The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/03/95� " � B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM November 3, 1995 T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNC / FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. There is an interesting memorandum from Raul Rojas enclosed on the possibility that, if there is a return to custody facility built in town, it could be used in connection with the recycling program. We will pursue an inquiry into that. 2. There is a draft of a communication to Kern County enclosed on service duplication. This is a component of the Master Tax Split Agreement we signed where we agreed to discuss and exchange areas where services could be more efficient. Please review it. Get back to me if you have additions, proposed changes or deletions. We would hope to send this to the County fairly shortly to initiate discussions on some of these topics. 3. Another meeting of the Insurance Committee seemed to go better this week on the retiree medical. We made a new proposal which was at least courteously listened to. We will know more at a later date. 4. The status report on Development Services activities is enclosed for your information. 5. There is a summary report enclosed on the negotiations with the contract refuse haulers on automation.� 6. There are items enclosed for your information as follows: confirmation on the County's monitoring of the percentage of greenwaste that comes from Kern County; study estimated cost for the State Route 178 interchange at Fairfax, Morning and Alfred Harrell; a thank you letter from Crystal Geyser for helping with the crime and graffiti problems; a response to the Centennial High School complaint about traffic problems; and, an update on the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program. 7. Regarding Central Park, we are monitoring, with the help of the Senior Center and Museum, to see if moving it across the canal alleviates the hardships. We'll delay actions temporarily until we have a feel for that. 8. The Operating Engineer strike is over. Crews are returning to all City projects. � NONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL November 3, 1995 Page -2- 9. We have set a late November interview Manager position. Subject to a physical, (Data Processing) position vacancy! AT:rg Enclosures cc: Department Heads Trudy Slater Carol Williams schedule for the Human Resources we have resolved the MIS Manager � /s �� TO: FROM: DATE: • B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR - OCTOBER 23, 1995 SUBJECT: PRISON/RECYCLING FACILITY This is to report on the topic and to provide possible leverage for a City booking station. Staff has attended two meetings at the request of Alternative Programs, Inc. (A.P., Inc.) regarding the possibility of a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at a future detention facility in southeast Bakersfield. The first meeting was with staff and A.P., Inc. only, following the newspaper article which recently ran on this subject. A.P., Inc. wanted to know what the City's "long range and official" recycling plans are, so that A.P., Inc. could plan their MRF accordingly. Staff cooperated and informed A.P., Inc. that: 1. Since the 1995 25 % recycling mandate had been met, a MRF inay only be necessary to meet the year 2000 state mandate of 50 % recycling. 2. MRFs usually operate on gate fees, which in the case of Kern County may not be available for residential refuse since the County charges a flat residential parcel fee regardless of waste quantity. 3. The County charges for commercial refuse disposal by the air space available in refuse bins instead of actual tonnage received at the landfill. However, this fee could possibly be paid to a MRF. The second meeting was with A.P., Inc. and Daphne Washington of the County to discuss the same issue with respect to the County. Ms. Washington indicated that Kern County has already met AB939 requirements and therefore does not need a MRF, and that MRFs are not a cost-effective way to conserve landfill space in Kern County. A.P., Inc. then asked about MRFing waste imported from other areas and disposing of residual waste at the Bena Landiill. Ms. Washington doubted this would be allowed because local landfill capacity is a precious resource. �': :��J`i �► ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER PRISON/RECYCLING FACILITY PAGE TWO A.P., Inc. said that they do not wish to conflict with City or County solid waste management plans, but that they would like to include a MRF in their proposal to the State for a 500 bed detention facility iu January. Staff has the following observations to offer in case the City wishes to support the A.P., Inc. project (or others): 1. A prison/MRF inay be more economically viable than the regular MRF cost estimates used in the County's earlier planning work. This would be due to "free labor" and capital subsidy from the occupation center portion of the 500 bed rison. It may be worthwhile to explore whether thisncould affect the P County's opinion that saving landfill space via a MRF is too costly. 2. The Solid Waste Division pays about $2.9 million annually to the County in commercial landfill fees. Since a MRF would be most effective on the commercial waste stream, most or all of this funding could be appropriated for MRF gate fees. The MRF would then pay the County a portion of this amount to accept residual waste. If the MRF fees are competitive per #1 above, this may be a way of increa,sing the City's recycling rate at little or no cost. In fact, if the $2.9 million allowed the City to unload commercial trucks at the MRF, the City would actually realize savings by reducing its disposal trips by 20 miles twice per day on several refuse trucks. 3. Although waste import from other areas may be limited by great distance, A.P., Inc. could conceivably process City and/or County waste and imported waste with no net increase in the amount of waste disposed of in County landfills. This is because reducing the local waste stream would offset the landfill capacity needed for residual waste from importation. Please advise on whether staff should contact A.P., Inc. to bring these things to light. Also, Pat Demond would like staff to report on this subject at the next Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting. We have not discussed these observations with her. Please advise. � xa:siw prison/recycling. l �., " � � B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy • City Manager Discussion DRAFT October 30, 1995 Mr. Joel Heinrichs Administrative Officer County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Cooperative Effort Section of Memorandum of Understanding between Kern County and City of Bakersfield Dear Mr. Heinrichs: For the purpose of initiating discussions on areas where service duplication or overlap might be improved, we are submitting the following listing of topics. This is obviously subject to additions, deletions and change, as well as prioritization through discussions. We look forward to meeting with you on this subject on November 1, at 3:00 p.m. HIGH PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION 1) Encourage Boundary Improvements There are eight wholly encircled islands and many other irregular boundary areas. The City and County each waste taxpayer dollars through excess travel time, irregular patrol routes and other areas because of the inefficient boundaries. The City and County should work to agree on a more logical boundary, and then jointly encourage annexations to that boundary to provide efficient service delivery for all. City of Bakersfield � City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • California • 93301 (805) 326-3751 • Fax (805) 324-1850 n� Mr. Joel Heinrichs October 30, 1995 Page -2- 2) Animal Control We offer this as a high priority because the City has privatized animal control, and the SPCA, which runs our program, recovers 50% of its costs. Since our employees and directly provided services are not involved, we believe this is an area which would not be viewed as a"turf" issue and believe there is an area of potential savings for Kern County. 3) Refuse collections in islands, peninsulas and areas near the City, as well as educational efforts on recycling Private haulers actually overlap routes between City and County, but we have differing rules, regulations and standards. It is to the betterment of all parties if such standards and collection procedures were uniform and consistent, at least to the extent that the private-sector contractor agreements overlap jurisdictions. 4) Parks which are Encircled by the City These include Heritage, College and Panorama. It would seem logical for the City to take over and maintain these parks either by contract or by ownership. There, of course, would be substantial costs associated with that. Perhaps if there is some other area that the County could take in exchange of equal cost, consideration could be given to this issue. 5) Crossing Guards We have different standards and systems for providing crossing guards despite the fact that many of them serve the same schools and are in close proximity to one another. Exploration of more efficient and consistent means to provide this service would be desirable. 6) Wastewater Treatment and Line Maintenance Some of our wastewater treatment lines are connected, but in some cases we have overlapping jurisdictions doing the line maintenance, again due to boundary issues. We also have each group administering treatment plant operations. . � � Mr. Joel Heinrichs October 30, 1995 Page -3- 7) Graffiti Our programs overlap geographically. We also have different standards relative to use of matching paint. It would seem as if a common program, perhaps administered by only one agency in the metro area, or at least in those areas of complex boundaries, would be more desirable. 8) Airport Administration We each operate an airport. It would seem as if the administration could be more effectively done by one agency. 9) Weed Abatement Again, we have difficult boundaries and different standards of service. Our Fire Departments provide field fire service within each other's jurisdictions, but weeds are not controlled in a consistent manner. 10) Environmental Health Services Plan checking and inspection for this involve a second unit of government. It would seem to be a less efficient model for service delivery than would be theoretically possible. MEDIUM PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION 1) Purchasing and Bidding Specifications Purchasing and bidding specifications can be more consistent for such things as autos, police vehicles, etc. 2) Street Sweeping The County uses service areas which have considerable overlap with the City and our regular street sweeping program. Mr. Joel Heinrichs October 30, 1995 Page -4- 3) Training programs for Supervisory employees. 4) Roads (signing, marking, traffic signals) Here again we have, due to our boundary issues, roads which may not be as efficiently and effectively maintained due to the complexities of the boundaries. Note: Fire Services This is not listed because it is the focal point of a separate study. Sincerely, Alan Tandy City Manager AT: rg f DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STATUS REPORT October 27, 1995 1. The neighbors vs. new apartments conflict in the northeast has been tentatively resolved. Following a series of individual and group meetings the developer and neighbors agreed that a program of walls, landscaping and recertification of drainage facilities would be mutually acceptable. Plans have not yet been submitted for final approval but they should be in by the beginning of November. 2. The Water Theme Park south of Brimhall Road/west of Coffee Road is scheduled back to the City Council on November 8, 1995, but a revised plan for adoption has not yet been received from the applicant. The applicant has been advised that unless the plan is in our hands for review before adoption we will request a continuance to November 29, 1995. None of the other proposals to build water slides have materialized. 3. The Trails Plan for the northeast was approved by the Planning Commission on October 19, 1995. It should be to the City Council for public hearing in January. Jim Nickel and many others spoke in support of the plan's adoption. There are some Rio Bravo residents opposed to the plan because they are afraid it will encourage more people to come into the area and it might cost them something for maintenance. 4. The Marketplace EIR is moving right along. We have to amend the contract with Verlaan to include a traffic study. It should be done by November 10. The one submitted by the applicant was insufficient for environmental review. I should have a preliminary check draft of the EIR in hand by November 17. One Planning Commissioner has already told us he won't be rushed or pushed through a review of the EIR. As we approach Commission review we will discuss setting special meetings of the Commission so more time will be available. If the Commissioners hold the EIR in hearings past December, it would severely impact delivery time to the City Council for certification. 5. North of the River Recreation and Park District should soon complete their documentation of needed park development fees. Once it is received by Ted James he will setup a conference with developers, NOR and city staff to review it. We've been told it should be to the Board of Supervisors by the end of the year (not likely). 6. Following Kern COG'S request for our GIS map on disc the City Attorney advised us �iot to transfer the information in computer media until a Memorandum of Understanding had been aciopted formally establishing what Kern COG could do with it. County, Kern COG and I have pretty much negotiated a draft for City Council consideration. The City Attorney is putting the final touches on it now. We expect it to go to the Council on November 29, 1995. If this works out, County Assessor coordinator. -2- most of the redundancy from mapping by the County Surveyor, and City can be eliminated while Kern COG plays the role of 7. Related to our own ability to continue work to complete the GIS base map I'll be forwarding a pair of contracts for City Council approval on November 29, 1995. As you may recall, a recent PERS interpretation would define the two people presently working on the map as city employees. : The City Attorney has agreed that we should contract with them so that it is clear that they are not city employees. The funds we have in various accounts would be moved to Other Professional Services. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Trust Group has acquired 3,006 acres of credit against "take" as of October 26, 1995. We now have a good cushion in place for continued city development. Now we will focus on acquisition of more specialty preserves in and around the city. We will not be proposing a fee increase this year because we were able to find some very low priced land early in the program. 9. Kern COG's traffic model was beginning to play out some strange results so during the last couple of weeks city planners and engineers and county planners and engineers worked with Kern COG demographer and traffic engineer to update it. 10. Last Tuesday LAFCO finally adopted a policy on what a request to amend a sphere of influence would need to contain. We were able to get acceptable compromises on all points except the 100-acre break between major and minor amendments. 11. Our alleys are being used more and more as a dumping area. The Refuse Division has asked for some assistance from Code Enforcement. As soon as we formally articulate the referral process with the Fire Department, we will use it as a model to coordinate our work with the Refuse Department and setup a similar referral system. 12. By way of a status report on weed abatement; since taking over the program (7/1/95) we have responded to 300 calls. Two hundred and twenty-seven were cleaned up by the property owners. The City Council directed cleanup of 57. Sixteen are pending. 13 Generally, the Code Enforcement Division receives SO to 75 calls per week. Although our workload has increased, we have been able to reduce the active pending case load from 200 to 125. � ► -3- 14. With tlie City Council's recent approval to purchase computers far minimal system-wide modernization, Building Inspection is scraping money together to fund a link to the Planning system so they can access Planning files (subdivision, zoning, general plan, site plan review, etc.) which contain conditions affecting building permits. We should be sending a proposal to Gail within November. 15. Pending Ordinances: a) Hillside Grading Ordinance will be discussed by the Planning Commission in workshop on November 2. b) Music Teacher Ordinance is being drafted for City Attorney review. c} A Farmer's Market Ordinance is drafted to allow them with administrative approval. It should be available for City Council consideration on November 29. d) Kiosk Sign Ordinance will be reported out of committee to the full Planning Commission during the November 16, 1995, meeting. This ordinance would replace the current rules on off-site subdivision sales signs by requiring the use of multiple signs on kiosks. The program would be run by the BIA. There is some opposition from non-BIA developers. e) Adult Entertainment Ordinance is being evaluated by staff to see if the separations leave any place for these businesses. I expect we will be finished by November 1, 1995, for a report to the City Attorney. f) Parking to Support Rule 9001 Ordinance drafted for review by the City Attorney. g) Ordinance Regulating Height and Bulk of Accessory Buildings is pending. h) Downtown Parking Ordinance revision pending. i) Property Maintenance Ordinance amendment concerning the storage of vehicles and equipment on unpaved surfaces outside of fenced areas on through lots that face neighbors across the street. I would like this referred to Urban Development to see if the members think it's serious enough to pursue. 16. A listing of General Plan Amendments has already been sent under separate cover. An updated list for the City Council will be prepared soon. As we conclude our initial environmental check lists some of them get moved to the next cycle to allow adequate environmental review time or project modification. s ♦ -4- 17. The Mesa Marin GPA will move to the March cycle. Initial assurances by the Mesa Marin representative that everything was worked out with the neighbors didn't prove out. 18. Apparently Mesa Marin is positioning to apply for another change. A recent letter to the editor and interest by Trice Harvey's office about future expansion of Mesa Marin can be considered a precursor to a future hearing to amend the CUP. 19. The Return to Custody facility at the end of Oswell Street south of Freeway 58 is moving through its CUP process. So far I have received a call from the Fairfax School Superintendent who was concerned that new families moving into the district would overwhelm the school. 20. We are pursuing an agreement with Castle and Cooke on the parks they moved around in Seven Oaks last month. This would minimize the disagreements we will have with them when it is time for the parks to be built. If there are any, we might as well work them out now before we are backed into a corner. 21. You should have received a letter earlier rejecting Castle & Cooke's claun that they shouldn't be required to pay park development fees in the Oaks. 22. "Will Serve" letters from water companies (including ours) are going through a bit of evolution towards being more specific about the types of development they are committing to serve. Previous letters were fairly carte blanche. Lately, we have i•eceived some with a two-year limitation which we explained would result in denial of the subdivision maps. If water isn't available for the life of a map, we wouldn't approve it. 23. Beginning this week the Building Department will review and be responsible for all drainage and grading on private property instead of Public Works. Public Works staff will be focusing their concerns to issues relating to rights-of-way. 24. An RFP for security gates and fencing for our parking garage is being prepared. Bidding should be completed in November. Hopefully, the work will be completed by the first of the year. The thieves and vandals are very bothersome. 25. Upcoming Meetings of Interest: November 2 November 2 November 8 November S - 10 November 15 November 15 & 16 November 30 - EPA hearings at Council Chambers - Panorama Hills Park at Chipman Jr. High, 5:30 p.m. - Teen City Government Day - California Transit Assoc. Annual Conference - Livable Communities - Departnlent Head Retreat - ASPA - Jacquie Sullivan speaker % _ : - � � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: _ Raul Rojas, Public Works Director �� DATE: November 2, 1995 SUBJECT: Kern Refuse Negotiations Attached is a record of staff's involvement with Kern Refuse to date beginning in January, 1995. The record has been condensed from lengthy discussions for brevity. � .memM.rv z � KERN REFUSE CART CONVERSION NEGOTIATION HISTORY 1/19/95 - MEETING R. Gargano, R. Bovee, G. Bogart, K. Barnes Gene Bogart introduced Mr. Bovee and Mr. Gargano to Kevin Barnes, who started to work for the City on 1/18/95. 1/25/95 - MEETING R. Gargano, R. Bovee, G. Bogart, K. Barnes Kern Refuse explained the history of the contract. Kern Refuse asked what the City wanted, and City said refuse/greenwaste cazt was the goal. Kern Refuse did not indicate an understanding that the conversion was originally one refuse cart serviced twice per week. 4/18/95 - MEETING AT SOUTHSIDE DISPOSAL'5 OFFICE Kevin Barnes was invited to meet the haulers at an informal meeting. After introductions, the individual haulers had many comments and questions regarding automation. They seemed to each have a different view of how to accomplish it. Kevin explained the City system, the change from six day to five day week to allow for holiday makeup, and answered questions. What had been intended to be a fifteen minute "get acquainted" session turned into a one and one half hour workshop. 5/25/95 - PHONE MESSAGE FROM MIKE SIDES Requested 94 additional 101 gallon carts to complete full route in pilot area. Kevin Barnes returned call various times for details, but Mike was not available. For example, why tan only and no green? No follow up by Mike. 5/31/95 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING Oral presentation by Raul Rojas. Council action to send notice with clariiication by Mr. Salvaggio. After the meeting, Mr. Bovee and Mr. Gargano told Kevin Barnes and they would be unavailable for a time due to foot surgery and vacation. � 6/27/95 - PHONE CONVERSATION Set 1 st negotiation meeting for June 30. Confirmed that notice was received. Mr. Gargano emphasized that City should talk to Kern Refuse and about Kern Refuse as one entity, not individual haulers. He said it doesn't matter what an individual hauler thinks, because decisions are to be made by Kern Refuse Board of Directors. He said the last meeting that Kevin attended (April 18, 1995) wasn't a board meeting and was a sloppy way of their (the haulers) doing things. He said the children run the businesses, but the owners run the Kern Refuse corporation. 6/30/95 - FIRST NEGOTIATION MEETING Roy Gargano, Bob Bovee, Kevin Barnes, Maurice Randall. Kern Refuse stated they were not bound by the agreement to provide � greenwaste service because it wasn't anticipated at the time. Kern Refuse asked what the City thought about price change, City said probably zero. Kern Refuse asked why zero, City said a rough estimate for same number of homes using new trucks, new carts, and employees provided a gauge on1X, and was slighdy less than the amount cunently paid to KR. Kern Refuse said the City must have " made up its mind beforehand." Kern Refuse and City set up ride-along on City routes to verify productivity for a cost model. City agreed to provide KR a cost model to show the basis for a"no increase opinion. " 7/13/95 - FIRST ROUTE SURVEY Worst-case route served only 521 homes due to numerous dead-end streets with no turn-arounds. 7/17/95 - LETTER TO KERN REFUSE Indicating a 1.4 % contractor payment increase per the consumer price index adjustment term, the letter also stated that there would be no customer rate increase and the contractor increase was to be absorbed. e 7/20/95 - SECOND ROUTE SURVEY Best-case route served 729 homes, but was delayed by one extra landfill trip due to truck not compacting properly. 8/8/95 - SECOND NEGOTIATION MEETING City presented the cost model discussed in the June 30 meeting. Kern Refuse stated that City/County mixture of homes on their routes is a cost problem if City and County are not converted to carts at the same time. Kern Refuse hoped to convert County homes from twice per week 32 gallon cans to once per week refuse cart service without greenwaste. Kern Refuse discussed the meaning of "good faith" in negotiations, and said that a judge would decide if negotiations were fair. City asked for a cost estimate with carts itemized so haulers could focus on � operating costs. City encouraged KR to -set up a truck capitalization schedule to help haulers evaluate retrofitting with semi-automated equipment vs. replacement with fully automated trucks. This would also help determine the timing of conversion steps over 5 years. 8/21/95 - PHONE CONVERSATION WITH SOUTHSIDE DISPOSAL Kevin Barnes and Walt Price discussed the use of rolloff containers and conversation turned to automation Walt Price said that: 1. The monthly cost of carts is too high, and they cannot pay for them by labor savings. 2. The haulers don't make money on the residential portion. 8/23/95 - THIRD NEGOTIATION MEETING R. Bovee, H. Morris, K.Barnes Limited scope due to Mr. Gargano's injury. Mr. Bovee had not yet finished the Kern Refuse cost model. Kern Refuse also wanted to survey some more City routes for productivity. a 8/31/95 - FOURTH NEGOTIATION MEETING (At Mr. Gargaao's home to accommodate his in,jurv.) R. Gargano, R. Bovee, H. Monis, K. Barnes Kern Refuse discussed the contract length, and said it is not extended, just re- negotiated. Kern Refuse said they need confirmation of what is being bargained for (i.e. one cart or two.) Kern Refuse said the "intent has changed" for the agreement and that it was necessary to broaden the original scope. Kern Refuse said they don't "have to" do green carts, and that if they do, they don't have the same restraints (i.e. time.) Kern Refuse said they accepted the notice for 2 cart service and "waived the technicality. " Kern Refuse requested a letter to acknowledge the "expanded scope. "(This was already provided in the original notice.) Kern Refuse asked what authority Kevin Barnes represented so that they would not waste time on something without authority. Kevin said that all terms would be reviewed up to the City Manager before going to council. Kern Refuse mentioned going to a City Council Committee. 9/1/95 - THIRD ROUTE SURVEY Medium case route serviced 603 homes. 9/15/95 - FIFTH NEGOTIATION MEETING (At Mr. Gar�ano's home to accommod.ate his injurvJ R. Gargano, R. Bovee, H. Morris, K. Barnes Kern Refuse presented their iust "working draft" spreadsheet to show the relative (not actual) cost to convert to automated or semi-automated. Kern Refuse said the current (manual) system was acceptable, and that it was necessary to measure changes. e 9/15/95 - Kern Refuse said they "haven't done any research on grass (greenwaste)" and (cont.) have not yet considered hauler pilot programs for greenwaste setout rate, productivity, etc. Kern Refuse discussed the "intangibles" which include a"good history," "lack of resistance by influential haulers for annexations," and "good rates." City asked when we would get their actual price offer, Kern Refuse said they need three things (but point of question was lost in long explanation.) Kern Refuse stated these issues: 1. timeframe 2. semi-automation is their right, even if it costs more than automation. 9/28/95 - STAFF MEMO TO CITY MANAGER The Kern Refuse "working draft" was analyzed and found to contain several errors and in need of revision. 10/16/95 - SIXTH NEGOTIATION MEETING R. Gargano, R. Bovee, G. Ferrari - Kern Refuse D. Washington, R. Burkert - Kern County H. Morris, M. Randall, K. Barnes - City Mr. Bovee stated there is no agreement of the number of homes per day per truck yet. Kevin Barnes said that the 588 from Kern's spreadsheet could be used, even though the City is not happy with the packer productivity and is seeking help from the truck manufacturer. Mr. Bovee said the cost model for 31,000 homes is an "architect rendering," and that it was now necessary to figure costs for individual steps of automation over the five-year phase-in, and to consider each area's operating characteristics. Kevin Barnes asked if the current contract payment of $8.72 per home was divided evenly among the haulers, or was it divided per operating characteristics as Mr. Bovee mentioned above. It follows that conversion costs would be distributed in the same way. Mr. Gargano discussed how the City should consider the "intangibles" which include "the best rates" and "a truce for annexations." � 10/16/95 - Kevin Barnes asked whether Kern Refuse thought their higher cost for (cont.) automation would be best shared by all residential customers or just charged to the homes receiving the "more expensive" service. Mr. Bovee presented several new "working draft" spreadsheets showing relative ) cost comparisons between manual, semi-automated, and automated service. The spreadsheets were for converting 3,200 or 6,200 homes at the time and had variables assigned according to each hauler within Kern Refuse. Kevin Barnes recommended that phase-in cost models use a group of homes sized according to a truck's productivity to avoid wasting "fractions of trucks. " Kevin Barnes indicated that the first working draft from Kern Refuse omitted labor costs for the 6th day of a 6 day operation, and asked how the new spreadsheets adjusted for it. Mr. Bovee answered "cross multiplication" of the regular productivity rate. Kevin Barnes suggested that the labor costs for 6 day operation be shown in order to provide a more accurate and understandable portrayal of the cost comparison. Mr. Bovee said that the City and County would each have a higher price for cart service if the two jurisdictions did not have the haulers convert to carts at the same time. 10/23/95 - CORRECTED COST MODEL RECEIVED Mr. Bovee delivered diskette with his own revisions to spreadsheets presented at 10/16/95 meeting. 11/1/95 - PHONE CONVERSATION Kevin Barnes called Bob Bovee to arrange meeting for 11/03/95 at 3 pm to ask questions about calculations shown in latest cost model. Kern Refuse called on 11/02/95 and said they could not meet until 11/09/95. 11/2/95 FIELD VISIT KRDOC.KB Kevin Barnes visited the automated pilot area serviced by Southside/Price Sanitation to see how a new truck demonstration was going. He discussed equipment with Southside/Price management, and invited them to see the same truck run a demo on a City route the next day. (Vendor was in town for both). � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR �,� G DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1995 SUBJECT: GREENWASTE FACILITY SURVEY TO DETERMINE COUNTY FUNDING CONTRIBUTION City and County staff have just completed a quarterly trafiic and tonnage survey which determines the County's prorata share of the Greenwaste Facility operating costs. It was quite favorable, with 27 % of the intake being from County users, and a very large inta.ke of 254 tons per day. This supports our estimate that the County's share of cost is nearly $400,000. �cc: Kevin Barnes gwsurvy.mem =° 3 i :��:: TO: FROM: DATE: � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director October 30, 1995 �1 SUBJECT: Cost Estimate for Project Study Reports S.R. 178 Interchanges at Fairfax, Morning and Alfred Harrell At the Urban Development Committee meeting of September 11, 1995, staff was requested to estimate the cost of a Project Study Report for some projects on State Route 178. There are three separate projects which could appear on the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program): 1. Interchange at S.R. 178 and Fairfax Road 2. Interchange at S.R. 178 and Morning Drive 3. New alignment of S.R. 178 between Mesa Marin and Alfred Harrel Highway, with an interchange at old S.R. 178 on the west end and Alfred Harrell Highway on the east end. The cost of preparing a Project Study Report to cover these three projects will range between $450,000 to $550,000, including aerial mapping. Since these types of projects are usually built using Federal funds, there is a possibility that a"Major Investment Study" will be required. These types of studies are v� expensive. If such a study is requried, an additional $350,000 to $550,000 should be added to the above. P:\SR 178�PSRCOST.MEM RMR:jrL•mps xc: Reading File Project File 7acques R. IaRoc6elle Marian P. Shaw �� 3 r �ss5 .� � � � �� "AMERICA'S NATURAL BEVERAGE COMPANY" October 25, 1995 Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, Ca. 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy, I am writing to express my and my companies appreciation for the efforts of the City of Bakersfield in making the neighborhood in which Crystal Geyser is engaged in business a safer, more amicable area. In the past, we were visited by graffiti artists on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis. We have experienced vandalism that resulted in a very costly spill. We have, in the past, worried a great deal about our night personnel being in this area after business hours. Recently, however, things have improved a great deal. We have not experienced any of the unpleasantries I have described above in quite some time. We here at Crystal Geyser attribute the improvements to the �u�star�ding ef�crt� �� th� ��ty of Bakersfiel�. I�aish y��s yreat success for the future and keep up the good work! Sincerely, �p�,,�,�, � � Santiago Martinez Plant Manager � _� :_,. .: , � � :. _ .:- --- -- � ' � 1� OCT 3 � 1�9� � .: __ - - -- - - " r � C:. :��` �t'�t��:',_._.. .- , _':�.�'��' CRYSTAL GEYSER WATER COMPANY � � � � � P.O. Box 304, 501 Washington Street, Calistoga, CA 94515-0304 (707) 942-0500 FAX (707) 942-0647 ,� r � ` �� S � � B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy • City Manager October 26, 1995 Janet Ford She1l,Director Business Services Kern High School District 2000 24th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301-3899 RE: Centennial High School - Traffic on Hageman Road Dear Ms Shell: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the traffic situation on Hageman Road at Centennial High School. Our Traffic Engineer indicates that portable flashing stop lights are not appropriate for this location and that standard flashing stop lights require nearly the same lead time as installing a permanent traffic signal. I have asked the Police Department to pay special attention to the problem at Centennial until the permanent solution is in place. The City engineering staff recognized that the parking lot entrance, located on a Major Arterial street, could become a problem as more traffic used Hageman Road. With the connection of Hageman Road to the west, traffic volumes have increased significantly. Our Traffic Engineer, Stephen Walker, met with Principal Hatcher and Vice Principal Olds last year to work out possible solutions to their problem of the poorly located entrance on Hageman Road. As a result of their meetings, a project to signalized this one entrance, stopping only eastbound traffic on Hageman Road, was added to the Capital Improvement Program list and approved this summer for funding. Since this project would not be operational until later in the school year, our engineers added a 4-way stop at Riverlakes to stop Hageman Road traffic. This has helped control all traffic on Hageman and reduced the speeding problem in the 25 mph zone at the school. The Hageman/Riverlakes intersection will also be signalized in the future. Our traffic engineers are nearing design completion on the Hageman/school entrance project and expect to have it out to construction in a few months. In an effort to further City of Bakersfield • City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • California • 93301 rRnS� ��ti_�� . FaX (R(151 ��d_1RSfl � speed up the process and reduce the construction time, the engineers are also investigating the possible use of available salvaged poles and equipment for the signal. I hope this answers your concerns. You may wish to contact the Traffic Engineer, Mr. Stephen Walker, at 326-3959, if you have questions about the signal project. Very truly yours, � ( Alan Tandy City Manager cc: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Steve Brummer, Chief of Police Stephen Walker, Traffic Engineer ; �� SCHOpl ati**** dr * � * `a o * � � � � * y KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Fred L. Starrh. President J. Hryan Batey. Vice President Connie Wattenbarger. Clerk Sandra V. Serrano � THOMAS N. JONES. Ed.D.. SUPERINTENDENT 2000 TWENTY-FOURTH STREET • BAKERSFIELD • CALIFORNIA • 93301-3899 •(805) 631-3100 • FAX: (805) 32&1209 October 17, 1995 Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Traffic Safety Hazards, Centennial High School Dear Mr. Tandy: A parent of a Centennial High School student recently informed the Kern High School District office of several traffic hazards which have grown in magnitude since the school opened in 1993. The main area of concern is the lack of a stop light to manage traffic flow on the westbound left turn lane from Hageman Road to the Centennial High School parking lot. At the beginning and end of the school day, cars have to wait as long as 20 minutes to turn into the parking lot. The City Traffic Department informed us today of their plans to install a left turn signal on the westbound lane and a full traf�ic signal on the eastbound lane during summer, 1996. Until this permanent system is installed, we are requesting the possibility of a temporary solution (e.g. portable flashing stop lights) for this potentially dangerous situation. Faculty, students, and parents have voiced their concerns on numerous occasions to the Centennial High administration and most recently to the District administration. Your response to this situation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely; � , .\ � ��_ �_. . � �Z'� �<; � � \ � � �.__—� �Janet rd Shell Director, Business Services JFS:bIs AN AFFIRMATNE ACTION / EQUAL OPPORTUNfTY EMPLOYER a � � October 25, 1995 B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy • City Manager Mr. William D. Hatcher, Principal Centennial High School 8601 Hageman Road Bakersfield, CA 93312-3957 Dear Mr. Hatcher: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the traffic situation on Hageman Road at Centennial High School. The experiment of using the canal signal to stop traffic and artificially create gaps in traffic in front of the school seemed to cause problems with drivers complying with the signal and generated complaints from other drivers who did not see a reason to stop at the canal signal. For this reason, the signal operation was changed. The Traffic Engineer, Stephen Walker, has a project, nearing design completion, that should alleviate many of the traffic problems on Hageman in the area of the school. The project is to install a traffic signal at your student parking lot entrance on Hageman Road. Mr. Walker indicated that he had discussed this solution with you during the past school year and he is confident that it will significantly reduce the problems. At this time, an installation date is not available. The engineer is investigating the possibility of using surplus signal poles and equipment, if available, to "fast track" the installation. I have asked the Police Department to pay special attention to the problem at Centennial until the permanent solution is in place. Before school started this year, the intersection of Riverlakes at Hageman was changed to a 4-way stop control intersection to stop Hageman Road traffic. This allows easier crossing of Hageman by both vehicular and school pedestrian traffic. This has also helped the traffic speeding problem you mentioned. This location will be signalized in the future. I hope this answers your concerns. You may wish to contact the Traffic Engineer, Mr. Stephen Walker, at 326-3959, if you have questions about the signal project. Very truly yours, ' �� ; __ ;�/� i �-i / , � . =�lan Tandy City Manager �_-��%! `, , C� / cc: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Stephen Walker, Traffic Engineer City of Bakersfield • City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • California • 93301 (8051 326-3751 • Fax (8051 324-1 R5� � Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager = City of Bakersfield 1501 Traxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: CENTENN/AL HIGH SCHOOL 8601 HAGEMAN AOAD BAKERSFIELO, CALIFORNIA 93312-3957 (805) 588-8601 FAX(805) 588-8608 WILUAIA D. HATCHER� PRINCIPAL October 16, 1995 KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARO OF TRUSTEES J. Bryan Batey Sandra v. Ser►ano Fred L. Sterrh Connie Wattenbarger SUPERiNTENDENT Thomas N. Jonea, Ed. D. I am writing to you because of my concern over the traffic situation at Centennial High School. Cars travel at excess speeds along Hageman Road throughout the day. Parents and staff have requested on numerous occasions that a traffic light be placed on Hageman Road to alleviate this problem. At the beginning of this school year the City of Bakersfield activated the tra�c lights over the canal at certain times of the day greatly-reducing the speed during peak hours. This has been discontinued, we understand, because of a citizen complaint. I do understand that it is inconvenient to have stop lights on Hageman Road for those commuters who wish to use Hageman Road as a racetrack unbridled by any traffic encumbrances. I would, however, like to go on record and state my grave concem for the 22001ives at Centennial High School. The turning off of the lights on the canal has greatly added to a dangerous condition and in my opinion placed students in harms way. Next year our enrollment will approach 2600, thus we will be the largest higli school in the county. This traffic condition must be abated before there is a tragic accident. WDH/bf (dataltendy.ltr) Sincerely, ,—� /�� _ � ----- �_� William D. Hatcher .: .- - Principal � � � 9 i99� ' ., 9.,., � . . - AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / E�UAL OPPORTUNRY EMPIOYER -y._._•.••�•-•-" .' _-� TO: FROM: �il � � � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director October 27, 1995 �!�� , � �� SUBJECT: Plan for Growth Technical Advisory Committee Meeting of October 12, 1995 Transportation Impact Fee Mr. Craig Pope, Kern County Roads Department Director, presented the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program to the Technical Advisory Committee of the Kern County Plan for Growth Committee at 1:30 P.M., October 12, 1995. This presentation was identical to the presentation to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee earlier that day. During the question and answer portion of the presentation, no new points were brought up. The implementation of the fee program, and when the fee is to be paid, seems to be the item of major concern. Presented at this meeting were the County's Report, their draft ordinance, and the facilities list. I have included copies of these for your use. Staff is reviewing the question raised at our Intergovernmental Relations Committee regarding collectors, and is working with County staff on including at least 10% of the construction cost of the Kern River Freeway in the facilities list. Staff recognizes that a local match is not required to obtain State funding for freeways, but that without a source of local funds, the freeway project will remain a low priority with the California Transportation Commission. Also, staff has received positive feedback from CalTrans District 6 on the possibility of State funding for an interim project of an e�ressway along the Kern River Freeway alignment. Further meetings with County staff, Kern COG and the Building Industries Association are scheduled for this week to resolve some of these questions. We will keep you apprised of our progress. C i-95:\TII�ITACIGRC.MEM RMR:mps � Judy R Skouua Ciry Attorney Michael Allford Depury Ciry Attorney Reading File Project File Jaoqucs R. I.a Rachelle Meriao P. Shaw oR:.�ST�+rF �': �a�i�a� "•�. o.� �; S. "� •� n � �'`�s � s �� GOVERNOR'S OFFICE Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 4ctober 25, 1995 TO: City Managers County Administrators FROM: Carol White 'de SUBTECT: Prevailing Wage Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You should recently have received information about proposed changes to the regulations which define the administration of prevailing wage laws. Enclosed are che actual proposed changes and the times and dates of the hearings on the proposals. Your input and comments during the review period would be welcome, either in person, or in writing, for ihe record. Please call me at 916/323-5446 or John C. Duncan, Chief Depury Director, 4l 5/972-8835 at ihe Department of Industrial Relations, if you have questions or need more information. Thank you for your continuing interest. Enclosure --- —� - ' , ,,. i , � �� ' , F �,� , �("�VF;RNAR PFTE: WII,,SnN • SACRAMRNTO, CALdFC?RNIA 9S$]4 •(91fi1 445-2841 �. �1 TTTLE 8. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING The Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") proposes to adopt the proposed regulations described below after considering all comments, objections or recommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSID REGULATORY ACTION The DIR proposes to adopt the amendments in Group 3, Articles 1 and 4 in Tide 8 of the Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR). These articles and secrions pertain to the. requirements for the payment of prevailing wages upon public works. PUBLIC HEARING The DIR will hold a public hearing on the following dates and locations to receive public comments on the proposed regulations: On November 30. 1995 at 9:00 a.m. at the Auditorium of the Public Utilities Commission Building, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA; and On December 11, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. at the Auditorium of the California State Building,107 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA V��RITTEN COMII�NT PERIOD Interested persons wishing to submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action may submit them to: Dorothy Vuksich, Chief, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, P.O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142. All written comments must be received no later than 5:00 P.M. on December 11. 1995. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Labor Code Sections 1773.5 and 1777.1 authorize the Director of DIR, or his designee, to adopt the proposed regulations to implement, interpret and make specific Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1780 and 1810 through 1861. DISCLOSURES REGARDING TI� PROPOSED ACTION Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. Costs or savings to any state agency: There will be savings for agencies awarding public works contracts, as a change in the defmition of prevailing rate is expected to reduce labor costs. Estimated savings may be up to 20 percent of construction labor costs. Administrative costs would be reduced from simplified deternunations. Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code Section 17561: None. Other non-discretionary costs or savings imposed upon local agencies: There is a savings for agencies awazding public works contracts. A change in the definidon of prevailing rate is expected to reduce labor costs as referenced above. The monitoring of the prevailing wage requirements would become less burdensome. This could reduce both administrative and construction costs on public works projects. -1- Costs or savings in federal funding to the state: Indeterminate -- costs may decline. Cost impact on private persons or directly related businesses: Direcdy related businesses will have a decrease in labor and overhead costs on public works projects. Hourly rates on public works may decline under the proposed regulatory definition of prevailing rate. Impact on small business: There is no lrnown impact on small business, because the prevailing wage is a threshold or minimum rate on all prospective bidders on public works. Significant adverse economic effect on business including the ability of California business to compete with business in other states: None. Assessment on Impact on Job Creation and Business Opportunity: A reduction in labor costs may result in an increase in public construction which may result in an increase in labor and business opportunities. Significant effect on housing costs: None directly. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATTVES In accordance with Government Code, Section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(7), DIR must determine that no alternative considered would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. The DIR invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regularions during the written comment period. � CONTACf PERSON DIR has prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons for each proposed action, and has available, upon request, both the expressed terms of each proposed action in a strikeout/underline format and the location of the rulemaking file containing all the information upon which the proposals are based. Requests for copies of the proposed text of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, questions concerning the proposed action or the hearings, and requests to review the rulemaking file at DIR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m Monday through Friday should be directed to: Raida Kennedy, Division of Labor Statisrics and Research, P. O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142 or at (415) 972-8623 by telephone. AVAILABII.ITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS The DIR will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office, please contact the Division of Labor Statistics and Research at the phone number listed above if you wish to view the rulemaking file. As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulations, and the initial statement of reasons. Copies may be obtained by contacting Raida Kennedy at the address or phone number listed above. - 2- � AVAILABII.ITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIIED TEXT Following the end of the public comment period, or the hearing if one is requested, the DIR may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If modifications are made which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, the modified text-- with the changes clearly indicated-- shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which DIR adopts the regulations. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be addressed to the agency's contact person identified in this notice. The DIR will accept written comments of the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which the modified text are made available. INFORMATIVE DIGEST 1. Article 1. DEFINITIONS Labor Code Sections 1720 et. seg. and sections 16000 et. se�c . of the California Code of Regulations specify the State's prevailing wage law requirements for public works projects. Existing reguladons state definitions of terms commonly used by DIR, awarding bodies and contractors, in the public works contracting process. Section 16000. Definitions. It is proposed to amend the definirion of "Prevailing Wage. Includes:" from the definitions in this Article. Labor Code Secrion 1773 requires the Director of Industrial Reladons to determine the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in the locality in which the work is being performed for each craft, classiiication or type of workman needed to execute a public works project This provision does not include or specify a methodology for determining the general prevailing rate. The statute makes reference to several sources which the Director may consider when determining the prevailing rate. These include the collective bargaining agreements from the locality, the ra.tes published for federal projects and other data from labor organizarions and employers or employer associations. This regulatory definition sets forth that the prevailing wage rate is the "modal rate", the single rate paid to the greatest number of workers. The effect of the proposed change will be to alter the basis for determining the general prevailing rate from the modal rate concept to single rate if a majority of workers are paid at one rate or to a weighted average of the rates paid if there is no majority. This will make state methodology consistent with federal Davis-Bacon methodology. 2. Article 4. WAGE DETERMINATIONS Labor Code Sections 1773 and existing regulations specify the procedures the Director follows in making prevailing wage deternunations. - 3- � Section 16200. General. Basis for Determining Prevailing Wage Rate. Existing regulations specify as the basis for the Director's prevailing wage rate determination: collective bargaining agreements; federal rates; data collecrion; the wage rate factors; and other information from interested parties. Section 16200(b) Federal Rates. This subsecrion is amended to add language providing for the adoption of rates deternuned for federal projects. The effect of the proposed change is to provide for the adoprion of rates detemuned for federal projects or where federal law preempts applicarion of state prevailing wage rates, as well as, those determined for specific projects funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as prevailing for state projects without the need to conduct additional invesrigations. THE I.�'ji'ARTMENT OF ZNi?Z.�S`�'R�AL P�L�TTONS - 4- �-(J . � oyd W. Anbry, Jr., 17irector f� / �- Q ' 17ate � INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Title 8: Chapter 8, Group 3, Articles 1 and 4 Sections 16000 and 16204 of the Regulations of the Offce of the Director Regarding Payment of Prevailing Wages upon Public Works Problems Addressed by Proposed Action Existing regulations under Tide 8, Group 3 regazding the payment of prevailing wages aze repealed and modified to address specific issues and concerns expressed by the regulated public and to make the Department's regulations conform more closely with the Code of Federal Regulations. The use of the modal rate as the basis for determining the prevailing rate has resulted in prevailing wage determinations based on a very small number of workers employed in the work force. In these cases, the wage determinations are not reflective of the rates paid in the locality. In addition, this methodology is inconsistent with that used for determining the prevailing wage rate for federal projects. Purpose of Proposed Action The purpose of this action is to address the problems enumerated in the "Problems Addressed" statement. Specifically, the definition of Prevailing Rate which provides the methodology for determining the prevailing wage rate is amended to more accurately reflect the rates paid in the labor mazket and make them more consistent with those detemuned for federal projects. Historically, collectively bargained rates represented a single rate for a specific class�cation of worker. C�irrendy more and more project and special reduced rates are being used in the collecdve bargaining agreement context which result in fewer workers at any given rate. Union labor has declined in construction in California faster over the last decade than the comparable narional rate -- to the point where only 25.4 % of construction workers in California were unionized in 1993. This is based on figures complied by the Bureau of National Affairs. Currendy 32 states (including the District of Columbia) have a prevailing wage law, 19 states do not have prevailing wage statutes, 9 never had these laws and 10 have either repealed or nullified them in the courts. Only three of the 32 states utilize modal rate methodology (California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). The remaining 29 states use either the current Davis - Bacon methodology, the previous Davis - Bacon methodology, adopt the federal rates, a weighted average or leave the detemzination to the individual agency letting the contract An investigation and analysis of the data collected from previous surveys indicates that a change from the modal rate to a weighted average rate could result in up to a 20 percent reduction in construction labor costs. Article 1. Definitions E.- �• :1:1:1 �- �• The definirions under this section clarify the meaning of a number of terms in existing regulations which are commonly used in public works contracting and would not otherwise be cleaz to the affected public. -1- The terms defined in this section are commonly used in public works contracting and are defined in the manner intended by the Department This benefits the affected public as it cl�es the intent of the terms used. The Department proposes to delete one and amend one of the exisring defmirions. Prevailing Rate. Includes: The amended definition cl�es for the regulated public the methodology used by the Department to determine the prevailing wage rate. The Department has proposed changing the basis for deternuning the prevailing rate from a modal rate concept to a rate paid a majority of workers engaged in a craft, classification or type of work and if no majority rate exists to a weighted average of the rates paid. The amended definition will be consistent with the methodology used by the U.S. Department of Labor for determining rates for federal projects. The new definirion will result in prevailing wage rates which more accurately reflect those being paid in the locality. While the Department did not rely upon any technical, theorerical, or empirical studies, reports, or documents in proposing the adoption of this regulation an informal evaluation was conducted. The Department has detemuned that there were no alternarives considered which would be more effective in carrying out the purpose of, or less burdensome to affected private persons, than the proposed regularion. Article 4. Wage Deternunations 16200(b) Federal Rates The amended definition cl�es for the regulated public that the Director will consider rates determined for federal public works projects as the basis for a prevailing wage determination. Tfie amended regulation provides for the adoption of federal rates on projects funded in whole or in part out of federal funds where federal law preempts the application of state prevailing wage rates. The amended regulation will make it easier to adopt rates deternuned for federal public works projects when appropriate. This will reduce duplicarion of effort in the area of wage invesrigations and thereby reduce the burden upon the regulated public. In addition, existing federal provisions mandate that not more than the federally deternuned rate may be paid on specific types of projects funded or partially funded by the Federal Governmen� Exisring state regulations require that not less than the higher of the two rates (state or federal) be paid on dual funded projects. The amended regulation will provide for the adoption of federally determined rates, whether higher or lower, when federal law preempts the applicarion of state prevailing wage rates. The Deparanent did not rely upon any technical, theorerical, or empirical studies, reports, or documents in proposing the adoption of this regularion. The Department has determined that there were no alternatives considered which would be more effective in carrying out the purpose of, or less burdensome to affected private persons, than the proposed reguladon. -2- EXCERPT FROM CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 8 GROUP 3. PAYMENT OF PREVAII.ING WAGES UPON PUBLIC WORKS Article 1. Definitions 16000. De�nitions. The following terms are defined for general use in these regulations within Group 3, Payment of Prevailing Wages Upon Public Works and Group 4, Awarding Body Labor Compliance Programs: Prevailing Rate. Includes (1) The basic hourly rate being paid to a majority of workers engaged in the particular craft, classification or type of work within the locality and in the nearest labor market area to the public work, if a majority of such workers is paid at a single rate; =�t�r�ro � �a°' ��t#ea-�-�«t�e-�$�='�� if a sin lg e wagLe rate is not paid to a majoritv then the avera�e of the wages paid, wei h� ted by the total emplovment in the craft. classification or tX�,e of worker, is prevailing. If a sin lg e wage rate is not paid to a majority. the wei�hted average wa�e maY be established by considering the payments made under appropriate collective bargaining agreements, �� a�-°' -� `� � or rates paid to workers on federal public works jobs, or other data such as wage survey data, including the nearest labor market area to the public work, or expanded survey as provided in Article 4 of these regulations. or b,y adopting federal rates which have been obtained b,�! procedures of similar accuracv to ones provided under Article 4 of these regulations. (2) Other employer payments as defined in Section 16000 of these regulations ��s—are included as part of the total hourly wage rate, onlv if a majoritv of workers engaged in the particular craft. classification or type of work are receiving such pavments. �A� If a majoritv of workers en�aged in the particular craft. classification or type of work are receivin� the same em�loyer �avments. then those ,pavments prevail. ,�B� If there is no majoritv of workers enga�ed in the particular craft, classification or type of work receivin�`the same emplo,�,er pavments. then the wei�hted avera�e of the emplover pavments_is prevailing: or , �C) When federal rates have been ado�ted as provided for in subsection (1). by adopting federal employer pa,yments which have been obtained by procedures of similar accuracy to ones provided under Article 4 of these re�,ulations. (3) The rate for holiday or overtime work shall be those rates specified in the collective bargaining agreement when the basic hourly rate is based on a collective bargaining agreement rate. In the event the basic hourly rate is not based on a collective bargaining agreement, the holidays shall be the le,gal holidays established bX both Government Code Section 6700 and 5 U.S.C. Section 6103• a holiday occurrin� on a Saturday or Sunday shall be recognized in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Section 6103(b). Overtime hours nd hours worked on a holiday shall be at the rate provided in Labor Code Section 1815. NOTE: Holidavs, when the basic hourlv rate is not based on a collective bar aining agreement, shall be only the le�al holidays established and listed in both State and Federal codes referenced above. Authority Cited: Section 1773.5. Labor Code Reference: Sections 1720 et. sec�.. Labor Code Article 4. Wage Determinations 16200. General. Basis for Determining Prevailing Wage Rate. The Director shall follow those procedures specified in Sections 1773 and 1777.5 of the Labor Code and in these regulations when making a prevailing wage determination. (b) Federal Rates and Survevs In reviewing rates predetermined for federal public works, the Director � shall consider those rates published pursuant to the Davis- Bacon Act. For purposes of establishing state prevailin wa�e rates. the Director maX, in his or her discretion. adopt the results of wage survevs conducted by the United States 2 Department of Labor in lieu of conductin� separate state surveys. Where federal law preempts application of hi�her state prevailing wa�e rates to __ federallv funded projects, the federal rate is the state prevailin��wage rate. Where the federal department of Housing,, and Urban Development has determined residential construction rates that is the rate predetermined for federal public works to which the Director will refer under section 1773. Authority Cited: Section 1773.5. Labor Code Reference: Section 1773, Labor Code �% TITLE 8. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING The Department of Industrial Reladons ("DIR") proposes to adopt the proposed regulations described below after considering all comments, objections or recommendations regarding the proposed acdon. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The DIR proposes to adopt the amendments in Group 3, Articles 1 and 4 in Tide 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). These articles and secrions pertain to the requirements for the payment of prevailing wages upon public works. PUBLIC HEARING The DIR will hold a public hearing on the following dates and locations to receive public comments on the proposed regularions: On December 1.1995 at 9:00 a.m. at the Auditorium of the Public Utilities Commission Building, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA; and On December 12, 1995 at 9:00 a.m at the Auditorium of the California State Building, 107 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA WRITTEN COMI��NT PERIOD Interested persons wishing to submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action may submit them to: Dorothy Vuksich, Chief, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, P.O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142. All written comments must be received no later than 5:00 P.M. on December 12. 1995. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Labor Code Sections 1773.5 and 1777.1 authorize the Director of DIR, or his designee, to adopt the proposed regulations to implement, interpret and make specific Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1780 and 1810 through 1861. DISCLOSURES REGARDING TI� PROPOSED ACTION Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. Costs or savings to any state agency: There will be savings for agencies awarding public works contracts. There would be no escalation of wages during the life of any public works project. This would reduce both construction and administrative costs on public works projects. Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code Section 17561: None. Other non-discretionary costs or savings irnposed upon local agencies: There is a savings for agencies awazding public works contracts as there would be no escalation of wages during the life of the public works project. The monitoring of the prevailing wage requirements would become less burdensome. Therefore, both administrative and construction costs on public works projects would decline. -1- Costs or savings in federal funding to the state: Indeterminate -- costs may decline. Cost impact on private persons or direcdy related businesses: Direcdy related businesses will have a decrease in labor and overhead costs on public works projects. Hourly rates on public works may decline under the proposed regulatory definition of prevailing rate. Impact on small business: There is no la�own impact on small business, because the prevailing wage is a threshold or minimum rate on all prospective bidders on public works. Significant adverse economic effect on business including the ability of California business to compete with business in other states: None. Assessment on Impact on Job Creation and Business Opportunity: A reduction in labor costs may result in an increase in public construction which may result in an increase in labor and business opportunities. Significant effect on housing costs: None directly. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATNES In accordance with Government Code, Section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(7), DIR must determine that no alternative considered would be more effecrive in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. The DIR invites interested persons to present statements or azguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations during the written comment period. CONTACT PERSON DIR has prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons for each proposed acrion, and has available, upon request, both the expressed terms of each proposed action in a strikeout/underline format and the location of the rulemalcing %le containing all the information upon which the proposals are based. Requests for copies of the proposed text of the regularions, the inirial statement of reasons, questions concerning the proposed action or the hearings, and requests to review the rulemaking file at DIR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday should be directed to: Raida Kennedy, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, P. O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142 or at (415) 972-8623 by telephone. AVAILABII.ITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS The DIR will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaldng process at its office, please contact the Division of Labor Statistics and Research at the phone number listed above if you wish to view the rulemaking file. As of the date. this norice is published in the Norice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulations, and the initial statement of reasons. Copies may be obtained by contacring Raida Kennedy at the address or phone number listed above. AVAII.ABII.ITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT Following the end of the public comment period, or the hearing if one is requested, the DIR may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If modifications are made which are sufficiendy related to the originally proposed text, the modified text -- with the changes - 2- clearly indicated -- shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which DIR adopts the regulations. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be addressed to the agency's contact person identified in this notice. The DIR will accept written comments of the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which the modified text is made available. INFORMATIVE DIGEST 1. Article 1. DEFINITIONS Labor Code Sections 1720 et. sea• and secrions 16000 et. sea• of the California Code of Regulations specifies the State's prevailing wage law requirements for public works projects. Existing regulations state deiuiidons of terms commonly used by DIR, awarding bodies and contractors, in the public works contracting process. Section 16000. Definitions. It is proposed to delete the definition of "Predetennined Changes" from the definirions in this Article. Labor Code Section 1773 allows the Director of Industrial Relarions to adopt by reference the wage provisions contained in a collective bazgaining agreement which are found to be prevailing in a locality, and to incorporate such wage rates by reference into a prevailing wage determination for the craft or classification. This definition indicates the types of wage changes which are currently included and referenced in the prevailing wage determination: Wage rates which increase, for example, by a spec�ed amount during the life of a collective bazgaining agreement are predetemzined. Contractors aze currently responsible for paying the new rate if work on a project extends beyond the effective date of the change. The effect of the proposed change will be to remove predetemuned wage changes from the prevailing wage requirements. The prevailing wage rate at the time of a project's bid advertisement date will be the rate for the life of the project. 2. Article 4. WAGE DETERMINATIONS Labor Code Sections 1773 and existing regulations specify the procedures the Director follows in making prevailing wage detern�inations. Section 16200. General. Basis for Determining Prevailing Wage Rate. Existing regulations specify as the basis for the Director's prevailing wage rate determination: collecrive bargaining agreements; federal rates; data collection; the wage rate factors; and other information from interested parties. 16200(a)(3) Adoption of Collective Bargaining Agreement. Exisring regulations specify the elements and provisions from a collective bargaining agreement which are included tiy reference in the prevailing wage determination, when the wage rate in the agreement has been determined to prevail for the craft, classification or type of worker. -3- Existing subsection (a)(3)(B) is proposed to be repealed. The effect of the proposed change will be to exclude predetemrined wage rate changes from the prevailing wage determinations and requirements. The prevailing wage rate in the detemunations for each craft or classification in effect at the time of a project bid advertisement date will be effective for the life of the project. The purpose of the proposed change is to clarify for the regulated public that wage rate changes of any type are not included in the prevailing wage deternrinations. It further cl�es that a detemunation remains in effect until a subsequent determinarion is issued for the craft or classificadon. Existing subsection (a)(3)(C) is proposed to be renumbered and amended due to the deletion of subsection (a)(3)(B). The regulation is amended to remove the reference to the excluded changes which are not predetermined in the prevailing wage determinations. The proposed change is to clarify for the regulated public that wage changes of any type will not be included in the prevailing wage determination. It also serves to identify the information which must be filed when the basis of a determination is a collective bargaining agreement and the wage rate has been modified before it may be considered as the basis for a new determination. Existing subsections (a)(3); (D), (E), (F), (G), (H) and (I) are proposed to be renumbered due to the deletion of subsection (a)(3)(B). The proposal will have no effect on the regulations. Section 16204. Effective Dates of Determination and of Rates Within Determination. Existing regulations specify the effective date of the determination and the meaning of the single and double asterisk notarion used in the Director's general prevailing wage deternunations. Subsection (a)(3) is amended to indicate that subsequent determinations and the prevailing wage rates con�tained therein are not applicable to contracts for which the call for bids has already been published prior to the effective date of the deternrination. E�cisting subsection (b) is proposed to be amended. The effect of the proposed change will be to remove predetemuned changes from the prevailing wage determinations and to indicate that predeterniined changes will not be incorporated into the prevailing wage deternunations. � 3 INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Title 8: Chapter 8, Group 3, Articles 1 of the Regulations of the Office of Prevailing Wages Problems Addressed by Proposed Action and 4 Sections 16000, the Director Regarding upon Public Works 16200 and 16204 Payment of Existing regulations under Tide 8, Group 3 regarding the payment of prevailing wages are repealed and malified to address specific issues and concerns expressed by the regulated public and to make the Deparanent's regularions conform more closely with the Code of Federal Regulations. Federal Davis - Bacon law has no "double asterisk" wage escalation provision. The use and inclusion of what has been referred to as the "double asterisk" (predetermined wage rate) in the state prevailing wage system causes confusion and inconsistencies in pay rates. For example, when the public works project is partially federally funded the use of "predetermined" wage rate, not required under the federal regulations, can cause confusion among the awarding body, the contractors and the enforcement personnel. In addition, there have been numerous occasions when the parties to the collective bargaining agreement have subsequendy rescinded or reduced the wage increase. Such rescission or reduction results in the contractor and, ulrimately, the awarding body being required to pay a rate that is no longer the "prevailing rate." In other instances, the parties to the collecrive bargaining agreement have diverted the wage increase from the taxable wage to fringe benefits. All of these scenarios present substantial enforcement problems for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, as well as, increasing the cost to the taxpayer for public works projects. In addition, the current "double asterisk" system allows for changes to the "definite predetermined" changes. Purpose of Proposed Action The purpose of this action is to address the problems enumerated in the "Problems Addressed" statement Specifically, the proposed regulations will reduce confusion over the appropriate prevailing rate of per diem wages to be paid to a particular craft, classification or type of worker employed upon a public works project The regulated public has encountered difficulty in determining, monitoring and paying the correct prevailing wage rate when the published prevailing wage determination includes a predetermined wage rate change. The proposed changes will clarify the prevailing wage rate for all classifications employed on a public works site for the life of the pmject. The Department proposes to repeal and amend the regulations requiring the inclusion of future wage changes in the prevailing wage determinations. In addition, those sections defining and clarifying the types of wage changes included and the method by which the changes are referenced in the deterrninations will also be amended or deleted. In addition to the effects noted above, this change will reduce construction costs and some of the administrative burdens upon the regulated public, while srill maintaining that workers employed on a public works project receive the prevailing wage rate for the type of work in the locality at the time the project is put out for bids, in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773. The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has estimated the savings from elimination of the double asterisk to be at least one point six percent (1.6%) of the total labor costs on a projec� The Department proposes �i� nonsubstantive grammatical changes to several sections and subsections in existing regulations to increase the clarity of these secrions and to provide for the renumbering of affected sections. Article 1. Definitions Section 16000. Definitions. The definitions under this section clarify the meaning of a number of terms in existing regulations that are commonly used in public works contracting and would not otherwise be clear to the affected public. . The terms defined in this section are commonly used in public works contracting and are deiined in the manner intended by the Departmen� This benefits the affected public as it clarifies the intent of the terms used. The Department proposes to delete one and amend one of the existing defmitions. Predetennined Changes. This definirion identified what types of changes to the wage rate would be incorporated by reference into the general prevailing wage detemunations when a determination was based on a collective bazgaining agreemen� The Department has proposed repealing the regulations requiring the inclusion of future wage rate changes in the prevailing wage determinations. Tfie removal of these regularions would make this definidon urelevant. Article 4. Wage Deternunations The Department proposes the deletion of subsecaon 16200(a)(3)(B) from the regulations. This subsection requires the inclusion of wage rate changes in the prevailing wage deternunations when a detennination is based on a collective bargaining agreement and the changes are definite and predetermined. The regulated public has experienced difficulty in deternuning the appropriate rate for spec�c projects. The future changes are not published, as specific requirements on individual projects within the same locality may vary based on a project's advertisement date under the existing system This has caused confusion. In the past, predetermined changes have been rescinded or modified by the parties. This has resulted in contractors and awarding bodies being required to pay rates which do not prevail. In addition, this proposal will make the Department's reguladons more consistent with the Federal regulations governing public works. The repeal of this pmvision will clarify for the regulated public the prevailing rate of per diem wages to be paid for all workers employed on a public works project. It will establish the rate of pay for all crafts and classificadons of workers for the life of the project. This is intended to reduce problems encountered by the regulated public during all phases of the construction process including, but not limited to, bidding, monitoring and enforcing the prevailing wage requirements. It will also reduce the complexity of enforcement for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and awarding bodies with approved labor compliance programs. There will be cost savings to awarding bodies from both the construction and administrative cost reduction on public works projects. The Department did not rely upon any technical, theoretical, or empirical studies, reports, or documents in proposing the adoption of this regulation. The Department has detemuned that no alternatives considered would be more effecrive in carrying out the purpose of, or which would be less burdensome to affected private persons, than the pmposed regulation. -2- Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (C). This subsection is proposed to be renumbered and amended as a result of the removal of Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (B). This is a nonsubstanrive technical change. The removal of the requirement to include predetermined changes in the prevailing wage determinations makes the reference to known predeternuned changes excluded from the deternunations unnecessary. The inclusion of "prevailing wage" is a grammatical change to add clariry to the regularion and is a nonsubstantive change. Subsecrion 16200 (a) (3) (D) This subsection is proposed to be renumbered as a result of the removal of Subsecrion 16200 (a) (3) (B). This is a nonsubstantive technical change. Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (E) Holidays. This subsection is proposed to be renumbereri as a result of the removal of Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (B). This is a nonsubstantive technical change. Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (F) Overtime. This subsection is proposed to be renumbered as a result of the removal of Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (B). This is a nonsubstantive technical change. Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (H) Rates for helpers. This subsection is proposed to be renumbered as a result of the removal of Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (B). This is a nonsubstantive technical change. . Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (n Credit Available For Actual Payment of Fringe Benefit Costs up to the Prevailing Amount. This subsection is proposed to be renumbered as a result of the removal of Subsection 16200 (a) (3) (B). This is a nonsubstantive technical change. Section 16204. Effective Date of Deternunation and of the Rates Within the Determination. This regulation clarifies the effective date of deternrinarions and the prevailing wage requirements for a project The determination of the prevailing wage rate for each craft or classificarion is made pursuant to Labor Code Secrion 1773. This regularion establishes the individual deternunation effective for a spec�c public works projec� Subsection (a)(3) is amended to clarify that subsequent deternunations reflecting new prevailing wage requirements are not applicable to projects for which the notice to bidders has been published, unless the determination is modified pursuant to the petition to review process in Labor Code Section 1773.4. The petition to review process provides for the Director to issue a new deternunation for a specific project if it is found that an existing deternunarion does not prevail. This determination is applicable to the petitioned project or projects and any subsequent projects advertised for bids after the effective date of a new general deteirnination issued by the Director. This is intended to avoid confusion over which prevailing wage determination is applicable to a particular project This will reduce uncertainty over the prevailing wage requirements for a spec�c project in all areas of the pubIic works process. -3- Subsection 16204 (b). Modification of Effective Date of Determinadon by Asterisks. Meaning of single and double asterisks. The Division proposes to amend this regulation. The Director is required to determine the prevailing wage rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of workman needed to execute a public works contract, in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773. Under the current regulations, when the basis of a prevailing wage determination is a collective bargaining agreement, the Director is required to incorporate into the prevailing wage detemunation any definite predeternuned changes to the wage rate contained in the agreement, such as wage increases in subsequent years of the agreement. The predetermined changes are incorporated by reference with a double asterisk notation after the expiration date on the determinarion. The increases are not published as applicable rates vary depending on the bid advertisement date of a project. The regulated public have experienced difiiculty and have expressed confusion over the implementation of this provision. For example, the parties to the collective bargaining agreement may rescind the wage increases already incorporated mto the Director's determinadon, but the existing regulation would require the now-rescinded wage increases to be paid. This change will clarify the prevailing wage requirements on public works by providing that the wage rate in existence at the time a deterinination is issued will remain effective for the life of a projec� The purpose of the proposed action is to simplify the prevailing wage requirements on public works projects. The amended regulation will clarify that the prevailing wage rate of per diem wages are those contained in the determination in effect at the project's bid advertisement date. The Department did not rely upon any technical, theoretical, or empirical studies, reports, or documents in proposing the adoption of this regularion. The Department has determined that no alternatives considered would be more effective in carrying out the purpose of, or which would be less burdensome to affected private persons, than the proposed regulation. S� J r EXCERPT FROM CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 8 GROUP 3. PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES UPON PUBLIC WORKS Article 1. Definitions 16000. Definitions. The following terms are defined for general use in these regulations within Group 3, Payment of Prevailing Wages Upon Public Works and Group 4, Awarding Body Labor Compliance Programs: � _ ._ _ _ � , . : :: -:. - : : - :: -: : : :: - ::: :: -: ::. - -- - - - : - ; - --- - - - --- - -- - ; : ;- -- - - - -... - - - .... - :. :: - : :: .: : - -:. : - - -- - - -- : : : : : - - - ► -- --- - :. -- - - - - - -- - ; Authority Cited: Section 1773.5. Labor Code Reference• Sections 1720 et. seq.. Labor Code Article 4. Wage Determinations 16200. General. Basis for Determining Prevailing Wage Rate. The Director shall follow those procedures speciiied in Sections 1773 and 1777.5 of the Labor Code and in these regulations when making a prevailing wage determination. (a) Collective Bargaining Agreements or Wage Surveys. (1) Filing of collective bargaining agreements. (A) To enable the Director to ascertain and consider the applicable wage rates established by collective bargaining agreements when making prevailing wage determinations, the representatives of any crafts, classifications, or types of workers needed to execute 1 � � any public works contracts shall file with the Department of Industrial Relations fully executed copies of all their collective bargaining agreements, including any and all addenda which modify the agreements, within 10 days of their execution and shall be considered as the basis for a prevailing wage determination whenever on file 30 days before the call. for bids on a project. (3) Adoption of Collective Bargaining Agreements. (A) If the Director determines pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code that the rate established by a collective bargaining agreement is the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classi�cation or type of worker and the Director adopts such rate by referral, the Director will publish such rate. Only those rates and employer payments specifically enumerated in the definition of "general prevailing rate of per diem wages" in Section 16000 shall be included in the rate adopted. , , NOTE: A statement must be filed with the Director for any adjustments made to a contract which aze not contained in the agreement currently on file with DLSR. {�} �When such rate is adopted, and in the case where the collective bargaining agreement contains changes during its term which will affect the rate adopted; , the changes shall not be adopted. The prior determination will remain in effect until a new determination is issued. Any interested party may request that the Director make a new determination when contract changes become definite and determined by filing a statement as set forth in Section 16200(a)(1) The statement must summarize the amounts and effective dates of any cost-of-living adjustments, allocations of interim wage increases to wages and employer payments, and other � relevant changes which will affect the �revailin� wa�e rate adopted by the Director. The statement must be 2 � ' signed by an officer or agent of the bargaining representative and certified, under penalty of perjury, as true and .correct to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. FB} �C,Z When such agreement is adopted as the basis of the prevailing wage determination, all wage classifications may be considered. �-} �D Holidays. Holidays specifically named in the collective bargaining agreement or determined by wage surveys shall be included in the wage determination. Overtime pay may be required as provided in Section 16200 (a). (3) (�j (� of these regulations. �} � Overtime. Overtime will be paid as indicated in the wage determination. EXCEPTION 1: If a workweek other than Monday through Friday is a fixed business practice or is required by the awarding body, no overtime payment is required for the first eight hours on Saturday or Sunday. EXCEPTION 2: If the collective bargaining agreement provides for Saturday and Sunday work at straight-time, no overtime payment is required for the first eight hours on Saturday or Sunday. � EXCEPTION 3: If the awarding body determines that , work cannot be performed during normal business hours or work is necessary at off hours to avoid danger to life or property, no overtime is required for the first eight hours in any one calendar day, and 40 hours during any one calendar week.� EXCEPTIO�N 4: No overtime payment is required for less than 40 hours in a standard work week or for less than eight hours in a calendar workday unless specified in the collective bargaining agreement used as the basis for the prevailing wage determination. (�`r} �F� Wage rates, training contributions and apprenticeship contributions. Apprenticeship rates will be determined by the Director of Industrial Relations using apprentice wage standards set forth in the collective bargaining agreement and/or approved by the California Apprenticeship Council. A contractor or subcontractor on a public works contract must pay training fund contributions or apprenticeship contributions in one of the following manners: 3 J 0 (1) into the appropriate craft apprenticeship program in the area of the site of the public work; or (2) if the trust fund is unable to accept such contributions an equivalent amount shall be paid to the California Apprenticeship Council (CAC) administered by DAS. (3) If neither of the above will accept the funds, cash pay shall be as provided for in Section 16200(a)(3)(I) of these regulations. (-�-} � Rates for helpers. Rates for helpers will be published when the information available to the Director indicates that a practice of using such a subclassification prevails in a particular area, such as contained in a collective bargaining agreement, and within the parameters of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. In the absence of such determination, the helper classification may not be used as a substitute for a journeyman or apprentice. . This section does not exempt the contractor from the 1-5 apprentice-journeyman ratio requirements set forth in Labor Code Section 1777.5. (�} � Credit Available For Actual Payment of Fringe Benefit Costs up to the Prevailing Amount. The contractor obligated to pay the full prevailing rate of per diem wages may take credit for amounts up to the total of all fringe benefit amounts listed as prevailing in the appropriate wage determination. This credit may be taken only as to amounts which are actual payments under Employer Payments Section 16000 (1) -(3). In the event the total of Employer Payments by a contractor for the fringe benefits listed as prevailing is less than the aggregate amount set out as prevailing in the wage determination, the contractor must pay the difference directly to the employee. No amount of credit for payments over the aggregate amount of employer payments shall be taken nor shall any credit decrease the amount of direct payment of hourly wages of those amounts found to be prevailing for straight time or overtime wages. Authority Cited: Section 1773.5, Labor Code Reference: Section 1773. Labor Code � J ' 16204. Effective Dates of Determination and of Rates Within Determination. (a) Effective date of determination. (1) All determinations issued will be effective ten (10) days after issuance, provided that requests for copies, reprints or reissuance of prior determinations shall not affect the original effective date unless a new effective date is reflected upon the determination (see subdivision (3) below). Any call for bids put out on or after the effective date of the determination must reflect that determination unless the Director determines that subdivision (4) of this section is applicable, after notification and request by an awarding body. (2) Determinations issued by the Director will show an issue date and will ordinarily show an expiration date. (3) All determinations will remain in effect until their expiration date or until modified, conected, rescinded or superseded by the Director. New determinations are not apnlicable to contracts upon which the notice to bidders has been published, unless the determination is issued , �ursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.4. (4) Determinations modified, corrected, rescinded or superseded on the basis of information contained in copies . of collective bargaining agreements filed with the Department shall not be effective as to any project in which a call for bids takes place less than 30 days after the iiling of the agreement._ NOTE: See Section 1773.1 of the Labor Code. (5) It shall be the responsibility of the awarding body to ensure that the conect determination is used. �b� �9fiii-iC$�:.._. ..r ��---vi �'a��i'-miira�6ir—uy . S. ut�i"�'Err�i3e`iiiefl« r,... t.:a.. _eYiiain�iiZiT�--�6�--�iC.'�iii,. '.�-vci rn•�',� > > � I1�GVII'CI'ZI�'r.C'S .�� .��'►•• � Tl... �� ,.L�.._1,] «�,...a f � 5 No Adoution of Predetermined Changes in Collective �g a i n i n g A g r e e m e n t s. The rate � xed for each craft. classification. or tXpe of worker as prevailing in a determination shall remain in effect for the life of the vroject When the rate is based on a collective bar ag ining a„�reement it does not include ,predetermined chan�es in the basic hourly wa.g,,es, overtime, holiday pay rates, or amounts of emplo,�payments even if known and enumerated in the applicable collective bar a�g, agreement. Authority Cited: Section 1773.5. Labor Code Reference: Sections 1773. 1773.4 and 1773.6. Labor Code � B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy • City Manager October 31, 1995 Roelnia Martinez Chief, Office of State Transit Programs Mass Transportation Program Department of Transportation 1227 "O" Street, Suite 402 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Dear Ms. Martinez: This letter is to offer support to the application by Caltrans District 6 for a Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) grant to assist in the relocation of the Bakersfield Amtrak station. This project has been in the works since 1988, and has not been developed past the blue print stage because of funding limitations. Funding for the Amtrak station relocation will improve the transportation system and the economy of the City of Bakersfield. The proposed location for the Amtrak station will not only integrate existing public transportation services, but it is also the proposed location for the high speed ground transportation terminal. The new Amtrak station will also be within walking distance from Bakersfield's Convention Center and the administrative offices of the City and the County. Thank you for your attention. Should you need additional information, please call me at 805/326-3751. Sincerely, Tand� City Manage� AT: rg City of Bakersfield • City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • California • 93301 lRrl�l ��c �-�c� . C�.. !SZl1C1 ��n '1 OC/1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: • B A K E R S F I E L D Economic and Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M George Gonzales, Community Development Coordinator Sylvia Sousa, VISTA Volunteer � Clean-Up/Graffiti Paint-Out activity t� l October 30, 1995 The entire student body of the Bakersfield Adventist Academy will be involved in a community service project on Friday, November 3, 1995. About seventy students and school staff, together with the City's Looking Good Neighborhood and 32-ERASE programs will have a paint-out and clean-up activity at Pacific and Oregon streets between Gage and Miller. The activity will take place from 10:00 a.m. until approximately 3:00 p.m. The City will provide the needed supplies and staff support for the project, and the students will volunteer their labor as a token of their commitment to community service. cc: Mayor Bob Price Pat DeMond Jake Wager ��T 3 � 19�5 � TO: FROM: DATE: � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul M. Rojas, Public Wor November 2, 1995 ks Di ector l SUBJECT: S.R. 99 Widening Project @ Kern River � NOV "�- 31� Staff received a telephone call from the Resident Engineer for CalTrans' project to update us on the progress that has been made. As you may recall, they had a problem with the Reclamation Board and obtaining permission to work in the Kern River. This has been resolved and work will start in the riverbed ne�ct week. However, the issue of the bike path detour has not been resolved and CalTrans will close the bike path when the contractor starts work on that section of the bridge. C195:\99BIKE.MEM RMR:mps xc: Reading File Project File Jacques R. La Rochelle Steve Walker Marian P. Shaw SUPERVISORS ROY ASHBURN • STEVE A. PEREZ BARBARA PATRICK KENNETM W.PETERSON MARY K. SHELL Dlstricf No. 1 Olstrict No. 2 Dl�lrltt No. 3 Dlttrict No. 4 Dlstrld No. 5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Robert Binger District Director District 06 California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, California 93778 Dear Mr. Binger: SUE DAVIS Clerk o! Bosrd of Supervf�oey Kern County Adminlatrolive Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue. Sth Floor Bekerslfel�i. Calllomia 93301 Telsphone�805)861-2167 October 31,1995 The Kern County Board of Supervisors urges the California Transportation Commission to dedicate $12 million in state transportation funds as requested by the City of Bakersfield and CalTrans District 06 for the purpose of relocating the Amtrak passenger terminal in Bakersfield from its current site on F Street to S Street. The S Street site has been identified by previous studies as the most feasible location for an intermodal passenger terminal which will tie together bus, Amtrak and future high speed rail services at a single location. The new Amtrak site will be adjacent to the planned high speed rail terminal, and it is within pedestrian range of the Bakersfield Civic Center, hotels, county and city government complexes and the downtown retail area. Both the Kern COG Regional Transportation Plan and the 1992 State Transportation Improvement Plan have identified the S Street Amtrak terminal site as an intermodal transportation center, and this project also has the support of the City of Bakersfield, the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce and the Kern Transportation Foundation. By accommodating growing Amtrak passenger traffic and improving transit connections, the proposed terminal would greatly improve the efficiency and convenience of ground transportation in Bakersfield. We strongly urge funding by the Commission for this project. KWP:AK\amtrak$t.ran cc: City of Bakersfield Kern Council of Governments Roads Departrnent Richard Ritts Sincerely, /�� '� ' G Kenneth W. Peterson, Chairman Kern County Board of Supervisors ,.� C�� 3 i995 9' . _ -7 �pQ�"-- ! _ � a MEMORAN DUM �� ,� � "WE CARE" S� , 0 �. ,. � _a _ G,;�..< DATE: TO: FROM: NOVEMBER 1, 1995 ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER MICHAEL R. KELLY, FIRE CHIEF "�� SUBJECT: OUT OF THE OFFICE - NOVEMBER 2& 3, 1995 I will be out of the office Thursday, November 2 and Friday, November 3. In my absence Assistance Chief Robert Tobias will be in charge. My staff will be able to contact me if necessary. MRK/kec cc: John W. Stinson Gail Waiters All Department Heads MEMO\RELLY\L8AVE11.95 �:.i�� H � �-� ,.. ., i.- w� �� ." � r`N: ^ �phERSI1E��0 � � � �, 1, /hl'\�� 'fi �'OLICt �, \=. � , i��; _ ., TO FROM SUBJECT MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager Steve Brummer, Chief of Police Business Leave (November 1-3, 1995) October 30, 1995 I will be out of town from November lst through November 3rd to attend the Kern County Chiefs' Executive Training Seminar in San Luis Obispo, California. Issues concerning the police department should be directed to Assistant Chief Jim Lewis during my absence. SEB/vrf cc: John Stinson Gail Waiters Judy Skousen Carol Williams Raul Rojas Jack Hardisty Gregory Klimko Mike Kelly Leland Andersen Gene Bogart Jake Wager N0� I lS�:�