Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2009.02.02
CITY C BURLINGAME MFo9 �o $FaT[e Jun[6 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, February 2, 2009 CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Real Property Acquisition of Parcel No. 029-231-060, negotiations with Property Owner/Owner's Representative and City Representatives: Jim Nantell, Jesus Nava, Bill Meeker, pursuant to Government Code§ 54956.8 b. Existing Litigation under Government Code§ 54956.9(a) - Ella Burns vs. City of Burlingame C. Conference with Labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code §54957.6: City Negotiators: Deirdre Dolan, Jim Nantell, Glenn Berkheimer(IEDA) Labor Organization: Police Officers Association and Association of Police Administrators 1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m.—Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of January 20, 2009 5. PRESENTATION a. Presentation by South Bay Waste Management Authority(SBWMA) 6. PUBLIC HEARING There are no Public Hearings. 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Resolution setting a Public Hearing on March 16, 2009 to consider an increase in solid waste and recycling rates of eight percent (8%) and to consider any protests to increased rates solid - Approve b. Consideration by Council whether to file an argument for the May 5, 2009 Storm Drainage Fee Election - Discuss c. Proposal from Non-Profit Youth Sports Organizations for Bayside Park Field Improvements - Discuss d. Consider vacancy on Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission— Discuss e. Consider vacancies on Planning Commission — Discuss f. Consider appointment to the Beautification Commission— Discuss/Appoint g. Consider waiver of field monitor fees for use of Washington Ball Field by Burlingame High School - Discuss 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approve Resolutions authorizing financial assistance application and reimbursement intention for State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan to fund the influent stormwater retention basin at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) b. Approve Board appointment to Community Action Agency of San Mateo County c. Approval for Officer Heather Farber to accompany Explorer Police Cadets to annual Cadet Challenge Competition Event in Washington State 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 12. OLD BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Civil Service, November 10, 2008; Traffic, Safety&Parking, December 11, 2008; Parks &Recreation, January 15, 2009; Planning, January 26, 2009 b. Department Reports: Police, December 2008 15. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG—GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" 3 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. CITY G BURLINGAME 9Fo' 00 $FnTco Juw[b BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of January 20, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Ann Keighran called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Ross Bruce. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Deal, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2009 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATION Cheryl Fama, Chief Executive Officer, Peninsula Health Care District gave a presentation on the background of the District from its inception as Peninsula Hospital District in 1947 to present. She thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak to them and answered questions from the Council Members. 6. PUBLIC HEARING a. PUBLIC HEARING ON STORM DRAIN FEE PROTESTS (1) RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT; (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A MAIL-IN ELECTION FOR STORM DRAIN FEE AND; (3) ADOPT ORDINANCE TO ADMINISTER THE FEE Special Counsel Abrams addressed the Council and reported that in early December 8,642 notices were mailed properties impacted by the storm drain fee. In response to that mailing there were 135 written protests received (approximately 1.5% of the notices sent)which is considerably less than the 50 percent required by law to terminate further proceedings. He categorized the reasons for the protests, ranging from poor economy, an increase in fees for water and sewer, individuals living on a fixed income, and calculation of the fee. 1 Burlingame City Council January 20,2009 Unapproved Minutes DPW Murtuza gave a presentation outlining the storm drainage fee benefits and stressed the urgent need for improvements to the storm drain system. He included a review of the basis for the fee, the manner of calculating the fee, the proportional spread of the fee, and the amount required to fund the proposed projects. He also highlighted the fact that the fee will sunset in 30 years and the property owners can appeal the fee if they feel there is a discrepancy in the calculations and senior citizens would be able to defer the fee based on State criteria. He requested Council hold a public hearing and receive protests to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3-2009 certifying the Engineer's report and make findings on storm drainage fee. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4-2009 calling a Mail Ballot Election for May 5, 2009 for the submittal of a proposed annual storm drainage fee and adopting procedures for the conduct of the Election. 3. Adopt Ordinance No. 1836 adding Chapter 4.30 to the Burlingame Municipal Code to administer a storm drainage fee. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing and the following citizens spoke: Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; Victor Subbotin, 2519 Hale Drive; John Root, 728 Crossway Road; Ronald Duncan, 1353 Columbus Avenue; Eric Kahn, 1837 Castenado Drive; Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive; Nick Panayotou, 1428 Alvarado Avenue; Ron Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue; Karen Key, 1499 Oak Grove Drive; John Ward, 792 Willborough Place; Dan Lucier, 828 Laurel Avenue; Kevin Osborne, 208 Stanley Road; Neal Kaufman, 216 Bloomfield Road; Eric Haseleu, 233 Channing Road; Michael Gaul, 2830 Adeline Drive; Andrew Peceimer, 1109 Clovelly Lane; Robert Herrera, 16 Valdivia Court; Nathaniel Flynn, 2805 Adeline Drive; Jeff Peterson, 1023 Chula Vista Avenue; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way; V. J. Sliupas, 2907 Frontera Way; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Ed Barberini, 1569 Columbus Avenue; Ray Mason, 1451 Balboa Avenue; Diana Mason, 1451 Balboa Avenue; Lynne Lahr, United Methodist Church; Mark Grancolas, 754 Walnut Avenue; Gertrud Mauk, 600 Ansel Road. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of Resolution No. 3-2009 certifying the Engineer's report and making findings storm drainage fee; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote 5-0. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve adoption of Resolution No. 4-2009 calling a mail ballot election for May 5, 2009 for the submittal of a proposed annual storm drainage fee and adopting procedures for the conduct of the election; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote 5-0. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1836 adding C pter 4.30 to the Burlingame Municipal Code to administer a storm drainage fee. -r Special Counsel Abrams reminded Council that they have the preference in filing the arguments for the ballot and asked if they would like to make a decision regarding doing so or would prefer to doing it at the next meeting. Council unanimously agreed to discuss it at their next meeting. 2 Burlingame City Council January 20,2009 Unapproved Minutes 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Victor Subbotin, 2519 Hale Drive spoke about Item 6a. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke on item 5a; the upcoming CMEQ meeting; and complimented the Council on the City budget and storm drainage measure. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS There were no Staff Reports. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Deal asked to be recused from approving item 9d due to living within 500 feet of the project. DPW Murtuza made a correction to an attachment for item 9c. Councilwoman Nagel asked to pull item 9a for further clarification. a. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CONTINUED DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURE A FUNDS DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No. 3-2009 authorizing the City enter into an agreement with the Transportation Authority for the continued distribution of San Mateo County Measure A funds to the City in accordance with the 2004 Measure A transportation expenditure plan. b. ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF KEVIN CULLINANE,ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,AND APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING AND SETBACK VARIANCES,AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 24-HOUR OPERATION OF A DRUG STORE FOR A NEW 13,755 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AT 260 EL CAMINO REAL, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN A COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE, SUB-AREA A CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Resolution No. 4-2009 granting the appeal of Kevin Cullinane in accordance with the terms stated in the Resolution. C. APPROVE TENTATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP OF LOT 1, BLOCK 31, MAP OF TOWN OF_BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION, 508 PENINSULA AVENUE DPW Murtuza requested Council approve the Tentative and Final Condominium map for 508 Peninsula Avenue, PM 08-04. d. APPROVE TENATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP OF LOT 3, BLOCK 16, MAP OF BURLINGAME GROVE SUBDIVISION, 1217 PALOMA AVENUE DPW Murtuza requested Council approve the Tentative and Final Condominium map for 1217 Paloma Avenue, PM 08-02. e. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR TWO POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC BUREAU OFFICERS TO ARIZONA 3 Burlingame City Council January 20,2009 Unapproved Minutes COP Van Etten requested Council approve out-of-state travel for two Police Department Traffic Bureau Officers to Arizona for training on operating and managing the new Redflex Red Light Photo Enforcement System. L APPROVE WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #35455-37413 duly audited, in the amount of $6,168,666.71; Payroll checks No. 173266— 173456 in the amount of$2,851,848.45 for the month of December 2008. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve 9b, 9c, 9e and 9f of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (O'Mahony abstained/recused from item 9b). Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve item 9d; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Deal abstained/recused). Councilwoman Nagel addressed item 9a, specifically the Transportation Expenditure Plan summary defining how the Measure A funds are spent for transportation. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to adopt item 9a; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to support Councilman Deal's application for a vacancy on the Sam Trans Board; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue recognized Roy Abrams for his efforts on the storm drainage measure; the new bike racks on Burlingame Avenue; the CCAG Meeting on Thursday evening; and the upcoming high speed rail meeting. There were no further comments from the public. Councilwoman Nagel confirmed the "drop in"times for the high speed rail meeting. 12. OLD BUSINESS a. HIGH SPEED RAIL UPDATE DPW Murtuza gave a presentation and provided information in preparation for the high speed rail update meeting on January 22, 2009 at the Samtrans office in San Carlos. 13. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Department Reports: Building, December 2008; Finance, December 2008 4 Burlingame City Council January 20,2009 Unapproved Minutes 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council January 20,2009 Unapproved Minutes RethinkWaste ,°- South Bayside Waste Management Authority January 28,2009 Jim Nantell City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Re: Questions Raised by Burlingame City Council Regarding the SBWMA Dear Mr. Nantell: Attached is our response to the series of questions raised by the City of Burlingame during the December 15,2008 City Council meeting and additional follow-up questions regarding the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) and the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center's master plan. The response has been broken into three sections:1) SBWMA Budget and Services,2) Shoreway Master Plan, and 3)JPA,Franchise Fees and Additional Information. The City's questions pertaining to each section are listed at the beginning of the section with the corresponding response below. To ensure that you and your City Council have the full scope of information, the response includes references to other documents and reports that provide additional detail and background. These have been attached for your reference. The goal of the SBWMA is to provide cost-effective waste reduction,recycling and solid waste programs to its 12 Member Agencies through the various contracts and programs, and management of the Shoreway facility. We hope that we have addressed the issues raised, and look forward to providing any additional information at the February 2nd City Council meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact me,Martha Debry or Larry Patterson should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Kevin McCarthy Executive Director CC: Martha Debry,Town of Hillsborough,SBWMA Chair Brian Moura,City of San Carlos,SBWMA Vice Chair Larry Patterson,City of San Mateo,SBWMA Board Member 610.Elm Street,Suite 202-San Carlos, CA 94070-650.802.3500 RESPONSE TO BURLINGAME January 28, 2009 I. SBWMA BUDGET AND SERVICES Why has the SBWMA budget increased in the last few years? What is being done to control the administrative and program costs at SBWMA? How does SBWMA staffing compare to what was proposed in the Becker report? What services and benefits does Burlingame get for their ratepayer contributions to the revenue stream? Why did we have to hire our own expert to get hotels to increase their recycling? Why should we have to pay for services to cities that have been unable to meet their diversion targets? Background The South Bayside Transfer Station Authority (SBTSA) Joint Powers Authority was first formed in 1982 to address local consolidation of service providers and the need for coordinated municipal efforts to manage solid waste disposal needs, ensuring that its 12 Member Agencies would collectively have lower solid waste management costs. A key consideration for managing costs into the future was the construction of the transfer station in San Carlos in 1984, which is the only such facility in central San Mateo County. Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) built and operated the facility from its inception until today. SBTSA allowed BFI a 17% operating ratio (or profit) with the intention that higher compensation would lower the eventual cost to purchase the transfer station. After the SBTSA purchased the transfer station and adjacent Recyclery in 1999, the operating ratio was reduced to 9%. Benefits of the transfer station purchase included: ➢ JPA gained greater control of long-term disposal costs. ➢ JPA given ability to seek competitive bids - It allowed the opportunity for any qualified collection company to bid on future collection services. The franchised garbage contracts in the SBWMA service area had never been subject to a competitive bid process. The services have been provided for decades by a private company that was. eventually acquired by BFI, which was then acquired by Allied in 1999, and the company has never competed for these collection franchises in the past. ➢ JPA received greater share of commodity revenue - Since the SBWMA owns and manages the facility, it receives a greater share of the commodity revenue (selling of the recyclables) than if the JPA didn't own the facility. The JPA was amended several times, in 1999, 2002, and 2005. The 1999 amendment transformed the SBTSA into the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) and reflected the purchase of the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center in San Carlos from BFI. A minor modification of the JPA agreement was made in 2002 to amend the definition of the Fiscal Year. The 2005 amendment, approved with Resolution No. 5-2006 by the Burlingame City Council (City) on January 17, 2006, changed the governance structure of the JPA and elaborated on the role of the new executive director position. A. Staffing & Budget All SBWMA actions and budgets are reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors (Board) at its monthly meetings. A review of program and administrative costs, including staffing levels, is included in the annual budget process and is similar to the City's process. On-going review and i 1 updates of programs, costs,and any changes in revenues are provided to the Board (including a mid- year budget review) to ensure that the SBWMA operates in a fiscally responsible manner,while maintaining the level of service the Member Agencies expect. The SBWMA has consistently finished each budget year with surpluses due to prudent management of its expenditures and careful oversight of the Shoreway facility. The table below breaks out the SBWMA's total operating budget by key line items. Administrative,contract compliance and support,and recycling line items comprise the SBWMA's "program budget." FY0506 FY0506 FY0607 FY0607 FY0708 FY0708 Expenses(In 000's) Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Administrative 940 $ 719 $ 1,021 $ 1,004 $ 1,504 $ 1,423 Contract Compliance&Support 795 913 844 778 844 644 Recycling 1,024 556 879 538 880 518 Shoreway Operations 31,866 31,469 33,050 28,200 31,425 31,654 Capital Expenditures 1,372 397 879 389 3,552 792 Total Operating&Capital Expenses 35,997 34,054 36,673 30,909 38,205 35,032 %surplus/(shortfall): 5.40% 15.72% 8.30% i Over the past three years,the SBWMA has instituted best practices that have reduced its administrative costs in the areas of IT support,HR and benefits administration,and outside accounting services. Overall,the SBWMA delivers services to its 12 Member Agencies at a per capita rate less than most other comparable agencies as shown below. SBWMA's adopted FY0809 program budget of$3.3 million equates to$6.85 per person per year for the approximately 377,000 people in the current SBWMA service area. SOLID WASTE MARAGEMEHT PROGRAM COSTS PER CAPITA $20.00 — $18.00 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 9 i $0.00 Portland-Office Central Contra SBVVMA San Francisco San Jose Env. Alameda County City of Oakland of Sustainability Costa SNA Dept.of Services,PIMA Waste btgt. Public Works Environment Dept. Authority i 2 It is important to note that of all the agencies listed in the chart on the previous page,SBWMA is the only one that owns and manages a transfer station and recycling processing facility; this adds greater complexity and a broadened work scope. The SBWMA's program budget as detailed in the table below has increased over the past three years as the agency staff has executed the strategic direction of the Board. The Board has charted a clear course for the agency's growth to tackle an array of current and emerging priorities as captured in the SBWMA's Strategic Plan(see Attachment 1) approved on March 27,2008. The average annual increase in expenditures over the past three years has been 8.8%. These increases also reflect ongoing costs for RFP consultant and legal support totaling$300,000-$400,000 per year. These expenses are expected to drop in half by the next fiscal year. FY0506 FY0607 FY0708 FY0809 FY0809 Expenses (In 000'x) Actual Actual Actual_ Budgeted Projected Administrative $719 $1,004 $1,423 $1,545 $1,362 Contract Compliance&Support* $913 $778 $644 $615 $555 Recycling &AB 939 Compliance $556 $538 $518 $1,082 $851 SBWMA Budget w/o capital and Shoreway $2,188 $2,320 $2,586 $3,242 $2,768 % change (vs prior year): 6% 11% 7% Headcount(approved): 3.75 5 6 7.75 7.75 Actual headcount: 2.75 4 5 6.75 6.75 Fncludes RFP consultant and legal support: $406,126 $ 335,318 $405,924 $300,000 More specifically,these increases predominantly reflect the addition of new staff to address key priorities related to the rollout of future collection services; greater oversight of the Shoreway facility, including development of a facility master plan and selection of a future facility operator;contract compliance and AB 939 program support related to 12 separate Member Agency Franchise Agreements;and closing a significant shortfall in executive and administrative management of the agency. As discussed in greater detail below,these staff additions were a direct outcome of the SBWMA Board's review of and actions taken from the November 2004 Rahn Becker report. Mr. Becker was a former Finance Director for the City of Burlingame and SBWMA Board member. Simply stated,the SBWMA's staffing levels have not grown beyond what was anticipated in the Becker report. Becker Report The strategic foundation for the growth of the agency originated with a November 2,2004 report, "Review of Organization and Staffing," prepared by Rahn Becker. The Board reviewed and approved the findings and recommendations of this report on November 18,2004. The report included the results of a detailed survey of Board members and concluded: Taking the question responses and comments together, four.categories orconeerns are evidenced: 1, A shortfall in executive management capacity. i 2. Marc work than available staff can absorb. 3. Areas, including,contract management,where more attention is warranted. 4. Board rote issues. i 3 An excerpt from the Becker report also contained the following key findings: Findings: Over the past several years, State regulations,the need for more contract management of the collection and operating agreements and demands associated with the SBWMA's ownership of facilities have burdened the current organizational structure. The SBWMA is rapidly approaching a j significant confluence of policy decisions—renewal/rebidding of the collection franchise, maintenance and potential expansion of the SBWMA'S owned facilities,and achieving AB 939 diversion goals. These issues may not only have an impact on the level of staffing for programs,but their presence underscores the importance of proceeding with development of strong management capability in the organization. By first addressing management needs,the SBWMA can then be in a position to determine need for additional staff and begin deliberations with.Bpl to determine whether and to what extent BTI positions should be transferred to the SBWMA. In addition,resolving management issues will impact the role of the SBWMA Board and require that the Board reassess its I role in light of a new organizational structure, The Becker report also included the following organization chart: Table 5: SBWMA RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION CHART Green:SBWMA Board or Staff Yellow:Consultants Blue:Board Policy Decision Legal Counsel II Executive committee 0.4 FTE (To Be Considered) a 5 Integrated Waste Facility Contract Mgt. Mgt.Programs Management &Financial ESA Contract HFH Contract 0.32 FTE 1.0 FTE RGS Cntract � < 0.62 FTE � I i I ESA Contract (PT Manager Backup) (AB 939 Reports) 0.49 FTE t i 4 i It's important to note that the organization chart in the Becker report totaled 6.23 FTEs for all SBWMA staff,contracted employees and consultants. The SBWMA currently has 7.75 FTE authorized positions with actual headcount at 6.75 FTE due to an open position. The SBWMA's organization chart is below. SBWMA Board of Directors F`f"Q- a RECYCLING PROGRAMS,OUTREACH '• RECYCLING PROGRAMS,OUTREACH i SHOREWAY CONTRACTS •✓•y RATE I ACCOUNTING& ! •' &CONTRACT COMPLIANCE I &CONTRACT COMPLIANCE I AND MANAGEMENT ; MANAGEMENT I i AUDITING I Il ♦._._. ._._.O _._ _.® _.® _._.-- - I I I 5 1 i The Becker report and the November 18,2004 Board meeting minutes clearly document that the Board direction was for the SBWMA to initially recruit and hire an Executive Director,which was accomplished in September 2006. The Executive Director's first task was to evaluate whether Allied Waste's commercial recycling staff should be brought"in-house' to the SBWMA. This was evaluated and the Board decided at its March 27,2007 Board meeting to not bring these staff in house,but to adopt several changes to the current structure,compensation and functionality of the Commercial Recycling Outreach Program. Allied Waste currently has six commercial recycling staff and a sales manager,which are part of Allied Waste's Shoreway operating budget. j i Prior to hiring an Executive Director and additional staff,the SBWMA relied heavily on the use of consultants for administering programs,conducting rate reviews and general oversight of the franchise and Shoreway operations agreements. The review of consultant use vs.in-house staff is ongoing,but over the past two years there has been a substantial reduction in the use of outside consultants,notably HF&H and the replacement of Lisa Costa Sanders' services (Neal Martin& Associates)with Cathy Hidalgo. In FY0607,HF&H was authorized for$946,883,but year-end actuals for HF&H billings were$640,607. In FY0708 HF&H billed$205,168. The reduced HF&H billings have been accomplished through SBWMA staff taking on the work and adding a Finance Manager,Marshall Moran,in January 2008.Since Marshall's hiring,the SBWMA has also reduced the annual costs for outside accounting services by$45,000. When Hilary Gans was hired as the SBWMA's full-time facility manager in January 2007,it eliminated a$100,000 per year contract with an outside consultant to monitor the facility on a part- time arttime basis. '—Il With both of these employees in place,the SBWMA has reduced RFP consulting costs by$200,000- $300,000 over the past two years. It should be noted that while the SBWMA offers competitive wages and benefits,it does not provide PERS retirement or other post-retirement health benefits to its employees. When establishing the I revised SBWMA JPA in 2005,the Board wanted to avoid PERS employer-contribution cost fluctuations and other legacy costs,which would have a direct and long-term affect on garbage rates. (One contract employee who works for Regional Government Services (RGS) does participate in PERS.) j I Organizational Assessment The Board's support for increased staffing has also been guided by an organizational assessment initiated by the Executive Director in December 2006. An organizational development consultant, MGH Consulting,was hired and completed the following scope of work: • Needs and priority assessment as a precursor to development of a public strategic plan for the SBWMA. This included confidential interviews of Board members and other key stakeholders. • Reviewed Human Resources/Benefits/Payroll contractual arrangements and services. • Conducted IT audit and assisted with evaluating proposals for IT management services. • Planned a one-day strategic planning retreat for SBWMA staff. • As needed assisted the Executive Director with analyzing the costs/benefits of the SBWMA assuming direct management responsibility for the Allied Waste commercial outreach staff. �. • Planned a one-day Board retreat held on 2/22/08. 6 ! S This assessment has guided the agency's action in improving all aspects of the organization and its management. The chart on the next page lays out the key action items that have been addressed over the past two years. The most recent milestone was the SBWMA becoming the employer of record on October 1,2008. From a future staffing perspective,one new position related to contract compliance and administration may be considered in 2010. 7 1 1 Hiring of key staff members to support optimum performance Phase 1:Recycling Outreach& Sustainability Manager,and Finance Manager. (3-6 Months) - Hiring Phase 2: Executive Admin Assistant(6-12 Months) ■ Solicit proposals for IT,Rate Management and other support services. (0-6 Months) „M Organizational Infrastructure Prepare and release an RFP for Professional Employee Organization (PEO)services. Compare PEO model MIMI, vs. contracting with a city for PEO 3 services. (3-9 Months) % of Use Board Subcommittees to Enhance Board Efficiency. Governance Conduct annual Board retreat to establish performance metrics and goals. Use 6 & 12 month performance evaluation for all staff. Performance Establish quarterly reporting on Metrics customer service,budget,&contract management. Engage in an annual Board self- evaluation process. i j 8 i I Cost Effectiveness of SBWMXs Services Another way of analyzing the cost effectiveness of the SBWMA's services is to look at what the dollar amount of a typical residential or commercial garbage rate in Burlingame is associated with SBWMA costs. The SBWMA's program budget is only$0.28 per month or about 2% of the residential monthly garbage rate (for one 32-gallon can) as shown in the chart below. A second chart below shows costs for a typical commercial garbage rate. The cost figures in these charts are net of commodity revenues (i.e.,commodity revenues from the sale of recyclables help offset some of the garbage collection costs) and reflect figures taken from the approved 2009 rate application. Burlingame Residential Rate -2009 HFH Rate Report Composition of Residential Rate: I; ®Allied Collection Cost- $9.29 ■Allied SRDC Operation Cost- $1.32 ❑Disposal @ Ox Mtn - $1.30 ❑Burlingame City Franchise Fees-$1.09 ■City Requests(C&D Consultant)-$0.55 M SBWMA Program Budget- $0.28 ®Bond Principal&Interest- $0.14 San Carlos French.Fees - $0.11 ` TOTAL PROPOSED 2009 RESIDENTIAL RATE $14.09 V Burlingame Commercial Rate -2009 HFH Rate Report Composition of Commercial Rate (3 yd.bin lx/week): B Allied Collection Cost- $183.04 ■Allied SRDC Operation Cost - $26.68 ❑Disposal @ Ox Mtn - $26.25 ❑Burlingame City Franchise Fees- $30.07 ■Burlingame City Requests - $0.80 M SBWMA Program Budget- $5.59 ■Bond Principal&Interest- $2.85 El San Carlos Franchise Fees - $2.22 TOTAL PROPOSED 2009 COMMERCIAL RATE $277.50 9 Another perspective is to look at the total costs for solid waste collection,recycling and disposal in the SBWMA service area. The SBWMA's program budget (all staff,consultant and non-capital expenses) comprises only 3.5% of total costs. The costs shown exclude commodity revenues which are projected at$6,966,841 in 2009. Total Solid Waste & Recycling Cost-2009 Projection Composition of Total Cost($million): IM i Allied Collection Cost'- $48.2 51.5% I ®Allied SRDC Operation Cost -$15.6 16.7% ❑ Disposal(Ox Mtn,other) - $15.3 16.4% ❑Collection Franchise Fees - $7.9 8.5% ®SBWMA Program Budget - $3.3 3.5% 93 Bond Principal& Interest - $1.7 1.8% i San Carlos Franch. Fees - $1.3 1.4% i City Requests - $0.2 0.3% TOTAL $93.5 100.0% I I B. Value for Burlingame Working within the SBWMA,Burlingame enjoys one of lowest disposal rates in the Bay Area. With the purchase of the transfer station in 1999/2000,the SBWMA was well positioned to negotiate a long-term disposal agreement with BFI/Allied Waste at the Ox Mountain landfill. On April 6,2005 the SBWMA Board approved a Disposal Agreement with BFI of California at Ox Mountain Landfill (effective January 1,2005 thru December 31,2019). This new contract provided the SBWMA Member Agencies an immediate $11.49 per ton reduction in disposal rates (estimated to equal a savings of —$58 million over the 15-year term). A key provision of this contract is a most favored nation clause thatgr ants the SBWMA Member Agencies with the lowest disposal rate at the landfill. An example of how the SBWMA works to save rate payers money was the agreement for disposal of green waste negotiated in 2001. By proactively addressing the use of alternative daily cover which consumes landfill space and is a major contributor to greenhouse gases,the SBWMA was able to reduce the per ton cost of disposal of green waste by approximately$10 per ton. This equates to a savings of more than$900,000 annually for the past 8 years. In addition to providing lower costs, ' her and better use as compost t and more landfills ace was processed into a lu green waste was ro p b p g p preserved for the future. The SBWMA has also taken a leadership position in maintaining a rate stabilization reserve, and 10 monitoring the collection agreements to ensure that monthly residential garbage rates are kept as low as possible. A rate review study conducted last year shows that 10 of.the 12 Member Agencies, including Burlingame,have garbage rates at or below the 50f percentile of other Bay Area communities (54 communities in Alameda,Santa Clara,San Francisco and San Mateo counties were surveyed). SBWMA Residential 30-35 Gallon Rates $30.00 — ------- $25.05 S23.53 75th Percentile(c_6$24.05 $25.00 ® ®®®® ®® ®v ®® -- — — —————® ®® ®— ®® . 920.17 b0h Percentile at$21.06 _ s _ _ _ m$20.28 $20.00 $15.97 S13.57 514.31 $15.00 $13.2fl I $10.00 $5.00 -� I I a G�� oo°r Qm� G``A ®a9 'The City of East Palo Alto requires minimum 9t-gallon residential service at 523.08 Per month. The SBWMA also performs many other functions and activities for its Member Agencies,including contract management,recycling and waste prevention program development and implementation, and public education. The following is a list of specific SBWMA programs,projects and activities provided for its Member Agencies. For details about these programs,please refer to Attachment 2. • Compost Giveaway Events • Construction&Demolition Ordinance Support • E-Scrap Collection Events • Residential Recycling Program • Curbside HHW,U-Waste&Sharps Program • Commercial Recycling Program • Curbside Battery&Cell Phone Recycling • Multi-Family Dwelling Recycling Program • CIWMB AB939 Compliance Reporting • Annual Rate Application Process • Venues&Events Recycling Reporting • Contract Compliance/Performance Review • DOC Grant Management • Collection Services Request for Proposals • Business Composting Program • Facility Operations Request for Proposals • Schools Recycling Program • "rethinker"Quarterly Newsletter SBWMA staff has been able to negotiate better pricing for many of these programs then Member Agencies would have received individually due to having a larger service area. Working together, the SBWMA Member Agencies have been able to establish programs to address state mandates such as universal waste diversion,without adding staff. As part of the SBWMA,Burlingame has directly benefitted from this advantage. 11 � t The table below is provided for illustration purposes only and shows an allocation of the SBWMA program budget to Member Agencies. We have provided some examples of line item budget details and what theoretically it costs Burlingame for these SBWMA services. For example,Burlingame would incur substantially higher costs than$20,149 per year to individually hire HF&H to review Allied Waste's cost plus annual rate application. In the future Franchise Agreement,SBWMA staff will manage 100% of the rate review process using existing staff,thus eliminating altogether the annual rate review expense for all Member Agencies. j Another example relates to the quarterly residential newsletter produced y the SBWMA and sent to all residents. The SBWMA is responsible for newsletter design/set-up,printing and mailing. Burlingame would incur substantially higher costs than$23,968 per year to produce and mail its own quarterly residential newsletter. I i The recent Collection Services Request for Proposals (RFP) also clearly demonstrates this advantage. The City of Belmont participated in the SBWMA Collection Services RFP process and initiated its own separate RFP at the same time. Belmont retained its own consultant at a cost of approximately $35,000 (the full project scope was priced at$70,000) to determine whether the City should bring the services in-house or to have a private company continue providing the service. Ultimately,Belmont chose to put the services out to bid,and received two proposals-one from Allied Waste and the other from Norcal Waste Systems. Upon review of the proposals,the City of Belmont determined f that they received the best rate by continuing with the SBWMA process and approved starting negotiations with the SBWMA recommended proposer (Norcal). Total %of FY0708 Examples of Line Item Budget Detail Tons Total SBWMA Budget* Annual Rate Review Contractor Selection Process* Quarterly Res.Newsletter Atherton 3,117 1.4% $35,600 $2,120 $4,474 $2,522 Belmont 12,181 5.4% $139,123 $8,285 $17,485 $9,856 Burlingame 29,623 13.1% $338,334 $20,149 $42,521 $23,968 EPA 12,802 5.7% $146,216 $8,707 $18,376 $10,358 North Fair Oaks 8,218 3.6% $93,861 $5,590 $11,796 $6,649 Foster City 16,039 7.1% $183,187 $10,909 $23,023 $12,977 Hillsborough 4,097 1.8% $46,793 $2,787 $5,881 $3,315 Menlo Park 21,187 9.4% $241,984 $14,411 $30,412 $17,142 Redwood City 47,854 21.1% $546,557 $32,549 $68,690 $38,719 San Carlos 17,397 7.7% $198,697 $11,833 $24,972 $14,076 San Mateo 51,509 22.7% $588,302 $35,035 $73,93.7 $41,676 West Bay 2 391 1.15i $27,308 $1,626 $3,432 $1,935 1 TOTAL 226,415 100.0% $2,585,962 $154,000 $325,000 $183,193 *Consultant support managing RFPs release,RFPs addendums,and RFPs evaluations. In recent years,the SBWMA has worked with Allied Waste to improve its commercial recycling performance,in order to meet the contractually stipulated commercial recycling goal. SBWMA staff has worked closely with Allied Waste to provide them with the necessary resources and support to make the program successful,yet there continues to be a downward trend to the amount of recyclables the company has collected year over year since 2004. i The SBWMA has identified the shortcomings of the program over the course of several years,and has j tried to hold the company accountable and provide it with the necessary resources to meet its contractual requirements and ensure that diversion from the commercial sector is maximized. The SBWMA Performance Hearing Findings from 2004,2005,2006, and 2007 all reiterate similar problems with Allied Waste's management of its commercial recycling collection services. In addition,several staff reports have been authored by the SBWMA and presented to the SBWMA Board,keeping them 12 apprised of the shortcomings in Allied Waste's management of the commercial recycling collection services and of the continued downward trend of collecting commercial sector recyclables. A general answer to"why Burlingame had to hire its own expert to get hotels to recycle," is simply that the City's contracted solid waste and recycling collection company has consistently underperformed in the area of commercial recycling. To help further bolster diversion efforts in the commercial sector,SBWMA initiated the Business Composting Collection Program(Commercial Organics Program)with Allied Waste to provide food scraps collection service to businesses. The program was fully implemented in 2005,with SBWMA staff developing the promotion and education materials. This program comprises approximately 20% of the annual commercial sector recycling collection by Allied Waste in Burlingame. The lack of a successful commercial recycling program is one of the many reasons that the SBWMA Member Agencies opted to issue an RFP for new collection services. The new contract stipulates specific commercial recycling requirements and associated penalties if they are not met. It should be noted that of the four companies who responded to the SBWMA Collection Services RFP,Norcal's proposal included the most aggressive commercial recycling program and the company has guaranteed that it will increase commercial recycling by 9,800 tons annually in the SBWMA service area. The new collection contract includes weekly collection of single stream recyclables,food scraps and yard trimmings in new wheeled carts. Recently the SBWMA initiated discussions with Allied Waste and requested a proposal to provide residential weekly collection of yard trimmings and food scraps. SBWMA analyzed Allied Waste's proposal and provided it to the Board for consideration. Only two Member Agencies,Burlingame and San Carlos,were interested in the expanded program,and the SBWMA followed up to have the proposal revised for two Member Agencies exclusively. Ultimately,only the City of San Carlos approved the program and SBWMA staff is assisting the City with rolling out these enhanced services. It should be noted that costs for Member Agency specific programs/services are only paid by those Member Agencies that use the services,such as the weekly residential food scraps enhancement for San Carlos. Other Member Agencies,including Burlingame, do not pay directly for services provided exclusively to other Member Agencies. Likewise,it should be noted that the SBWMA has provided customized assistance to Burlingame through the years to develop its construction and demolition program,and address the use of compactors at hotels. SBWMA staff has made itself available to all of its Member Agencies equally-however,it is ultimately up to the Member Agency to determine the extent of SBWMA staff support. For example, SBWMA staff has attended more than 50 City Council meetings related to the contractor selection process since the fall of 2006. 13 II. SHOREWAY MASTER PLAN Why have the capital costs of the Shoreway environmental center increased? What is the scope of the proposed Shoreway environmental center? Is the frill scope really required or could it be scaled back to reduce the costs? Are there other ways to reduce the cost of the facility? Is the expanded facility really needed? Was the Allied alternative proposal viable and was it fully evaluated? Did SBWMA discuss the proposal with Allied before reaching any final decision? Was SBWMA able to reach agreement on the Sloan assumptions vs. Allied assumptions? i Is the SBWMA continuing to evaluate options for the Facility? i The Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center in San Carlos was purchased by the SBWMA in 1999/2000. This operation serves as a central location for receiving,transferring and/or processing all garbage,recyclables,yard trimmings and food scraps collected from residents and businesses in the SBWMA service area. The current facilities are operating at their capacity and cannot provide further diversion opportunities to Member Agencies. Over the past 5 years,residential recycling diversion rates have been flat as new programs such as single stream(commingled) recycling have not been introduced. The equipment used to process the recyclable materials into commodities that can be-sold for reuse is approaching the end of its useful life cycle,and is more prone to breakdowns and failures as it becomes more worn with use. It should be noted that even if the SBWMA continued with its current recycling programs,a significant investment will need to be made to replace the existing recyclable materials processing equipment. To allow for the processing of single stream recycling under the new residential and commercial collection services,which are proposed to start by January 1,2011,new processing equipment is needed. A 30% increase in the amount of recyclables collected through the new curbside programs is anticipated,and a larger materials recovery facility (MRF)building is needed to house the new technologically advanced and physically larger processing equipment. The SBWMA went through an i extensive process to complete a master plan to guide facility improvements,including retrofitting the existing transfer station and constructing a new MRF,to transform the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center into the Shoreway Environmental Center. A. Master Plan Scope &Development In determining the final scope of the master plan,an exhaustive process was initiated by the SBWMA starting in July 2005,as part of planning for the future collection programs,services and facility infrastructure needs. The facility master plan was developed following eight months of planning, discussion and review by the SBWMA Board of Directors,outside technical experts,and the existing Shoreway operator,Allied Waste. Site visits were also conducted at other recycling and solid waste facilities in the western United States to benchmark best practices and review facility design concepts. To date,the Shoreway master plan has been reviewed at eight public meetings,including two City of San Carlos Planning Commission meetings (6/2/08 and 7/21/08),five SBWMA Board meetings (3/22/07,4/26/07,4/24/08, 6/26/08,and 1/22/09),and a special Elected Officials briefing (1/22/09). Various alternatives to the master plan were considered including the size and scope of retrofitting the existing transfer station building,whether to retrofit the existing MRF building or a build a new 14 one, different traffic configurations,etc. These alternatives were reviewed by Board staff,Board members,an outside architectural and engineering firm,a traffic consultant,and local Allied Waste staff. Please refer to Attachment 3,JMRA letter for detailed analysis of the alternatives considered. Ultimately,the future collection programs,which include single stream recycling,weekly collection of recycling and yard trimmings,and adding food scrap recycling,necessitated the need for upgrading the buildings and equipment at Shoreway. In addition to handling the increased volume of material received at the facility,the proposed improvements for the facility will solve many existing problems, and will improve the safety, efficiency and compliance of operations. The improvements to the Shoreway facility as proposed in the master plan incorporate the following: ➢ Structures built to current structural and seismic code that will ensure that the critical recycling and waste handling infrastructure can serve the needs of the community long into the future; ➢ Processing capabilities for the increased volumes of single stream recyclables from residents and businesses under the new collection programs; ➢ Expanded transfer station with needed additional space for more material recycling activities and increased public safety and convenience; Traffic improvements and new scales to increase customer convenience,improve traffic safety and operational inefficiencies,and prevent traffic stacking into the streets; Public recycling center consolidated into one convenient,safe location with its own designated entrance;and, ➢ An educational center and"Green Building" features. The Shoreway master plan project is a combination of three areas of improvements: l) entry and scales;2) MRF building and equipment;and 3) the transfer station expansion. The entry and scales improvements will be completed in the spring of 2009 (using existing funds) with the goal of easing congestion and traffic stacking onto Shoreway Road. The MRF and the transfer station are essential parts of the Shoreway improvements that are planned for construction between 2009 and 2011. The Shoreway improvements are essential if the Member Agencies are to implement much-needed service enhancement(e.g.,weekly single stream recycling and food scraps/yard trimmings collection) and other expanded diversion programs. The SBWMA is also currently making a Facility Operator selection between two short-listed proposers. Despite the additional work that is required to process single stream recyclables,the costs proposals from both of these firms are lower than the current cost of operation by Allied Waste. The SBWMA attributes the lower operating costs provided by these two firms to the operational efficiencies gained through the master plan improvements. If portions of the master plan are removed,this would likely increase the operating cost received from proposers. B. Master Plan Costs In March and April 2007 a planning level estimate of$25.95 million was prepared so the SBWMA Board could review conceptual master plan options (e.g.,expanding transfer station,new traffic improvements or not,retrofit the existing MRF building or build a new one,etc.). The construction estimates were used by the Board to approve a preferred master plan option which would then be the starting point for designing the project. It wasn't until the Facility Operations RFP proposals were received in March 2008 and the project was substantially through the Conditional Use Permit process with the City of San Carlos (CUP approved on 7/21/08) that SBWMA staff was able to complete accurate project cost estimates,that included all soft and hard costs related to the project. 15 f I SHOREWAY CAPITAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 04/26/07 06/26/08 1/22/2009 Planning and Design $0 $1,669,300 $2,269,100 Scale house&traffic improvements $907,350 $1,955,500 $2,195,000 Transfer Station&MRF buildings $16,540,956 $29,091,200 $27,668,500 Construction management services $0 $1,859,500 $2,223,300 Other Costs(e.g.,engineering,landscaping,signage,etc.) $0 $1,606,700 $1,461,000 Building sub-total $17,448,306 $36,182,200 $35,816,900 MRF Equipment Purchase $8,500,000 $15,000,000 $15,117,100 MRF Equipment Installation $0 $2,779,000 $2,840,200 TOTAL BUILDING&EQUIPMENT $25,948,306 $53,961,200 $53,774,200 Project contingency at 10% $5,396,130 $5,377,400 Total Project Cost w/contingency $59,357,330 $59,151,600 NOTES ON LINE ITEMS ABOVE 4/26/07 estimate:This was a planning level estimate requested by the Board.When the estimate was prepared the SBWMA had not hired an architect and engineer so no design work had even been started.Also,the facility operations RFP wasn't released until 1111/07 and bids weren't received until 3/4/08;thus no firm costs were available for single stream MRF equipment and installation.The 4/26/07 estimates I were updated in July 2007 as part of our FY08 budget;the total project cost was increased to$28,882,724 to account for inflationary factors ! associated with construction work. 6/26/08 estimate:This estimate was based on 100%construction cost estimate for the scale house and traffic improvements and 40% construction cost estimates for the transfer and MRF buildings.The scale estimate increase was substantially due to the inclusion of a new entranceway into the transfer station as part of the final design package.Construction cost estimates were also updated to reflect the actual phasing of the construction so costs were inflated(e.g.,to 2009 or 2010 dollars).Construction management costs were adjusted upwards to reflect bids from 4 CM services firms.The estimate also,for the first time,included"soft costs"for planning,building,and LEED fees; and other construction costs such as landscaping,site signage,PG&E transformer,repainting the exterior of the transfer station,transfer station roof replacement,telecom and security,and education center,etc.Many of these costs weren't previously known as we had not received any feedback on project plans from the City of San Carlos planning and building departments as part of our CUP application. 1122109 estimate:The cost estimates shown for the transfer station and MRF buildings is based on 100%complete engineering plans. The June 2008 project cost estimate for the Shoreway master plan improvements was$53.96 million. This figure was based on a 40% engineering design estimate of the building and did not include a 10% contingency on top of the estimated project costs. This figure has recently been updated as a result of receiving a professional construction cost estimate based on 100%complete design drawings prepared by SBWMA's engineering consultants,JRMA. The January 2009 revised project cost estimate for the complete master plan scope of improvements is$53.77 million. The above table provides a side-by-side comparison of the cost estimate. SBWMA has proposed funding the master plan improvements through the selling of bonds that will i be repaid through garbage rates. A cap of$65.5 million has been established,which includes a 10% contingency,costs for financing the bonds,and purchasing MRF processing equipment. This translates into roughly a 5% monthly garbage rate increase for residents and businesses in the SBWMA service area. It`should be noted that to address the concerns over the project costs,the MRF and the transfer station are being bid separately so that the SBWMA Board can consider the option of delaying or eliminating the construction of the transfer station if the total project costs are considered too high. C. Allied Waste Retrofit Plan On August 28,2008,Allied Waste submitted a MRF retrofit plan that promised to deliver needed Shoreway improvements at a much lower cost than the SBWMA master plan. Allied Waste's plan proposed to save money by adding onto the existing MRF building and installing smaller material processing equipment. The plan was similar to one already rejected by the SBWMA and its consulting engineers (JRMA) on the grounds that the existing building could not be expanded cost 16 i effectively to process the increased volume of recyclable materials anticipated with the SBWMA's future programs. Upon receiving Allied Waste's retrofit plan(Attachment 4),SBWMA staff revisited the possibility of retrofitting rather than rebuilding. SBWMA staff analyzed the plan and evaluated its merits relative to the master plan with a focus on cost analysis,site improvements/site functionary analysis and regulatory and seismic analysis. The higher capital costs of the SBWMA master plan are a result of constructing a new and larger MRF building,purchasing a larger and more complex state-of-the-art single stream sorting equipment, and adding other MRF related improvements (i.e.,upgraded foundation system,office area for the new Facility Operations contractor,adequate employee facilities,public education area,new public recycling center,improved traffic flow,electrical upgrades,energy efficiency,and solar-ready roof). By contrast,Allied Waste's retrofit plan is limited to only adding 10,000 square feet to the existing building and installing a small-capacity sorting system. Considering the sorting equipment systems separately from the building improvements,there is a difference of approximately$10 million in equipment capital costs between the two processing systems proposed under the two plans. Allied Waste's retrofit plan equipment is clearly smaller in size and has 50% of the throughput capability of the SBWMA master plan processing system(it is likely that this smaller system was proposed by Allied Waste because a larger system can not fit into the 50,000 square foot retrofit building they proposed). The system's throughput capacity is the main factor for equipment capital cost difference between the Allied Waste retrofit system(capable of processing 20 tons per hour) and the SBWMA master plan system(capable of processing 40 tons per hour). Though the larger sort system proposed in the master plan has higher capital cost,the analysis conducted by the SBWMA and consultants show that there is a clear capital cost vs. operational cost trade-off between the two systems that needs to be considered (discussed below). MRF Lifecycle Cost Analysis SBWMA hired Sloan/Vasquez Consulting to conduct a detailed operational cost analysis of Allied Waste's MRF retrofit plan. Sloan/Vasquez then compared the anticipated operational costs of the retrofit plan to the bid results received from the short-listed Facility Operations companies (South Bay Recycling and Hudson Baylor Corporation)to assess the cost differences resulting from operating the different facilities envisioned under the two plans. The comparative analysis between the two different MRF plans (Sloan/Vasquez report found in SBWMA staff reports:September 25,2008,Item 6 and October 23,2008,Item 8) concluded that the capital cost savings presented by Allied Waste's MRF retrofit plan are eventually lost by higher operating costs over the life-cycle of the MRF. The higher costs of the Allied Retrofit plan are largely the result of the less efficient sorting equipment proposed in their plan which is projected to run 2 shifts (16-hour days) as opposed to the master plan equipment which will operate 1 shift(8-hour days). As shown in the table below,over 10 years the additional cost from the Allied Retrofit plan is expected to be$2.051 million and grows to$4.103 million over 20 years. 17 i Allied Plan vs. Master Plan -Total Combined Costs ($ Million) Additional Costs 10- Years 15 20-Years Years Allied MRF Retrofit $37.113 $55.670 $74.226 Master Plan $35.062 $52.593 $70.124 Delta -Total Additional Contract Cost $-2,051 $-3.077 $-4.103 I During the time that the analysis was being conducted,SBWMA staff met with Allied Waste's local, regional and corporate staff to discuss their retrofit plan and to validate the cost assumptions in their operations pro forma. Thorough consideration was given to the ideas and operational assumptions raised by Allied Waste. However,Sloan/Vasquez and Allied Waste had points of agreement and disagreement over their assumptions vs. Allied Waste's. Points of disagreement mainly revolved around the processing capabilities and the efficiency assumptions of the Allied MRF retrofit proposal. Ultimately,while some adjustments were made,it did not affect the overall outcome of the I Sloan/Vasquez report. The staff reports and analysis,including pro forma analysis that provided details on the specific items that were considered,accepted and or rejected,were provided to the SBWMA Board and are included ` as Attachment 5. The conclusion of the SBWMA Board was that a retrofitted facility would cost significantly more annually to operate than the master plan MRF,and in the long run the master plan facility was less costly for rate payers. An additional item of concern that was part of the Allied Retrofit analysis was the suitability of the existing building for the future needs. The existing building has many problems that make it a poor candidate for the future MRF operations (e.g.,internal posts that support the roof,low roof height, limited employee and administrative areas),however,the gravest concern is the existing building's foundation. The SBWMA hired JRMA to evaluate the existing building's foundation and seismic stability. JRMA's analysis concluded that the existing MRF foundation was not up to current building code standards and that if there were an earthquake the building could be substantially damaged-the results of which could be financially and operationally catastrophic. Financial risks include:the loss all building retrofit investments,possible loss of newly installed sorting equipment,the cost to permit and build a replacement MRF building,and costs to replace damaged sorting equipment. Operational risks include:the cost of having to close the MRF for an extended period of time, suspension of the recycling program,and transportation of materials to off-site processors during the two plus years of reconstruction. I i 18 I I a III. JPA, FRANCHISE FEES &ADDITIONAL INFORMATION `- If Burlingame gives proper notice to withdraw and also reaches agreement on liquidation of its share of SBWMA debt,does SBWMA have any basis to reject a request to withdraw? As an equity member what portion of SBWMA assets does Burlingame own and if Burlingame withdraws what portion of assets does it receive and when? What are the timing and terms for exiting the JPA? What is the basis for the Franchise fee paid to San Carlos? What are the rate impacts of the collection contract and facility contract? A. JPA Agreement The SBWMA asked its legal counsel and outside counsel to review the JPA terms in light of questions raised by Burlingame relative to potentially considering exiting the JPA.Attached is correspondence from Bob Lanzone,SBWMA's legal counsel(Attachment 6) and Ray McDevitt(Attachment 7), outside counsel. B. San Carlos Franchise Fee The basis for the franchise fee paid by the SBWMA to the City of San Carlos dates back to the original construction of the San Carlos transfer station(Shoreway facility) in 1982 by BFI pursuant to a conditional use permit(CUP) issued by San Carlos. The CUP was conditioned on BFI and San Carlos entering into an agreement providing San Carlos with a"franchise fee' in order to offset impacts from the facility's location and operation in the community. San Carlos and BFI signed a contract in 1982 which entitled San Carlos to five percent(5%) of the gate fee revenues received at the Shoreway facility. The SBWMA purchased the facility in 1999/2000. The 1982 contract between San Carlos and BFI expired in 2004,but fees in the amount of 5%have continued to be paid to San Carlos by the SBWMA. The SBWMA's Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement,as amended and restated in December 2005 (JPA Agreement),contemplates that San Carlos will receive a franchise fee from the operation of the Shoreway facility. The JPA Agreement does not specify the exact amount of the fee. SBWMA applied to San Carlos for a CUP covering the substantial improvements planned for the Shoreway facility. In connection with the permit application and the associated CEQA documentation,SBWMA and San Carlos have worked together to create a new franchise agreement which memorializes payment of the 5% franchise fee.The SBWMA's CUP application and related CEQA documentation was approved 3-0 by the City of San Carlos Planning Commission on July,21, 2008. The new agreement provides for the continued payment to San Carlos of 5% of the Gate Fee Revenues received at the Shoreway facility,the same amount San Carlos has received since the facility opened in 1984. The new agreement makes clear that the fee does not apply to revenues received by SBWMA from the sale of recyclable materials. The term of the agreement runs concurrently with that of the new CUP that the SBWMA has received.This item was approved 10-0 by the SBWMA Board of Directors on July 24,2008. A model staff report detailing all of the above was forwarded to all SBWMA Board members on July 25,2008. 19 r C. Rate Impacts of Collection Contract and Facility Contract The table below summarizes the anticipated collection rate impact from the rollout of new collection ^1 services in 2011 (i.e.,selection of Norcal Waste),new future Shoreway operator (i.e.,Hudson Baylor Corp. or South Bay Recycling) and Shoreway master plan improvements. Shoreway Facility Improvements(new debt service only) 4.89% Shoreway Operational Costs(new operator) <_0% Future Collection Services Contractor 9.96% Total Rate Impact <_14.85% The following table applies the estimated percentage rate impacts to Burlingame's residential rate (1 32-gallon can) to evaluate rate impact to the residents from the rollout of new collection services and Shoreway master plan improvements. The new collection services include wheeled carts for garbage, recycling and yard trimmings,and weekly collection of single stream recyclables,food scraps and yard trimmings. In total,Burlingame's residential rate is estimated to increase$2.09 per month. Impact of New Services and Improvements Percent Monthly Increase in Increase Rate Monthly Rate Typical rate for 132-gallon container for a resident $14.09 New Collection Contractor +9.96% $15.49 $1.40 0% New Operator of Shoreway Facility (or a $14.09 $0.00 reduction) Master Plan Improvements +4.89% $14.78 $0.69 (new debt service only) New Facility,New Collection and New 14.85% $16.18 $2.09 Operations Contractor I l i I i 20 ATTACHMENT 1 t Strategic Plan 2008-2012 Our History Formed in 1982,the South Bayside Waste Management Authority(SBWMA)is a joint powers authority of twelve member agencies in San Mateo County,California and is a leader in delivering innovative waste reduction and recycling programs.The SBWMA owns the Shoreway Environmental Center(SEC)which receives all the recyclables,organic materials,and residual materials (i.e., solid waste) collected in its service area. Our Mission SBWMA designs and implements sustainable waste reduction,recycling and facility operations services to achieve our member agencies environmental goals and requirements. Our Values • Implementing environmental practices and policies are good for our customers,local businesses and residents. • Long term planning for waste reduction,recycling,and residuals management are fundamental to achieving our mission. • We believe providing environmental education for children and adults fosters a greater resource conservation ethic which results in more livable and sustainable communities. • We believe in delivering cost-effective and customer friendly service. • We believe supporting collaboration and cooperation among member agencies and key stakeholders produces the best long-term results. • Our Strategic Priorities • Provide strategic oversight and direction to the environmental services companies that collect, process,recycle and dispose of residuals for the member agencies. • Ensure contractors' and SBWMA programs are managed cost effectively for the ratepayers with performance metrics for all programs. • Deliver strategic oversight and management of the Shoreway Environmental Center to meet financial, operational,and environmental goals. • Ensure compliance with environmental regulations governing the collection and processing of recyclables and organic materials and meet or exceed diversion goals. • Anticipate trends and implement innovative solutions for waste reduction,recycling and facility operations services. • Monitor and assess contractor performance so that customer satisfaction and service delivery meets or exceeds contractual requirements. • Adhere to best practices in office operations,operational infrastructure,procurement,human resource,IT and governance. • Support SBWMA programs and policies through relevant outreach,education,and focused communication. Our Vision SBWMA is nationally recognized for environmental leadership in sustainable materials management practices to support livable communities. ATTACHMENT 2 SBWMA Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs I. SBWMA Programs The SBWMA performs many functions and activities for its Member Agencies including assistance related to recycling and waste prevention. While the SBWMA assists Member Agencies with specific programs/policies,it also focuses on regional activities that benefit all Member Agencies collectively,as solid waste generation and recycling is highly regional in many respects. The collective actions taken by the SBWMA Board lend themselves to be effective in addressing waste management issues amongst Member Agencies both individually and as a whole.The Member Agencies equitably share the cost of SBWMA staffing and program support;however,specific programs that benefit a single Member Agency are paid for directly by that Agency (e.g.,San Carlos Weekly Food Scraps Collection Program). A brief explanation of specific SBWMA programs,projects and activities provided for Member Agencies is as follows: Compost Giveaway Events As per the contract with Allied to operate the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center,the company is required to provide compost to Member Agencies. SBWMA staff coordinates Compost Giveaway Events at most Member Agencies twice annually. The SBWMA coordinated 18 Compost Giveaway Events for Burlingame residents from 2003 to 2008. The 2009 Compost Giveaway Events for Burlingame are scheduled for March,April and October. E-Waste Collection o In 2001,SBWMA staff was instrumental in implementing the collection of E-Waste at the Shoreway facility. o More recently,the SBWMA concluded a RFP process to provide E-Waste Event services at Member Agencies and E-Waste collection service at Shoreway. o The SBWMA held 13 events for Member Agencies in 2008 which yielded the following results: 0 173,784 pounds of E-Scrap collected 0 12,269 linear feet of fluorescent lamps collected 0 1,862 pounds of household batteries collected o $17,969,47 in revenue generated o If Burlingame used either of the company's recommended by the SBWMA,the City would have received at least$2,000 in additional revenue for the events held in March and September 2008. o In addition,if Burlingame had used either of the company's recommended by the SBWMA,its residents would have also been allowed to drop off: o fluorescent lamps/bulbs o household batteries o cell phones Page 1 of 6 Residential Door-to-Door Collection of HHW,E-Scrap,Universal Waste and Sharps SBWMA staff recently issued a RFP for residential curbside and door-to-door collection of HHW,E-Scrap,Universal Waste and Sharps.Staff has presented the results of their efforts to the SBWMA Recycling and Facilities Management Subcommittee and this group has forwarded their recommendation to the Board for approval at the February 2009 meeting.The recommendation that will be presented to the SBWMA Board in February is for each individual Member Agency to consider and decide if they want to provide this service to their residents and to then proceed with contract negotiations with the goal of commencing these services in July 2009.The SBWMA will take be the lead in negotiating and managing the contract(s), developing the programmatic details,and all public education and outreach activities. Battery and Cell Phone Curbside Collection Service SBWMA staff designed the program and implemented with Allied the largest household battery and cell phone collection service program in California in October 2007. By the end of 2008 the program has collected over 72,000 pounds of household batteries and cell phones and this collection service currently averages monthly collection of approximately 3,500 pounds. CIWMB AB939 Compliance Report All California cities and counties are required to annually submit a report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board(CIWMB)providing information on compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). AB 939 requires that each California jurisdiction annually achieve a solid waste diversion rate of 50%.The SBWMA annually manages a contract with a consultant that authors the report for each Member Agency. This assistance has been provided to Burlingame since 1995.SBWMA staff manages the consultant contract,provides assistance to ensure that the Member Agency's franchised hauler provides accurate and timely data,and proofs drafts of the reports prior to submittal to Member Agencies for final approval and submittal to CIWMB. If Burlingame were to contract for these services directly,it would cost the City an estimated$5,000 annually for a stand-alone consultant contract. Venues and Events Recycling Reporting Since 2005,the CIWMB Annual Report has required a section be included that discloses each jurisdictions compliance with the large venues and large events recycling law (AB 2176). The SBWMA annually manages a contract with a consultant that performs data collection services and authors this ancillary report for inclusion with the annual CIWMB AB 939 Compliance Report.SBWMA staff manages the consultant contract,provides assistance to ensure that the Member Agency's franchised hauler provides accurate and timely data,and proofs drafts of the reports prior to submittal to Member Agencies for final approval and submittal to CIWMB. If Burlingame were to contract for these services directly,it would cost the City approximately $2,000 annually. Annual DOC grant The State of California,Department of Conservation annually issues non-discretionary grant funds to California cities that must be used to facilitate recycling of California Redemption Value cans/bottles or focus on litter prevention/abatement activities.SBWMA staff has managed theses grants for Member Agencies since 2000. '1 I Page 2 of 6 i i Multi-Family Dwelling Recycling Program SBWMA staff developed,implemented and currently maintains a program that provides direct recycling-related assistance to Member Agencies' multi-family residences.SBWMA developed public education materials for use by Allied Waste and purchases Recycling Tote Bags that are distributed by both Allied Waste and SBWMA staff to multi-family residential complexes. SBWMA received a Business Environment Network award from Acterra for Environment and Sustainability Education for this program in 2004. Schools Recycling SBWMA staff implemented a program to provide direct recycling-related assistance to both public and private schools at Member Agencies.SBWMA staff purchase recycling carts and works with County Recyclewotks staff to have the carts delivered to Member Agency schools. Two Burlingame schools (i.e.,Franklin Elementary School,Burlingame Intermediate School) have recently received assistance from the SBWMA. Community Events Recycling Trailers Program SBWMA staff authored a grant and successfully applied for$64,000 in grant funds from the State of California,Department of Conservation to purchase two Recycling Trailers and receptacles to provide recycling collection services at Member Agency community events. The Recycling Trailers are housed at the Shoreway facility and SBWMA staff manages use of the Trailers and equipment at Member Agency community events.SBWMA staff manage the Recycling Trailers reservation system and contractors that provide event recycling services. Business Composting Collection Service In 2004,SBWMA staff developed and implemented a program with Allied to provide food scraps collection service at commercial accounts.The program was fully implemented in 2005. SBWMA staff developed the promotion and education materials. Approximately 570 businesses in the SBWMA service area are currently provided this service by Allied Waste,which results in annually collecting approximately 12,000 tons or 30% of the annual commercial sector recycling collection achieved by Allied Waste. A total of 70 Burlingame businesses currently subscribe to this service and generate approximately 20% of the commercial recycling tonnage collected by Allied Waste. Construction and Demolition(C&D) Recycling Ordinance Support SBWMA staff will soon be concluding a project commenced in 2008 whereby all Member Agencies' C&D ordinances were reviewed and specific recommendations formulated for each Member Agency.The recommendations have been incorporated into a model staff report and redlined version of each Member Agency's C&D recycling ordinance and will be provided to each Member Agency for consideration. In addition,the SBWMA is recommending taking a leadership role in encouraging additional C&D diversion by taking the responsibility to certify approved C&D recycling facilities annually and to provide direct assistance to individual Member Agencies that revise their C&D ordinances per the recommendations put forth by the SBWMA. Page 3 of 6 Residential Recycling Program SBWMA staff were instrumental in developing and managing various improvements to the residential curbside recycling program,including:1) expanding the list of materials that are included in the program to include all plastics #147,coated paper such as milk boxes,and 2) transitioning from a three sort program to a more-convenient,two-stream recycling collection service. "rethinker" Newsletter The SBWMA develops and issues a quarterly newsletter to approximately 135,000 homes in the SBWMA service area quarterly.The newsletter provides programmatic information,features sustainable living ideas and highlights Member Agency activities related to diversion and recycling. Transfer Station SBWMA staff have developed and directed Allied Waste to implement a number of recycling and customer service improvements at the Shoreway facility(see Attachment 8). These improvements have significantly improved the diversion rates for self haul materials delivered to the transfer station as shown below. Transfer Station Diversion tZ 50'Y,) 45% � 40% 35% vJ 300110 25% 20% •�-+ 15% `r 10 > 5°!'a a-I 0% X11 Fiscal Year Commercial Recycling SBWMA staff has recently focused on several activities that collectively will enable the SBWMA to increase commercial recycling by both the current and future franchised collection services company.The underachieving performance of the current collection services company's commercial recycling is well documented and the SBWMA is focused on achieving significant new diversion that is cost-effective and sustainable both in the short an long term.SBWMA staff recently concluded several studies that will benefit all member agencies,including: o Audit of Allied Waste's Commercial Recycling Accounts (Burlingame was one of three cities included in the study) o Waste Characterization Analysis of the Commercial Sector o Survey of Independent Recyclers o Mandatory or Required Recycling Program Policy Research and Analysis i i Page 4 of 6 Model Ordinance for Required Commercial Recychn SBWMA Staff has conducted research on mandatory or required commercial recycling programs and brought this information to the SBWMA Recycling and Facilities Management Subcommittee.At the Subcommittee's January 2009 meeting,they decided to bring forth a recommendation to the full SBWMA Board to solicit interest and a commitment from one Member Agency to proceed with conducting stakeholder meetings and developing a model ordinance for that jurisdiction.This item was tabled at the January SBWMA meeting and will be presented to the SBWMA Board in February. SBWMA Commercial Recycling Communications and Outreach Strategy SBWMA staff is currently working on developing a comprehensive Commercial Recycling Communications and Outreach Strategy that will benefit all Member Agencies.SBWMA staff recently conducted focus groups of businesses and issued a survey to approximately 6,000 businesses in the SBWMA service area. The information and data compiled through this research will be used to develop the Commercial Recycling Communications and Outreach Strategy. This strategy will assist Member Agencies with acquiring new diversion from the commercial sector and increase the awareness of the importance of recycling and greenhouse gas emissions issues throughout the business community. Annual Rate Application The SBWMA staff annually manages the rate review consultant contract. This contract annually costs approximately$150,000-$200,000. Collection Services RFP SBWMA staff led the Collection Services RFP development and proposals evaluation process for all twelve Member Agencies at a total cost of approximately$400,000 in outside consultant support services.This amount does not include SBWMA staff time;however,an estimate of the combined time spent by the Evaluation and Selection Committees on the proposals evaluation process alone is approximately 3,000 hours (this estimate includes the time spent by Jesus Nava reviewing and analyzing proposals and information and attending meetings as a member of the Selection.Committee). The City of Belmont(population approx.26,000) recently spent$35,000 with HDR on its collection services RFP which was approximately one-half of the total amount proposed by the vendor to provide the full range of services through contract negotiations.The City of Pacifica (pop.40,000) is anticipating spending approximately$130,000 to fund RFP development, issuance and contract negotiations and the City of Livermore (pop. 77,000) recently executed a contract with HF&H Consultants for$170,000 to provide similar collection services RFP support services. Facility Operations RFP As with the Collection Services RFP process,the SBWMA staff has led the RFP process for the selection of a Facility Operator for the Shoreway facility. This process has taken about a year, with approximately 6 months dedicated to the preparation of the RFP and 6 months for proposer evaluation and selection.In addition to staff time,there have been consultant fees, legal fees and monies spent making site visits to the proposers'facilities and single stream processing equipment as part of the evaluation process (total fees are over$100,000 dollars). Page 5 of 6 In addition to the Facility Operations RFP process,the SBWMA will purchase$18 million in recyclables sorting equipment if the Shoreway master plan improvements and associated bond financing is approved,and will complete an intensive and through equipment analysis and design review process before ordering the materials recovery facility (MRF) sorting equipment. i Organic Materials Processing RFP it The SBWMA has also initiated an RFP process for Organic Materials Processing Services. This RFP is for the selection of a contractor for the processing of food and yard trimmings materials that collected from the residence of the SBMWA Member Agencies. The selection process will be completed in 2009 in anticipation of the end of the current Organics Processing agreement with Allied Waste in 2010. I i I i I I Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT 3 ARCHITECTS C NGINEERS PLANNERS September 9,2008 Hilary Gans Operations Manager SB WMA 610 Elm Street,Suite 202 San Carlos,CA 94070 Dear Hilary, Re:Installation of Single Stream Equipment in the Existing Material Recovery Facility at 333 Shoreway Dr. Purpose-To provide a more detailed analysis of preserving the existing MRF building for the new single stream equipment. Background—In April 2007,JRMA completed a master site plan for the Shoreway Recycling and Transfer Station. A key feature of the master planning effort was to develop a plan for installing new Single Stream Processing Equipment to coincide with new collection services.Based on data assembled in the Master Plan effort there emerged several factors to consider: 1. The proposed facility needed to provide approximately 7,000 sq.ft. for storage of recycled materials to accommodate expected increases in the quantity of materials received. 2. The proposed facility required 4,000 sq.ft.for bale storage 3. The proposed facility layout needed to conform to the on site traffic circulation plan to eliminate queuing back ups onto Shoreway. 4. The proposed building needed to accommodate efficient layout of equipment to promote cost effective processing and operations. As a result of this analysis,it was determined that there are two primary building options to meet the needs of the Master Plan: 1. Expand the existing 48,000 sq.ft.MRF building by approximately J.R.MILLER&ASSOCIATES, INC 11,000 sq.ft. 2. Build a new 72,000 sq ft pre-engineered metal building in order to 2700 SATURN ST. provide the maximum amount of floor space necessary for the equipment and storage requirements. BREA, CA 92821 In completing this preliminary evaluation,the JRMA engineering team had limited information about the existing MRF building,which is a 48,000 sq.ft.concrete tilt TEL: 714.524.1870 up and panelized roof structure. The building has 22 internal columns aligned in two rows at 20 ft spacing with a maximum internal clearance of 25 ft. FAX: 714.524.1875 Due to the space requirements of the current dual-stream processing system,the current facility has limited storage for incoming material. Bale storage is also very j WW.JRMA.COM limited,and bales are stored both inside and outside the building. i I i Hilary Gans March 20,2008 Page 2 of 4 Evaluation of Existing MRF—To complete a preliminary evaluation of the existing Material Recovery Facility, SBWMA invited equipment vendors to supply conceptual equipment layouts,using the existing floor plan. In examining these equipment layouts,it was determined that several of the columns would need to be removed. The exact number was not determined because the layout was not finalized. However,the exercise generated sufficient information to establish that removal of certain columns would be necessary. In addition, to meet the revised space needs of the single-stream processing system within the height of the existing building,it would be necessary to construct an 11,000 sq.ft addition to the east.To fit in with the site circulation this new addition would be primarily used for receiving and storage of raw material but would also house equipment that could not be fully installed inside the existing building. Another key factor was the width of the south entrance road.Under the master plan this road would be the primary access for all customers using the transfer station and MRF. The current road is 20 ft.wide,and insufficient to put in the two lanes of traffic necessary to provide adequate safety and queuing space. In examining the structure,it was determined that removal of the south wall and constructing a new wall 12—15 ft.farther north was possible. However,no detailed engineering analysis or plans were prepared to develop a thorough cost estimate for this feature. It was also recognized that the east wall of the existing building would need to be partially removed and altered to allow for equipment to be installed and material to be transferred from the new receiving building area into the MRF facility. These building modifications were the primary factors considered in evaluating the preservation of the existing building versus a new material recovery facility. At the time of the evaluation,the condition of the floor slab was unknown.As such,if the existing building were to be preserved,the floor would need to be cored to determine its soundness and viability for the intended purpose. For instance,additional structural modifications might be necessary to support the equipment,or the floor might have required additional upgrades to handle the wear and tear of the new equipment and operations. Modifying the existing building as discussed above would have certainly had a snowball effect that would have lead to additional modifications and remedial work. Plus,it is common when modifying existing buildings that other features of the building would have to be upgraded to the current code,in this case the current CBC. This would likely have included modifications for ADA compliance,as well as seismic and other structural considerations. In completing the master site plan,the JRMA team prepared an evaluation matrix that overviewed the physical plant considerations and operational conditions. This evaluation matrix was provided to the SBWMA Board to compare preserving the existing MRF building with modifications to a new pre-engineered metal building. The preliminary cost difference between the two options was about$7,000,000.But in presenting this to the Board it was mentioned there are several cost factors that could not be fully determined without further engineering analysis.It was also determined there are several factors to be considered in lifecycle costs that were not evaluated but were identified. These included: 1. Replacing the existing roof within 20 years 2. Potential modifications to the floor slab due to settlement plus wear and tear. 3. Structural improvements-we recognize that the structural walls may need to be replaced within 10- t 15 years 4. Upgrading electrical or mechanical features to be more energy-efficient. I DRAFT J.R.MILLER&ASSOCIATES i I Hilary Gans March 20,2008 Page 3 of 4 Current Conditions—JRMA now understands that there is information being presented that suggests the existing MRF could be retrofitted at a substantial savings to the Authority. With this in mind,we wish to compare an update of the information generated since the master plan was completed. Several important engineering factors have been established since the master plan effort. These are as follows: 1. JRMA did obtain a set of calculations and sketches prepared in 1992 for structural repairs due to damage sustained in the Loma Prieta earthquake plus additional seismic strengthening work. This information assumed that the existing floor consists of an 8-inch concrete slab-on-grade. 2. As part of this information,we also obtained the 1992 Soils Report prepared to address the proposed installation of process equipment. This Soils Report acknowledged that the existing building was not on piles and recommended that certain equipment,including balers,should be installed on piles. 3. The structural modifications proposed in the 1992 report were observed on the existing building. Whether these structural improvements would satisfy current code has not been determined. Further considering the question of whether the existing MRF building could be retrofitted for a lower cost than to build a new MRF,we offer the following factors for consideration: 1. In order to install the required equipment inside the building,it is necessary to assume that several of the interior columns will have to be removed or relocated. Column removal/relocation would in turn require modifications to the roof framing system,including the need for jack beams. Installing jack beams would further reduce clearances in certain areas,possibly resulting in inadequate clearances for the proposed equipment. It should be noted that in the design of the new MRF,all bidders requested a minimum of 30 ft.clearance at the perimeter of the building and as much as 35 ft. in the center of the building. 2. The structural removal or modifications to tilt-up wall panels at the eastern end of the building would most likely require modification to the remaining walls to meet current CBC seismic requirements. 3. The structural modifications discussed in items 1 and 2 would also require modification to the underlying foundations,possibly resulting in more extensive pile requirements. In addition,the Soils Report requires new balers,screens,and possibly portions of the sorting platforms to be supported on pile foundations. Since the building has only 25 ft.clearance,to accommodate these needs,special pile driving equipment and techniques would be required. 4. The introduction of pile foundations in certain portions of a building that is otherwise supported on shallow foundations would likely cause additional complications to minimize the potential for differential settlement. 5. Core samples would need to be taken of the existing floor slab to determine its adequacy for: a. Stability for seismic conditions to avoid difference settlement. b. Whether or not anchor bolts could be adequately placed to support the equipment. If not, the slab will have to be reinforced. 6. Due to the extent of the anticipated structural modifications,additional seismic strengthening will likely be required to the existing roof structure and roof-to-wall assemblies to meet current seismic design standards. This was not contemplated in the original analysis. 7. To support anticipated roof-mounted exhaust and photo-voltaic equipment,additional roof framing would be required. 8. Regarding compliance with ADA and other standards,it is likely that all restrooms,elevators and stairs as well as other features would have to be brought into compliance with existing code. DRAFT J.R.MILLER&ASSOCIATES Hilary Gans March 20,2008 Page 4 of 4 The above list represents additional engineering design considerations that will need to be evaluated in order to complete the analysis of the existing building and to determine the eventual cost of necessary modifications. i Upon review of the Preliminary Planning Cost estimates made in April 2007 and comparing to what we know now there are several cost factors that impact our original cost estimates. • We assumed 44 piles would be driven to support the new building addition.Based on recent soils report to comply with current standards this number would be 110 piles or 2 'h times the cost estimate. L_ t • There was no money included to modify the existing MRF floor slab to account for differential settlement.We assumed the existing MRF was constructed on piles since the transfer station was on piles. As discovered the existing slab floor is on grade. As mentioned above additional engineering analysis would need to be performed to design an approach for dealing with differential settlement issues as part of the building would be piles and the existing building would not be. 1 I • There was no construction cost to account for placing equipment on piles. • There was no construction cost assigned to upgrades to meet current codes or to modify the roof structure to handle new mechanical equipment or photovoltaics. Adjusting for these factors as well as addressing the points discussed above would have a significant impact on the construction cost of upgrading the existing MRF. This does include addressing the risk factors associated with using this building. A separate risk analysis could be performed that would also aid in evaluating the possible use of the existing structure.Firms that specialize in risk analysis for insurance companies and real estate transactions perform this work. I hope this information is helpful in filling the gap between the information prepared during the master plan effort and what we know now.Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Doug Drennen,P.E. Project Manager I I I DRAFT J.R.MILLER&ASSOCIATES ATTACHMENT 4 ALLIED WASTE Allred Waste services of sari Mateo County Plan Summary for Retrofit of Existing Shoreway► Materials Recovery Facility Contact; Evan Boyd General Manager Allied Waste Services of San Mateo County 225 Shonrway Road San Carlos, GA 94070 654.596.6401 evan.boyd@awin.com �. Plan for Retrofit of Shoreway Facility August 2008 Paae I of 8 AV ALLIED ' CONTENTS I 1. Executive Summary 2. Single-Stream Recycling +rapacity► 3. Equipment Specifications 4. Facility Specifications 5. Budget . Timeline 7' Appendices i i Plan for Retrofit of Shoreway Facility ,August 2008 Pace 2 of 8 � . � �^~~ Plan for _-_t of Shoreway. Facility AA IV IEV WASTE ALLIED PLAN HIGHLIGHTS • The purchase and installation of all-new, industry-leading BHS sorting equipment and screening technology can be achieved for$7.6 million. • A new 10,000-square-foot tilt-up addition to the existing 50,000-square-foot MRF is estimated at under$2 million, with an additional $1A million reserved for additional site work, lighting, environmental enhancements, visitor center improvements, etc. ■ The new single-stream system will process 25 tons of recyclable materials per hour. This equipment is easily able to accommodate the increase of 20-25 tons per day of additional recyclables processing demand projected by the SBWMA_ • BHS screening technology is proven to produce high-quality commodities, thus maximizing revenue for local jurisdictions. • Once construction is underway, the single-stream facility can be up and running within nine (9) months_ 3 3 i l% 4$ 5� , N Plan for Retrofit of Shoreway Facility August 2008 Pane 4 of 8 AA 1�'F ALLIED WASTE RECYCLING CAPACITY Currently, the existing Shoreway MRF is processing 60,000 tons of recyclables per year and running at 18 tons per hour_ The SBWMA estimates an all-new MRF is needed to accommodate an additional 20,004 tonslyear increase, or a total processing capacity of 80,000 tons per year of recyclables, Based on this requirement, BHS has recommended installation of the 25 ton-per-hour single-stream system presented in this plan, which could process 80,000 tons per year running approximately 12 hours a day five days a geek, or less than two full shifts. 34�. _ Plan for Retrofit of Shoreway Facility August 2008 Paae 5 of 8 AA 10F ALLIED WASTE SINGLE-STREAM SYSTEM BHS single-stream processing equipment is the proven industry standard. The patented automated system is easy to maintain and clean, thereby reducing labor costs. The BHS system also uses substantially less electricity. BHS has installed comparable screening technology in more than 160 locations worldwide, and has designed and installed multiple complete single-stream processing systems for clients nationwide and around the world. Several of these complete systems are comparably configured to Allied`s proposed Shoreway facility, among them locations in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Seattle, and San Francisco, i Equipment Specifications • BHS Metering Bin 60 cubic yards BHS Glass-Breaker-DIES, Madel 60- • Chainbelt infeed conveyor 1119 • Pre-sort conveyor DRS unders conveyor i • Pre-sort platform with(3) bunkers, (6)chutes + Glass clean-up system with vibratory _ • BHS OCC Separator®Model 98-11110 with access screen, aspirator, and filter platforms + Container line sort conveyor • OCC avers conveyor Fiber return conveyor from container • OCC unders conveyor line • BHS Debris Roll Screen4&Model 84-919 + dings cross belt magnet • DRS glass fines conveyors (2)to glass clean-up • FE collection conveyor from magnet system • HDPE-N collection chute • BHS NewSorter#1 Model 102-26T with structure * HDPE-N collection conveyor " and platforms HDPE-C collection chute • NewSorter#1 overs conveyor HDPE-C collection conveyor • NewSorter#1 unders conveyor + Multi-Sort acceleration conveyor • BHS NewSoder#2. Model 102-26T with structure NRT Multi-Sort IR optical sorter to and platforms remove PET • NewSorter#2 avers conveyor + PET collection conveyor with QC • NewSorter#2 unders conveyor station • BHS Polishing Screen Model 102-26T with structure . PET pneumatic transfer system and platforms • BHS Eddy Current Separator • Polishing screen overs conveyor Aluminum pneumatic transfer system • Polishing screen unders conveyor • Residue collection and transfer • Fiber post sort platform area with chutes,stairs conveyors(2) • Fiber post sort bunkers(3)for browns, mixed paper Container storage bins(6) and ONP, plus ONP transfer conveyor to baler feed • Baler feed conveyor • Container return conveyor on fiber post sort platform + Supports, platforms as shown on Residue conveyor on fiber post sort platform layout drawing • Container line infeed conveyor + Systems controls package m Plan for Retrofit of Shoreway Facility August 2008 Page 6 of 8 ALLIED WASTE FACILITY SPECIFICATIONS A new 10,000-square-foot concrete tilt-up addition will be built on the east end of the existing Materials Recovery Facility and Wit accommodate efficient installation of the new BHS single-stream recycling system. The addition will be equal in height(25 feet) and Width (200 feet)to the existing MRF structure. Because of its location near the Bay mud, the contractor anticipates building the new structure over concrete pikes driven to an approximate depth of 60 feet to reach solid rock. CONTRACTORS Bulk Handling Systems, Inc.(BHS) designs, manufactures, and installs complete material recovery facilities for the solid waste &recycling industry worldwide. Recognized as an industry leader in global processing solutions, all BHS equipment is manufactured domestically at the company's Eugene, Oregon factory to maintain the highest-quality operational and environmental standards. Website, www.but)(Via(ldling§ysteri2s.coM. Since its inception in 1989, E. A. Davidovits & Co.,Inc. has developed a solid reputation in the San Francisco Bay Area as a competent and community-focused general contractor and design/build firm specializing in commercial and industrial construction. A broad experience base has allowed the firm to excel from preliminary concept during the design and permitting stages, throughout the actual construction process, to final occupancy, Website: w,,;v davidovits-,D coin. Plan for Retrofit of Shoreway Facility August2OO8 n -7 _,V-0 I AA ALLIED WASTE ! BUDGET Construction 10,000 square foot new building $1 ,300,000 Concrete Files $ 300,000 Soft Casts (estimate) 320,000 Includes architectural fees, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, civil and soils engineering, Title 24 consultant, blueprinting costs, permit fees, water hookup fees for _ additional fire sprinklers, soiWconcrefeAvelding inspections, surveying and staking. Equipment $7,032,900 Includes single-stream equipment, freight, project management, and installation I Other Enhancements $1 ,400,000 additional site work lighting, environmental enhancements, visitor center Includes ad_ g gi improvements, etc. Allied Plan Total: $11,002,960 TIMELINE Construction of the building addition is estimated to tate seven (7) months, once permits have been I secured. In tandem with construction, final design and fabrication of the CHs recycling system is in process. Once building construction is complete, BHS estimates two(2) months for system installation. Total Timeline; Construction Operation = 9 months i Plan for Retrofit of Shoreze Y F3cil tY August 2008 i I SINGLE STREAM& COMMERCIAL S'Y'STEM i Equipment Component List&Budgetary Prising Prepared far Allied WMIe.Services 11� r SYSTEMS 1040 Arrowsmith - Eugene,OR 97402 USA Phone:541.485.0999 -'Fax.'541.485.6341 www.bulkhandlingsystems-com - sales@bhsequip.com BHS Lay out Drawing 7169-40.41 Allied Waste BHS System Layout 7160-40A1 San Carlos Equipment Component List: Item 1: BHS Metering Bin:60 cubic yards. Item 2: Chainbelt infeed conveyor. Item 3: Pre-sort conveyor. Item 4: Pre-sort platform with(3)bunkers,(6)chutes. Item 5: BHS OCC Separator®Model 98-11110 with access platforms. i Item 6: OCC overs conveyor. Item 7: OCC enders conveyor. Item 8: BHS Debris Roll Screen®Model 84-919. Item 9: DRS glass fines conveyors(2)to glass clean-up system. Item 10:BHS NewSorter#1:Model 102-26T with structure and platforms. Item 11:NewSorter#I overs conveyor. Item 12:NewSorter#1 unders conveyor. Item 13:BHS NewSorter#2:Model 102-26T with structure and platforms. Item 14: NewSorter#2 overs conveyor. Item 15:NewSorter#2 unders conveyor. Item 16:BHS Polishing Screen:Model 102-26T with structure and platforms. r_ Item 17:Polishing screen overs conveyor. Item 18: Polishing screen enders conveyor. Item 19:Fiber post sort platform area with chutes,stairs. Item 20:Fiber post sort bunkers(3)for browns,mixed paper and ONP,plus ONP transfer conveyor to baler feed. Item 21: Container return conveyor on fiber post sort platform. Item 22: Residue conveyor on fiber post sort platform. Item 23:Container line infeed conveyor. Item 24:BHS Glass-Breaker-DRS:Model 60-1119. Item 25:DRS enders conveyor. Item 26: Glass clean-up system with vibratory screen,aspirator,and filter. Item 27:Container line sort conveyor. Item 28:Fiber return conveyor from container line. Item 29: Dings cross belt magnet. Item 30:FE collection conveyor from magnet. Item 31: HDPE-N collection chute. Item 32:HDPE-N collection conveyor. Item 33:HDPE-C collection chute. Item 34:HDPE-C collection conveyor. Item 35: Multi-Sort acceleration conveyor. Item 36:NRT Multi-Sort IR optical sorter to remove PET. Item 37:PET collection conveyor with QC station. Item 38:PET pneumatic transfer system. Item 39:BHS Eddy Current Separator. Item 40:Aluminum pneumatic transfer system. Item 41:Residue collection and transfer conveyors(2). Item 42:Container storage bins(5). Item 43:Baler feed conveyor. Item 44: Supports,platforms as shown on layout dra-wing. Item 45: Systems controls package. I i i Allied Waste BHS System Layout 7160-40A1 San Carlos Budgetary Price for System Equipment as listed above,F O B.Eugene,OR:...................................... $6,035,400. Estimated Freight to San Carlos:............................................................................................................... sI24,300 BHS Project Management Project Management,Engineering,Site Visits,Start-Up A Training:.......................................................$128,000. BHS Mechanical&Electrical Installation Estimated Mechanical Installation:......................................................................................................$802,568. EstimatedElectrical Installation:.................................................................................................................$542,692. Budgetary total for equipment,freight,project management;installation:...................®............:.........$7,632,960. Estimated Price for Optional Baler,FOB Factory:....................................................................................S590,288. BalerInstallation:..........................................................................................................................................$24,200. EstimatedFreight:........................,.........................................,......,.................................................................$2,800. S BWMA-Peds R F Equipment Motor List San Mateo,CA WC Maw }. Laed7�Be is"ar-DCarlar[ 400VAC iMatar Tiam4, 6 18110Y !Sinla Plus* C-COM SWIp 0®eac+iptloit Width I L4nptt* VM qtv VFW9 'city i 14mtarliP + U04ara Alrlpa i Me Amps i 1R AMIp4 4In14rrfiM I OIV44`0y t?Ih4r Qev}aa1Nr444 1aMnrq�Afadflayea. ! 2Sti T 27;0 234 C 00 1*.kYeNn HIn 46 cu. t a t M.D-4 0 85.5 C OsE -_«'.-..�'�-•�„ 3.1nd44rT CAnyt Y4r CW"#42 cwmt me Pmomn 1 72' w ? 74 16 + 27:0 18 R �fICY a'� C 117 1 4+P[e-SsvYConve„ :ftC1550dar 17" 57 i 5 S 1 - F8� 72 075 4 DHS occ So�o!819A-t 1010 t i0 7,6 bT 110 - 9!0 885 -�'_TPR Com, Doi 01-11;occ 5.omtlN FOOR-11010 1 19 7.b 1 1'R.Q - 90 B8S-TM`��-��-T" -C 0,8 7>UehlsFN1Screen84.6eq. i1 7,+� 5 1 7.6r 7 075 _.. QniRog uenbbOFD0.7 1 TSSTT5 d8 72 5 1004uclnssCalAx4onC0rnwrar-IMMr 3G' 15 1 3 4 dB �0 855 "' ... __._..�...... , 1 Y' ae Tr4nctsr Craa__.a�ar q qp 24' 150 1 7,S 1 11.0 B 0 89.5 D"Mcon x.1.06 OMr 2` 29 40 a! Q.7 1318H6NV490M5ft0#t&nn+ra CAn+w9Mr CMalyd SiaMr- 90 40 1 7 1 46 40 1 - 6t7 84x1 N Slid t4 BHHSS Np�Swa !aaV&MT 102-25T 0a 25T 1 fi v 11 72 fd8 1 DHD N fv 1� ffT ...,.._...� 8T �» ! + 1b � 7.8 m.�� 1t0 �. 9.0 b.b � 1A aiYMiip2.7i e. .� i 16 T15l1 f?+rera Cnrnw�xerl119&S& 4.5 4JD 85's Ma 80' 72 1 3_ 1 A,D AA 55;5 0.7 2 _ 17 NS n Canvay'a.C'14aaid Saar-Bea $ to 80' 40 1 :7 Y 4.8 140 102.251 t 7,9 7,4 72 87.5 - C 0.8 Irl FlH6 NaMrSartadDk 1p9Q-2 78r t tb 7.5 1 11.0 pA DD.S C 0.•--- _ is O Nawffiiamq_er0ik7 102-2tf"r 1 b a 1 4.1 A.0 BS.S ••, C 0.4 lee N wBareer�k11rJ2 6T Ifip�raeilc Paxnr iirvt 1 3 1 #,D �. 4,0' 86S "" M d-4: 2HFVVrF. . _. A .20�N6 42 6rrrrs Cpnrsgar!'2.H0„:dfdrr 80°_ 58 + Y 5 i T,8 � 7.2 87.a 21itrale"rHuedCwrvaycr.Clae3etlsbje,0aetr Sly1h or 40 1 3 1 A,D 44 ""_'_�. c 0.T 7x�(rks.I�nlww�pSsa:rwPdki a037ur � .__ _ __ .i-�� r J,9 1 5 1 7,6 7,2 67,5 2y6HilaMpgarwn154-I9T �~ T tb 75 1 170 iQO ®D5 C Ob 22 Tilts2 sc""0e91 Im"ST I t D 3 1 4,8 4,0 843 C 27®IdSPaNaMiMFQ'F�een�kl 102-101T.Wa11 c ! 3 1 4.8 AO- b55 1 49 2HR,krr 24 RGCYvenCanvnHD6 40 22 1 1 9 1415 4,0 08 a" C 0.7 _.Ganlain" no Inined 0o v gr.C1aatW 5103ar- fy 23 St l4 DD' j 25 1 3 1 4.8 l 4A .059 ! ••• � C 0.7 26 amGlagoareaky-DRSO60.1119. � 9 3 :9 1 4,885i5 I C 0.7 24 DHS GNn SmaNw-DR6060-1119 1 3 3 1 4.9 AA4 D5 i C 0:7 2p DR8Wdera CallndianCpnva_yari S 61N14r 24' 30 1 2 1 3.A-T,. 4„8 96,i C 0.7 _ .. �29 U froved Conwag m 4F9ar 38" "�0 ! d 1 M.® i 0 � BS.S C 0.7 3p$MxQ%nbrMryr.screena48d4 1 3 1 4.8 Co � 85.5 C -�077��»�®���'��.- 30&mwayibrmrp 6ceoFw 4&S4 1 3 1 4,8 40 055 C 0.7 __.. 328 Hausa-DHSG1a4aCteaa-a GRIM 1 Q.8 1 111 0.0 T5S C Q8 -...__,._.,__... 32r020Haus"H$01asaCtsarra Salem 1 70 28�i 34.0 29.6 82.4 C 07 32 hop Haw®-Dei601e4a Clasn-up Spslqm dA 055 Ar. C 33`Canlemerl-xe45an CmnwTnr-HCF55Maer t 3B" 48 1 3 3 ; 1 A.8 4.0 855 C 0.7 34 6 h4r Raa4n CaFwepr HDD 54der _ i 10' 43 1 4___, 1 3.4 2.5 0b S C 0 3 3S! fter Paal Sor 1 to+Y ConNa Fff HC6 511 M _- 30" �92 1 S mm Tv,B72 _57.5�M C p P- W!ribrr FW Sen Conforw Retum Ca osnr fCS 31dsr 10" 03 1 5 1 1 7.6 7.2 97.5 C 0 T pp M- _37+01rgb�5ecU +- 37PCNrg1a + Magnet-Mcura4M6T-R4rrtrr - 3 1 4.8 44 655 G , i 0.7 . .. ,,. . . bm 21 3 4,8 41 M61 ENIRCNwu wr�61'"Of mi-.16 CHe .:5t5'M!._... r r 73 -_ i..-�•-•-"t----._0.. 1 OJII 947 S�t.4 �. 0 7. 4'lsHPPE-c s�d4UmM1 blmvsr s,�t4anr.19 GA 2d' 75 1 30� q`r5tl 34.7 44.4 �'s C a'& - _, . -. r .�_. ,44tle8kwn xcteieeel»an Cnrrrayur.,af L Sider 72' 15 1 10 -YD -11_1_ 'R4.Q 11.8 dE t}-`'� ^'"..J. c p:? 4d�PE7 0G ynrt Ga6ec0an Ca we7ot lriDP 5ldor 2T 4;� 20 12 1 3.4 3.8 85.4 c 0.7 AB PEE Pnaa ul iic hlc4er oyrleem Y G420" ®5 1 80 1 409 34,7 94.4 "` C 0.9 . E Curri�M�S r�lcr 48' 1 251 344 20-5 4 •^ I C ' 0,6 Peae r 02 M Equipment Motor List. � BulkHandlSan Mateo,CA jl�-1160 _.. _. 1 ! 04ECCoda TM Molter (I LmfTygu �+•�•..�� �-T� gulp N�D..cripttan YMId1h 1 Eslzs or Sweet I f 494VAC M01w NAmn' �111c9.n.y' ittllnpli PhArs� +}cant. . L#fq" V1SD4V VIRD! My MotorHp' j motor. . Amps Plato Amp. AmPI ! lMSINt1ttH DMtMy DOWO"lce.Mafr. 5p1!!jf Curc�etl Saralw nry ..._......M _ ; 1 �. ( 3 i 1 4.@ ..._.A.0 $S 6 ! t_.�_�,�_,�___, .4:9 EG5 Rrr.tdua an Ca i raya�.HCkS ger 31" 14 1 3 1 4.8 4 4 tis 6 � C d,7 1 53 AL r'rawn,,4 i;ottrww splen t ff GA ZO" � �.,�-�.� � -� , C U,4 N „_..._..._,,. T3 i 3G 1 404 34 7 01.1 55 Reardue T+nnlfar Con+royahMl?s.�4rdar_ 35' S'¢ 1 ZE �..72 ��t)7.5 •• '__'0.1 fllijL.ler G9rewsd Cmrwey .�hwcriCNtl 43 curve.,ra Kappa) eta` 90 i 13 ( 1 210 SGA ! +- i I 0,3 3YjtfGaaPsrNarodGorrrta*raae OC.b 13A I I 0,4 Yt9rid69VAG12MRNR 63Mod F4mr San Cnnv.7or M06 EYdar 4d° 40 �-' 9 3,,,�, tl.T 64C fP SodCcnw tnrl6S 516x so, 41 1 3 _ Y a t iI.W A,O��--p3,S d6jCtJP Tsanetrr Corweyvr 03$Iki.r W 30 1 3 f A,S 10 .115.6 C 0;7 a :t9°86�;Utad f+bet T rvCrov 44 snMpllB$ldYr �� _<'rpa,`' 21 � 1 � 3S _1B C 0 CJ 0 a KVA 45tWPoTM eettiRE ( 5$ ii i1SltrWVKC_....°,,,,. 55,tV'Manutaclut•s�_Campcdw �'� _.! Sry 1 ICI. 34,7 QAA d7°39tamsIP1SBsl.r TR.13011-200 f 739 1 374.4 3F4,0 {_. _�. .. _ � ...�_.._._ ., .._ ...__... .t..__ ... 5tf Pl.n�L At CmvdMx 9Sra ___. MI dlacai.Ikrrcarrlai.mr b ns ,. ��"•"-r'� ._.'�• 1 S A k !,1 4A f 11.5,$ ••• 1 �' Ow8 iJ801N�StYtt l4l[3C Uw8attamqunker 11S '�b 1 5 t FA Ali, f 0.8 8110 6IfF2 ' 68$L1C"C Uvrr 9attcrn eon+ar t. .�Y...1 6 2 1 ft:0 964 i 0.8 3ti0 HRBNR 13 hSa�t.w cxmiPrea.rn iu.eU br ap9c.(� � I iarvSUl Pcwvr Lnatl r 95-0 DA __._ iShclStlr'A f0ftWTYWTtOWMINT i r'ane 7 rsl I I Single Stream Systems Reference Vi t Partial LL t Dkortneslie&Canada C Name Location tntUt�rr� Ke Equ arrtent System TPH SNS Debris Roll Screen 60-9,Debris Roll Screen 48-13,OCC Separator 1379- 95-11110,NewSorter,Polishing 1 1609- BestwLy Recycling Los Angles,CA USA Screen,Debris Roll Screen 30 tph 1714 NewSorter 96-21 &Polishing Screen 8426,NewSorter 96-21, 1424• - Norcal Waste S sterns.Inc. San Francisco,CA USA Polishing Screen 84.26,Conn ors 30 tph 1436 OCC Separator 68-13, NewSorter Oro are Recycling Systems Portland,OR USA 96-25&Polishing Screen 84-26 20 tph 1 165 Polishing Screen 84-26T, Conveyors,ECS,Debris Roll Screen 70-13,Magnet,NewSorter 102-26T,Debris Roll Screen 7-13, Republic Services N.Las Vegas, NV USA Polishing Screen 96-26T 22 tph 1585 NewSorter 96,-25T,Debris Ruill Screen 70-13,Polishing Screen, Conveyor,Polishing Screen Green Valley Disposat(R ubGc} re nunakee,Wl USA Platform 15 tph 1625 ocC Separator 76-S°8,Debris Roll Screen 70-15.NewSorter 102-23T, Debris Roll Screen 60-18,Polishing --�_ Waste Management Santa Maria,CA USA Screen 96-23T,Cone ars:ECS 20 h 1667 Polishing Screens 96-26T,Bag Bywaters Ltd, United Kingdom INTIL Breakers 1311372, 15_ h 1697 Conveyors,NewSorter 96-26T, NewSorter 102-26T,Debris Roll Screen 70-13,Metering Bin.OCC Separator,Debris Roll Screen 70- Southeast Papar News rinl Ca. Clackamas,CR USA_ 10110 25-30 tph 1 1698 Metering Bin,Conveyors,Polishing Screen,['febris Roll Screen 48-13, Smurfit-Stone R cli Co. Renton,WA USA OCC Separator anti Controls it,-20 tph 1704 Conveyors.PolishingScreen102- � 26T,Debris Rall Screen 72-11, OCC 78.318, Debris Rall Screen 72- W9,NewrSoder 102-26T,Polishing GreenWast€Recovery San Jose,CA USA Screen 102-26T 20-25 tph 1713 OCC Separator 78-9#8,Debris Roll j Screens Conveyors-NewSorter_ Penn Waste,inc. Manchester,PA USA Meterinct Bin,Controls 15-24th 1733 Metering Bin,NewSorters,Polishing Sin,Debris Roll Screens, Alred Waste Services Seatite,tNA USAF Conveyors&Controls 31}tph 1744 metering Bin,oCC Separator SQ1Ill 0,NewSoners,Polishing Screens,[febris Rall Screens, optical Sorting Units,"net ECS, I Haltoo Recycling Burlin torn.Ontario INTL Conveyor--,&Controls 40 h 174k' I Single Stream Page 1 ` I t r=r p� w A3 w.. t � 71;- . 104 tax IN t> i E.A. DAIDOVITs & CO., INC. --,� G e n e r a l C o n t r a c t o r s f Mr.Donald Gambelin ALLIED WASTE 6800/Coll Center Parkway,Suite 320 Pleasanton,CA 94566 RE: New Shell Construction i- 225 Shore Way Drive San Carlos,California, i i i Dear lion, 1 We are pleased to present our budget proposal for the work required at the above- mentioned facility. The scope of work will be as follows- Construct a new 10,000 square foot concrete tilt-up facility to be built adjacent to the existing recycling center in order to accommodate an expansion of such facility. This building will be located at the East side ofthe existing building and it will be equal in height and width as the existing building,because of its location near the bay mud,we anticipate this building having to be built over concrete piles driven to an approximate length of 60 feet in order to reach solid bed-rock. Hard ConVuction Cost: We anticipate this building to be approximately$115-$130. M square foot, plus the cost of the piles and the soft costs,so pricing will be as follows: 1. 10,000 square foot new building at $115.-$130.per square foot......................................-$1.1x0,000.to$1.300,000. 2. Cost of concrete piles$25-$35.per square foot................$250,000.to$350,000. Total Cost for Hard Construction Costs$140 to$160.per Squarefoot......................................................................I..........$11400tOO I.to$1,650,000. Soft Costs: We estimate these costs to include architectural fees,structural,mechanical. electrical,plumbing,civil,and soils engineering,Title 24 consultant,blueprinting casts, permit fees(allowance of$30,000),water hookup fees for added fire sprinklers (allowance of$28,000k soils/concrete/and welding inspections, surveying and staking. 650) 366 6068 FAX(650) 368 1198 I i i i i i Estimate for soil costs for this project..................................$280,000 to$320,000. Soft costs are in addition to the hard construction costs described above. Above prices are strictly estimates to be confirmed at a later date when the scope of work is better defined. Specifically excluded from above pricing is: demolition of any structures or equipment other than asphalt in the area of work,PG&E fees or any power upgrades if required,(we understand the existing power in the building is sufficient to handle the additional 10,000 square foot new building),removal of buried debris or contaminated soils or underground water contamination,any site work,any items not specifically mentioned above. A few words about our company: Since inception in 1989,E.A.Davidovits&Co.,Inc.has developed a solid reputation in the San Francisco Bay Area as a competent,and conscientious,general contractor and designibuild firm.Specializing in commercial and industrial construction, for almost 20 years we have successfully completed hundreds of projects many very similar to yours. A broad experience base has allowed us to excel,from preliminary concept during the design and permitting stages,throughout the actual construction process,to the ultimate goal of final occupancy.This expertise enables us to efficiently coordinate with architects and engineering consultants as well as city officials.What this experience means to you is that we can assist you from the earliest stages of your project,including budgeting and estimating,permitting,pre-construction services and timely and cost efficient construction of every project we undertake. Please feel free to visit our website www.davidovitsco.com. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to being your design-build contractor on this project. Sincerely, EA. DA M 0 PITS& CO.,11VC. EdwardlA- DavLdcyva-k Edward Davidovits President EAD-js RethinkWaste ATTACHMENT 5 # South Bayside Waste Management Authority STAFF REPORT To: SBWMA Board Members From: Hilary Gans, Facility Contracts Operations Manager Kevin McCarthy, Executive Director Date: October 23, 2008 Board Meeting Subject: Consideration of Allied Waste's MRF Retrofit Plan Operating Cost Summary At the September 25th Board meeting, Staff presented an analysis of the life-cycle cost (capital and operational costs) differences between the Allied MRF Retrofit Plan and the proposed MRF Master Plan. This report provides a detailed review of the operational cost pro forma presented by Allied Waste on October 13th and revisits the operational costs presented in the September 25th Staff report. The life- cycle cost are only one of the many considerations that the Board has reviewed in making the decision to construct a new MRF building. In addition to the pro forma operating costs, Staff requested that Allied provide additional building and equipment detail related to their MRF Retrofit Plan. Based on this updated analysis, Staff has come to the following conclusions: - As concluded in the September 25th staff report, the Allied's MRF Retrofit Plan capital cost savings are largely erased through higher operating costs. - Analysis of Allied's pro forma cost shows that their low operating cost projections are based on: 1) not including items like profit, interest, and depreciation; and 2) based on some aggressive pro forma assumptions that are mostly unacceptable in the opinion of staff and consultants. - Life-cycle cost and seismic concerns are not considered in the Allied plan. Allied has not proven or demonstrated from an engineering perspective that the existing building foundation can withstand the loadings of the new single stream processing equipment. - Construction of new processing equipment foundation pads to support equipment is not considered in Allied's capital costs. - New Contractor administration and employee areas are not provided under Allied's plan. Once again, this means Allied's capital costs are understated in their pro forma. - Allied's plan does not consider the cost to upgrade the existing MRF building to comply with new universal building code and ADA requirements. - Allied's single stream processing equipment plan claims disregards the product quality standards or residue standards in RFP. This means there's a risk of lower commodity revenue under the Allied plan. - Allied's processing equipment proposal does not contain many components and features (following items are left out of the Allied plan: second baler at$700K, dust collection system at $225K, film collection system $325K) included in the one or both of the two shortlisted firms' proposals. - Allied's processing equipment cost proposal appears to not include the equipment tax cost (estimated at$600K) and Allied did not clarify this in follow up questions. - Allied's building costs do not appear to include soft costs (design, construction management, engineering, permitting). - Allied's plan is inconsistent with many parts of the master plan (i.e., buy back center relocations is not discussed in Allied's plan and traffic back-up and circulation issues are unresolved in the Allied Plan. - Traffic stacking onto Shoreway Road is still a concern because the existing building does not allow for the creation of 3 inbound traffic lanes before the scale. - Regulatory concern about outside storage of materials is unresolved in Allied's plan. SBWMA BOD PACKET 10/23/08 AGENDA ITEM: 8 —pl Background Over the past three years the SBWMA and Member Agencies have planned for the roll-out of new recycling collection programs beginning in January 1, 2011. Integrated in this planning process has been a review of the functional capabilities of the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center(SRDC) to ensure that the facility can support the new collection programs (i.e., weekly residential single stream collection, commercial single stream collection, and weekly residential organics collection). SBWMA, with the assistance of JRMA, has developed a master plan design that envisions upgrades to the SRDC MRF and transfer station. On August 28,2008, Allied Waste submitted an unsolicited "Plan for Retrofit of Existing Shoreway Materials Recovery Facility" to the SBWMA. Allied's plan claims to deliver needed Shoreway improvements at a much lower cost than the Master Plan yet the plan provided no facility design detail or operational cost information. In response to requests by the Member Agencies and SBWMA Board members, Staff prepared an analysis of the Allied's MRF Retrofit Plan and evaluated its merits relative to the Master Plan (September 2008 BOD Report, Item-6). An operational pro forma was developed by SloanNasquez (SN) which showed that the capital cost savings of the Allied MRF Retrofit plan were largely erased over the 10-year contract life; no analysis was completed over the master plan life which isassumedassumed to be 15 years for single stream processing equipment and 20+ years for the building improvements. At the September 25th Board meeting, Staff was directed to meet with Allied to review the details of Allied's MRF Retrofit Plan and specifically to analyze the operations cost detail of Allied's plan. On October 8th, at a meeting in the SBWMA offices, Allied presented an operational cost pro forma for their MRF Retrofit Plan. On October 13th, Allied submitted a "read-only" version of their pro forma for consideration. Staff and consultants analyzed Allied's pro forma assumptions, and modeled them for comparison to the pro forma results presented in the September 25th staff report. I Analysis The September 25th staff report (SN pro forma) concluded that the Allied MRF would cost $85.06 per ton to operate and that this was significantly higher than the rate of$59.45 proposed by the RFP Short-listed proposers. At the September 25th Board meeting, Allied claimed that the SN pro forma overstated the Retrofit MRF operational costs and that the costs to run the Allied MRF would be lower. In October, Allied presented its own MRF pro forma that asserted a MRF operating cost of$47.78 per ton. SloanNasquez was hired to provide a breakdown of the assumptions used in Allied's pro forma and analyze operational costs. Staff performed the following steps in conducting the review of the Allied pro forma analysis: 1. Assumptions of Allied's pro forma were isolated and inserted into the SN pro forma model. Output of this model was compared back to the Allied's own output to verify that the "math" in the two models was consistent. 2. Allied's assumptions were analyzed and a determination was made to either: 1) accept Allied's assumption, 2) reject Allied's assumption, or 3) to create a compromise number that was in between the Allied and SN assumption. 3. A description and justification of the assumption evaluation process was recorded and a summary of the differences between the two sets of assumptions was prepared to accompany the pro forma model (see Attachment 1, SN report and Table). 4. SN created a third pro forma model based on the revised set of assumptions (see Attachment 2, SN Pro Forma). - SBWMA BOD PACKET 10/23/08 AGENDA ITEM: 8 -p2 I Findings There is only a small operating cost difference between the costs presented in the September 25th staff report and the revised operating cost (Attachment 2, SN pro forma) completed after the Allied review. As shown in Table 1, the operational cost adjustment between the two pro forma versions is $1.69 per ton ($85.06 - $84.16 = $1.69 delta). This per ton.decrease in the operating cost between the two pro forma models results in a small operating cost reduction of$146,185 per year(2% of total operations expense) in the Allied MRF operating costs that were presented to the Board in the September report. Table 1. Pro forma Model Summary Date Version - Post Comments $Iton) March 4,,2008 Short-listed RFP Average of operational cost presented by two proposal response $59.68 Short-listed proposers (South Bay Recycling MRF costs and Hudson Baylor Corp.) March 4, 2008 Allied RFP proposal Operational cost presented by Allied in the response MRF $67.75 RFP response costs September 25, 2008 SloanNasquez $85.06 SN pro forma based on MRF Retrofit Plan presented at BOD presented by Allied on August 28, 2008. October 13, 2005 Allied's own pro $47.78 AW pro forma model (did not include profit, forma interest and depreciation, many concerns about the assumptions used) October 2P BOD SloanNasquez SN pro from using revised assumptions after (Attached report) revision to model $84.16 Allied review - includes profit and interest and depreciation �. The down-time cost analysis that was presented in the September 25th staff report (and detailed in the SN attachment) were not questioned by Allied and remain unchanged. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Over the 10-year term of the Facility Operations contract, the total combined costs of increased. operational expense and the down-time associated with the Allied Plan are projected to increase approximately $24 million over the costs proposed by Short-listed proposers. At the request of the Board and Ad Hoc Facility Construction sub-committee the cost life-cost analysis was extended to 15 and 20 years to consider the capital vs. operational costs of the Master Plan and Allied Plan over the full depreciation schedule for the building and equipment (see Table 2). Table 2. Allied MRF Additional Operational Cost($Million) Cost Item 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year Estimated Additional Operations Cost 22.22 33.33 44.44 Downtime Cost 2.076 3.114 4.152 Total Additional Operational and Downtime Cost 24.296 1 36.444 1 48.592 The MRF Master Plan project is designed to avoid the additional operational and down-time costs projected in the Allied MRF Retrofit Plan. Therefore to accurately compare the total "life-cycle costs" of Allied's plan to that of the Master Plan, Allied's higher operational costs need to be considered in relation to the Master Plan's higher capital costs (depreciation and interest expense). Table 3, 4 and 5 show that over a 10, 15 and 20-year time period, the up-front capital cost savings offered by the Allied Retrofit Plan are reduced by the higher operational costs (the delta is shown in Table 5). SBWMA BOD PACKET 10/23/08 AGENDA ITEM: 8 -p3 i Table 3. Allied Plan - Combined Operational Costs, Depreciation, and Interest($ Million) Additional Costs 10-Years 15-Years 20-Years i Additional Operating Cost 24.296 36.444 48.592 i Depreciation of Capital 8.990 13.485 17.979 i Interest on Capital (average annual) 3.827 5.741 7.655 Total Additional Contract Cost 37.113 55.670 74.226 i- i Note:Depreciation:Equipment Allied at 10 yrs, MP at 15 yrs, Building&Other-30 yrs; Interest rate at 5.75% i Table 4. Master Plan -Combined Operational Costs, Depreciation, and Interest($ Million) Additional Costs 10-Years 15-Years 20-Years Additional Operating Cost 0.000 0.000 0.000 Depreciation of Capital 20.387 30.581 40.775 I Interest on Capital (average annual) 14.674 22.012 29.349 Total Additional Contract Cost 35.062 52.593 70.124 Note:Depreciation:Equipment Allied at 10 yrs, MP at 15 yrs, Building&Other-30 yrs; Interest rate at 5.75% Table 5. Allied Plan vs. Master Plan -Total Combined Costs ($ Million) Additional Costs 10-Years 15-Years 20-Years Allied MRF Retrofit(total from table 3) 37.113 55.670 74.226 Master Plan (total from table 4) 35.062 52.593 70.124 Delta -Total Additional Contract Cost -2.051 -3.077 -4.103 I The difference between the two plans (shown in Table 5) reconfirms the conclusion presented in the September 25th Staff report(BOD- Item 6) that the capital cost savings presented by Allied's MRF Retrofit Plan are erased by higher operating costs over the life-cycle of the MRF. The sorting equipment in the Allied plan is projected to run 2-shifts (16 hr days) and the Master Plan equipment will operate 1- shift(8 hr days). Based on Member comments at the September Board meeting Staff has attempted to capture the effect of increased equipment wear in the Allied scenario by changing the equipment depreciation schedule (Table 3 and 4) in this analysis. LIST ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Report by Sloan Vasquez-Operational Cost Model Analysis of Allied Waste's MRF Retrofit Pan, Original Pro Forma Model Allied MRF Retrofit, Sloan Vasquez-Revised Pro Forma model Allied MRF Retrofit SBWMA BOD PACKET 10/23/08 AGENDA ITEM: 8 -p4 I i i �-- MSW, Lard Use and Business Advisors OPERATIONAL COST MODEL ANALYSIS of ALLIED WASTE'S MRF RETROFIT PLAN Sloan Vazquez has national expertise and twenty years of experience in the design, permitting, construction, and management of Material Recovery Facilities. Originally, the SBWMA hired Sloan Vazquez, LLC to project the cost of operating of the plant as shown in Allied's general arrangement drawing in the MRF Retrofit Plan. In October, the SBWMA hired Sloan/Vasquez (S/V) to conduct a review of a pro forma prepared by Allied and compare this back to the Sloan/Vasquez's original pro forma. Without operational data, it was not possible to evaluate the full cost of Allied's plan. Though the initial capital cost is important, it is the total cost of ownership (capital + operating costs), throughout the life of the facility that is of highest concern. The total cost of ownership, and not the capital cost alone, will determine the fiscal impact of the project. It is the total cost of ownership that directly determines the financial cost to the ratepayers. Using operating principles that were applied to the evaluation of the original facility proposals (those submitted in response to the SBWMA RFP), Sloan/Vazquez prepared a detailed operating pro forma. The goal of the pro forma was to accurately project all costs of operating Allied's retrofit plan while achieving the required standards for MRF productivity and commodity quality. The complete pro forma was submitted to the SBWMA and presented to the Board at the September 25, 2008 meeting. At Allied's request, a complete copy of the Sloan Vazquez pro forma was provided to the company. After receipt of the Sloan Vazquez document, Allied prepared its own pro forma using separate operating assumptions and submitted it to the SBWMA. Sloan Vazquez subsequently reviewed and evaluated the Allied pro forma, identified differences in the two documents, and determined which of Allied's operating assumptions were practical, probable, and acceptable. Sloan Vazquez then created an amended pro forma to capture adjustments in the operating assumptions. The original Sloan Vazquez benchmark pro forma (September 25, 2008) presented a projected operating cost of $85.06 per ton. The amended Sloan Vazquez pro forma, taking into account some features of the Allied plan, lowers the originally projected operating cost by $1.69 per ton, to $83.37. S/V's amended pro forma presents a realistic projection of full operating cost of Allied's MRF retrofit proposal. Copies of these two pro formas; SV Original and S/V Amended, include net present value projections for 10, 15, and 20 years are attached hereto. The following Table 1. sets forth: 1. The major differences in SV and AW operating assumptions. 2. The explanation for, or against, adjustment to the original pro forma. 3. The financial impacts of the adjustments. 1231 East Dyer Road S-tite 225 Saatta Am-4.CA 92705 Office:71=1.2=11.7903 ^ Fax:77.4.276.0525 a ia;o :stoauva;zquez,cam MRF Retrofit Comparative Analysis MRF Operating, Allied SBWMA Difference Explanation Criteria Assum tions Assumptions Processing Proposes the mixing The RFP requires separate processing of Method of the residential commercial and residential materials. For the and commercial purposes of this analysis, Allied's premise was of single stream running mixed materials was accepted. materials and Though the revenue component has not been processing the addressed in the operating pro forma, it should be blended streams on recognized that combining the residential and one line. commercial waste streams will result in reduced material sales revenues and lower revenue to SBWMA. Hourly 23.165 TPH 21.38 TPH 1.785 TPH Model was adjusted to mid-point between Production Allied's and S/V assumption. S/V original model had a processing rate of 19.35 TPH. This was adjusted up to 21.38 TPH. Cost $57.42 per Ton $83.37 per Ton $25.95 per Ton Though it is technically possible to process at Allied's stated throughput rate, this is an aggressive assumption. Running at high throughput rates of mixed commercial and residential single stream will increase residue and lower commodity value. The commercial stream constitutes 45% of the overall volume. This material runs more slowly than residential materials because it is lighter and more contaminated. Approximately 20-25% of the commercial material will be contained in plastic bags. The bags must be manually opened which will certainly slow the processing of this material (Allied's original RFP response contained a ` bag breaker" for this material - the retrofit does not). 10/21/2008 2 Prepared by Sloan Vazquez, LLC MRF Retrofit Comparative Analysis MRF Operating Allied SBWMA Difference Explanation Criteria Assum tions Assum tions Annual Approximately Approximately 2000 TPY Allied's pro forma did not include the buyback Tonnage 84,500 TPY 86,500 TPY center tonnage or labor cost, the S/V pro forma includes this tonnage and cost. Costs $4,963,672 $7,206,489 $2,242,817 Since the buyback center tonnage must be processed, or otherwise handled in and through the MRF, the tonnage and costs for buyback center operations are included in the pro forma. Residue 21 ton loads 20 ton loads 1 ton per load Reject Allied's pro forma change which under transport and 150 per load represents residue tonnage and transportation disposal cost $ p $324.22 per load $174.22 per load cost. Pro forma uses assumptions in Allied's RFP response Costs $64,838 $168,406 $103,568 of: 10,558 tons residue; 21 ton loads; hauling rate to Ox of$324.22. Residue 10% residue 12 % residue 2% residue Reject Allied's pro forma change which under Projection represents residue tonnage. Costs $288,570 $346,241 $57,671 Pro forma uses assumptions in Allied's RFP response of 12%. Given the simplicity Of Allied's proposed sorting systems, it is likely that residue will increase, not decrease. Labor Allied's sorter labor assumption rejected. Requirements Industry rule-of-thumb that one-sorter per ton/hr throughput applied. Sorter Labor 21 - 1St shift 25 - 1St shift Allied's plan blends commercial and residential Requirement 22 - 2nd shift 25 - 2°d shift streams, has low-tech approach. With the number of 43 50 7 sorters proposed by Allied, it will not be possible to meet the SBWMA's product quality standards and achieve the maximum possible revenue from material Costs: $1,272,127 1,964,883 $692,756 sales. 10/21/2008 3 Prepared by Sloan Vazquez, LLC MRF Retrofit Comparative Analysis MRF Operating Allied SBWMA Difference Explanation Criteria Assum tions Assum tions The new generation of single-stream MRF's typically employ multiple optical sorting units to increase product quality and increase sales revenues. The technology also reduces the amount of manual labor that is required. Equipment 4 1St shift 6 - 1St shift Allied's equipment operator labor assumption Operators 4 2nd shift 5 - 2nd shift rejected. Because of small tipping area, it will be necessary to 8 11 3 continuously operate two wheel loaders in order to keep the system fed and floor space open for incoming vehicles. (Dayshift only) Costs: $790,995 $1,014,717 $223,722 Baled and loose material management will require the continuous service of three-fork lift operators to tend the baler, load transport containers, manage the bale storage area, retrieve and deliver loose materials from the buyback area and 'various points in the MRF system. To manage materials recovered at presort area and MRF residue, a utility operator is required for roll-off truck operation and as a relief operation. Mechanics/ 1 mechanic and 1 1 mechanic and 1 0 Difference For both practical and safety purposes, most Mechanic mechanic helper 1" mechanic helper maintenance and repairs to the MRF system require Helper shift 1St shift the use of 2 people. Further, the CBA does not provide for the use of other classifications to complete maintenance and/or repair work. 1 mechanic 2nd shift 1 mechanic and 1 1 Helper mechanic helper 2nd shift Costs $222,606 $319,745 $97,139 10/21/2008 4 Prepared by Sloan Vazquez, LLC MRF Retrofit Comparative Analysis MRF Operating Allied SBWMA Difference Explanation Criteria Assure tions Assum fiions Shift None 1" shift 1 -131 shift 1 The lack of shift supervisors must have been an Supervisor None 2nd Shift 1 - 2 nd shift 1 oversight in the Allied pro forma. Costs $0.00 $170,361 $170,361 Buyback None 3 3 Because buyback center materials must be managed Center in and through the MRF, SV has included buyback attendants center personnel. Costs $0.00 $142,706 $142,706 Fuel & poorer $187,278 $266,871 $79,593 Allied's projection of fuel and power usage is incorrectly applied only to sortline operating hours. Processing 303 hours / month 432.25 hours / 129.25 hours / The SV pro forma assigns O&M costs as a factor Equip O&M Allied has based its month month of total shift hours, not just sortline operating projected costs only hours. upon MRF system Allied's pro forma, projects 368 shift hours per month sorting hours. with 303 hours available for sorting. Their O&M costs are applied only to the sorting hours. When the sort Costs $968.160 $1,406,369 $438,209 line is not operating, other functions of the operation continue. For instance, during lunches, breaks, mechanical stoppage, quality stops, etc., the electrical service, the forklifts, loaders, baler and yard truck carry on with their assigned tasks. Buyback Allied did not Included in Because buyback center materials must be managed Center include buyback operating costs. in and through the MRF, SV has included buyback center operating center material processing costs. costs. 10/21/2008 5 Prepared by Sloan Vazquez, LLC MRF Retrofit Comparative Analysis MRF Operating Allied SBWMA Difference Explanation Criteria Assum tions Assumptions G&A 2.7 FTE proposed 4.7 FTE 2 FTE Allied's assumption rejected. 1/3rd General 1/3rd General 0 Given the SBWMA reporting requirements and manager manager frequent demand for public interaction and access, 1/3 rd Controller 1/3 rd Controller 0 Allied's proposed administrative staff is inadequate. 1 Office manager 1 Allied states that the cost for the scale attendant is / Accountant covered under the transfer station operation, however, for comparative purposes the MRF activity is viewed as a stand alone operation. 1Operations 1Operations 0 manager manager 0 Admin Asst. 1 Admin Asst. 1 0 Materials 1 Materials 1 marketing / Booking marketing / agent Booking agent. Costs $275,716 $424,611 $148,895 Interest & Allied's pro forma SV pro forma included interest and depreciation Depreciation did not include costs for all rolling stock. these costs. Allied's pro forma included no costs for Interest and Costs $157,765 $157,765 $0.00 Depreciation, it was added by SV. Profit Allied's pro forma SV pro forma included 10% profit. did not include profit Allied's proposal did not include profit, a 10% profit margin was added by SV. Costs $496,367 $719,894 $223,527 10/21/2008 6 Prepared by Sloan Vazquez, LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF SV Original Pro-Forma Allied Retrofit-ProForma Allied Primary HBC/SBR Average OPERATING EXPENSES $/ton Monthly $/ton Annual $/fon Variance $/fon Annual $/ton Variance Disposal of Residuals $5.90 42,633 511,591 $5.94 515,409 ($0.04) (3,818) $4.63 402,202 $1.26 109,389 Direct Wages $42.03 303,943 3,647,322 $28.81 $2,499,904 $13.22 1,147,418 $32.74 $2,841,380 $9.29 805,942 Fuel&Power $3.00 21,694 260,325 $4.76 $412,641 ($1.76) (152,316) $3.32 $287,675 ($0.32) (27,350) Processing Equip OM $16.61 120,110 1,441,324 $20.02 $1,737,249 ($3.41) (295,925) $11.74 $1,018,645 $4.87 422,679 G&A $6.91 49,943 599,315 $0.00 $0 $6.91 599,315 $0.00 $0 $6.91 599,315 TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $74.44 538,323 6,459,876 $59.52 5,165,203 $14.92 1,294,674 $52.43 4,549,902 $22.01 1,909,975 INTEREST&DEPRECIATION ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.45 3,266 39,193 $0.00 $0 $0.45 39,193 $0.00 $0 $0.45 39,193 -Depreciation $1.37 9,881 118,571 $0.88 $76,250 $0.49 42,321 $1.34 $116,283 $0.03 2,288 TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION $1.82 13,147 157,765 $0.88 76,250 81,515 $1.34 116,283 $0.48 41,482 TOTAL EXPENSES $76.26 551,470 6,617,641 $60.40 5,241,453 $15.86 1,376,188 $53.77 4,666,185 $22.49 1,951,456 Profit(10%) $8.80 63,606 763,272 $7.09 614,844 $1.71 148,428 $5.68 $492,500 $3.12 270,772 TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $85.06 615,076 7,380,913 $67.49 5,856,297 $17.57 1,524,616 $59.45 5,158,685 $25.61 2,222,228 NPV 64,619,680 51,474,440 45,720,63 NPV VARIANCE 13,145,2 18,899,049 %VARIANCE 25.54°/ 41.34% PROCESSING EQUIP&BUILDING IMPROV Interest $6.71 48,530 582,361 Depreciation $11.81 85,417 1,025,000 TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 133,947 1,607,361 September 25,2008 SV Original Proforma102008 1 Prepared by. Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K.TPY Commercial/Residential MRF SV Original Pro-Forma ALLIED RETROFIT - Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $/t,, Annual Inerease 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4.01 0.35M 3.0% 0.37M 0.38M 0.39M 0.40M 0.42M 0.43M 0.44M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 4.23M 0.50M 0.51M 0.53M 0.54M 0.56M 6.86M 0.57M 0.59M 0.61M 0.63M 0.65M 9.91M Transportation Costs $1.89 0.16M 3.0% 0.17M 0.18M O.18M 0.19M 0.20M 0.20M 0.21M 0.21M 0.22M 0.23M 1.99M 0.23M 0.24M 0.25M 0.26M 0.26M 3.24M 0.27M 0.28M 0.29M 0.30M 0.31M 4.68M Direct Wages $42.03 3.65M 3.0% 3.87M 3.99M 4.11M 4.23M 4.36M 4.49M 4.62M 4.76M 4.90M 5.05M 44.36M 5.20M 5.36M 5.52M 5.68M 5.85M 71.97M 6.03M 6.21M 6.40M 6.59M 6.79M 103.97M Fuel&Power $3.00 0.26M 3.5% 0.28M 0.29M 0.30M 0.31M 0.32M 0.33M 0.34M 0.35M 0.37M 0.38M 3.27M 0.39M 0.41M 0.42M 0.44M 0.45M 5.38M 0.47M 0.48M 'O.50M 0.52M 0.54M 7.89M Processing Equip OM $16.61 1.44M 3.0% 1.53M 1.57M 1.62M 1.67M 1.72M 1.77M 1.83M 1.88M 1.94M 2.00M 17.53M 2.05M 2.12M 2.18M 2.25M 2.31M 28.44M 2.38M 2.45M 2.53M 2.60M 2.68M 41.09M G&A $6.91 0.60M 3.0% 0.64M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.72M 0.74M 0.76M 0.78M 0.81M 0.83M 7.29M 0.85M 0.88M 0.91M 0.93M 0.96M 11.83M 0.99M 1.02M 1.05M 1.08M 1.11M 17.082 TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $74.44 6.46M 6.86M 7.06M 7.28M 7.50M 7.72M 7.96M 8.20M 8.44M 8.70M 8.96M 78.67M 9.23M 9.51M 9.80M 10.09M 10.40M 127.71M 10.71M 11.04M 11.37M 11.72M 12.072 184.62M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.45 0.04M 0.0% 0.04M 0.03M 0.03M 0.02M 0.02M - - - - - 0.14M 0.04M 0.03M 0.03M 0.02M 0.02M 0.28M - - - - - 0.28M Depreciation $1.37 0.12M 0.0% 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.19M 0.122 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.78M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.37M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION O.16M 0.16M 0.15M 0.15M 0.14M 0.14M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.33M 0.16M 0.15M 0.15M 0.14M 0.14M 2.06M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.65M TOTAL EXPENSES $76.26 6.62M 7.01M 7.22M 7.42M 7.64M 7.86M 8.07M 8.31M 8.56M 8.82M 9.08M 80.00M 9.39M 9.66M 9.95M 10.24M 10.54M 129.772 10.83M 11.16M 11.49M 11.83M 12.19M 187.27M Profit(10%) $8.80 0.76M 0.78M 0.80M 0.82M 0.85M 0.87M 0.90M 0.92M 0.95M 0.98M 1.01M 8.89M 1.04M 1.07M 1.11M 1.14M 1.17M 14.422 1.20M 1.24M 1.28M 1.31M 1.35M 20.81M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $85.06 7.38M 90.0% 7.79M 8.02M 8.25M 8.49M 8.732 8.972 9.242 9.512 9.802 10.092 88.892 10.431 10.74M 11.05M .11.37M 11.71M 144.19M 12.04M 12.40M 12.77M 13.15M 13.54M 208.08M Net Present Value 5.0% 7.07M 6.93M 6.79M 6.65M 6.52M 6.38M 5.25M 6.13M 6.01M 5.90M 64.622 5.812 5.69M 5.58M 5.47M 5.36M 92.54M 5.25M 5.15M 5.05M 4.96M 4.86M 117.81M ALLIED PRIMARY PROPOSAL Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $/ton Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4.06 0.35M 3.0% 0.37M 0.39M 0.40M 0.41M 0.42M 0.43M 0.45M 0.46M 0.47M 0.49M 4.29M 0.50M 0.52M 0.53M 0.55M 0.57M 6.95M 0.58M O.60M 0.62M 0.64M O.66M 10.04M Transportation Costs $1.88 0.16M 3.0% 0.17M 0.18M 0.18M 0.19M 0.19M 0.20M 0.21M 0.21M 0.22M 0.23M 1.98M 0.23M 0.24M 0.25M 0.25M 0.26M 3.22M 0.27M 0.28M 0.29M 0.29M 0.30M 4.65M Direct Wages $28.81 2.50M 3.0% 2.65M 2.73M 2.81M 2.90M 2.99M 3.07M 3.17M 3.26M 3.36M 3.46M 30.40M 3.56M 3.67M 3.78M 3.89M 4.01M 49.33M 4.13M 4.26M 4.38M 4.52M 4.65M 71.26M Fuel&Power $4.76 0.41M 3.5% 0.44M 0.46M 0.47M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 0.56M 0.58M O.60M 5.19M 0.62M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.72M 8.53M 0.74M 0.77M 0.79M 0.82M 0.85M 12.50M Processing Equip OM $20.02 1.74M 3.0% 1.84M 1.90M 1.96M 2.01M 2.07M 2.14M 2.20M 2.27M 2.33M 2.40M 21.13M 2.48M 2.55M 2.63M 2.71M 2.79M 34.28M 2.87M 2.96M 3.05M 3.14M 3.23M 49.52M G&A $0.00 - 3.0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;67 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $59.52 5.772 5.462 5.652 5.822 6.002 6.182 6.372 6.562 6.762 6.972 7.18 7.402 7.622 7.662 8.102 8.342 102.302 6.602 8.662 9.132 9.402 9.692 147.982 ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.00 - 0.0%De reciation $0.88 0.08M 0.0% O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M O.08M O.08M O.08M 0.08 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.14M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.53M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 0.082 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.o80.08M 0.O8M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.14M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 1.53M TOTAL EXPENSES $60.40 5.24M 5.56M 5.73M 5.90M 6.08M 6.26M 6.45M 6.64M 6.84M 7.05M 7.26 7.482 7.702 7.93M 8.17M 8.42M 103.45M 8.67M 8.93M 9.20M 9.48M 9.77M 149.512Profit(10%) $7.09 0.61M 0.62M 0.64M 0.66M 0.68M 0.70M 0.72M 0.74M 0.76M 0.78M 0.81 0.83M 0.862 0.88M 0.91M 0.94M 11.49M 0.96M 0.99M 1.02M 1.05M 1.09M 16.61M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $67.49 5.862 90.0 66.182 6.36M 6.55M 6.75M 6.95M 7.16M 7.38M 7.60M 7.83M 8.05M 70.83M 8.31M 8.56M 8.81M 9.08. 9.352 114.942 9.642 9.932 10.23M- 10.532 10.852 166.12M Net Present Value 5.0% 5.602 5.50M 5.39M 5.29M 5.19M 5.09M 4.99M 4.90M 4.81M 4.71M 51.47M 4.63M 4.54M 4.45M 4.372 4.282 73.74. 4.20M 4.12M 4.05M 3.97M 3.90M 93.98M September 25,2008 SV Original Profonna102008 1 Prepared by.Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF SV Original Pro-Forma HBCISBR AVERAGE Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $/ton Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4.63 0.40M 3.0% 0.43M 0.44M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 0.56M 4.89M 0.57M 0.59M 0.61M 0.63M O.65M 7.94M 0.66M 0.68M 0.71M 0.73M 0.75M 11.47M Transportation Costs $0.00 - 3.0% Direct Wages $32.74 2.84M 3.0% 3.01M 3.1 OM 3.20M 3.29M 3.39M 3.49M 3.60M 3.71M 3.82M 3.93M 34.56M 4.05M 4.17M 4.30M 4.43M 4.56M 56.06M 4.70M 4.84M 4.98M 5.13M 5.29M 81.00M Fuel&Power $3.32 0.29M 3.5% 0.31M 0.32M 0.33M 0.34M 0.35M 0.37M 0.38M 0.39M 0.41M 0.42M 3.62M 0.43M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 0.50M 5.95M 0.52M 0.53M 0.55M 0.57M 0.59M 8.71M Processing Equip OM $11.74 1.02M '3.0% 1.08M 1.11M 1.15M 1.18M 1.22M 1.25M 1.29M 1.33M 1.37M 1.41M 12.39M 1.45M 1.50M 1.54M 1.59M 1.63M 20.10M 1.68M 1.73M 1.79M 1.84M 1.89M 29:04M G&A $0.00 _ 3.0%1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $52.43 4.55M 4.83M 4.98M 5.13M 5.28M 5.44M 5.61M 5.78M 5.95M 6.13M 6.32M 55.45M 6.51M 6.71M 6.91M 7.12M 7.34M 90.05M 7.56M 7.79M 8.03M 8.27M 8.52M 130.22M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.00 - 0.0% Depreciation $1.34 0.12M 0.0% 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.16M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.74M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.33M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.16M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.74M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.33M TOTAL EXPENSES $53.77 4.67M 4.95M 5.09M 5.24M 5.40M 5.56M 5.72M 5.89M 6.07M 6.25M 6.44M 56.62M 6.63M 6.83M 7.03M 7.24M 7.45M 91.79M 7.68M 7.91M 8.14M 8.39M 8.64M 132.54M Profit(10%) $5.68 0.49M 0.55M 0.57M 0.58M 0.60M 0.62M 0.64M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.72MI 6.29M I 0.74M 0.76M 0.78M 0.80M 0.83M I 10.20M I 0.85M 0.88M 0.90M 0.93M 0.96M 14.73M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $59.45 5.16M 90.0% 5.50M 5.66M 5.83M 6,OOM 6.18M 6.36M 6.55M 6.74M 6.94M 7.15MI 62.91M I 7.36M 7.58M 7.81 M 8.04M 8.28M I 101.99M I 8.53M 8.79M 9.05M 9.32M 9.60M 147.27M Net Present Value 5.0% 4.98M 4.89M 4.79M 4.70M 4.61M 4.52M 4.43M 4.35M 4.26M 4.18MI 45.72MI 4.10M 4.02M 3.94M 3.87M 3.79M I 65.45M I 3.72M 3.65M 3.58M 3.51M 3.44MI 83.36M Diff From Original Quote13.15M 18.80M I 23.83M Diff From Average of HBCISBR I 1 18.90M 27.09M 34.45M September 25,2008 SV Original Proformal02008 2 Prepared by..,Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF AW Assumptions in SV Format Allied Retrofit-ProForma Allied Primary HBC/SBR Average OPERATING EXPENSES $/ton Monthly $/ton Annual $/ton Variance Pon Annual $/fon Variance Disposal of Residuals $4.09 29,451 353,408 $5.96 515,409 ($1.87) (162,001) $4.65 402,202 ($0.56) (48,794) Direct Wages $27.17 195,749 2,348,987 $28.92 $2,499,904 ($1.75) (150,917) $32.87 $2,841,380 ($5.70) (492,393) Fuel&Power $3.00 21,613 259,350 $4.77 $412,641 ($1.77) (153,291) $3.33 $287,675 ($0.33) (28,325) Processing Equip OM $11.20 80,680 968,160 $20.10 $1,737,249 ($8.90) (769,089) $11.78 $1,018,645 ($0.58) (50,485) G&A 1 $4.39 31,636 379,636 $0.00 $0 $4.39 379,636 $0.00 $0 $4.39 379,636 TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $49.85 359,128 4,309,541 $59.75 5,165,203 $9.90 855,662 $52.63 4,549,902 $2.78 240,361 INTEREST&DEPRECIATION ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.45 3,266 39,193 $0.00 $0 $0.45 39,193 $0.00 $0 $0.45 39,193 Depreciation $1.37 9,881 118,571 $0.88 $76,250 $0.49 42,321 $1.35 $116,283 $0.03 2,288 TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION $1.82 13,147 157,765 $0.88 76,250 81,515 $1.35 116,283 $0.48 41,482 TOTAL EXPENSES $51.68 372,275 4,467,305 $60.63 5,241,453 ($8.95) (774,147) $53.98 4,666,185 ($2.30) (198,880) Profit(10%) $5.74 41,364 496,367 $7.11 614,844 ($1.37) (118,477) $5.70 $492,500 $0.04 3,867 TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $57.42 413,639 4,963,672 $67.74 5,856,297 ($10.33) (892,624) $59.67 5,158,685 ($2.26 (195,012) NPV 43,502,117 51,474,440 45,720,63 NPV VARIANCE (7,972,3 (2,218,514 %VARIANCE -15.49°/ -4.85 PROCESSING EQUIP&BUILDING IMPROV Interest $6.74 48,530 582,361 Depreciation $11.86 85,417 1,025,000 TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION $18.59 133,947 1,607,361 $70.27 October 20,2008 AW Assumptions in SV Format102008 1 Prepared by. Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF AW Assumptions in SV Format ALLIED RETROFIT Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $Ron Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $3.34 0.29M 3.0% 0.31M 0.32M 0.32M 0.33M 0.34M 0.35M 0.37M 0.38M 0.39M 0.40M 3.51M 0.41M 0.42M 0.44M 0.45M 0.46M 5.69M 0.48M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 8.23M Transportation Costs $0.75 0.06M 3.0% 0.07M 0.07M 0.07M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.09M 0.09M 0.79M 0.09M 0.10M 0.10M 0.10M 0.10M 1.28M O.11M 0.11M 0.11M 0.12M 0.12M 1.85M Direct Wages $27.17 2.35M 3.0% 2.49M 2.57M 2.64M 2.72M 2.80M 2.89M 2.98M 3.06M 3.16M 3.25M 28,57M 3.35M 3.45M 3.55M 3.66M 3.77M 46.35M 3.88M 4.00M 4.12M 4.24M 4.37M 66.96M Fuel&Power $3.00 0.26M 3.5% 0.28M 0.29M 0.30M 0.31M 0.32M 0.33M 0.34M 0.35M 0.37M 0.38M 3.26M 0.39M 0.41M 0.42M 0.43M 0.45M 5.36M 0.47M 0.48M 0.50M 0.52M 0.53M 7.86M Processing Equip OM $11.20 0.97M 3.0% 1.03M 1,06M 1.09M 1.12M 1.16M 1.19M 1.23M 1.26M 1.30M 1.34M 11.77M 1.38M 1.42M 1.46M 1.51M 1.55M 19.10M 1.60M 1.65M 1.70M 1.75M 1.80M 27.60M G&A $4.39 0.38M 3.0% 0.40M 0.41M 0.43M 0.44M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 0.50M 0.51M 0.53M 4.62M 0.54M 0.56M 0.57M 0.59M O.61M 7.49M 0.63M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.71M 10.82M TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $49.85 4.31M 4.57M 4.71M 4.86M 5.00M 5.15M 5.31M 5.47M 5.64M 5.81M 5.99M 52.52M 6.17M 6.35M 6.55M 6.74M 6.95M 85.28M 7.16M 7.38M 7.60M 7.83M 8.07M 123.31M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.45 0.04M 0.0% 0.04M 0.03M 0.03M 0.02M 0.02M - - - - - 0.14M 0.04M 0.03M 0.03M 0.02M 0.02M 0.28M 0.04M 0.03M 0.03M 0.02M 0.02M 0.42M Depreciation $1.37 0.12M 0.0% 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.19M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.78MI 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.37M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 0.16M 0.16M 0.15M 0.15M 0.14M 0.14M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.33M 0.16M 0.15M 0.15M 0.14M 0.14M 2.O6M 0.16M 0.15M 0.15M 0.14M 0.14M 2.80M TOTAL EXPENSES $51.68 4A7M 4.73M 4.87M 5.00M 5.14M 5.29M 5.43M 5.59M 5.76M 5.93M 6.10M 53.84M 6.32M 6.51M 6,69M 6.89M 7.08M 87.34M 7.32M 7.53M 7.75M 7.97M 8,20M 126.11M Profit(10%) $5.74 0,50M 0.53M 0.54M 0.56M 0.57M 0.59M 0.60M 0.62M 0.64M 0.66M 0.68M 5.98M 0.70M 0.72M 0.74M 0.77M 0.79M 9.70M 0.81M 0.84M 0.86M 0.89M 0.91M 14.01M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $57.42 4.96M 90.0% 5.26M 5.41M 5.56M 5.72M 5.88M 6.03M 6.21M 6.40M 6.59M 6.78M 59.83M 7.03M 7.23M 7.44M 7.65M 7.87M 97.04M 8.13M 8.37M 8.61M 8.86M 9.12M 146.12M Net Present Value 5.0% 4.77M 4.67M 4.57M 4.48M 4.39M 4.29M 4.20M 4.12M 4.04M 3.97M 43.50M 3.91M 3.83M 3.76M 3.68M 3.61M 62.29M 3.55M 3.48M 3.41M 3,34M 3.27M 79.33M ALLIED PRIMARY PROPOSAL Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $Ron Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4.08 0.35M 3.0% 0.37M 6.39M 0.40M 0.41M 0.42M 0.43M 0.45M 0.46M 0.47M 0.49M 4.29M 0.50M 0.52M 0.53M 0.55M 0.57M 6.95M 0.58M O.60M 0.62M 0.64M 0.66M 10.04M Transportation Costs $1.89 0.16M 3.0% 0.17M 0.18M 0.18M 0.19M 0.19M 0.20M 0.21M 0.21M 0.22M 0.23M 1.98M 0.23M 0.24M 0.25M 0.25M 0.26M 3.22M 0.27M 0.28M 0.29M 0.29M 0.30M 4.65M Direct Wages $28.92 2.50M 3.0% 2.65M 2.73M 2.81M 2.90M 2.99M 3.07M 3.17M 3.26M 3.36M 3.46M 30.40M 3.56M 3.67M 3.78M 3.89M 4.01M 49.33M 4.13M 4.26M 4.38M 4.52M 4.65M 71.26M Fuel&Power $4.77 0.41M 3.5% 0.44M 0.46M 0.47M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 0.56M 0.58M 0.60M 5.19M 0.62M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.72M 8.53M 0.74M 0.77M 0.79M 0.82M 0.85M 12.50M Processing Equip OM $20.10 1.74M 3.0% 1.84M 1.90M 1.96M 2.01M 2.07M 2.14M 2.20M 2.27M 2.33M 2.40M 21.13M 2.48M 2.55M 2.63M 2.71M 2.79M 34.28M 2.87M 2.96M 3.05M 3.14M 3.23M 49.52M _ G&A $0.00 3.0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $59.75 5.17M 5.48M 5.65M 5.82M 6.00M 6.18M 6.37M 6.56M 6.76M 6.97M 7.18M 62.99M 7.40M 7.62M 7.86M 8.1 OM 8.34M 102.30M 8.60M 8.86M 9.13M 9.40M 9.69M 147.98M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.00 - 0.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Depreciation $0.88 0.08M 0.0% O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M O.08M O.08M 0.76M 0.08M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.14M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.53M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M O.08M O.08M 0.08M O.08M O.08M O.08M 0.76M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.14M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.53M TOTAL EXPENSES $60.63 5.24M I 5.56M 5.73M 5.90M 6.08M 6.26M 6.45M 6.64M 6.84M 7.05M 7.26M 63.75M 7.48M 7.70M 7.93M 8.17M 8.42M 103.45M 8.67M 8.93M 9.20M 9.48M 9.77M 149.51M Profit(10%) $7.11 0.61M 0.62M 0.64M 0.66M 0.68M 0.70M 0.72M 0.74M 0.76M 0.78M 0.81M 7.O8M 0.83M 0.86M 0.88M 0.91M 0.94M 11.49M 0.96M 0.99M 1.02M 1.05M 1.09M 16.61M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $67.74 5.86M 90.0% 6.18M 6.36M 6.55M 6.75M 6.95M 7.16M 7.38M 7.60M 7.83M 8.06M 70.83M 8.31M 8.56M 8.81M 9.08M 9.35M 114.94M 9.64M 9.93M 10.23M 10.53M 10.85M 166.12M Net Present Value 5.0% 5.60M 5.50M 5,39M 5.29M 5.19M 5.09M 4.99M 4.90M 4.81M 4.71M 51.47M 4.63M 4.54M 4.45M 4.37M 4.28M 73.74M 4.20M 4.12M 4.05M 3.97M 3.90M 93.98M October 20,2008 AW Assumptions in SV Format102008 1 Prepared by:Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF AW Assumptions in SV Format HBCISBR AVERAGE Annual 10 YR 16 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $Ron Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4,65 0.40M 3.0% 0.43M 0.44M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 0,56M 4.89M 0.57M 0.59M 0.61M 0.63M 0.65M 7,94M 0.66M 0.68M 0.71M 0.73M 0.75M 11.47M Transportation Costs $0.00 - 3.0% - - Direct Wages $32.87 2.84M 3.0% 3.01M 3.10M 3.20M 3.29M 3.39M 3.49M 3.60M 3.71M 3.82M 3.93M 34.56M 4.05M 4.17M 4.30M 4.43M 4.56M 56.06M 4.70M 4.84M 4.98M 5.13M 5.29M 81.00M Fuel&Power $3.33 0.29M 3.5% 0.31M 0.32M 0.33M 0.34M 0.35M 0.37M 0.38M 0.39M 0.41M 0.42M 3.62M 0.43M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 0.50M 5.95M 0.52M 0.53M 0.55M 0.57M 0.59M 8.71M Processing Equip OM $11.78 1.02M 3.0% 1.08M 1.11M 1.15M 1.18M 1.22M I.25M 1.29M 1.33M 1.37M 1.41M 12.39M 1.45M 1.50M 1.54M 1.59M 1.63M 20.10M 1.68M 1.73M 1.79M 1.84M 1.89M 29.04M G&A $0.00 - 3.0% TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $52.63 4.55M 4.83M 4.98M 5.13M 5.28M 5.44M 5.61M 5.78M 5.95M 6.13M 6.32M 55.45M 6.51M 6.71M 6.91M 7.12M 7.34M 90.05M 7.56M 7.79M 8.03M 8.27M 8.52M 130.22M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.00 - 0.0% Depreciation $1.35 0.12M 0.0% 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.16M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.74M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.33M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.16M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.74M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.33M TOTAL EXPENSES $53.98 4.67M 4.95M 5.09M 5.24M 5.40M 5.56M 5.72M 5.89M 6.07M 6.25M 6.44M 56.62M 6.63M 6.83M 7.03M 7.24M 7.45M 91.79M 7.68M 7.91M 8.14M 8.39M 8.64M 132.54M Profit(10%) $5.70 0.49M 0.55M 0.57M 0.58M 0.60M 0.62M 0.64M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.72M 6.29M 0.74M 0.76M 0.78M 0,80M 0.83M 10.20M 0.85M 0.88M 0.90M 0.93M 0.96M 14.73M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $59.67 5.16M 90.0% 5.50M 5.66M 5.83M 6.00M 6.18M 6.36M 6.55M 6.74M 6.94M 7.15M 62.91M 7.36M 7.58M 7.81M 8.04M 8.28M 101.99M 8.53M 8.79M 9.05M 9.32M 9.60M 147.27M Net Present Value 5.0% 4.98M 4.89M 4.79M 4.70M 4.61M 4.52M 4.43M 4.35M 4.26M 4.18M 45.72M 4.10M 4.02M 3.94M 3.87M 3.79M 65.45M 3.72M 3.65M 3.58M 3.51M 3.44M 83.36M Diff From Original Quote (7.97) (11.45) Diff From Average of HBC/SBR (2.22) (3.16) October 20,2008 AW Assumptions in SV Formatl02008 2 Prepared by,Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF SV Amended Pro-Forma Allied Retrofit-ProForma Allied Primary HBC/SBR Average OPERATING EXPENSES $/ton Monthly $/fon Annual $/ton Variance $/fon Annual $/ton Variance Disposal of Residuals $5.95 42,887 514,648 $5.96 515,409 ($0.01) (761) $4.65 402,202 $1.30 112,446 Direct Wages $41.79 301,034 3,612,412 $28.92 $2,499,904 $12.87 1,112,509 $32.87 $2,841,380 $8.92 771,032 Fuel&Power $3.09 22,239 266,871 $4.77 $412,641 ($1.69) (145,770) $3.33 $287,675 ($0.24) (20,804) Processing Equip OM $16.27 117,197 1,406,369 $20.10 $1,737,249 ($3.83) (330,880) $11.78 $1,018,645 $4.49 387,724 G&A $6.11 44,044 528,531 $0.00 $0 $6.11 528,531 $0.00 $0 $6.11 528,531 TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $73.22 527,403 6,328,831 $59.76 5,165,203 $13.46 1,163,629 $52.64 4,549,902 $20.58 1,778,929 INTEREST&DEPRECIATION ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.45 3,266 39,193 $0.00 $0 $0.45 39,193 $0.00 $0 $0.45 39,193 Depreciation $1.37 9,881 118,571 $0.88 $76,250 $0.49 42,321 $1.35 $116,283 $0.03 2,288 TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION $1.83 13,147 157,765 $0.88 76,250 81,515 $1.35 116,283 $0.48 41,482 TOTAL EXPENSES $75.04 540,550 6,486,596 $60.64 5,241,453 $14.40 1,245,143 $53.98 4,666,185 $21.06 1,820,411 Profit(10%) $8.33 59,991 719,894 $7.11 614,844 $1.22 105,050 $5.70 $492,500 $2.63 227,394 TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $83.37 600,541 7,206,489 $67.75 5,856,297 $15.62 1,350,193 $59.68 5,158,685 $23.69 2,047,805 NPV 63,258,274 51,474,440 45,720,63 NPV VARIANCE 11,783,8 17,537,64 %VARIANCE 22.899/ PROCESSING EQUIP&BUILDING IMPROV Interest $6.74 48,530 582,361 Depreciation $11.86 85,417 1,025,000 TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 133,947 1,607,361 October 20,2008 SV Amended Proforma102008 1 Prepared by. Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF SV Amended Pro-Forma ALLIED RETROFIT Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $/ton Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4.01 0.35M 3.0% 0.37M 0.38M 0.39M 0.40M 0.41M 0.43M 0.44M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 4.21M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 0.56M 6.83M 0.57M 0.59M 0.61M 0.63M 0.64M 9.87M Transportation Costs $1.95 0.17M 3.0% 0.18M 0.18M 0.19M 0.20M 0.20M 0.21M 0.21M 0.22M 0.23M 0.23M 2.05M 0.24M 0.25M 0.25M 0.26M 0.27M 3.32M 0.28M 0.29M 0.30M 0.30M 0.31M 4.80M Direct Wages $41.79 3.61M 3.0% 3.83M 3.95M 4.07M 4.19M 4.31M 4.44M 4.58M 4.71M 4.85M 5.00M 43.93M 5.15M 5.30M 5.46M 5.63M 5.80M 71.28M 5.97M 6.15M 6.33M 6.52M 6.72M 102.98M Fuel&Power $3.00 0.26M 3.5% 0.28M 0.29M 0.30M 0.31M 0.32M 0.33M 0.34M 0.35M 0.37M 0.38M 3.26M 0.39M 0.41M 0.42M 0.43M 0.45M 5.36M 0.47M 0.48M 0.50M 0.52M 0.53M 7.86M Processing Equip OM $16.27 1.41M 3.0% 1.49M 1.54M 1.58M 1.63M 1.68M 1.73M 1.78M 1.83M 1.89M 1.95M 17.10M 2.01M 2.07M 2.13M 2.19M 2.26M 27.75M 2.32M 2.39M 2.47M 2.54M 2.62M 40.09M G&A $6.11 0.53M 3.0% 0.56M 0.58M 0.59M 0.61M 0.63M 0.6510 0.67M 0.69M 0.71M 0.73M 6.43M 0.75M 0.78M O.80M 0.82M 0.85M 10.4310 0.87M 0.9010 0.93M 0.95M 0.98M 15.07M TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $73.13 6.3210 6.71M 6.91M 7.12M 7.34M 7.56M 7.79M 8.02M 8.26M 8.51M 8.77M 76.98M 9.03M 9.31M 9.59M 9.88M 10.18M 124.9710 I 10.48M 10.80M 11.13M 11.46M 11.81M 180.66M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.45 0.04M 0.0% 0.04M 0.03M 0.03M 0.02M 0.02M - - - - - 0.14M 0.04M 0.03M 0.03M 0.02M 0.02M 0.28M - - - - - 0.28M Depreciation $1.37 0.12M 0.0% 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.1910 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.78M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.37M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION 0.16M 0.16M 0.15M 0.15M 0.14M 0.14M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.33M 0.16M 0.15M 0.15M 0.14M 0.14M 2.06M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.65M TOTAL EXPENSES $74.95 6.48M 6.87M 7.06M 7.27M 7.48M 7.69M 7.90M 8.14M 8.38M 8.63M 8.8910 1 78.31M 9.19M 9.46M 9.74M 10.02M 10.31M 127.03M 10.60M 10.92M 11.25M 11.58M 11.93M 183.32M Profit(10%) $8.33 0.72M 0.7610 0.78M 0.81M 0.83M 0.85M 0.88M 0.9010 0.9310 0.9610 0.9910 8.7010 1.0210 1.05M 1.08M 1.11M 1.15M 14.1110 1.18M 1.21M 1.25M 1.29M 1.33M 20.37M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $83.28 7.20M 90.0% 7.63M 7.85M 8.07M 8.31M 8.55M 8.78M 9.04M 9.31M 9.59M 9.88101 87.01MI 10.21M 10.51M 10.82M 11.132 11.4610 141.1510 11.782 12.1310 12.50M 12.87M 13.26M 203.69M Net Present Value 5.0% 6.92M 6.78M 6.64M 6.51M 6.38M 6.24M 6.12M 6.00M 5.89M 5.77M 63.26M 5.69M 5.57M 5.4610 5.3610 5.2510 90.5910 5.1410 5.04M 4.95M 4.85M 4.76M 115.32M ALLIED PRIMARY PROPOSAL Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $/tan Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4.08 0.35M 3.0% 0.37M 0.39M 0.40M 0.41M 0.42M 0.43M 0.45M 0.46M 0.47M 0.49M 4.29M 0.50M 0.52M 0.53M 0.55M 0.57M 6.95M 0.58M 0.60M 0.62M 0.64M 0.66M 10.04M Transportation Costs $1.89 0.16M 3.0% 0.17M 0.18M 0.18M 0.19M 0.19M 0.20M 0.21M 0.21M 0.22M 0.23M 1.98M 0.23M 0.24M 0.25M 0.25M 0.26M 3.22M 0.27M UtIM 0.29M 0.29M 0.30M 4.65M Direct Wages $28.92 2.50M 3.0% 2.65M 2.73M 2.81M 2.90M 2.99M 3.07M 3.17M 3.26M 3.36M 3.46M 30.46M 3.56M 3.67M 3.78M 3.89M 4.01M 49.33M 4.13M 4.26M 4.38M 4.52M 4.65M 71.26M Fuel&Power $4.77 0.41M 3.5% 0.44M 0.46M 0.47M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 0.56M 0.58M 0160M 5.19M 0.62M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.72M 8.53M 0.74M 0.77M 0.79M 0.82M 0.85M 12.50M Processing Equip OM $20.10 1.74M 3.0% 1.84M 1.90M 1.96M 2.01M 2.07M 2.14M 2.20M 2.27M 2.33M 2.40M 21.13M 2.48M 2.55M 2.63M 2.71M 2.79M 34.28M 2.87M 2.96M 3.05M 3.14M 3.23M 49.52M G&A $0.00 3.0 TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $59.76 5.17M 5.48M 5.65M 5.82M 6.00M 6.18M 6.37M 6.56M 6.76M 6.97M 7.18M 62.99M 7.40M 7.62M 7.86M 8.10M 8.34M 102.30M 8.60M 8.86M 9.13M 9.40M 9.69M 147.98M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.00 - 0.0% Depreciation $0.88 0.08M 0.0% 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.76M OMNI O.08M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 1.14M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M O.08M 1.53M TOTAL INTEREST&DEPRECIATION O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.08M O.OBM O.08M 0.08M O.08M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 0.76M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M O.08M 0.08M 1.14M 0.08M O.08M O.08M 0.08M 0.08M 1.53M TOTAL EXPENSES $60.64 5.24M 5.56M 5.73M 5.90M 6.08M 6.26M 6.45M 6.64M 6.84M 7.05M 7.26M 63.75M 7.48M 7.70M 7.93M 8.17M 8.42M 103.45M 8.67M 8.93M 9.20M 9.48M 9.77M 149.51M Profit(10%) $7.11 0.61M 0.62M 0.64M 0.66M 0.68M 0.70M 0.72M 0.74M 0.76M 0.78M 0.81M 7.08M 0.83M 0.86M 0.88M 0.91M 0.9410 11.49M 0.96M 0.99M 1.02M 1.05M 1.09M 16.61M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $67.75 5.86M 90.0% 6.18M 6.36M 6.55M 6.75M 6.95M 7.16M 7.38M 7.60M 7.83M 8.06M 70.83M 8.31M 8.56M 8.81M 9.08M 9.3510 114.94M 9.64M 9.93M 10.23M 10.53M 10.85M 166.12M Net Present Value 5.0% 5.60M 5.50M 5.39M 5.29M 5.19M 5.09M 4.99M 4.90M 4.81M 4.71M 51.47M 4.63M 4.54M 4.45M 4.37M 4.28M 73.74M 4.20M 4.12M 4.05M 3.97M 3.9010 93.98M October 20,2008 SV Amended Proformal 02008 1 Prepared by Sloan Vazquez,LLC Shoreway Retrofit 86K TPY Commercial/Residential MRF SV Amended Pro-Forma HBCISBR AVERAGE Annual 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR OPERATING EXPENSES $/ton Annual Increase 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Disposal of Residuals $4.65 0.40M 3.0% 0.43M 0.44M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 0.49M 0.51M 0.52M 0.54M 0.56M 4.89M 0.57M 0.59M 0.61M 0.63M 0.65M 7.94M 0.66M 0.68M 0.71M 0.73M 0.75M 11.47M Transportation Costs $0.00 - 3.0% Direct Wages $32.87 2.84M 3.0% 3.01M 3.10M 3.20M 3.29M 3.39M 3.49M 3.60M 3.71M 3,82M 3.93M 34.56M 4.05M 4.17M 4.30M 4.43M 4.56M 56.06M 4.70M 4.84M 4.98M 5.13M 5.29M 81.00M Fuel&Power $3.33 0.29M 3.5% 0.31M 0.32M 0.33M 0.34M 0.35M 0.37M 0.38M 0.39M 0.41M 0.42M 3.62M 0.43M 0.45M 0.47M 0.48M 0.50M 5.95M 0.52M 0.53M 0.55M 0.57M 0.59M 8.71M Processing Equip OM $11.78 1.02M 3,0% 1.08M 1AIM 1.15M 1.18M 1.22M 1.25. 1.29M 1.33M 1.37M 1,41M 12.39M 1.45M 1.50M 1.54M 1.59M 1.63M 20.10M 1.68M 1.73M 1.79M 1.84M 1.89M 29.04M G&A $0.00 - 3,0% TOTAL OPERTING EXPENSES $52.64 4.55M 4.83M 4.98M 5.13M 5.28M 5.44M 5.61M 5.78M5.95M 6.13M 6.32M 55.45M 6.51M 6.71M 6.91M 7.12M 7.34M 90.05M 7.56M 7.79M 8.03M 8.27M 8.52M 130.22M ROLLING STOCK Interest $0.00 - 0.0% Depreciation $1.35 0.12M 0.0% 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.16M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.1210i 0.12M 1.74M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.33M TOTAL INTEREST 8 DEPRECIATION 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.16M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 1.74M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 0.12M 2.33M TOTAL EXPENSES 1 $53.98 4.67M 4.95M 5.09M 5.24M 5,40M 5.56M 5.72M 5.89M 6.07M 6.25M 6.44M 56.62M 6.63M 6.83M 7.03M 7.24M 7.45M 91.79M 7.68M 7.91M 8,14M 8.39M 8.64M �147.217M Profit(10%) $5.70 0.49M O.55M 0.57M 0.58M 0.60M 0.62M 0.64M 0.65M 0.67M 0.69M 0.72M 6.29M 0.74M 0.76M 0.78M O.SOM 0.83M 10.20M 0.85M 0.88M 0.90M 0.93M 0.96M TOTAL ANNUAL MRF COSTS $59.68 5.16M 90.0% 5.50M 5.66M 5.83M 6.00M 6.18M 6.36M 6.55M 6.74M 6.94M 7.15M 62.91M 7.36M 7.58M 7.81M 8.04M 8.28M 101.99M 8,53M 8.79M 9.05M 9.32M 9.60M Net Present Value 5.0% 4.98M 4.89M 4.79M 4.70M 4.61M 4.52M 4.43M 4.35M 4.26M 4.18M 45.72M 4.1 OM 4.02M 3.94M 3.87M 3.79M 65.45M 3.72M 3.65M 3.58M 3.51M 3.44M Diff From Original Quote 11.78M 16.85M ❑iff From Average of HBCISBR 21.34M 17.54M 25.14M 31.96M October 20,2008 SV Amended Protorma102008 2 Prepared by:Sloan Vazquez,LLC ATTACHMENT 6 LAW OFFICES 'iOBEREANB. J.LANZONE AARONSON DICKERSON COHN & LANZONE MICHAEL -isgs) ON EAN B.SAVAREE � 7 (1970-1998) MARC L.ZAFFERANO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION GREGORY J.RUBENS 939 LAUREL STREET,SUITE D KENNETH M. LINDA J.NOESKE' POST OFFICE 80X 1065 (7926-20008)08) SON "Certified Specialist,Family Law SAN CARLOS,CALIFORNIA 94070 MELVIN E.COHN The State Bar of California (Superior Court Judge/Retired) Board of Legal Specialization PHONE:650-593-3117 OF COUNSEL FAX:650-637-1401 KATHLEEN A.KANE www.adcl.com KATE D.KOSTRZEWA ROBERT J.LANZONE,Ext,204 Email:rlanzone@adcl.com MEMORANDUM To: Kevin McCarthy, Executive Director SBWMA CC: Larry Patterson and Martha DeBry From: Robert J. Lanzone, General Counsel Date: January 9, 2009 �J Re: Burlingame Withdrawal Issues i have been asked to respond to several questions that were raised, I understand, at the last City Council meeting for the City of Burlingame regarding its participation and possible withdrawal from the SBWMA JPA. It is my_understanding you also intend to have this matter reviewed by special counsel. I would also suggest that you contact Bob Hilton at HFH as his firm was the source for the JPA and he may have some background on attempts to withdraw from other JPAs. The original JPA for SBWMA was adopted effective December 9, 1999. As you know, prior to that time a JPA existed among the same member agencies and was known as the SBTSA (the South Bayside Transfer Station Authority). What led to the JPA being redone was the acquisition of the Transfer Station Facilities in 2000. The acquisition of the Facilities required the issuance of bonds, and also entering into an Operating Agreement for the management of the Transfer Station with BFI. As I recall, the City of Burlingame was one of the last agencies to join. Under the SBW`MA JPA membership is broken down into "Equity members" and "Non Equity members". There are no "Non Equity members" at this time in the JPA. The primary difference between an Equity member and a Non Equity member is found in Section 6.3. While the Non Equity members are entitled to participate in Board meetings and activities, they were not entitled to vote on any matter before the Board. All Founding members (Section 6.2) are considered Equity members under Section 6.3. Any new member who comes along and wants to be a member of the JPA, and become an Equity member, must"pay the equity equalizing fees and payments imposed as a condition of membership". Those equalizing fees and any other payments are not defined anywhere in the JPA. Article 15 of the JPA (and I am referring to the First Amended and Restated JPA from 2005) indicates under Section 15.1 that a member may not withdraw from the SBWMA unless and until the member achieves the following: "(a) the liquidation in full of its proportion of any and all existing debts, obligations and liabilities incurred, earned or expected to be earned by the date of withdrawal including without limit to the revenue bonds as determined by the Board; (b) the provision to the SBWMA of a written notice of intent to withdraw from the SBWMA at least six months prior to the end of the current i rate year specifying the date on which the member intends to withdraw; (c) the approval of such withdrawal by a four fifths affirmative vote of Equity members." Your specific questions with respect to potential withdrawal are as follows: 1. "If Burlingame gives proper notice to withdraw and also reaches t- agreement on liquidation of its share of SBWMA debt, does SBWMA have any basis to reject a request to withdraw?" The JPA, in Section 15.1 (c) simply indicates a four fifths affirmative vote of Equity members is required for withdrawal. It does not give any indication as to what would be the basis for allowing withdrawal or denying withdrawal. It is my opinion that a denial of withdrawal cannot be "arbitrary or capricious". However, having the requirement for a vote to allow withdrawal in the JPA agreement presupposes that this is a discretionary decision and if the Equity members were to have some rational basis for denying the withdrawal, then I believe a court Iwould not have any trouble upholding that denial. One basis for denial would be an inability to reach agreement on what the j withdrawing member's proportionate share of existing "debts, obligations and liabilities incurred, earned or expected to be earned by date of withdrawal, including but not limited to revenue bonds as determined by the Board". As to other bases, I believe it would depend on the facts and circumstances. Certainly where an agency had committed to a future course of action and the withdrawal of a member would jeopardize that action; there may also be a basis for denial of withdrawal. Again, there simply has to be a rational for denial. 2. "How is an agency's share of SBWMA debt determined if the JPA is silent on this: First, I do not believe that the JPA is silent on the matter. Section 15.1 (a) specifically says, "the liquidation in full of its proportion of any and all existing debts, obligations and liabilities incurred, earned or expected to be earned by the date of withdrawal, including but not limited to the Revenue Bonds as determined by the Board." I believe that the JPA leaves the Board in the position of determining what the proportionate share would be. I would think that the CFO for the SBWMA could in fact review all existing debts, obligations, etc., including revenue bonds and come up with an i overall figure as to what the debts and liabilities would be. As to proportionate share, Section 16.1 indicates on termination of the JPA liabilities are apportioned to each member, according to Section 16.1 (b) "in proportion to the contribution of each current member rate payer's total contribution during the term of this agreement. A reference to rate payer's contribution is payment of collection fees under each jurisdiction's respective uniform franchise agreement." I believe this provides a guide as to how to determine a proportionate share. One would look to the collection fees from the withdrawing jurisdiction that were paid from the inception of the JPA through to the date of withdrawal. You have to look at the contributions paid by each and every other jurisdiction and then come up with a percentage for the withdrawing jurisdiction based on its contribution and payments versus all the other collection fees made. 3. "Does approval by member agencies of an agency exiting require the governing board approval or approval by the SBWMA Board members at an SBWMA Board meeting, or both?" According to Sections 15.1 (c), withdrawal requires a four fifths affirmative vote of the "Equity members". It would be my interpretation that this means the member agencies themselves, and not the Board. If the JPA document had intended the Board to vote on the issue, it would have said so expressly. 4. "As an equity member, what portion of the SBWMA assets does �,. Burlingame own, and if Burlingame withdraws, what portion of assets does it receive and when?" Under Article 16, on Termination, Equity members on termination of the JPA, where there is no successor public agency taking over the SBWMA's activities, assets and liabilities, are entitled to a proportionate share of assets and liabilities under Section 16.1 (b). An equity position presupposes that there would be an excess of assets over liabilities. There is no similar provision made under Article 15 withdrawal from SBWMA. The only reference made is to a member agency's proportionate share of existing debts and obligations. There is no mention of offsetting its share of debts and obligations against a possible equity position. I am familiar with other forms of agreements for JPAs where a withdrawing agency is required to pay its proportionate share of debts and liabilities, and not receive any distribution of property or funds that may be part of its equity position on withdrawal. While it would be clearer if our SBWMA JPA document expressly covered the issue, I think its silence on the matter of offsetting, or paying an Equity member for any equity position it might have on withdrawal, means that there was no intention to have any such offset or payment made. The California State Legislature, Senate Local Government Committee, put together a Citizens Guide to Joint Powers Agencies in the Spring of 2007. The comments made on page 24 of that document are responding to a question on whether JPAs are difficult to dissolve, it states, "To avoid the financial problems that can result if member agencies pull out of JPAs, some Joint Powers Agreements include specific protocols to make it difficult to � j dissolve agreements. To keep petty problems frorn splitting a long term JPA, a dissident government may have to give the other member agencies months or years of warning before dropping out." While this doesn't speak specifically to a member agency obtaining a proportionate share of assets on withdrawal, it does confirm that JPA Agreements are not tailored for easy withdrawal or rewarding any agency for withdrawing from a JPA. In summary on this issue, it is my opinion that the Equity members withdrawing from the SBWMA JPA would not be entitled to recognition of its j equity position against payment of debts and liabilities, as no provision is made for that payment or offset under the terms of Article 15. 5. "What are the timing and terms for exiting the JPA? In answering this question we also need to address specifically `what if' if new debt is issued during the timeframe that an agency has given notice, but not exited, are they responsible for their proportion of the debt obligation?" It is my opinion that again, Article 15 covers the obligations of a withdrawing member. If new debt is issued prior to withdrawal, under the terms of Section 15.1 (a) any and all existing debts, ....by the date of withdrawal", would be included in the calculation of proportionate share of debt obligations. If new revenue bonds were issued prior to the date of withdrawal, then those would have to be included in the calculation. 6. "If a member agency disapproves of a new debt obligation, with two thirds of the member agencies approving such a new debt, is the withdrawing agency still responsible for their portion of the new debt obligation?" The answer to this question is simply "yes". Section 7.1.1 specifically references issuance of bonds or notes under Section 7.1.1 (d) and requires a "two thirds" of the members approving such a bond issuance. It is not a Board action under Section 10.8. Also, once that vote is taken it is binding on the JPA agency and its members. I Those are my responses to the questions raised. Please let me know if you have any questions. I I RAY E.MCDEVITT ATTACHMENT 7 � Nans®nBridgett PARTNER DIRECT DIAL 415 995 5010 c DIRECT FAX 415 995 3509 E-MAIL rmcdevitt@hansonbridgett.com January 23, 2009 Kevin McCarthy Executive Director South Bayside Waste Management Authority 610 Elm Street, Suite 202 San Carlos, CA 94070 Re: Withdrawal from Membership in the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Dear Mr. McCarthy: You have asked me to review a memorandum prepared by Mr. Robert Lanzone, general counsel to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority ("SBWMA" or"Authority"). A copy of Mr. Lanzone's memorandum, dated January 9, 2009, is attached. The memorandum addresses six questions related to procedural and substantive aspects of a member agency's desire to withdraw from the SBWMA. The SBWMA was formed by agreement among the 12 agencies that comprise it, pursuant to the authority of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (California Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) (the "Act"). That Act describes the process for formation of a joint powers agency, specifies the topics that must or may be included in the formation agreement, and regulates the conduct of the agency and its relationship to third parties. However, it leaves most decisions about the content of the agreement up to the local agencies that ultimately become parties to it. Therefore, answers to questions about the rights and duties of members as among themselves will be found in the agreement. Those arrangements, unless they are in conflict with provisions of the Act (or other law), will govern the parties' relationships with one another. Turning to the questions presented to Mr. Lanzone, and addressed in his January 9 memorandum, I offer the following supplementary observations. 1. If Burlingame gives proper notice to withdraw and also reaches agreement on liquidation of its share of SBWMA debt, does SBWMA have any basis to reject a request to withdraw? I agree with Mr. Lanzone's conclusion that the Agreement allows the members considerable latitude in acting on a request by one member to withdraw. Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 hansonbridgett.com 1813580.1 Kevin McCarthy January 23, 2009 Page 2 Section 15.1 of the Agreement begins with an unambiguous prohibition on withdrawal.' It then sets forth three conditions which a member wishing to withdraw must"achieve" before its withdrawal is permitted. The three conditions are: • Liquidation in full of its proportionate share of the Authority's existing debts, obligations and liabilities, as well as those expected to accrue by the date proposed for withdrawal. • Delivery of a notice of intent to withdraw at least six months before the end of the Rate Year(i.e., on or before June 30) identifying the date proposed for withdrawal. • Approval of withdrawal by a 4/5th "affirmative vote" of the Equity Members. i The Agreement does not mention any factors that members may, or may not, consider in deciding how to vote. Mr. Lanzone observes that agreement on the amount of the withdrawing agency's share of Authority debts is a necessary predicate to approval since the actual liquidation of that obligation is a precondition to withdrawal.2 Similarly, the members would need to be satisfied with the date of withdrawal, since that could affect the amount of the debt to be liquidated. Beyond that, the Agreement leaves considerable latitude. Since the Authority is created by contract, I would evaluate the duties of member agencies among themselves under the law of the contracts rather than the "arbitrary and capricious" or"rational basis"formulations typically applied to public agencies' regulatory activities. The most applicable contract doctrine is the implied covenant of"good faith and fair dealing" which courts have held applicable to all contracts. (See, e.g., Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 654, 684.) In practice there is likely to be no significant difference between the two formulations. If a rational basis exists for withholding approval to a request to withdraw, that would be sufficient to satisfy the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In evaluating the action of member agencies that refused to approve a request to withdraw, a court would take into account (1)the Agreement's imposition of the burden of achieving the preconditions to withdrawal on the member seeking to withdraw, (2) the requirement of a large "super-majority" approval,3 and (3) the requirement that the approval be expressed by an "affirmative" vote, which presumably means that an agency's failure to act is effectively the same as a "no" vote. Each of these elements indicates the recognition by all members at the outset that the success of their collective venture required durability and stability, which would be undermined by giving individual agencies an entitlement to withdraw or by allowing withdrawal to be easily accomplished. All section references are to the"First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement- South Bayside Waste Management Authority,"dated December 14, 2005. z "Liquidation"as used in the Agreement refers to the conversion of a debt to a specific cash amount and payment of that amount to the creditor. The term is defined as the process of discharging liabilities in concluding the affairs of a business, estate, etc." Random House Dictionary of the English Language. 3 A 4/5th (or 80%) majority of the 12 members is 10(after rounding up from 9.6). Assuming the withdrawing agency will vote in favor, it will need to secure 9 votes from the remaining 11 members. 1813580.1 Kevin McCarthy January 23, 2009 Page 3 2. How is an agency's share of SBWMA debt determined, given that the JPA is silent on this? 1 agree with both elements of Mr. Lanzone's response to this question. The Board is charged with determining the Authority's total liabilities and the withdrawing agency's proportionate share. (Section 15.1.x) And the methodology prescribed in Article 16 for determining proportional entitlements on termination is logically applicable to the similar exercise necessary to assign liabilities (rather than assets) to a withdrawal by a single member. 3. Does approval by member agencies of an agency exiting require the governing board approval or approval by the SBWMA Board members at an SBWMA Board meeting, or both? I agree with Mr. Lanzone's conclusion that the 4/5th affirmative vote referred to is that of the members, and that it is to be evidenced by the action of each member's governing body (i.e., City Council, Board of Supervisors, or Board of Directors). However, the Board of Directors of the Authority is also involved in the process, since the determination of the withdrawing member's financial obligation is assigned to the Board. The explicit distinction in Section 15.1 between the Board and the members supports Mr. Lanzone's conclusion that the founding members chose to reserve the ultimate decision on withdrawal to the politically responsible bodies whose actions were necessary to establish the Authority in the first place and whose actions would be necessary to terminate the Agreement and dissolve the Authority. 4. As an equity member, what portion of the SBWMA asset does Burlingame own, and if Burlingame withdraws, what portion of assets does it receive and when? agree with Mr. Lanzone's conclusion that a withdrawing member is not entitled to any share of the Authority's assets. The absence of any mention of distribution of assets in Article 15, while the subject is explicitly covered in Article 16, supports the interpretation that when agencies formed the JPA in 1999 (and modified the Agreement in 2005), they did not anticipate payments to any member prior to termination. This conclusion is bolstered by two other provisions of the Agreement. Section 3.3 provides that the assets of the SBWMA do not constitute assets of any of the member agencies. And Section 12.5 provides that the revenues of the Authority pledged to pay debt service on the ' bonds "are not in any way considered revenues to the Agencies." Moreover, this interpretation reflects fiscal reality. Given the nature of the SBWMA, its principal asset (the Shoreway Facility) is illiquid and the Authority has no ready means to raise cash to "buy out" withdrawing members. 5. What are the timing and terms for exiting the JPA? In answering this question we also need to address specifically "what if' new debt is issued during the time frame that an agency has given notice, but not exited. Are they responsible for their proportion of the debt obligation? I agree with Mr. Lanzone's opinion that revenue bonds issued prior to the actual date of withdrawal are included in the "debts, liabilities and obligations," a proportionate share of which a withdrawing agency must liquidate. 1813580.1 Kevin McCarthy January 23, 2009 Page 4 So long as individual member agencies remain parties to the Agreement, they are not responsible for the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority. The revenue bonds outstanding are, presumably, secured by a pledge of revenues generated by the Shoreway Facility (e.g., gate fees and proceeds from the sale of recyclables recovered at Shorew2y).4 That pledge is, in turn, backed by the promises contained in the Agreement that each member will direct the private sector company collecting solid waste and recyclable materials within its jurisdiction to deliver those materials to the Shoreway Facility while any revenue bonds remain outstanding. Several provisions in the Agreement contain these commitments and delegate power to the Authority to enforce them against the members. (See, e.g., Sections 6.1(b), 7.1(p) and (s), and 13.2.) Once a member agency withdraws, there is no longer a contractual linkage to ensure the continued flow of materials from that jurisdiction to the Shoreway facilities. For that reason, the Agreement instead requires the withdrawing member to provide a cash payment equivalent to the revenues that would otherwise be provided by the continued flow of materials from it to Shoreway. This requirement applies irrespective of when bonds are issued, so long as the Authority has received the bond proceeds and pledged its revenues to their repayment. 6. If a member agency disapproves of a new debt obligation, with two thirds of the member agencies approving such a new debt, is the withdrawing agency still responsible for their portion of the new debt obligation? I agree with Mr. Lanzone's conclusion, insofar as it is based on the provisions of the Agreement itself. There may also be provisions in the Government Code addressing the issuance of revenue bonds by joint powers authorities which could affect the answer. recommend that the Authority consult bond counsel as to the applicability and effect of such statutes. Sincerely, 6,.,, l�A Ray E. McDevitt REM:ld Attachment cc: Robert Lanzone, Esq. I I i I 4 1 say"presumably" because I have not been provided a copy of the bond indenture itself. 1813580.1 ATTACHMENT 8 PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED AT TRANSFER STATION Target Sector IM121emented Self-Haul/ Quarter Year Program Name Residential Commercial Debris Box Notes/Descri tion Q3 1999 Expanded Drop-Off Program X Approved the expansion of drop off program to include concrete,asphalt,aggregates and asphalt roofing materials.Approved a reduced rate for source separated green waste and wood waste to create incentive. Q1 2000 Expanded TS Floor Sort to 7 Sorters X SBWMA expanded floor sort/salvage program a to include 7 full-time floor sorters diverting cardboard,metals, yard waste and wood waste. Q2 2000 Added Processing Line for Commingled Fiber X The SBWMA expanded their commercial collection program with the addition of a new processing line at the MRF for commingled fiber recycling. 03 2001 E-Waste Drop-Off Program X The SBWMA implemented an electronic waste drop-off program that includes monitors,CPUs,peripheral computer equipment,TVs and cell phones. 02 2002 Expanded Drop-Off Program X Drop-off program at TS/Recyclery expanded to include carpet recycling(carpet and carpet padding)(6/02) 01 2003 Mixed Aggregates/C&D Pilot Program X In 2/03,the Mixed Aggregates/C&D Pilot Program was initiated at the San Carlos TS at the direction of the SBWMA.Mixed loads are targeted at the scale house and directed to a designated area for loading. X Initiated mattress re Q2 2004 Mattress Recycling Program ling program at TS. recycling Page 1 of 1 V • FebruaryCity, of Burlingame Presentation ' RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority f F Presentation Overview • History and purpose of SBWMA • Agency staffing and programs • RFI processes • Overarching issues RethinkWaste 2 South Bayside Waste Management Authority Brief History of SBWMA • South Bayside Transfer Station Authority (SBTSA) founded in 1982. • organized to support Browning Ferris Industries (BFI ) building San Carlos Transfer Station . - Facility opened 1984. - 20-year contract included. 17% operating ratio (profit) for BFI . Option to later purchase facility. - Jointly administer 12 uniform franchise agreements. RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority Why Did We Need a Transfer Station • Reduce travel time F Curbside Trash Self Haul Reduces costs (franchise) C & D (labor/trucks) - Provides benefit to local contractors De�livered to - Reduces emissions Transfer Station • Ensure local facility available into future - Ox Mountain Landfill Disposed at Ox Mountain Closure re Landfill AOO"I RethinkWaste 4 South Bayside Waste Management Authority AB939 ( 1989) • Recycling law requires diversion of waste from the landfill - Requires every California jurisdiction to divert 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000 - SBWMA begins work with BFI to develop curbside recycling programs 5 /rte RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority 1992 MRF Acquired (by BFI) �+ Public eq MAINTENANCE R+�dr�r�ad City Areas AREA LM San arIds w Transfer Station & Shops constructed 1984. includingremodel J conversion of offices. STaiTTces. �; T zXTI �� , ';l" FE Recycling Plant constructed 1968,' acquired by BFI -1992. yew ti .w Admin. . Bld-- OIIUI ay.R1 AOO*' RethinkWaste 6 South Bayside Waste Management Authority Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center Self Haul Franchise Franchise C & D Trash Recyclables 1 Materials Recovery Transfer Station Facility (MRF) i i Ox Mountain Landfill Commodity End Markets RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority Milestones ® 1 96 wasteprogram i� freen ntroduced - Improves residential diversion Recyclingmanager hired AO! RethinkWaste $ South Bayside Waste Management Authority Shorewav Recycling and Disposal Center Self Haul Franchise Franchise Franchise C & D Trash Green Waste Recyclables 1 k Materials Recovery Transfer Station Facility (MRF) � Commodity End CO7xMotuntain Markets RethinkWaste `'^'' South Bayside Waste Management Authority Milestones - 1998 • Most agencies meet 25 % diversion goal • Recycling coordinator hired to address multi - family and commercial diversion issues • Consultant support expanding - ESA/ EDAW AB 939 reporting - Gigantic Ideas Studio for outreach support - HF & H contract compliance � RethinkWaste o South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Increasinq Diversion Self Haul Franchise Franchise Franchise C & D Trash Green Waste Recyclables I a Materials Recovery Transfer Station Facility (MRF) -- Ox Mountain Landfill Zanker Road Commodity End C&D Facility Markets RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority Milestones - 1999 • SBTSA issues first bond $20 million to purchase Transfer Station , Recyclery and adjoining parking area - Reduces BFI ' s operating ratio ( profit) to 9 % • New JPA agreement revised to reflect bond issue and public ownership of facility • Allied Waste acquires BFI 2 RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority Shorewav Recycling- and Disposal Center • Ownership - Responsible for maintenance and repairs to buildings and equipment - Own the recycling sorting equipment - Hired outside consultant, ESA, to assist with monitoring facility and executing projects - Complexity of finances increases 13 � RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority Milestones - 2001 SBWMA Reduces Costs • Negotiates green waste agreement - Higher and better use of green waste - Preserve landfill space - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - Saved $900,000+ annually in tipping fees 14 Ret hinkWaste saum Bayside Waste Management Authority More Complex Shoreway Operations Self Haul Franchise Franchise Franchise i I C & D Trash Green Waste Recyclables Materials Recovery Transfer Station Facility (MRF) r Ox Mountain, Zanker Road Newby Island Commodity End Landfill C&D Facility Composting Markets RethinkWaste d"' - South Bayside Waste Management Authorlty Milestones — 2004 Commercialal Organics Program • Introduced to capture food waste stream from businesses • Offered to restaurants , hotels , supermarkets , schools • Requires extensive outreach/training _ SBWMA hires consultants , ESA/Applied Composting , to assist businesses AOO*'k**- RethinkWaste 1 6 South Bayside Wase Management Authority Shorewav Recvcli-nq and Disposal Center FIGURE 2: Flow of Recyclables and Solid Waste Self Haul C&D& Franchise Yard Franchise Food Franchise Aggregates Franchise Solid R,r�Materials* Scraps Recyclable Aggregates EGaste" Materials• Materials; Shoreway Shoreway Recyclable Transfer Station Materials Processing Facility Ox Mountain Zanier Road Yard Artiste Food Scraps Recyclable Landfill* C&D Recycling CompostingCQ mpostmg Conmxxtities Facility* Facility Facilit} to End Markets 17 RethinkWaste '°" South Bayside Waste Management Authority Shoreway Facilitv 237 17 RethinkWaste South BaVside Waste Management Authority Hillsborough, CA � Allied INasle Services 6t�u ` ` - - Ox`Mauntain Sanita�,y Landfill �'�� � BF1-Newby lsian ' �Z�anker�Raad Landtial C> Z-Fest F'roduc is P SouthaValley Refuse Dlspo - ,� 2Qt323 Tele Atlas ` M►�.,�,._ NWS Pacheco Pass ,iaiageca7CligilalGlooe �,' E '� 37°22'25.68"N 121°54'15.78"W eiev 613 It Eye alt et) Changinq Service Environment with Allied • No progress toward commercial recycling goals • Complaints about phone wait times and missed pick-ups • Frequent management personnel changes - 2006 —turnover of entire local Allied Waste management team • Drivers and mechanics unionize 19 ✓� RethinkWaste South Baysiae Waste Management Authority Becker Report ( 1 1104) • Identified need for Executive Director • More work than staff can absorb • More attention needed for contract compliance and management • Board role issues AO'*' RethinkWaste 20 South Bayside Waste Management Authority Becker Repoft (22004 Table 5: SBW-'vL� REC'OWNItENDED ORGAI\IZATIC)N C ILXRT Green. Board or Staff Yellow: Consultants Blue. Board Policy-Decision Legal Counsel Executive Committee I 0.4 FTE (To tae Considered) 1 xetitfl �, 1.0 FTE Clerical Support 0,,6 FTE Integrated Waste Facility Contract.Mgt. 1 Mgt.Programs_ ! Management & Financial J ___r ecycling Programs ESA Contract HFH Contract Manager 0.32 FTE 1.0 FTE RG5 Cntract 0.52 FTE 6 . 23 FTE' s ESA Contract JPT Manager Backup.,', (A8939Reports) Includes 0.4 legal 0.49 FTE 21 Alp' RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority 2005/2006 RFP Process Starts • Board committees formed to study programs , facilities and contracts • Resident surveys in 2006 • Input from potential bidders and other communities that recently bid garbage contracts 22 00n� RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority What Residents Told Us : • 2006 survey mailed to 24, 000 residences - 60% - The majority of residents would be likely to recycle more if there were provided with a new bigger container with wheels that didn't require sorting of recyclable materials. - 45% - Would be likely to use a recycling service for food scraps. 23 � Rethink�Waste Milestones - 2005 SBWMA Reduces TippiFees • Negotiated agreement with Ox Mountain - SBWMA - Largest customer - Guaranteed best rate thru December 31 , 2019 - Reduced tipping fees by $ 11 .49 p/ton ($58M savings over 15 years) - Tipping fees at Transfer Station reduced - $ 11 M settlement returned funds to Agencies • $ 1 .4M Burlingame's share AOO*-***- RethinkWaste24 South eav:sae Waste Management auroomv Milestones - 2006/2007 • New Executive Director hired • Began to assemble team - Contracts and recycling programs - Facility operations (Facility Manager hired 1 /07) - Board Secretary - Outreach 25 � RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority Milestones = 2008 e Finance Manager hired - Reduced rate review burden - Assist with broad range of financial policy issues - Reduce cost of accounting services RethinkWaste 26 South Bayside Waste Management Authority S BWMA in 2009 9 oe Lmzax4egal �i (q�5 F'Ei fTEl ---------- 'aaMLC-e1t_._._._._._._._ U-. �.. �........ '\ t SHONEWAY CONTRACTS 1a•'I RAiE 1 ACAUDITIN G i 1 IECYaM¢PAori1MPLUACCE. 1 1 IIECiA COINT CUYPEUIMEE 1 I AND MANAGEMENT 1 ; T I AUDITING 1 i CONDUIf.T LOYlL111110E ------------------- ------ ------- iiiib DIIl1l�e11 !.'iaCOA.ni 7.75 FTE's authorized �,M,ewxi + .15 legal +SE'ear 0Z, � RethinkWaste '+'''�" " South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Bud et without Ca ital Ex nses FExpenses In 000's) Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Projected 5719 $11004 $ 1 .423 S 1 ,545 $ 1 ,�162 ministrative Contract Compliance & Support* ��+°! � $773 $�44 S5`I � X555 Recycling & AP 939 Compliance fi5 55 $538 $51 � �"I ,D82 X35 535 $3,242 $2.1758 SBWMA Budget �w to capital and 5horeway 32.`133 $2,328 $ % change (vs prier year)= foo 11 ori s Headcount (approved)_ 3.75 5 5 7.75 7.75 Actual headcount: 2.75 4 5 5.75 6.75 *Includes RFP consultant and legal support: $406,126 $ 335,313 $405,924 $300Fggg' SBWMA staff and consultants are less than 3 . 5"1'/'0 of total SBWMA operations AOPI RethinkWaste 28 South Bayside Waste Management Authority How Does SBWMA Com are? SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COSTS PER CAPITA. $2000 $'18,00 $14 0;i $1loff—I $4.00 � $2.00 5 2 539 $6A5 $7j61 $8,61 $1 $18 9 $0.00 Portland - Office Central Contra SEIVAiAA San Francisco San,dose Env. Alarneda County City of Oakland ofSustainabilty Costa SWA Dept* of Services.h/W Wasie Mqt, Public%Aiotks Environment Dept Authority ty 29 � RethinkWaste V'� R South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Costs Reduced • Consultant cost reduced - HF&H - ESA - Neal Martin and Associates • In response to recent economic downturn Administrative expenses reduced by 15°/o • Further reduction in consultant expenses expected as RFP process concludes 0 " RethinkWaste 30 South Bayside Waste Management Authority Difference Staff Makes • Contract monitoring - Metrics for performance - Improved reporting - Liquidated damages - Performance Hearings • Facility management - Projects better defined and executed - Gate revenue generation 31 AOP*-",, RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Staff Projects • Organics collection - Commercial - Residential • Universal waste collection - Used battery and cell phone curbside collection - On-call curbside collection of HHW and universal waste A00�*' RethinkWaste 32 South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Staff Projects • Large community event recycling • Management of DOC grants • Model ordinances - Construction and demolition - Commercial recycling • Shoreway master plan development and implementation (permitting and design ) 33 Aoo**,*, RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Staff Projects • Development and Issuance of Two RFPs Simultaneously (i .e. , Collection Services and Facility Operations) - Among largest service areas in US - Interactive process - Diversity of programs - Thousands of hours spent on review of proposals - Management of consultant contracts A0P1 RethinkWaste 34 South Bayside wase Management Authority SBWMA Streamlining Expenses • Joint rate application review • Joint RFP issue • Joint outreach - Website - Rethinker quarterly residential newsletter - Event promotion regionally • Development of model ordinances 35 � RethinkWaste South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Improving Services to Residents • Compost giveaways • Battery and cell phone curbside collection • E-waste collection events • Proposed curbside universal waste collection AOPI RethinkWaste 36 South Bayside Waste Management AutM1orlry Future Collection Services • Automation of collection • Single stream recycling on weekly basis • Organics collection on weekly basis RethinkWaste 3 South Bayside Waste Management Authority Overarching Issues • Do the benefits of membership in SBWMA outweigh the costs? • Can Burlingame provide equivalent services at lower cost to residents than available with SBWMA? • Does membership in SBWMA increase or decrease Burlingame's risks? *07� RethinkWaste 38 South Bayside Wase Management Authority SBWMA Benefits for Burlingame • Benefits of RFP processes • Lower cost for new services • Predictable transfer station cost • Permanent and reliable transfer station and MRF facilities • Staff professional experience • Staff resource capacity Aol*�' RethinkWaste 39 � South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Benefits for Burlingame (cont * ,,Most Favored Nation" status at Ox Mountain Landfill • Leverage for future disposal options • Shorter haul distances • Reduced impacts to SR (Highway) 92 • Leveraged commodity values and commodity price guarantees • Direct benefit of commodity sales on disposal rates AO'****"- RethinkWaste South eav:me Waste Management Authority 40 Is Local Option Cheaper? • Belmont found that SBWMA membership and proposed contractor were financially and operationally preferable to "going it alone ." • Extending Allied's existing cost plus agreement will not ensure on-going cost savings for Burlingame. • Burlingame cannot be certain that it will save money initially or in the future until a full financial evaluation of a specific contractor multi-year proposal has been prepared (similar to SBWMA analysis). AOO"�' RethinkWaste 41 South Bayside Waste Management Authority Potential Risks • Loss of access to local , publicly owned transfer station and MRF • Uncertain disposal costs and long term availability • No economy of scale for new services and programs • Potential instability in near or long term rates (depending on contractual arrangement) A00'!I RethinkWaste 42 !::�04 South Bayside Waste Management Authority Potential Risks (cont.) • No safety net if withdrawal from SBWMA is premature • Loss of leverage with existing or future contractor • Contract compliance and customer service problems • Loss of access to SBWMA professional staff � RethinkWaste 43 South Bayside waste Management Authority CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8a '�pp9 9p0 MTG. BAATED JYNED DATE February 2,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBAED / BY DATE: February 2,2009 APP FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: Resolution Setting A Public Hearing on March 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. to Consider An Increase In Solid Waste and Recycling Rates of Eight Percent(8%) and to Consider Any Protests to Increased Rates RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a resolution setting a public hearing for March 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. to take public input on the proposed 8% rate adjustment for residential and commercial accounts. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA) and has an exclusive franchise agreement with Allied Waste Industries for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling and residential green waste. The franchise agreement sets the methodology for establishing annual rates based on Allied's rate proposal for the subsequent calendar year. Rate adjustments are determined individually for each SBWMA member agency based on revenue shortfalls or surpluses from prior year activities. Revenue and expenses are estimated and maintained for each member city in individual balancing accounts. Each fall, Allied submits its rate proposal for the next rate year. The rate proposal includes any changes in costs and services that may have been approved by the SBWMA during the current year. The SBWMA then reviews the annual rate proposals submitted by Allied for compliance with the franchise agreement. Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson (HF&H), a consulting firm specializing in rate analysis, audits the rate proposals and makes rate adjustment recommendations to the SBWMA member cities. The recommended rate adjustment for 2009 is 8% based on the following: Rate Component Reason for Increase Rate Impact Allied Rate Proposal Increase in reimbursable costs per rate application 3.3% SBWMA Tipping Fees Increase in costs for Shoreway center operations 3.7% and decrease in recycling revenue City of Burlingame Costs On-going annual costs for administration and city 1.0% initiated environmental programs Total Rate Increase: 8.0% S:\Solid Waste Rates\2009 Rate Review\Council Agenda Report-Setting Public Hearing.doc The need for this increase has been comprehensively discussed by the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) Board of Directors based on the final report entitled, Review of Allied Waste Industries'Refuse, Recyclable, and Plant Materials Collection Rate Application for 2009 (prepared by HF&H Consultants, LLC). The City of Burlingame is a member of the SBWMA and along with the other 11 public agencies has a uniform franchise agreement with Allied Waste Industries. A copy of the Report is available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. City of Burlingame Solid Waste Rate Adjustments Rate Year: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Proposed Rate Adjustment: 0% 3% 5% 5% 8% The following table provides examples of the affects of the rate adjustment on the most common types of solid waste accounts. City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Rates for 2009 (Rates do not include equipment rental charges) Customer 2008 Rate 2009 Rate Increase Increase Service Level Current Proposed Amount Percentage Residential: 32 gallon can $14.24 $15.38 $1.14 8% 64 gallon can $28.49 $30.77 $2.28 8% 95 gallon can $42.28 $45.67 $3.39 8% Commercial: 95 gallon can $42.28 $45.67 $3.39 8% 1 yard bin, 1 x per wk $89.90 $97.10 $7.20 8% 3 yard bin, 1 x per wk $269.69 $291.27 $21.58 8% Proposition 218 Noticing Requirements: Solid waste rate adjustments are subject to Proposition 218 noticing requirements and proceedings. The Prop 218 notice is attached and scheduled for mailing on January 29, 2009. The March 16, 2009 public hearing will serve as the protest hearing and must be held at least 45 days after the mailing of the notice. The city clerk will tally any protests after the public hearing and if less than a majority of the ratepayers lodge a protest, then the Council can adopt the new rates. The rate adjustments are not retroactive to January 1, 2009. They are effective on the date of Council approval. Customers should see the adjusted rate for the billing cycle beginning in April 1, 2009. ATTACHMENTS: A Resolution of the City Council Of the City of Burlingame Setting A Public Hearing on March 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. to Consider Increasing the 2009 Solid Waste Rates by Eight Percent (5%) in the City of Burlingame Notice of Public Hearing to Consider an Increase in Solid Waste And Recycling Rates And To Consider Any Protests to Increased Rates (mailed January 29, 2009) S:\Solid Waste Rates\2009 Rate Review\Council Agenda Report-Setting Public Hearing.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ALLIED WASTE SERVICES PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES AND ANY PROTESTS OF SAID RATE INCREASE WHEREAS,Allied Waste Services ("Allied")holds a franchise from the City of Burlingame to collect and dispose of refuse and various recyclables within the City; and WHEREAS,pursuant to that franchise agreement and Municipal Code Section 8.16.040, Allied has applied for a rate increase for its services; and WHEREAS, the rate request has been reviewed and analyzed by the South Bayside Waste Management Authority and its independent consultant, Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson,to ensure that the proposed rates are fully justified and equitable based upon the cost of providing waste collection and recycling services; and WHEREAS,the City is providing mailed notice to all solid waste ratepayers in the City of the proposed rates, of the public hearing and of the opportunity to present a written protest of the rate increase ; and WHEREAS, a public hearing will be held to consider the rates,to receive testimony from any interested persons, and to determine if a majority protest to the rates has occurred under State law. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER: 1. A public hearing shall be held on March 16,2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California,to consider Allied Waste Services proposed rate increases,to receive testimony from any interested persons and to receive written protests to the proposed rates. 2. Subsequent to the close of the public hearing,the City Council will determine if a majority protest of the proposed rates has been made under State law,may decide to approve the rates, or it may take such other action it determines is proper and appropriate. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of February,2009,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearney,City Clerk CITY G BURUNGAME �C0 Som DRgTED JUNE 6. The City of Burlingame City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010-3997 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES AND TO CONSIDER ANY PROTESTS TO INCREASED RATES The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of its intent to review and consider approval of increases to the existing residential and commercial rates charged by the City's solid waste franchisee, Allied Waste Industries, for the collection of solid waste and recyclable materials within the City of Burlingame. The City Council plans to review and consider this rate increase at a public hearing scheduled for Monday, March 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m, at the Burlingame City Hall. The need for this increase has been comprehensively discussed by the South Bayside Waste Management Authority(SBWMA) Board of Directors based on the final report entitled,Review ofAllied Waste Industries'Refuse, Recyclable, and Plant Materials Collection Rate Application for 2009(prepared by HF&H Consultants, LLC). The City of Burlingame is a member of the SBWMA and along with the other 11 public agencies has a uniform franchise agreement with Allied Waste Industries. A copy of the Report is available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. NEW RATES The intended new rates would increase up to a maximum of 8% effective April 1, 2009. The following table provides the increase for the most common residential and commercial rates. City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Rates for 2009 (Rates do not include equipment rental charges) Customer 2008 Rate 2009 Rate Increase Increase Service Level Current Proposed Amount Percentage Residential: 32 gallon can $14.24 $15.38 $1.14 8% 64 gallon can $28.49 $30.77 $2.28 8% 95 gallon can $42.28 $45.67 $3.39 8% Commercial: 95 gallon can $42.28 $45.67 $3.39 8% 1 yard bin, 1 x per wk $89.90 $97.10 $7.20 8% 3 yard bin, 1 x per wk $269.69 $291.27 $21.58 8% All other rates will be increased 8% uniformly. A detailed rate sheet showing all 2009 proposed rates is also available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. S\Solid Waste Rates\2009 Rate Review\Prop 218 Notice.doc Page 1 NECESSITY FOR THE NEW RATES The new rates are necessary based on the terms of the existing franchise agreement between the City of Burlingame and Allied Waste Industries, which provide that rates be set to cover costs and give the solid waste contractor a rate of return based on an approved cost proposal. As detailed in the HF&H report,the increase in contractor's costs will have a rate impact of+33%. In addition,on January 22,2009,the SBWMA Board of Directors approved a 14.3% increase in the tipping fees it charges its members for use of the Shoreway waste transfer and recycling facility. The initial recommended tipping fee increase was 9.5%. However a precipitous drop in recycling commodity prices has resulted in a decrease in recycling revenue received by the SBWMA,necessitating a larger than expected increase. Increases in tipping fees are required to be passed-through in the rates charged to solid waste customers under the provisions of SBWMA joint powers agreement. The solid waste rate impact of the 14.3% increase in tipping fees is+3.7%. Finally, an increase is necessary to enable the City of Burlingame to recover its costs of administering the city's solid waste franchise and SBWMA joint powers agreement in addition to providing ancillary recycling services and programs to solid waste customers. The solid waste rate impact is+1.0%. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of a public hearing to be held at its meeting of Monday, March 16, 2009,at 7:00 p.m. at the Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. At this hearing,the City Council will consider public comment as well as written protests by ratepayers against the proposed increase in solid waste/recycling fees. If written protests are presented by a majority of the affected ratepayers prior to the close of the public hearing,the City Council will not increase the rates as a matter of State law. If you would like additional information on the proposed rates,please call the Burlingame Finance Department at 650-558-7222 or visit our website at www.burlinaame.org FILING A PROTEST If you wish to file a written protest, please send a letter in a sealed envelope addressed to Solid Waste Rates, City Clerk,City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,CA 94010. Your letter must identify the real property you own or rent by street address and assessor's parcel number. Your letter must be legibly signed by any one of the current property owners or ratepayers of record. The City of Burlingame must receive your letter at City Hall by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 16, 2009, or it must be presented at the City Council meeting of March 16,2009 prior to the close of the public hearing on the matter. Any person interested, including all solid waste/recycling collection customers of the City of Burlingame, may appear at the public hearing and be heard on any matter related to the proposed increase in rates. For mailing distribution on January 29,2009 by Allied Waste Industries on behalf of the City of Burlingame. SASolid Waste Rates\2009 Rate Review\Prop 218 Notice.doc Pate 2 ��CITY C BUMJNGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA O 9AT=JUNE�9 ITEM# 8b MTG. DATE February 2, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED / DATE: January 28, 2009 BY FROM: Roy C. Abrams APPROVE By SUBJECT: Consideration by Council Whether To File an Argument for the May 5, 2009 Storm Drainage Fee Election RECOMMENDATION: Consider whether the City Council wishes to file an argument and rebuttal argument for the May 5, 2009, storm drainage fee mail ballot election. BACKGROUND: On January 20, 2009, the City Council adopted a Resolution setting May 5, 2009 as the date for a mailed ballot election to enact a storm drainage fee. The Resolution authorized the filing of arguments for and against the fee, a well as rebuttal arguments. The City Clerk was authorized to establish dates for the submittal of opening arguments and rebuttal arguments. The initial date for filing has been extended one extra business day because of President's day on the preceding Mob=ndat, February 16th. The date for initial submittal was changed to February 18, 2009, and rebuttal arguments were moved back one business day to March 2, 2009. The City Council is empowered to file an argument and rebuttal argument as the full City Council or to authorize designated members to file an argument. If the Council so authorizes, it is then granted first priority as the argument to be included with the ballot materials that are sent to the voters in the event that the City Clerk receives multiple arguments. The Elections Code limits the number of signatures on an argument to a maximum of 5; the Council can authorize an argument that combines with other non-Council signatures and continue to retain its priority position. If the City Council decides to file an argument/rebuttal, it cannot use City resources, including on-duty personnel, to prepare the argument. All arguments must contain the signature and the printed name of all signatories to the argument. If an author of an argument is submitting on behalf of an organization, the printed name of the organization, as well as the signature and printed name of the author who must be an officer of the organization, is required cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk ���CITY ,� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8c MTC. + •' DATE FehrnarT 2, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY Jim Nantell DATE: January 27,2009 APPROVED FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Proposal from Non-Profit Youth Sports Organization Re: mprovements of Bayside Park RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council review the proposal from the non-profit youth sports organizations regarding improvements at Bayside Park and delay action pending the outcome of the Council Budget Study Session on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. BACKGROUND: As mentioned by the youth sports groups at your January 5, 2009 meeting they have developed a proposal for Council consideration that would provide about$600,000 towards a new artificial turf field at Bayside Park. It is estimated that the City would need to provide the $275,000 previously earmarked for this project and would need to advance an additional $250,000 (source unknown at this time)to cash flow the project until the sports programs can repay the $250,000 at$50,000 per year through increased fees. For more complete discussion please see attached report from Parks and Recreation. Although a one month delay will likely mean a six month delay in implementing this project, given our current dire financial situation I believe it would be premature to make a decision on this proposal until the Council can consider all the budget needs at your budget study session in the end of February. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report from Parks and Recreation ep. 00111, STAFF REPORT BURi �AME AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suB TTED BY Q DATE: January 25, 200901 APIJD , FROM: Parks & Recreation Director BY SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FROM THE NON-PROFIT YOU SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BAYSIDE PARK RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposal from the local non-profit sports organizations and direct staff to begin the construction project of a synthetic grass field at Bayside Park. BACKGROUND: In August 2001, City staff identified the need to expand its field space for year-round activities and placed "Bayside Park Phase II" in the Capital Improvement Project plan for fy 2004-05. This Phase calls for a synthetic grass field to be installed in the area of ball fields 3 and 4. Among the advantages of the project are year-round uses of the field which already has lights and has no neighbors, the ability to play two soccer or lacrosse games simultaneously (currently only one game can be played at a time), decreased maintenance costs and the savings of approximately one million gallons of water annually. Due to the budget reductions of the past seven years, the project was continually delayed. Two years ago, the City established a donation account for athletic field improvements. Preliminary discussions regarding the project determined two separate specific phases. The pre- construction phase involves testing, leveling the field and creating the specifications. The construction phase involves installing the field and drainage system. Initial estimates for the total project were approximately $1,600,000, including $400,000 for the pre-construction phase and $1,200,000 for the installation. Representatives from Coyotes Lacrosse worked with staff to achieve a grant from a sports foundation for $800,000 for the installation phase. Near the same time, a local sports manufacturer approached staff with a similar discounted price to the City. The City will need to enter into a competitive bidding process for the field, but either of the above options equate to approximately $400,000 for the necessary pre-construction work and an additional $400,000 for the final installation. In November 2008, representatives from the local non-profit organizations, citing the increasing urgency for field space due to the changes in the San Mateo Union High School District's field use policies, approached Parks & Recreation Department staff with a request to begin a fund raising effort to make the synthetic grass field at Bayside Park a reality. Staff has met with representatives from the organizations on several occasions and assisted with the creation of a fund raising proposal to the City Council that includes a combination of public donations and private funds, along with the discounts discussed by the synthetic grass Proposal for Improvements to Bayside Park Staff Report—February 2, 2009—Page 2 manufacturers. Attached to this report (Attachment"A") is a letter that the non-profit groups are planning on signing and presenting to Council at the February 2, 2009 that outlines their contributions to the project. Details of the proposal are as follows: One-Time Donations Coyotes Lacrosse $ 50,000 AYSO 50,000 Burlingame Soccer Club 50,000 Redwood Jr. Soccer League 40,000 On-Going Contributions Additional registration fees 250,000 $15/player for 5 years Fund Raisin Target 100,000 Concerted plan from all groups Community Contributions $540,000 City Contribution Funds in BHS Back Field Account 275,000 Estimated Project Funds $815,000 City funds for the project include shifting the $275,000 from the Burlingame High School Back Field account to the Bayside Synthetic Turf account and an additional $250,000 that would be repaid by the non-profit organizations. Of the $275,000 BHS Back Field funds, $140,000 was to be repaid by the non-profit groups. Neither the City's nor non-profits' portions were needed due to the State's funds for arsenic removal. While these funds can be placed back into general fund reserves, staff recommends using them for the Bayside Park project and entering into the partnership with the non-profits to utilize the discounted rates on the synthetic grass material and provide much needed facility improvements. In addition to the one-time donations outlined above, funds from the non-profit organizations include a$15 per player contribution from each league registration for the next five years. These donations are outlined in the attached sample agreement(Attachment`B")that each organization would enter into with the City. The target date for the project construction is June 2009. By beginning the work as soon as the Spring field programs conclude,the project should be completed before the Fall programs commence. The only activities interrupted would be a couple of Parks& Recreation Summer Sports Camps, which will be shifted to other fields. Staff recommends the City Council (1) approve the proposal from the non-profit groups and(2) give direction to staff to begin work on the project. If Council approves the proposal at this time, staff will finalize the time frame for the project and will bring final agreements back to Council for the next meeting. This action will also begin the fund raising efforts by the non-profit groups which will include a letter writing campaign, solicitations from local sponsors and special events. Proposal for Improvements to Bayside Park Staff Report—February 2,2009—Page 3 BUDGET IMPACT: Approving the proposal with the non-profit organizations at this time will only commit the City to shifting the $275,000 from the Burlingame High School Back Field account to the Bayside Synthetic Turf account and using an additional $250,000 towards construction payments until it is repaid by the non-profit groups. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft of a Letter from Non-Profit Youth Organizations to City Council B. Sample Agreement with Burlingame Non-Profit Organizations to Support Funding of a Synthetic Grass Field at Bayside Park AYSO,Burlingame Girls Softball(BGS), Burlingame Soccer Club (BSC), Attachment Burlingame Youth Baseball Association (BYBA), Coyotes Lacrosse, Mercy Nigh School January 15, 2009 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 The above local non-profit youth sports organizations are committed to working with the City of Burlingame to renovate Bayside Park by adding a synthetic grass field on the area of ball fields 3 and 4. This will allow for year-round play on this already lighted field without impacting a residential neighborhood and will allow for over 2,000 new hours of use each year by our community groups and recreation programs. For many years, we have talked to the City about the potential to improve this field due to the constantly growing popularity of the youth sports programs. Now, with the changes in policy at Burlingame High School, improving the Bayside Park field is more urgent than ever. Our proposal includes donating$500,000 to the City to help offset the $800,000 project. The source of these funds will be as follows: Coyotes Lacrosse $ 50,000 one-time donation AYSO 50,000 one-time donation Burlingame Soccer Club 50,000 one-time donation Redwood Jr. Soccer League 40,000 one-time donation Additional registration fees 250,000 $15/player for 5 years from all groups Fund raising efforts 60,000 Concerted effort from all groups Total $500,000 Besides the addition of much needed field space, there are many other benefits to our proposal including: • "Green Friendly"—This field would save approximately 1 million gallons of water each year, eliminate the need for pesticide spraying and fertilizing, and reduce the need for gasoline powered maintenance vehicles • Reduction in injuries—The amount of injuries decreased at Burlingame High School after the synthetic grass football field was installed • Reduction in City staff maintenance time We are prepared to make these one-time donations to the City upon the City's execution of an agreement with the vendor of the City's choice to install the synthetic grass field and we have already begun charging the additional $15/player fees to our participants. We also understand that the City has full control over the project and will have full control over the assignment of field space of the new field. If this proposal meets with your support, we ask that you direct staff to begin the work for the project immediately. It would be our hope to begin construction of the field in June 2009. Thank you for your consideration. • ME 504 �.. Attachment"B" SAMPLE AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGAME NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO SUPPORT FUNDING OF A SYNTHETIC GRASS FIELD AT BAYSIDE PARK THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2009, by and between the CITY OF BURLiNGAME, a municipal corporation [hereinafter"City"], and a non-profit organization [hereinafter RECITALS WHEREAS, City and desire to add more athletic field space in Burlingame for use by the City's recreational programs and by local non-profit organizations; and WHEREAS, is willing to assist the City fund the installation of a synthetic grass field("Field")at Bayside Park; and NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. agrees to pay City the following payments: $50,000 upon execution of a City agreement for the installation of synthetic grass at Bayside Park in Burlingame $15 per player per season on or before , 2010; and $15 per player per season on or before , 2011; and $15 per player per season on or before , 2012; and $15 per player per season on or before , 2013; and $15 per player per season on or before , 2014; and 2. agrees that any payments under this Agreement are in addition to the Field User Fees assessed to non-profit organizations under the City's Master Fee Schedule. 3. agrees that payments under this Agreement do not guarantee any amount of Field usage. 4. City is solely responsible for all aspects of the project development and implementation,including but not limited to the following: A) Retaining qualified consultants to prepare construction plans and specifications, and supervising such design, engineering and preparation work. B) Soliciting and awarding the contract for construction of the Project. C) Supervising all construction of the Project. D) Making all progress, final and other payments, as may be required or appropriate, to consultants, construction contractors and any other parties to complete, operate and maintain the Project. E) Meeting all contractual obligations related to the Project and covering all Project related costs, including cost overruns and contract claims that may arise without any additional contribution from City beyond what is specified in Section 3 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME (Name of Non-Profit Organization) By gy City Manager Attest: Approved as to form: By By City Clerk City Attorney AYSO, Burlingame Girls Softball (BGS), Burlingame Soccer Club (BSC), Burlingame Youth Baseball Association (BYBA), Coyotes Lacrosse, Eire Og Gaelic Club, Mercy High School, Our Lady of Angels School, Redwood Junior Soccer League, St Catherine's of Siena School We are prepared to make these one-time donations to the City upon the City's execution of an agreement with the vendor of the City's choice to install the synthetic grass field. The groups have already begun charging the additional $15/player fees to our participants. We also understand that the City shall have full control over the project and shall have full control over the assignment of field space of the new field. In the event our fund raising efforts exceed the identified need of$35,000, such additional funds would be available to accelerate repayment of the City's advance payments until the $500,000 goal has been reached. If we exceed our goal of$500,000, any accumulation of collected annual fees will be held in the field reserve account for future field improvement projects. We ask that City staff update the status of the account at least annually with the groups at a field users meeting and when the $500,000 goal has been reached. If this proposal meets with your support, we ask that you direct staff to begin the work for the project immediately. It would be our hope to begin construction of the field in June 2009. Thank you for your consideration. YSO Burlingame Girls Softball Burlingame occer Club Bu 1 oaseball Association Coyotes Lacrosse Eire Og Gaelic Club Merc igh School Our Lady of Angels Redwood Junior Soccer League St. Catherine's&f Siena �thc,' ,Vf. WN H19mcro.ew } MERCY "', w Our Lady of Angels School 't' t3Z8 CaOnlb I1•enue•BulinOaen,Cao/o•na (630)31.1-0]00 AYSO, Burlingame Girls Softball (BGS), Burlingame Soccer Club (BSC), Burlingame Youth Baseball Association (BYBA), Coyotes Lacrosse, Eire Og Gaelic Club, Mercy High School, Our Lady of Angels School, Redwood Junior Soccer League, St. Catherine's of Siena School January 29, 2009 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 The above local non-profit youth sports organizations are committed to working with the City of Burlingame to renovate Bayside Park by adding a synthetic grass field on the area of ball fields 3 and 4. This will allow for year-round play on this already lighted field without impacting a residential neighborhood and will allow for over 2,000 new hours of use each year by our community groups and recreation programs. For many years, we have talked to the City about the potential to improve this field due to the constantly growing popularity of the youth sports programs. Now, with the changes in policy at Burlingame High School, improving the Bayside Park field is more urgent than ever. Our proposal includes donating$500,000 to the City to help offset the cost of the project. The source of these funds will be as follows: One-Time Donations Coyotes Lacrosse $50,000 AYSO 50,000 Burlingame Soccer Club 50,000 Redwood Jr. Soccer League 40,000 On-Going Donations Mercy High School $ 25,000 ($5,000 annually/5 years) $15/player additional registration fee 250,000 ($50,000 annually for 5 years) Additional Fund raising efforts 35,000 Concerted effort from all groups Total $500,000 Besides the addition of much needed field space, there are many other benefits to our proposal including: • "Green Friendly"—This field would save approximately 1 million gallons of water each year, eliminate the need for pesticide spraying and fertilizing, and reduce the need for gasoline powered maintenance vehicles • Reduction in injuries—The Athletic Trainer at Burlingame High School reported a decrease in the amount of injuries after the synthetic grass football field was installed • Reduction in City staff maintenance time and costs .aAhcry'' tat LOiO/IOdr r°na Scb°J MERCYw Our Lady of Angels School lsw) s.s:oo � OUR CORPORATE PMiNERS: THE COMMUNITY & SPORTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, Inc. E 6"I1.111 SUPPORTING & FUNDING INNER CITY SPORTS FACILITIES —.E-G—..- GENERAL ELECTRIC GE POLYMERS FREESPANI ENGINEERED Mr.Steve Alms July 10,2008 SYSTEMS Ms.Marianne Chung AIS SPORTS GROUP Coyotes Lacrosse Club,Inc. ECGSCAPEGUTDGGRS PO Box 1544 Burlingame,Cal.94111 ECOGRASS ONLINE.COM INDOOR PARK SYSTEMS Re:Grant and Sponsorship Funding Approval-Burlingame Sports Field Project LOWES.COM Dear Steve and Marianne, HOME DEPOT.COM BUSINESS LIGHTS.COM Our organization has been very impressed with the detail and diligence by which you have proceeded OLYMPIA STEEL in working with us on the grant and sponsorship package for the above referenced project. SPORTS LIFE INTERNATIONAL I am really pleased to have the opportunity to officially inform you that your grant SPORTS ACROSS IRELAND and sponsorship application for the synthetic turf field project there in Burlingame has been approved CAPE TO CAIRO YOUTH for funding. Our approval to brio our network of funding groups and corporate partner sponsorships AGENCY-YWAM 9 PP 9 9 9 P rP P Po Ps BALLYMUNN into play for your project is based on the following terms and conditions: REGENERATKNJ,LTD. 1. The Coyotes Lacrosse Club is confirmed as a 501(C)(3)tax exempt organization. 2. The turf Feld system that will be installed will not exceed 110,000 square feet in size and scope. 3. The preliminary site work at the project will be undertaken and completed by your organization(in cooperation with the City of Burlingame)and other local sponsors and corporate partners that you have organized.We will provide you with the specifications for this.Ex: The site shall be cleared and excavated of all existing organic materials,the natural ground under which the turf system shall be installed will be slightly"crowned"(1%-2%slope)from the center towards the sidelines,and then two layers of crushed rock shall be installed and compacted to 95 degree proctor on all surfaces to be covered with the turf system(5'of%minus crushed rock and then a 2"layer of'% minus"Fines"crushed rock. The final''%minus layer shall be graded flat as close to"perfection"as possible. Truck and delivery access for the turf installation crew shall be provided during install period(typically 2-3 weeks). 4. The turf system and a portion of the installation crew cost shall be funded and subsidized by our organization to cover approximately 65%of the cost for the system.Our organization will directly pay our sponsor(the turf mill)in Georgia. This will leave the following expenses for the Coyotes Lacrosse Club,Inc.and your other funding sources that shall be responsible: • $294,500*(* +-10%for potential cost increases that may occur before we place order)for the integrated turf system(including the infill crumb rubber)-up to 110,000 sq.feet. • .68 cents per square foot for the"Fieldturf"experienced installation crew(depends on final size). • CSD Council and its funding resources shall cover the balance of the cost of the turf system. • CSD Council and its funding resources shall cover cost of travel and hotels for install crew. 5. Your portion of the acquisition and installation cost shall be payable as follows: • 45%of$294,500*upon signing and issuing of Production Omer to the production mill. • 45%of$294,500*on day of shipping of the turf system from production mill to project site. • Final 10%on the day the installation crew commences the Installation. • The.68 cents per square foot installation crew fee shall be paid directly to the installation company as follows:50%upon commencement and 50%on the day of project completion.A"project acceptance and completion"order shall be also signed on the day of completion by a representative of your organization upon satisfactory install. 4676 Commercial SE#1 Salem,Oregon 97302 503.581.1838 Fax 503.391.6954 www.CSDCouncil or& Email: info@CSDcouncil.org 6. All of the details enumerated in this letter shall be more specifically summarized in the Project Production and Commencement Agreement which will be approved and signed by the parties prior to the payment of grant and sponsorship funds. With kind regards, foe 6 '&win Joseph J. O'Connor JD The Community & Sports Development Council, Inc. Copy of letter emailed Hard Copy to follow CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8d MTG. DAATED JUNE DATE February 2,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: January 26, 2009 j APPROVE FROM: Ana Silva BY Tel.No.: 558-7204 SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO TRAFFIC SAFETY PARKING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Commissioner Dan Conway has submitted his resignation. His term is to November 6, 2010. It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill Commissioner Conway's unexpired term on the Traffic Safety Parking Commission. The recommended due date is February 24, 2009. BACKGROUND: All past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. In addition, we will send a press release to local newspapers and a notice on the City's list serve. CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8e - MTG. �c 9 ED JUNE DATE February 2,2009 °FAT � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEIV BY �rt DATE: January 26, 2009 APPROVED FROM: Ana Silva BY Tel.No.: 558-7204 SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill two impending vacancies on the Planning Commission. The recommended due date is February 24, 2009. This will allow enough time for interviews and an orientation for Commission members. BACKGROUND: Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The current commissioners will be invited to reapply if they wish to serve again. In addition, all past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancies. In addition, we will send a press release to local newspapers and a notice on the City's list serve. The following Commission Members' terms will expire as detailed below: Commissioner Term Expiration Terms Served Tim Auran April 7, 2009 2 David Cauchi April 7, 2009 1 �� CITY 0 BUWMGAME STAFF REPORT ti� E AGENDA DARTED -E'o ITEM# 8f MTG. DATE February 2,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE DATE: January 27, 2009 BY FROM: Ana Silva APPROVED, Tel.No.: 558-7204 By SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment to fill two terms or take other action. BACKGROUND: Two Commission positions are due for appointment due to one term expiration and the resignation of Commissioner Mark Grandcolas. The positions were publicized and notification letters were sent to past commission applicants. Nine applications were received as of the extended deadline of January 15, 2009. The following applicants were interviewed by the full Council on October 28, 2008 - Kara Abendroth; Thomas Feeney; Nathanael Gecrochi Duenas; and Susie Lahey (reappointed); and on January 26, 2009—Ashley Canty; Connie Dougherty; Mary Hunt; Angel Shew; and Karen Dittman. One appointee will fill a full term of three years, ending on October 7, 2011. The second appointee will fill the remaining term of Mark Grandcolas ending on October 7, 2009. FgMWK STAFF REPORT (CURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM#_ gg MTG. k0i DATE Feb. 2, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: January 27,2009 APPROVE FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF WAVIER OF FIELD MONIT R FEES FOR USE OF WASHINGTON PARK BALL FIELD BY BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL RECOMMENDATION: Review billing information for use of Washington Park Ball Field by Burlingame High School's baseball team and provide direction to City staff relative to possible waiver of field attendant and grandstands cleaning fees. BACKGROUND: On November 3, 2008, P&R staff provided preliminary billing information to Liz McManus, Associate Superintendent for Business Services for the San Mateo Union High School District, for the use of City of Burlingame facilities that was developed to reflect what it would cost if the City charged the District for all the expenses that they understood the District was charging the City for the use of the high school gymnasium(fully loaded costs). As per Attachment A the total bill was for in excess of$61,072. Even though that amount was almost identical to our verbal estimate of$60,000 to the District last spring, the District staff was shocked by the amount and protested that it was excessive. City staff assured the District representatives that the actual cost based on Council approved fee policy that went into effect in July 2008 would be substantially less than the"fully loaded"costs included in the"fully loaded"billing. After further conversation between staff of both agencies, City staff sent a new billing that reflected a 50%reduction in the hourly use fee for the main diamond, eliminated fees for mowing, and waived $8600 in field reservation and field lining fees for a total cost of$34,785 or a 43%reduction from the "fully loaded" costs. District staff continued to feel the new fee was still excessive and explained that it was about twice what it would cost the District to bus the boys baseball team to San Bruno to use Crestmoor High School field. They expressed their hope that we could find a way to reduce the fees closer to the $20,000 level to avoid the huge inconvenience of transporting the team to San Bruno. As per Attachment B City Staff proposed waiving field attendant and grandstand cleaning charges if the District could waive similar fees for the City use of the gymnasium($9,000). Such an agreement would bring the cost down to the District to about $25,000; a 59%reduction from the fully loaded fee. On Wednesday,January 21, 2009, Liz Mc Manus approached the City's Finance Director, Jesus Nava and requested (Attachment C)that the City waive the field dragging and preparation fees of$14,000 which would bring the cost down to $20,000. On Friday January 23, 2008 the City Manager met with the Council subcommittee of Mayor Keighran and Council Member Cathy Baylock to discuss the matter. The Council subcommittee felt that given the liability of allowing the ball field to be regularly dragged using city equipment they were not comfortable with waving the field dragging fee. Since there were mixed feelings about waiving the field attendant and grandstand cleaning since the District was not willing to waive similar fees for the use of their facilities it was agreed that the City would waive those cost for the first week of practice to allow time for the matter to be discussed with the full City Council. Two perspectives that are helpful for the City Council is addressing this issue are: • The District is frustrated because they are not allowed to charge the baseball players to recoup the field fees. Where as the City does have the ability to charge participants in our programs that are held in school facilities. This leaves them feeling that it is unfair to impose a fee on them since they can't pass it on to the users as we are allowed to do. • Because the City had informed the District that given the District's new fees the City would be implementing new fees for the District's use of City facilities which they expected to more than cover the cost of the new District fees,the city did not increase the recreation program charge for activities held in school facilities. Therefore if the City waives additional fees for the District use of City facilities (i.e. the field dragging fees of$14,000)the City has to come up with the $14,000 by cutting the budget some where else. The cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame and San Mateo, as well as the District, have hired Bill McGuire, a former school district finance officer, to audit the District's report and fee schedule. The P&R Directors of Millbrae, Burlingame and San Mateo held a conference call with McGuire on January 26tH During the discussion, McGuire validated several of the concerns of the cities relative to the fee breakdowns including the fees for the facility scheduler and custodial rates. The comparison between District's use of facility attendants and the City's use of field attendants was also validated. McGuire's report will soon be available in a draft form for review and comment by all parties. ATTACHMENTS: A. The Fully Loaded Billing to the District B. The Billing to the District based on Council Approved Fees C. The Billing showing the District's request to waive the field dragging preparation fees City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 8,, � �,„, BURU GAME V �2 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650) 696-7216 recreation@burlingame.org k�6� ,�h.-J. MEMORANDUM Date: November 3, 2008 To: Liz McManus ATTACHMENT A From: Randy Schwartz Re: SA TJHSD FEES FOR USE OF CITY FACILITIES Below are the fees to be charged to the San Mateo Union High School District for use of City of Burlingame facilities in the 2008-09 school year based upon the uses and requests received to date. The costs are based upon the Burlingame resident rates and include a scheduling fee per your voice mail, but do not include other administrative overhead. It is our intention to align the fees below to those being charged by the District to the City. Baseball at Washington Park Main Diamond 13,360.00 334 hours $40/hr Small Diamond 21212.50 147.5 hours $15/hr Dragging 14,000.00 140 drags () $100 ea Linings 1,450.00 29 games L $50 ea Mowing 7,200.00 144 hours @ $50/hr Lights 1,625.00 65 hours @ $25/hr Field Attendant 6,390.00 426 hours L $15/hr Grandstand Cleanings 2,900.00 29 games (0 $100 ea Baseball Total $43,137.50 Soccer—Murray field Field 960.00 24 hours @ $40/hr Lights 200.00 8 hours L $25/hr Mowing 200.00 4 hours @ $50/hr Field Attendant 435.00 29 hours @ $15/lir Soccer Total $1,795.00 Bund —Washington Park Field 1,200.00 30 hours (a; $40/hr Mowing Band Total $1,300.00 100.00 2 hours @ $50/hr Parking Spaces - Washington Park - Staging Area for Construction 1,640.00 1,640.00 $2/day/space Scheduling Fees (Estimate - to be reconciled at end of school year) 75200.00 3 hrs/week/40 Wks/$60/hr Total of Requests to Date: 61,072.50 Less SMUHSI3 Charges to $37,337.52 Summary on page 2 Permits and Fees for SMUHSD for 2008-0-9 Fall' (Aug.. — oct.: Permit rt03-010TR Main Gyne S3,193.28 Youth Basketball camps Permit #03-007 Snell Gym 53,628.80 Adult Volleyball Permit g03-006 N-lain Gyrn 12,295_17 Adult Basketball Total fees for Fall; S4a 1.17>25 prinq (Feb. — June) Permit -03-021 Small G,r-Tf 415,443.20 Adult Volleyball Permit -03-008 Main G-m 54,216.13 Badminton Pem—tit �r 03-C;0 Main c;;-rn J17,962.20 Adult Ras�ftlS-al, Pern"It -03-020T 1,4ain Gf-rn 1396.74 YOUth Basketball Camps Total fees for s.Iprii)g: IS28 22U 27 errand Totaf; -$37,337.52 City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. BURLJN9AME 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650)696-7216 Q � recreation@burlingame.org � mace to Live, MEMORANDUM Date: January 20, 2009 To: Liz McManus ATTACHMENT B From: handy Schwartz Re: SMUHSD FEES FOR USE OF CITY FACILITIES Below are the fees to be charged to the San Mateo Union High School District for use of City of Burlingame facilities in the 2008-09 school year based upon the uses and requests received to date. The costs are based upon the Burlingame resident rates and do not include other administrative overhead. Please note that we are have waived a couple of the fees. Although we understand that the District's charges for facility use to the City includes costs for a field coordinator, site administrator, and athletic director we have not charged the $7,200 scheduling fee, as it is not currently a City Council approved fee. In addition, we have waived the Field Lining ($1,450) fees, as we understand that the District staff would like to take over that duty. Finally, although we are willing to waive the grandstand cleaning ($2,900) and the field attendant fees ($6,390) if the District would waive similar charges when the City uses your facilities, we have not done so at this time because it is our understanding that agreeing to do so would be inconsistent with the District's interest to keep charges consistent throughout all the cities served by it. Baseball at Washington Park Main Diamond 6,680.00 334 hours @ $20/hr Small Diamond 1,475.00 147.5 hours @ $10/hr Dragging 14,000.00 140 drags @$100 ea Linings No Charge (to be done by the District) 29 linings @ $50 ea Lights 1,625.00 65 hours @ $25/hr Field Attendant 6,390.00 426 hours @ $15/hr Grandstand Cleanings 2,900.00 29 games @ $100 ea Baseball Total $33,070.00 Soccer—Murray field Field 480.00 24 hours @ $20/hr Lights 200.00 8 hours @ $25/hr Field Attendant 435.00 29 hours @ $15/hr Soccer Total $1,115.00 Band—Washington Park Field 600.00 30 hours @ $20/hr Band Total $600.00 Scheduling Fees(Estimate-would be reconciled at end of school year) $7200 (no charge for 2008-2009) 3 hrs/week/40 wks/$60/hr Total of Requests to Date: $34,785.00 Note: Badminton was canceled so the $4,216.13 was deducted from the grad total of$37,337.52 City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. W 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 3 � recreation@burlingame.org ��« `Kate fo Live, MEMORANDUM Date: January 19, 2009 To: Liz McManus ATTACHMENT C From: Randy Schwartz Re: SMUHSD FEES FOR USE OF CITY FACILITIES Below are the fees to be charged to the San Mateo Union High School District for use of City of Burlingame facilities in the 2008-09 school year based upon the uses and requests received to date. The costs are based upon the Burlingame resident rates and do not include other administrative n-uPrhearl Please note that we are have waived a couple of the fees. Although we understand that the District's charges for facility use to the City includes costs for a field coordinator, site administrator, and athletic director we have not charged the $7,200 scheduling fee, as it is not currently a City Council approved fee. In addition, we have waived the Field Lining($1,450) fees, as we understand that the District staff would like to take over that duty. Finally, although we are willing to waive the grandstand cleaning ($2,900) and the field attendant fees ($6,390) if the District would waive similar charges when the City uses your facilities, we have not done so at this time because it is our understanding that agreeing to do so would be inconsistent with the District's interest to keep charges consistent throughout all the cities served by it. Baseball at Washington Park Main Diamond 6,680.00 334 hours L $20/hr Small Diamond 1,475.00 1 _ 142.�finings . Dragging 14,000.UU��.Q. 40rags (a $100 ea Linings No Charge (to be done by the District) nfi Lights 1,625.00 65 hours (& $25/hr Field Attendant 6,390.00 426 hours L $15/hr Grandstand Cleanings 2,900.00 29 games L , 15 hr Baseball Total $33,070.00 Icl ea Soccer—Murray field Field 480.00 1p(jkj 24 hours (& $2U/hr Lights 200.00 8 hours (� $25/hr Field Attendant 435.00 29 hours (a $15/hr 0 Soccer Total $1,115.0 Band—Washington Park "Art 4~4f0 A e q*v4rp.) Field 600.00 30 hours (a $20/hr Band Total $600.00 Scheduling Fees (Estimate -would be reconciled at end of school year) $7200 (no charge for 2008-2009) 3 hrs/week/40 wks/$60/hr Agenda Item # 9a Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: February 2, 2009 SUBMITTED BC� APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JANUARY 19, 2009 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION AND REIMBURSEMENT INTENTION FOR STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN TO FUND THE INFLUENT STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP), CITY PROJECT NO. 81260 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolutions as follows: 1. Authorizing the City Manager to file a Financial Assistance Application with the State Water Resources Control Board SRF loan program for design and construction of the influent stormwater retention basin at the WWTP. 2. Stating the intention to reimburse qualifying expenditures received through SRF loan financing agreements. BACKGROUND: The current Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit for the WWTP, issued on January 30, 2008, requires that the City build a retention basin prior to September 2011 to reduce near-shore discharge of treated wastewater. In addition, the Baykeeper settlement requires that the City design and build a retention basin of 1.1 million gallons capacity by September 2011 to prevent near-shore discharges. In March 2008, the City selected Nolte and Associates to perform engineering design of the retention basin. The preliminary engineering analysis of the project recommended a 1.5 million gallon retention basin size due to its cost effectiveness and compliance requirements. Staff is in the process of completing the project design and applying for a SRF loan to construct the project. The actual loan amount will not be known until the project construction bids are received. DISCUSSION: The SRF loan program provides (2% to 2.5%) low interest loans for qualifying water quality improvement projects to be repaid in twenty years. The City has utilized this program in the past to fund improvements at the WWTP. The resolutions being approved are procedural requirements of the SRF loan application process. BUDGET IMPACT: The SRF loan will be repaid by sewer enterprise funds. If staff is not successful in obtaining the loan in a timely manner, staff will return to Council for approval to fund the project construction from sewer enterprise funds. EXHIBITS: Resolutions C: City Clerk, City Attorney C:\Documents and Settings\jlouie\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK75\SRF Loan Application-retention basin.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME STATING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE CITY FOR ANY INFLUENT STORM WATER RETENTION BASIN EXPENDITURES PAID PRIOR TO THE CITY OBTAINING FINANCING THROUGH THE STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD FOR SAID PROJECT WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame(the"Agency")desires to finance the costs of constructing and/or reconstructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water and wastewater system,including certain treatment facilities,pipelines and other infrastructure(the"Project");and WHEREAS,the Agency intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys('Project Funds")provided by the State of California,acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board);and WHEREAS,the State Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes(the"Obligations"),and WHEREAS,prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds,the Agency desires to incur certain capital expenditures(the"Expenditures")with respect to the Project from available moneys of the Agency,and WHEREAS,the Agency has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the Agency for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Agency hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds. SECTION 2. The reasonably expected principal amount of the Project Funds is approximately seven million dollars($7,000,000.00). SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the Agency will expend moneys for the portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed with Project Funds. SECTION 4. Each Agency expenditure will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles. SECTION 5. To the best of our knowledge, this Agency is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the Agency that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued. SECTION 6. This resolution is adopted as official intent of the Agency in order to comply with Treasury Regulation §1 . 150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs. SECTION 7. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this Agency so finds, determines and represents. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 2nd day of February, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND/OR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A FINANCING AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR PLANNING,DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN INFLUENT STORM WATER RETENTION BASIN WHEREAS,pursuant to its regional Water Control Board Permit,its settlement of the Baykeeper litigation and The Nolte and Associates consultant report,the City of Burlingame intends to design and construct a retention basin at its Wastewater treatment Plant;and WHEREAS,the California Water Resources Control Board provides low-interest loans to local agencies from the State Revolving Fund(SRF)to construct qualifying water quality improvements;and WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame intends to apply for a loan from the SRF in order to construct the retention basin at the City's wastewater treatment Plant;and WHEREAS,the State requires that the local agency comply with certain procedural requirements including this resolution authorizing City officials to sign and file the application. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1.The City Manager and/or the Public Works Director is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file,for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame,a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning,design,and construction of the Influent Storm Water Retention Basin at the City of Burlingame's Wastewater Treatment Facility;and 2.The City of Burlingame hereby agrees and authorizes the City Manager and/or Public Works Director or his/her designee to certify that the City of Burlingame has and will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any financing or financial assistance received from the State Water Resources Control Board;and 3.The City Manager and/or Public Works Director or his/her designee of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or change orders thereto and certify financing agreement disbursements on behalf of the City of Burlingame. Ann Keighran,Mayor I,Mary Ellen Kearney,Clerk of the City of Burlingame,hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 2 n day of February,2009,by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney,City Clerk CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BUM-INGAME AGENDA C . ITEM # 9b Som MTG. RHATED JYNE6+ DATE 2/02/2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: January 26, 2009 APPROVED „ FROM: Mary Ellen Kearney 558-7203 BY SUBJECT: Appointment to Community Action Agency of San Mateo County, Inc. BACKGROUND: Harumitsu Inouye, Executive Director of Shinnyo-en Foundation has served as the public sector representative for the City of Burlingame for three years. Dr. Inouye's appointment is expiring and he does not wish to be reappointed. Mr. Chuck Hyland, Shinnyo-en Foundation Operations has requested appointment by the City Council to be the representative from Burlingame. Attachments: CAA letter and Mr. Hyland's application A CITY � h"t, BURLINGAME 0 '0 ORATED JUNE T4 e@ 4 &4-1� 501 PRIMROSE ROAD,BURLINGAME,CA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TEL: (650)558-7200 ANN KEIGHRAN,MAYOR FAx: (650)342-8386 CATHY BAYLOCK,VICE MAYOR EMAIL: Council fturfingame.Ofq TERRY NAGEL,COUNCILMEMBER JERRY DEAL,COUNCILMEMBER ROSALIE O'MAHONY,COUNCILMEMBER February 2, 2009 Mr. William Bradford, President Community Action Agency of San Mateo County, Inc. 930 Brittan Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Dear Mr. Bradford: The City of Burlingame wishes to nominate Mr. Charles C. Hyland to the Board of Directors of the Community Action Agency of San Mateo County, Inc. Mr. Hyland has experience in Information Technology, Contracts, Accounting and Purchasing and wishes to contribute his talents on the Board of Directors of the CAA. The candidate may be reached at 650 401-6297 or 415 777-1977 or by email at cyhyland@sef.org. Thank you for your consideration. If you require additional information, please contact our City Clerk, Mary Ellen Kearney at 650 558-7203 or email at mkearney@burlingame.org. Sincerely, Ann Keighran Mayor cc: Charles Hyland COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY,INC. 930 Brittan Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 595-1342 PROSPECTIVE BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION Please provide us with as much relevant information as possible. Thank you! Your Name: '1 Address:t ', ,/, �, '� � City/zip a,�G/a� Telephone: Day K )-777T77y,�e1 Evening: VZ6 4561 df2f 7 Fax: (�l� °' � ��� E-Mail: C �� The best time to reach me is between 5t%< a.m. and P.M. Affiliations: �� ���a ���� Title: Unique Skills: 1��3a'✓ � °' 7�� �' �? Type of Business: 7Z�CV Al How did you become aware of the Community Action Agency of San Mateo County,Inc.? Special .4 av l 154t Interests: �'� ��� __ Other Board Experience: t-e�L Reasons why I would make a good Board Member: "l .._.-.� .s,e � N� g Signature: Date: BD-001-7/06 As soon as these two documents are received,the Board Development Committee will be contacted for an interview with Mr. Hyland. If you have any questions, please contact this office and ask for Ms. Mary Jane Jauco, Administrative Assistant, in charge of Board Development. Mary Jane will be taking over the Board of Directors functions from this year. You may also visit our website: www.caasm.org for additional information on our board and program activities. Thank you, Grace Kanomata Community Action Agency 930 Brittan Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 650-595-1342, ext. 16 grace@caasm.org From: CLK-Kearney, Mary Ellen [mailto:mkearney@burlingame.org] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 2:43 PM To: grace@caasm.org Subject: Board Member application Hi Grace, I replaced Doris Mortensen as the City Clerk for Burlingame. Doris retired on December 12th I have been contacted by Chuck Hyland of Shinnyo-en Foundation, who wants to apply for the seat being vacated by Haru Inouye. I would appreciate it if you would send me the application and I will forward it to Chuck. I have one from 2006 but I didn't know if that was the most current. Many thanks and Happy New Year. Mary Ellen Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7203 4 Thanks for sending this. Mary Ellen Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7203 From: Grace Kanomata [mailto:grace@caasm.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:57 AM To: CLK-Kearney, Mary Ellen Cc: 'Charles Hyland'; 'Mary Jane Jauco' Subject: FW: Board Member application Good morning Mary Ellen, Charles Hyland tried to send his board application to your email last week, but it was returned to him. He requested that I try sending it to you. Hope you receive this. We are requesting Mr. Hyland be nominated from the Burlingame City Council to replace Mr. Harumitsu Inouye, whose term expires in February 2009. When the City Council approves Mr. Hyland as your City's nominee to the Community Action Agency(CAA) Board of Directors, please complete the attached sample of nomination letter and forward it to the attention of Mr.William Bradford, Board President, CAA If you require additional information regarding the Community Action Agency of San Mateo County, Inc., please contact us at 650-595-1342. Thank you, Grace Kanomata for Mary Jane Jauco Community Action Agency 930 Brittan Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 650-595-1342 grace@caasm.org miauco@caasm.org From: Charles Hyland [mailto:chyland@sef.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 4:30 PM To: CLK-Kearney, Mary Ellen Cc: Grace Kanomata; Haru Inouye Subject: RE: Board Member application Mary Ellen, 2 Here is a scan of my application to the Community Action Agency. I will bring the original to Grace at our Board Meeting this evening. Please let us know if you require anything else prior to making a decision. Kind Regards, Chuck Hyland Operations Shinnyo-en Foundation 201 Mission Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415.777.1977 Ext 5 -3 Mobile: 650-450-0998 Fax: 415.777.1987 Email: chyland@sef.org Web: httr)://www.sef.orq give grew transforryi From: CLK-Kearney, Mary Ellen [mailto:mkearney@burlingame.org] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:39 PM To: Charles Hyland Subject: FW: Board Member application Chuck, I assume you received this information? Thanks. Mary Ellen Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7203 From: Grace Kanomata [mailto:grace@caasm.org] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:12 AM To: CLK-Kearney, Mary Ellen Cc: 'Charles Hyland'; ds@caasm.org; 'Mary Jane Jauco'; bradford@realpropserv.com; 'Gil Bustichi'; 'Haru Inouye' Subject: RE: Board Member application Happy New Year Mary Ellen, Thank you for this email. It was my pleasure speaking with you in 2008 and look forward to working with you and the City of Burlingame. Attached is our Application for Board that each candidate may complete. The City Council may also write a letter of nomination on your stationery and submit with the application to our office, attention Mr. William Bradford, Board President. For your information,the term of office is for 3 years. 3 CITY AGENDA ITEM# 9C STAFF REPORT MTG. a RLW4 ME DATE: February 2,2009 tee. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Jack Van Etten, Chief of Police DATE: January 26,2009 APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten,Chief of Police BY: Jim Nantell, City Manager SUBJECT: Consent Calendar- Approval for Officer Heather Farber to accompany our Explorer Police Cadets to an annual Cadet Challenge Competition event in Washington State. RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully recommend that the city council approve the request to allow Officer Heather Farber to accompany our Explorer Police Cadets to an annual Explorer Cadet Challenge Event Competition being held in Washington State on February 21-22,2009. DISCUSSION: The Police Department has been involved in an Explorer Police Cadet Program for a number of years.The Cadet program falls under the local Scouting Organization and it provides high school age teens the opportunity to explore and consider a career in the law enforcement profession,as well as helping build character and self-esteem. The Scouting Organization also provides insurance for all Explorer Police Cadets.As you know,our Explorer Cadet Program involves teen volunteers who help provide hundreds of volunteer hours in support of police and city related functions, such as Art in the Park,Halloween Safe Streets, Pet Parade,etc. Each year, our Explorer Police Cadets sell goods to generate income to help off-set costs associated with attending these annual Explorer Cadet Program Challenges. These Program Challenges are an opportunity for our Explorer Police Cadets to interact, socialize and compete in various police related events(individually and as a team).This year,the 2 day Challenge will be held on February 21-22,2009,at Federal Way in the State of Washington,and involves mock police patrol response and tactical duties. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of food, lodging and transportation to Washington State, for Officer Heather Farber,our Explorer Cadet Advisor will be approximately$1,000.00.This cost will taken from funding that has been donated to our Explorer Police Cadet Program. Other costs will be paid for by the Explorer Police Cadets. ATTACHMENTS: Copies of related Explorer Police Cadet documents. Federal Way Police Explorers #2007 f Get off of the couch and into the passenger seat... Horr,F= i C. l:Sii)Ii31S c10 Jlrrifiiii"i CJ F E D E Ft A L W A Y FW Challenge C H A L L E N G E FWC 2009 FWC 2009 Video Promo Federal Way Explorer Challenge Series FWC 2009 Events The Federal Way Challenge series are a set of competitions for Law Enforcement FWC 2009 Participants Explorers. The events may have 10-12 stages of mock scenes or physical agility events. The Mock Scenes are designed around incidents that Police Officers have FWC 2008 Tactical Results experienced and may have been modified to allow it to be judged. FWC 2008 Pics Standard Challenge: F!NC 2007 Patrol Results Events include, but are not limited to: Domestic Violence, Field Interview, Accident Investigation, Theft investigation, Building Search, High Risk Stop, Basic Traffic Stop, Defensive Tactics, and Physical Agility. This is currently a one day event. Awards are given to the top 3 placed teams for each event, Top Post for best average, and Top Team. Physical events awards are given to individual participants. All participants are required to participate in all of the team events. Tactical Challenge: The Tactical event is run similar to the standard challenge- except, it is based on use of force issues and teamwork. Equipment usually includes Airsoft or Simunitions guns. This is where the Explorers get to play SWAT guy/gal for a weekend. This page was last modified on Sunday, The Next Challenge December 07, 2008 12:23:28 AM is February 21 -22, 2009 HomelContact UslAbout UslSite Map Copyright 2008 Federal Way Police Explorers o Federal Way Police Explorers #2007 Get off of the couch and into the passenger seat... FWC 2009 EVENT DESCRIPTION Your Team has been requested to assist detectives on serving a high-risk High Risk search warrant. Intelligence information shows that the suspects who are at Warrant the location have access to several firearms. Bus Assault You team will be dealing with terrorists on a bus that have hostages;you will receive a more detailed briefing once on the scene. FW Challenge Most tactical operations teams are often forced to respond to rapidly evolving Rapid situations,without much advance notice of where they are going or what to FWC 2009 Deployment expect. In this scenario,you must do the same.You will be briefed while on FWC 2009 Video Promo scene at the event. FWC 2009 Events You are to backup Narcotic agents on a high risk buy/bust at a house. The Druinformant will make the purchase,give the assigned signal and your team will FWC 2009 Participants Wargrant go in and secure the building. At the same time,you will need to locate "evidence"inside the building and bring it back to the designated location for FWC 2008 Tactical Results inventory. This is a timed event and the clock is your enemy. FWC 2008 Pics A local school is being shot at by an unknown subject in the woods. Patrol FWC 2007 Patrol Results Sniper has secured the perimeter and are awaiting for SWAT to get in place and Challenge take care of the problem. You and your partner are in place and have authorized to use any and all means possible to stop him from taking another shot. You just need to locate him in the brush and if necessary,take the shot. Your Tactical team has been requested to assist with securing a field that is believed to be occupied by the Mullet brothers. The Mullet brothers are ex- Marijuana military and are suspected of growing marijuana in this field. Intelligence Field Raid information shows that the brothers have a hideout in the bushes. Booby traps may have been planted by the brothers. The brothers are known drug users and have made comments of being in possession of explosives and firearms. Patrol Officers responded to a reported home invasion. In an effort to drive the suspect(s)out of the house,a patrol supervisor decided to gas the house. Now your tactical team has been called to clear the house.There is sketchy information about who exactly is in the house. It may contain several victims, Hogan's in addition to the hostile,armed suspects.The tactical truck,containing all of Alley your SWAT gear and weapons, has not arrived yet and shots have been fired inside the house. You must enter the house wearing gas masks.Armed with the gear you have with you,you will set out to clear the house.Your mission: take out the hostile suspects and verbally challenge anyone else.Time is of the essence. You have just stopped a vehicle involved with a bank robbery 30 minutes High Risk earlier.You,your partner and a second two person unit will conduct a high Stop risk stop that will put an end to the bank robber(s)'crime spree. More details will be given on scene Your team is in the middle of a large drug raid when everything has gone Tactical wrong and you have given the command to retreat. Each team member will Relay Race retreat from a fixed position,over an obstacle course and rally at a patrol car. Once your team is back together,Your team will then push the car a predetermined distance to complete the race. Your team was cleaning your guns and put the disassembled firearms in the cleaning solution bin to soak and air dry.After they had dried,your team was Pistol activated for a call out and you need to put both guns together and dry fire Orientation each with one trigger pull. You will then need to disassemble the guns into labeled boxes with the correct parts in each. Before you start,you will be directed to do a physical activity to increase the challenge. Kart EVOC Your team is involved with a very long pursuit. You will need to switch drivers at certain intervals to include everyone. Defensive This will give your team some basic DT skills that you will use in the real Tactics world of Law Enforcement. Seminar US Marine You will do as many pull-ups and push ups that you can in a set time limit. Challenge HomelContact UslAbout UslSite Map Copyright 2008 Federal Way Police Explorers TRAINING VOLUNTEERS NEEDED! You will be sent to a one (1) week basic Would you like to help us make this Explorer Academy. Locations are usually in program succeed? We can use your help. Yakima (summer) and Tacoma (winter). We are looking for Adults from the When you return, you will then be trained to community that can help supervise and/or the Federal Way Police high standards. This help us schedule events and assist in training will allow you to take on a better fundraising drives. If you are over the age understanding of police work. of twenty-one, please call the number listed FEDERAL WAY POLICE below. This training includes, but not limited to; LAW ENFORCEMENT High Risk Felony stops, field interview FOR MORE INFORMATION... techniques, Search and Rescue, First Aid, Call the Federal Way Police Department CPR, Domestic Violence intervention, and and ask for the Explorer Advisor. EXPLORER Defensive Tactics. Advance Academies are also available. 253-835-6700 PROGRAM EVENTS www.ciiyoffederalway.com As an Explorer, you may have the opportunity to travel and compete in Or Explorer conferences and competitions around the country. You will work side by Contact Learning for Life // I side with police officers at various J _ J community events. You will have the www.learningforlife.org chance to ride with Federal Way Officers working the streets of the city. 2� Don't watch COPS from the couch. . .. Federal Way Police Department 333258 th Avenue South Experience it from the passenger seat. Federal Way, WA 98003 Mailing Address P.O. Box 9718 Explorer "Jumping the fence" Federal Way, WA 98063 WHAT IS EXPLORING? Outdoor. Acquire a degree of self-reliance QUALIFICATIONS: This program is in association with the based on courage, initiative, and You must live within the boundaries of Learning for Life youth program. It offers resourcefulness. Gain an understanding and Federal Way or the proposed annex areas. the youth of Federal Way an opportunity to appreciation of the wide use of resources Exceptions can be made on a case by case look into the world of Law Enforcement as and the protection of our environment. basis. a possible career choice and to participate in Law Enforcement activities. We will You cannot have any Misdemeanor or provide the training and challenges that you Felony convictions on your criminal record. will use to become successful if you choose WHAT WILL THIS COST ME? An excessive amount of traffic violations Law Enforcement as a career. Your time and dedication. The Federal Way can also disqualify you. Police Department dedicated itself in HOW WILL IT HELP ME? providing equal opportunities to all young You must be between the ages of 15-20 and This program will give you the following adults without regard to economic status. be enrolled in, or graduated from, a High return on your personal investment. The Department will provide your basic School or equivalent program. uniform, including its upkeep. Your only Career. Achieve a better understanding of responsibility will be to provide your Your must have a Grade Point Average America's social, economic, and transportation to some of the events and to (GPA) of at least 2.5. governmental systems. Gain insight and have fun. practical experience in Law Enforcement. You must be able to dedicate at least 12 hours and four(4) meetings a month. Social. Build stable personal values. Learn to deal with all people and gain a sense of ,, . ,.. You must have reliable transportation. family responsibility. y Service. Acquire the skills and the desire to J1 THE APPLICATION PROCESS help others. Gain a keen respect for the basic rights of others. After you attend two meetings, you will be given an application and background packet Leadership. Gain a sense of pride in our to fill out. Once the background is verified, American heritage. Prepare to give you will be given an interview with leadership and fulfill responsibilities to Explorers and Advisors. Upon acceptance American society and the forums of the you will be outfitted and trained. world. This application process will take about a Fitness. Improve mental and emotional Explorer in Action at local Competition month. fitness. Gain physical fitness and an appreciation of sports. City of Burlingame Civil Service Commission November 10, 2008 Approved Minutes Call to order and roll The meeting was called to order at 2:31pm in Conference Room A, Burlingame City Hall Members Present: Commissioners Clowes, Delia, Germaine, Griffith, Hamilton Members Absent: None Staff Present: Deirdre Dolan (HR Director), Roy Abrams (Interim City Attorney), Jean Savaree (Legal Counsel) Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Griffith moved to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2008 meeting. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Public Present: none Public Comment: none Adjourn to closed session Public Employee Discipline: Government Code Section 54957 Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:08 pm. BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, December 11, 2008 Commissioners Present: Dan Conway, Chair Michael Bohnert, Vice Chair Jeff Londer Jerry McDonnell Mark Noworolski Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: None 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS None 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of October 9, 2008 as submitted. M/S/C: Londer/Bohnert; 4/0/1 (McDonnell abstained) 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 1 of 4 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Transportation Development Activity(TDA)Article 3 Grant Applications—Report and Discussion Mr.Chou presented a staff report seeking concurrence and support for the submission of two applications for the 2009/10 funding cycle of the Transportation Development Activities(TDA)Grant.The two grants consisted of the Broadway Pedestrian Over- Crossing Sidewalks and the Carolan Avenue Bike Route Signs. Discussion occurred regarding the reasoning,need and location for the new Broadway pedestrian over-crossing sidewalk. Motion:To concur with the Staff Report and fully support the submission of the two applications for the 2009/10 TDA Grants. M/S/C: Londer/Bohnert;5/0/0 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 California Drive Signal Controller Upgrade Project—Verbal Report Mr.Chou provided an update on the California Drive Signal Controller Upgrade Project.For California Drive,controllers and controller cabinets will be replaced from Broadway to Peninsula Avenue and interconnected to the controllers. Mr. Chou stated that the project is planned to go to bid in January and that the work should start a couple of months thereafter. 8.1.2 Bayshore Highway Signal Interconnect Project—Verbal Report Mr. Chou reported that the new traffic interconnection computer server will be located at the Corporation Yard. He said that the project was similar to the California Drive project but was a little bit bigger in scope. He added that both of these projects would most likely bid at the same time. 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 Selective Enforcement List—Report No discussion or report was delivered due to the Traffic Sergeant's absence. 2 of4 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns 8.3.1 Miscellaneous Comments and Concerns Commissioner Bohnert reported that the most recent Technology Forum was a success. Positive feedback and interaction was received, and he hoped that these forums would continue in the coming year. Chair Conway also mentioned that a nice note was received from Councilmember Nagel regarding the forum. Commissioner McDonnell asked about the status of a wooden partition that obstructs vision of the Primrose Road sidewalk from Fox Plaza Lane. Mr. Chou stated that he would review the situation and respond. Commissioner McDonnell also inquired as to why there are no Caltrain directional signs on main roads and freeway as was the case with neighboring cities. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Londer expressed concern on behalf of a citizen on the safety of the 5- legged intersection at Easton Drive and Vancouver Avenue. Mr. Chou felt the real problem was that drivers were cutting across the center lane as they passed the intersection. He added that perhaps a center line of dots would help the situation. Chair Conway asked that an update be provided next month. Commissioner McDonnell said that he would respond back to the resident. 10. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Report on future topics: • Monthly Family Bike Ride Events ■ Measurements for Bicycle Usage and Travel • Farmers' Market Events • Downtown Planning Mr. Chou mentioned that the above points were brought up at previous meetings, and that they would be items for future discussion. 10.2 Miscellaneous Reports None. 3 of 4 11.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 11.1 City Parking Lot Q—Possible lot re-configuration 11.2 Burlingame Avenue—Prohibit bike riding on sidewalks Mr. Chou clarified that the item was in regards to posting prohibitive signs, not on the whether to consider the restriction itself. 11.3 Various City Parking Lots—Future parking meter-to-paybox conversion Commissioner Londer suggested that parking pay boxes be utilized more often to generate funds and reduce expenses. 12.ELECTIONS FOR 2009 12.1 Nomination and vote for Chairperson Chair Conway expressed his pleasure serving as Chair for this past year and was excited for the incoming Chair. Motion: Elect Vice-Chair Bohnert to Chair for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission 2009. M/S/C: McDonnell/Noworolski;5/0/0 12.2 Nomination and vote for Vice-Chair Motion: Elect Commissioner Noworolski to Vice Chair for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for 2009. M/S/C: Bohnert/McDonnell;5/0/0 13. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 4 of 4 all A r MEETING MINUTES Co ��"� Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, January 15, 2009 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Shanus at 7:00 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Shanus, Castner-Paine, Carlton, Fisher, La Mariana, Eaton, Hesselgren Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz•, Recreation Superintendant Mutto; Administrative Secretary Joleen Helley Others Present: Tony O'Connor, 411 Rollins Rd; Terry Horn, 405 Primrose Rd; Cory & Jim Ferrara, 2112 Hillside Dr; Tara Pratt, 2116 Easton Dr. MINUTES The Minutes of the November 20, 2008 regular meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. OLD BUSINESS A. Review of Aquatic Center Policies— Commissioner Fisher reported the findings of the committee formed to look into the concerns regarding the policies and procedures at the Aquatic Center brought forth by members of the public at the November 20, 2008 meeting. The committee members conducted interviews of City staff and Club members and attended one of the monthly user meetings of City staff, representatives from the San Mateo Union High School District and the Burlingame Aquatic Club. Fisher noted that the general intent of the report was not to be a listing of past issues, rather however, addressing the issue of fostering on-going communication between the three groups, and determine how issues are addressed in the future and attended to by the responsible parties. Commissioner Eaton reviewed the recommendations in the report (attached). Included was a feedback loop or web/email group for submitting concerns and issues with a service level meter associated which determines the length of time for a reply or solution to be reached. Commissioner Fisher felt that accountability must be determined and each responsible party held to that. Director Schwartz stated that there is a mechanism called Comcate on the City's website to log concerns, comments, etc. This program keeps track of any items (response and completion times) that are received and has a routing mechanism associated with it. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes January 15, 2009—Page 2 Schwartz also stated that the user manual that is in place for pool policies and procedures was developed and signed by the three user groups. Fisher felt that the Comcate feature may not be widely known and suggested that this feature be posted at the pool for the users to become aware of this option. He also stated that the manual should be reviewed once a year and it should be documented who is responsible for what parts of the process. Commissioner Shanus asked if the committee felt it was clear who was responsible for which parts. Fisher responded that the responsibility was not clear in all cases, there were some gray areas. Commissioner Carlton noted that she saw things in the operations manual that the City is not responsible for but were doing. Lindsy McLeod, the aquatics coordinator, is working on updating the manual by making it more detailed, hence, removing the vagueness from the current wording. Eaton stated the information in the manual needs to be more clearly presented and enforced. Carlton thought an overall update to the manual is needed should be final by April/May. She felt that the BAC has knowledge to contribute and that a Subject Matter Expert (SME) could come in and contribute as well. Shanus felt it is important to look at the manual from several different angels. Fisher felt the BAC has a responsibility as users and a SME could help with compromise. Hesselgren asked who takes on the financial responsibility for the money for the SME. She stated that BAC has no fiscal responsibility and their representatives change over time. Fisher stated that the Parks & Recreation staff can set a date to which the BAC will be invited to send representation and a SME can be solicited as a volunteer or ABAG can be called on as a resource. Eaton felt that BAC's role as a user group was important enough to have a say. A 30-day time frame for completion of the review of the manual was suggested. Carlton stated that the safety issues were to be addressed first and Fisher wanted to acknowledge that while the operations manual is a labor intensive process the lifeguarding duties are the priority. A review of lifeguard dress, shift change, etc should be addressed in this next week. Schwartz stated that the points will be addressed within 30 days as there is a pool users meeting scheduled. Staff will formalize a response to the Commission for the February meeting. B. SMUHSD Fee Structure — Schwartz reported that Council reviewed information and had requested background information on the matter at their January 5`h meeting. The final action by Council was a letter being sent to the School Board President requesting a meeting of two board members, two council members and representatives from the field users groups. SMUHSD has informally denied a meeting. City Council now has to decide what action to take. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes January 15, 2009—Page 3 The City is still discussing what the appropriate fees are for the City to charge the District. Both parties are still using each others facilities. Invoices have been issued to each other but no money has been exchanged. Schwartz stated that all groups should provide insurance for the use of the fields; however, the City has yet to receive insurance from SMUHSD. The District requires that the City collect proper insurance from the groups that use the District fields that we schedule. Commissioner Carlton stated that the City needs to get tough with the District on the insurance issue. Castner-Paine voiced a hope that the groups are in solution mode and asked where City Council was on the issue. Schwartz stated that the cities involved have hired an auditor to review the fee schedule of the District. Hesselgren inquired as to if there was to be a new superintendent at SMUHSD in June. Castner-Paine wondered as to whether the staffing change would alleviate some of the problems. Shanus noted that in the end it is the kids that suffer and that the people have a right to know why the City is increasing fees for programs. Shanus noted that the City should add a disclaimer of direct pass through costs in the Recreation brochure. Castner-Paine suggests that there be wording in the Recreation Brochure explaining the pass through costs due to the SMUHSD fees being imposed on the City. Mutto mentioned that the fees will double as of July 1, 2009 and the summer programs will be moved to the City or Burlingame School District facilities. Schwartz stated that he would consider inquiring of SMUHSD what the City is to include in the brochure and to say to their patrons. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Validated User Groups — Superintendent Mutto reports that the current validations for user groups are up for renewal. Commissioner Eaton recused himself due to his position as president of the Burlingame Soccer Club. The one year validation for user groups is needed due to the high number of non-resident players involved in the groups. These groups however, offer something is not offered elsewhere in Burlingame. Staff recommends a three year renewal of the Gaelic validation due, pending submittal of their non-profit number, due to their participation being over fifty percent residents and meeting the minimum participation requirements. Motion by Fisher (seconded by La Mariana): "The Commission approves renewal of one year validations to the Burlingame Soccer Club and Coyotes Lacrosse Club. Approval of the validation for three years to the Eire Oe Gaelic Club is contingent upon the club providing the City with a non-profit 501©3 number." Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1 (Eaton recused). REPORTS/HANDOUTS A. Staff Reports 1. Monthly Report—attached 2. YAC Special Events Report—attached 3. Revenue Report — Helley stated that the revenue report was in the process of being re-structured to provide more comprehensive information to the Commission. The revised report will be mailed upon completion. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes January 15, 2009—Page 4 4. In response to questions from Commission, Schwartz said that he has met with Public Works staff regarding improved visuals to the entrance to Bayside Park from Airport Blvd. B. Commissioner Reports 1. Commissioner Castner-Paine reported having met with the Burlingame Arts group and that discussion were around having art represented at the Music in the Park events, including Youth Art or Junior Art at the Art in the Park and having artists come to recreation camps and spend an hour with the kids several times throughout the summer and other vacation camps. 2. Commissioner Hesselgren inquired as to the locked gate that is in center field of the Washington Park baseball diamond. The Parks Division put the gate up temporarily during the field closure months in an effort to keep people and dogs off the field. The gate will be removed once the field is reopened. 3. Commissioner Shanus reported that he and Commissioner Eaton gave a presentation to the Burlingame School District regarding City programs on campuses during the 2008-09 school year. They were very supportive and had great ideas and would like to help with publicity of the programs. They would like more notification on changes in staff and programs. Last year the City gave BSD a check for fifteen thousand for the agreed up on 10% surcharge imposed on the recreation programs held on BDS campus'. There has been a drop off in attendance of programs but it may have been due to the emailed newsletters rather that the 10% surcharge. 4. Shanus also reported on the Field users meeting that took place to discuss a financial arrangement to turf Bayside. The users are pulling together a proposal for the Council's February 2nd meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joleen Helley Administrative Secretary Burlingame Parks & Recreation CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES Monday,January rs 2008-Primrose R City Council Chambers-501 Primrose Road Burlingame,California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the January 26,2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran,Brownrigg,Cauchi,Lindstrom,Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director,William Meeker;Associate Planner Lisa Whitman, Planning Manager Maureen Brooks;City Attorney Gus Guinan,and Engineer Doug Bell. III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved,seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. Vl. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2009 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE-REVIEW OF UPDATE PROCESS,ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 2002 HOUSING ELEMENT,HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED OPPORTUNITY SITES, STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report,dated January 26,2009. She noted that it is anticipated that a public hearing to review the Draft Housing Element will be scheduled for the second regular Planning Commission meeting in February. She introduced Julie Maloney from Metropolitan Planning Group,the consultant preparing the Housing Element. Commission comments: • Asked if the conversion of rental units to condominiums includes situations where existing units are demolished and replaced with new condominium units? (Brooks- is only meant to apply to situations where existing rental units are converted to condominium units.) 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 • Asked if the City will be required to ensure that the number of units assigned to the City are built? (Brooks/Meeker — the City must identify locations for development and establish policies to encouraged development of the units, but cannot guarantee that units will be built.) • Felt that the low-income and inclusionary housing section of the report is weak; there is a need to address this in greater detail. • Suggested adding a recommendation that some level of "green building" be required for single- family construction and for multi-family. • Asked for clarification regarding the parking ratios implemented as part of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, was there a conscious decision not to change the ratios? • A "no net loss" of housing units policy should be included in the element. • Would like to see consideration of ratios of affordable units that are smaller and can remain affordable for a longer period of time. • Asked if second units were to be allowed, would they be counted towards our total number of units that are required? (Brooks—such a policy for second units is being discussed, yes, they would be counted towards the number of housing units required.) This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 2. 1008 — 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 —AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA, AND PROPOSED R-4 OVERLAY ZONE TO ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 26, 2009. Commission comments: • Clarified that the C2 zoning will remain, but will be covered with an overlay allowing R4 zoning uses, subject to R4 development standards; asked how this would this impact property values? (Brooks/Meeker—would permit similar development to that existing on the North Park property to the north. Would add more flexibility for development, conceivably adding value.) • Asked why a 35-foot height limit was imposed? (Brooks—was an idea developed by staff, is open for discussion.) • It may be appropriate to require significant landscaping in the 20-foot buffer between the site and the residential properties on Toyon Drive. • It is conceivable that the 20-foot buffer area could incorporate a driveway, and may need to be increased in width for additional landscaping; this could be addressed as a project-specific matter (Meeker—may require 20-foot minimum width, with option to increase width at the discretion of the Planning Commission under those circumstances.) • Suggested requiring a 30-foot height review line, with up to 36-feet possible; but must include articulation of the building mass. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 3. 1812-A MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILDREN'S TUTORING CENTER (GRACE KO, APPLICANT, JOHN BRITTON, PROPERTY OWNER; AND LINCOLN LUE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 26, 2009. Commission comments: • Requested a comparison of the parking space requirement for the recently approved "Kumon" use on California Drive with the proposed use. • Asked that clarification be provided that the off-site parking is not included within the parking assessment for the use. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar- Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 4a. 16 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PERSONAL TRAINER BUSINESS (KEVIN HOWARD, APPLICANT; AND MIKE HOWARD, PARK ROAD PROPERTIES, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner A uran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Chair Cauchi recused himself from participation on Item 5(612 Concord Way) since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the chambers. 6. 612 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVOOD RASHIDI, APPLICANT AND CONTRACTOR, JOHN AND PATRICIA EATON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 Secretary Vistica opened the public hearing. Davood Rashidi, 734 Winchester Drive, represented the applicant. • Stated that the windows did not line up correctly with the proposed siding due to the need for egress windows. Concern was aesthetics and ease of maintenance. Commission comments: • Clarified that the egress windows did not change from the approved plans; the wood siding in the rear could have been installed; but is not visible from the street. Public comments: • None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • The change is not visible from street and is not a problem. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13 and December 22, 2008, sheets Al and A3 through A8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 13, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's June 18, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 15, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 18, 2007 memo shall be met, 3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements, any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 10. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department, and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Noted that in the future, this type of change should be reviewed by the Planning Commission before being implemented. • The contractor should be certain to notify the Planning Division of any changes in advance. Secretary Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 6. 1537 AND 1543 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REGARDING SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR EXISTING REDWOOD TREES RELATED TO TWO, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-six (46) conditions were suggested for consideration for 1537 Drake Avenue, and forty-five (45) conditions were suggested for consideration for 1543 Drake Avenue. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. • Provided an overview of the project's history. • Attempted to obtain a bond, but were unsuccessful; required payment of cash deposit. • Feels that the construction that could damage the tree has concluded; suggested retaining $20,000, but releasing the remainder upon completion of the project. Commission comments: • Asked how the amount of the deposit was determined? (Hudak — arrived at by City's consultant.) • Has there been an effort to attempt to obtain a bond in lieu of making a cash deposit? (Hudak— doesn't believe that a bond is an option today; does not meet the test for bonding.) • When is the project due to be completed? (Hudak—4 to 5 months.) • On the northern house, there is a chimney next to the tree, is this a real fireplace, or gas-fired? (Hudak— gas-fired.) • Clarified that the house on the left still requires driveway construction. (Hudak—will be constructed with pavers that will require minimal ground preparation, will not disturb nearby tree roots.) Public comments: Jan Ochse, 1512 Drake Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, and Regina O'Neal, 1516 Drake Avenue spoke: • It is unusual that the funds are not in an interest-bearing account. • Read a letter from Chris McCrum, 1540 Drake Avenue. Opposed to early release of the deposit; the builder should be responsible for long-term health of the trees. • Noted that when approval was given for the two lots, there were 46 conditions of approval for one of the lots; out of those, 29 of the conditions are related to the trees; 45 conditions are apply to the second lot; 29 related to the trees. This indicates how important protecting the trees was to the Planning Commission back when the project was approved. • Objects strenuously to the applicant's attempt to obtain a refund now. Urges Commission not to change a single word of the conditions of approval. • Questions the value of the applicant's opinion of the health of the trees, he has proven to be unreliable. • Read a letter from Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, objecting to release of the deposit. • There has been no material change that causes the Commission to reverse its prior ruling. 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 • The conditions requiring the deposit were approved on July 9, 2007; noted that Mr. Hudak requested an amendment to the condition at that time, but it was not granted, the applicant knew he could not move forward without the condition. • The money is intended to cover the replacement of any failing trees post-construction. • It is not in the City's best interest to release the funds now. • The applicant has misled staff in the purpose of the deposit, as well as the arborist hired by the applicant. • Look at the intent of the original proposal; was to ensure the preservation of the trees. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, spoke in response to the neighbors' comments: • The purpose of the deposit was not that there would be no impact upon the trees during construction, the purpose was to ensure that the trees that were damaged by the illegal grading survived; any non-surviving trees would be replaced with funds from the deposit. • The trees are now healthy, based upon professional arborist opinions, the purpose of the deposit has been fulfilled. Additional Commission comments: • The conditions of approval are case-specific, these conditions were laboriously negotiated. There is to be an evaluation done at 5-years post-construction. The deposit was required because of uncertainty about the health of the trees. Nothing has changed. (Hudak— has a different recollection of the purpose of the deposit; there were other remedies that would have been available to the Commission at that time. Required construction of a foundation of a specific design, based upon the site conditions. Were required to come before the Commission in the manner that occurred due to the illegal grading by a grading contractor. The overall goal was for the trees to recover.) • Is there a reason why the construction didn't happen in the manner that it was anticipated? (Hudak—took a long time for the foundation design to be done correctly. Wasn't a conscious desire to wait to begin construction.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission discussion: • Some sympathy for the applicant, the grading wasn't done by the applicant; he has suffered delays and heavy costs; consider reducing by one-half. • The bond was posted due to damage done during the grading; would like to have more information on the genesis of the condition. Would be beneficial for Commission to receive input from City Attorney, empower the Community Development Director and City Attorney to reach a reasonable compromise to be presented to the Commission, consider having a conversation with former Commissioner Osterling who provided input regarding the need for the condition. • The trees are in good health; but the deposit was required to ensure the continued health of the tree; the City will lose leverage if the deposit is released now. • Today's economy is difficult; this is a significant matter for the applicant. • Possibly return one-half now; but retain the remainder for a period beyond completion of construction. Language in the condition was directly related to the grading activity. • Noted the condition requiring covenant notifying future owners of the importance of the trees. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 • The health of the trees was a paramount issue; it appears that this was a punitive measure imposed upon the applicant; it appears that, based upon the arborist reports that the trees are flourishing and doing well; tend to agree with returning some portion of the deposit at project completion, with retention to some point beyond completion. • The condition was not meant to be punitive; but was a representation of the importance of the trees to the community. • Include a summary of when the dates of the revised conditions were imposed, when are future inspections yet to occur; what is the extent of work to be done to install the driveway. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item to February 9, 2009 with direction to staff to work with the City Attorney and applicant to arrive at a recommendation regarding the amount of the release of a portion of the security deposit; when the portion is to be released; and how long the remaining portion of the deposit should be retained. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of the motion: • Requested that the City Arborist be present at next discussion. • The conditions are punitive to the applicant; probability of any of the trees dying is pretty slight. • Requested that staff confer with former Commissioner Osteffing regarding this matter. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT EXIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRIS AND SANDRA KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. • Design references classic English Tudor homes of the 1920s. • Is a large lot; although the FAR is near the limit, the allowable FAR actually drops, even though the lot is actually 50% larger, the home is only 28% larger. • Noted that neighbor would like a lattice fence next to his property and raise the sill on the master bedroom window adjacent to his property. Commission comments: • Asked if a tree removal permit has been issued for the tree? (Grange— not at this time.) • Asked for clarification regarding the existing finished floor elevation? (Grange—roughly 6-feet;the first floor elevation for the new structure will be similar.) • Very handsome design. 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 • Fascia boards on the front elevation should be a bit heavier. • The style often benefits from different materials; might be a good idea to add varied finishes. • Requested clarity on the detailing on the front porch. • The structure is at the maximum FAR, there is no room for error during construction. • Suggested moving the sitting room wall back a foot to provide more flexibility during construction so as not to exceed the maximum FAR. • What is the height of the existing structure? • Suggested that a 9-foot ceiling would suffice rather than a 10-foot ceiling on the first floor (Grange- 10-feet seems appropriate for this style of house; it represents the desire of the client.) • Encouraged use of pervious surfacing materials for driveway. • Traditional designs sometimes have rooms with greater heights in some areas, though the general plate height is lower than the current design. Public comments: Rick Schoustra, 1350 Columbus Avenue, spoke: • The design is good; it fits in the neighborhood. Chris Knightly (property owner), 1365 Columbus Avenue spoke: • The design is one desired by he and his family, they like the 10-foot ceiling height. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • Good design; large house, but it is situated on a large lot. • Design fits well with the neighborhood. • If anything, would like to see proposed design imposed on photographs of streetscape. • Noted that the actual house is only 30-feet high from adjacent grade; the lot rises 6-feet from the curb. • Ten (10)foot ceilings are not normally allowed on the first floor; not in favor of the 10-foot ceilings on a house that is already raised 6-feet above the curb; typically see a 9-foot first floor with an 8-foot second floor. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: The architect is well-versed at crafting spaces that have more volume and therefore is capable of proposing alternative that lowers plate height on first floor-but maintains high ceilings on the interior. Alternatively, the first Floor plate height could be kept at 10'but second floor plate height could be lowered. • Noted that there is only one ridge line at 36-feet at the center of the house, other ridge lines drop down by 2-feet;shouldn't penalize the applicant by reducing first floor ceiling height,the applicant is attempting to reproduce a style of home from the 1920s; doesn't have a problem with the 10-foot ceiling height on the first floor. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:57 p.m. 8. 1325 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. • Feels he has met the neighbor's concerns regarding the design. Commission comments: • The proposed design removes a lot of the massing from the neighboring property to the right. • Asked if there was a discussion with the neighbor regarding fence and drainage matters? (Chu — will replace fence and improve site drainage. The tree on the property is dying;the neighbor would need to apply for removal of the tree since it is situated on that property.) Complemented the designs of the front porch and the roof slope. • Asked if there is a way to make the porch deeper to permit chairs to be placed outside of the bedroom? Taking a foot off the den would permit a more usable porch (Chu —this is possible.) • On the left elevation,there could be difficulty installing the corbels shown on the plans.Appears they are pinching the window, may be difficult to build. • Clarified that the sill is above the landing height on the stairwell window. • Asked why is window further up stair well obscured? Consider using stained glass or rolled glass. (Chu —obscured glass was previously requested; is open to using stained glass or rolled glass.) Clarify that pervious materials will be used on the driveway and other paved areas. • Asked if the windows are to be real wood, divided light windows? (Chu — yes.) Clarify finishing materials. Public comments: Brian Bailard, 1329 Cabrillo Avenue; Frank Lowe, 1333 Cabrillo Avenue; Mary Ann Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: • The changes to the project accommodate the concerns that were raised previously. • Requested clarification regarding declining height envelope portion of the request. (Meeker— noted that the agenda is incorrect, this portion of the request has been eliminated.) • Requested clarification on the fence height. (Chu —will be 6-feet as measured from the Martinez property, per neighbor's request.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: • None. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. 9. 1462 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND GINKGO BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (RESUBMITTAL OFA PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, represented the applicant. • Revised the design to be more traditional. • The design could include a detached garage, but it doesn't, is quite a bit smaller than a typical project because of the presence of the oversized one car garage • Provided slides showing the property. Commission comments: • Noted that the garage location obscures the entry way. (Grange—there is a porch at the location, plus the garage door is decorative. If the garage is pushed further back it impacts the rear yard.) • Have done a nice job with the design. • Noted that the home is angled on the lot and asked why. (Grange — relates to Feng shui, angle is very subtle.) • Believes that the garage will look fine; it creates an alcove at the entry. • Asked what surface material is surrounding the fountain on the landscape plan? (Grange—lawn.) • There are a lot of hard surfaces within the yard, not much green, can any of these areas be made permeable? (Grange—in the rear,there is an existing foundation from the former detached garage; it will be used to build a terrace in the rear yard. Inherited a lot of foundations from the prior structures on the lot. These areas are permeable.) • On right elevation, why is the window not treated the same as the other windows? (Grange—is an attempt to be whimsical with the design.) Public comments: • None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2009 Additional Commission comments: • Good design; elegant design, not bothered by the location of the entry. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: • Opposed to the design, not supportive of attached garage so close to street or small front porch, and doesn't believe that an energy efficient house needs to look so different from others in the neighborhood. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (CommissionerAuran dissenting, Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS • Reminded the Commission of the annual Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Saturday, March 21, 2009 from 9 a.m. to noon in the Lane Community Room of the Burlingame Public Library. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: • None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 20, 2008: • Noted adoption of resolution approving the project at 260 EI Camino Real (Walgreens). XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:26. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 12 POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten Chief of Police January 14, 2009 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Police Department statistics and highlights for the month of December, 2008 DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS: -One new officer failed to complete our field training program and has left the department -Several BPD employees have (or will be) retiring by the end of the current FY (Dec, March, June) -Testing for vacancies has begun for officer and communications dispatcher -Two new officers continue in the 6 month police academy and will graduate in March `09 -One sworn officer (15 months) and one dispatcher (27 months) continue on long-term disability -Neighborhood Watch presentations continue (last presentation was on Bellevue Ave) -A department training plan (elevating training) for the 2008/2009 FY continues, but will increase costs associated with added training and a reduction in reimbursements from the state (POST) -Citizen crime identification system "Crimereports.com" is in place; RapidNotify (a reverse 911 notification system) is currently in use by the police department, CCFD and PW -BPD continues it involvement with the County Gang Task Force which continues in maintenance mode throughout the winter months -Reported Part 1 crimes in Burlingame in December are down 90 this year vs. 113 reports from last year, and continue to be slightly down for the year, Jan - December (1055 this year vs 1067 reports from last year). Part 2 crimes reported in December are also down 163 vs. 207 from last year, and slightly down for the year, Jan — December (2,363 this year vs. 2,435 from last year) TRAFFIC MATTERS: -Moving citations have tripled from the same time last year (due to selective enforcement and new officers). -Parking citation totals continue to be down, due in part to our replacing of 2 recent PEO positions, the downturn in the economy (fewer vehicles in the business areas), education of business employees to use long term lots, and our current parking enforcement philosophy -Red Light photo enforcement is scheduled to be installed and begin at ECR and Broadway -The pilot daytime parking permit program and continues without any problems MONTHLY STATISTICS: -Please remember that the monthly police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. When reviewing the police department report remember to consider the actual numbers of various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Kindly feel free to contact me i yo ave any questions. Chief Jack Van Etten Burlingame Police Dep ent 1111 Trousdale Drive - Post Office Box 551 - Burlingame, California 94011-0551 - (650) 777-4100 - Fax (650) 697-8130 BURLINGAME CRIME STATISTICS 2002—2008 Part 1 Offenses (Reported Crimes) Part 2 Offenses (Reported Crimes) By Calendar Year By Calendar Year 2008 2008 Actual YTD— 1,055 Actual YTD—2,363 Previous YTD— 1,067 Previous YTD—2,435 (Change: Reduction of 12) (Change: Reduction of 72) 2007 2007 Actual YTD— 1,067 Actual YTD—2,435 Previous YTD— 1,145 Previous YTD—2,499 (Change:Reduction of 78) (Change:Reduction of 64) 2006 2006 Actual YTD— 1,145 Actual YTD—2,499 Previous YTD— 1,193 Previous YTD—2,569 (Change:Reduction of 48) (Change: Reduction of 70) 2005 2005 Actual YTD— 1,193 Actual YTD—2,566(adjusted) Previous YTD— 1,271 Previous YTD—2,638 (Change: Reduction of 78) (Change:Reduction of 72) 2004 2004 Actual YTD— 1,271 Actual YTD—2,638 Previous YTD— 1,220 Previous YTD—2,594 (Change:Increase of 51) (Change:Increase of 44) 2003 2003 Actual YTD— 1,220 Actual YTD—2,594 Previous YTD— 1,219(2002) Previous YTD—2,914(2002) (Change: Increase of 1) (Change:Reduction of 320) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Part 1 Offenses(Reported Crimes) Part 2 Offenses(Reported Crimes) (2002-2008 Comparisons) (2002-2008 Comparisons) High 1,271 (2004) High 2,914(2002) Low 1,055 (2008) Low 2,363 (2008) Difference: -216 Less Reported Crimes Difference: -551 Less Reported Crimes Average Reported Crimes per Year: 1,167 Average Reported Crimes per Year:2,572 Comparison of Lowest year vs Average: Comparison of Lowest Year to Average: Difference: -112 Less Reported Crimes Difference: -209 Less Reported Crimes 01-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change All Other Offenses 31 33 441 380 61 16.05 Animal Abuse - 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Animal Nuisance 0 0 1 0 1 Arson 0 0 6 10 -4 -40.00 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 1 0 7 4 3 75.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 7 3 57 80 -23 -28.75 Computer Crime 0 0 1 0 1 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 4 7 -3 -42.86 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Death Investigation 1 1 25 29 -4 -13.79 Disorderly Conduct 1 0 11 5 6 120.00 Driver's License Violations 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Driving Under the Influence 3 10 84 80 4 5.00 Drug Abuse Violations 3 1 28 48 -20 -41.67 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 1 0 1 0 1 Drunkeness 1 4 40 64 -24 -37.50 Embezzlement 1 0 7 3 4 133.33 Escape o 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 False Police Reports 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Forgery and Counterfeiting 5 6 43 36 7 19.44 Found Property 4 11 68 79 -11 -13.92 Fraud 1 3 26 26 0 0.00 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 2 5 20 49 -29 -59.18 01-14-09 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: DECEMBER, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 0 4 4 0 0.00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 0 0 9 8 1 12.50 Robbery Knife 0 0 3 3 0 0.00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Robbery Strong-Arm 2 0 13 8 5 62.50 Assault - Firearm 0 1 3 1 2 200.00 Assault - Knife 0 2 2 2 0 0.00 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 4 1 24 20 4 20.00 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 2 2 10 8 2 25.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 12 21 134 163 -29 -17.79 Burglary - Forcible Entry 5 7 56 51 5 9.80 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 4 7 71 70 1 1.43 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 1 7 6 1 16.67 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 1 0 1 Larceny Shoplifting 3 3 25 33 -8 -24.24 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 22 32 304 251 53 21.12 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 7 13 99 138 -39 -28.26 Larceny Bicycles 1 2 28 24 4 16.67 Larceny From Building 10 6 84 74 10 13.51 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 0 2 13 -11 -84.62 Larceny All Other 6 7 81 96 -15 -15.63 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 10 5 68 81 -13 -16.05 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 2 2 17 6 11 183.33 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 1 10 4 6 150.00 ------- ------ ------ ------ 90 113 1,055 1,067 90 113 1,055 1,067 01-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2008 i Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD.. . Change % Change Hit and Run Accidents 3 12 45 57 -12 -21.05 Impersonation 2 0 9 10 -1 -10.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 5 9 -4 -44.44 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 1 0 1 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Liquor Laws 0 0 17 1 16 1,600.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 0 2 22 32 -10 -31.25 Mental Health Cases 7 6 77 94 -17 -18.09 Missing Person 1 3 45 55 -10 -18.18 Missing Property 7 3 83 87 -4 -4.60 Municipal Code Violations 5 2 72 86 -14 -16.28 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Offenses Against Children 0 0 4 9 -5 -55.56 Other Assaults 12 21 134 163 -29 -17.79 Other Juvenile Offenses 1 0 22 15 7 46.67 Other Police Service 2 8 23 36 -13 -36.11 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 5 4 1 25.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 1 0 3 0 3 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 1 5 6 -1 -16.67 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Prowling 0 2 1 5 -4 -80.00 Resisting Arrest 0 0 6 4 2 50.00 Restraining Orders 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Sex Offenses 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 5 1 4 400.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 2 0 2 01-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 r CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change 8 Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 6 9 -3 -33.33 Suspended License 1 5 57 30 27 90.00 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 1 9 11 -2 -18.18 Towed Vehicle 27 32 386 414 -28 -6.76 Trespassing 1 1 13 13 0 0.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 vandalism 11 20 222 227 -5 -2.20 vehicle Code Violations 9 1 64 22 42 190.91 Violation of Court Order 2 1 25 16 9 56.25 Warrants - Felony 0 1 22 17 5 29.41 Warrants - Misd 6 8 85 70 15 21.43 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 0 8 11 -3 -27.27 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------ ------ 163 207 2,363 2,435 163 207 2,363 2,435 01-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2008 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 3313 3 , 434 35, 556 45, 685 Moving Citations 473 205 6, 088 2 , 156 3786 3 , 639 41, 644 47, 841 ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ 3786 3 , 639 41, 644 47, 841 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 01/14/2009 at 02 : 28 : 24 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 12/01/2008 to 12/31/2008 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALVISO 355 678 23.67 11 19.64 98.40 DOTSON 509 739 25.80 11 19.64 98.53 MACDEVITT 511 747 26.08 21 37.50 97.27 SERRANO 510 571 19.94 13 23.21 97.77 SMITH 654 129 4.50 0 0.00 100.00 Total 2864 56 Page 1 of 1