or her official position
to influence any governmental decision directly relating to any
contract where the state administrative. official knows or has
reason to know that any party to the contract is a person with
whom the state administrative official, or any member of his or
her immediate family has, within 12 months prior to the time when
the official action is to be taken:
(A) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions
on terms not available to members of the public, regarding any
investment or interest in real property; or
(B) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions
on terms not available to members of the public regarding the
rendering of goods or services totaling in value one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or more.
(10) Section 10. Manner of Disqualification. When a
designated employee determines that he or she should not make a
governmental decision because he or she has a disqualifying
interest in it, the determination not to act must be accompanied
by disclosure of the disqualifying interest. In the case of a
voting body, this determination and disclosure shall be made part
of the agency's official record; in the case of a designated
12 . 18730
employee who is the head of an agency, this determination and
disclosure shall be made in writing to his or her appointing
authority; and in the case of other designated employees, this
determination and disclosure shall be made in writing to the
designated employee's supervisor.
(11) Section 11. Assistance of the Commission and
Counsel. Any designated employee who is unsure of his or her
duties under this code may request assistance from the Fair
Political Practices Commission pursuant to Government Code Section
83114 or from the attorney for his or her.agency, provided that
nothing in this section requires the attorney for the agency to
issue any formal or informal opinion.
(12) Section 12. Violations. This code has the force
and effect of law. Designated employees violating any provision
of this code are subject to the administrative, criminal and civil
sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act, Government Code
Sections 81000 - 91014. In addition, a decision in relation to
which a violation of the disqualification provisions of this code
or of Government Code Section 87100 or 87450 has occurred may be
set aside as void pursuant to Government Code Section 91003.
Note: Authority: Section 83112, Gov. Code
Reference: Sections 87300 - 87302, 89503, and 89504, Gov. Code
13
18730
-is
History
(1) New section filed 4 -2 -80 as an emergency; effective upon
filing. Certificate of Compliance included.
(2) Editorial correction.
(3) Amendment of subsection (b) filed 1 -9 -81; effective thirtieth
day thereafter.
(4) Amendment of subsection (b)(7)(B)l. filed 1- 26 -83; effective
thirtieth day thereafter.
(5) Amendment of subsection (b) (7)(A) filed 11- 10 -83; effective
thirtieth day thereafter.
(6) Amendment filed 4- 13 -87; effective thirtieth day.thereafter.
(7) Amendment of subsection (b) filed 10- 21 -88; effective
thirtieth day thereafter.
(8) Amendment filed 8- 28 -90; effective thirtieth day thereafter.
(9) Amendment filed 8 -7 -92; effective thirtieth day thereafter.
(10) Amendment filed 2 -5 -93; effective upon filing.
14 18730
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �`�O�`� AGENDA ITEM (04%,a
DL' &M 3e 7 %
MEETING DATE: 4 eyember--� , 1994 CITY MANAGER_h!�//A'&O��,
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager .
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Adoption of County of Santa Clara Countywide Nondisposal
Facility Element
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS(S):
1. Hold the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution approving the County of Santa Clara
Countywide Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE) as the City of
Saratoga's NDFE.
BACKGROUND
In 1989 the State adopted AB 939 which requires municipalities to
adopt plans identifying strategies to reduce landfilled waste by
25% in 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. These plans are called Source
Reduction Recycling Elements (SRREs), and Household Hazardous Waste
Elements (HHWEs). The Elements are included in a Countywide
Integrated Waste Management Plan.
Public Resource Code Section 41730 et seq, 'requires cities and
counties to prepare and adopt another Element, the Nondisposal
Facility Element (NDFE), for all existing or proposed nondisposal
facilities which are required to implement local SRREs.
To assist the jurisdictions of Santa Clara County to meet this
requirement, the Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management
Program staff has prepared the attached NDFE for adoption.. The
NDFE identifies recycling and yard waste composting facilities and
transfer stations necessary to implement local diversion goals. A
nondisposal facility does not include landfills. In some cases,
however, these facilities are located at landfill sites. Table I
identifies the facilities currently utilized by each jurisdiction.
When approving and adopting an NDFE, the City is not required to
receive approval from other jurisdictions, nor is the City required
to revise its previously adopted SRRE to make these documents
consistent with subsequently adopted NDFEs. The NDFE will be
incorporated into the SRRE at the time of the first five -year
revision.
State law requires that at least one public hearing be held prior
to adopting the NDFE. A notice was placed in the Mercury News
advising the public of this hearing, in accordance with state
regulations.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.
Attachments: Resolution;. Sept. 6, 1994, Memo from County of
Santa Clara; Sept. 1, Local Task Force Letter;
NDFE
TABLE I. NONDISPOSAL FACILITIES UTILIZED BY JURISDICTIONS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
;<rtrss..
Flr< t .::.:::.::.:.....:.....................
...............................
.::::::::.
. ; .: :.;;::<;.;:.::;,• >;.
.......
;:«:> : � ::...._
I
.....MRSI? ...............
. New .....:.....
............................... .......R
.
Martt ..........
CAMPBELL
UPERTINO
CR
YW
1LROY
CR
CR
LOS ALTOS
CR
YW
LOS ALTOS HILLS
"
CR
YW
LOS GATOS
ILPITAS
Cl, CR
ONTE SERENO
ORGAN HILL
CR
CR
OUNTAIN VIEW
CR
MW
YW
PALO ALTO
YW
MW
AN JOSE
YW
YW
YW
SANTA CLARA
CI, CR
ARATOGA
YW
SUNNYVALE
MW
UNINCORPORATED
T
CR
I CR
YW
KEY:
CI= COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RECYCLABLES
CR= CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES
MW= MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
YW= YARD WASTE
NOTES:
1. Jurisdictions currently rely on facility indicated for recyclables processing:
2. All facilities have permitted available capacity for additional quantities of materials.
3. All facilities are permitted to accept nonhazardous materials (as specified in their permit) from throughout Santa Clara County.
4. City of Palo Alto Compost Facility accepts only yard waste that is generated within city limits.
5. Owens Corning Landfill is a proposed site.
6. Guadalupe, Newby, and Zanker Road Landfills divert materials from debris box loads delivered by franchised and independent
haulers operating throughout Santa Clara County.
6/30/94
Page 1
Fact Sheet #9
Zanker Road Class III Landfill
San Jose, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The Zanker Road Class III Landfill (Facility) began operations in 1985 on a site
formerly known as the Nine -Par Disposal Site (from 1934 - 1977). The 70 -acre Facility
(46 acres permitted for landfilling) is owned and operated by Zanker Road Resource
Manageinent Limited. The Facility is permitted to accept an unlimited amount of
non - hazardous and non - liquid solid wastes (except wet garbage) for processing each
day. These wastes consist mainly of construction and demolition debris, (such as
soil, asphalt, concrete, rebar and wood waste) yard waste, metals, glass, plastic, and
paper. The primary activities conducted at the Facility involve extensive resource
recovery and recycling. Currently, there are five recycling operations that take place
at the Facility: (1) sorting, splitting, chipping, screening, composting, stockpiling,
and resale of wood waste; (2) separating, crushing, stockpiling, and resale of concrete
waste; (3) separating recyclable materials from the incoming waste stream. (4)
remediation of contaminated soils to reduce contamination to acceptable levels so
the soils can be used for on -site construction or daily cover; (5) processing, screening,
composting, and resale of yard waste compost products. The Facility also uses a
portable picking line when necessary to assist in recovery operations. The residual
solid waste after processing is landfilled using an area fill method.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The Facility is permitted to landfill a maximum of 350 tons of inert waste per day.
In 1993, approximately 50 tons of inert waste were landfilled each day.
ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE:
Based on 1993 gate records, the Facility received approximately 675 tons of waste per
day for processing. In 1993, over 90% (usually between 92% and 96 %) of the material
was diverted from landfilling.
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The Facility serves all of Santa Clara County.
FACILITY LOCATION:
The Facility is located on Los Esteros Road, off of Highway 237, in north San Jose,
near the southeastern end of the.San Francisco Bay (see the attached map).
r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ADOPTING
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTYWIDE NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT
AS THE CITY OF 'S NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT
PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 41730 ET SEQ
WHEREAS, California Public Resources Code Section 41730 et seq. requires
the City of (City) to prepare, adopt and transmit to the
County of Santa Clara (County) a Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE) that
identifies all existing, expansion of existing, and proposed nondisposal facilities
which will be needed to implement the City's source reduction and recycling
element; and
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara Countywide Nondisposal Facility
Element has been prepared by County staff in accordance with requirements of
Public Resources Code Section 41730 et seq, and said NDFE identifies all existing,
expansion of existing, and proposed nondisposal facilities necessary to implement
the Source Reduction and Recycling Element of the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources- Code Section 41734 the NDFE has
been reviewed by the Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara County, acting as the
Local Task Force; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41735, the adoption of
the NDFE is not subject to the environmental review requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18766 of Title 14, Chapter 9, Article 7.0, of the
California Code of Regulations, the City has conducted a public hearing on the final
draft of the NDFE, and after testimony was presented, and upon a review of all
evidence in the record;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City that the
County of Santa Clara Countywide Nondisposal Facility Element is hereby approved
and adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
hereby authorizes the County of Santa Clara to submit a copy of this resolution and
the NDFE to the California Integrated Waste Management Board on the City's
behalf.
Page 1 of 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
County of Santa Clara, State of California, on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney
Mayor
Page 2 of 2
City Manager
f.
County of Santa Clara
Environmental Resources Agency
Integrated waste Management Program (408) 441 -1 198
Pollution Prevention Program (408) 441-1195
1735 North First Street. Suite 275
San Jose. California 951 12
FAX (408) 441 -0365
September 6, 1994
TO: City Representatives Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Michael Perry Solid Waste Program Analyst
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTYWIDE NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that your city or town council approve and adopt the attached County
of Santa Clara Countywide Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE) as your
jurisdiction's NDFE to meet the requirements of California Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 41730 et seq. Formal approval requires adoption of the NDFE by each
city or town council as the NDFE for its jurisdiction. Please note that NDFEs must
be submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) by
December 31, 1994.
The legal requirements for city /town approval and adoption of the NDFE are as
follows:
• Submit NDFE to Local Task Force (LTF) for review and comment
(LTF has reviewed the NDFE: a copy of the comment letter is attached)
• Conduct at least one public hearing on the NDFE document
• Have city /town council approve and adopt the NDFE by resolution
(a sample adoption resolution for use by city /town staff is attached)
• Send copy of city /town council approval/ adoption resolution to County
Please assure that your jurisdiction takes action by mid - November, so that executed
resolutions can be provided to the County on or about December 1, 1994. The
County Integrated Waste Management Program will submit 3 copies of the
Countywide NDFE, a copy of the LTF comment letter, and all of the city /town
adoption resolutions to the CIWMB on behalf of all jurisdictions that adopt the
element. CIWMB staff has informed the County that this process will meet the
requirements of PRC Section 41730 et seq. The NDFE is not subject to the
environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Board of Supervisors: Michael M. Honda. Zoe Lotgren. Ron Gonzales. Rod Diridon, Dianne McKenna
8-013
BACKGROUND
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires cities and
counties to prepare, adopt, and implement Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements (SRREs) and Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs). It also
requires counties to prepare a Countywide Siting Element. All of these Elements are
to be included in a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. In 1992, the
California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 3001 (Cortese) which amended the Act.
"114 RC Section 41730 et seq, requires California cities and counties to prepare and adopt
another Element, the Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE), for all existing or
proposed nondisposal facilities which will be needed to implement local SRREs. A
nondisposal facility is defined as any solid waste facility required to obtain a solid
waste facility permit except a disposal facility or transformation facility (PRC Section
40151).
To assist the jurisdictions of Santa Clara County to meet this requirement, County
Integrated Waste Management Program staff has prepared the attached County of
Santa Clara Countywide NDFE for adoption by all of the jurisdictions in Santa Clara
County except Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto has prepared and adopted its own
NDFE.
The NDFE identifies the transfer stations, material recovery facilities, and yard waste
composting facilities necessary to implement local waste diversion goals. Please
note that these facilities or operations are often located at disposal facility sites.
Prior to adopting or amending an NDFE, a city or county is required to submit its
NDFE to the LTF for review and comment. The LTF comment letter is required to
be submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
within 90 days of the date the LTF receives the NDFE for comment. The NDFE has
been reviewed by the LTF. A copy of the LTF comment letter is attached.
Prior to adopting the NDFE a jurisdiction must conduct at least one public hearing
on the NDFE in accordance with Section 18766 of Title 14, Chapter 9, Article 7.0, of
the California Code of Regulations.
When approving and adopting an NDFE, a jurisdiction is not required to receive
approval by any other jurisdiction(s). Cities and counties are not required to revise
their previously adopted SRREs to make these documents consistent with
subsequently adopted NDFEs. The NDFEs shall be incorporated into the SRREs at
the time of the first five -year revision.
Dianne McKenna
Supervisor, Fiftb District
September 1, 1994
Margaret J. Rands, Program Manager
Integrated Waste Management Program
County of Santa Clara
1735 North First Street, Suite 275
San Jose, Ca. 95112
Dear Ms. Rands:
The Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara County, acting as the
County Local Task Force (LTF), has reviewed the County of Santa Clara
Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE), as required by Public Resources
Code Section 41734 (a) and (b). LTF review and. comment focuses on:
potential regional impacts of the NDFE.
This document has been prepared to serve as the NDFE for fifteen
jurisdictions: the cities of Campbell; Cupertino; Gilroy; Los Altos;
Milpitas; Monte Sereno; Morgan Hill; Mountain View; San Jose; Santa
Clara; Saratoga; and Sunnyvale; the Towns of Los Altos Hills and Los
Gatos; and the County of Santa Clara.
The nondisposal facilities described in the County of Santa Clara's
NDFE should assist all jurisdictions in the County in their efforts oto :-
meet or exceed state mandated waste stream reduction goals. The LTF
believes that the facilities will positively impact the region, and does
not foresee any negative impacts in the County of Santa Clara.
Sincerely,
Dianne McKenna, Chair
Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara County
cc Michelle Lawrence, California Integrated Waste Management Board
Board of Supervisoff, Santa Clara County, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, 408/299 2323, 415/965 -87.37
COUNTY. OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTYWIDE NONDISPOSAL
FACILITY ELEMENT
e
Prepared by:
County of Santa Clara
Environmental Resources Agency
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Program
1735 North First Street, Suite 275
San Jose, CA 95112
408 441 -1198
September 1994
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTYWIDE NONDISPOSAL
FACILITY ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
City of Palo Alto Green Composting Facility
Map: City of Palo Alto Green Composting Facility 2
Fact Sheet #1: Palo Alto Green Composting Facility 3
Guadalupe Landfill
Map: Guadalupe Landfill 4
Fact Sheet #2: Guadalupe Landfill 5
Material Recovery Systems Facility
Map: Material Recovery Systems Facility 6
Fact Sheet #3: Material Recovery Systems Facility 7
Newby Island Compost Facility
Map: Newby Island Compost Facility 8
Fact Sheet #4: Newby Island Compost Facility 9
Owens- Corning Landfill
Map: Owens - Corning Landfill 10
Fact Sheet #5: Owens - Corning Landfill 11
The Recyclery at Newby Island
Map: The Recyclery at Newby Island 12
Fact Sheet #6: The Recyclery at Newby Island 13
San Martin Transfer Station
Map: San Martin Transfer Station 14
Fact Sheet #7: San Martin Transfer Station 15
Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT) Station
Map: SMaRT Station 16
Fact Sheet #8: SMaRT Station 17
Exhibit A: SMaRT Station Annual City Minimum Tonnage Commitment 18
Zanker Road Class III Landfill
Map: Zanker Road Class III Landfill 19
Fact Sheet #9:. Zanker Road Class III Landfill 20
Nondisposal Facilities Utilized in Santa Clara County Table I
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTYWIDE NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT
Introduction
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires cities and
counties to prepare, adopt, and implement Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements (SRREs) and Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs). It also
requires counties to prepare a Countywide Siting Element.. All of these Elements are
to be included in a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. In 1992, the
California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 3001 (Cortese) which amended the Act.
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 41730 et seq, requires California
cities and counties to prepare and adopt another Element, the Nondisposal Facility
Element (NDFE) for all existing or proposed nondisposal facilities which will be
needed to implement local SRREs. A nondisposal facility is defined as any solid
waste facility required to obtain a solid waste facility permit except a disposal facility
or transformation facility (PRC Section 40151). -
The County of Santa Clara's Countywide Integrated Waste Management Program
has prepared this Countywide NDFE for adoption by the cities of: Campbell;
Cupertino; Gilroy; Los Altos; Milpitas; Monte Sereno; Morgan Hill; Mountain View;
San Jose; Santa Clara; Saratoga; and Sunnyvale; the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los
Gatos; and the County of Santa Clara Unincorporated Area. The City of Palo Alto
has prepared and adopted its own NDFE.
This NDFE identifies transfer stations, material recovery facilities, yard waste
composting facilities, and landfills necessary to implement local waste diversion
goals. Table I, attached, identifies the facilities currently utilized by each jurisdiction
of to implement its SRRE and meet the solid waste diversion requirements of PRC
Section 41780.
A draft of this NDFE was submitted to the County of Santa Clara Local Task Force
for review and.comment regarding the regional impacts of the Nondisposal
facilities identified in this Element, in accordance with the requirements of PRC
Sections 41734 (a) and (b). As indicated by PRC Section 41735 (a), the adoption or
amendment of this NDFE is not subject to environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FIGURE I
- - 0
�� .♦
••` `�.• - - I __,; , \�
PALO ALTO
.y•\ . LANDFILL
6 �
1 /vim �. �' ; rte' l:� . n• r� /o_. �._�� \,�C�j a r
� �T�.Oi .e•rn L/ � - ^;� —�° -- - la �\ � it .�,__:.
PALO ALTO
�: �'9il >� •: ; \'•�� GREEN COMPOSTING FACILITY ...j:;
ScS�
\T c °j ` � \•.. -. \':rte �� •;. � ��\ Z _ __:.. _..\\ _ �� -,,�� \i� , � • Q' t''�:
� moo'..::::._ -.:� •�'� --- CD
Anza
schT .... _
,p•_` n Al ;ro rJ . 7 Grp\
s Itt)UNDAF1' I.I
DRAWN BY: GREEN COMPOSTING FACILITY APPROVED BY:
DATE:
CHEC'D BY: LOCATION MAP PE NO.
DATE: DATE:
SCALE: NONE City of . Palo Alto DRA\\'ING N0.
Paste 2
Fact Sheet #1
City of Palo Alto
Green Composting Facility
Palo Alto, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The Palo Alto Green Composting Facility (Facility) is owned and operated by the City
of Palo Alto (City). The Facility began operation in 1979, with the goal of extending
the life of the Palo Alto Landfill by diverting yard waste brought to the landfill. The
Facility accepts yard waste from City residents, non - residents, private gardeners, City
crews, tree and landscape contractors working for the City,, and county and state
crews working on freeway landscaping within City limits. In 1990, the City began
operating a full scale curbside yard waste collection program for its residents.
Acceptable yard waste includes leaves, grass clippings, plant and shrub trimmings,
ivy, and tree parts. Once delivered to the Facility, the yard waste is ground up, cured
in windrows, screened after completion, and stored ` on -site before being transported
to markets. The finished compost was used as a topsoil amendment in the City's
landfill closure and is being made available to the public.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
Approximately 34 tons per day of yard waste were accepted for processing at the
Facility during'1993. The Facility has an estimated maximum processing capacity of
30,00.0 tons annually (about 84 tons per day).
ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE:
In 1993, approximately 12,190 tons of yard waste was accepted at the Facility for
processing. In 1993, total waste generated in the City was 144,567 tons (from City
Source Reduction and Recycling Element). Based on these figures, the 1993
diversion rate for the facility was approximately 8.5% of the total City waste stream.
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The Facility serves both residents and non - residents of the City of Palo Alto, within
the County of Santa Clara.
FACILITY LOCATION:
The Facility is located in Santa Clara County within the footprint of the City of Palo
Alto Landfill at 2380 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto (see the attached map).
1: Va e`�• � `.
1.3 ] ca : 6 .3 b Fr' 3 ,i• ��y 4 (. 8v e s _J
o 1`4` AIRPORT • \rQ� 7 00` G % �l�p 1.6 J .4 5 •,.8 3 4 .6 c 4y/ c 0or� cl
REAL .6 s wrA rN b uYlc� °!s .4
_• °a 7 s "3- cFJrrER1 m y�. •4 �o�` ,y�
t 5 .9 I.4 s. a 1 c• 6 ' ''I G21 �` Plff
Si to Ciara t
EL w 7 i` d? '8J�'�Pa ss• p►• g E O 1.4 1.1 1.6`x. 3 �dy
®m EJ{ C 'r 2 �. )* STATE '8 '4 4M' 15 tP' ° MASTERS N
Pp. �° W .5 +�zo7Fl .8 Sti. \ E 5� ti SuNrv�ERarrr 4 4 EL
�
.S ss''�,, m � 1.5 Ano \ •� .8 � �By
1�r
1.3 W i 9 rIF FL 9W I (►pLAYEDA 0�.r CAS '°! r\ OQ{ B MILLYIEM�` 1 LAXE
3 v =s E� 11 .J I� ' 4
::' I
5 5 W. 1 SAN CARLOS n 8 e, s.7 8 het ` �;�`ri s 1.5 yo9F v� a s�•
3 WAFCNESTE BLYU' - - -
3 5 �4 �s� �E+E' df.
1 mySTSE • Y 5 /..I J !. 5 .4 mil• �Q 01A � '- 1 % :^
6
_.... y 5_•::� 'O. LLEGE n 1.5 1.4 � o
- r ♦ -rrr 1 �•F 1. 5 �
EY- eRu.Ac Ew N VA L
1.9 .7 1 G8 1.5 ,coul_ c
2.1 1.7 r EA �� .� i 8 ! fr. 1.7 �P T• 90�F�9 c - 41�
.3v
4 I �� 6 ;AnESDTA 1.4 �✓ P �, J`f couwrr `l: �c YFy6A
c HAMILTON c' �' 1. fA'AOROUxDS L^ e� 29
AILTON AVE. .6 E. ` _ °
3 Z .6 Cam bDll 1.8_ 6
D u
SELL AYE. :`_ v 1.2 *if. ,4 NELLYE' 1.5 AV
Gd 1.9 1.2 �� *r4 i RD. COYOTE •�
LOS GAros GJp1 `` .9 A G21
0
�:�2.1 8 2ti:
CREEK PARK ' 2 �y t.5 s� LM.
1 .7 4 ti .7 ) �1' �_ ORANHAY 1� VUOY 6ARS pf
8`-% > e��� \� n 2.5 .4 :1 Jr N rcm;
'7
,Highway 85 Corridor;;
AY.
A 4` f r eLaSSO.r Z t K I aa.
• 7 ® r ® r+onNr\voD oq MILL 1 . G I0
c 1 I �'
4 •I y 1 a 1/6v-. j 'C G
` Ae;1 R7 . _ 5 ti _ A J
I � �
8; 9 u�-n o �. 7� •9 o� 1 120 1 1.6 S
I I ; Alamiro. A J
2 BLOSSOU% U l HILL 1 x i 1 1.S Perrolmon Dam I .7 �I< 1.S �� TERESA 3 U\
r
GIO 0 "SHANk r- "OSsa+r Nl� ; 7 E� 1 e�or�r- NI O
Ok
Vt'.6 -f c D 7 \ , ��' Laker
.3 0'' hhFOr 3 o otM ` AVE- F+ i; 4.6
Ir of
r ` k7r
Jat0$ 3.f'- ,,` e 1 1.3 G8 °u
EL Jae _, - .8 D,- • .
3SEP
S S MLL ',- VVERRA
0. P� G caror
1153
u LN
Project Site hrCKS s ��Q4
DuA°ALUr ` Mcdai 7i
A£CR£ArroN AREA _ \
10 _ n
F, 4 JlfElrAL:Ll11Df.7., Co,
cf. -
ISM 0 4 -EL EW ALYADEN
om: q.w �•. .t
vom
'LANDMARK ONST
IPAwArt, �': � -M
k1dermtt Heights GATE F, c 9 ` r GotIF+7Y
rnekDta Pam tol,tT I _ 0 / `� �% } lQl n �tft f_ Y•1 j :� � MTQCxISAxr� LL EL \�o
au ecN o �` G &lLD MTN. Rea.
•� !y A,� ` -_ v - 1 RD,. _ _ rr. u.AN+Rr l • EL 230 FERN PK
IY fy _ 0 ADJ �� EL a.+e �`' win Creeks, a EL rno
7��C C>` < �!�` `• CANYON
}
--A,.\ P aq e 4 ��
Fact Sheet #2
Guadalupe Landfill
Material Recovery and Compost Processing Facility
San Jose, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The Guadalupe Landfill (Facility) is owned and operated by Guadalupe Rubbish
Disposal Company, Incorporated. The Facility began operations as a sanitary landfill
in 1956. The permitted Class III landfill has ongoing material recovery and compost
processing operations. The Facility receives waste from all over Santa Clara County.
Material recovery operations are conducted on the active face of the landfill. The
compost processing facility area is currently undergoing environmental review and
permitting procedures. The proposed compost facility would consist of a 7 -acre yard
and wood waste processing area and an 11 -acre windrow composting area. The
Facility currently accepts yard waste and clean wood waste from residential self -
haulers, gardeners and landscapers, government landscape maintenance and road
crews, and franchised and non - franchised municipal waste haulers. Once delivered
to the Facility, yard waste is ground up and sold immediately to land application
markets. The proposed compost facility permit would allow yard waste to be ground
up, cured aerobically in windrows, screened after completion, and transported to
markets. Wood waste is kept separate, ground up, and transported to wood fuel
markets. All materials are received on a tipping fee basis. The Facility also recycles
construction and demolition debris (soil, concrete, and asphalt) which is used on-
site as construction materials and daily landfill cover.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The Facility has a maximum permitted disposal capacity of 3,375 tons per day. In
1993, the Facility landfilled approximately 356 tons per day. In the currently
proposed permit, the maximum processing capacity of the compost facility is 672
tons of yard and wood waste per day.
ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE:
In 1993, the Facility had a diversion rate of approximately 39.6% (129,919 tons of the
328,361 tons received at the landfill gate). U .
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The Facility serves all of Santa Clara County.
FACILITY LOCATION:
The Facility is located in Southwestern San Jose, off of Guadalupe Mines Road, in a
canyon immediately north of the Guadalupe Mines (see the attached map).
140789
TkfWf PAAK
7
A
Al
A
MINA
5. w
-A 10i
CEUTRAL' [XPAESSVVAf A,
3t SITE LOCATION
AV
ffprr A
x"
a
L
"ArA
ul
'LLo :A 4. AV
3:1
sl a,
SAN JOSE
AV
A
Iz
f
so:
INTERNATIONAL
12! sumo
usT
CANXILL0
-XTRPORT
".L !oA I IV— -o
XCI 's
wt, ;J z; to •nil
c—c
\ct"If. Lt., • i2i AV -1, -
N W�s.so. AV %
CAMN
EL
gi I A,
ii Ilf -wc,o D. 114 o —ID
o
av ST
cAr .,.f
SANTA CLAM
C4 ST FM
ST umf As
11A
Scale: 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet
I I
MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS
1100 RICHARD AVENUE
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
SITE LOCATION MAP
Page 6
FIGURE
2
PROJECT NO.
479 - 02.02
v- A
'Fact Sheet #3
Material Recovery Systems Facility
Santa Clara, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The Material Recovery Systems Facility (Facility) is owned by Rinauro Investment
Properties and operated by Material Recovery Systems, Incorporated. The Facility
began operation in December of 1991. The Facility is a permitted 21,252 square foot
(half -acre) transfer station that began operation in December of 1991. The Facility
receives and processes recyclables from residential curbside and multi - family
collection programs and from commercial/ industrial recycling programs. The
owners of the Facility are proposing to expand operations to include a drop -off
center open to the general public. Under the proposed expansion, the Facility would
accept the following materials from the general public: construction and demolition
debris, wood waste, glass, metals, plastics, paper, and any other commercial and
industrial solid wastes. Materials are conveyer -fed through a sorting line and into a
conveyer -fed baler. Materials recovered are shipped to brokers and markets which
use them for manufacturing into new products. Residual materials and debris are
transported and landfilled at a permitted disposal facility.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The Facility is permitted to process a maximum of 375 tons of waste per day. The
Facility currently processes approximately 24 tons per day. The proposed expansion
would increase the processing volume to approximately 75 -100 tons per day.
ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE:
In 1993, the Facility diverted approximately 6,126 tons of recyclable materials, and
had a diversion rate of approximately 94 %. The proposed expansion would increase
the amount of recyclable materials recovered, but would decrease the rate of
diversion to approximately 50 %.
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The Facility receives waste from trucks servicing the cities of Santa Clara and Jose.
The proposed drop off center would'receive waste from both residents and non-
residents of the City of Santa Clara.
FACILITY LOCATION:
The Facility is located at 1060 Richard Avenue, in an industrially zoned area of the
City of Santa Clara (see the attached map). The Facility address (and access road) for
the general public is located at 1313 Memorex Drive in Santa Clara.
Paqe 8
Fact Sheet #4
Newby Island Compost Facility
San Jose, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The Newby Island Compost Facility (Facility) is owned and operated by Browning
Ferris Industries. The permitted Facility began operation in 1994, and consists of a 2-
acre pre - processing area and a 10 -acre windrow composting pad. The Facility accepts
yard waste and clean wood waste from residential self - haulers, private gardeners
and landscape contractors, municipal and state government landscape maintenance
and road crews, and franchised and non - franchised municipal yard waste haulers.
Once delivered to the Facility, yard waste is ground-up, cured aerobically in
windrows, screened after completion, and transported to markets. Some yard waste
is ground up and sold immediately to land application markets. Wood waste is kept
separate, ground up, and transported to wood fuel markets.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The Facility is permitted to process a maximum of 500 tons of yard and wood waste
per day. The Facility is currently processing approximately 300 tons of yard and
wood waste per day.
ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE:
The Facility is currently diverting 99% (approximately 297 tons per day) of the
material received for processing.
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The facility currently serves the counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa.
FACILITY LOCATION:
The Facility is located adjacent to the Newby Island Landfill and the Recyclery at
Newby Island, at 1601 Dixon Landing Road in north San Jose, just west of Highway
880 (see the attached map).
ro
(D
f-J
C)
1.
IZ
co
to
('—A)
cn
0
>
If rTl r–
CD
(D
O
El�
Zanker
=Road
ad
Class III
Landf i I I
Environmental
Education Cnter""'
San Francisco Bay ublic open]
space •.....•........•
........ . ... hN
. ........ . ...
........ . . . . . . . .....
INN.
if
C
National wildlife me uga
WPCP - �01-: �NYMF 0
IE; 4
V ..Reclaimed 5_� V
)6
Water
2 :
sta.—
Project
14 own Site
%
�P-.�sm JOse/Sante Clara Private lzr� _,- ., -414�
0
Pam Space 0 4,
/Control plant . IC, 11
Los ES
t.eros Road %
0.
t
May"
Bch
Al *so
V. Sta
.... . ...... v
Nri ......
C.,
0
-Y
C7
Agricultural 'Open Space
Z
Industrial Parks
Wall$
SSG
10
U
M 12, 1A
- — - — ------- - --- --1
Well
Pun I
U
Gas
ar Termir
\0
re
lA
Fact Sheet #5
Owens Corning Landfill
San Jose, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The Owens Corning Fiberglas Landfill (Facility) is a "candidate solid waste facility"
that is owned by Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation and operated by Zanker Road
Resource Management, Ltd. The 88 -acre Facility began operations in 1956. The
Facility currently encompasses about 46 acres. The Facility owners are proposing
changes that are being reviewed by the City of San Jose Planning Department. The
proposed project would rezone the Facility from M -1 (Manufacturing) to A -PD
(Planned Development). The proposed project would also permit, expand, and
introduce resource recovery activities to the Facility. The proposed Facility permit
would allow for: continued disposal of inert, non - recyclable solid waste from the
Owens Corning manufacturing plant; acceptance and disposal of non - hazardous,
non- putrescible mixed wastes; and deposition of dirt and other inert residues from
on -site recycling activities. Resource recovery activities proposed for the Facility
include: brush drying and grinding; aerated windrow composting; production of a
high -grade soil amendment product using compost, loam, and sand made from
crushed glass; storage and processing of concrete rubble into aggregate and baserock;
glass processing; and short -term storage of recovered materials (less than 120 days).
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The proposed Facility will have an estimated maximum processing capacity of 1,250
tons per day and will process an estimated 800 tons per day. The proposed Facility
will have an estimated maximum disposal capacity of 350 tons per day and will
landfill an estimated 60 tons per day.
ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE:
The proposed Facility is anticipated to divert 92% to 96% of the waste accepted at the
gate. Estimated diversion is 740 tons of 800 tons accepted at the gate each day (92 %).
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The Facility would serve all of Santa Clara County.
FACILITY LOCATION:
The Facility is located at the east end of Los Esteros Road in north San Jose, adjacent
to the Zanker Road Landfill (see the attached map).
PROPERTY LINE.
NEWBY ISLAND
LANDFILL
®,r
n
V �
GRAPMC 3CAL1r F E E T
50 0 600 1200
s bob -w0R
ABANDONED
AIR STRIP
n
18" CMP, FOR SURFACE
WATER CONVEYANCE FROM
COMPOSTING FACILITY TO
RETENTION BASIN
Q 'Z
c�
WATER --
�l BASIN
S.C.V.W.D.
SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
a
IIII
JAMES A. WYSE INC.
T7 HAWIlCoft CO)MMUM
OMPOSTIN-3
FACILITY -r
LANDFILL
ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE
Ijm)
I am
I ciao
THE '�;•._, ( DIXON
LAND OF
M. STANDISH :: LANDING ROAD
i APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY LINE
a Lrw TM
NEWBY ISLAND RECYCLERY"RE
BROWNING- FERRIS INDUSTRIES
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 2
LAND USE PLAN mo=
130 0-1.3
Page 12 - -_
Fact Sheet #6
The Recyclery at Newby Island
San Jose, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The Recyclery at Newby Island (Facility) is an 80,000 square foot materials recovery
facility. The Facility is owned and operated by Browning Ferris Industries. The
permitted Facility began operation in 1991, and includes both a manual sorting
system and a semi - automated sorting system. The Facility processes both
commingled (mixed) and source separated loads from residential and commercial
recycling programs. The Facility, also diverts loads of clean wood waste and concrete
to other parts of the site to be ground up and either sold as wood fuel or used on site
for road construction. The Facility also includes a public education center,
observation deck, and public buy -back center.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The Facility is permitted to process a maximum of 1,600 tons per day. The Facility is
currently processing approximately 250 to 300 tons per day.
DIVERSION RATE:
In 1993, the Facility diverted approximately 86% of the material received for
processing. In 1994, it is estimated that approximately 41,280 tons (86 %) will be
diverted from the 48,000 tons accepted for processing.
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The Facility processes curbside and commercial recyclables for many jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County. The Facility serves all of Santa Clara County and portions of
Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo counties. The buy -back and public education
center is open to the general public.
LOCATION:
The Facility is adjacent to the Newby Island Landfill and is located at 1601 Dixon
Landing Road in north San Jose, just west of Highway 880, near the southeastern
end of the San Francisco Bay, (see the attached map).
��� �•' / / \\ REFERENCE: —
Btil ( ( U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic).
113 California- Gilroy Quadrangle.
1000 2000 4000
Wo SCALE IN FEET NORTH
,l ? ` • Site Location Map
q o _
Site \ � ., • ,•
,ra
Location
U, ° r+
loY.. � \� Res • �\ �= +. , 3�\ ' r ^L1b•• \ 'I �
.��1f .• •• - ^� '•� "•� •' Airway\ SP. /' _ I
Beacon+
// \ \• •'bunk ,+ •',� - i• -?''�
S Martin ,. •\ �i s
�P
o�rAis �\
`✓ \ +' t rrta rlara r+ Cqu \�,. \ '`t\ •:r — f
"" \• C q� �.' \n • )F �\ .`\. \ �� � [a1 X41•_
so
Is
;- `fit' °� �V �•.2io �\i C� I .
D` JLJ
254
./ /}\ •` \,' C, ,-260 •• c� \ \Vi • `s - tc �
-� G G
2so \\
S Ali Alm
O w
San Gn Drip s s nhrr a Hot All N,mdlo�
i Nme, r _ I ,rce w.rns• {p t`
San lose 1 0 -�7
Pesodera rr. ! Glo C L A R A c,�,- e. ! ,• `r I % d` .
'If A T In C1Us '�. Wyote` ..�. * Nn.r S = ✓ / \
J /
1•ro Rr o+oet 31 S
.w Pt.'1 rz' 3 'A
-NOIr Cd, M orrne Z _ �... `IOtf
w S TA. Almaden Mogan Hill Gllrot _ �I
•/,a16r Cnd ' 9mo•au
•SIT • '
w s
UZ +S SsiY,IIie R': +` ?s? " ✓� I /.
�_r.. •� s..,e. '. ott
Air Q of R o� .•� I �,: P�£%
n Sgnt Conalios l _
a.enpart + APiss ,= Gilroy' 52 • �%' //• •p' /'
F+ uc s.:. L.t .,;u Fre,do■ is, + ti ° 25 ,
\3. a c, tau �, . is
tsonville ✓� �`1 "
Santa Cruz
0 5 10 20 Site Vicinity Map o� tAp,
NORTH SCALE IN MILES To GILROV
Harding Lawson Associates Site Location flap PLATE
Engineering and Report of Station Information
Environmental Services San Martin Transfer Station
% ' Santa Clara County, California
DRAWN JOB NUMBER APPROVE DATE REVISED DATE
RPS 21371.2 j� A 11/92
Page 14
MUG =-L1 9-101T Mel MOMM-MMUM-1 wwrz��
Fact Sheet #7
San Martin Transfer Station
San Martin, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The San Martin Transfer Station (Facility) is owned and operated by South Valley
Disposal and Recycling. The permitted 8 -acre Facility began operations in 1968 along
with the San Martin Landfill, and continued to operate after the landfill closed in
1971. Wastes accepted at the Facility include residential and commercial refuse and
recyclables, yard clippings, brush, stumps, wood, construction and demolition debris,
and commercial wastes. All waste is accepted on a tipping fee basis. Used motor oil
is accepted from residents, but is limited to 5 gallons per container and 20 gallons per
delivery. The Facility salvages recyclable materials from the incoming waste stream.
The Facility uses a weigh scale, stationary compactor with a 20 -cubic yard hopper,
concrete dumping pad, and a baler. Materials can be fed directly into the compactor
or dumped onto the pad and fed into the compactor by using a small tractor.
Remaining refuse is compacted, loaded into trucks, and hauled approximately 10
miles to the Pacheco Pass Landfill located off of Highway 152 in south Santa Clara
County.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The Facility is permitted to process a maximum of 360 tons of material per day. The
Facility currently processes approximately 112 tons of material per day.
ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE:
The Facility currently diverts approximately 70% of the incoming material each day.
In 1994, the Facility is expected to divert 70% of the waste accepted for processing and
transfer the remainder to the Pacheco Pass Landfill.
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, the unincorporated community of San Martin,
and other unincorporated areas of southern Santa Clara County.
FACILITY LOCATION:
The Facility is located at 14080 Llagas Avenue, in the unincorporated community of
San Martin in southern Santa Clara County (see the attached map).
FIGURE 2
� rr
N \ ( SUNNYVALE WATER SALT EVAPORATORS
� P ❑LLUTI ❑N CONTROL PLANT
SUNNYVALE ShfaRT STATION FACILITY
LANDFILL
CAR1BEAV;D:: SUNN`i`TALE BAYLANDS /
COUNTY PARK
J,'J'A AR.
VIS ROPID 237 N.
Bq ySHORE FREE wq y
`' x
>
� Li w
Q > w
A DUANE AVE. v
Z
Q
° 3
CENTRAL ExPWy J
Q e
UNNYVALE
LOCATION MAP
N N BY .lA S M O R T STATION FACILITY APPR ❑VED I3Y:
: BY: LOCATION MAP PE : DATE LE NINE City of Palo Alto DRAWING N❑.
Page 16
Fact Sheet #8
The Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station
Sunnyvale, California
TYPE OF FACILITY:
The cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View are partners with the City of Sunnyvale
for the development and operation of the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and
Transfer (SMaRT) Station (Facility). Sunnyvale managed the design and
construction, and oversees the operation of the Facility. Palo Alto and Mountain
View pay a proportionate share of the construction and operating costs based on the
amount of municipal solid waste delivered to the Facility by the cities designated
haulers. Completed in 1993, the permitted Facility is being used by the three cities to
meet the state mandated goal of 50% waste reduction by the year 2000. When in full
operation (scheduled for 1994), the Facility's primary function will be as a materials
recovery facility. The Facility will receive and process curbside recyclables from the
cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View and will include a buyback recycling center.
The Facility will also receive and process loads of municipal solid waste and recover
materials from the incoming waste stream for the three participating cities.
Recovered materials will be sent to brokers and markets which will use them for
manufacturing into new products and uses. The remaining waste will be
compacted, loaded, and hauled 27 miles south to the Kirby Canyon Recycling and
Disposal Facility in south San Jose.
FACILITY CAPACITY:
The Facility is permitted to process a maximum of 1500 tons of material per day.
The Facility currently processes approximately 900 tons of material per day.
Allocation quantities for delivery of waste to the Facility are shown in Exhibit A.
EXPECTED DIVERSION RATE:
Based on the terms of the agreement between the City of Sunnyvale and the Facility
operator, the guaranteed diversion rate for the Facility is 25 %. However, this
guarantee is subject to adjustment based on the quantities of recyclable materials
present in the municipal solid waste delivered to the Facility.
JURISDICTIONS SERVED:
The Facility serves the cities of Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and, Mountain View.
LOCATION:
The Facility is located in Santa Clara County, on Sunnyvale -owned property, north
of Caribbean Drive and adjacent to the Sunnyvale Landfill, the Sunnyvale Water
Quality Control Plant and the San Francisco Bay (see the attached map).
SUNNYVALE MATERIAL RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION
EXHIBIT A
Annual City Minimum Tonnage Commitment
YEAR Sunnyvale Mountain Palo Alto TOTAL
View
1993' 72,465
39,403
26,011
137,879
1994 140,361
66,957
52,207
259,525
1995 135,7(X)
67,469
52,475
255,64'
1996 132,873
68-,277
50,949
252,099
1997 129,925
69,096
49,386
248,407
1998 126,922
69,926
47,787
244,635
1999 123,864
47,195
46,151
217,210
2000" 60,374
23,873
22,239
106,486
TOTAL 922,484
452,196
347,205
1,721,885
' Assumes deliveries begin July 1, 1993
" Assumes deliveries end June 36, 2000
Page 18
-J.
it ��''I''•- — -�
Zanker
Road5
Class III
Ir
Landfill
V1. me
Corning
z
Dis sal
own
site
sch
�-r--Alviso
4Y 10
0. -Y
0
Los Esteros Road
X% a.
A
It
7
. ®. 5
,,00 AM 5 Y1
IS I
0
WO
LimpIn 0 fA 12.
--ALNFISO 9M• 7 CITY.
BM
7--- SAN JOSE C1
---------------
well
10
0 2,000 4,000
Base maw.
U.S.G.S. 7.S minute series (ropwaphic)
MIPW Ouadr"sa. Calitomis Scale in feet
Dated 1961. photonrymod 1980.
7ANKER,
Road Landfill
ZanX&f Poad Reloums Msnsgsmenr, Ltd.
Owens - Coming Disposal Site
Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd. Figure 1: Vicinity Map
San Jose, California
Page 19
4,)
a
0
WO
LimpIn 0 fA 12.
--ALNFISO 9M• 7 CITY.
BM
7--- SAN JOSE C1
---------------
well
10
0 2,000 4,000
Base maw.
U.S.G.S. 7.S minute series (ropwaphic)
MIPW Ouadr"sa. Calitomis Scale in feet
Dated 1961. photonrymod 1980.
7ANKER,
Road Landfill
ZanX&f Poad Reloums Msnsgsmenr, Ltd.
Owens - Coming Disposal Site
Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd. Figure 1: Vicinity Map
San Jose, California
Page 19
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � J�Q-I AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Abandonment of Slope Easement, Lot 14 - Tract No. 7761
Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the resolution abandoning the
slope easement.
Report Summary: The owner of Lot 14 in Tract No. 7761 (Mt. Eden
Estates) is requesting the City abandon the slope easement across
the front of the property. The easement was created at the time
the final subdivision map was approved when it was envisioned that
an easement for slope protection purposes would be needed.
However, the as -built conditions of the subdivision do not include
a slope at the location of the easement, and the easement therefore
is no longer necessary. Because the easement was never used for
its intended purpose, the Council can cause summary abandonment of
the easement by adopting the attached resolution.
Fiscal Impacts: Abandonment of the easement may result in an
increase in the assessed value of the property (additional property
tax revenues) and /or increased development potential of the
property (additional building permit and construction tax
revenues).
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The easement
would remain intact.
Follow Up Actions: The resolution will be recorded.
Attachments: 1. Resolution abandoning easement with exhibit.
2. Letter from property owner requesting abandonment
of easement.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V� s-t�_ C)
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Resolution prohibiting right turns on red from Saratoga
Avenue to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution
prohibiting right turns on red from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road.
Retort Summary: Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would
prohibit motorists from making a right turn on red from Saratoga
Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. This issue was brought to the
attention of the Public Safety Commission in October during the
Public Hearing to consider the proposed changes to the posted speed
limits along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. At the Commission's request,
staff evaluated the situation and determined that a traffic safety
problem indeed exists which warrants prohibiting the right turn on
red movement. Staff's analysis documented a sight distance problem
at the intersection compounded 'by pedestrian conflicts which
support the. proposed right turn on red prohibition. The Commission
unanimously concurred with staff's findings and voted to recommend
Council adoption of the resolution at their November meeting.
Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $250 to install the necessary
signage.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The right
turn on red movement would remain permissible.
Follow Up Actions: Maintenance staff would install the necessary
signage within the next two weeks.
Attachments: 1. Motor Vehicle Resolution.
2. Staff report to Public Safety Commission.
s
2. Right turn on red prohibition from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road (Highway 85) - Upon conducting a field review of the
intersection, staff supports the suggestion of Mr. Whetstone to
prohibit the particular right turn on red movement for the reasons
stated in the attached memo to me from Erman Dorsey dated November
2.. Assuming Commission concurrence, I will place the attached
Motor Vehicle Resolution on the City Council's December 7 agenda
for adoption. The prohibition would then become effective once the
proper signage is installed, probably no'more than a week or so
after adoption of the resolution.
3. Recommendations for monitoring Route 85 traffic impacts - The
City Council unanimously adopted all of . the Commission's
recommendations about monitoring Route 85 traffic impacts without
comment on November 2. I've attached a copy of my staff report to
the Council which includes the recommendations. Tentatively, I
plan to agendize the 90 day status report on the monitoring efforts
at your February meeting before placing it on the agenda for the
Council's review at their second meeting in February.
4. Metler Court /Aspesi Drive stop sign - Also on November 2, the
Council voted unanimously to approve the three -way stop at this
intersection, although Councilmember Tucker expressed some
reservations about the need for the multi -way stop. I have already
signed the work order to install the signs and if they are not
already in place, they will be within a matter of days.
5. Request for multi -way stop at McCoy Avenue /Villanova Avenue -
Cindy Spina, a San Jose resident who lives on McCoy Ave., wrote to
the Mercury News' Action Line on October 17 (see attached)
requesting among other things, a multi -way stop at McCoy Ave. and
Villanova Ave. The City Manager replied to Ms. Spina on November
7 (see attached). Saratoga only controls one - quarter of this
intersection, the southbound approach, which is already controlled
by a stop sign. The remaining three - quarters of the intersection
is controlled by San Jose. The decision to place stop signs on
McCoy Ave. therefor, rests with the City of San Jose.
San Jose staff performed a warrant analysis of the intersection in
June and determined that the intersection failed to meet warrants
for a multi -way stop, (see first letter dated June 6). The
residents in the vicinity of the intersection were notified of San
Jose staff's determination, (see second letter dated June 6), and
were also advised on how to appeal the determination to the City's
Traffic Appeals Commission. Unless the Commission feels strongly
about this matter, I intend to send a copy of the second letter to
Ms. Spina and consider the matter closed.
Printed on recycled paper.
O�
Qq O&UKLUQXB�L
016(5 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • ( 408 ) 867-3438
TO: Director of Public Works a
FROM:
Erman Dorsey, Sr. Engr. Tech G
DATE: November 2, 1994
SUBJECT: Saratoga Avenue at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
Prohibition of Right Turn on Red
COUNCII. MEMBERS:
Ann Mane Buroe•
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The proposal to establish "NO TURN ON RED" (right turn) at the
intersection of Saratoga Avenue at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. is valid
and would increase the safety at this intersection. This
prohibition would be substantiated by the limited sight distance of
vehicles approaching the intersection northwestbound on Saratoga -
Los Gatos Rd. and the pedestrian movement across Saratoga Ave.
Attached is a sample of the ptandard agn that would be used
along with the applicable sections from the Vehicle Code.
7w
Printed on recycled paper.
I.,
--P
dOLS'�� j
v
1p v
rPopo-ft=of
I-J4
OI
a,
444
/! 31987
SIGNS
Traffic Manual
POLICY
R11
The DO NOT ENTER sign (R11) and WRONG WAY
..... sign (RI 1A) shall be used at the exit end of a one -way
Y r road or ramp to inform motorists that an entrance
thereto Is prohibited. The WRONG WAY sign (1411A)
Is optional on streets and highways under local
jurisdiction.
Standard 36"
The R11 and R11 A signs shall be placed In the head
-on posltlon to a wrong -way movement, and at least
R11A one set of R11A.and R11A signs should be visible from
each decision point on each likely wrong -way
approscIL
is The 36" size R71 and R11A signs shall be used on exit
romps facing wrong -way traffic.
Standa '16"x2111
The 72" size R1 and R11A signs shall be used at the
beginning of a freeway facing possible wrong -way move -
ments.
See Section 4.05, "Ramp Terminal Signing", and
Figure 6.16, "Transition from Two-Lane to Four-Lane
Divided," for details.
R13 The NO TURN ON RED sign (R13) shall be used on the
signal standard at Intersections where right or left turns
N O on a red signal are prohibited. (See CVC 22101.)
TURN Erect on the for right or left on the signal standard
ON near the appropriate signal head.
RED
A supplemental sign may be used on the near right
Standard 2411 x30" or left at intersections that are extremely wide or
skewed
The NO TURNS sign (R15) shall be used in advance
R15 of an intersection to indicate that turns are prohibited.
See CVC22101.
NO. On a twowway street one sign should be used at the
TURNS near right -rand comer and one sign at the far left -hand
corner, facing approaching traffic.
Standard 24"
On a one -way street, signs should be placed on the
near left and right comers facing approaching traffic.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. -� Is-I I
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM 91&
SUBJECT: Policies regarding E1 Quito Park garden plot rentals
Recommended Motion(s) : Move to establish recommended policies
regarding recovery of water costs through rental fees, and use
priorities for available plots.
Report Summary: For the past decade, the City has set aside
approximately one acre in E1 Quito Park for use as a community
garden. The garden area contains 16 plots which range in size from
800 to 1100 square feet each. The annual' rental fee for a plot is
$25 for senior residents, $30 for residents, and $35 for non-
residents. Currently, there are 12 resident and 4 non - resident
gardeners, most of whom have rented their plots for several years.
Through word -of- mouth, a small waiting list of Saratoga residents
who would like a garden plot has developed.
Each December, the City renews the garden plot rental agreements
for the succeeding year. Before renewing the agreements for 1995,
staff is recommending the Council establish two policies regarding
recovery of water costs through the rental fees, and use priorities
when plots become available.
Policy on recovery of water costs - It is not clear how or when the
present fee schedule for garden plot rentals was established. What
is clear is that the fees collected, approximately $500 per year,
barely recoups staff's costs to administer the rental agreements
and operate the community gardens. Late last year, the City
installed a meter to monitor the water use of the gardeners. Since
then, it appears that the cost of water is averaging approximately
$100 per month. The policy issue before the Council is whether
some or all of the water costs should be recovered from the rental
fees.
Assuming each gardener uses roughly the same quantity of water, the
rental fee for each plot would need to be increased by $75 to
recover the full cost of the water. Of course the Council can
choose to subsidize some or all of the water costs by establishing
a policy to recover less than the full cost of the water. It is
staff's recommendation that the Council establish a policy that
would set the annual rental fee at an amount which would recover
the full cost of the water. Such a policy would be consistent with
recent Council policies concerning full cost recovery for City
services. It would also allow the fee to be adjusted each year
based on adjustments in water rates as well as actual water usage
which, in turn, could promote water conservation amongst the
gardeners.
Policy on use priorities - As stated above, a small waiting list of
Saratoga residents who would like to rent one of the garden plots
has developed. Currently however, there is no policy which sets
priorities for use of the garden as plots become available. It is
staff's recommendation that the Council establish a policy that
would give first priority for available plots to existing gardeners
wishing to relocate in the garden; second priority to Saratoga
residents; and third priority to non - residents. Priority among
gardeners would be based on the length of time -a gardener
maintained a plot in the garden. Priority among residents would be
based on the length of time which a resident remained on an
official waiting list. Priority among non - residents would also be
based on the length of time which a non - resident remained on an
official waiting list. Staff does not recommend removing non-
residents from the garden in favor of residents at this time. Many
of the gardeners, residents and non - residents, have invested a
considerable amount of time and money over the years to establish
their plots thus it seems unfair to remove anyone from the garden
involuntarily. The official waiting list would be maintained by
Public Works staff. Because of the small number and lack of
turnover of plots, no formal advertising of the garden is
recommended at this time. Instead, the informal, word -of -mouth
advertising seems appropriate for now.
Fiscal Impacts: Depends on the Council's decision. Some or all of
the cost of water used by the gardeners could be recovered under
the new policy.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The current gardeners and
those on the waiting list have been notified of this item.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City
would not recover any of the cost of water used by the gardeners,
and /or the priority for use of available plots would remain on a
first come first served basis.
I
Follow Up Actions: The gardeners will be notified of the new
policies as part of the upcoming renewal process.
Attachments: 1. Current garden plot rules.
2. Letter to gardeners regarding proposed policies.
September 30, 1993
MEMO TO: EL QUITO PARR GARDENERS
FROM: Garden Plot Administrator
SUBJECT: 1994 GARDENING SEASON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Welcome to the E1 Quito Park Community Gardens for the 1994 growing
season. We have received many favorable comments from satisfied
gardeners this past year, and as a result, our waiting list has
grown rapidly. . We will accommodate all Saratoga residents this
year but unfortunately may be forced to turn away residents of some
of our neighboring cities.
Enclosed is an application,. the Rules and Regulations and a rough
map of the layout of the Gardens. Please read the Rules and
Regulations as there have been a few clarifications and changes
since last year.
Assignment. of plots will be on a first -come, first - served basis as
explained in the Rules and Regulations. A receipt for your fee and
a verification of plot assignment will be sent to you once all
allocations have been made.
Water expenditures have been extremely high; therefore, in order to
monitor usage, we will be installing a meter in the near future.
If this same rate of use should continue', we may be forced to
recover water cost from gardeners in future years. We do encourage
the use of drip systems; however, we do not wish you to leave them
unattended during the day or on all night.
At your earliest convenience, please mail or bring in your
application and fee to me at City Hall. I have moved from the
Maintenance Yard and have included a small map.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
867 -3439, Extension 219.
Sincerely,
Marlene L. Tate, Garden Plot Administrator
cc: Larry I. Perlin, Director of Public Works
Bob Rizzo, Parks Superintendent
Attachments
CITY OF SARATOGA
1994
0Q
V. ZN 15
COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOT PROGRAM APPLICATION
FEES
Saratoga Resident $30.00
Senior Saratoga Resident $25.00
Non - Resident $35.00
All family members using the plot must sign below and adhere to the
following statement:
I, we, the undersigned do hereby agree to indemnify and hold harmless
the City of Saratoga, its officers and employees, from and against any
and all liability for any injury which might be suffered by the under-
signed or his agent, arising out of or in any way connected with the
individual's participation in the Community Garden Plot Program.
NAME OF FAMILY MEMBER
SIGNATURE OF FAMILY MEMBER
FAMILY MEMBER
FAMILY MEMBER
FAMILY MEMBER
ADDRESS
CITY
TELEPHONE - DAY /EVENING
PLOT: 1st Choice:
2nd.Choice: 3rd Choice:
OFFICE USE ONLY:
FEES PAID: $ DATE: PLOT #:
RENTAL PERIOD: FROM: TO:
Forward check and signed agreement to:
City of Saratoga - Marlene Tate
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070.
EL QUITO PARR
COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOT PROGRM
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1) All plots must be maintained in an acceptable manner, kept free of
debris and weeds. You are responsible for assuring that the paths
surrounding your garden remain clear at all times. Large piles
of clippings, weeds, etc. are to be removed immediately and not left
outside the gate.
2) Organic gardening techniques and fertilizers should be used. All
pesticides must be non -toxic to humans and animals. Any deviation must
be reviewed and approved by the garden administrator.
3) Should a plot be deemed neglected or abandoned, the plot holder will be
given 15 days to correct the problem or make other arrangements or their
fees and plot will be forfeited.
4) Plot holders should donate time for the general upkeep of the Garden.
Anyone causing ruts or damage to the common areas is responsible for
repairing that damage.
5) Trellises must be kept no higher than five feet. Plantings which attach
to the perimeter fences are not permitted. Fencing around individual
plots is not permitted.
6) Plot holders will supply their own tools and watering devices.
7) Water should be used only when needed and not in excess, and should not
run off onto other plots. Gardeners are asked to turn off all watering
systems when plots are unattended and are required to stay in the
vicinity of their plots while watering. The use of drip systems are
encouraged to conserve water. Adherence to ordinances. on water
rationing hours and restrictions, when in effect, is mandatory.
8) Produce from the gardens is to be used for family consumption and not
as a commercial commodity.
9) Only flowers, fruits, vegetables and herbs may be grown in the plots.
Any trees planted already should be removed or pruned to assure that
they do not shade your neighbors' crops. Animal husbandry is not
allowed.
10) Each plot holder shall be considerate of other plot holders and
should not engage in any activity that is deterimental to others.
11) Each plot holder will be issued a key to the gate which must be
returned at the conclusion of the rental agreement period. Gate
areas must be accessible at all times. Plots will be staked at the
beginning of each season. These stakes are not to be moved or removed.
40'
1994 GARDEN PLOT ASSIGNMENTS
EL QUITO PARK NOT TO SCALE, APPROXIMATE SIZES
16 PLOTS
ATE
November 14, 1994
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: E1 Quito Park Community Gardeners
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, Director of Public Works 1 W
SUBJECT: 1995 Gardening Season
---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
This is to advise you that the applications for the 1995 season
will be mailed to you in mid - December. The reason for the delay is
two -fold.
First, as you were made aware in last year's annual renewal letter,
the City installed a meter to record water usage for the gardens.
After recording ten months of water use, we have estimated that the
cost of the water used by the gardeners for 1994 will be
approximately $1,.300. The City Council must now decide if they
wish to continue to subsidize the water use of the gardeners or
whether some or all of the water cost should be recovered through
the rental fees for the plots.
Secondly, we have compiled a small waiting list of Saratoga
residents who are interested in renting. garden plots. Our space is
limited to 16. The present Rules and Regulations state that
Saratoga residents have first priority over non- residents, but do
not stipulate that you must be a resident to rent a garden plot.
A staff report with recommendations will be submitted to the City
Council at their meeting of December 7th. At that time, the
Council will make decisions about whether to recover some or all of
the water cost, and who should receive priority for the available
plots. You are welcome to attend the Council Meeting to express
your views and in any event, will be notified of the Council's
decisions by mid - December. Until then if you have any questions,
please contact Marlene Tate, the Garden,Plot Administrator,
at 867 -3438, Extension 219.
`i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �(� AGENDA ITEM S_ 8(q)
MEETING DATE: 12/094 CITY MGR. All
If
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Change of Security of City's loan for low- income housing
at Saratoga Court in Saratoga
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Approve both the termination of the Pledge Agreement and the
execution of the Corporate Guaranty from Mid - Peninsula Housing
Coalition for Saratoga Court in Saratoga.
Report Summary:
In July of 1984, the City of Saratoga loaned Mid - Peninsula Housing
Coalition Housing Fund (MPCHF) the sum of $50,000, of CDBG funds,
to assist in the acquisition of Saratoga Court. Saratoga Court is
an affordable housing development in Saratoga by Crescent Terrace,
Inc.(CTI), a nonprofit affiliate of MPCHF. During this same
period, the, County of Santa Clara also loaned MPCHF $224,000 for
the same purpose.
As a result of a series
will not have a documentE
not be able to recover j
Council is recommended t
Pledge Agreement and the
Corporate Guaranty will
collateral in place of a
if transactions described below, the City
d interest in the stated property and may
n the event of default. Therefore, the
3 approve the Termination of the current
execution of a Corporate Guaranty. The
pledge the assets of the corporation as
deed of trust.
In July of 1984 MPCHF executed a Promissory Note in the amount of
$274,000 in favor of the Lenders. HUD was the primary lender and
would not allow the Promissory Note to be secured by a Deed of
Trust. As security for the $274,000 Note, CTI executed a Pledge
Agreement for Lenders, assigning Lenders all of CTI's interest in
a promissory note in the amount of $206,000 executed by Saratoga
Court Associates in favor of CTI. The $206,000 Note was to
terminate on December 30,1998, by its own terms.
On March 23,1989, the Low Income Housing Fund (LIHF) loaned
Saratoga Court,Inc. the sum of $271,000 which was in addition and
unrelated to the $274,000 loan. As security for the $271,000 loan,
a Deed of Trust on the property was executed and the Pledge
Agreement was subordinated to this Deed of Trust.
In February of 1992, as part of the transaction transferring
Crescent Terrace, Inc.'s ownership of the Saratoga Court land to
Saratoga Court, Inc., the $206,000 promissory note was
extinguished. The Pledge Agreement apparently did not show up on
the Preliminary Title Report during the Process of transferring of
ownership.
The LIHF loan in the original principal amount of $271,00 matured
on March 23, 1993 and now Saratoga Court, Inc. desires to refinance
the remaining balance of approximately $175,00. In order to
refinance, the LIHF has requested that Mid - Peninsula Housing
Coalition prepare the Corporate Guaranty for execution by Lenders
as Substitute for the security described above, which no longer
exists and execute the Termination of Pledge Agreement.
This same item has been placed on the Board of Supervisor's Agenda
for December 6th since the County had originally loaned MPCHF
$224,000. The Board of Supervisors are being requested by County
staff to also approve both the termination of the Pledge Agreement
and the execution of the Corporate Guaranty from Mid - Peninsula
Housing Coalition.
Fiscal Impacts•
None
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact:
None
Consequences of Not Acting . on the Recommended Motions:
The City will not have a documented interest in the property and
may not be able to recover in the event of default.
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will notify both the County and Mid - Peninsula Housing
Coalition of the Council's decision and implement the proposed
change.
Attachments:
-Copy of the Corporate Guaranty
-Copy of the Termination of the Pledge Agreement