The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/19/1989 Donald K. Ratty, Chair Kevin McDermott Staff: John Stinson AGENDA BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 19, 1989 12:00 Noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. STREET LIGHTS - Consultant Russel L. Hamm Larry Jamison 2. TELEPHONE - Police Chief Patterson Lieutenant Cleo Blackburn 3. WARNER CABLE (Update) 4. BAKERSFIELD COURTHOUSE RACQUETBALL (Update) 5. SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY RUSSELL L. HAMM · Management Consultant P. O. Box 5783 Santa Rosa, California .95402 707/523-4819 ~ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD STREET LIGHT ACQUISITION PROPOSAL The {ollowing is a proposal for consultant and legal services required to acquire approximately 5,056 street lights from Pacific Gas & Electric for the City of Bakersfield. It would be necessary to initially establish an acquisition committee comprised of personnel from: City Attorney's Office City Manager's Office Public Works Department General Services Management Consultant During the project, other personnel will be brought in as required. From the City of Bakersfield, both finance and maintenance personnel will eventually be required to assist in preparing for~acquisition. As project consultant, I will eventually require the services of Reed V. Schmidt, Economist, the law firm of McCracken, Byers & Martin, attorneys. With the above committee in place, the recommended project scenario and estimate of services are described below: Phase I (4 to 8 months) -Consultant brief on committee responsibilities. -Review of all billing records, detail list, etc. -Prepare report to City Council. -Prepare major acquisition report t'o City Attorney. -Review maintenance practices for upgrading. -Report to City Council. -Notice to proceed to Phase II. February 18, 1988 City of Bakersfield Street Light Acquisition Proposal Page Two Phase II (2 to 4 months) -Open discussions with utility. -Negotiations with utility by attorney. ~ -Report to City Council. i -Notice to proceed to Phase III. Phase III (6 to 12 months) -Resolution of necessity and public need. -Legal requirements of eminent domain. .-Prepare for trial. -Trial. -Acquisition. -City to maintain system. The cost of services for this project would be: a. Project management, meetings, presentations, negoi~iations, engineering evaluations, and inventory ($75/hour) $ 35,000 b. Legal presentation through judgment, excluding appeal ($125/hour) 60,000 c. Economist, expert witness, cost benefit analysis evaluations ($85/hour) .~ 35,000 Total cost of project not to exceed: $130,000 (Note: The above cost does not include any appeal of judgment.) The total time involved could be 18 months or more. However, once con- demnation and immediate possession has occurred (approximately four to eight months), the City of Bakersfield could pay the lower LS-2 rate and begin to realize immediate savings. February 18, 1988 BACKGROUND EXPERIENCE OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Russell Hamm - Management Consultant in street light acquisition matters. He is consulting with several cities in street light acquisition, both in California and Florida. In 1982, as Deputy Director of Field Services, he acquired'6,200 street lights for the City of Santa Rosa. He provides expertise in acquisition project management, engineering evaluation, system maintenance, expert witness, council presentations and utility negotiations. He also is Executive Director for the California City/ County Street Light Association. Michael McCracken is an attorney with his own law firm and provides legal assistance in land use matters, eminent domain, electric rates and re- lated matters. His firm provided legal representation in the Marin County joint powers street light acquisition. That overwhelming victory has now become the pattern for eminent domain projects throughout the State. In addition, his legal knowledge has guided the California City/ County Street Light Association for five years with rate reduction now totaling $27 million. Reed Schmidt has a master degree in economics. He is currently retained by the California City/County Street Light Association as a rates specialist and expert witness before the California Public Utilities Commission. Reed prepared and successfully presented the "Capitalization of Earnings" valu- ation of the Marin County joint powers street light condemnation. He has appeared as a rates'specialist and expert witness in other states and is considered an expert in his field. PROPOSED SFTTLEMENI' AUI'HORITY L I AB I L I TY CLA I MS' AUTHOR I'FY A. PRIOR TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT UP' l'O $10,000 RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION $10,000 TO $20,000 JOINT AUTHORI'FY BETWEEN RISK MANAGEMENT AND CITY AI'I'ORNEY'S OFFIC~ ABOVE $20,000 COUNCIL APPR[]VAL NEEDED PER GOVERNMENI' CODE SECTION B. AFTER SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT UP TO $20,000 CITY A'FTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOVE $20,000 COUNCIL APPROVAL NEEDED P~R GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 935.4 WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS AUTHORITY ~ UP TO $30,000 RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION $30,000 TO $50,000 JOINT AUTHORITY BE]WEEN RISK MANAGEMENT . AND CII'Y ATTORNEY'S []FFICI[{ ABOV~ ~0,000 CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORIZATION, AFTER CONSUI_I'AI'ION WITH RiSK MANAGEMENI' ~ND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: OFFICE of THE CITY ATTORNEY ARTHUR J. SAALFIELD CITY ATTORNEY MUNICIPAL LA W: 1501 TRUXTUN A VENUE LITIGATION: ALAN DALE DANIEL BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 . DON McGILLIVRA Y Assistant ci. tY Attorney (805) 326-3721 Assistant City Attorney LOUISE T. CLDSS ROBERT M. SHERFY Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney LAURA C. MARINO MEDEL WAN R. GRADY Deputy City Attorney April 7, 1989 Assistant City Attorney ADMINISTRATION: WILLIAM H. SLOCUMB SNARl D. FOSTER Deputy City Attorney Administrative Aide INVESTIGATIONS: ROGER BUCKLES City Attorney Investigator Mr. Lawrence R. Greenberg ,, General Manager ~ WARNER CABLE COMMUNICATIONS INC. 3600 North Sillect Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 RE: Warner Cable Merger Dear Mr. Greenberg: Under the ordinance granting your franchise, approval by the City Council of any merger is required in advance. The merger having taken place before approval was requested, approval or any other action on the City's part at this time would be outside the perimeters of the franchise ordinance. However, based upon your representation that the transfer will not render your operations under the franchise, which operations are at this time commercially practicable, commercially impracticable, and your waiver of the right to raise the issue of commercial impracticability as a result of the merger as a basis for renegotiation of the present franchise agreement, the City will not object to the merger between Time and Warner announced to the City in your letter dated March 15, 1989. (Should you disavow such representation and/or not agree to such waiver, please contact me immediately.) By this decision to take no action, the City does not waive or otherwise relinquish any right to require the approval of future mergers or other actions which require approval as set forth in the franchise ordinance. Sincerely, · //Alan Da~e Da~ ~ Assistant City Attorney ADD: lg A ADD 4 L. WARNER