Los Alamitos City Council
September 19, 2022

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above.

City"
City of Los Alamitos
By:

I0
i L
Troy D. Ed_ar
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM. ATTEST:

Woodruff, Spradlin& Smart, APC
B iiiL___
PIP 171111211. 4 i
IF n " III
BY: .
nillOMPPIPA
Michael S. Daudt indme . Quintanar, CM \
City Attorney City Clerk
Firm"
All City
4 Management Services, Inc.

V

1.Y.fefrFarwell
General Manager
III
Dem- tra F. rwell
Director o Administrative Service
17 1277023. 1

EXHHE1Ii: T 6' A'
IHRM' S PROPOSAL: PROPOSED HOURLY RATE, CLIIENT WORKSHEET 2018- 2019 DATED: May 9, 2018
1277023i

AGMS ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Proposed Hourly Rate
As a full service contractor, the hourly rate quoted is a fully loaded rate, meaning all of our costs are included in the proposed hourly billing rate. This would include but be not limited to; recruitment, background clearance, training, equipment, insurance, supervision and management of the City of Los Alamitos Crossing Guard Program.

Proposed Hourly Rate: Nineteen Dollars and Forty-Eight Cents($ 19. 48) per hour, per guard. This pricing is based upon 7 crossing guards compensated an average of 3. 5 hours per day for 180 school days annually and 2 crossing guards for 19 summer school days annually. Local field supervision and substitute guards are also included in the rate, as are all other costs except as noted below. Based upon 4,524 hours annually we project a Not to Exceed price of888.127.52 for contract year 2018-2019.

This pricing considers State of California Split Shift Wage Order and presumes the guards will be on site two( 2) shifts totaling 2. 5 hours or less daily.

Invoices for services are mailed every two weeks. Included with each invoice is a Work Summary, which details each site, each day and the hours worked at that site. Los Alamitos would only be billed for Crossing Guard services rendered on designated " school days" unless otherwise requested by the City.

The hourly rate does not include additional safety equipment, crosswalk delineators, cones or safety devices. Ifthe City should desire any such additional equipment the additional cost would be billed to the City.

ACMS Contact Information
Business Address: 10440 Pioneer Blvd, Suite 5 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Phone numbers: 310. 202. 8284 or 800. 540. 9290
Fax number: 310. 202. 8325
Website address: www. acmssafetv. com
24 Hour Emergency Dispatch: 877. 363. 2267
General Manager cellular number: 310. 877. 7336
Email address: baronsthecrossingnuardcompanv. com
General Manager: Baron Farwell
Director ofAdministrative Service: Demetra Farwell: demetrait'Ithecrossingguardcompanv. com Director of Marketing: Harlan Sims: harlan' a:ithecrossingguardcompanv. cam Director ofFinance( ACCT): Noel Concha: noel ;ii:thecrossingauardcompanv. com

All City Management Services Inc.

Client Worksheet 2018 - 2019
Department: 705
City of Los Alamitos
Billing Rate for 2018/ 2019: $ 19. 48 3201 Katella Ave.

Los Alamitos, CA 90720
KEY:

Traditional Calendar:

For sites with no regularly scheduled early release days, use 180 regular days For sites with one regularly scheduled early release day/ week, use 144 regular days and 36 minimum days Summer School
For schools with Summer School sessions use 19 days
Sites with traditional calendar:
6 180 19. 48 21, 038. 40
2 Sites at 3. 0 hrs per day Total Hrs/ day X days/ yr X Hourly Billing Rate

10. 5 180 19. 48 36, 817. 20
3 Sites at 3. 5 hrs per day Total Hrs/ day X days/ yr X Hourly Billing Rate 8 rficri 19. 48 28, 051. 20
2 Sites at 4. 0 hrs per day Total Hrs/ day X days/ yr X Hourly Billing Rate Summer School Sites
6 19 I $ 19. 48 2, 220. 72
2 Sites at 3. 0 hrs per day Total Hrs/ day X days/ yr X Hourly Billing Rate TOTAL PROJECTED HOURS 4524 TOTAL ANNUAL PROJECTED COST 88, 127. 52

City of Los Alamitos

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022 ITEM NUMBER: 8G
To: Mayor Shelley Hasselbrink & Members of the City Council Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Award of Bid for the Briggeman Drive Street Improvements (CIP No. 22/23-03)

SUMMARY
This item recommends awarding a bid to United Paving Company to begin the Briggeman Drive Street Improvements Project (CIP 22/23-03).

RECOMMENDATION

1. Award of contract for the Briggeman Drive Street Improvements Project (CIP 22/23-03) in the amount of $133,930.00 to United Paving Company; and,

2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with United Paving Company for the project; and,

3. Authorize City Engineer to add work and execute change orders in an amount not to exceed the contingency reserve of 20% or $26,786.00.

BACKGROUND
During the construction of the Fairfield Inn Hotel (10650 Los Alamitos Boulevard), Briggeman Drive was widened from Los Alamitos Boulevard to the easterly property limits.

The widening helps facilitate large semi-axle truck turning movements onto Briggeman Drive via Los Alamitos Boulevard and also provides additional street parking. This project, CIP 22/23-03, will widen the southeastern portion of Briggeman Drive from Reagan Street to 300 feet in the westerly direction of the intersection shown below in the picture. The widening will be 5-feet curb-to-curb in the easterly lane. The southwest curb ramp at the Reagan Street/Briggeman Drive intersection will be realigned to conform to the widening and will adhere to current ADA standards.

Briggeman Drive will remain one lane in each direction.

DISCUSSION
Project Bid Results
Notices announcing the solicitation of bids for this project were posted in the local publications, consisting of: the News-Enterprise and the F.W. Dodge publication. Bids for the project were publicly opened on August 6th, 2022 at 11:00 am. From the three (3) total bids received, it was determined by Staff that the lowest responsible bid submitted was from United Paving Company with the total bid amount of $133,930.00 The bid results are provided below:

United Paving Co. $ 133,930.00
Hardy & Harper, Inc. $ 167,000.00
Onyx Paving Co., Inc. $ 222,000.00
Average $ 174,310.00
The following represents an approximate timeline for the completion of the project which consists of street improvements and a new ADA ramp.
09/19/2022 Award of Contract
10/24/2022 Start of construction
12/09/2022 End of construction

FISCAL IMPACT
The project budget was bid at $133,930.00 with an additional $141,070.00 for design, contingency, advertisement and construction management for a total of $275,000. The funding source for the project is the FY 2022/23 Traffic Improvement Fund - Fund 44- 570.5501.1719.

Attachment: 1. CIP 22/23-03 Briggeman Drive Street Improv - Bid Breakdown

2. CIP 22/23-03 Briggeman Drive Street Improv - Bid Submittal

3. CIP 22-23-03 Briggeman Drive Improv - Agreement

CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03
BID OPENING: AUGUST 6, 2022 AT 11 AM

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
United Paving Co. Hardy & Harper, Inc. Onyx Paving Company, Inc.

ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNITS UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL NO. COST COST COST COST COST COST
1 Mobilization 1 LS 16,293.00 $16,293.00 17,392.00 $17,392.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 6,000.00 $6,000.00 32,300.00 $32,300.00 48,000.00 $48,000.00 3 Unclassified Excavation (Parkway
Excavation) 150 CY 100.00 $15,000.00 225.00 $33,750.00 250.00 $37,500.00 4 Removed and Construct Curb & Gutter
Per SPPWC Std Plan No 120-2 255 LF 70.60 $18,003.00 90.00 $22,950.00 96.00 $24,480.00 5 Construct 4-Inch Thick PCC Sidewalk
Per SPPWC Std Plan No 112-2 180 SF 23.60 $4,248.00 24.00 $4,320.00 27.00 $4,860.00 6 Remove and Construct Driveway
(MOD) Per SPPWC Std Plan No 110-2 400 SF 26.47 $10,588.00 25.00 $10,000.00 37.00 $14,800.00 7 Remove and Construct Curb Ramp Per
SPPWC Std No 111-5 1 EA 8,000.00 $8,000.00 10,500.00 $10,500.00 13,000.00 $13,000.00 8 Remove and Construct Longitudinal
Gutter Per SPPWC Std No 122-2 10 LF 235.30 $2,353.00 118.00 $1,180.00 400.00 $4,000.00 9 Construct 12-Inch Thick Full-Depth AC
Over 8" Thick 95% Relatively
Compacted Subgrade 150 TN 225.00 $33,750.00 168.00 $25,200.00 300.00 $45,000.00 10 Furnish and Install Detectable Warning
Surface 3 EA 940.00 $2,820.00 840.00 $2,520.00 1,500.00 $4,500.00 11 Removed and Construct Curb Drain
Per SPPWC Std Plan No 150-3 2 EA 6,470.50 $12,941.00 1,456.00 $2,912.00 3,500.00 $7,000.00 12 Relocate traffic signs 2 EA 90.50 $181.00 168.00 $336.00 500.00 $1,000.00 13 Traffic Striping 1 LS 3,753.00 $3,753.00 3,640.00 $3,640.00 7,860.00 $7,860.00 TOTAL $133,930.00 $167,000.00 $222,000.00
SCHEDULE TOTAL $133,930.00 $167,000.00 $222,000.00
PROJECT TOTAL $133,930.00 $167,000.00 $222,000.00

CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03
BID OPENING: AUGUST 6, 2022 AT 11 AM

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

SECTION D – Page 1

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS

CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03

IN THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA
THIS CONTRACT AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement” or “Contract” or “Contract Agreement”) is made and entered into for the above stated Project this 20th day of September, 2022, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, as CITY, and Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co. as CONTRACTOR.

WITNESSETH that CITY and CONTRACTOR have mutually agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I
The contract documents for the aforesaid Project shall consist of the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal Documents, Contract Documents, General Specifications, Standard Specifications, Special Provisions, Plans, and all referenced specifications, details, standard drawings, and all appendices attached hereto, together with this Contract Agreement and all required bonds, insurance coverage, permits, notices, and affidavits; and also including any and all addenda or supplemental agreements clarifying, amending, or extending the work contemplated as may be required to ensure its completion in an acceptable manner (hereinafter collectively the “Contract Documents”). All of the provisions of said Contract Documents are attached hereto and are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Contract Agreement as though fully set forthherein.

ARTICLE II
For and in consideration of the payments and agreements to be made and performed by CITY, CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish all materials and perform all work required for the above stated project, and to fulfill all other obligations as set forth in the aforesaid Contract Documents.

ARTICLE III
CONTRACTOR agrees to receive and accept the prices set forth in the Proposal as full compensationfor furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature ofwork during its progress or prior to its acceptance including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid Contract Documents; and also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks of any description connected with the work.

SECTION D – Page 2

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

ARTICLE IV
CITY hereby promises and agrees to employ, and does hereby employ, CONTRACTOR to provide the materials, do the work, and fulfill the obligations according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions set forth in the Contract Documents.

ARTICLE V
CONTRACTOR acknowledges the provisions of the Labor Code requiring every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation, or to undertake self-insurance in accordance withthe provisions of that code, and certifies compliance with such provisions.

ARTICLE VI
CONTRACTOR affirms that the signatures, titles, and seals set forth hereinafter in execution of thisAgreement represent all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures, and/or corporate officershaving a principal interest herein.

ARTICLE VII
CONTRACTOR hereby represents and warrants that it will comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should CONTRACTOR so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of any work and/or services under this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against CITY for such use of unauthorized aliens, CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to reimburse CITY for any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgments, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, or penalties which arise out of or are related to such employment, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by CITY.

ARTICLE VIII
To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall defend (at CONTRACTOR's sole cost and expense), indemnify, protect, and hold harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers (collectively the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgments, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees (collectively “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or death of persons (CONTRACTOR’s employees included), or for damage to property, including property

SECTION D – Page 3

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
owned by CITY, which Claims arise out of, pertain to, or are related to CONTRACTOR's performance under the Agreement. Under no circumstances shall the insurance requirements and limits set forth in this Agreement be construed to limit CONTRACTOR's indemnification obligation or other liability hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such obligation to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, shall not apply to such claims or liabilities arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of CITY.

ARTICLE IX
CONTRACTOR shall be familiar with, observe, and comply at all times during the term of this Agreement with any work rules for contractors as may be established and promulgated by the City Manager, which work rules shall be additional terms and conditions for providing the work and services to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement, as may be updated and/or amended from time to time at the sole discretion of the City Manager.

ARTICLE X
The work to be performed under this Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD-assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low- and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing.

The parties to this Agreement agree to comply with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR Part 75, which implements Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this Agreement, the parties to this Agreement certify that they are under no contractual obligation or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with Part 75 of the regulations.

CONTRACTOR agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the CONTRACTOR has a collective bargaining agreement, contract, or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers' representative of the CONTRACTOR’s commitments under Section 3 and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 requirements, shall set forth the minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each, the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions, and the anticipated date the work shall begin.

CONTRACTOR agrees to include Section 3 contract language in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 75, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided inan applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 contract language,

SECTION D – Page 4

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 75.

CONTRACTOR will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the CONTRACTOR has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found to be in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 75.

CONTRACTOR will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, thatare filled: (1) after the CONTRACTOR is selected but before this Agreement is executed; and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 75 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the CONTRACTOR’s obligations under 24CFR Part 75.

Noncompliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR Part 75 may result in sanctions, termination of this Agreement for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

SECTION D – Page 5

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

CONTRACT AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day andyear first written.

CITY: CONTRACTOR:
_____________________________________ ________________________________ SHELLEY HASSELBRINK, MAYOR SUPERIOR PAVING COMPANY INC.

DBA UNITED PAVING CO.

CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
ATTEST:

BY: __________________________
(PRINT)
________________________________
(SIGNATURE)
_____________________________________ ________________________________

WINDMERA QUINTANAR, CITY CLERK (TITLE)

CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
BY: __________________________
(PRINT)
_____________________________________ ________________________________ MICHAEL S. DAUDT, CITY ATTORNEY (SIGNATURE)

CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
________________________________
(TITLE)
NOTE: SIGNATURES OF CORPORATE OFFICIALS MUST BE NOTARIZED, ATTACH JURAT.

SECTION D – Page 6

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

PAYMENT BOND

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03

IN THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Los Alamitos, as AGENCY has awarded to Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co. as CONTRACTOR, a contract for the above-stated project; AND WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is required to furnish a bond in connection with the contract, to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material persons, and other persons as provided by law;
NOW THEREFORE, we, the undersigned CONTRACTOR and SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto AGENCY in the sum of One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine-Hundred Thirty and Zero Cents ($133,930.00); which is one hundred percent (100%) of the total contract amount for the above-stated project, for which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if CONTRACTOR, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns or subcontractors, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor withheld, and to pay over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, with respect to such work and labor, that the surety or sureties herein will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. In case suit is brought upon this bond, SURETY will pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs and AGENCY in an amount to be fixed by the court.

This bond shall inure to the benefit to any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181 as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

The SURETY hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or the specifications accompanying it shall in any manner affect SURETY’s obligations on this bond. The SURETY hereby waives notice of any such change, extension, alteration or addition and hereby waives the requirements of Section 2845 of the Civil Code as a condition precedent to any remedies AGENCY may have.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of , 2022.

Contractor* Sabas Trujillo, President
Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co.
1880 N. Delilah St.

Corona, CA 92879
(951) 739-9400
[email protected]
Surety* _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________

SECTION D – Page 7

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
________________________________________________
*Provide CONTRACTOR and SURETY name, address and telephone number and the name, title, address and telephone number for the respective authorized representatives. Power of Attorney must be attached.

Subscribed and sworn to this ___ day of , 2022
NOTARY PUBLIC........................................................................................................ (SEAL) (E X E C U T E I N D U P L I C A T E)

SECTION D – Page 8

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03

IN THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co, hereinafter referred to as “CONTRACTOR” as PRINCIPAL, and, a corporation duly organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and duly licensed for the purpose of making, guaranteeing, or becoming sole surety upon bonds or undertakings as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter referred to as the “AGENCY” in the sum of One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine-Hundred Thirty and Zero Cents ($133,930.00); which is one hundred percent (100%) of the total contract amount for the above stated project; lawful money of the United States of America for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH, that whereas CONTRACTOR has been awarded and is about to enter into a Contract with AGENCY to perform all work required pursuant to the contract documents for theproject entitled: BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03 which Contract is by this reference incorporated herein, and is required by AGENCY togive this Bond in connection with the execution of the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, if CONTRACTOR and his or her Subcontractors shall well and truly do and perform allthe covenants and obligations of the Contract on his or her part to be done and performed at the times and in the mannerspecified herein including compliance with all Contract specifications and quality requirements, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect;
PROVIDED, that any alterations in the work to be done, or in the material to be furnished, which may be made pursuant to the terms of the Contract, shall not in any way release CONTRACTOR or the Surety thereunder, nor shall any extensions of time granted under the provisions of the Contract release either CONTRACTOR or said Surety, and notice of such alterations of extensions of the Contract is hereby waived by said Surety.

In the event suit is brought upon this Bond by AGENCY and judgment is recovered, said Surety shall pay all costsincurred by AGENCY in such suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee to be fixed by the Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this _____ day of _______________, 2022.

Contractor* Sabas Trujillo, President SURETY*………………………
Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co.
1880 N. Delilah St.

Corona, CA 92879
(951) 739-9400

*Provide CONTRACTOR and SURETY name, address and telephone number and the name, title,

SECTION D – Page 9

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
address and telephone number for their respective authorized representatives. Power of Attorney must be attached.

Subscribed and sworn to this___ day of ______________ , 2022.

NOTARY PUBLIC................................................................................................... (SEAL) (E X E C U T E I N D U P L I C A T E)

SECTION D – Page 10

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

MAINTENANCE BOND

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03

IN THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WHEREAS, the City of Los Alamitos, as AGENCY has awarded to Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co., as CONTRACTOR, a contract for the above-stated project.

AND WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is required to furnish a bond in connection with the contract guaranteeing maintenance thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned CONTRACTOR and SURETY, are held firmly bound unto AGENCY in the sum of Sixty-Six Thousand, Nine Hundred Sixty-Five and Zero Cents ($66,965.00), which is fifty percent (50%) of the total contract amount for the above-stated project to be paid to AGENCY, its successors and assigns, for which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH that if CONTRACTOR shall remedy without cost to AGENCY any defects which may develop during a period of one (1) year from the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion of the work performed under the contract, provided such defects are caused by defective or inferior materials or work, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. In case suit is brought upon this bond, SURETY will pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to the AGENCY in an amount to be fixed by the court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this___ day of ......................................, 2022.

Contractor* Sabas Trujillo
Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co.
1880 N. Delilah St.

Corona, CA 92879
(951) 739-9400
[email protected]
SURETY* ______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
*Provide CONTRACTOR and SURETY name, address and telephone number and the name, title, address and telephone number for their respective authorized representatives. Powers of Attorney must be attached.

Subscribed and sworn to this ............ day of..............................., 2022 NOTARY PUBLIC................................................................................................... (SEAL) (EXECUTE IN DUPLICATE)

SECTION D – Page 11

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned declares:

I am the __________________of___________________, the party making the foregoing bid.

The bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation. The bid is genuine and not collusive or sham. The bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid. The bidder has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or to refrain from bidding. The bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder. All statements contained in the bid are true. The bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof, to effectuate a collusive or sham bid, and has not paid, and will not pay, any person or entity for such purpose.

Any person executing this declaration on behalf of a bidder that is a corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or any other entity, hereby represents that he or she has full power to execute, and does execute, this declaration on behalf of the bidder.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on ______ [date], at _____________ [city], ______________ [state].
____________________________
Signature of Declarant
____________________________
Printed Name of Declarant

SECTION D – Page 12

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
The Contractor shall execute the following form as required by the California Labor Code, Sections 1860 and 1861:

I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.

DATE: Superior Paving Company Inc. dba United Paving Co. (Contractor)
By: _________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________
(Title)
Attest:

By: ________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________
(Title)
Note: See Section 5 Legal Relations and Responsibilities, Subsection 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for insurance carrier rating requirements.

SECTION D – Page 13

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

ENDORSEMENTS TO INSURANCE POLICY
Name of Insurance Company:

Policy Number:

Effective Date:

The following endorsements are hereby incorporated by reference into the attached Certificate of Insurance as though fully set forth thereon:

1. The naming of an additional insured as herein provided shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured, and

2. The additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium or expense of any nature on this policy or any extensions thereof, and

3. The additional insured named herein shall not by reason of being so named be considered a member of any mutual insurance company for any purpose whatsoever, and

4. The provisions of the policy will not be changed, suspended, canceled or otherwise terminated as to the interest of the additional insured named herein without first giving such additional insured twenty (20) days’ written notice.

5. Any other insurance held by the additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance, which is referred to by this certificate.

6. The company provided insurance for this certificate is a company licensed to do business in the State of California with a Best’s rating of A+ VIII or greater.

It is agreed that the City of Los Alamitos, its officers and employees, are included as Additional Insureds under the contracts of insurance for which the Certificate of Insurance is given.
____________________________________
Authorized Insurance Agent
Date: ______________________________

SECTION D – Page 14

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT

STATEMENT REGARDING INSURANCE COVERAGE

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03

IN THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA
The undersigned representative of Bidder hereby certifies that he/she has reviewed the insurance coverage requirements specified in 5.4 LIABILITY INSURANCE of Section E, Standard Specifications. Should Bidder be awarded the contract for the work, the undersigned further certifies that Bidder can meet all of these specification requirements for insurance including insurance coverage of his/her subcontractors.

NAME OF BIDDER: ........................................................................................................

MAILING ADDRESS: ........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: ........................................................................................................

TITLE: ........................................................................................................

DATE: ........................................................................................................

SECTION D – Page 15

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
STATEMENT REGARDING CONTRACTOR’S LICENSING LAWS

BRIGGEMAN DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
SPECIFICATION NO. CIP 22/23-03

IN THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA
[Business & Professions Code § 7028.15]
[Public Contract Code § 20103.5]
I, the undersigned, certify that I am aware of the following provisions of California law and that I, or the entity on whose behalf this certification is given, hold a currently valid California contractor’s license as set forth below:

Business & Professions Code § 7028.15:
a) It is a misdemeanor for any person to submit a bid to a public agency to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor within this state without having a license therefor, except in any of the following cases:
(1) The person is particularly exempted from this chapter. (2) The bid is submitted on a state project governed by Section 10164 of the Public Contract Code or on any local agency project governed by Section 20104 [now § 20103.5] of the Public Contract Code.
b) If a person has been previously convicted of the offense described in this section, the court shall impose a fine of 20 percent of the price of the contract under which the unlicensed person performed contracting work, or four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500), whichever is greater, or imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both.

In the event the person performing the contracting work has agreed to furnish materials and labor on an hourly basis, “the price of the contract” for the purposes of this subdivision means the aggregate sum of the cost of materials and labor furnished and the cost of completing the work to be performed.
c) This section shall not apply to a joint venture license, as required by Section 7029.1.

However, at the time of making a bid as a joint venture, each person submitting the bid shall be subject to this section with respect to his/her individual licenser. d) This section shall not affect the right or ability of a licensed architect, land surveyor, or registered professional engineer to form joint ventures with licensed contractors to render services within the scope of their respective practices. e) Unless one of the foregoing exceptions applies, a bid submitted to a public agency by a contractor who is not licensed in accordance with this chapter shall be considered nonresponsive and shall be rejected by the public agency. Unless one of the foregoing exceptions applies, a local public agency shall, before awarding a contract or issuing a purchase order, verify that the contractor was properly licensed when the contractor submitted the bid. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless one of the foregoing exceptions applies, the registrar may issue a citation to any public officer or employee of a public entity who knowingly awards a contract or issues a purchase order to a contractor who is not licensed pursuant to this chapter. The amount of civil penalties, appeal, and finality of such citations shall be subject to

SECTION D – Page 15

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
Sections 7028.7 to 7028.13, inclusive. Any contract awarded to, or any purchase order issued to, as contractor who is not licensed pursuant to this chapter is void.

SECTION D – Page 16

CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
f) Any compliance or noncompliance with subdivision (e) of this section, as added by Chapter 863 of the Statutes of 1989, shall not invalidate any contract or bid awarded by a public agency during which time that subdivision was in effect. g) A public employee or officer shall not be subject to a citation pursuant to this section if the public employee, officer, or employing agency made an inquiry to the board for the purposes of verifying the license status of any person or contractor and the board failed to respond to the inquiry within three business days. For purposes of this section, a telephone response by the board shall be deemed sufficient.

Public Contract Code § 20103.5:

In all contracts subject to this part where federal funds are involved, no bid submitted shall be invalidated by the failure of the bidder to be licensed in accordance with the laws of this state.

However, at the time the contract is awarded, the contractor shall be properly licensed in accordance with the laws of this state. The first payment for work or material under any contract shall not be made unless and until the Registrar of Contractors verifies to the agency that the records of the Contractors’ State License Board indicate that the contractor was properly licensed at the time the contract was awarded. Any bidder or contractor not so licensed shall be subject to all legal penalties imposed by law, including, but not limited to, any appropriate disciplinary action by the Contractors’ State License Board. The agency shall include a statement to that effect in the standard form of pre-qualification questionnaire and financial statement. Failure of the bidder to obtain proper and adequate licensing for an award of a contract shall constitute a failure to execute the contract and shall result in the forfeiture of the security of the bidder.

Contractors’ License Number:

License Expiration Date:

Authorized Signature:

Date:

City of Los Alamitos

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022 ITEM NUMBER: 8H
To: Mayor Shelley Hasselbrink & Members of the City Council Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Notice of Completion (NOC) for CDBG Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Street Improvement (CIP No. 21/22-04)

SUMMARY
The CDBG Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Street Improvement FY 2021-2022 Project (CIP No. 21/22-04) incorporated the construction of grinding and overlay work along Howard Avenue (Noel Street to Lexington Drive) and also on Bloomfield Street (Farquhar Avenue to Katella Avenue) as part of the City’s ongoing pavement management program. The project is now complete.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept as complete the construction by Hardy and Harper, Inc. for the CDBG Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Street Improvement FY 2021-2022 Project (CIP No. 21/22-04); and,

2. Direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion/Final Report with the County Recorder’s Office; and,

3. Authorize Staff to release the 5% retention to the contractor, in the amount of $11,091.49, thirty-five (35) days after recordation of the Notice of Completion.

BACKGROUND
The plans and specifications for the CDBG Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Street Improvement FY 2021-2022 Project (CIP No. 21/22-04) were approved by Council on November 15, 2021. Council awarded and approved the contract with Hardy and Harper, Inc. on February 28, 2022. The work consisted of grinding and overlaying pavement on the roadway. The ADA curb ramps were replaced to current standards.

DISCUSSION
Work on this project is now complete and found acceptable by the City Engineer. Staff recommends acceptance of the work in conjunction with the processing of the Notice of Completion/Final Report and release of the retention as prescribed by the Public Contracts Codes.

FISCAL IMPACT

The project had a total funding budget of $333,000.00 with the following breakdown of funding sources:

Budget Fiscal Year Source Amount
2021-22 CDBG $270,000.00
2021-22 Measure M - Match $13,000.00
2021-22 Measure M - ADA Sidewalk $50,000.00
Project Total $333,000.00
The project was within the overall funding budget. The project was under budget due to a lower than anticipated bid from the contractor. The city also requested additional sidewalk and curb and gutter to be repaired during construction which slightly increased these quantities.

Construction Bid Price $205,000.00
Change Orders/Increased Quantities $16,829.84
Total Construction Price $221,829.84
Attachment: 1. CIP 21/22-04 Notice of Completion

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
No Consideration SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER

NOTICE OF COMPLETION NO RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
for
CDBG Howard Avenue & Bloomfield Street Improvements Project (CIP No. 21/22-04) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned are owners or corporate officers of the interest or estates stated below in property hereinafter described.

2. The full name of the owner is: City of Los Alamitos, 3191 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA 90720

3. The work consisted of :

The City of Los Alamitos reconstructed two street segments in the Apartment Row Neighborhood. The CDBG Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Street Improvement FY 2021-2022 Project (CIP No. 21/22-04) incorporated the construction of grinding and overlay work along Howard Avenue (Noel Street to Lexington Drive) and also on Bloomfield Street (Farquhar Avenue to Katella Avenue) as part of the City’s ongoing pavement management program.

4. The work was completed on___07/29/2022______

5. The contractor was: Hardy and Haper, Inc.

Dated _____09/03/2022______________________ __________________________________________ Chris Kelley, City Engineer, City of Los Alamitos

VERIFICATION BY CORPORATION OWNER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Chris Kelley, City Engineer of Los Alamitos, a Municipal Corporation, and that he executed the foregoing Notice of the aforesaid interest or estates in the property therein described; and verify on behalf of the City of Los Alamitos; that the contents thereof, and the the facts therein stated are true.
____________________________________________________
Chris Kelley, City Engineer
Dated: __________________

City of Los Alamitos

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022 ITEM NUMBER: 8I
To: Mayor Shelley Hasselbrink & Members of the City Council Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Notice of Completion (NOC) for the Citywide Signing and Striping Improvements on Various Streets FY 21/22 (CIP 21/22-02)

SUMMARY
The Citywide Signing and Striping Improvements on Various Streets FY 21/22 (CIP 21/22-02) incorporated the signing and pavement/street striping per plan. The citywide pavement/street striping program assists in maintaining safe and up-to-date signing, striping and pavement markings that comply with current Federal and State standards. The project consisted of the installation of new pavement striping in the Old Town West Neighborhood, Old Dutch Haven Neighborhood, and also within, Briggeman Drive, Sausalito Street, and Cerritos Avenue as recommended by the Traffic Commission and approved at the February 28, 2022 City Council meeting. The project is now complete.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept as complete the construction by Superior Pavement Markings for the Citywide Signing and Striping Improvements on Various Streets FY 21/22 (CIP 21/22-02); and,

2. Direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion/Final Report with the County Recorder’s Office; and,

3. Authorize Staff to release the 5% retention to the contractor, in the amount of $4,104.40, thirty-five (35) days after recordation of the Notice of Completion.

BACKGROUND
Pavement markings are used to convey messages to roadway users. It is of utmost importance to keep all pavement markings clear, concise, and up-to-date. Drivers and pedestrians depend on this when entering a parking lot or neighborhood. These days, drivers and pedestrians are more distracted than ever, which makes clear pavement markings more important.

The plans and specifications for the Citywide Signing and Pavement/Street Striping Improvements on Various Streets FY 21/22 (CIP 21/22-02) were approved by Council on February 28, 2022. Council approved the Award of Bid to Superior Pavement Markings on May 16, 2022. The work consisted of striping a new bike lane on Cerritos Avenue, new crosswalk striping at various locations, and additional traffic-calming striping to Old Town West

neighborhood portions of the street.

DISCUSSION
Work on this project is now complete and found acceptable by the City Engineer. Staff recommends acceptance of the work in conjunction with the processing of the Notice of Completion/Final Report and release of the retention as prescribed by the Public Contracts Codes.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project had a total funding budget of $100,000.00 with the following breakdown of funding sources:

Budget Fiscal Year Source Amount
2021-22 Gas Tax $75,000.00
2021-22 General Fund $25,000.00
Project Total $100,000.00
The project was within the overall funding budget. The city also requested additional striping during construction to enhance additional crosswalks at the intersections of Los Alamitos Boulevard at Briggeman Drive and also at Cerritos Avenue.

Construction Bid Price $71,124.90
Change Orders/Increased Quantities $10,963.12
Total Construction Price $82,088.02
Attachment: 1. CIP 21/22-02 - NOC

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
No Consideration SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER

NOTICE OF COMPLETION NO RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
for
Citywide Signing and Striping Improvements on Various Streets FY 21/22 (CIP 21/22-02) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned are owners or corporate officers of the interest or estates stated below in property hereinafter described.

2. The full name of the owner is: City of Los Alamitos, 3191 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA 90720

3. The work consisted of :

The project installed new pavement striping in the Old Town West Neighborhood, Old Dutch Haven Neighborhood, and also within, Briggeman Drive, Sausalito Street, and Cerritos Avenue as recommend by the Traffic Commission and approved at the 2/28/2022 City Council meeting.

4. The work was completed on___08/18/2022______

5. The contractor was: Superior Pavement Markings

Dated _____09/03/2022______________________ __________________________________________ Chris Kelley, City Engineer, City of Los Alamitos

VERIFICATION BY CORPORATION OWNER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Chris Kelley, City Engineer of Los Alamitos, a Municipal Corporation, and that he executed the foregoing Notice of the aforesaid interest or estates in the property therein described; and verify on behalf of the City of Los Alamitos; that the contents thereof, and the the facts therein stated are true.
____________________________________________________
Chris Kelley, City Engineer
Dated: __________________

City of Los Alamitos

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022 ITEM NUMBER: 8J
To: Mayor Shelley Hasselbrink & Members of the City Council Presented By: Chet Simmons, City Manager
Subject: 2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?"

SUMMARY
This report contains the City's response to 2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?”

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the attached response to the Orange County Grand Jury report titled “How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?”, and,

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter on behalf of the City Council.

BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2022, the Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) released a report titled “How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?” focused on Orange County’s multi-layered approach to homelessness and the resources that are being applied. Specifically, the Grand Jury’s concern is that while Orange County is addressing homelessness in conjunction with multiple partner agencies, there are still shortcomings and bottlenecks within the current system.

In compliance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the City is required to provide a response to each of the Grand Jury findings and recommendations directed to the City by September 21, 2022. A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury’s Report and has prepared the attached responses to those findings and recommendations that were directed to the City of Los Alamitos. Topics discussed in the report include a brief history of homelessness in Orange County, past efforts to address this issue, current programs, and statistical data related to current programs’ effectiveness.

In total, the Grand Jury Report contained two (2) findings and three (3) recommendations requiring a response by the City. The proposed City responses are included as Attachment 2.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

Attachment: 1. Orange County Grand Jury report titled "How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?"

2. City's Response Letter

September 20, 2022
Honorable Erick L. Larsh, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Response to 2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Report “How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?”
Dear Judge Larsh:

The City of Los Alamitos (City) has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?” As required by California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the City is responding to the findings and recommendations included within the report. The required responses are contained below:

Findings and Responses:

F3. The County of Orange and cities within Orange County have been inconsistent in collaboration for support of shelters and services, which has resulted in missed opportunities to end homelessness.

Response: Disagree
The collaboration between the County of Orange (County), Orange County Continuum of Care and cities in Orange County has resulted in the creation of several shelters and services that better address unsheltered homelessness.

Specifically, the twelve (12) North Service Planning Area (NSPA) cities have collaborated together with the County of Orange to construct and operate two (2) Navigation Centers to provide shelter and comprehensive wraparound services to our unsheltered residents of North County. The City of Los Alamitos believe this model has demonstrated to be effective at addressing the regional nature of homelessness within the North SPA.

F4. There are an insufficient number of rental units available to those exiting Emergency Shelters, resulting in the majority returning to homelessness when leaving the shelter Response: Partially Agree
While progress is being made, there continues to be a growing deficit of affordable and low-income housing specifically allocated for those individuals leaving shelter environments. This deficit has been further exacerbated by terms/conditions that many individuals experiencing homelessness cannot meet (background check, credit check, 3 times/rent amount, etc.) There is also a lack of

services to help individuals retain their housing once they move in. Many individuals who experience homelessness need ongoing high level, case management/wrap around support services for a period after moving into a permanent home.

Recommendations and Responses:

R4. By July 2024, the County of Orange and cities and should collaborate to open facilities that can house people with severe and persistent mental illness and addiction issues in a secure setting.

Response: Recommendation has been implemented
The 2022 Housing Inventory Count identified 2,793 units of permanent supportive housing. The Housing Funding Strategy has established a target for the development of 2,700 new supportive housing by 2025. The development of new permanent supportive housing and affordable housing is an existing and ongoing collaborative effort between the City of Los Alamitos, NSPA, and the County of Orange.

R5. By July 2023, the County of Orange, cities and CoC should collaborate to encourage the development of housing affordable to individuals exiting the emergency shelters in Orange County.

Response: Recommendation has been implemented
The City of Los Alamitos, NSPA, the County of Orange, and the Orange County Continuum of Care have been working together to encourage the development of affordable housing and permanent supportive housing that supports the needs of people experiencing homelessness and accessing the system of care. This includes the development of housing opportunities that support participants exiting from emergency shelters into permanent housing.

To date, over 2,600 units of affordable and supportive housing have been completed. This number is being bolstered by different projects that are currently under construction or in progress of development throughout Orange County with the support and collaboration between the County of Orange and Cities. The City of Los Alamitos will continue to work with the NSPA, the County of Orange, and the Orange County Continuum of Care in order to develop additional affordable housing and permanent supportive housing units as part of the system of care.

R6. By December 1, 2022, the County of Orange, cities and CoC should collaborate to increase the number of housing opportunities for Transitional Aged Youth.

Response: Recommendation has been implemented
Since June 2020, County’s Office of Care Coordination has worked to improve the homeless service delivery for transitional aged youth experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.

The County provides oversight over the Coordinated Entry System and has worked to implement a separate process for transitional aged youth to be prioritized for available housing resources in Orange County. This has resulted in the implementation of a Transitional Aged Youth Registry, composed of youth participants experiencing homelessness in Orange County regardless of their household composition. Transitional aged youth service providers are invited to attend a collaborative case conferencing meeting to discuss individual cases, available housing resources, and dynamic prioritization through the Coordinated Entry System to ensure that the most vulnerable participants are receiving the most appropriate housing referrals.

The City of Los Alamitos supports the further deployment of housing resources, along with the solicitation of new housing resources, specifically designed to meet the needs of the transitional aged youth experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness in Orange County.

In the event that you need additional information regarding the City’s responses, please contact City Manager, Chet Simmons, via email at [email protected].

Respectfully,
Shelley Hasselbrink, Mayor

City of Los Alamitos

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022 ITEM NUMBER: 8K
To: Mayor Shelley Hasselbrink & Members of the City Council Presented By: Chet Simmons, City Manager
Subject: Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “Where Have All the CRVs Gone?”

SUMMARY
Response to the June 28, 2022, Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “Where Have All the CRVs Gone?”

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the attached response to the Orange County Grand Jury report titled Where Have All the CRVs Gone?”, and,

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter on behalf of the City Council.

BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2022, the Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) released a report titled “Where Have All the CRVs Gone?” focused on the $600 million in California Refund Value (CRV) fees that remain unclaimed and are being held by the State of California. Specifically, the Grand Jury’s concern is that the closure of redemption facilities across California over the last few years has created a situation by which Orange County residents have limited access to recycle bottles/cans and obtain a refund of the CRV that was paid when the containers were purchased.

In compliance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the City is required to provide a response to each of the Grand Jury findings and recommendations directed to the City by September 28, 2022. A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury’s Report and has prepared the attached responses to those findings and recommendation that were directed to the City of Los Alamitos. Topics discussed in the report include a brief history of CRV, reduction of recycling facilities throughout California, responsibilities of grocery stores to collect and recycle CRV containers, grants to fund municipal pilot programs, and the expanded use of residential recycling carts.

In total, the Grand Jury Report contained three (3) findings and four (4) recommendations

requiring a response by the City. The proposed City responses are included as Attachment 2.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

Attachment: 1. Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “Where Have All the CRVs Gone?”

2. City's Response Letter

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
GRAND JURY 2021-2022

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 2
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 REASON FOR THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 4 METHOD OF STUDY ................................................................................................................. 5 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 5 CRV Redemption...................................................................................................................... 5 Waste Haulers.......................................................................................................................... 9 Beverage Container Recycling Pilot Program...................................................................... 11 Additional Grant Opportunities............................................................................................. 12 Current State of Redemption Efforts in Orange County........................................................ 13 FINDINGS................................................................................................................................... 14 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 14 COMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 15 RESPONSES ............................................................................................................................... 15 Responses Required ................................................................................................................ 16 Responses Requested............................................................................................................... 19 GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................. 20

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3

SUMMARY
Each year Californians pay over $1.4 billion in California Refund Value (CRV) fees to the State of California, yet only a portion of those funds are redeemed by the consumer. Since 2013, more than 1,000 redemption centers have closed throughout California leaving 1,265 redemption centers statewide and only 109 in Orange County.1 The quantity of convenient redemption centers is constantly changing. Where once the consumer need only return their cans and bottles to the grocery store to receive their money, today redemption could mean traveling many miles.

Due to the reduction of CRV redemption sites, waste haulers have become the default beneficiaries and are paid the CRV redemption for the containers collected at curbside. Millions of dollars in CRV fees still go unclaimed. Currently this amount is over $600 million, a portion of which belongs to Orange County residents.

This report will explore the lack of redemption sites and the innovative programs being piloted to return the CRV dollars to Orange County consumers. Based on the Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) investigation, we recommend all Orange County cities and the County of Orange assess the revenue stream from curbside pickup, processing, and sale of recyclable materials, and leverage this to benefit their residents when negotiating waste hauler contracts. They should also require waste hauler-funded additional redemption centers when negotiating contracts.

Additionally, the OCGJ recommends all cities and the County of Orange research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from Cal/EPA California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) that focus on returning CRV funds to their residents. Lastly, the OCGJ recommends development of programs aimed at educating residents regarding CRV redemption opportunities.

BACKGROUND
California Redemption Value (CRV), also known as California Refund Value, is a regulatory fee paid on recyclable beverage containers in California. The fee was established by the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986, also called the Bottle Bill (AB 2020, Margolin).
2 Since 2010 the program has been administered by the Cal/EPA California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). This Act was intended to increase the recycling rate to 80 percent of all recyclable containers and to provide for convenience in redeeming consumer deposits (CRV).

This Act established convenience zones. A retailer/dealer in an unserved convenience zone (one without a functioning redemption center) may choose, after a 60-day grace period, to pay CalRecycle $100 fine per day in lieu of redeeming containers on site or establishing a redemption center in the convenience zone. From the CalRecycle website, a convenience zone is 1 http://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/recyclingcenters. 2 http://www.bottlebill.org

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 4
typically a half-mile radius circle with the center point originating at a supermarket that meets the following definitions based on Public Resources Code Sections 14509.4 and 14526.5:
• Supermarket is identified in the Progressive Grocer Market Guidebook. • Supermarket gross annual sales are $2 million or more. • Supermarket is considered a full-line store that sells a line of dry groceries, canned goods, or non-food items and perishable items.

A convenience zone is required by law to have within the zone’s boundaries a recycling center that redeems all California Redemption Value (CRV) containers. A convenience zone with a recycler inside its boundaries is considered a served zone. Convenience zone recyclers provide opportunities to redeem containers near where the beverages were purchased.

For the past several years, using the California redemption program has been a challenge for Orange County consumers. Several factors have led to this difficulty, including lack of access to fewer redemption centers. More than 1,369 supermarket redemption centers have closed since the peak in 2013. Just over 1,200 redemption centers remain in operation in California compared to nearly 2,600 centers in 2013. According to three separate surveys, supermarket chains and other beverage retailers legally obligated to be recyclers of last resort are refusing to redeem consumer deposits up to two-thirds of the time.
3 CalRecycle brings together the state’s recycling and waste management programs. They have provided grants to five pilot programs in California which make resident consumer CRV refunds more accessible and convenient, with the goal of diverting more recyclables from landfills. One pilot grant program is currently operating in Orange County.

REASON FOR THE STUDY
The subject of unclaimed CRV, and a pilot program being developed to address it, were brought to the attention of the OCJG through recently published articles and personal experience.

A yearlong investigation of the California bottle deposit program found that the system could collapse without fundamental reform and that best practices are not being used. 4 Currently,
redemption centers in Orange County are few and far between and have been closing at an alarming rate. The lack of redemption centers has increased the statewide unclaimed deposits held by CalRecycle to over $600 million.
3 Liz Tucker, “Trashed, How California Recycling Failed and How to Fix It,” Consumer Watchdog, published January 2020. For surveys showing that obligated stores refuse to redeem empties two thirds of the time, see:
https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/consumer-watchdog-report-shows-66-grocery-stores-surveyed-refusedrecycle and https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Cash-in-the-Can-Californias-Recycling-Run-Around564236811.html and https://abc7news.com/society/stores-required-to-redeem-crv-on-bottles/5553583/. 4 Liz Tucker, “Trashed, How California Recycling Failed and How to Fix It,” Consumer Watchdog, January 2020.

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
The largest single recycling operator, rePlanet Recycling Centers, that had 600 locations in California, closed their last 284 centers on August 5, 2019, many of which were in Orange County. With fewer options, consumers have relinquished their CRV refunds to the trash haulers by resorting to single stream curbside collections. This CRV and material revenue is in addition to fees paid by residents to collect the recyclable materials. Waste haulers, including municipal haulers, were paid $146 million in 2020 for consumer CRV donated to their recycling bins at curbside and rural drop off locations.
5 The OCGJ discovered CalRecycle was exploring new ways to encourage recycling through five pilot programs. Recycle From Home in Irvine makes redemption of CRV as easy as taking out your trash. This report examines the issues and solutions behind recycling and CRV redemption and explores opportunities to expand innovative programs throughout the County.

METHOD OF STUDY
The OCGJ used a variety of methods to gather information for our investigation. • Interviews with individuals with expertise in state and local waste and recycling management.
• Research about CRV, waste haulers, Convenience Zones, Cash for Trash, local newspapers, grant programs pertaining to Orange County and various sources relating to the overall operations of recycling and CRV fees.
• Report studies from CalRecycle, Consumer Watchdog, and Container Recycling Institute (CRI).
• Tours of Orange County landfills.
• Review of various Assembly and Senate Bills pertaining to recycling. • Conducted a survey of Orange County cities recycling coordinators regarding their current CRV recycling programs.

INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
CRV Redemption
California’s bottle and can recycling program was once considered successful. Today it has become a failed model. California now has a very inconvenient redemption structure compared to other states. As of May 2021, Californians have only one redemption center for about every 26,000 people. Oregon, in comparison, has 74 percent higher quantity of redemption centers than California,
6 even though Oregon’s population is one-ninth the size of California’s. 5 For more on haulers and why consumers do not get back deposits, see: https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsstory/opinion-why-californians-don’t-get-thier-bottle-and-can-deposits-back. 6 OBRC, Quarterly Report Q4 2020

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 6
More than half California’s redemption centers have closed since 2013 due to State underpayments, commodities markets, and later the coronavirus pandemic. Redemption centers have faced financial hardships due to both scrap price declines and inadequate payments from CalRecycle. An additional hardship has been the increase in minimum wage for redemption center employees that has not been accounted for by the payment formula. More than 1,369 redemption centers have closed in California since the peak in 2013. Just over 1,200 redemption centers remain in operation in California, compared to nearly 2,600 centers in 2013.

According to CalRecycle, grocery stores can be granted exemptions if recycling centers would not be economically viable, or if another redemption center is sufficiently close by, or if consumers predominantly use curbside services in their location. 7 Orange County currently has 338 convenience zones, but only 134 of the convenience zones have a redemption center. There are 59 zones made exempt by CalRecycle, 10 more on hold, 7 For more on exemptions and other program rules, see: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/retailers/zones.

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
and 135 unserved.8In the rest of the unserved zones lacking redemption centers, retailers are supposed to provide on-site redemption or pay State fees to avoid responsibility. Returning CRV containers to the local grocery store increases consumer convenience.

In an intercept survey, people were asked to choose from eleven options as to why they redeemed bottles at the recycling center. The top three reasons were ‘close to home’ (70 percent), ‘open at good times’ (21 percent), and ‘short lines and wait times’ (18 percent).9 Consumer Watchdog conducted an audit of 50 Los Angeles-area grocery, convenience and drug stores required by the State to refund consumer bottle deposits. The audit found up to two-thirds of retailers responsible for redemption may be refusing to take bottles back. The penalty from CalRecycle for refusing CRV redemption is between $100 and $1,000, depending on whether it is a repeat offense. It is very rare that retailers will be inspected and penalized by CalRecycle. 10 Close to 4,000 California stores have signed up with CalRecycle to redeem CRV containers in zones lacking recycling centers.
11 In Orange County, 109 Recycling/Redemption centers remain open,
12 many with limited days and hours of operation. In addition, there are currently 195 in8 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/recyclingcenters. 9 Intercept Survey conducted by the University of California, Berkeley research team. 10 Liz Tucker, “Trashed, How California Recycling Failed and How to Fix It,” Consumer Watchdog, published January 2020.
11 www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/InStoreRedemption. 12 www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer>recycling centers.

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 8
store CRV redemption locations.
13 Although the CalRecycle website lists the status, hours, and days of operation of recycling and redemption centers, the OCGJ determined the information is not always accurate.

The primary cause of redemption center closure is the lack of compensation received from CalRecycle. Liza Tucker, a consumer advocate with Container Recycling Institute, stated, “the formula for calculating state payments to recycling centers is flawed.” CalRecycle, she said, “averages costs to run centers across the state. But the cost of operating a redemption center in a grocery store parking lot – which is the most convenient for consumers – is substantially higher.”14
The rePlanet Recycling Centers suffered the largest closure. Established in 1984, rePlanet grew to 600 redemption centers in California at its peak. In 2016, it closed 191 centers and terminated 300 employees. On August 5, 2019, it closed the remaining 284 centers and laid off the remaining 750 employees. David Lawrence, rePlanet’s President said the factors were:

Reduction in State Fees:
• Depressed pricing of aluminum and plastic
• Minimum wage increases
• Required Health and Workers Compensation Insurance15
The decline in Redemption Centers will result in:
• Tons of metal, plastics, and glassware going into landfills • Increased greenhouse gas
• Increased litter
• Lost jobs in recycling and redemption industry
• Income for families and individuals who gather discarded cans and bottles to earn extra cash
A letter from Container Recycling Institute (CRI) urged the State to extend the Processing Payment Emergency Regulations for one year.
16 The Emergency Regulations add a 10 percent
reasonable financial return to calculate the processing payments that will be made to certified recyclers for 2021. This processing payment subsidy is intended to offset the difference between their operating costs and the revenue earned from scrap sales and handling fees. “Recyclers” include recycling centers, and curbside and drop-off programs. 13 www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/beveragecontainer/instore redemption. 14 Kevin Smith, “rePlanet Closes all Recycling Centers, Prompting a Call for Bottle, Can Redemption at Stores,” San Gabriel Valley Tribune, August 6, 2019.
15 Ibid.
16 December 6, 2021, letter from Container Recycling Institute President and Executive Director, Susan Collins to The State of California Office of Administrative Law.

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
California retailers are the failsafe for the program in locations lacking redemption centers.

California has an average of one center for every 26,000 consumers, 17 leading to CRV nonredemption.

Waste Haulers
Municipal curbside drop-off programs and trash haulers benefit from the redemption of CRV containers the consumers discard. When the Bottle Bill18 passed, environmental groups and lawmakers envisioned a network of redemption centers in supermarket parking lots to redeem containers. But California lawmakers and environmentalists also wanted to encourage developing curbside recycling. Operators of curbside and rural drop-off recycling programs are eligible to bill the State for the CRV stamped on the labels of containers without offering consumers refunds.19 Waste haulers were paid $146 million in 2020 for consumer CRV donated to their recycling bins at curbside and rural drop off locations.20 The rate at which consumers take bottles and cans for direct deposit refunds stands at 58.8 percent as of November 2021. 17 California’s population of 40 million is served by 1,553 redemption centers, per CalRecycle presentation, Beverage Container Recycling Program, Certification and Registration Branch, 4th Quarter 2018, presented in January 2019.
18 AB 2020, Margolin.
19 https://www.CalRecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer.
20 In 2020 haulers were paid $118 million for the CRV in curbside bins and $28 million for the CRV at rural, drop off locations, according to the CalRecycle data analyzed by Container Recycling Institute. Corporate waste haulers operate a majority of these of these programs. Municipalities operate at least ten percent of these programs statewide.

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10
Meanwhile, unredeemed deposits in the State’s main beverage fund are more than $600 million.21
Curbside haulers in many cities use a single stream method of gathering recyclables. People put their recyclables into one bin and trucks take them to a processing center where machinery sorts the materials. But during transport, the materials are jostled together, rendering at least one quarter of the materials useless because they are contaminated with ground-in bits of organic waste, paper, plastic, and metal. This contamination contributes to increased landfill waste rather than recycling.

In California, waste haulers profit in numerous ways:
• They receive the CRV value, and the material scrap value of recyclables collected.
• Those that process recyclable materials are paid an additional three quarters of one percent, based on the total value of CRV collected, for administrative costs. • They are paid subsidies to compensate for the difference between the cost of recycling and the market scrap value.
• They are awarded supplemental payments.

California awards “supplemental payments” to operators of curbside programs. These payments were initially created as an incentive to start and support curbside collection programs. Now that most cities have curbside collection programs supported by ratepayers, the supplemental payments are additional profit.
21 Liza Tucker, “State Obscures Extent of a Half-Billion-Dollar Surplus of Unredeemed CRV Deposits as Redemption Rate Stays Stuck at 58 percent,” Consumer Watchdog, February 9, 2022.

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11
Visualization of flow of Payments to Waste Haulers22
Beverage Container Recycling Pilot Program
Under previous legislation,
23 CalRecycle approved five pilot programs to boost consumer redemption access in the following jurisdictions: Culver City, San Francisco, San Mateo County, Sonoma County, and the City of Irvine.

Communities can create CRV redemption programs that work for them. Pilot programs allow flexible operating requirements and customized redemption programs designed to meet a region’s unique needs. The CalRecycle Pilot Project Grant Program is designed to assist jurisdictions that lack CRV beverage container recycling opportunities for their residents.

The goals of the Pilot Project Grant Program are:
• Improving redemption opportunities in underserved areas. • Allowing local governments and private industry to work together, to create new, convenient, and innovative recycling opportunities that work in their region or area. • Increasing consumer redemption access.
• Increasing recycling percentages in pilot program areas. 22 Liza Tucker, “Waste Haulers: The Square Peg in the Circular Economy,” Consumer Watchdog, May 2021. Used with permission of the author.
23 California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction At (Assembly Bill 2020, Margolin, Statutes of 1986 Chapter 1290) (Public Resources Code 14571.9) SB458 (Wiener Chapter 648 Statues of 2017).

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 12
Pilot program jurisdiction is defined as a city, county, or a combination thereof, that has authority to issue a grant permission for a certified pilot program recycler to operate in the designated pilot project area. Jurisdiction must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• The jurisdiction must have at least six unserved convenience zones. • At least 75 percent of all convenience zones are unserved.

Local jurisdictions can now apply to turn their recycling deserts into hubs for convenient bottle and can redemption. California has approved five additional pilot grants, and the grant pilot program has been extended until June 30, 2026. The Governor has allocated an additional $10 million to support the local pilot programs.

Additional Grant Opportunities
Currently, in Orange County, there is one grant pilot program operating. This program, called Recycle from Home, is a joint effort between the City of Irvine and the program’s founder, Ryan Bloom. Irvine was an ideal location for a pilot program because of its high-density population with unserved CRV redemption zones. Recycle from Home picks up recycling directly from the resident’s doorstep and deposits CRV refunds into the user’s account of choice, minus 10 percent paid to the program. Participants are responsible for sorting their CRV recyclables and placing them in specially coded bags provided. Once the bag is ready, residents simply schedule a pickup with Recycle from Home through an app or phone call and place the bag(s) on their porch.

The OCGJ found this program to be an innovative way to return CRV funds to the consumers.

Additionally, CalRecycle offers the Beverage Container Recycling Grant Program. Beginning September 30, 2021, and ending June 28, 2024, grants are available to cities for beverage container recycling. The goal of this program is to reach and maintain an 80 percent recycling rate for all of California refund value beverage containers-aluminum, glass, plastic, and bi-metal.

Unlike the Grant Pilot Program, no redemption element to consumers is required. The requirements are:
• The projects must be in California.
• Reimbursement will not exceed the amount stated on the Grant Agreement Cover Sheet (CalRecycle 110).
• The grantee will ensure that the recycling bins, if applicable, are serviced on a regular basis and that collected material is transported to a certified recycling center. • The grantee will ensure, if applicable, that it and/or other entities certified to collect beverage containers are certified or registered by CalRecycle in the proper category and will provide the Grant Manager a copy of the certification certificates(s) upon request.

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
The grantee shall monitor the project for the tonnage and revenues collected by material type, if applicable, and will report to the Grant Manager in the progress and final reports. Information for both these programs is available on the CalRecycle web site.24 The OCGJ strongly encourages other cities and the County to research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for their communities that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents’ benefit and to reduce recyclables from entering landfills.

Current State of Redemption Efforts in Orange County
The OCGJ surveyed the thirty-four cities in Orange County. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate the efforts the cities are currently undertaking to help residents obtain their CRV refunds and remove recycling from the waste stream. The City of Irvine is currently participating in the Recycle from Home grant pilot program and requires its solid waste hauler to operate a buy-back center for Irvine residents.

Over 40 percent of the 14 cities that responded to the OCGJ survey failed to offer an organized program for public outreach and education regarding CRV redemption and recycling. Many relied on their waste haulers to make recycling available and to educate their community. Brea had applied for CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling grants for the purchase of designated recycling containers at several city and school locations.

Three of the responding cities took into consideration waste hauler revenue from CRV redemption and raw material sales in different ways. Laguna Beach had a windfall recycling payment clause in their waste hauler contract. It stipulated that the contractor agreed to pay Laguna Beach 25 percent of revenue that is attributable to the sale of recyclable material collected in the city that exceeds $135 per ton (net processing costs). Similarly, Fountain Valley had CRV revenue sharing which required the waste hauler share CRV revenue with the city once the contractor’s baseline CRV revenue exceeded $275,000. San Juan Capistrano considered fundraising efforts by requiring the waste hauler to offer free 30-yard roll-off containers to local schools for collecting CRV from students and families. When these containers are filled, the contractor is required to provide the redemption value to the school as a fundraising source. The OCGJ applauds the efforts by these cities to benefit their citizenry and increase material recycling.

The OCGJ sees a missed opportunity for the cities that are not leveraging CRV or the raw material revenue when negotiating their waste hauler contracts. Orange County cities should be more proactive in encouraging CRV redemption and recycling by their residents. The OCGJ also encourages each City’s participation and promotion of the grant pilot programs currently offered by CalRecycle.

An additional tool for sharing information about each City’s recycling efforts is the City Recycling Coordinators Meeting. This meeting is held quarterly and facilitated by staff of OC Waste & Recycling (OCWR), a department of the County of Orange. A recent meeting included 24 www.calrecycle.ca.gov

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 14
recycling coordinators, representatives from CalRecycle and OCWR, consultant groups, and industry professionals. Agenda items included:
• Education Outreach Updates.
• CalRecycle Update.
• City/Consultant Q&A.

The OCGJ believes this is an educational and informative opportunity for City Recycling Managers and encourages participation by all cities.

FINDINGS
Based on its investigation described here, the 2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following principal findings:

F1 Due to the reduced availability of convenient CRV redemption sites and the lack of accurate online information, it is difficult for resident consumers to redeem CRV fees.

F2 Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers.

F3 CalRecycle is attempting to improve CRV redemption and reduce CRV recyclables from landfills and are offering financial incentives to do so. Orange County and its cities are not fully taking advantage of the grant or pilot program opportunities available through CalRecycle.

F4 Orange County and most OC Cities do not make CRV redemption and recycling a priority when negotiating their waste hauler contracts which results in missed financial opportunities and convenience for their residents.

In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2021-2022 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1 By January of 2023, each of the cities in Orange County should research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for their community that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)
R2 By January of 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should require OC Waste & Recycling to research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for the unincorporated areas of OC that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
R3 When renegotiating their current waste hauler contract, all cities and the County of Orange should assess the value of the CRV funds received by the waste hauler in their jurisdiction and creatively leverage this revenue for the benefit of their residents. (F2, F4) R4 By January of 2023, all cities and the County of Orange should develop extensive community outreach programs aimed at educating the public about how to access CRV redemption in their jurisdiction. (F1, F3)

COMMENDATIONS
The OCGJ commends Recycle From Home in the City of Irvine as CalRecycle’s only pilot project grant program in Orange County. A collaboration between the City and private enterprise, Recycle From Home is a unique collaborative concept to service the entire City of Irvine’s CRV recycling needs. This is an eco-friendly way to recycle right from your driveway or doorstep. This mobile residential recycling service was selected and approved as part of a new pilot project grant program established by the State of California. The pilot program is innovative, convenient, helps keep CRV recyclable material out of the waste stream and returns the deposits directly to the consumer.

RESPONSES
The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report:

California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the way such comment(s) are to be made as follows:
(a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

Responses Required
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from:
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3 F4
Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Laguna Hills X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Laguna Hills X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Laguna Niguel X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Laguna Niguel X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Laguna Woods X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Laguna Woods X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Lake Forest X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Lake Forest X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Los Alamitos X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Los Alamitos X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Mission Viejo X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Mission Viejo X X X X

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Rancho Santa
Margarita X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Rancho Santa
Margarita X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of San Clemente X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of San Clemente X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of San Juan Capistrano
X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of San Juan Capistrano X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Santa Ana X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Santa Ana X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Seal Beach X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Seal Beach X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Stanton X X X

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Stanton X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Tustin X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Tustin X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Villa Park X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Villa Park X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Westminster X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Westminster X X X X
90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3
City Council of Yorba Linda X X X
90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4
City Council of Yorba Linda X X X X
Responses Requested
90 Day Response Requested F1 F2 F3 F4
OC Waste & Recycling X X X
90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4
OC Waste & Recycling X X X

Where Have All the CRVs Gone?
2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Page 20

GLOSSARY
Assembly Bill 2020 Encourage recycling and reduce litter.

Assembly Bill 939 Integrated Waste Act – mandates reduction of waste being disposed.

Bottle Bill
CalRecycle
Senate Bill 38.

California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery.

CIP Convenience Incentive Payment.

Convenience Zone A convenience zone is required by law to have within the zone’s boundaries, a recycling center that redeems all California Redemption Value (CRV) containers. A convenience zone with a recycler inside its boundaries is considered a served zone.

CRV California Refund Value.

Handling Fee Monthly payments made by the CalRecycle to recycling centers that meet certain eligibility requirements.

MRF
PRA
OAL
A facility utilized for the purpose of collecting, sorting, and processing materials to be recycled.

Public Records Act.

Office of Administrative Law.

OCWR
OCGJ
Processing Fee
OC Waste & Recycling, a department of the County of Orange.

Orange County Grand Jury.

Total cost charged per online transaction.

Redemption Center Accepts empty deposit beverage containers from redeemers.

Senate Bill 38 “Bottle Bill” – requires beverage industry to establish convenient recycling and redemption places so consumers may get their deposits back.

Single Stream
Transaction Fee
Waste haulers pick up Recycle bins from customer’s location.

Flat dollar amount charged based on the number of transactions.

Waste Hauler Any person carrying or engaging in the collection of waste.

September 20, 2022
Honorable Erick L. Larsh, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Response to 2021-2022 Orange County Grand Jury Report “Where Have All the CRVs Gone?”
Dear Judge Larsh:

The City of Los Alamitos (City) has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “Where Have All the CRVs Gone?” As required by California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the City is responding to the findings and recommendations included within the report. The required responses are contained below:

Findings and Responses:

F1. Due to the reduced availability of convenient CRV redemption sites and the lack of accurate online information, it is difficult for resident consumers to redeem CRV fees.

Response: Disagree
There are currently three CRV redemption sites within a three-mile radius of Los Alamitos City Hall, all of which have an online presence. As such, the City does not concur with the Grand Jury’s finding.

F2. Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers.

Response: Disagree
As residents of Los Alamitos have access to and/or are in close proximity to multiple CRV redemption sites, there are no barriers to their ability to obtain CRV redemption should they choose to.

F3. CalRecycle is attempting to improve CRV redemption and reduce CRV recyclables from landfills and are offering financial incentives to do so. Orange County and its cities are not fully taking advantage of the grant or pilot program opportunities available through CalRecycle.

Response: Partially Agree
While the CRV redemption program has worked well in the past, smaller cities that contract out their waste hauling services are often unable to meet specific requirements in order to take advantage of specific funding programs. In the event cities are able to access this funding, it is for a short period of time. As such,

cities are required to continuously apply for new grant funding in order to sustain programs initiated by the State.

Recommendations and Responses:

R1. By January of 2023, each of the cities in Orange County should research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for their community that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented
While the City of Los Alamitos will always look to identify grants to offset city operational costs, the City has not identified any barrier to access of these facilities in our community. As such, CalRecycle should determine if there is an opportunity to return funding to CRV redemption vendor/participants in a manner that makes the program financially more attractive to participants.

R2. By January of 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should require OC Waste & Recycling to research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for the unincorporated areas of OC that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented
The City of Los Alamitos has no jurisdiction in determining what the County should or should not do with CRV in unincorporated areas of the County. That said, the closest unincorporated area to the City of Los Alamitos enjoy the same access to CRV sites as our residents do.

R3. When renegotiating their current waste hauler contract, all cities and the County of Orange should assess the value of the CRV funds received by the waste hauler in their jurisdiction and creatively leverage this revenue for the benefit of their residents. (F2, F4) Response: Recommendation has been implemented
The City of Los Alamitos has and will continue to implement the recommendation. The City of Los Alamitos recently when out to bid for solid waste collection services. Part of the analysis of proposals included the evaluation of all revenue and expenses when determining customer rates and that any the revenue they generate.

R4. By January of 2023, all cities and the County of Orange should develop extensive community outreach programs aimed at educating the public about how to access CRV redemption in their jurisdiction. (F1, F3)
Response: Recommendation has been implemented

The City of Los Alamitos has a robust public engagement campaign aimed improving the success of all State-mandated recycling programs. We will continue to work with our contract hauler to reinforce the accessibility of these programs in the future.

In the event that you need additional information regarding the City’s responses, please contact City Manager, Chet Simmons, via email at [email protected].

Respectfully,
Shelley Hasselbrink, Mayor