HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 1201 CC REG ITEM 11A11'&
ACT
,o1ZP/
V Co
I
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
• *OtlPAft CALIFORNIA
COL) 710m M A�
Jy:
444.1
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Mary R. Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager,V\
DATE: October 28, 1993 (CC Meeting of November 3)
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of the City's Legislative
Program for 1994
Summary
The Council is being asked to consider and approve a legislative
program that would enhance the City's efforts to proactively
respond to proposed State and Federal legislation.
Background
Currently, staff reviews the weekly League Bulletins which
highlight State and Federal legislation that impacts cities.
Pending legislation identified that directly impacts Moorpark is
agendized for Council consideration.
Oftentimes, pending legislation is brought to the City's attention
at the last minute, or has an urgent status, and there is not
enough time to bring the bill to Council for action. In these
instances, the City either does not respond or responds much later
in the legislative process. For this reason, staff is proposing
the attached policy which will allow the City to effectively
respond to pending legislation on a timely basis.
The program outlines the City's stance on various legislative
subject areas. In addition, it authorizes the Mayor to sign
letters in favor or opposition to any legislation, consistent with
the City's stated position on the issue, without having to agendize
the action. The legislative subject areas include: Local
Government Finance, Labor Relations, Transportation, Environment,
Waste Management, General Government, Law Enforcement, Land Use
Planning, Housing, and Redevelopment.
Legislative Program
October 28, 1993
Page 2
The Mayor would only be authorized to sign a letter expressing the
City's position on pending legislation without agendizing the issue
if it has been identified in the policy or if Council has taken a
previous position in regards to the subject matter. In the event
that the pending legislation deals with an issue that has not been
identified in the City's annual Legislative Program, or staff
recommends a position that deviates from an earlier Council
position, the legislative item would be agendized for full Council
consideration.
If approved, staff would update the policy in December of each year
for Council's consideration.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Legislative
Program for 1994.
CITY OF MOORPARK
Legislative Policy
The following Legislative Policy was developed to allow the City to
respond to State and Federal legislation in a proactive manner.
The Mayor is authorized to sign correspondence expressing the
City's position on pending legislation relative to the legislative
platform statements contained in this policy and /or consistent with
previous positions approved by the City Council.
Staff will monitor the League Bulletins and other sources to
identify pending legislation that may impact the City. Letters
expressing the City's position will be drafted for the Mayor
signature and copies will be distributed to each Councilmember.
Pending legislation that is not addressed in the policy or staff
recommendations that deviate from the approved Legislative Program
will be agendized for Council action.
LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM STATEMENTS
1. Local Government Finance
• Support legislation requiring the State and Federal
Government to provide full cost reimbursement to cities
for all mandated programs and for all programs resulting
in revenue losses.
• Oppose legislation that fails to provide adequate funding
for state - mandated programs.
• Support measures that result in State budget expenditures
being brought into balance with State revenue.
• Support measures which safeguard existing revenue sources
from preemption or seizure by the State or County.
• Oppose any change in revenue allocations which would
negatively affect municipal government, including the
redistribution of sales tax, property tax, transient
occupancy tax and vehicle in -lieu fees.
• Support measures which would provide fiscal independence
to cities.
• Oppose any measure that restricts or limits a public
entity's ability to use tax exempt debt for the purchase
or construction of public purpose improvements.
2.
• Support efforts which would provide greater
accountability on the part of counties for the
distribution of funds back to municipalities, including,
but not limited to, fines and forfeitures.
• Support efforts to reinstate flexibility to the
administration of Article XIII -B (the Gann Initiative).
• Support the repeal of SB 2557 which imposed booking fees
and additional property tax administration collection
fees.
• Oppose any measure that would make local agencies more
dependent on the State for financial stability and policy
direction.
• Support legislation which would allow for voter - approved
simple majority vote for General Obligation Bonds.
Labor Relations
• Oppose any measure which would grant employee benefits
that should be decided at the local bargaining table.
• Oppose any efforts which would reduce local authority to
resolve public employee disputes, and impose regulations
of an outside agency (such as the Public Employee
Relation Board).
• Support legislation which limits the ability of employees
to receive workers' compensation benefits for
occupational injuries/ illnesses which result from stress,
disciplinary action, or performance evaluations or
consultations.
• Oppose legislation which expands or extends any
presumptions of occupational injury or illness.
• Oppose legislation which increases workers' compensation
benefits without providing for concurrent cost controls.
• Support legislation which would reform the Workers'
Compensation system to reduce employer cost through the
reduction of system abuse.
3. Transportation
• Support measures which would increase the ability of
local agencies to finance local transportation
facilities.
• Support measures to finance local and regional
transportation facilities and improvements, including
alternative modes of transportation.
4. Environment
• Support efforts for the safe disposal of solid, hazardous
and medical waste.
• Support legislation which seeks to protect air quality
and the atmosphere.
• Support legislation which streamlines the State of
California's environmental review process.
5. Waste Management
• Support legislation which would extend the deadline for
adoption of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element
under the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
• Support measures which would make low- interest loans
and /or grants available to local agencies for programs
which would encourage the recycling /reclaiming of
resources.
• Support measures which promote market development for
recyclable materials.
• Support efforts toward the procurement of recyclable
materials.
• Support legislation which promotes source reduction
measures.
• Support legislation which would encourage the State to
provide funding for added costs to local agencies.
• Support legislation which reduces or eliminates local
government's superfund liability for solid waste.
• Oppose legislation that would restrict or limit local
government's ability to franchise refuse and recycling
collection services, or to direct municipal solid waste
flow.
6. General Government
• Oppose Federal efforts which remove the deduction of all
State and local taxes for Federal income tax purposes.
• Support legislation which provides financial assistance
for local public libraries without the imposition of new
taxes.
• Support legislation which reinstates effective local
regulation of the cable television industry.
7.
8.
• Oppose legislation which would impose penalties or limit
the flexibility of local governments in the provision of
public records.
• Support legislation which will consolidate reporting
requirements for the Community Development Block Grant
program.
Public Safety
• Support efforts to increase local law enforcement
resources without increasing taxes.
• Support measures which would provide a greater share of
seized assets to localities.
• Support measures which allow local agencies to recover
costs, in accidents involving driving under the influence
of drugs and /or alcohol, from the guilty party.
• Oppose legislation which would shorten the current 15 -day
California waiting period for purchase of a gun.
• Oppose legislation which would make California law more
lenient regarding carrying a concealed weapon.
Land Use Planning
• Support efforts to strengthen the legal and fiscal
capability of local agencies to prepare, adopt and
implement fiscal plans for orderly growth, development,
beautification and conservation of local planning areas,
including, but not limited to, the regulatory authority
over zoning, subdivisions, annexations, and redevelopment
areas.
• Support efforts which are consistent with the doctrine of
"home rule" and the local exercise of police powers,
through planning and zoning processes, over local land
use.
9. Housing
• Support efforts to develop Federal and State
participation, financial support and incentives for
programs which provide adequate, affordable housing for
the elderly, handicapped, and low - income persons
throughout the community.
• Oppose legislation that would give the State
financial /administrative responsibilities for the
Community Development Grant program.
• Support reform of Housing Element to simplify, improve
effectiveness and eliminate redundancy with other plans
such as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy.
10. Redevelopment
• Oppose legislation which would prohibit /limit the
establishment of new redevelopment project areas and /or
expansion of existing project areas.
• Oppose legislation which reduces the amount of gross tax
increment allocable to redevelopment agencies.
• Support reform of reporting requirements for the
Redevelopment Agencies which simplify the process and
eliminate reporting confusion.
• Oppose legislation that would add restrictions and
procedural requirements regarding closed session
discussions on land acquisition, use of eminent domain
and disposal of property.
RECEI EU ppr.l~ J%mo
ENVIRONMENTAL
� 'V�P Ilj .f u� iri�G�D�ir
COALITION* MOORPARK BRANCH
AGENDA REPORT PESPONSE
TO: The Honorable City Council, City of Moorpark
FROM: Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. and Elizabeth Haynes
Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch (EC -MB)
DATE: November 30, 1993
SUBJECT: Response to November 23, 1993 Agenda Report for City Council meeting of
December 1,1993 (Item 11 C) to "Consider a Report Regarding the Urban Streams
Restoration Grant Contract Administration" (State of California/City of
Moorpark/Environmental Coalition (EC) joint grant contract #Z- 60134)
The EC -MB received a copy of the above referenced agenda report, by hand delivery, at approximately
9:10 am on Monday, November 29, 1993. After reviewing the report and its recommendations, we see
the need to clarify, correct, comment on, and supplement the information provided by staff. Without
knowledge of the contents of the agenda report, we could not respond any earlier.
The purpose of this response is to provide additional information to you to assist you in making an
informed decision that will be mutually beneficial to both grant co- sponsors (City and EC) regarding the
grant administration for our joint grant contract #Z- 60134.
The key points we wish to emphasize are as follows:
1. We support the following recommendations to the City Council (amended from those provided on
page 6 of the staff agenda report):
1.1. Affirm the City's commitment to (a) serve as the fiscal agent for the entire grant; (b) approve
the City's retention of all individual independent contractors needed to implement the grant
(including but not limited to those enumerated on pages 1 -2 of the agenda report) ; and (c) sign
and administer all contracts and agreements needed to implement the grant.
1.2. Direct staff to prepare an agreement with the Environmental Coalition to clarify City and
Environmental Coalition obligations, roles, and responsibilities to fulfill the Grant requirements,
subject to final language approval that is to be mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and
the Environmental Coalition.
1.3. Direct staff to prepare Contracts for Service for all individual independent contractors to be
retained as part of the Grant, subject to final language approval that is to be mutually agreed
upon by the City Manager and the Environmental Coalition.
1.4. Authorize the City Manager to sign all agreements, contracts, and amendments with the EC,
the individual independent contractors, and any others necessary in order to implement the
grant.
378
POST OFFICE BOX W&• MOORPARK, CA 93020
To: The Honorable City Council Page 2 of 5
From: Environmental Coalition (November 30, 1993)
2. We do not support the use of the draft agreement presented in the agenda report as the model for
any of the agreements cr contracts under negotiation. Rather, we support using the previously
negotiated EC /City roles and responsibilities agreement (Referenced in Attachment 1: Letter of
November 5, 1993 to City Manager) and the 12 previously negotiated independent contractor
contracts as the models from which to continue our negotiations.
Any and all of these previously negotiated agreements will be provided upon request.
The draft contract presented in the agenda report is not recommended by staff in its
recommendations to the Council on page 6 of the report, it was not prepared in cooperation with
the EC, and it was not made available for a reasonable EC review.
3. We recognize that some of the language in the previously negotiated documents referenced in #2
will have to be renegotiated in order to reach mutual agreement between both parties and we are
prepared to do that.
4. We do not support the negotiation of any specific points in any of the agreements or contracts at
this (or any other) public meeting. Negotiation between partners in public is not in the best
interests of either the City or the EC and should be discouraged. (The EC and the City are
partners in this grant.)
There are a significant number of issues mentioned in the agenda report that are really
negotiation points which should be discussed in good faith between the two parties outside a
formal city council meeting. Any disagreements between the parties, and/or inaccuracies or
misrepresentations suggested in the agenda report, should be mutually resolved and incorporated
where applicable into the appropriate formal agreements.
5. We agree with the agenda report statement (page 3) that "There are essentially only two (2)
issues remaining to be resolved: contract administration and liability coverage."
With respect to contact administration, we are pleased to see that staff recommendations
acknowledge our clearly stated position that the EC is not a contracting agency and therefore
cannot perform contracting or subcontracting activities for this grant. Council's vote on December
1, 1993 can resolve this issue once and for all.
With respect to liability insurance, the EC recognizes the importance of the issue. We are willing
to discuss alternative ways to fund the expense. However, since this is a negotiating point, it
needs to be addressed at the negotiation table and not at a council meeting.
6. As a matter of record, we take issue with the implication made on page 5 of the agenda report
that City staff did not have advance notice regarding the City's proposed obligations for this grant
prior to submitting the Grant request to the City Council. Nothing could be further from the truth!
In fact, both City and EC obligations were clearly outlined in the January 29, 1993 grant
application package, which was reviewed and approver' by city staff rp for to submitting the grant
application.
Furthermore, the City had more than ample opportunity to review and discuss with the EC all the
relevant documentation (including the revised budget after award and several memoranda
[copies available on request] presenting clear and unambiguous explanations about the different
categories of labor proposed, including suggestions for how to handle liability and worker's
compensation for all the categories) all before accepting the grant on June 16, 1993.
If the City was not satisfied with the manner in which its staff was proceeding or had any serious
reservations about any plans discussed jointly with the EC, it should have informed the EC and
suggested different alternatives. If the City had serious enough reservations, it could have
rejected the grant on June 16th stating whatever problems there were that would prevent them
from accepting the grant.
To: The Honorable City Council Page 3 of 5
From: Environmental Coalition (November 30, 1993)
Instead, the City accepted the grant and expressed no formal reservations or substantive
concerns about any cf the plans. City staff then worked together with the EC to finalize the plans
which had been jointly agreed to in principal and began o reclotiate the particulars of the
agreements that would be needed to administer the grant. Until late September 1993, there was
absolutely no reason for anyone to suspect that the City was unhappy with any of the plans being
worked on for the grant.
We do not understand the City's inability to finalize contract negotiation in a timely manner.
7. The figures presented in the table on pages 1 -2 of the agenda report, regarding the independent
contractor in -kind contributions /monetary compensation for EC members and non - members, are
inaccurate. Also, as per page 1 of Attachment 2 and all the grant application and award
documents, the grant award of $64,000 was $20,895 less than the grant request, not $20,000 as
stated in the agenda report). The corrected table information is presented on page 4 of this
document.
8. We will be available at the December 1, 1993 city council meeting for any appropriate discussion.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence from Environmental Coalition, dated November 5, 1993
2. Document entitled Fact Sheets about Environmental CoalitionlCity of Moorpark Joint Grant from
State of California (Contract #Z- 60134), dated November 5, 1993
To: The Honorable City Council Page 4 of 5
From: Environmental Coalition (November 30, 1993)
The remaining corrected figures referred to in item #7 on the previous page are as follows:
The figures in this column (if d;fferent from what appears in the agenda raaortl reflect the addition of the value of the labor expended
by each person or group for proposai preparation activities and /or worhtime donated prior to June 1, 1393.
2Note that this figure, after only 5 months of a 12 month grant, is already over $12,000 greater than the amount proposed for the EC
members for the full 12 months. Given the amount of wor.: left to do, it is kkely that the EC members (and ail groups) vnll be
expending substantially more than this amount by the conclusion of the grant
3 This person attended both community workshops and expressed interest in heavy project involvement.
4This amount was solicited and gained by EC or EC- recruited people.
5This amount was solicited and gained by EC or EC- recruited people. The EC has informed the City that the CCC is intending to
donate staff time equivalent to approximately $5000 in Spring, 1994
f'This amount reflects not only city time proposed in the grant application, but also the 33 hours of staff time (@$75p/hr) spent in
January, 1993 to review and prepare grant application/proposal materials. City staff reports that they now expect to spend three times
$6,150 by the conclusion of the Grant.
Proposed In -Kind Actual In -Kind
Present Proposed
Outstanding
Persons
Donation (Proposai ; Donation T:irough
Prep and Grant 10131/93 (once current
Monetary Invoice
Compensation
Amounts
Work)1 invoices are paid)
through
10/31/93
EC members
Roseann Mikos
$16,684.001
$31,199.65
$5,900.00
$5,400.00
Marlene Metcalf Day
$936.001
$701.76
$936.00
$648.00
Sharon Harper
$1,320.001
$636.02
$1,320.00
$592.50
Elizabeth Haynes
$690.00
$432.25
$660.00
$356.25
Margaret Kirnig
$592.00
$431.04
$512.00
$349.60
Janet Murphy
$1,463.00
$1,046.65
$1,144.00
$727.65
Karen Rosenblum
$660.00
$348.61
$660.00
$332.25
Subtotals=
$22,345.00
$34,795.98
$11,132.00
$8,406.25
EC recruits (non -EC members)
Matilda Reyes (Landscape Architect)
$720.00
$120.00
$720.00
$120.00
Ken Rodriguez (Moorpark resident)3
$896.00
$390.60
$704.00
$306.90
Paul Caron (Biologist)
$480.00
$340.00
$480.00
$340.00
Monica Finn (Biologist)
$3,598.00
$1,810.00
$2,082.00
$666.00
Douglas Hamilton (Hydrologist)
$375.00
$0.00
$375.00
$0.00
Subtotals=
$6,069.00
$2,660.60
$4,361.00
$1,432.90
EC- Recruited Volunteers
Those budgeted @ $4.50 p/hr [NOTE: 139
$26,686.00
$1,965.60
$0.00
$0.00
people worked 436.8 hrs through 10/31/931
i
Those budgeted @ $20 p/hr (for later tasks)
$2,240.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Other EC- Recruited Personnel
Charles Kint -Krum (Herbicide Applicator and
$0.00
$672.004
$20,052.00
$11,345.00
Landscape Architect)
(Uncommitted donor for part of planting costs for
$1,793.00
Charles Kint -Krum)
California Conservation Corps
$0.00
$1,669.005
$9,200.00
$9,200.00
City of Moorpark
$8,625.006
1 ? ??
$11,968.00
???
The figures in this column (if d;fferent from what appears in the agenda raaortl reflect the addition of the value of the labor expended
by each person or group for proposai preparation activities and /or worhtime donated prior to June 1, 1393.
2Note that this figure, after only 5 months of a 12 month grant, is already over $12,000 greater than the amount proposed for the EC
members for the full 12 months. Given the amount of wor.: left to do, it is kkely that the EC members (and ail groups) vnll be
expending substantially more than this amount by the conclusion of the grant
3 This person attended both community workshops and expressed interest in heavy project involvement.
4This amount was solicited and gained by EC or EC- recruited people.
5This amount was solicited and gained by EC or EC- recruited people. The EC has informed the City that the CCC is intending to
donate staff time equivalent to approximately $5000 in Spring, 1994
f'This amount reflects not only city time proposed in the grant application, but also the 33 hours of staff time (@$75p/hr) spent in
January, 1993 to review and prepare grant application/proposal materials. City staff reports that they now expect to spend three times
$6,150 by the conclusion of the Grant.
To: The Honorable City Council Page 5 of 5
From: Environmental Coalition (November 30, 1993)
FINAL COMMENTS
The Arroyo Simi Restoration and Management is an asset to the community. As originally
proposed, a significant amount of work was to be accomplished with a minimal investment on the part
of the city. It is unfortunate that unfounded allegations and the initial response of the City Council to
the allegations have resulted in work on the project coming to a virtual standstill.
Both City staff and independent contractors working on behalf of the EC have been inappropriately
burdened with having to spend significant time on unnecessary and wasteful "damage control" and
contract administration, rather than on furthering the goals of the project.
We hope that the City Council finally understands the `acts about this project and will take action to
ensure that the counterproductive pattern of delays is no longer tolerated.
Thank you for your assistance in resolving the remaining open issues posthaste.
CNVIRONMCNIAL
COALITION N100.7i PARK BRANCH
Novcniki— >, 199-1
Slcvcn Kueny, Cil1 Manager
City of Moorpark o. �s Wtf /�,`� A
799 Moorpark Ave. , -� Ck C
Moorpark, CA 93021 y
Subiect: Contrracting/subcontr►cting arrangements bellrecn E'iwironnnental Coalition (EC) and City of
Moorpark for Joint grant contract #Z -00114 Frith the ;;,Itc Ali "California
Dear Mr. Kucm :
Neil Moyer, President of the Environmental Coalition of V(:nim I Cotow. asked ire to send this letter to
you. He has rcvic«'ed it and is in full agreement with it
The City of Moorpark accepted that it would administer the cniiae above referenced grant and serve the
role of fiscal agent for the entire grant project, when it ;rdoptel Resolution 493 -912 on Febmary 3, 1993.
It reconftnued the city's role as fiscal agent tit it's July !6, !,111', letter to the State Department of Water
Resources.
The agenda report regarding ;accepting the grant contract (prepared b� Jim Aguilera and Kathleen
Mallon) dated June 7, 1993 for the June 16, 1993 Moorpark City Council meeting recommended that the
council "direct staff to draft an agrccmcnt with the l: nironmenial Cc:rlition to clarify City and
Environmental Coalition obligations to fulfill Grant re(limemcrus" Council did this on June 16, 1993,
the same date on t\hich Ihc. approved Resolution #'i ` ;n ., ::e; [ tl,; joint EC /City grant.
The basis for the roles and responsibilities agrccmcnt wis �,Icatl,\ onthned on page 7 of the January 25,
( "
1993 document entitled rhan .S'b•ecrms Restoration h -ogi (.m (iraat for ".1 rroyo Simi, Xfoorpark, C A:
Preliminary Project Pkm This docu[ucnt 11as submilwd ;is 1);I; I u! cm joii>_t application for the grant_ It
was reviewed and approved b1 cite :it:ItTpiiot to soh ;uluula !I:. ftr ;uu ;Ipplicalion.
On July 21, 1993, the EC eubmittcd the first draft of I . Ie:, : ! ;(; rc,ponsibililies agrccmcnt to (lie city,
responding to both council and cite staff direction. On lluust I,;. 1993, city staff asked the EC to change
selected language in the roles and iL;sponsibililics ;•igrectucm draft ,Ind present a new draft for city review.
On August 20, 1991, the ► C presented a Second d:;J! of th; a ,c::nlent. incorporating changes in the areas
requested by the city. On Scpten►ber 16, 1993, cuv staff pnlNadcd ;Idditional requests for changes in
selected language to the second draft of the agrccmcw and asked the FC to draft a final version (3rd draft)
of this agreement to incorporate the requested changes c; io siiggc,t altcrnmive language that could be
reviewed and negotiated for approN al b\ mutual ;terccn►e +:; (ltl Sq),, ' 1. 1993 the EC presented a third
and final draft to the c►Ir incorporatin,, c11,111 es in tl c .u::;ls 1,,, ":.ted oI MIggcstrng altcnlative !anLuave
to be negotiated In sonic II1SIi►IIC::S. ; 11'0 copies, stpwd b. it): i a' i ;rc:: ;ct 111:111:1,11ci, and the EC,MB
president, %wre provided to the cm, -1 t:10 Im-le did anpir_ froul (,,t% stall'S_t }_(hat there was amthing
1lrong kith the fundamental !ramc11r.rk for_this.;q ,_L: lcw, In ili, ,,rl )m:d L-tant_orowsal or in_ativ of tho
three drafts. "]'he EC l ;id cNery rcascn to helicvc th:rl ll;u..i rr, u:. tit, r\;:cpt for perhaps a few minor
points Nlhich might Aced to be clar!fio(], MIS fui11 ;u.rl l:d,!. 1, - 11h, .11\ ;Ind to the EC, having been
negotiated in good lililh b* b,th piiihc� Othcnx i-,k. r. hr, •uH ! I.'• !;III ;l <k for Iwo signed coplcs of
this dul draft (\%hick th;•1 dW ji'd v ImIt 0 I (' .,.I, I
On Oct obcr ti. 1993 th,: crtl r, :, , !. ;� 1 ,: ,I ;: cd (IC.rccnIoIII yet bcIt\CcII the EC and
the City of Moorpark for this 1).OIL t fhis v.;, . ,Inc! I un .ur q;,c••nmi The only agreement that the
EC and the cite have hccn nlutuall� nc. oll;llina,. sm.,: !.I! 1 n I'r11 I, the one just discussed above. City
ZDOS
To: Steve Kucny, Moorpark City Matulgcr Page 2 I ?
From: Environmental Coalition (Nnvcmlx•r �, 10011
staff explained to the council that the drllt of dw, ;ii,tcCtllct:i Cl- !i Ito• t'.: picsclltcd to the council beGlihc
it \\as still under rcyic\y and had not been nlutualk ,wrccd to \c;.
On October K. 1903, the same day on which the F?C presented; a iciter to the City explaining our position
regarding contracting and subcontracting; for the R' and for proposed independent contractor personnel,
city staff informed the EC that it was drafting; an cntircIN nc\\ roles and responsibilities agreement in a
different format than had been mutually agreed to hcrctofere (as ahcadv outlined above). The EC
informed the City that it was unacceptable to have the cit ciuulg,e thc character of the previously
negotiated agreement \ \ithout concurrence from the FC. We also informed the city that no new input
from us could be provided until after the last vegetation ienim-il \\orkday (Oct. 23, 1993). On October
12, 1993, Jim Aguilera informed the F_C that the 61% crlun; 1 ::lccling to address this issue again was
postponed from October 20, 1993 to Nov. 1. P)9\.
On October 26, 1993 the EC requested that the cit\ pro\•lcic the 1:( \\ith a copy of the city's "new" version
of an EC /City roles and responsibilities agrccmcnt. We sa7d \ \e rlccdcd to review it and (hopefully) agree
on it before the November 3rd city council the :t nll(\Imcd il►c EIC that (1) the meeting had
been postponed agairl to November ! 199-_ and (' 1 111:11 Ow i ( c.:nllii not have a cope of the new
agreement for rcyic\+ until Mondav morning; (No\cnlhcr I ;' or perhaps by 6pn1 on Friday
November 12, 1993. The EC reminded cit\ staff that +\c : !c Irutncr, ill this grant, having been jointly
awarded the funds by the state. We proieslcd Ih;lt t! I, ++ v, ilk- .1 \\a\ in \\hich to treat one's
partner and co- sponsor for a state- funded protect
We stated that if it \\as not a,:ceptablc to the cit\ to present the orii�in,ll ag;recnlent, negotiated through
three drafts for over 4 months and at a point of vlrtnal mutual igtrccruent between the two parties, then
ho\\ could it possibly be acceptable to present an entrrck dlacrcnt agrccmcnt to the city council that had
never been seen b\• the FC In time for evert a cursor rc•\ is %\ Ict .11onc a IeltaI revic\y'1
The EC cannot and will not accept any treatment by the cu\ \\ hich does not hold the EC as an equal
partner in this grant effort. The city council has a right to sec cull\ an agreement that has been negotiated
in good faith bct \ \cctl the two p;lrties bV i11111 it att roe rllcllt A �!klod business partner does not unilaterally
change (le form and contents of a heretofore nnlluall'• ag;rccd upon document without allowing a full
review and negotiation process to occur bet\\cen the parincls Arlon io >,ubnlitting the agreement to the clt
council \\ho has the responsibility to accept or re.iccl the Is\' disregarding the prior nunual
negotiations and denying timely EC access to the "lie%\" a�rc:cn rnl (no matter how similar or dissimilar it
may be to the original agreement), the city is trcadiw the H' e an inferior and unequal partner. Such
treatment is unacceptable to the FC
If this kind of treatment continues, tine prospects of reaching; a mutual ag i- ccment between the EC and the
City of Moorpark on how to proceed wills tills grant do not look pnllnlsitlgr..
As stated previously in our October N, 1993% letter the FC 1-, pr,l-,arcd to Rlllo\\ the original plans that
were mutually agreed upon bet\\ecn us and city stall sm,c ianum 1'x')11 We propose to use the
previously negotiated roles ;,nd responsibilities agrcclncr.t (tlmd dr.lfl) as the starting point for our current
negotiations. We expect the ;;itv to do the sank. We expect to h, ai\cn the courtesy to negotiate in good
faith as an equal partner r,01) the city, io resolve those G \\ ••oi!as that %\ere left open in the last draft
reviewed by both parties. We \61i nol discuss an\' :iin.:cnlcrll ;11 a public city council meeting; unless \yc
can reach mutual agreement upon It at least rnlc full \\cck 1 %;-Vorc it is presented to the city council. To
preseilt ;1n\' agrcelllclll lit 117;; cl;\" coljll ll 111;11 Irl� I1,,1 hc"'I' •I:::+ : c'• I:,' -d and a-recd upon b\ both g mill
co-sponsors Is, Ill our opinion. :1 pia\ lllltil;lki' -
The EC has spent countless hours e\cr the last 5 mondr, p intend\ In:ug to come to mutual agreement
\\ith the cit on all of 1110", Issues. onl to h:►\ . l l,, , :l+ r;!n ;It::ll\ -IL•I:ly the official startup and then
To: Stcvc hucnv, Ntoorp,,uk ('icy
From: I',n \'iR)IM1Cn1.11 (',1.iliti(III (N;,\cnrhri
suddenly to to prescut a totaiiy dill1cccut :urauoctnent .0u admim-t, im- this grant. h the EC and the
independent contractors already doing iyork under the .:iam on behalf of the EC had not agreed to «ork
without contracts \yhile this was being resoled. �\c m(mild :iii he in breach of contract N\ith the State for
non - performance. Our peop!c can no longer afford to suhmdi /c this pro lcct N ith little hope for their
reasonable compensation, as written into the mgncd ,talc grant . onmici This is not the «ay for co-
sponsors to suceessfull conduct a project Ihal r, suppo,ccf icy he Irr7nllall beneficial.
1'a .Vc I t
We respectfully request a personal meeting to discuss phis k� rth )'oil ,exm as [mmihlc, prior to any city
council meeting at which you expect to prescnt anv pioposrLi ,r rcc mcnis. Otherwise, how um we.. seriously
expect to he able to honor the terms of our nnnu:;: a i,'O'�L ;I 'ic 1�luktc of — alifornia7 'Thank you for
vour assistance in resoh in, This wstic quickly
Respectfully.
Roseann Mikes, Ph. D. Project Manager
Environmental Coalition of Ventura C'otim\, Moo:pml: B!,m, l;
CC: Earle Cummings, Program Manager, C'alifornt :I Ucl,artnr nt of Water Resources, Urban Streams
Restoration Program
Jim Aguilcra. Director of Community Development ( ;t\ of Moorpark) &, Moorpark Grant Project
Manager
Kathleen Mallon, Associate Planncr (CitN of ),loorpark)
Neil MoNcr, President, Environnrmml C'oalilum of, `':nnur (onnt�
Janet "Murphy. Prc,idcnt. Fm 11cumuCntal ('o:;•.:tr rr -- .1::, tn:rri. ;ra i !i
0091Y
Fact Sheets about Ervironmental CoalitionXity of Moorpark
Joint Grant from State of California (Contract #Z- 60134)
November 5, 1993
Prepared by:
Roseann Mikos, Ph.D., Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch (EC -MB) Project Manager
Urban Streams Restoration Grant Project for Arroyo Simi in Moorpark, CA
(805 - 529 -4828)
1. Our joint grant proposaVapplication competed statewide against 62 other proposal /applications.
Through a rigorous review process, the state review committee saw a good project that deserved funding. As
proof of that, we were the 16th ranked application and were awarded one of only 20 grants- -the only award
recipient in Ventura County.
2. None of the grant monies in question are part of the general operating budget of the City of Moorpark.
Rather, this funding comes from a California State Grant program documented in Chapter 2, Title 23,
California Code of Regulations, add Subchapter 2.4, Sections 451.1 through 451.6. The grant program is part
of the Urban Creeks Restoration and Flood Control Act of 198
See the chart below for a summary of the proposed versus a%%arded budget.
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Original Proposed Budget Amounts
Versus Awarded Budget Amounts
$145,289
$116,146
Original Awardod
Budget Budget
` — - -- -- — - - -- 1129!93- - - - - -- -- - .5/31!93
I
] "In -Kind" Contributions i
j E`2 State GrantPAoney
i
Urban Streams Restoration Grant Program for Arrovo Simi in Moorpark, CA (Stale Grant d Z- 60134)
3. This is a joint grant awarded to the City of Moorpark AN' _.t;ic i 111'11onln�ntal C- n:iiign, net to one or the
other.
The state money was budgeted in the original pronosal /applica(ion with cloar line ilein categories for all
groups to whom money would be allocated. Here is a summan of the allocated budget.
Budgeted Allocation of State Money
($16,487)
26% i
6% 1
($3,657)
($11,968) 19%
($20,052)
, 31%
Landscape Contractor/ j
Herbicide Applicator
EC Planners
® Moorpark City Staff
❑ Skilled Labor
L l Other'
18% ($11,836)
Includes paid CCC,
proposed student labor+
small maintenance
Environmental Coalition Fart Sheet ;: Novemher 5. 1993 Page 2
Urban Strewn Restoration Grant Program for :Urmo Simi in Moorpark. CA (State Grant a !.- 60134)
4. The grant budget has been widely reported as a $64,000 budget. That iS not entirely accurate. The 564.000
figure is the amount of the grant award itself (i.e., the amount of actual State money that will be paid out).
The true dollar amount of the budget is significantly higher. The .cm:rining budget is Ming funded by in -kind
contributions (or donations of labor and/or materials) from EC members, the City of Moorpark, and other
supporting individuals and groups, all being recruited by the EC
Here is a summary of the budgeted allocation of "In- kind" Donations for this proiect.
Landscape Contractor/
Budgeted Allocation of " I n- Kind" Donations Herbicide Applicator
r
($25,522)
49%
I
t
(Approx. $1,793)
3%
8%
($4,293)
EC Planners
® Moorpark City Staff
Li Skilled Labor
388) �_ -I Volunteer Recruits,CCC,
l% students' —
" This is estimated
amount& is not confirmed.
"The EC is responsible
forsoliciting and hopefully
obtaining virtually ALL of
this amount.
Enviromnental Coalition Fact Sheets: No%enitvr 5, 1993 Page 3
I rban Streams Restoration Grant Program for Arrovo Simi in Khx park. C.\ (State Grant It !.•60134)
5. Here is a summary of the preposed 1;:bor effort for t1'tc p rojt:ct, ,is approved.
Summary of Estimated Labor Effort
(348 hrs.)
5%
74%
(800 hrs. CCC +
700 hrs. — - --
students +3662
hrs. volunteers)
?8 hrs.)
Landscape Contractor/
Herbicide Applicator
42 hrs.)
3% EC Planners
3% ® Moorpark City Staff
90 hrs.)
Skilled Labor
I
i Volunteer Recruits, CCC,
students'
i
' EC is responsible for
recruiting and supervising
all this labor.
NOTE: City Staff time is 164 hrs. fortechnical work and 77.6 for contract admin. I
Environmental Coalition Fact Sheets: November 5, 1993 Page 4
Urban Streams Restoration Grant Program for Arroyo Simi in Moorpark, C k (State Grant a 7- 60134)
6. Here is a summary of the time expended to prepare thCant application. All this was performed as an "in-
kind" contribution to the project with no expectation for reimbursement if the grant application was successful.
EC time below also includes all time from January 30, 1993 through May 31, 1993 that was expended to
coordinate with the city and the State before and after award. All EC people who spent time during that
period agreed already to donate it as part of their "in- kind" contribution, all as originally drafted in the
contract agreements still awaiting signatures.
Summary of Proposal Development Labor Effort (in
Hours)
14%
(33 hrs.)
10% (22 hrs.)
10
(176.4 hrs.)
I
I
EC Planners
i
■ Moorpark City Staff
(! Skilled Labor
Environmental Coalition Fact Sheets: \oventher S. 1993 Page 5
Urban Streams Restoration Grant Program for Arroyo Simi in Moorpark. CA (State Grant n /- (60134)
7. Here is a summary of the time expended by the different labor catc�;,.) ics to date to cnrrtiY out the pro posed
grant activities according to the proicct plan. (NOTE: This one chart is corrected. as of 1 i/17i93.)
Summary of Hours Worked
Since Grant Application Submitted
320
(113.5 hrs.) 5% 7% (174 hrs.)
( 62.9 hrs.) 17%
(436.8 hrs.)
IN Landscape Contractor/
\(908.7 hrs.) Herbicide Applicator*
EC Planners /Supervisors
36% i Volunteer Recruits
Skilled Labor
I
ME, CCC* i
Moorpark City Staff
* Estimated hours
(All others are actuals)
NOTE: City time (above) is based on all time bely,CCn F(brua;y L 119'.3 and Octo1N_r 25, 1993. They did not
distinguish between lime spent to get the grunt a ,d do pre- a%N:lid coordination and actual grant work after
June 1, 1993, like the EC has.
EC Planners /Supervisors time (above) includes only time from June I - October 31, 1993. All time from
1/30/93 - 5/31/93 for EC people was included on chart on page 5 as part of what it took to get grant and
do pre- award/acceptance activities.
Emiromnental Coalition Fact Shects November 5. 1993 Page 6