Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1995 BAKERSFIELD Patricia J. DeMond, Chair Irma Carson Kevin McDermott Staff: Dolores Teubner AGENDA BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, September 18, 1995 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. LocaL PREFERENCE IN AWARDING CONTRACTS - R. Rojas 6. NEW BUSINESS A. LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE FOR TRAILS PLAN - Hardisty B. PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION FOR CONVENTION CENTER HVAC CONTRACT- R. Rojas 7. ADJOURNMENT DBT:jp FILE COPY K E R S F I E L D Alan ager Patricia J. DeMond, Chair Staff: Dolores ~er Irma Carson Kevin McDermott AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 15, 1995 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:20 p.m. Present: Patricia J. DeMond, Chair; Councilmember Irma Carson; Councilmember Kevin McDermott 2. APPROVAL OF JULY 10, 1995 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS None 6. NEW BUSINESS. A. REPROGRAMMING OF $100,000 IN CDBG (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS) The Committee reviewed a list of projects proposed by staff as alternatives for the $100,000 of CDBG funding which the Council had directed to be repmgrammed at the June 28, 1995 Council meeting. The Committee asked for staff's AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 15, 1995 Page -2- recommendation on the highest pdority projects. Staff indicated that the Union Avenue #10 water main and fire hydrant upgrade was a critical project. The Committee heard testimony from community members on the need for project funding for first-floor bathroom installations at the Fox Theater to provide handicapped accessibility. The Committee also discussed the merits of funding a feasibility study on establishment of a Redevelopment Project Area in Southeast Bakersfield. The following recommendation was approved on a 2-to-1 vote: 1) $70,000 for the Union Avenue #10 water main and fire hydrant upgrade; 2) $19,000 for the Fox Theater handicapped rest room project; 3) $11,000 for design of the Terrace Way storm drain. Councilmember Carson was the dissenting vote and will file a minority committee report. 7. DISCUSSION Ao REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FOR SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD Councilmember Carson requested that the Committee consider recommending funding for a feasibility study on establishing a Redevelopment Project Area in Southeast Bakersfield. It was stated that $25,000 in private sector financing had been secured for the study and that the City should provide a matching contribution in the same amount for this effort. The other Committee Members expressed some hesitation in funding yet anther study of redevelopment potential in Southeast Bakersfield. Staff presented information regarding the steps associated with forming of a Redevelopment Area. Staff indicated that conversion of the area's Incentive Zone to an Enterprise Zone would be the most effective tool in redeveloping Southeast Bakersfield because it would aid in attraction of industry and job development. A bdef comparison of the Incentive Zone benefits versus Enterprise Zone benefits was given by staff. The additional incentives associated with Enterprise Zones are critical to making the Southeast competitive with other areas in Kern County. The Committee unanimously directed staff to draft a resolution of support for such an effort and to work on lobbying the State Legislature on this issue. Staff was further directed to place this as an agenda item for the next Community Advisory Commission meeting and bdng the matter forward for Council action. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. cc.' Honorable Mayor and City Council DBT:jp B A K E R.S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 1995 TO: BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ?//~~~.~ SUBJECT: MEASURES TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO LOCAL CONSULTING FIRMS THROUGH THE QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION PROCESS At the August 9, 1995 City Council meeting, staff was directed to develop a system whereby local consulting firms could be given preference points when competing for a professional services contract. This request was also directed to the Budget and Finance Committee for consideration. The following will outline the City's current policy as well as possible changes that could be made to improve upon the system and gain an added measure of local preference: CURRENT POLICY Currently, the vast majority of consultant contracts are performed by local firms. Staff is very aware of the extensive local talent that exists in Bakersfield and takes advantage of this talent as often as possible. This is accomplished by sending Requests For Qualifications/Requests For Proposals (RFQ's/RFP's) to local firms only. There are however instances where the work desired requires expertise which may only exist outside the City. In these cases, RFQ's/RFP's are sent to firms with the desired experience independent of location and published in trade journals. In both cases, each Firm's qualifications are evaluated, scored and ranked. Evaluation criteria include but are not limited to the Firm's resource capability, personnel assigned to the project, related work experience, familiarity with local area and reference checks (see Exhibit "A"). A price to perform the work is also a factor in the selection process but is not always the deciding element. It is primarily used as a tie breaker in the event two or more firms are close in their qualifications point score. PROPOSED MODIFICATION As a method of providing additional preference over and above our current policy, the following is proposed: Add criteria which includes use of local firms and score accordingly. This could be accomplished as shown on the attached "Consultant Qualification Evaluation" form (see Exhibit "B"). Please note that this would also address instances where a prime consultant is utilizing sub-consultants that are local. This added criteria will provide points for local preference and maintain the same high standard of evaluation which currently exists in the system. Consul_rant _Oualification Evaluation Sewer Replacement/Extension Project near Red Lion inn South of Rosedale Hwy and to the East & West of Hwy 99 Bakersfield, California September, 1995 Consultant: Rating X Weight = Tolai 1) Firm's history and resource capability to perform X 8 = required services. 2) Evaluation of assigned personnel. X 10 -- 3) Related experience: CalTrans Permitting X 10 = Sewer Collection System Design X 10 4) Familiarity with local area - geography and facilities X 8 = 5) Ability to relate to project requirements. X 8 = 6) Analysis of submittal and subjective statements. X 6 = 7) Reference check (evaluation transfer from reference X 10 -- check form) GRAND TOTAL Name of Reviewer: Rating 1-5 P:~ CIP_PROJ~ CQE-A~ WP Consultant Qualification Evaluation Design for Canal Bridge Widening Various Locations Bakersfield, California Consultant: Road Work Design by: Structural Design by: Rating X Weight = Total 1) Firm/Team's history and resource capability to perform X 8 required services. 2) Evaluation of assigned personnel. Registered Engineer for Road Work X 8 Registered Engineer for Structural Work X 10 -- Registered Engineer for Geotechnical Work X 6 = 3) Related experience of the Design Team: Street Improvements X 8 Bridge Structure Design X 10 = 4) Prime Consultant's experience on past projects for the City of X 10 = Bakersfield 5) Sub-Consultant's experience on past projects for the City of X 8 = Bakersfield 6) Ability to relate to project requirements. X 8 7) Analysis of submittal and subjective statements. X 6 = 8) ROAD WORK ENGINEER Reference Check (transfer score X 1 = from ROAD WORK ENGINEER Reference Check Form) 9) STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Reference check (transfer score X 1 = from STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Reference Check Form) 10) Work Load Distribution X 5 = Score 5 if 100% of work is by local firms Score 4 if 75 to 99 % of work is by local firms Score 3 if 50 to 74 % of work is by local firms Score 2 if 25 to 49 % of work is by local firms Score 1 if 1 to 24 % of work is by local firms Score 0 if 0 % of work is by local firms GRAND TOTAL Reviewer: For Items 1 through 7, the rating range is 1 for poor to 5 for excellent. For Items 8 and 9, the rating range is 10 for poor to 50 for excellent. Comments: U:FORMS\QBS\CQEWI IH.SUB ;b, ¥ " B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 14, 1995 TO: BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMI~I'EE FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~?~'~/~.~ SUBJECT: INCENTIVE PROPOSAL FOR CONTRACT WITH HONEYWELL TO PROVIDE · HVAC IMPROVEMENTS AT CONVENTION CENTER Public Works staff together with thc City Attorney's office has developed an incentive program to be included in the contract with Honeywell for the subject HVAC improvements. The agreement with Honeywell could be amended with the following language: "If in the performance of the work in Phases 3, 4, or 5, Consultant is able to complete any of these phases or an identifiable portion of any of these phases at a cost to the City of less than the amount agreed upon by the parties for said phase or portion thereof, the resulting savings shall be split 50/50 between CITY and CONSULTANT". This language would provide the incentive to the contractor as requested, and Honeywell would accept this language if requested to do so. however staff is concerned with the potential pit falls of this type of incentive program. The primary concern is qualitative, it would be possible to completely retrofit the Convention Center with an HVAC system which would last over 30 years or accomplish the same goal with a system which lasts only 10 years and save the City thousands of dollars, a portion of which goes to the contractor for saving the City money. Regarding this. Honeywell has expressed concern that their high standard ethics and way of doing business Could be challenged or criticized. Honeywell does not want to put themselves in the position of being accused of using a lesser quality product at a cheaper cost in order make more profit. Honeywell has only expressed their commitment to provide the City of Bakersfield with the best possible solution with the best dollar value for the HVAC needs for the Convention Center. Incentive programs have been most recently been brought to our attention with the Northridge earthquake which severely damaged several freeway systems and Caltrans offered contractors incentives to complete the project months ahead of time. The key word here is "time", incentive programs are best incorporated when time is of the essence and loss of revenue is a major concern. Clearly, the incentive program, used with an appropriate project is a good idea and could be utilized to the advantage of the City. however, staff feels that any incentive program should be closely scrutinized. P:\MEMOS~JAQ27 LONG TERM MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL TRAILS I. PURPOSE STATEMENT The initial phase of the Specific Trails Plan addresses the area along the southside of the Kern River from Rancheria Road westward to Alfred Harrell Highway. Although maintenance and operations of the trails in this Phase I area is the most immediate issue, it is important to remember that the ordinance accompanying the Plan governs the acquisition and development of multi-use trails and support facilities throughout the City. Therefore, funding alternatives for maintenance of all City trails, current and future, must be addressed. II. ISSUES The City Council recently directed staff to review the alternatives for long term maintenance and operations for recreational trails. Phase I of the Specific Trails Plan addressed selected reaches of the Kern River area within which a property owner .has offered to dedicate property for approximately two miles of multi-use trails as part of a proposed residential development. The Plan dOes not however, provide much detail with regard to the method by which the trails will be maintained. In response, staff has provided three different funding altematives for maintenance. However, there are several issues which impact on the selection of one or more of the options presented. 1) Determining who will benefit from the trails and maintenance services, i.e. adjacent home owners, all City and County residents, special interest groups, etc. 2) Defining the use of the trails. Should the trails be solely for a specialized used such as equestrian or should they be multi-use trails which benefit a variety of users? 3) Reassessing the feasibility of accepting property for public use recreational trails. Will the maintenance be cost prohibitive? 4) Determining the utility of a joint City/County maintenance program for trails which are used by both City and County residents. III. OPTIONS TO FUND TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Regardless of the funding mechanism for trails maintenance and operations, the issue of cost needs to be addressed. An analysis must be performed by staff to determine the types of maintenance necessitated by the trail as well as the frequency of service to the trails. Specific amenities adjacent to the trails, such as restrooms, parking lots, lighting, etc., must be identified and a level of service established for these facilities as well. In addition, the number of staff hours and level of staff should be identified as well as the equipment needed to perform the maintenance. Finally, the total cost of the service based on these factors must still be identified. Until this cost is identified, it is impossible to fully determine which of the following three aitematives will be the most effective for the residents and the City. 1) General Fund - Trails in common areas such as those adjacent to major streets or those in non-residential areas, are currently being maintained with General Fund monies. Trails along the river are maintained by the Water Resources Department while bike lanes are maintained with street funds such as Gas Tax. These trails run on City property or are within a City street corridor, therefore, it is appropriate that City revenues be earmarked for this service. 2) Maintenance Districts - Maintenance Districts are a viable option for trails which go through residential subdivisions, where the benefitting property owners can be readily defined. However, in areas that are less populated, in common areas such as along the river or in non-residential areas, it might be difficult to determine what properties to include in the maintenance district. The anticipated assessment for the Phase I multi-use trails is $22.00 for single family units and $17.00 for multi-family. Combined with assessments for parks and/or medians, this amount would be a significant increase. The amount of the assessment might make it difficult to justify to residents the need for a maintenance district. 3) Homeowners Association - Another altemative for maintaining trails in residential subdivisions, is through a Homeowners Association. The City could require formation of an association as a condition of approval of the subdivision in order to fund and carry out maintenance responsibilities for the trails. This puts the responsibility of maintenance on the benefitting properties without the City being directly involved. The cost of the maintenance will most likely be less expensive with pdvate maintenance forces than with' City forces, as well. However, there may be other users of the trail that do not pay into the home owners association, and therefore may not be equitable for those that are. Help to offset the cost of maintenance, under options I or II, could include the use of volunteers from equestrian clubs, the volunteer center or from the Parks Division, to take responsibility for basic maintenance such as weed and litter control. However, there may be more comprehensive maintenance involved such as erosion control, fixing potholes and addressing vandalism which would still fall to the City's responsibility. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending Option III, which would require the establishment of a homeowners association in residential subdivisions which include a recreational trail as an amenity of the development. Residents of the subdivision will likely be the primary users of the trails and therefore it is appropriate that the residents take responsibility for the maintenance. This option also eliminates the need for City involvement in the maintenance.