HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/29/97 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
August 29, 1997
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY F/~
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. As a result of a citizen claim concerning handicapped accessibility at Haggin Oaks
Park, a memo is enclosed from the Parks and Recreation Director regarding the
construction requirements for parks under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We
don't have a parking lot there, or restrooms - thus, no handicapped spaces.
2. Enclosed is a memo detailing the return of surplus fee-for-service health premium
contributions made by the City and employees for 1996, totaling $1 million dollars.
The proposal is for $800,000 to go to the General Fund for one time capital needs,
and the employees' 20% contribution totaling $200,000 will be returned,
proportionately, based on their individual contributions from that year. Approval of the
appropriation by City Council will be requested at the September 10th meeting. This
applies only to employees in the fee-for-service program and not those in the HMO,
since they pay a fixed fee, and the fee-for-service program is self funded. These funds
are available as one time money, due to the plan experience in 1996.
3. Attached for your information is a chart prepared by Development Services which
shows a comparison of fees collected by various California cities (and unincorporated
Kern County) when building permits are issued. We, as usual, compare favorably.
4. Enclosed is an update from Water Resources on the project funding for the Kern River
Parkway.
5. Responses to Council referrals are enclosed, as follows:
· Proposed park development fees for FY 97-98. Council will consider a resolution
on adjustment of fees at the September 24th meeting.;
· Status report on the closure of McCleary Street to through traffic;
· Status report on the Kern City area chip/cape seal project for 97-98.
6. An article on the subject of the design-build concept versus Iow bid is enclosed.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 29, 1997
Page 2
7. Within 24 hours after beginning to take deposits for suite reservations in the new
arena, we had sold two of the premium priced ones. Location and price range
selection are "first come, first served", so if you know of prospects, get them in to see
me, please.
8. The California Integrated Waste Management Board will have an opportunity to review
our Remedial Action Plan for the Panorama burn dump mitation during the upcoming
public review period, but we have asked them to specifically consider, at this time, our
proposed approach for the disposal of excavated burn material. Our correspondence
to them is enclosed.
9. We welcome Dolores Teubner to her new position, title, and office. We will list her old
position for an internal promotion!
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
DIVISIONS OF RECREATION AND PARKS
DATE: August 25, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Stan Ford, Director ~
SUBJECT: Handicapped Accessibility of Haggin Oaks Park
Regarding our conversation this morning about handicapped accessibility at Haggin
Oaks Park. The park was constructed in approximately 1983. The construction of
this park, and several others in the area, was by the developer as negotiated in a
development agreement with the city. Other parks in the area (e.g. Pin Oak, Campus
Parks North and South) do not have off-street parking. This is also true for Haggin
Oaks. Additionally, Haggin Oaks does not have public restrooms as is the case with
many city parks.
I am somewhat familiar with two of the titles of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and to my knowledge the act does not require a public agency to provide either
parking or restroom facilities in a park. However, if we had such amenities they
would need to be accessible. I was unable to reach the city attorney to get her
interpretation of the law.
On a related note, Mike Doyle had previously spoken to Carol Miranda, the woman
who addressed the council last week. Unfortunately, Mike informed me that during
their conversation she was very abusive and profane on the phone. Sometime after
this conversation she filed a claim against the city (copy attached). This is what she
claimed precipitated the problem with the police and attorney that she described to
the council. I am not clear as to exactly what injury she sustained as a result of the
park not having the amenities she demanded.
If you require additional information, please let me know.
RECE?,dED
CITY ~ANAGER'S
-~.IABILITY CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
For Damages to Persons and Personal Property /::t' E C E' I V E D
(Government Code Sections 905, 910 and 910.2)
TO: CITY CLERK /~ /~UG ]. ~ ~9,,0~//
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 97
-,-,o II ~,~'110: 55~MGM'I:
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
Said claim must be filed with the City Clerk, City of Bakersfield, within six months after the accident, event or
incident occurred. Make certain the claim is against the City of Bakersfield and not another public entity.
Completed forms must be mailed or delivered on time to the City Clerk at the address indicated above. Where
space is insufficient, use additional paper and identify information by paragraph number. WARNING: It is a
criminal offense to file a false claim (See Penal Code #72 and Insurance Code #556.1). For other claims,
consult the Government Code for filing times and complete the appropriate sections of this claim form.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA:
The undersigned respectfully submits the following claim and information:
(A) The name and (or post office) addresa of the claimant:
1. FULL NAME OF CLAIMANT: ~--~ ~ It'D L Y~ l'.~ ~,~ z) ~.
2. COMPLETE ADDRESS: (~'0 ? ~/ W~ '~) ~ '~2.~.((--.~,.~-"'~.-L.~'.'~
STREET/~TREET & APT. N~. C~TY/~TA'I~/'~P
3. OTHER ADDRESS:
~O, 8OX OR AI. TERNATE. ~F ~
4. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Home~'x~.) ~ 5- /~- ~-- Work ~4~'/~,,,r~ ~;~,~
5. DATE OF BIRTH: /0 - 0 ~/' ~ ~' 6. PARENT/GUARDIAN.~
soc~ SECU.~ .O.: ~75-7e-~/ ~ (O~ Minor)
DRIVER'S LICENSE NO.: ~ / ~
(B) ~e post office (or other) address to which the Person presenting the claim desires notices
to ~
9. ADDRESS/NOTICES:
(C) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to
~e claim asse~ed: (Be precise as to the exact location.)
~o. D~E: / ? ~? ~. T~Ue: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
12. PLACE: ~ ~ U~,~ ~tC~ ~ ~ ~
([~CT L~TION)
13. CIRCUMSTANCES: H0 ~~ ~C,-~G b ~ O~/L ~(5~oom~
~CI~ THE PA~U~R ~CUR~NCE, ~ENT. ACT OR OMISSION YOU C~IM CAUSED THE INJURY ~
/ ,
Page 2
(D) A general description of the Indebtedness, obligation, Injury, damage or loss incurred so far as
it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim:
14. NATURE/DESCIPTION OF INJUI~IES/DAMAGE: 7'/~T'- C/~y ~-/~-~ [1'!
15. IF NO INJURIES, SO STATE:
(E) The name, address and telephone number of all witnesses to the occurrence or transaction:
(F) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the Injury, damage, or
Ioe~, if known:
17. NAME(S): ~ ~-r (~ /-~/--~ F~C,~r-~-~'~- 7~'~
18. WHAT ACT/ACTION OF CiTY EMOLOYEES CAUSED THE INJURY/DAMAGE? ~..'_~
C" ¢r , ,,.,.,.,__ ,
(G) The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of the claim, Including the estimated amount
of a'ny prospective Injury, damage, or loss Insofar es It may be known at the time of the presenta-
tioh of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed.
19.. AMOUNT CLAIMED TO DATE: (..[ ,U lC' ~ c, ~ ~
20.. ESTIMATED FUTURE COSTS: c~_ ~ [~---~.J ~.. ~
21. BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF CLAIM: ~ ~ i~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~
22. AMOUNT OF TOTAL CLAIM: ~.,~. ~,~ i~' r,~ c~ .U.v' ~
{INCLUDING ALL KNOWN LOSS OAMAGES)
(H) 23., COURT JURISDICTION:
i ~CHEcK ONE} MUNICIPAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT
{$25.000 OR LESS) ~OVER $25,000)
The undersigned states that he or she is a person making the above stated claim, or is a person presenting
said cia)th and acting on behalf of the claimant above named, and declares under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing ~s true and correct insofar as is knows as of this date.
CITy ~GNATURE OF CLAIMANT OR C I A 'S REPR . ,.,
STATE ~:DRESS
) Bills. invoices or estim~.es
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
August 25, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stinso~, ~ss~istant City Manager
SUBJECT: 1996 Blue Cross Premium Surplus
The City has received the year end accounting for the self funded indemnity health plans for 1996
from Blue Cross. The fee for service dental plan essentially covered its expenditures with the
premium collected. The retiree fee for service medical expenses exceeded the premiums
collected for that group. The fee for service medical plan for active employees had fewer claims
than anticipated and projected by Blue Cross. This has resulted in a surplus of funds which is
available to the City of $1,683,062.00. Of this amount $680,998 is attributable to numerous
prior years and it has been the City's practice to maintain these funds with Blue Cross in the
event of adverse future claims experience. The remaining amount however, is based on 1996
premium contributions and totals $1,002,064.00.
As we previously discussed, it does not seem prudent to have Blue Cross retain this 1996 surplus
on our behalf as we have done in some previous years, as the funds are significant and clearly
attributable to the 1996 plan experience. The City may request these funds from Blue Cross at
any time. I am recommending that the city request the return of $1,000,000 and that these funds
would return to the General Fund, and that the portion of these funds contributed by employees
(20%) towards the fee for service premiums paid in 1996, be refunded to those employees who
contributed to the fee for service plan in 1996. All employees who contributed to the fee for
service medical plan in 1996 would receive a refund on a pro-rata basis related to their employee
contributions toward fee for service premiums for that year. Retiree, Blue Cross dental and
COBRA fee for service participants would not receive refunds due to their claims experience for
1996. This refund would also not apply to California Care participants as their premiums are
paid on a capitated basis and are not self funded like the fee for service plan, so none of their
premiums are eligible for refund.
The refund to employees would generally be as follows:
Single: $170.62
Two-Party: $339.67
Family: $511.76
This issue was presented to the Joint City/Employee Insurance Committee and they unanimously
agreed with obtaining these funds from Blue Cross and method the of distribution of these
refunds to employees described above.
To proceed we can request the refund from Blue Cross upon your direction, and they will
transmit the funds to the City within 31 days. Subsequent to that, the refunding of 1996 premium
contributions to employees will require City Council approval and appropriation of funds
($200,000) prior to distribution. Finance would process the refund as part of a regular payroll
check. The balance of funds ($800,000) in the General Fund would be available for use by the
city when appropriated by the Council. These funds should be considered one-time monies
since they are based on the experience of the fee for service health plans which is likely to vary
from year to year.
City of Bakersfield Exhibit
Financial Accounting: January - December 1996
1. Total Premium $3,657,312
2. Incurred Claims - Unpooled
a. Paid Claims $2,446,163
b. Pooled Claims $0
c. Pooled Paid Claim Charge $152,680
d. Beginning Claim Reserves $611,076
e. Ending Claim Reserves $530,220
( a. - b. + c. - d. + e. ) $2,517,987
3. Retention (claim admin., risk charges, premium tax) $273,463
4. Gain (Loss) for 1996 ( 1. - 2. - 3. ) $865~862
5. Amount in Stabilization Reserve as of January 1, 1996' $263,327
6. Interest on Stabilization Reserve tbr this Period at 5.0% $13,166
7. Amount in Premium Deposit Fund as of January 1, 1996 $657,969
8. Interest on Premium Deposit Fund for this Period at 3.5% $23,029
9. Accumulated Gain (Loss) Through December, 1996 $1,823~353
(4.+5.+6.+7.+8.)
10. Amount Allocated to Stabilization Reserve as of December 31, 1996 $140,291
1 I. Amount Allocated to Premium Deposit Fund as of December 31, 1996 $1,683,062
(9.-10.)
12. Maximum Amount Available for Refund $1,683,062
( Amount in Item 11. )
* Includes $134,000 transferred from the Premium Deposit Fund.
s:',... ,accounllngxl 9 }6\ANALYSI~.XLS\Financial Accountingx5/_3/97
MEMORANDUM
August 25, 1997
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ..~......, j
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIR
SUBJECT: COMPARISON OF FEES COLLECTED AT BUILDING FERMIT
Attached is a chart comparing fees collected by various jurisdictions at issuance of building
permit. The fees are based on a 2,000 sq.ft, single family residence with a 500 square foot
garage on a one-quarter acre lot with 70-feet of street frontage.
JH:pjt
Attachment
m\mat8-25
CitY OF BAKERSFIELD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
COMPARISON OF FEES
(8-5-97)
1991 1997
BAKERSFIELD
Building Permit Fee $ 888. $ 867.
School Fee 3,160. 3,440.
Sewer Connection Fee 900. 1,080.
Habitat Conservation Fee 137. 500.
Park Fee 610. 670.
Traffic Impact Fee 1,179.
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee 12.
$ 5,695. $ 7,748.
KERN COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED_)
Building Permit Fee $ 1,605. $1,388.
School Fee 3,160. 3,440.
Strong Motion Instrumentation 12.
Habitat Conservation Fee 137. 434.
Grading Permit Fee 40. 60.
Water Meter (average) 1,600.
Sewer Connection (where available) 1,680. 1,800.
Traffic ImPact Fee 1,179.
$ 8,222. $ 8,313.
E~CONDIDO
Building Permit Fee/Plan Check $1,999. $ 1,750.
School Fee 3,160. 5,937.
Plot Plan Review Fee 50. 40.
Strong Motion Implementation Fee 24.
Public Facility Fee 2,259. 2,206.
Sewer Connection Fee 5,270. 5,870.
Water Connection Fee 3,940. 4,690.
Park Fee ",.~ 2,289. 1,708.
Traffic Fee ' - 1,930. 1,930.
Art in Public Places Fee 120. 210.
CFPR 58.
Drain Facility Fee 898.
Met Water District 670.
$ 21,041. $ 25,967.
CITY OF FRESNO
Building Permit Fee $ 904. $ 1,059.
School Fee 3,160. 3,680.
Water Connection Fee 2,200. 1,837.
Sewer Connection Fee 1,009. 1,371.
Offsite Improvement Fee 130.
Major Facilities Charge 200.
Wastewater Facilities Charge 2,180.
Urban Growth Management Fees: 2,972.
Fire Station Fee 400.
Park Fee 400.
Railroad Crossing Fee 160.
Grade Separation Fee 300.
Major Street Fee 500.
Bridge Fee 102.
Traffic Signal Fee 172.
$ 9,307. $13,429.
MERCED
Building Permit Fee $ 2,881. $ 986.
School Fee 3,160. 3,440.
Construction Tax 1,820. 1,820.
Water Facilitation Fee 1,604. 3,036.
Sewer Facilitation Fee 953. 1,831.
Park Fee 640. 907.
St. Tree 125.
Garbage Assessment 171. 172.
$11,354. $12,192.
MODESTO
Building Permit Fee $ 1,343. $ 950.
School Fee 3.160. 3,680.
Capital Improvement Fee 5,275. 3,819.
Sewer Connection 1,000.
Strong Motion Implementation Fee 12. 12.
Construction Water Fee 27. 61.
Sewer Bond Redemption Fee 500. 500.
County Public Facilities Fee 3,431. 2,594.
Bedroom Tax - 30. 30.
Water Meter 110.
$14,778. $11,756.
RIVERSIDE
Building Permit Fee $ 3,769. $ 4,103.
School Fee 3,160. 3,300.
General Plan Maintenance Fee 264. 264.
Public Works Plan Check Fee 1,089.
(street, storm drain, street)
Grading Permit Fee 1,000.
Storm Drain Fee 746. 858.
Sewer Unit of Benefit Fee 39. 39.
Sewer Connection Fee 2,684. 2,684.
Traffic & Railroad Signal Fee 190. 190.
Transportation Impact Fee 525. 525.
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Fee 390. 390.
Tract Map Checking Fee 60. 100.
Park Development Fee 1,194. 1,626.
Strong Motion Implementation Fee 13. 19.
Water Backup Fee 3,960. 3,960.
Park Regulatory Fee 1,194. 1,194.
Road Impact Fee 525.
$18,713. $21,341.
Santa Barbara
Building Permit Fee $ 2,849. $ 3,314.
School Fee 3,160. 3,680.
State Surcharge 448. 453.
Zoning Plan Check Fee 83. 100.
Architectural Review Bd. Fee 220. 230.
Environmental Review 85.
Fire Department Fee 55. 55.
Plan Storage Fee 25. 150.
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee
Sewer Connection 1,750. 1,700.
Water Connection Fee 2,295. 2,342.
Traffic (average) 4,111. 4,111.
$14,996. $16,220.
STOCKTON
Building Permit Fee $1,619. $1,734.
School Fee 3,160. 3,440.
Water Conservation Fee 395.
Public Facilities Fees 5,400. 3,130.
Surface Water Fee 1,000. 1,344.
Sewer Connection Fee 1,890. 3,309.
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee 12.
Traffic Signal Fee 80.
Habitat Conservation Fee 381.
Park Land Fee 1,173.
$13,069. $14,998
All fees based on 2000 square foot single-family resiclence wt500 square foot garage. Lot size .20 acre w/70 foot lot frontage.
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
GENE BOGART, Manager
FLORN CORE, Water Resources Director
PATRICK E. HAUPTMAN. Superintendent 326-3006
STEVE LAFOND, Forecasting and Records 326-3007
MAURICE RANDALL, Busineas Manager 326-3704 ~,~,
KERN RIVER DISPATCHER 326-3716
August 27, 1997
Mr. John Schmidt, Executive Director
Wildlife Conservation Board
801 "K" Street, Suite 806
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: PROPOSITION 204 - KERN RIVER PARKWAY PROJECT (Land Acquisitions)
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
We are extremely pleased to hear our local Kern River Parkway Project was included in the
funding made available through Proposition 204. With the recent signing of the State Budget, we can now
begin the process to purchase some of the key remaining parcels that are still held in private ownership.
As we discussed by telephone, our initial acquisitions are to be established on a willing buyer -
willing seller basis. We understand that $500,000 was allocated for land acquisitions and we are looking
forward to acquiring these parcels for our local Kern River Parkway Project.
For your information and reference, please fred a copy of "THE KERN RIVER PARKWAY - the
First 10 Years" that includes a private property map and parcels outlined in this project. Please contact
either myself or Maurice Randall, our Business Manager, at this office as soon as you need further
information and/or support data to process the project funding.
Thanks again for your quick response to this great community project.
Si~ncerelYoG~RT
GE E BOG RT
~Resources Manager
GB:sr
Attachment
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Tom Clark, Kern County Water Agency ~CITY i~ANAGER'S OFFICE
Rich O'Neil, Kern River Parkway
1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
August 25, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raui M. Rojas, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: City Council Referral - WF0013661/002 - Park Development Fees
A Hearing to consider a resolution approving and adopting an adjusted fee for the development and
improvement of parks within the City of Bakersfield (All Wards) will be held on September 24, 1997.
The revised park development and improvement fee proposed for fiscal year 1997-98 is a "flat" fee
based on a weighted average persons per dwelling unit and is proposed as follows:
Existing Fee* Proposed Fees
Single Family Dwelling Unit $670 per unit $615 per unit
Duplex Dwelling Unit $545 per unit $615 per unit
Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $505 per unit $615 per unit
Mobile Home $475 per unit $615 per unit
* This fee amount has been in place since 1993.
A Hearing to consider a resolution approving and adopting an adjusted fee for the development and
improvement of parks within the City of Bakersfield was held on June 25, 1997. At the heating input
was received from a representative of the Building Industry Association of Kern County. The City
Council also had concerns regarding the cost elements the fee calculation was based on. This issue
was referred to the Urban Development Committee for further review.
The Urban Development Committee has met in July and August 1997 regarding Park Development
Fees. At the last meeting in August, staff provided the Committee with alternatives for establishing
standard park sizes and amenities. The current standard is a 6-acre park with restrooms and parking
in addition to the standard amenities. The Committee was concerned that 6-acres was too small for
these amenities and that either the standard size needed to be increased to 1 O-acres or the amenities
needed to be reduced for the 6-acre size. Staff stated that by going with the 1 O-acre park with full
amenities, we could still build smaller parks if warranted, but we would have the funds to build the
larger parks. This provides flexibility to match the park size and amenities to~the~oeeds~ofvarious
areas. The Committee unanimously agreed to the lO-acre standard.
i',C~TY ~,/i/~-r''':;':-'''''' :~: ":
City Council Referral - WF0013661/002
Park Development Fees
Page 2
The second issue was whether or not to continue to charge fees based on different categories of
housing or use another alternative. Staff provided three alternatives including the current method,
a weighted average method based on the existing fees and a weighted average based on the existing
fees and a weighted average based on the persons per dwelling unit. Both of the new alternatives
result in a decrease of the single-family rate and an increase of the multi-family and mobile home
rates. Of the two new options, staff preferred option #2. Option #2 is a "flat" fee for park
development which incorporates the proportionate share of single family units and multi-family units
into the calculation to develop a weighted average persons per dwelling unit. This method reduces
the single family unit cost from $670 to $615 and increases all other unit cost to $615.
The Committee wanted to get feedback from developers on the potential impact of the proposed
alternative method. The proposed fee and fee calculation worksheets were sent to building industry
groups soliciting their comments and encouraging a meeting to discuss the issue. However, responses
were not available to be included with this report. Staff has met with North Bakersfield Recreation
& Parks District officials and they are in agreement with the City's per acre park construction costs,
1 O-acre park construction costs and proposed "flat" fee for park development and improvements.
The Urban Development Committee directed staffto schedule the fee for hearing by the City Council
with the understanding that the Committee will have the opportunity to review and respond to
comments prior to the Council meeting. Responses received prior to the hearing will be summarized
and transmitted to the Council under separate cover.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ ~r~ ~__..
DATE: AUGUST 28, 1997
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
Attached is a copy of the Traffic Engineer's report on the closure of McCleary Street to
through traffic, as requested by Councilmember Salvaggio.
(Council Referral Record #WFO013390 / O0 '1 )
If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
Attachment'
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Traffic Engineering Memorandum
DATE: August 14, 1997
TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER~tJ
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT ON THE CLOSURE OF MCCLEARY
STREET TO THROUGH TRAFFIC. WF0013390/001
The short street segment of McCleary Street, between Camp and Parsons Way was closed to
vehicular traffic in June, 1996 in response to Parsons Way residents requests. The residents
wanted total vehicular separation from the adjoining neighborhood to the north due to "cut-
through" traffic and reckless drivers from the northerly neighborhood. The only connection
between the neighborhoods is the short section of McCleary Street.
In response to the neighborhood concerns, a barricade was installed at the corner of Camp and
McCleary. The barricade was constructed such that it could be removed for emergency access by
the Fire Department or removed completely if it was determined to be unneeded in the future. An
evaluation of the effectiveness and any adverse effects on the adjacent streets was required by the
City Council.
I have reviewed the traffic operation of the neighborhood. Prior to the closure, Parsons Way had
about 500 cars per day using the Parsons/McCleary route to exit the neighborhood. After the
closure, the average volume on Parsons was about 300 cars per day. The effect was that 200 to
possibly as many as 300 cars per day left the northern neighborhood by other routes. Those routes
were expected to be via Camp Street to Fairview and via Russel Street to Monitor.
Traffic concerns were expressed regarding the intersection of Camp at Fairview and it was also
checked for possible additional traffic controls such as a 4-way stop or signals[ The intersection
did not meet warrants for additional controls. A review of traffic on Russel did not indicate a
major change in traffic usage warranting additional controls.
Traffic volumes on Monitor are now about 2,700 cars per day. Traffic volumes on Fairview are
now about 6200 cars per day. An average increase of about 1500 cars per day over the past two
years due to increased development east of Monitor and growth of the area and not from the
maximum 300 car diversion from McCleary Street.
The Police Department has also reviewed the effects of the closure for the past year and concluded
that the closure has not been a factor in traffic enforcement and has not been a factor in crime
related enforcement in the area. The Police Department does indicate that, from a traffic
enforcement need, the barricade closure is not needed and that it would be easier for emergency
vehicles to use the street as an alternate route.
Recommendation: ~
Based on the above information and my personal investigation, the existing closure has had
negligible or minimal effect on the neighborhood street traffic volumes and traffic controls.
It would be more convenient for the northerly neighborhood to use the McCleary/Parsons
route for access, however, the problems identified with the original request will
undoubtably return. Since the Police have not indicated the barricade must be removed for
their operations and the effect on the neighborhood traffic, other than some inconvenience,
has been negligible, I make no recommendations for removal at this time.
As with other areas of concern, Traffic Staff will continue to monitor this neighborhood
for changes that may occur in traffic circulation or controls.
In response to referral No. WE0013390/001, Mr. Harvey Ginn has been contacted
informed of the findings in this report.
cc: Jacques LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering
Operations Engineer, CE III, Traffic Engineering
PW Memo Files
Traffic Engineering File - mccleary, barricade.rpt, wpd
slw: P:\DATA\WP\1997\mccleary. barricade.rpt.wpd
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
~' ~ ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB' WF0013390 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 6/24/97
· REQUEST DATE: 6/11/97
SCHEDULE DATES
CREW: START: 6/11/97
'~CATION: COMPLETION: 6/23/97
FACILITY NODES
~N. LOC: WARD7 FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR: PUBLIC
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - SALVAGGIO WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: BLOCKADE AT CAMP AND MCCLEARY STREETS
CONTACT
HARVEY GINN Phone 1 805 - 8348008 (
6000 MIDAS STREET Phone 2 -
)
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE MR. GINN WITH
THE STATUS OF THE BLOCKADE AT CAMP AND MCCLEARY
STREETS. WITH REGARDS TO THE ISSUE OF AMBULANCE
AND POLICE ACCESS·
Job Order Description: BLOCKADE AT CAMP AND MCCLEARY STREETS
atggory : PUBLIC WORKS
asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
INSTRUCTIONS
M~Mu DA'I'~D ~UNE 20.1997 SENT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL
MEMBERS FROM S.E. BRUMMER. CHIEF OF POLICE STATING
FROM A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE THERE IS NO
REASON TO MAINTAIN THE BARRICADE.
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 25, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~/.L~L~~j
SUBJECT: Chip/Cape Seal Project '97-'98
At the last City Council meeting, Council Member Rowels requested information regarding the 97-98
Chip/Cape Seal Project planned for the Kern City area. We are currently in the process of advertising
the project which has a bid date of September 4,1997. The project will go to City Council for award
on September 24, 1997. The project will be constructed during October. The streets for this project
are separated into a base bid and four alternates. The engineers estimate for the base bid is
approximately $160,000 and there is approximately $200,000 allocated in the C IP budget. The break
down of the streets are as follows:
Base Bid
Street Limits
New Stine Frontage Rd. Demaret Ave. to Sundale Ave.
Sarazen Avenue New Stine Rd. to Bermuda St.
I,a Quinta Court Bermuda St. to east end
Burning Tree Corn1 Bermuda St. to east end
Iverra .~ Court Bermuda St. to east end
Spyglass Hill Court Bermuda St. to east end
Dcmaret Avenue New Stint Rd. to Bermuda St.
Glen Oaks Drive Demaret Ave. Bcmmda St.
Oakmont Court Bermuda St. to north end
Bemmda Street Sundale Ave. to 213 Bermuda St.
Bermuda Street 213 Bcrmuda St. to Cherty I Iills Dr.
ClTYt¥1ANAGER'$
Base Bid Cont.
Street Limits
Atherton Court Desert tlills Dr. to no~h end
I lohnly Court Desert I lills Dr. to north end
l)avis Courl I)cscrl I lills I)r. to norfl~ end
Dillon Court I)cscrl I lills I)r. to mu-Ih cntl
l,yman Court l)csen I lills I)r. to north end
River Oaks Cou~ Desert Hills Dr. to no~h end
Dcse~ Hills Drive Che~ Hills Dr. to Ashe Rd.
River Oaks Drive l)cscrt I lills l)r. lo Casper Wy.
River Oaks Drive Casper Wy. to Sundalc Ave
Casper Way Ashe Rd. to River Oaks Dr.
'l,a Pucnlc l)r. River Oaks I)r. lo I~llis Ave.
Ellis Avenue Ashc Rd. to River Oaks l)r.
Hogan Way River Oaks Dr. to l,a Pucnte Dr.
Burke Way River Oaks Dr. to Chc~ 1 lills Dr.
Burke Way Cou~ Chc~ Hills l)r. to east end
Birkdale Way Burke Wy. to 13el Aire Wy.
Pebble Beach Drive Sundale Ave. to Burke Wy.
Pebble Beach Drive Burke Wy. to 13el Aire Wy.
Bel Aire Wy. Pebble Beach Dr. to Che~ Hills Dr.
Alternate 1
Street Limits
Thunderbird St. Sundale Ave. to Cypress Point
Cypress Point Drive Thunderbird Street to Kirkside Drive
Sunny Palms Avenue Thunderbird Street to Pebble Beach
Indian Wells Avenue Thunderbird to Pebble Beach
Indian Wells Avenue Pebble Beach to Yorba Linda Street
Pebble Beach Drive Sundalc Ave to Cypress Point Drive
Yorba l,inda Street Sundale Ave to Cypress Point Drive
\MEMOS\C1111)98.825
Alternate 2
Street Limits
South It St AI'~ Canal to Berkshire
Alternate 3
Street Limits
Villagc Lane Stockdalc to Marsha
Alternate 4
Street Limits
Cedar 18th to 21 st
\MEIvI{ )S\C111P98.825
~ - '~ "~ incl
to
C H A N G I N G T H E r~r~,
B I D D I N G P R O C E S S. the
alt¢
the
pla~
curt
Low bid alternatives rest'tow
vah
earnln Ac,
pro
prol
, cati
a p~
the:
eret
not
cai
bast
SCOI
soli
The time-honored method of awarding contracts is getting 2vW.,';'
renewed scrutiny as local governments look at new methods pro~
that take long-term costs into consideration.
the~
post
ofie
H istorically, cities and counties have awarded con- more conducive to creative problem-solving.
struction contracts for public works projects to the In recent months, two states took steps to increase pro- poli
.lowest responsible bidder. The successful contractor curement flexibility by deciding to allow local agencies to pro~
typically prepares its bid based on a complete set of plans award contracts for reasons other than low price (in the sor
and specifications that precisely defines the facilities to be case of the Rhode Island Supreme Court); and enacting leg- ing~
built, islation to expand use of an alternative method of procure- trat
This time-honored procedure has long been considered ment (construction manager/general contractor) originally Ral
the best way to prevent favoritism, collusion and other restricted to the building of prisons (state of Washington). prol
problems. While by no means a perfect system, until fairly With the selection determined solely on price, the owner me~
recently it was deemed to be the best way to assure taxpay- has little ability to balance quality and cost factors, includ-
ers that their money was being spent wisely, ing ease of operation, in making a decision. With an alter- best
In recent years, however, more and more localities have native technique such as competitive negotiation, owners east
grown frustrated with this traditional approach to procure- can make decisions based on qualifications, technical the~
ment. Some have found that completed projects were not approach and price. Using performance-based contracting, vah
fully responsive to their needs, while others found that their they can set the standards that the constructed facility must full,
new facilities were difficult to operate and expensive to meet and allow the contractor and its team members to firn
maintain. Some local agencies have had trouble controlling develop the method of achieving those standards. But
the escalating costs of public works projects, including one
change orders and claims, at a time when jurisdictions are SEEKING THE BEST VALUE 'l-
trying to stabilize or reduce taxes. Seattle's award of a $101 million contract for the design- Poi
ba8~
To combat the problems inherent with traditional low- build-operation (DBO) of the city's first water treatment
bid procurement, many states are following the example of plant (Tolt River) was structured around performance stan- trac
the federal government by enacting procurement options to dards that the DBO team must meet throughout the life of star
allow -- and encourage -- alternative methods. Such the contract. Construction cost was only one element of.. dict
options are now thought to be more the decision-making process; in addi- the
; cost-effective in many cases, as well as By Edward Markus tion, the lifecycle cost of the facility, adn'.
i ~ August 1997 AMERICAN CITY ~ COUNTY AMI
~ including the cost of operations for up the General Services Administration lowest bid. Because these steps are
to 25 years, was considered key. Seat- (GSA), notes that performance-based sequential, the entire process takes
tie Mayor Norm Rice predicts that contracting results in lower costs, bet- more time than design-build, which
ratepayers will save $70 million over ter service and shorter delivery times, allows the procurement of equipment
the life of the contract thanks to this Imperial, Calif., took advantage of or phases of construction to begin
alternative procurement process, performance-based contracting when before the entire design is complete.
Although the Tolt River project is it needed to quickly double the capac- Costs are reduced not only because
the first municipal water treatment ity of its water and wastewater facili- schedules are shorter, but also because
plant of its size in the U.S. to be pro- ties to meet projected population certain precautions and redundancies,
cured and delivered in this way, it rep- growth and to comply with environ- taken when a designer has to assume
resents another example of the trend mental regulations. A design-build that a low-bid contractor will build
toward competitive negotiation/best team won the project with an unso- the facility, become unnecessary when
value and away from selection based licited proposal that included $15 mil- the designer and contractor cotlabo-
solely on low construction cost. lion in certificates of participation rate on a project.
The Federal Acquisitions Reform from an investment banking firm. The Consequently, design-build con-
Act of 1995 permits a two-phase city did not begin payment until the tracting can add flexibility to the
process whereby a limited group of upgraded facilities had been success- process. The Utah Department of
proposers is selected based on qualifi- fully on-line fo~ six months. Transportation, for example, added a
cations and their general approach to maintenance requirement to its
a project, then detailed proposals from INCREASING FLEXIBILITY design-build procurement for the
these shortlisted proposers are consid- The design-build project delivery reconstruction of a 17-mile section of
ered according to "best value," Interstate 15 because ensuring
not just lowest price. Best value quality was the biggest concern
calls for ranking proposals of state representatives. As a
based on a weighted average of result, the procurement process
scores on all criteria stated in a and final contract included
solicitation. The agency may specific provisions relating to
award the contract after this quality with more of a carrot,
evaluation, or it may discuss as opposed to a stick, approach
proposals with those considered in the relationship with the
in the competitive range and design-build-maintain team.
then permit all shortlisted pro- While use of alternative pro-
posers to submit best and final curement methods varies
offers, between, and even within,
Best value has been called "a states, the trend is clearly
:'o- policy or philosophy but not a toward increasing flexibility.
to procedure" by Adjunct Profes- A design-build team won the contract to Kenneth Roberts and Nancy
he sor Vernon Edwards of George Wash- expand this wastewater treatment plant Smith, authors of "Design-Build Con-
~g. ington University's Government Con- in Imperial, Calif. tracts Under State and Local Procure-
~e- tracts Program. Another expert, ment Laws" in the Public Contract Law
lly Ralph Nash, founder of the GWU process can be procured with competi- Journal (Summer '96), provided a
program, describes best value procure- tive negotiation, performance-based state-by-state analysis of procurement
~er ment as "an art rather than a science." standards and best value selection cri- laws relating to design-build and esti-
~d- Despite the difficulty of making a teria. Compared to the traditional mated that two-thirds of the states
er- best value decision compared with the method, design-build generally can permit the approach in some form.
-~rs ease of selecting the lowest bid, both offer shorter schedules, less litigation Still, they noted, only a handful
~al these experts acknowledge that best and lower costs because designers and allow all their agencies to use it. To
~g, value allows government agencies to contractors work together as one con- date, most legislation enabling design-
~st fully assess their options and select the tractual entity, are held jointly build is specific to the agency request-
to firm proposing the best alternative, responsible for deficiencies and delays ing the authority or has been enacted
But best value procurement is only and are able to eliminate the often to authorize a particular project,
one option, adversarial relationship that exists according to Roberts and Smith.
The Office of Federal Procurement between the two functions in a pro- In Florida, the Consultants Com-
~n- Policy has advocated performance- ject constructed under traditional petitive Negotiation Act permits
nt based contracting, under which con- methods, design-build contracts but requires
· n- tracts define the required performance With the traditional method, an local government units to develop
of standards of the project but do not architect/engineer is hired and com- their own procurement rules. Keith
of dictate how the contractor should do pletes the design, then the procure- Rice, manager of the Orlando Utili-
_ti- the work. Ida Ustad, deputy associate ment and construction are competi- ties Commission, has taken advantage
~y, administrator for acquisition policy at tively bid and awarded based on the of this law by using competitive, nego-
TY AMERICAN CITY {~. COUNTY August 1997 23
tiated bidding on design-build projects for the past five unhappy owner as the result.
years. Rice shortlists a minimum of three D-B_teams based Along with the legal authority to use alternative meth-
strictly on their qualifications, then negotiates a guaranteed ods, an experienced team covering a range of disciplines is a
maximum price or lump sum (depending on the project) practical necessity for successfully executing the procure-
with the highest rated team. ment process. Regardless of whether the procurement team
"We're all looking for the best value, not the lowest is comprised solely of in-house professionals or supplement-
cost," he says. "I can ask for bids from the top three teams, ed by outside consultants and counsel, all appropriate disci-
but I don't like to do that because then the low bidder must plines (engineering, financial, legal, operational) should be
be awarded the project. The tow bidder may not be the best strongly represented.
team and might be low with the bid just to get the project Al Appleton, who served as commissioner of the depart-
and hit you with change orders later, ment of environmental protection in New York City for
"Negotiating the price may be difficult, but the people four years and is now with the Regional Plan Association in
operating our plants 10 years from now are the ones who the city, is proposing a radically different approach -- using
will really see the benefits of a quality project -- the rest of a tunnel -- for rebuilding the elevated Gowanus Express-
us who design and build the pt'ant go away," Rice says. way. Although this approach would cost more in construc-
To help him negotiate, decide what costs are reasonable tion than simply rehabilitating the expressway in the same
and explain these cos.ts to his executives, Rice always place, Appleton argues that the added value of avoiding
retains an independent 'consulting engineer who also helps massive congestion during the rebuilding process and open-
prepare, contracts, ing up areas to development, increasing property values and
therefore tax receipts would far outweigh the additional
THE MEMPHIS WAY
expense.
Because procurement laws vary so much, agencies are "The problem with government 'procurement," says
using a broad range of procurement techniques. Among the Appleton, "is that it is traditionally uni-dimensional, orga-
advantages of traditional contracting methods is that a Iow nized around vertical expertise and separate budgets -- the
bid is simple and unassailably objective; it is difficult to transportation department only thinks about roads, the san-
contest a decision based on choosing the lowest number, itation department only thinks about garbage -- rather
However, proponents of more flexible procedures often than looking at a particular problem and potential solutions
argue that not only does the lowest bid not ensure quality, from all perspectives to get the maximum benefit for the
but it sometimes does not even result in the least expensive community and taxpayers out of our infrastructure dollars."
solution. Although his tunnel concept was initially dismissed as
Tennessee requires competitive bidding, but Jerry being inconsistent with an established plan, it is now
Collins, the environmental engineering administrator for receiving increased attention.
Memphis, Tenn., has devised a bid sheet that provides an So the future looks promising for such alternative meth-
incentive for creative thinking by design-build proposers, ods of delivering infrastructure project~. When used in the
Proposals must include a base price for the project, prices proper situations, these methods can make projects' public
for several alternate solutions described in the RFP as well owners the winners in the long run. ~r
as prices on alternate solutions the proposer comes up with.
In the case of a recently completed upgrade of the city's
T.E. Maxson wastewater treatment plant, the contract was Edward Markus is an engineer and the New York City
awarded to a firm whose base bid was not the lowest, but Regional Office Manager of Kansas City, Mo.-based Black &
whose creative alternative was $350,000 less than the low- Veatch, and has provided financial and management consulting
est base bid. Rather than expand a building to accommo- advice to utilities across the nation over the last 15 years.
date new machinery as the RFP specified, the firm found a
way to fit it within the existing structure.
Although Collins concedes that evaluating alternative
solutions and complicated bid sheets takes up more of his
effort and time, he argues it is worth it.
"Contractors who work on a low bid theory aren't too
concerned about the client being happy with the project,"
he says. "They have a very short-term perspective. A
design-build team led by an engineering firm is looking to
build a long-term relationship and get future work from a
satisfied client."
FINOING THE RIGHT MIX
Alternative procurement methods offer opportunities for
creativity and cost-savings, but they are certainly not per-
fect. Any system has its limitations, and any particular pro-
ject may encounter problems under either the traditional
approach or an alternative procurement strategy, with an
24 August 1997 AMERICAN CITY ~ COUNTY
BAKERSFIELD'
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR * CITY ENGINEER
August 25, 1997
Peter Janicki
California Integrated Waste Management Board
8800 Cai Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826
RE: PANORAMA BURN DUMP MITIGATION
Dear Mr. Janicki:
To update and inform you on this project, according to Department of Toxic Substances Control's
(DTSC) interpretation of soil sample analysis, the burn dump material is classed as nonhazardous.
The lead concentrations do not exceed 1000 ppm. As a result, a variance will not be necessary for
placement of excavated burn dump material in the adjacent sanitary landfill as discussed with you
in eadier meetings· The City's Draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the burn dump will include direct
hauling, placement, and temporary cover of excavated burn material (to be quantified in the RAP)
within the Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill. Your agency will have an opportunity to review and comment
on the RAP during a public review period (estimated to be in October). However, we request that you
please consider at this time the disposal of excavated burn material and indicate whether California
Integrated Waste Management Board (ClWMB) agrees with the approach.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
S~ncerely, ,, /
Kevin~Barnes
Solid Waste Director
KB:stop
c: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
Judy Skousen, City Attorney
Bill Brown, Daley and Heft
Adam Palmer, Department of Toxic Substance Control
Richard Stewart, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Daphne Washington, Kern County Waste Management Department
Bill O'Rullian, Kern County Environmental Health Services Department
,.,,,,,
i RECEIVED
; ~-,-r~, ,~';ANAGER'S OFFICt~
S:\WPDATA\L_MITIG.LTR !f'~ ': ~