HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/97 B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
September 12, 1997
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER )O(7'~y
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. At the IGR meeting with the County this week, we mutually agreed to create a small
ad hoc sub-committee to look at alternate sites for the County Health Department.
That is partially in response to the legislation, which would result in selling the
Federal building to the high bidder.
2. A memorandum outlining the proposed streamlining of the cost recovery system is
enclosed. We are working on a plan that keeps cost recovery in place, but which
makes the system easier to use and more understandable.
3. The final FY 96-97 statistics for the Mt. Vernon Recycling Center have been tallied,
as noted in the attached report from Public Works. Over 113,000 vehicles brought
in 72,000+ tons of green and wood waste, with an overall processing cost of $19.08
per ton. That is Iow, considering that most private greenwaste facilities charge a
gate fee of approximately $23 per ton, and Mt. Vernon is free at the gate.
4. The latest activity report from Development Services is enclosed.
5. The August activity report from Recreation and Parks is also enclosed.
6. Allen Abe has accepted the position of Assistant Director of Recreation and Parks
and will assume his new duties on September 15th.
7. As a reminder, I will be out of the office to attend the ICMA Annual Conference from.
September 13th-17th and will be on vacation the remainder of the week.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST 25, 1997
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAG~t~~/~'''
FRO~J~.' ~'~DOLORES TEUBNER~/~S'STANT C'TY ~J~ANAGER
SUBJECT: COST RECOVERY~STREAMLINING PROPOSAL
/
As you are aware, a committee of business manager's and myself, have been working
on a proposal for streamlining the current, highly cumbersome, fee calculation process.
A working draft was distributed approximately two months ago and based on input from
department heads and committee members, we have refined the proposal into final
form. The proposed cost recovery system has been tested on FY 95-96 fee data to
insure that the level of recovery would not increase or decrease significantly. The test
resulted in approximately the same level of recovery, but did result in significantly less
time spent by Finance to prepare the overhead data, by departments to calculate the
fees and by Finance and the City Manager's office to review the proposed fees.
Under the proposed system the basic fee calculation process would operate as follows.
A fee would be comprised of four elements: direct labor plus fringe benefit costs, direct
operating costs, overhead and adjusting factors such as COLA, market sensitivities,
etc. A fee would be calculated by adding together direct labor and fringe benefits and
direct operating costs, applying the overhead rate and then adjusting the fee for the
cost of living increase or any significant increases or decreases in the cost of service
delivery.
The fee process will move from an annual to a biannual cycle. This means that the
above "formula" would be applied every other year in order to check assumptions for
labor costs, materials usage, etc. In the off years, departments may simply increase
the fee by the amount of the COLA for that year and make any necessary adjustments
to operating costs to account for major price increases or decreases.
Below is a comparison of the elements of the current cost recovery system with the
elements of the proposed system, to demonstrate the areas in which we have
streamlined.
S :~DOLORES\crproposa1.825.wpd
Current System Proposed System Results
11 different overhead rates 2 overhead rates Faster to
- 1 City rate - 1 for safety departments calculate
- 10 different department rates - 1 for non-safety departments
6 different fringe benefit rates 3 fringe benefit rates Easier to
- Separate rate for each bargaining - Safety, non-safety and temp. rates calculate
unit
Fee calculation made up of 7 elements Fee calculation made up of 4 elements Faster to
- Building Occupancy calculation - Direct Labor and fringe benefits calculate and
(Lease, maintenance, utilities, misc.) - Direct Operating Costs easier to
- Equipment Rental calculation - Overhead understand
- Direct Labor - Adjusting factors _
- Fringe Benefit calculation (COLA, Market sensitive services, etc.)
(6 rates based on bargaining units)
- Direct Operating Costs
- City Overhead P~ate
- Department Overhead Rate
(10 rates)
Calculation involved determining a Sum of labor costs and operating - Faster to
per labor hour cost for each dept. costs is multiplied by appropriate calculate and
and applying the rate to building occ., overhead rate and adjustments are easier to
equip, rental and direct operating costs applied (if needed), understand
then multiplying the subtotal by the City
overhead and dept. overhead rates.
Overhead rate calculated by Finance Overhead calculated by Departments More buy-in
based on pre-determined costs based on actual cost data from Depts.
(City-wide portion of rate still
calculated by Finance)
Direct operating cost does not Direct operating costs include all costs Easier to
include equipment rental, building attributable to a service (increases use calculate
costs, instead those are separate of HTE project accounting system).
calculations.
Recovery rates specified in Recovery rates removed from ord. Greater
ordinance, do not provide flexibilityand determined based on flexibility
to respond to changing conditions, services and market conditions.
Full calculation cycle conducted Fee review conducted bi-annually Time-savings
annually, with COLA adjustment made in off- for dept's.
years.
S:\DOLORES\c~proposaL 825 wpd
' B A K E R S F [ E L D
~ ,~,~" CITY MANAGER S OFFICE
",/ M E M O RAN D UM
AUGUST 25, 1997
TO: ALAN TANDY, CiTY MANAGER
TEU BNERu'~-3SIsTANT MANAGER
FROM:~DOLORES CITY
/
SUBJECT: COST RECOVERY STREAMLINING PROPOSAL
As you are aware, a committee of business manager's and myself, have been working
on a proposal for streamlining the current, highly cumbersome, fee calculation process.
A working draft Cas distributed approximately two months ago and based on input from
department heads and committee members, we have refined the proposal into final
form. The proposed cost recovery system has been tested on FY 95-96 fee data to
insure that the level of recovery would not increase or decrease significantly. The test
resulted in approximately the same level of recovery, but did result in significantly less
time spent by Finance_to prepare the ovemead data, by departments to calculate the
fees and by Finance and the City Manager's office to review the proposed fees.
Under the proposed system the basic fee calculation process would operate as follows.
A fee would be comprised of four elements: direct labor plus fringe benefit costs, direct
operating costs, overhead and adjusting factors such as COLA, market sensitivities,
etc. A fee would be calculated by adding together direct labor and fringe benefits and
direct operating costs, applying the ovemead rate and then adjusting the fee for the
cost of living increase or any significant increases or decreases in the cost of service
delivery.
The fee process will move from an annual to a biannual cycle. This means that the
above "formula" would be applied every, other year in order to check assumptions for
labor costs, materials usage, etc. In the off years, departments may simply increase
the fee by the amount of the COLA for that year and make any necessary adjustments
to operating costs to account for major price increases or decreases.
Below is a comparison of the elements of the current cost recovery system with the
elements of the proposed system, to demonstrate the areas in which we have
streamlined.
Current System Proposed System Results
11 different overhead rates 2 overhead rates Faster to
- 1 City rate - 1 for safety departments calculate
- 10 different department rates - 1 for non-safety departments
6 different fringe benefit rates 3 fringe benefit rates Easier to
- Separate rate for each bargaining ~ Safety, non-safety and temp. rates calculate
unit
Fee calculation made up of 7 elements Fee calculation made up of 4 elements Faster to
- Building Occupancy calculation - Direct Labor and fringe benefits calculate and
(Lease, maintenance, utilities, misc.) - Direct Operating Costs easier to
- Equipment Rental calculation - Overhead understand
- Direct Labor - Adjusting factors
- Fringe Benefit calculation (COLA, Market sensitive services, etc.)
(6 rates based on bargaining units)
- Direct Operating Costs
- City Overhead F~ate
- Department Overhead Rate
(10 rates)
Calculation involved determining a Sum of labor costs and operating - - Faster to
per labor hour cost for each dept. costs is multiplied by appropriate calculate and
and applying the rate to building occ., overhead rate and adjustments are easier to
equip, rental and direct operating costs applied (if needed), understand
then multiplying the subtotal by the City
overhead and dept. overhead rates.
Overhead rate calculated by Finance Overhead calculated by Departments More buy-in
based on pre-determined costs based on actual cost data from Depts.
(City-wide portion of rate still
calculated by Finance)
Direct operating cost does not Direct operating costs include all costs Easier to
include equipment rental, building attributable to a service (increases use calculate
costs, instead those are separate of HTE project accounting system).
calculations.
Recovery rates specified in Recovery rates removed from ord. Greater
ordinance, do not provide flexibility and determined based on flexibility
to respond to changing conditions, services and market conditions.
Full calculation cycle conducted Fee review conducted bi-annually Time-savings
annually, with COLA adjustment made in off- for dept's.
years.
~; 'DOl. ORES\cmroposal ~25 ~ vd
·
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 8, 1997
SUBJECT: MT. VERNON RECYCLING CENTER PRODUCTION FOR FY 1996-97
The final numbers for FY 1996-97 for the Mt. Vernon Recycling Center have been
tallied. Over 113,000 vehicles passed through the gates from July 1, 1996
through June 30, 1997, bringing in over 72,000 tons of green and woody waste.
Material was processed into compost, mulch, decorative chips, and cogeneration
fuel. The facility received over $200,000 in revenue from sale of these materials,
which helped to defray costs somewhat. However, total expenditures for the
facility still amounted to nearly $1.4 million.
As expensive as facility costs may seem, however, the overall processing cost of
$19.08 per ton is 'low. By comparison, most privately operated greenwaste
facilities charge a gate fee of roughly $23 per ton, and Mt. Vernon is free at the
gate. Kern County charges a greenwaste gate fee of $14.50 per ton, but they
landfill all the grass and their overhead costs are covered in the trash gate fee
of $29 per ton.
Individually, Kern County paid $343,701 to process 20,845 tons of county material.
This translates into a very reasonable cost of $16.49 per ton, especially since
they did not have to landfill the grass, which would have used valuable air
space. Mt. Vernon turns grass (roughly 50 tons per day) into compost.
City expenses were $1,037,068 to process 51,462 tons from city residents, for a
cost of $20.15 per ton. The City's cost is higher due to sorting required to
remove litter smuggled into greenwaste carts. The average for both programs,
as noted, was $19.08 per ton.
HM:hm
c: .Daphne Washington, Kern County Waste Management Director
Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director
,,':' '[ SEP 9 1997 i'
I~TY MANAGE~'~e
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NO'I ES
September 4, 1997
c
1. A draft EIR on Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch general plan amendment should
be completed for public review in about six weeks. We are working on the rough
draft now. This project covers 971 acres west of Buena Vista Road and south of
the Kern River.
2. The Cardiac Hospital is in the wrap-up phase with hearings at the City Council
scheduled for September 10, 1997. The five volume EIR found the project
wouldn't have any significant environmental impacts. Staff and the Planning
Commission both recommended approval.
3. Derrel's Mini-Storage proposal on Columbus will also be considered by the City
Council on September 10, 1997. As a result of Derrel's intense public relations
work, it has received predominate public support. Staff recommended denial
based on past denial by the City Council for a mini-storage on that site. The
Planning Commission recommended approval.
4. The South Beltway EIR is being drafted and should be complete for public review
in two months. Public hearings are anticipated for June 1998.
5. The Grand Canal Shopping Center EIR should be available for public review in a
couple of weeks. Hearing by the Planning Commission is scheduled for
December.
6. So far I've sent out 86 letters to property owners in the area north of the river
between RiverLakes and Highway 99 to open dialogue about annexation. Some
favorable responses are beginning to come in. More will be sent as my secretary
works on them between the staff report cycles.
7. Staff is working on mapping out Dolores' request to prezone the metropolitan
area to expedite subsequent annexation proposals.
8. I have been meeting with staff to develop alternative responses to the court's
decision on site plan review for City Council consideration. The Planning
Commission has scheduled a workshop October 2, 1997, to be brought up to
speed on the history, process and court decision on site plan reviews in
anticipation of their involvement in future work on this. Ken Hersh asked for a
public hearing but the Planning Commission felt that was inappropriate since the
final judgment had not been delivered, the City Council had not indicated what
would be expected of the Planning Commission and there was no proposal to
hear.
9. As a result of meetings with Enron, Stanley sent a letter May 15 outlining some
areas in our ordinance which we would consider modifying. A meeting is
scheduled for September 9, 1997.
10. The Building Division has these interesting projects pending:
VALUATION SQUARE FT.
1 ) 8200 Westwold Drive $ 7,645,644 124,583
124 Suite Retirement Facility (pending)
2) 2939 & 2933 Brookside Drive
Two, 4-plex apartment complexes (pending)
2 (~ $187,336 = $ 3,74,672 2 @ 4,608 = 9,216
3) 1300 - 18th Street $ 6,480,000 108,000
Crime lab (pending)
4) 2201 Panama Lane $ 273,000 7,000
Kragen Auto Parts (ready)
5) 1751 White Lane $ 122,660 4,940
Retail store (ready)
6) 9000 Ming Avenue $ 265,660 7,180
Marketplace retail store (pending)
7) 3801 Wilson Road (12 storage buildings) $2,158,800 89,950
Darrel's Mini-Storage (pending)
p:dsn9-5
DIVISIONS OF RECREATION AND PARKS
DATE: September 5, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Stan Ford, Director ~
SUBJECT: Assistant Director of Recreation and Parks
Allen Abe has accepted the position of Assistant Director of Recreation and Parks.
He will assume the duties effective September 15, 1997.
The recruitment for a new Assistant Superintendent will begin immediately and we
hope to have a replacement as soon as possible.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional infOrmation.
c: ~, Citizens Community Services Advisory Committee
John Stinson, Assistant City Manager
Dolores Teubner, Assistant City Manager
Department Heads
Division Staff
DIVISIONS OF RECREATION AND PARKS
DATE: September 9, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Stan Ford, Director
SUBJECT: Monthly Report for August
Below is summary information on activities for the month of August. Detailed
information is available. The staff would like the opportunity to discuss future
programs and planned changes with the City Council during a future workshop.
Please let me know when we can schedule this.
STAFF
I received a letter from Opal Grimes (copy attached) that compliments three of the
staf~ Jerry DeLaurie, Daniel Corcimiglia, and Roger Bailey for the assistance they
provided her.
I have been asked by the executive director and president of the National Intramural -
"' Recreational Sports Association to chair a task force on the creation of a section for
public recreation.
RECREATION
Concerts: Silver Creek hosted two concerts this month. The groups Last Call (Aug.
5) and Southside Chicago Seven (Aug. 12) performed.
Day Camp: The final session of the summer was held.August 4 - 8. The 48 campers
enrolled enjoyed swimming, sports, games, crafts, and field trips.
Camp King: The camp had 105 participants this summer and had a waiting list of 80.
Staffis considering ways to accommodate the anticipated demand for next summer.
Camp participants joined participants from the playground program for a year-end
party. A total of 264 attended the function.
SEP I I 1997 }
MANAGcr~ ~ OFFICE!',
Aquatics: The last session of swimming lessons were completed Aug. 8. There were
653 participants in this session and a total of 3,036 for the season. Open recreational
swimming had 7,452 participants in August and 39,860 for the season.
We are now offering lap swimming on a year-round basis.
Safety Audit: We received our final audit of the summer on August 23. One of the
staff earned a score of 100% (copy of audit attached) and another scored 95%. As
a staff, the lifeguards received a rating of 89%. The auditor also noted that our
management was excellent. Also attached is a copy of the overall audit report.
Program Brochure: The fall program brochure was distributed on Aug. 31.
Softball: We anticipate 25 teams participating in the fall program.
NFL Punt, Pass, and Kick: Registration is Under way and the event will be held
October 11 at Yokuts Park.
Football: Staff'is exploring the possibility of offering both adult and youth programs
this fall. -
MLK Center: Participation by activity was:
· FitnessRoom 345
· Game Room 802
· Tennis 55
· Gym 752
· Women's Exercise 477
Summer Playground Program: Average daily attendance, by site, was:
· Grissom 39
· Jastro 19
· Lowell 05
, Siemon 20
· Stella Hills 11
· Wayside 57
Staff has recommended that we change the structure of the program prior to
next year and consider eliminating some of the sites with low attendance.
This is one of the specific topics we would like to discuss at a workshop.
Youth Basketball: League play concluded with the team fi.om Stella Hills school
winning the championship.
PARKS
Trees: The minor windstorm of Aug. !9 caused some property damage with the
worst reported case being a tree limb falling on a parked vehicle. Staff was called
back to work to respond to numerous calls for clean up.
The second phase of the palm tree trimming has been completed.
Campus Park North: New playground equipment was installed.
Deer Peek: Staff continues to try to improve the condition of the park. Work this
month included aeration, fertilization, and new seed. Also, modifications were made
to the security lighting.
Landscape Improvements: Improvement projects for Laurelglen Blvd. and the
comer of Gosford and Harris roads were started. Work on the medians and planters
at Astoria Court was completed.
Eagle Scout Project: Michael Johnson earned four hours of community service for
clean up work in the riparian area of the Kern River Parkway.
Garces Circle: The repairs to damage caused by the contractor during the earthquake
retrofit project are continuing. This month the stamped concrete was repaired.
Training: Several new employees were trained in the handling of pesticides.
Police Building Landscaping: Staff installed landscaping in the new area of the
police building parking lot. This included sod and trees.
Tennis Court Resurfacing: It is my understanding that Public Works should have
this project out to bid in the next couple of weeks and hopefully the project completed
by this December.
c: Citizens' Community Services Advisory Committee
John Stinson, Assistant City Manager
Dolores Teubner, Assistant City Manager
Division Supervisors
Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc.
"International Aquatic Safety and Risk Management Consultants"
Aquatic Safety Operational Audit Report
Section One: Individual Lifeguard Performance Evaluation
1. Did the "On Duty" lifeguard consistently exhibit a mature and professional demeanor?
t::: Yes,..E:x, ce.L.lent Performance. He was ex:tremely professional while being'
, ?:, S 'Z~ 1;-',.re. d .
~es-Excellent Performance. He was positioned under the umbrella and was
~earing a shirt, hat and sunglasses.
3. Did the "On Duty" lifeguard consistently enforce the "10120 Second Protection Rule" while
scanning the entire protection zone? Lifeguard automatically fails if this category is failed.
[Yes-Ex.(:::el.£ent Performance. He was aggressively scanning his zone
F':r(:) l.e,:z t::.[ on v)'i. t hi n the 10 second guid. el J. r~e.
4. Was the "On Duty" lifeguard clearly identifiable, consistently enforcing safety rules and "Rescue
Ready" throughout the period of obse~ation?
?es---E'xcell. ertt Performance. He was wearing a uniorm and was rescue ready.
I er~czoura(je the lifeguard to gather the loose strap of the rescue tube
I I'ltO a barite,
5. Was the lifeguard rotation achieved according to NP~TP protocol and/or did the lifeguard
~es-Excellent Perfo~an~e.
I
indi~id'u~'l-
Scoring Scale...
Final Score: 11 0 0 %
Excellent- 20 points per category
Good- 15 points per category
Satisfactory- 10 points per category [] PASSED AUDIT (Minimum Score 40 points)
Failed- 0 points per category
[] FAILED AUDIT-NPWI_TP License Suspended
Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc.
"International Aquatic Safety and Risk Management Consultants"
Aquatic Safety Operational Audit Report
I Section Three: Facility, Supervisory and Administrative Safety Evaluation I
Category #1: Did the aquatic facility water quality consistently permit the detection of a swimmer
on the bottom to satisfy National Pool and Waterpark Lifeguard Training Program standards?
~omplles with water quality standard.
Category #2: Was the aquatic facility rescue equipment operational, adequately positioned,
properly maintained and in sufficient quantity to satisfy National Pool and Waterpark Lifeguard
Training Program standards?
l /es Compli. es with safet:.y equipment standard.
Category #3: Was the aquatic facility adequately staffed/positioned with lifeguards to satisfy
National Pool and Waterpark Lifeguard Training Program standards?
ategory ~4: Were supervisory personnel visible to swimmers during the auditing process and
satisfy National Pool and Waterpark Lifeguard Training Program standards?
I Yc~,,?; C:ompl:Les with sul?~:rvisory standa:rd.
Catego~ ~5: Were aquatic facility ~n-se~ce training records, accident records and rescue
records in compliance with National Pool and Waterpark Lifeguard Training Program standards?
Complies with acbninistrative document standard.
Auditor Comments:
'.['h(e sca[m.i, ng was good' duri. r~g' the observati, ons, just: make sure i:haL: ~,1.!.
:3~.reas are equally scar,ned. The lifeguards need to work on.
~::)ro.t'essJ..ona.l. ism- no chewing gum or twirlJ..ng whistles~ The tc~c;hr,:i.c:a.l.
~:;k:.~.]] wo'u]d ]-~av~ pro'vicled care for 'the 'victim- work on the details
:ic:,c:,,u;'ue[~ted c)n the indiviciual eval'uation. Keep up the great::: al:::t::J..t:ud~:~ ar](
Individual Lifeguard Score Average: ]~9~ 1
Team Lifeguard Evaluation: food
Client Management Evaluation: ]~_~,x,.C. ~,./(_~..7 7L.(-~C~-'~ I
~ture ~&~ ~x,di Overall Audit Evaluation:
~', Good Overall Performance
.~a&~f~[d, ~a[ifo.~a 9 S..?o5~~7o9