HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/27/1990 B A K E R S F I E L D
Kevin McDermott, Chair
Patricia DeMond
Ken Peterson
Staff: John Stinson
AGENDA
BUDGET ANDFINANCE COMMITTEE
Thursday, December 27, lggo
.12:00 Noon
City Manager's Conference Room
· 1. SPACE NEEDS
2J WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ~3 UPGRADE - CONSULTANT
3. BOOKING FEES
4. REFUSE CONTRACT
5. AMBULANCE RATES '
GEARY TAYLOR : ........... : .....· ...... ~. scott JOt~ES .
5~COUN'q'Y ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ! i .:... ; ...:...: f: -!.i ~'-.: !;..i~: "~', ". Director of Budget & Finance
M^R¥ WEOOELL ~4 ~ ~ ' ? "/:~gO L'~'~"' JOEL HEINRICHS
Assistant Count~ Administratiue Officer ~": :~ ':~' ~';" D~rectdr of Polic~ Analysis
~ ~ lnter~w'rnmental Relations
ROBE~ SEVERS
Employee Relations Officer
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
December 19, 1990
Mr. Dale Hawley, City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue '
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Hawley:
This will confirm my recent discussion with John Stinson regarding the proposed agreement on the
jail booking fee. The proposed agreement providing for City payment of the fixed amount of
$239,400, as developed through staff level negotiations, was apparently not' acceptable to the
Finance Committee of your City Council. As I understand it, the Committee objected to the fact
that a portion of the bookings for the months of July and August (before official announcement
of the booking fee) were used to estimate the total number of City' bookings which would be
char?able under the proposed "Jarl Booking Fee Implementation Procedures."
'As I indicated in the last telephone conversation with Mr. Stinson, County staff still considers the
amount of $239,400 to be a reasonable compensation amount, given the likelihood that the volume
of City bookings will substantially increase under a fixed annual sum contract. Nonetheless, in
order to address, the Committee's concern about retroactivity, the County Administrative Office is
willing to recommend either of the following proposals ,to the Board of Supervisors:
1. A fixed contract amount of $239,400 for FY 1990-91 in lieu of a "per booking" fee,
as originally proposed through our previous disenssions, and as refleeted in the draft
agreement previously proposed; OR
-' 2. An effective d~te of September 5, 1990, for the "per booking" fee of $57, to be
applied to actual billable bookings as set forth in the "Jarl Booking Fee
I~mplementation Procedures." (This would exclude all bookings, during the period
July I through September 4, 1990, from the fee.)
Option #1 above would be financially advantageous to the .City if chargeable bookings for the
period September, 1990,' through June, 1991, average more than 420 per month. I think that this
level of bookings could very easily be reached or exceeded under a fixed annual payment
arrangement. Conversely; Option #2 would be less costly for 'the City if chargeable bookings for
the period September, 1990, through June, 1991, average less than 420 per month.
.1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room $$704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-2371
Dale Hawley
December 19, 1990
Page 2
I believe that Option #2 above is consistent with the City Council's original p6sition as
communicated to the Board of Supervisors by your letter of September 10, 1990 (copy attached).
I also think it is important to note that the proposed booking fee amount of $57 per booking is
among the very lowest, if not the lowest, Of any of the booking fees either established or proposed
by other California counties. If you are interested, I have survey data that supports this conclusion.
I would appreciate it if you would advise me as soon as possiblg of the City's preference and final
position on this issue.
Sincerely,
Scott Jones ./J .
Director of Budget & Finance
SJ:dm~jbfprpsLltr
Attachment
'ce: Mary Weddell, Assistant CAO
John Stinson, Assistant to City Manger, City of Bakersfield
Bob Patterson, Chief, Bakersfield Police Department
HALL
AMBULANCE 'GOLDEI~ EMPIRE
SERVICE AMBULANCE
INCORPORATED "we Serve, So Others May Live"
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Harvey Hall, President
Hall Ambulance Service
Allan M. Barks, President
Golden Empire Ambulance Service
DATE: December 27, 1990
RE: Rate Schedule for city of Bakersfield
The below proposed rate schedule is being submitted as
the proposed rates from city staff is absolutely
_unacceptable. TheSe figures are based on what it cost to
provide the leve! of service which the City of Bakersfield
demands.
CATEGORY RATE
BaSic Life Support $ 170.25
Advanced Life Support (w/o procedures) "$ 205.00
Advanced Life Support (w/ procedures) $ 371.25
Emergency $. 36.00
Oxygen $ 40.00
Mileage $ 10.00
Waiting Time $ 17.00
Night Charge $ 46.00
0'ro~o~ - ~u & G~-A 12r~?/~0) AMBULANCE ~T~ SURLY ,,
CiW C~s for Se~i~: Ave. Ma~s
[Golden Empbo [ 8.5~ 45.9~ 45.6~ 3.3 39.9~ 81.4~ 46.0~ . ]
~H~,, [ 7.1~ 49.5~ 43.5~ 4.2 ' ~.2~ 91.8~ 43.6~ J
SAC~E~O 175=~ 30.~ N/A 3~.~ 25.~ 7.~ 0.~ ~.~ 5.~ 45,~ 15.~ ~.~ '7.~ N/A N/A
MOD~TO * I~.~ 49.~ N/A 395.~ 70.~ 9.~ !.50 ~.~ 15.~ ~.~ 30.~ ~.~ 27.~ 42.~ 28.~
ST~KTON * 236.~ 91.~ N/A 420.~ 95.~ 9.~ 1.50 ~.~ 15.~ 46.~ 16.~ 33.~ 10.~ U~ -14.~
F~SNO 175.~ 30.~ N/A 395.~ 70.~ 9.~ 1.50 UNK -35.~ N/A N/A ~.~ ~.~ 48.~ .~.~
- ~ COUNTY GEA (Cu~ent)** ~2.~ ~2.~ ~2.~ 14.~ 65.~ 65.~ 38.~ 18.~
- IN COUNTY H~L (Cu~0 381.15 381.15 ~6.~ 14.08 ~.~ ~.~ 35.~ 20.~
~ ~ysh:
DIC ~rsfi~d ~) [ I~.~ 49.~ - N/A' ~.~ 75.~ · 10.~ 2,50 ~.~ 11.~ N/A 'N/A 38.~ 15.~ N/A N/A
EMS~r~) . ] 1~.~ ~.~ N/A ' ~5.~ 80.~ 10.~ 2.50 51.~ 16.~ 35.~ 5.~ · 43.~ 20.~ 19.~ 5.~
A~RAOE ~TE (4 C~) ] 195.~ 50.~ N/A 3~.~ 65.~ 8.63 1.13 46.67 11.67 ~.33 20.33 ~.~ 17,~ 45.~ 31.~
~LOE~E~~L(R~) ] ~4.m ~9.~ · 0.m 3~4.~ 49.~ 9.~ LS0 4~.~ 6.~ 36.~ 6.~ 27.~ 4.~ ~7.~ 3.~
~cr~ Com~ ~ Cuff~t ~:
]~DIC~ ~ra~dd ~) ] 33.79~ N/A 23.~ 33.33~ 31.43% N/A - ~.~% N/A
]EMS ~) - ~ 37.~ N/A . ~.62~ 33.33~ 45.71~ 16.67~ 86.96~ 35.71~
[A~GE ~TE (4 Ci~) ] ~.48~ N/A 20.~ 15.~% · 33.33~ 67.78% 75.~ 223.21%
CPI ~j~ F~: Consumer ~ Inc~: Provid°r ~ Incr--:
· Emergency rcs~nso rate charg~ with BLS only
· * D~ not ~clude ndditional charges for mMic~ supplies and additi0n~ mMi~ se~ices 27-~90
(Recommended- 12/27/90) AMBULANCE RATES SURVEY ,
}....:...:.~:¥:::.<:::::::~::~.:::::::::::::::..~.>........:~.......?............~........~.......:....~...................~...............~.~..`....... - ...~s:::::.~::.~.:::::::::::::.`...~.::::::.~i:~.~:........................~.~.. ............. .......:.....................~............~.....~.....?.........:...:..::.::::::::::::::::::::;:::.:::~:.!~....:.:~...~..~...~...........¥.....¥....~.......~..~......~...... ........... .~.'.'."~.'.'.'.:.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.:'"". ....... >:.?.'.'-'.'.'.~'.'.'.~..%'.'.'~ ...... '::".".:.:.: :.".'.'.'-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-'.'.'-'-'-'-
.............................................................................................................................................................. ~ .......................................................................................................... ~ ...................................... .-.a~.~ ..................
City Calls for S~rvic~: Ave. Miles
IOolden Empire I 8.5% 45.9% 45.6~ 3.3 39.9% 8 !.4~, 46.0%
]Hall' ] ?.i% 49.5% 43.5% 4.2 . 40.2~ ' 91.8~ 43.6~
[~ iii'~=:i:: 0 ~' ::i~?:~::i: ?::: i iiii::i::i::i:: ::?: il ::::i i il ii iii ::i ::i::i:: il ii i::ii?:i! iii:: i iii:.il ::?:iii:::.:: i::il i i::iii::i ::i::?:iii::i::i ~i 6 ~:ilili::ii?:i;::ii ::i ::iii i ii?:i?~ii i?:i?: i?a,8 !~i' ~:: i:: i ::?:i;::ii?:?: ??: ?:i i il ~::?:ii~::i::i~i~ ~ ~,: ?: ::ii~?:i ?:i ii ?/: ::i ~?: ?i!:: ?:?.: i: i i~:: ii?: ?:i ::i::?:i~ ~.i~ :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ?i ::ii?:i~!!i ~,i ~i ii ~iii?: i::?· i::i :?: :::::::::::::::::::::: i i?:i ~i ::i::?·iS~ !8 ~i ::?:?: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :?: ::::i ::?:?: ?:?· i~! ~ '~?: ?:?:i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
IMODESTO * I 194.00 49.00 NIA 395.00 70.00 9.00 1.50 50.00 15.00 60.00 30.00 50.00 27.00 42.50 28.50
[STOCKTON * ' I 236.00 91.00 N/A 420.00 95.00 9.00 1.50 .50.00 15.00 46.00 16.00 33.00 10.00 UNK -14.00
IFRESNO I 175.00 30.00 NIA 395.00 70.00 9.00 1.50 UNK -35.00 N/A N/A 48.00 25.00 48.00 34.00
- IN COUNTY {IEA (Current)** 342.50 442.50 442.50 14.00 65.00 65.00 38.00 18.00
- IN COUNTY HALL (Curren0 381.15 381.15 446.00 14.08 66.00 66.00 35.00 20.00
Ram AnalYaia:
illl[l¢ql ~en) 194.00 49.(~ N/~ 400.~ 75.~ 10.0~ 2.50 46.00 11.(~ N/~ N/A 38.00 15.00 N/A
EldS (Proposed) 199.00 ~.~ N/A · 405.0O 80.~ 10.~ 2.50 51.~ 16.(~ 35.(~ $.00 43.00 20.00 I~.00 5~(~
AVERA(3ERATE(4Citic~) 195.00 50.00 N/A 390.00 65.00 8.63 1.13 46.67 11.67 50.33 20.33 40.25 17.25 45.25 31.25
Increnso Compared to Current Rates:
LMEDICARE (Bal~rsficld Aren) [~ 33.79~G ' N/A 23.08~ 33.33% 31.43% N/A 65.22% N/A
EMS (Proposed)' I 37.24~G N/A 24.62%. 33.33% 45.71~ ' 16.67% 86.96~ 35.71
AVERAOE RATE (4 Cities) - I 34.48~ N/A 20.00~ 15.00~ 33.33~ 67.78~ 75.00~ 223.21
GOLDEN EMPIRE/HALL (Requ_,__~___e,l_) .~ 20.00% . N/A 15.08% 20.00~ 17.14~ 20.00~ 17.39~ 21.43~
N/A - NOT APPLi~tBLE UNK ~ UNKNOWN
CPI Adjnstmont Factors: Consumer ~ Increase: Provider ~ Incrcnso:
· Emergency response rate charged.with BLS only
'* Does not include additional charges for medical supplie~ fMd additional m~dical services . 27-Do0-~0