Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/1996 BAKERSFIELD Patricia J. DeMond, Chair Irma Carson Kevin McDermott Staff: Dolores Teubner AGENDA BUDGET .AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, June 17, 1996 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 MAY 13, 1996 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. ESTABLISHMENT OF CITY LEA - R. Rojas B. ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE EVALUATION PROCESS - Wager 6. NEW BUSINESS A. WASTEWATER FEES - R. Rojas B. ADDITIONAL CDBG AND HOME FUNDING - Wager 7. ADJOURNMENT DBT:jp FILE COPY B A E R $ F I E L D , Patricia J. DeMond, Chair Alan y, Cit Irma Carson Staff: Dolores Teubner Kevin McDermott AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE __ Monday, May 13, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:20 p._m. Present: Councilmembers Patricia J. DeMond, Chair; Irma Carson and ' Kevin McDermott 2. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 8, 1996 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. ESTABLISH CITY LEA Staff compared the costs for the City to manage an LEA with costs charged by the County. The City would have to employ a registered environmental health specialist at a cost of approximately $62,000 per year. It is anticipated that BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, May 13,1996 Page-2- inspection fees could be set at $45/hour. By eliminating the inspection fee for City garbage trucks which are now being inspected by the County, staff estimates a savings of approximately $13,000 annually.~ The city Manager indicated that this change includes savings in dollars and time lost and can improve service. The Committee directed the issue to be placed on the IGRC agenda for further discussion with the County. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. CDBG CONSOLIDATED pLAN Staff described the components of the multi-family rehabilitation program, the secudty of the funding once it goes to a project and the types of projects that have _ used the funding. Councilmember McDermott suggested that the City should be funding first-time home buyer and other programs that encourage 'home ownership. Councilmemlsers Carson and DeMond expressed the desire to retain rental rehabilitation funds as a part of the overall program of assistance for Iow/moderate income citizens. The item will be returned to Council at a later date. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 17, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Michael R. Kelly, Fire Chief and Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator SUBJECT: Report on Solid Waste Management, Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) The overall responsibilities of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for the California Integrated Waste Management Board is to promote the public good by assuring safe and effective storage, collection, transportation, processing and disposal of solid waste. If the City of Bakersfield is designated as the LEA within the incorporated limits of the City, these responsibilities will be met by enforcing all applicable federal, state and local solid waste standards and regulations. This entails annual inspection of all refuse hauling vehicles, both city owned and private contract haulers that may operate within the City, annual inspection of septic pumping vehicles and rental toilet facilities. Monthly inspection of any active solid waste disposal or recycling facilities. Quarterly inspection of any closed landfills or bum dumps and_responding to any complaints, illegal dumping, odor or vector control .or related to solid waste handling. The City of Bakersfield currently operates 33 refuse hauling vehicles, one green waste facility, as well as one'closed landfill (Panorama bluffs) and one closed burn dump. We anticipate the burn dump will be overseen by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control. In addition to these City owned facilities, there is one additional closed landfill within the City - (The China Grade Sanitary Landfill). and two closed burn dumps (The Rosedale burn dump and Hart Park burn dump). An estimate of contract solid waste haulers within the City is 35, and approximately 30 septic pumping vehicles as well as 12 rental toilet facilities. (See figure 1) The inspection time for the LEA is estimated to include 40% to 50% follow up on illegal dumping or complaints. Overall departmental time will include administrative time (training, enforcement and permitting). The estimated hourly cost of the department is $45.00 per hour. We assume that City vehicles can all be inspected at one time, thereby minimizing travel time and administrative time per vehicle.. A total projected inspection cost for city waste hauling vehicles is $1,114. This compares to $8,250 inspection cost by the county. The cost for quarterly inspections of the cities green waste facility is estimated to be $1-,000/yr., which compares to an estimated cost of $4,800 for the county inspection. The city projects a cost of $2,000 a year for the inspection of the Panorama closed landfill verses a county charge of $5,600 per year. The overall savings is estimated to be $14,536. These cost comparisons are summarized in figure 2. Actual billing costs for the city facilities over the period of between 1992 and 1996 are included as figure 3. In addition, the inspection of outside (contract haulers, septic pumpers, rental toilet facilities, closed landfills and burn dumps) services are on a fee for service basis. We estimate there are 35 waste hauler vehicles, approximately 30 septic pumpers and 12 toilet rental facilities operating within the City. This should result in outside revenue for inspections of these facilities of $13,000 per year (see figure 2). If we add the anticipated outside revenue as well as revenue for inspection of city facilities to the avoided cost to the City of Bakersfield ($14,536) the anticipated departmental cost recovery for this function will be $31,647. The overall labor requirements for this program should translate to between 50% and 60% of a full time equivalent. The remainder of available time will be utilized on solid waste related hazardous waste issues, regulated by this department as part of the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program. All of these programs are fee for service programs and income generated will offset the remainder of the position cost. The projected operating cost for this function for the first year (9 months) is $52,000. The one time start up cost for this function would be an additional $23,825. A full year (12 month cost) is anticipated to be $63,750. The regulations do provide for fees to be adjusted to include all reasonable cost of operating the program. The revenue and savings for this program will total $31,647: projected inspection income $17,111 avoided cost $14,536 Total $31,647 These totals do not reflect the $55,216 billed to the City by the county since the 1992-93 fiscal year. REH/dlm Solid Waste Inspection (Type and Frequency) Insp Sites/Equipment Number Frequency COB Panorama Landfill 1 Quarterly Panorama Durn Dump - State Oversite - Composting (Green Waste) Facility 1 Monthly COB - Refuse Vehicles 33 Annual KC China Grade Landfill 1 Quarterly Rosedale Burn Dump 1 Quarterly Hart Park Burn Dump 1 Quarterly Private Contract Refuse Vehicles 35 Annual Sewage Pumping Vehicles 30 Annual Toilet Rental Agencies 12 Annual Solid Waste Sites based on KC Enforcement Policy Program (E.P.P.) Private companies and private equipment numbers based on telephone survey. Figure 1 LEA PERMIT FEE'S Projected 1995-96 Installation K.C. Permit Proposed Actual Frequency Fees C.O.B. Fee Billin,qs 1. Panorama Landfill $5,600. $2,000. $22,000. Quarterly 2. Composting Facility 4,800. 1,000. 40.* Monthly 3. OO.B. Refuse Vehicle 8,250. 1,114. 6,000. Once peryr. Total $18,660. $4,114. 4. Closed Rosedale BD 1,280. 810. Quarterly 5. Closed Hartpark BD 1,280. 810. Quarterly 6. China Grade Landfill 5,600. 2,000. Quarterly Total $6,800. $3,620. 7. Contract Refuse Vehicle 8,750. 4,922. Once per yr. 8. Sewage Pumping Vehicle 6,000. 3,375. Once per yr. 9. Toilet Rental Agency 1,920. 1,080. Once per yr. Total $16,670. $9,377. * COB Composting facility was not inspected in 1995 because no permit to operate issued. All Kern County fees are from the current Kern County fee ordinance. Current Kern County Fee is $80 per hour. All City of Bakersfield proposed fees based on $45 per hour calculated departmental cost and estimated inspection times (based on K.C. Enforcement Policy Program E.P.P.). Sewage Pumping Vehicle number determined by telephone survey. Items 1-3 Inspections City currently is billed for would cease if City becomes L.E.A. Note: Billing for compost facility inspections will begin after permit is issued. Items 4-5 Additional inspections City would conduct and bill County. Items 6-8 Additional inspections City would conduct and bill individual companies. Figure 2 LEA BILLINGS CHARGED TO THE CITY FY FY FY FY 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 TOTAL Bksfld Sanitary Landfill (ES 319)4,200 2,880 12,360 22,000 $41,440 Mt. Vernon PI Ck Fee (ES 418) 80 1,920 40 2,040 Mt. Vernon MRF PI Ck Fee (ES 412) 2,736 2,736 City Refuse Truck Inspections 9,000 6,000 9,000 4,200 14,696 14,280 28,040 . $55,216 Figure 3 BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM May 28, 1996 TO: D.B. Teubner, Assistant to the City Manager ~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directo~~~ SUBJECT: Item for review by Budget and Finance Committee During the Committee's discussion of assistance requested by Advance Reprographics Technologies, Inc., it was suggested that some process be developed that would help objectify the decision making process for projects requesting economic development assistance. The attached form was developed with that in mind. Please place this item on the committee's next available agenda. Your assistance is appreciated. dlt:jw9 bud form.mem .... '"' ~' '..~.~..2F~ C3_.__. .... PROJECT EVALUATION Return on the community's investment 31. Annual revenue from property tax generated, if any $ (a) 32. Annual revenue from sales tax generated, if any $ (b) 33. Annual revenue from business license generated, if any $ (c) 34. What are the performance measures for the company to achieve? 35. Source(s) of proposed assistance requested: CDBG $ General Fund Redevelopment tax increment Other: Other: Total assistance proposed $ (e) 36. Is assistance proposed to be provided (check one) r~at one-time / lump sum? []over multiple years? (# of years ) 37. Is the proposed assistance an investment in our community's future (examples: customized job training, infrastructure, etc.) that provides community-wide benefits even if the company moves or shuts down? [] Yes t~No Protecting the community's investment 38. Which of the following will be used to protect the city's investment should the business not meet the performance measures listed above? (check all that apply) []Collateral (deed of trust, UCC filing) r~Recision (cancellation of the agreement) []Clawback (recovery of all or part of the subsidy costs) nPenalty (fines or charges for non-performance or relocation) []Recalibration (adjustments to subsidy to reflect changing business conditions) nOther r~Other Other considerations 39. Does the business receive any other type of government assistance? [] Yes r~No If yes, indicate source and amount 40. How important is this incentive in the business' decision to locate in Bakersfield? PROJECT EVALUATION Project description 1. Does the business currently operate within the city limits? [] Yes nNo 2. Where is the project being proposed? []Downtown []NE [] NW []SE c~SW 3. Is the project within the Incentive Area? [] Yes []No 4. Is the project within the redevelopment area? [] Yes C~No 5. Is Team Bakersfield assistance being requested? [] Yes []No 6. Assistance requested includes (check all that apply) . . . [] Cash assistance [] Equipment purchase [] Off-site improvements []Deferred payment schedule []Other 7. Size of project (square footage, acreage) 8. Valuation of project $ 9. Does the business already occupy the project site? [] Yes C~No If no, will the business []lease or [] purchase the site? 10. Anticipated decision date: 11. Anticipated / desired commencement of operations: Yr 3 Yr 4 12. Full time jobs to be retained in .................. 13. Full time equivalent jobs to be retained in ........... 14. Full time jobs to be created in .................. 15. Full time equivalent jobs to be created in ........... 16. Full time jobs to be transferred in ................ 17. Full time equivalent jobs to be transferred in ......... 18. Total jobs ............................... 19. Will jobs be targeted to certain groups defined by income, residency, or some other criteria? [] Yes []No If yes, by what criteria? 20. Will the business agree to a first-source hire requirement? [] Yes []No 21. What % of jobs being created will provide benefits? % 22. What % of jobs being retained will provide benefits? % 23. What % of jobs being transferred in will provide benefits? % 24. What is the pay range of jobs being created? $ to $ 25. What is pay range of jobs being retained? $ to $ 26. What is the pay range of jobs being transferred in? $ to $ 27. Proposed assistance will directly impact our area's existing businesses (choose one) [] negatively c~ positively Effects on the community 28. Will the business add diversity to our community's economic base? [] Yes []No -29:- ...... WilF[h-~' business-play-a pivotal-role-in s~:engflmrdng-exisfing--elus~s-or-fot:ming__ a new cluster in our area? [] Yes []No 30. Will the business produce a product for export outside our area? ~ Yes []No (continued) BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM May 30, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raui g. Rojas, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Wastewater Fees - Executive Order The following are current and recommended 1996-97 fees: Service Current Fee proposed Fee Septage Disposal $32/2000 gal. $38/2000 gal. Septage Surcharge: $0 $40/2000 gal. Non-City Sewer Surcharge: $38/Connection $54/Cormection Outside Connections Discussion Septage Disposal - The current fee has not been adjusted since 1992-93. The proposed fee is based upon the surcharge values generated by Boyle Engineering in their draft Revenue Program developed as part of the Plant 2 design work. It appears the $32 fee was not recovering costs attributable to treated septage waste. The main community segment affected by the increase will be restaurants and portable toilets in the City and County and septic users m the county areas. Sep. tame Surcharge: Non-City - We have collected a surcharge on outside sewer connections (see following discussion) for some time, but have not on septage discharges. The surcharge seeks to recover some of the costs previously and currently funded only by City taxpayers and for which the County residents using septic systems for disposal should not get a fi-ee ride. The septage surcharge would apply only to loads originating in the unincorporated areas. The surcharge recovers costs associated with Wastewater capital expenditures, land reclamation, administrative costs, and special plant operating costs. One adverse result of the surcharge may be the added incentive for the haulers to dump in a convenient manhole rather than at the treatment plant. Sewer Surcharge: Outside Connections - This surcharge also seeks to recover prior and current costs funded only by City taxpayers. The surcharge is applied to all outside-the-City sewer connections and is currently $38. As recently as 1993-94 the surcharge was $52. The main factor m the increase is the inclusion of the most recent plant expansion costs m the analysis. The proposed $54 surcharge includes plant capital expenditures, trunk sewer costs, land reclamation investments, Finance Department and Public Works administrative costs. .,~ I recommend these proposed new and revised fees be reviewed by the Budget/Finance Committee prior to approval. ..'."' Calculations forming the basis of the fees are attached tbr your intbrmation. RECEIVED Attachment BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM June 17, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Developmem Director SUBJECT: Available Projects for FY 96/97 Amendment As staff had previously indicated, due to the federal continuing resolution, the CDBG/HOME Annual Plan was prepared at 90% of the FY 95/96 funding level. On May 14, 1996 the City was finally notified by HUD of the FY 96/97 CDBG/HOME entitlements. The Annual Plan approved by City Council May 8, 1996 and submitted to HLrD May 15, 1996 was for $2,837,700 ($2,657,770 entitlement plus $180,000 program income). The final 96/97 entitlement was increased by $216,300. The list below are unfunded or underfunded projects submitted by other city departments or by private non-profit organizations as part of the FY 96/97 CDBG Application process. Fiscal Year 96/97 CDBG Amended Projects List IAgency I Description Amount Requested CDBG Phased - CIP's Agency Description Amount Requested City Public Works Phase IV - Lake Street $220,000 reconstruction (Beale Avenue to Gage Streets) Ward 2 Total $220,000 CDBG - Public Facih'ties Clinica Sierra Vista, Inc. Purchase and improving the $286,900 Community Services building at 711, 713,723 Building East California Avenue for Note: Applicant has program operations. Total indicated funding may be estimated project cost spread over two years. $727,000. Ward 1 Desert Counseling Clinic Inc. Renovation of facility for $76,000 ADA compliance for use by Kern Linkage Program at 1655 East California Avenue Kern County Economic Rehabilitation of KCEOC $150,000 Opportunity Corporation building located at 500 East California Avenue for WIC and other low/mod services. Ward 2 : Total $512,900 Economic Development CDBG - Business Loan Financial assistance to private Balance remaining jfor ED Program for profit entities for for profit assistance program acquisitions and/or on site $630,000 (previously budget commercial/industrial $960,000.) improvements assistance. Fifl-y -one percent of jobs created will primarily benefit low/moderate income persons. 2 Agency Description Amount Requested KEDC Client Financial assistance for a $1.8 million 10/157/96 $1.3 million square feet warehouse/distribution facility which will employ 400+ low/mod individuals. Total project cost ** Incentive Area KEDC Client 02-95 Financial assistance for a $970,000 to $1.28 million 425,000 square foot warehouse/distributions facility. Firms would employ 130+ low/mod individuals. Total project value $30 million. - Incentive Area ED Client 04-95 Financial assistance for a $130,000 14,000 square foot steel vessel manufacturing facility. Firms would employ 25 to 75 low/mod individuals. Total project value $1.3 million. ED Client 03-94 Financial assistance for a $200,000 70,000 square foot furniture Note: Scheduled for City manufacturing facility. Firm Council action 06/26/96 would employ 80 to 130 low/mod individuals. Total project value $1 million. Incentive Area City of Bakersfield Economic Financial assistance to $100,000 and Community qualified existing small for Note: $100,000 included in Development Business Loan profit entities for acquisition Fiscal Year 1996-1997 Program and/or on site commercial budget industrial improvements within city to stimulate private investment and job creation/retention. Fifty one percent of jobs created or retained will be to low/mod individuals Agency Description Amount Requested Total $3,510,300 Balance remaining from ED-for-profit assistance program (previously budgeted $960,00) CDBG - Public Services Bakersfield Police Community Oriented $204,043 Department* Policing and Problem Solving Program. Total $204,043 *To include this activity for FY 96/97 CDBG funding the service area of the COPPS must be increased from the previously funded area. The HOME entitlement for FY 96/97 was increased by $87,000 from the amount included in the prepared application submitted by the City Council and HUD. Below is the proposed breakdown for the increase of the HOME allocation. FY 96/97 HOME Amended Project List Agency I HOME--Direct Homeownership I Assistance City of Bakersfield Economic and First homebuyers $43,500 Community Development Department assistance, down payment and closing cost assistance for low/mod income families tohelp purchase their 1st home. City wide. 4 HOME--Single Family Rehabilitation City of Bakersfield Economic and Housing loans for $43,500 Community Development Department the rehabilitation of owner/occupied single-family dwelling for low/mod income families. City wide. Total $87,000 Staff will be requesting authorization to publish a notice of the proposed use of funds at the July 10, 1996 Council Meeting and final approval at theAugust 21, 1996 Council Meeting.