Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1988 Donald K. Ratty, Chair James H. Childs Kevin McDermott Staff: John Stinson AGENDA BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 26, 1988 12:00 Noon City Manager's Conference Room ITEM #1 WARNER CABLE ITEM #2 REBATE OF REFUSE FEES (MEASURE "P") ITEM #3 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES - UPDATE ITEM #4 CITY ATTORNEY'S SALARY ITEM #5 VOUCHERS MEMORANDUM October 26, 1988 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM the('~get Attached are Report Nos. 42-88' and 43-88 from and Financ~_~,,/ Committee (agenda items 7f. and 7g.). These repor'~wer~~ available until the Committee meeting was held today. JDH.alb Attachment .BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 42-88 October 26, 1988 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: IMPACT OF MEASURE "P" ON CITY REFUSE RATES On August 8, 1988, the City Council, because of State mandated time restrictions, approved the appropriation of $2,000,000 to cover the additional costs of the County of Kern implementing Gate Fees to pay their landfill costs. The City of Bakersfield authorized the County of Kern to collect an additional $24 per year for single family dwellings, and $21 per unit per year for multiple family dwellings, and proposed to increase commercial rates by 37% over a nine month period to cover the additional $2,000,000 in costs. At the conclusion of the County's hearings on August 15, 1988 and September 12, 1988, the Board of Supervisors chose instead to have an advisory election on the issue and had Measure "P" placed on the ballot for the General Election of November 8, 1988. If Measure "P" is defeated, the City of Bakersfield should refund the $24 and $21 for single family dwelling and multiple family dwelling units collected on the tax roll. If Measure "P" is approved by the voters, the City of Bakersfield would continue to collect the $24 per single family dwellings in fiscal year 1988-89, and increase that fee to $42 in 1989-90. We would also need to increase the commercial rates by 55% over a six-month period from January 1, 1989 through June 30, 1989. If the County's fees remain BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 42-88 October 26, 1988 Page -2- constant for fiscal year 1989-90, the commercial rates for that fiscal year could be reduced to reflect a 37% increase over the present commercial rates. The attached chart will possibly clear up the confusion by illustrating a few examples. The net result is that residential and commercial ~refuse customers will save considerably by defeating Measure This City Council has already gone on record as opposing Measure "P", and at this time, the Budget and Finance Committee is recommending the City Council also direct staff to take steps, if Measure "P" is defeated, to see that the City residents that have paid the additional fee on this year's tax bill are reimbursed by August, 1989 or the earliest possible time. This Committee recommends the Council accept this report and adopt its recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Donald K. Ratty, Chair Councilmember James H. Childs Councilmember Kevin McDermott .alb RPT. 114, 114A and 114B IMPACT OF GATE FEES ON REFUSE RATES IF MEASURE "P" IS IF MEASURE "P" IS APPROVED NOT APPROVED 1988-89 1989-90 1988-89 1989-90 City Residential Refuse Fee~ $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 Landfill Fee $ 24 $ 42 $ 27 $ 27 TOTAL $ 111+* $ 129+* $ 114 $ 114 1ST HALF 2ND HALF 1988-89 1988-89 1989-90 1988-89 1989-90 Commercial 3 yd.'bin (2 x wk.) $ 315 $ 315 $ 630 $ 615 $ 615 Landfill Fee $ 0 $ 175 $ 235 $ 55 $ 55 TOTAL $ 315 $ 490 $ 865 $ 670 $ 670 $ 8o5 *Plus additional costs for private trips to landfill and increased gardening fees, etc. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 43-88 October 26, 1988 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES The City Council referred a document (see attached) from Mr. Wayne Keller of the Electricians Union, Local 428, regarding public works construction contracts to the Budget and Finance Committee for review. Mr. Keller requested that the City consider certain criteria listed in the document he submitted, when awarding public works construction contracts. The Committee has reviewed this matter with Public Works Department staff, as well as the City Attorney. It was determined that the nine California State law requirements Mr. Keller cited are already required in our existing specifications. It was also pointed out by staff that recent legislation (AB 3045) which addressed many of the same criteria presented by Mr. Keller and would have changed the definition of "Lowest Responsible Bidder" to provide local governments more flexibility in choosing quality contractors for public works projects had been vetoed by the Governor. The Committee also met with John King who has taken on Mr. Keller's duties for the Union. After discussion with Mr. King, who seemed satisfied with the City's bidding procedures and due to the constraints of current law in choosing public works contractors,'the Committee recommends that no additional changes be made in specifications at this time and that the BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 43-88 October 26, 1988 Page -2- criteria, as presented by Mr. Keller be utilized by the Public Works Department as a guideline for the review of potential contractors. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Donald K. Ratty, Chair Councilmember James H. Childs Councilmember Kevin McDermott .alb RPT.115 and 115A PUBLIC WOP,,KS CgNSTRUCTI, ON CONTRACTS The Sacramento City Charter and the California Public Contracts Code' require that the City award construction contracts to the lowest responsive, respon- sible bidder. i~here-there ts a. questton as to 'the'responsibility of a bidder, the City Council will make a determination on an individual 'case-by-case basis as to the responsibility of a bidder using any combination of the below described criteria. The criteria that may be used by the City Council in jud!ling the question of responsibility of a particular contractor include l) past performance criteria, and 2) capability. Further, the contractors must meet California state law -.. requirements: 1. The contraj:tor must possess a California State Contractor License, appltcabl, e to the work to be performed. ~ 2. The contractor must submit a bidders bond, otherwise known as bid security, through a bond, certified check or cash tn an amount at least 10~; of the bid. Bid security must be ava!lablE, at the time of bid opening or tile bid proposal ~111 be considered non-responsive. 3. The contractor must have the ability to obtain Pa),ment and Performance Bonds for the contract amount in the time specified in the contract document. 4. The contractor must have the ability to obtain insurance as described in the specifications and in the time required. 5. The contractor must list all subcontractors in the bid proposal over one half of one percei~t in accordance with the California Subcontract- ~ng Act. 6. The contractor must compl)' with applicable HOE, NI3E or DOE requirements in terms of reaching the goals specified or making a good faith effort and have those efforts documented. 1he contractor must comply' with Affirmative Action requirements. 7. In case Of grant f'undi.ng, such as EPA, FAU or UHTA, the contractor must meet all applicable requirements specified in the grant. 'The contractor must have the abtlity to obtafn a California S~ate Contractor license applicabl~ to the work to be performed. 8.The contractor must have the abtltty to obtain the Cit), of Sacramento Business license. g.The contractor must present his. bid proposal not in collusion with any other bidders. Page 2 Public Works Construction Contracts The following criteria relate to past performance with tqe City of Sacramento or other comparable non-city projects. The City may evaluate the contractor's performance on other Jobs and any problems relating to t'lose other jobs in making a determination as to the responsibility of the o~ntractor. These criteria Include: a. Has the contractor been recently assessed liquidated damages for any Project b. Has the contractor been declared in default on ~ny recent construc- t(on contract assuming'that the owner and/or management of the con- struction company is the same? ." c. Has the contractor been in litigation on a question relating to past performance on a project or has the contractor performed acceptably on other comparable non-city projects? d. Has the contractor failed to pay prevailing wages or other state and/or federally required taxes or contributions? e. Does the contractor have an acceptable safety record ~r been found to have violated OSHA standards and requlrementsl Lastly, the criteria which may be considered with respect to capability are as fol lows: 1. Does the contractor currently have uncompleted work with the City of Sacramento or another jurisdiction, which would prevent the timely completion of the project in-question? 2. Does the contractor possess the bonding capability arid other necessary financial resources to satisfactorily complete the project? 3. Does the contractor possess or ts the contractor capable of obtaining necessary equipment, machin~i-y or work roi'ce to satisfactorily complete the project? These criteria are Intended to provide the City Council and the administration a basis for evaluating an apparent low bidder. The contractor should use this criteria to determine his or her suitability to be awarded the contract in question. The City Council and the administration may use additional appropriate criteria to'evaluate a bidder, such criteria to be determined by the size, scope and nature of the proposed project.