Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/18/2003
B A K E R S F I E' L D Mike Maggard, Chair Harold Hanson Mark Salvaggio Staff: Darnell Haynes BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMI'R'EE MEETING of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, August 18, 2003 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT JULY 21, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A.Review and Committee recommendation regarding future park amenities and the park development fee - Rojas B. Review and Committee recommendation regarding Economic Development Loan Policy Guidelines - Tandy 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding'request from Bakersfield Civic Light Opera Association for early release of mortgage collateral associated with its CDBG loan -Kunz B. Review and Committee recommendation regarding hiring an in-house liability claims administrator - Christensen 6. COMMI'I-rEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:\Darnell~.003Bud&FinCom\bf03aug 18agen.doc DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy b~ty ~;~a'~r - ' · HaroldMike Maggard,Hanson Chair Staff: Darnell W. Haynes Mark Salvaggio AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 · 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Called to Order~at 4:10 p.m. Present:Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; Harold Hanson and Mark Salvaggio 2. ADOPT APRIL 21, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED -BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding advanced billing for refuse services Finance Director Gregory Klimko provided background. For many years, the City billed commercial refuse services three months in advance. Councilmembers were getting many complaints about the three-month deposits when the customer first signed up for service. The Council at that time changed the Municipal Code and provided the Finance Director with the options of requiring or not requiring deposits. In 1995 when billing was converted to the HTE system, in order to simplify computer entries as new customers make changes until their service needs'are established (more or less bins, etc.), the Refuse Division requested to go to a monthly billing system and deposits were no longer required. DRAFT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 Page - 2 - As of July 1st this year, a system was implemented that requires a one-month deposit for new commercial refuse service, delinquent accounts or Customers reconnecting who have been shutoff for nonpayment. Commercial customers.with good payment records are not being required to pay a deposit. There are approximately 5,000 commercial refuse accounts. The current write-off rate for nonpayment .is one to two percent. Upon approval of the City Council, delinquent accounts that are written off-are sent to a collection agency. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen explained although there are health concerns, there are provisions within the .Government Code that allow for collecting deposits for utilities, which would include refuse services, and to give notice and shut off service for nonpayment. Committee Member Hanson stated he referred this item for review because he thought requiring deposits would reduce losses and increase revenue. The City Attorney questioned if businesses with good payment records moving to a new location would be considered "new accounts" and be required to pay a deposit. The Finance Director 'explained he. could clarify this administratively. · There will be no deposits required for commercial refuse customers with good payment records who are just moving their businesses to a new location. As deposits are now being required for new service, delinquent accounts or reconnecting customers who have been shutoff for nonpayment, no further action was taken by the Committee. B, 'Review and Committee recommendation regarding acceptance of 2001-02 Transportation Development Act Funds Financial Statements Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle explained this Financial Statement (audit) is required yearly and routinely referred to the Committee for review and recommendation. Finance Director Gregory Klimko stated he has reviewed the Financial Statements. There were no exceptions or concerns in the financial report. The Committee accepted the 2001-02 Transportation Development Act Funds Financial Statements and recommended adoption by the City Council. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Member Hanson asked When the .Park Development Fees report will be brought back to the Committee. According to the agenda summary report from the last Committee meeting, the report was to be on today's agenda. Staff responded at the time the agenda was being prepared the fees were still being reviewed. Staff has met with the Building Industry Association (BIA) and the Park Development Fees will be on the next Committee agenda. DRAFT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Moncl~y, ,July 2~, 2003 P~ge - 3 - Committee Chair Maggard commented the Urban Development Committee is scheduled to meet on the Transportation Development Fees at its meeting on Wednesday and wanted to ensure all the involved parties are ready as this issue is of high interest to the community and has also taken a long time in development and review. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m.. Attendance: Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney~ Bart Thiltgen; Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes; Finance Director Gregory Klimko; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Assistant to the Public Works Director Georgina Lorenzi; and Solid Waste Director Kevin Barnes cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:\Darnell\03Budget and Finance~bfO3ju121summary B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: ..__1 Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: August 14, 2003 SUBJECT: Park Development Fee At the April 21,2003, Budget and Finance Committee, staff provided information on the following two council referrals: · Future park amenities (council meeting date of 11/20/02) · Park Fee Credit (council meeting date of 12/11/02) Staff's original response (dated April 15, 2003) to the above referrals is attached for .... --. reference. At the April 21 st meeting, staff was directed to do the following: · Committee Member Hanson said he had received a call from Brian Todd of the BIA of Kern County who asked to have this item deferred so staff could meet with the BIA to discuss the level of amenities to be included in a standard neighborhood park. · Committee Chair Maggard asked staff to meet with the BIA and do the groundwork so a recommendation could be reached at the next Budget and FinaT~ce Committee meeting on the standard amenities to be included in a neighborhood park and based on that, what the Park Development Fee needs to be to construct a lO-acre (neighborhood) park. Budget and Finance Committee Park Development Fee August 7, 2003 Page 2 · Committee Chair Maggard requested staff to also contact NOR Recreation and Parks District to get their input on amenity standards in a neighborhood park and invite them to attend the next Budget and Finance Committee meeting. On April 30, 2003 and May 27, 2003, staff met with representatives of the Building Industry Association (BIA) to address their.concerns and questions. Representatives from the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District (NBRPD) also attended the meetings. At the April 30th meeting, the BIA' requested information which staff responded to in the attached letter dated May 15, 2003. At the May 27th meeting, several unresolved issues remained which were summarized on the schedule entitled "Pending Action Items". This schedule was also sent to the BIA. The information completed by City staff as of August 6th was given to the BIA. The "pending action items", along with completed responses, are attached for reference. Please note that some items remain pending. Staff will attempt to address all pending items by the August 18th Budget and Finance Committee Meeting. The third meeting with City, BIA, and NBRPD staff is scheduled for August 14th. Staff will prepare a summary of this meeting for the Committee's review. NBRPD staff have been very involved in the process and have been responsive with requests for information. NBRPD staff also indicated that construction cost estimates calculated by City staff would treat both agencies equally if the following 2 issues were addressed: · Is there a way to cause developers to provide all street improvements for our facilities like they are required to do for the city? If not, we recommend keeping street improvements in as part of the estimated park construction costs. · It is also requested that fees for permits and services traditionally waived for city parks also be waived for North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District parks. Additional time is needed to review these two issues. Budget and Finance Committee Park Development Fee August 7, 2003 Page 3 In addition, the packet of information distributed at the April 21st Budget and Finance Committee meeting erroneously excluded tennis courts from the list of amenities. The estimated cost for this amenity is $80,000. The worksheet summarizing estimated park development costs has been updated for this item and is attached for reference. A few other minor changes have also been made to this worksheet. Conclusion: Staff has met with the BIA and NBRPD staff on three occasions regarding this issue since the April 21 st Budget and Finance Committee meeting. City staff has 'provided information and responses for all requests with the exclusion of the 2 outstanding issues concerning NBRPD as noted above. The BIA has 1 outstanding item for which they are responsible (providing narrative on a potential park development fee credit). Staff has recently received information from Castle and Cooke regarding costs they incurred for constructing specific parks. This information is not included in the packet since staff has not yet reviewed it. The current park development fee is $647 per dwelling unit. The revised park development costs, including the additional amenities, are estimated to be $1.7 Million. This figure yields an adjusted park development fee of $1,275 (see revised calculation sheet for documentation). Cc: Building Industry Association North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District Arnold Ramming, Civil Engineer IV ,.. Ken Trone, Park Construction and Facilities Planner Georgina Lorenzi, Assistant to the Public Works Director ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO BUD GET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE April 15, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~__.,.~t,_ SUBJECT: PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE This memo addresses the following two council referrals to the Budget and Finance Commiltee involving the Park Development Fee. Future park amenities (council meeting date of 11/20/02): Councilmember Couch referred the issue of how parks are landscaped, what amenities (equipment, etc) are provided, and how that affects the Park Development Fees. Park Fee Credit (council meeting date of 12/11/02): Councilmember Couch requested additional review of the Park Fee Credit by the Budget and Finance Committee. FUTURE PARK AMENITIES * Revised Cost of Current Amenities The last detailed worksheet summarizing costs for basic amenities within a 10 acre park was prepared as justification for a fee increase approved by Council in January, 2001, A copy of this worksheet is attached for reference (Exhibit "A"). This worksheet estimates the cost to construct a lypical 10 acre park at $867,000 (adjusting the per unit cost to $635). The next increase to this fee, approved by Council on December 11, 2002, was based upon the construction cost index (CCI). At that time, the CCI used was 1.95% and the fee increased to $647 per unit. Applying this same construction cost index to the $867,000 (basis of January, 2001, fee increase) yields a revised estimated cost of approximately $884,000. Exhibit B applies the 1.95% CCI to each park amenity item. As a result of;this referral, Parks and Engineering staff reevaluated lhe amenities, wilh their assoCiated costs, of a typical 10 acre neighborhood park. Parks and Engineering staff researched the costs through various internal and external sources. In addition, the estimates included several assumptions as summarized in an April 10, 2003, memo marked as Exhibit "C". Comparing the cost of amenities as last adjusted by the construction cost index ($884,000) to the newly revised costs ($1,350,000 Exhibit "C") for the same items, yields an increase of $466,000 (53%). Following is a side by side comparison of these items (detailed descriptions of each line item can be found on the individual worksheets): Page 2 Estimated Costs to construct a typical 10 acre park (rounded to the nearest hundredth) Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Estimated Costs Revised Current 2002 Costs 1. Earthwork/Grading' $52,000 $135,000 2. Utility $37,700 $45,500 3. Irrigation System** $68,300 $258,000 4. Security Light System $53,000 $50,000 5. Restroom Facilities w/storage $81,600 $120,000 6. Parking Lot $63,200 $22,400 7. Concrete Work $45,900 $46,500 8: Picnic Facilities $40,800 $50,000 9. Landscape Plant Material*** $91,800 $149,300 10. Drinking Fountains $5,100 $3,000 11, Multi-game Slab $13,300 $18,000 12. 360 day maintenance $56,100 $57,000 13. Playground Equipment $126,400 $124,000 14. Sign/Monument Wall $2,500 $3,600 15. 1/2 Street Improvements/2 sides $113,100 $92,000 16. Design/Development/Administration .... $33,200 $176,000 TOTAL $884,000 $1,350,300 °Nole 1 - Depending upon actual site conditions, the cost for grading and drainage could be substantially different than what is listed on the analysis. Staff estimated grading and drainage costs based upon what one would expect to see for a "typical" 10 acre park. *'Note 2 - Landscape area was based on a gross park area of 10-acres, less a 40-stall parking lot, less the basketball court, less the 900 square foot shade area, less the tot play area, and less the concrete walks throughout the park, with a net area of 380,000 square feet. Current pricing for landscaping is $0.68 per square foot yielding the total of $258,000, *'*Note 3 - Park development within Nodheast Bakersfield would require a substantial increase in landscaping costs due to soil conditions. These increased landscaping costs are not included In this analysis. '"'Note 4 - The revised current costs column uses a factor of 15% of construction costs for this estimate. This rate is used for the City's capital improvement program budget estimates. · Recommended Additions/Deletions to Park Amenities Parks and Engineering staff then reviewed what amenities should be included in a typical 10acre park. Staff recommends that several more amenities, as detailed on {he last page of Exhibit "C", be added to the above list. Staff also recommends removing item 15 (1/2 street improvements on 2 sides of park site) from the list of amenities in a typical 10-acre park. By doing this, an assumption was made that the developer would be responsible for al~ improvements in adjacent streets, The net increase for these items are estimated at $243,500. Based upon staff's analysis, the total cost to construct a 10 acre park would be $1,594,000 if the amenities recommended by staff are adopted. Using these C;, WiRC'~I IPDAqAC;e~r~inn~Pnrl~ Developmcnl Fce~memo 4- I 1.03 doc amenities and their costs, yields a per unit park development fee of $1,196 ("Exhibit "D"). This is an'85% ($549) increase over the current per unit fee of $647. As noted earlier, the last fee increase, based upon the Construction Cost Index, was approved by Council in' December, 2002. Annual index averages were used for the most current calendar years for which a full 12 months of indexes were available (2001 and 2000). The annual index for calendar year 2002 is now available. It reflects an increase of 3.09% as compared to the 2001 annual index. Since it may take some time to respond to comments from the Building Industry Association (BIA) and other interested padies regarding staff's list of amenities and the associated costs, staff recommends proceeding with a fee adjustment based upon the 3.09% construction cost index increase. PARK FEE CREDIT Staff contacted Councilmember Couch on this referral to obtain clarification. He indicated this item has already been answered by staff. Therefore, no information was provided on this item. Staff has only recently provided this information to the BIA. Due to time constraints, sufficient time was not provided to them to review the package before the Budget and Finance Committee meeting on April 21st. Staff recommends allowing the BIA ample time to review the data and formally respond with questions, issues, or concerns. Since this review process could take some time, staff recommends proceeding with a fee adjustment based upon the 3.09% CCI increase as discussed earlier. cc: Brian Todd, BIA Arnold Ramming Ken Trone Georgina Lorenzi ('I:X¢';ROI IPDAT~flrnrlzinaXPnrk l')evelopmenl Fec.~\memo 4- I I '~' Ear~,~."wvcr%Grading (Flat. H, ~ A Imga:~ca Sis:am · 5,7G0 ~. ~ocs:ar Pumo (Not requireC fcra :~ acr~ 3a~4-Wculd ae required for larger ~a~<s ~'A 0 C. Maxiccm System N/A 10,000 SUBTOTAL FOR ITEM ~3 5,700 67,000 Secud~ ~Gh~ System (20 poles for 10 a~S) . *.;:~5,200 --'... . ~ ~' 52,000 Restrcom'Facilities ~ 400 square fcc: s:o~ge-ADA Accessible "~, ; .* .-;- :-.. :?-~,::~::;~;~.'N/A ,~,:. .... (Res~'c~m Facilities are:req~ir~ w i~ a ~ acre pa~)': '.~/;:'~; ~::.:".",-.~ :~:~' "' .~ ':: .:-:'-? :~':.;~F~'~??~ Pa~i~ Lot (3640 Cam; wlla:ds~pin~: may not occur at each pa~) ' : '- :'.':-,'~;6.200 '*.:.~ "- Con~e{e Wo~ Intedor/Ddv eway & Mows~inimum ha~pe ' 4.500 ' -' '-'45.000 .... Pi~ic Fadl~es (BBO's, ~bl~ shade s~. otc) ..... .:,...::.:. '.- ~ .: .,...: : ;;.~ ?.:-~ ~ :;;:r:::~ :::L*.:.':'~*Lands~pe Plant Matedal (Tr~s; Shrubs.' ~d Gross) ~:*.--:,~;~?~:~,;(?:':; .~¥: .-*-~-"~;.,~:~;?.,,?~6:~?-?~;'~.~2.~65.000 '~-" ':' ; *** :/~' ~:2fi~;~~'~,:~ *:";'.-':~ : ':"'~ ' ~':1;.¥~"~'~ ,' *'~;':'".';':*'~-~,~*"* ' ' - -': '¥'.: *~'- ....... ;:'~ ~:~A~? ' M~li~ame S;ab (50x60; Y= :c.,~: wire -e ~fsrceme~ foc::=~: no ~igh:i~g) N/A 2 360 ~ay Maintenance 5.500 55.0CC 3 Playground Equipment ~th ADA A. Slides. Swings, Safe~ SuCace. Sand. Trashcans, Ccmpiiance audit of playgr=un 9.600 96.006 ~uipme~. B. Shade Ss~c~ure (1) N/A. . - 8.000 C. Concre~e-Amoun~ can va~ ;er 2ark s~:e N/A i0.000 O. Benches-2 per acre 1.060 13.,360 SUBTOTAL FOR ITEM ~13 10.600 ~ SiGniMonumen~ Wall (5'x 12') N/A 2.5CC 5 ~ S~ae~ Improvements on 2 Sides of =a~< Site A. Sidewalk: 1,250 LF ' 5.5' wide ' $2.3C, SF N/A 15,800 5. Cu~ & Gu~e~ 1,250 LF ' $I0.90/LF NIA 13,60~ C. Pavement: 32,600 SF ' $2.50/SF N/A 81,500 SUBTOTAL FOR ITEM ~15 N/A 110,900 SUBTOTAL OF ESTIMATED COSTS 5 DesiGn;Oar ~iopmen~Adminis:radon N/A 57,5gC TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 367.0(}0 : GROUPOAT',Ge<;.-;~a ~v~,CRECOST ,~31 . Exhibit "B" Development of Typical 10 Acre Park - Al City Cost i~ ""~~~ This schedule excludes land ac0uisition costs. Esl. '02 Cost Based ICost ()er Acre 10-Acre Cost I on CCI of 1.95% 1 Eaflhwo~k/Grading (Flat, Hilly Playfield, Etc.- Subjecl to specilic site conditions) $5,100 $51,000 $52,000 2 Utility (l~lectrical/WatedSewer - Subject lo specific design requirements) 3,700 37,000 37,700 3 A. Irrigalion System 5,700 57,000 58,112 B. Booster Pump (Not required lo[ a 10 acre park - would be re(luirud for largo[ parks) N/A 0 C. M~xicom System N/A 10,000 10, t 95 SUBTOTAL FOR ITEM #3 5,700 67,000 68,300 4 Secudty Light System (20 poles for 10 acres) 5,200 52,000 53,000 5 I:teslmom Facililies wilh 400 square 1ool slorage - ADA Acc~;ssihle N/A 80,000 81,600 (Rest[eom Facilities are required with a 10 acre park) 6 I'-~il~kinu Lot (36-40 Cars; w/landscal)ing; may Ilol occur at e;ich pa,k) 6,200 62,000 63,200 7 . Com)c~eh; Work Inlerior/Drivew~y & Mowslrip - minimum hard:;ciU)(: 4,500 45,000 45,900 8 Picnic Facilities (BBQ's, tables, shade slruclures, etc.) 4,000 40,000 40,800 9 Lamtscal)e Plant Male[iai (Trees, Shrubs, Grass, and Groul)d Cover) 9,000 90,000 91,800 ' I0 D~inklng Fountains (Combinalion St~mdard/ADA) 500 5,000 5,100 1 t Mulliuame Slab (60x60; 1/2 court; wire reinforcement Ioolinu; no lighting) N/A 13,000 13,300 12 3HO I)~y Maintenance 5,500 55,000 56,000 13 Phiyumund Equipnrlenl wilh ADA requirements A. Slides, Swings, Sand, Trashcans, elc. 9,600 96,000 97,872 B. Sh;~du Slruclure (1) N/A 8,000 8,156 C. Conc~ulu - amounl can vary i)er park silo N/A 10,000 10,195 D. bu~lch~;s - 2 per acre 1,000 10,000 10,195 SUBTOTAL FOR ITEM #13 10,600 124,000 126,400 ij \~.;i U.)I. JI'L)A I \Gu~Uina\l~.tlk L)uvulol)munt t:uuu\L)uv Costs 4/14/2003 Exhibit "B" 2 ot Development of Typical 10 Acre Park - Al Cily Cost JCost per Acre 10-Acre Cost on CCI of 1.95% 14 Sign/Monument Wall (5'x12') N/A 2,500 2,500 15 1/2 Slreet Improver~ents on 2 sides o! park site A. Sidewalk: 1,250/LF ' 5.5' wide ' $2.30/SF N/A 15,800 16,108 B. Curb & Gutter: 1,250 LF ' $10.90/LF N/A 13,600 13,865 C. Pavement: 32,600 SF ' $2.50/SF N/A 81,500 83,089 SUBTOTAL FOR ITEM 815 N/A 110,900 113,100 SUBTOTAL OF ESTIMATED COSTS 834,400 850,67 I 16 Design/Devel°pmenl/Adminislrati°~ ......... N/A 32,600 33,200 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $867,000 $8tYJ,900 C, ~.;) ti )t,~l'l)A I ~du~(gt(Ja~P~jlk L)uvuluimlu~l I*uu~)uv 4/14/2003 page I of 4 B A K E R S F I E L D Public Works Department Memorandum TO: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director FROM: ~~-'~nold Ramming, Civil Engineer IV DATE: April 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Park Development Costs Design Engineering staff has reviewed Recreation and Parks Department's cost estimate to develop a Typical 10 Acre Park, dated May 2002. Our revised cost estimate is organized in the same format as in the currently adopted development cost 10 acre park estimate, dated March 2000. . The following assumptions / conditions were used to develop the attached costs: 1. Costs are based upon a net ten (10) acre park site. 2. The bottom tine, total costs are based on the adjacent developer(s) being responsible for all improvements in the adjacent streets. 3. Recreations and Parks Department's quantities for park amenities were accepted. 4. Depending on actual site conditions, the cost for grading and drainage could be substantially different. Development cost in the northeast section of Bakersfield may require substantial additional cost for landscaping due to soil conditions. For a specific park site, these assumptions and conditions might vary resulting in a higher actual cost to develop that park site. Attachment: [~evelopment Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park Site c: Jack LaR'ochelle Bill McClure Reading File Wgm 4¢1Q/03 S:U:~ROdECTS~BillWypica 10 Acre Park~Development Fee Memo.doc ~IBIT "C" page 2 of 4 Analysis of Development Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park Prepared April 2003 MARCH 2000 IMPROVEMENT ITEMS Item Description Cost 1 Earthwork / Grading (Flat, Hilly Playfield, Etc. - Subject to specific site conditions) S135,000 Item Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension Clear and Grub Site 10 Acre $1,500 $15,000 Rough GradeSite 24000 CY $5 $120,000 1.5 foot average over site 2 Utility (Electrical/Water/Sewer- Subject to specific design requirements) $45,500 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension 6" Water Service / Meter / Backflow I LS $30,000 $30,000 Prevention / Connection Electrical Meter & Panel 1 LS S5,000 $5,000 4" Sewer Service Line 300 LF $25 $7,500 Sewer Cleanout 2 EA S1.500 S3,000 3 Irrigation System S258,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension A Automatic Irrigation System 380000 SF S0.68 S258,000 B Booster pump (Not required for 10 acre park) SO C Maxicom System (Included in Automatic Irrigation System) SO 4 Security Light System (20 poles for 10 acre) $50,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension Convenience Lighting 20 EA S2,500 $50,000 5 Restroom Facility with storage room - ADA Accessible S120,0¢0 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension Restroom 600 SF 1 LS S120,000 $120.000 6 Parking Lot (36-40 Cars: w/landscaping) $22,440 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension 40 Stall Parking Lot (16,000 SF) 4" AB and 2" AC Aggregate Base 380 Ton S18 $6.840 Asphalt Concrete 200 Ton S42 S8.400 Curb & Gutter 400 LF $13 $5.200 Commercial Driveway 2 EA S1,000 $2,000 7 Concrete Work InteriodDriveway & Mowstrip- minimum hardscape $46,500 Item Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension 4'"~Vide Sidewalk 12000 SF $3.00 $36,000 MO~ Curb 1400 LF S7.50 $10,500 8 Picnic Facilities (BBQs, tables, shade structures, etc.) ' S50.000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension Picnic Facilities 10 EA S5.000 S50.000 G: GROUPOATGeorgi~a,.Park Develaoment Fees:.~0 Acre ParX Costs.~ts Page 1 of 3 ~-~L 4-- page 3 of 4 9' ' Landscape Plant Materials (Tre~. S~.rubs. Grass and Ground Cover) $149,340 Item Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension Soil Amendment 380000 SF $0.19 $72,200 24' Box trees 136 EA S200.00 $27,200 5 Gallon Plants 200 EA $13.20 $2,640 Hydroseed Turf 380000 SF $0.10 $38,000 Mulch 3" Deep 300 CY $31.00 $9,300 10 Drinking Fountains (Combination Standard/ADA) $3,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension Drinking Fountain 2 EA $1,500 $3,000 11 Multigarne Slab (60x60; Y2 Court; wire reinforcement footing; nolighting) $18,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension Game Court 3600 SF $5.00 $18,000 12 360 Day Maintenance $57,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension Landscape & Irrigation System 380000 SF $0.15 $57,000 13 Playground EquiPment with ADA Requirements $124,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension A Slides, Swings, Sand, Trashcans, etc. Tot Lot Equipment 2 to 5 years 1 LS S20,000 $20.000 Tot Lot Equipment 5 to 12 years 1 L S40.000 $40.000 Washed Sand 400 CY S30 $12.000 Resilient Rubber Surfacing 600 SF $25 $15,000 Trash Receptacles 10 EA $500 $5,000 B Shade Structure (size not specified) Shade Structure 900 SF 1 LS S15,000 $15,000 C Concrete - Amount can vary per park site Tot Lot Concrete Perimeter Edge 500 LF S10 S5,000 D Benches - 2 per acre Park Benches 16 EA S750 $12.000 14 Sign/Monument Wall (5'x12') $3,600 15 ~/~, Street Improvements on 2 Sides of Park Site $92,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension A Sidewalk: 1250 LF 5.5" wide 5.5' Wide Sidewalk 6900 SF $3 $20,700 B Curb & Gutter 1250 LF $13 $16,250 C Pavement: 32,600 SF 6" Aggregate Base 1180 Ton $18 $21,240 4" Asphalt Concrete 805 Ton $42 $33.810 Construction Total S 1,174,380 16 Design / Development / Administration, including Construction Inspection (15% of Construction Total) S176,000 A TOTAL REVI~ED COSTS OF DECEMBER 2000 IMPROVEMENT ITEMS Sl,350,380 G:~GROUPOA;'Georg,na, P'ark Oeveloomen~ Fees',10 Acre Park Cc~:s.xls Page 2 of 3 ADDITIONAL REQUIRED AME. .TIES AND COSTS 17 Civil Site Work - Storm Drain System $41,000 Item Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension 18" PVC Storm Drain 1500 LF $25 $37.500 24" Christy Box Catch Basin 7 EA $500 $3.500 18 Architectural - Trash Enclosure $8,500 Item Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension Trash Enclosure (Walls and Slab) 1 LS $8,500 $8,500 19 Site Furnishings - Basketball Pole & Backboards $5,000 Item Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension Basketball Pole & Backboards 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 20 Site Lighting - Parking Lot, Basketball Court, Electrical $45,000 Item Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension Parking Lot Lighting 4 EA $2,500 $10,000 Basketball Court Lighting (30 foot tall 4 EA- $6,250 $25,000 poles, 2 - 1000 watt lamps per pole) Electrical Distribution to Parking Lot and 1 LS $10,000 $i 0,000 Basketball Court 21 Delete Offsite Street Improvements -$92,000 Item Qty Unit Unit Price Extension 5.5' Wide Sidewalk -6900 SF S3 -$20.700 Curb & Gutter -1250 LF $13 -$16.250 6" Aggregate Base -1180 Ton $18 -$21,240 4" Asphalt Concrete -805 Ton $42 -$33.8!0 22 Double Size of Game Court $18,000 Item. Qb/ Unit Unit Price Extension Game Court 3600 SF $5.00 $18,000 Sub-total of Construction Costs for Recommended Changes S25,500 23 Mobilization (5% of All Construction Costs)' S60.000 24 Contingency (10% of Construction Total)" S126,000 Sub-total of items 17 to 24 S211,500 25 Design / Development / Administration, including Construction Inspection on items 17 to 24 $32,000 (15% of Construction Total) B TOTAL COSTS FOR NEWLY ADDED ITEMS S243,500 TOTAL COSTS FOR TYPICAL 10 ACRE PARK (A + B) $1,593,880 *Sum of Constr'~ction Total on page 2 ($1,174,380) and Sub-total of Construction Costs for Recommended (~hanges on page 3 (S25,500). '*Construction Total computed as follows: Construction Total on page 2 S1,174.380 Plus Sub-total of Construction Costs for Recommended Changes on page 3 $25,500 Plus Item 23, Mobilization $60.000 S1,259.880 G:'GROUPDATGe0rg,r,a\P'ark {~evelolDmen! F.-,es,.10 Acre Par~, Ccs:s.xls Page 3 of 3 FC~q IB £T "D" PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE WORKSHEET Method Used :o Caiculate Fee: 1. A 1 O-acre park serves 4,000 people oased upon the General Plan and -=akersfie~C Municipal Code Chap[er 15.80 slat. Card of providing park land at a ra,:e of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. 2. Cost of developing a 10-acre park is divided by 4,000 people to obtain a cost per person. a) $1,594,000 + 4,000 = S398.50 cost to ~ pop. Served cos[ per person develop by 10-acre park to develop park 10-acre park 3. Number of persons per dwelling unit type: Type of Unit 2000 Federal Census Persons Per Unit Single Family (SFR) 3.01 Multiple Family (MFR) 2.77 Note: Cons:s:ent with :r~e PlannitG Division, permits are .:.a:eGorizec n~o 2 ,'YCe of units as identified acc,,e. In .2r~cr calculadcns, !990 Federal Cens~.s Persons Per Unit data was used for th, e =uc~ex acc mooile home ..'nits. The 2000 Fecerat Census recate(;crized many of the unit ,"ypes. ,Mcioile Hcme and duplex [nforma:;cn are now .ncluded with multiple fam,iy. 4. Based on last 5 years of building permit da:a, the ratio of type of builci~_; permits !s: For every 100 permits :2ere are 97 permi'.s for single rani;'? and 3 .permits fcr multiple family. 5. Weighted average of persons per dweilincj unit: 97 SFR X 3.01 persons per unit = 291.97 3 MFR X 2.77 persons per unit = 8.31 (291.97 + 8.31) + 100 = 3.00 weighted average perscns 2er unit (pp/du). 6. Calculate the fee using the weigh[ed averacje persons per unit: 3.00 pp/du X $398.50 (cost'person to develop park) = $1,195.50 per unit (round to $1 .I 96,'unit) G:'.GROUPDAT'.Georgioa\Park Developr~ent Fees'2cf wks~t 4,'I J./2C¢2 MAY 15, 2003 LETTER TO BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (661) 326-3724 RAUL M. ROJA3, DIRECTOR · CITY EI~GINF. F_.R May 15, 2003 Brian J. Todd, Executive Vice President Building Industry Association of Kern County 1415 18th Street, Suite 420 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Todd, 'IF. is letter is in follow-up to items brought forward by the Building Industry Association of Kern County (BIA) at our last meeting regarding the Park Development Fee. Following is a summary of your items/requests, followed by staff's responses. For your reference, the request number, as listed below, was placed in the lower right hand comer of the corresponding attachments. 1. Request: List of comparable projects used to estimate costs of amenities. Response: Construction costs were s,vnthesized by the Parks Division from: 1) two similar and recent projects in Santa Clarita, 2) City of Bakersfield annual contract information, and 3) the proposed budget for Rio Vista Park. The bid tab documents from Santa Clarita are very difficult to reproduce in print; however, are easy to view digitally in a spreadsheet program. We are attempting to get an electronic copy of the data from Santa Clarita. City annual contract information is public record available from the Clerks Office. The Rio Vista Park proposed budget is enclosed. This information was then double checked by engineering staff within the Public Works Department. 2. Request: Pictures of parks considered "typical" with varying amenities (Requested by Budget and Finance Committee. BIA expressed interest in viewing these pictures). R&sponse: Attached are "draft" photos. The quality and specific photos may vary from what will be submitted to the Budget and Finance Committee. We are working towards better refining the photos. G:'xGROUPDA'r'xGeorginaXPark Development Fees',BIA Response Letter. doc BIA Response Letter Page 2 3. Request: Mr. Todd indicated that there was a big difference in labor rates between Bakersfield and Santa Clarita (Santa. Clarita was contacted to determine their costs to construct a recent park). Response: Prevailing wage rates can change daily so past comparisons may no longer be valid. Wage determinations are issued by the U.S. Department of Labor under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts. The website address is www.gpo.gov/davisbacon. Up to date information can be accessed for State and County Indexes at the site. 4. Request: Supply list of amenities for parks as stated in the General Plan. You had asked if the General Plan stated who was to pay for those amenities. Response: Refer to page XI-4 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a list of park amenities. For your reference, we have also attached a copy of Chapter XI, Parks Element, for your reference. This Chapter includes language on funding. 5. Request: At the next Budget and Finance Committee, you will discuss a park fee credit for on-site recreational amenities (Chapter 15.8). A change in the multiple family ordinance was adopted in December, 2002. At that Council Meeting, you mentioned a park fee credit for possible on-site recreational amenities. Response: Refer to Chapter XI, pages 13 and 14 of the General Plan tbr language regarding a neighborhood park credit. This applies to the dedication of parkland, and not the development fee. 6. Request: Mr. Todd indicated that parks are not locked so that only the specific development could use that park. The park is open to everyone. He feels that there should be a nexus test to determine who should pay the fee and how much they should pay. Response: The purpose of BMC Chapter 15.82, the "Park Development Fee", is to require all new residential development to pay a tee for the development and improvement ancL/or enhancement of public parks and recreational facilities to serve the needs of that new development. The fee is not intended to mitigate existing deficiencies, but to provide parks serving new residential development.. The fee was adopted under the provisions of · i' California Code Section 66000, "Development Fees". This section allows local governments to adopt fees to fund public services which serve the new development. Gg, GROUPDA'l'xGeorginah°ark Development FeesX, BIA Response Letter. doc BIA Response Letter Page 3 California Government Code Section 66001 (a) requires any city that establishes, increases, or imposes a fee as a condition of approval of a development project to do all of the following: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee 2. Identify how the fee will be used 3. Demonstrate that a reasonable relationship exists between the purpose of the fee's and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and 4. Demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type 0f development project on which the fee is imposed. The park development fee meets all of the above conditions as summarized in the attached Resolution 220-02, the most current "Resolution Approving and Adopting an Adjusted Fee for the Development and Improvement of Parks Within the City of Bakersfield." Specifically, items 5 to 11 on pages 2 and 3 of the Resolution provide the basis of "reasonable relationship". The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan defines the purpose of neighborhood parks as to "provide both active and passive recreational activities for surrounding residential developments". The General Plan states that "the service area covers the nei~?.hborhoods within three- quarters (3/4) of a mile of the park site". Although it is true that these neighborhood parks are not locked up for the exclusive use of the new development paying for the park's construction, new development does create the need for additional parkland. 7. Request: Summary ofunexpended funds within the Park Development Fund. Response: Refer to the attached memorandum, dated May 12, 2003, from the Assistant Finance Director. In addition, the packet of infOrmation distributed at the last Budget and Finance Committee meeting erroneously excluded tennis courts from the list of amenities. Estimated costs for this amenity is $80,000. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District has indicated that deleting item 21 (offsi[e street improvements - $92,000) would be a hardship to them since the District, not the,developer, funds these improvements. G:XGROUPDATXGeorginah°ark Development FeesXBIA Response Letter.doc BIA Response Letter Page 4 The next meeting scheduled for BIA and City staffwill be on May 27, 2003. I believe this meeting will be more productive if the City received your thoughts and concerns in writing in advance of the next meeting. Please feel free to call if you have any questions or need additional information. Very Truly Yours, ' orks Director ~/ lc: Alan Tandy, City Manager John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Arnold Ramming, Civil Engineer IV Nelson Smith, Assistant Finance Director Georgina Lorenzi, Asst. to the Public Works Director Ken Trone, Park Construction and Facilities Planner North Bakersfield Recreation & Parks District G:\GROUPDATXGeorginakPark Development Fees',BIA Response Letter.doc RIO VISTA. PARK - Phasing Breakdown Phase I (4.5 million) Entire park infraswacture (incl. power, water and sewer to all faciL/ties), Parking Lot, Seconda,c~' Ent~ Plaza, Restroom/Aqua theater PDza. Amphitheater, Lake & Stream Elements, M. isc. Paving, Si:e ' Fusr. ishingslSignage, Land, cape ar.d Lighting. Civil Engineer 85% complete (parking lot AC by others, future sidewalks, pla,a) Electrical Engineer 90% complete (indicate all future Poles, pull conduit & J-box) Building .Aa-chitect 100% complete Restroom by Amphitheater (ret. condition) · 50% Tot Lot Rest. room (floor plan) Aquatic Deaigner 100% complete (exclude stream section already installed by water district) Landscape Architect 80% comple~ (exclude Tot Lot, Entry Plaza, Fallow pD_nting azeas) Irrigation Constlltant 80% complete (exclude Tot Lot, Entry Plaza, Fallow planting areas) Phase 2 (1.3 million~ Tot Lot, Tot Lot Plaza, Tot Restroom & Shelter, Fallow Landscape, Final Walk Linkage, Add:.tiona! Site Furniskings. Civil Engineer 955% complete - Electrical Engineer 100% complete (ic. dicate all future Poles, pull conduit & Overtook) Building Architect 100% complete Tot Lot Rest. room Landscape Architect 95% complete (Entry. Plaza, Overlook NIC) Irrigation Consultant 95% compie:e (En~.W PlEa, Overlook N-lC) Phase 3 (.5 million} Enl.,W Plaza. Overtook Aa-ca, Ad,lifional Si:e Fm-rjs?Jngs. Civil Engineer t00% complete Landscape Architect 100% complete Irrigation Consultant 100% complete Improvements by Others (,85 million} Packing Lot A.C. Amphitheater Road A.C. S:rea. mbed Maintenance Area Entry Monument Sidewalk adjacent to Stockdalejqighway Rio Vista Park B~kers£cld, CaJifomia PHASE ONE ~timina~ Cons~c~on Cost Estimate (332 AC.) Rev. I/I 4~003 ESTImaTED UNIT UNIT SUBTOTAL VI"EM DESCI~IPTION QUANTITY PRICE L MOBILIZAFION, GRADING, AND DP~INAGE ELEMENT'S A. Mo~ilizalion I ~ $~,~.~ S20.~.00 ~ ~ G~g I ~ S~,~.~ Sl~,~.~ I. C~ne~on m S~in s~ i ' 2. P~C Pi~ 4,420 LF ~0.~ 5. ~w~ 7 EA SI~.~ S~0,5~.00 ~ 3' V-Dish 800 ~F 9. W~I S~n 235 E. T~ffic C~t I ~ SS,~0.~ S5,~0.~ SUBTOTAL MOBILI~TION, G~DING, AND D~INAGE ELEMenTS , ~94,975.~ i~ CON~RU~ION ELEMENTS I. Ins~l 2" ~fic wa~r m~ I EA $10,~.~ $10,~0.~ 2. I~H 6" I~fi~ Wa~ Me~cr I EA ~5,000.~ ~45,~.00 3. 3" Wa~ Line 1,780 ~ $I0.~ $17,$~.00 4. 2" W~ Line 675 5. 6" PVC Sew~ Line 8~ LF $20.~ 5. 4" PVC Scw~ Linc 650 LF $i5.C0 59,750.00 7. ~,'4' PVC w~tcr s~icc ~o d~nk~=~ Faunt~n 200 LF S6.~ $1,200.00 SUBTOTAL UTILITIES (WE~ S104,3~.25 B. Psr~g Lot 1. Intuiting Paves 4,400 SF $8.~ $35~.00 2. 6' Cu~ 3,2~ LF $12.~ $38.4~,00 3. 6" Cu~n~ 5~ ~ $13.50 S7,~7,50 4. 6" CarW~w*l~ 24 EA $500.00 $12,~.~ 5. 3' V-guu~ 750 LF $1~.50 $10,125.~ 6 H~ndic~ romp 6 EA S7~.~ ~.~ 7 P~r~ngl~smping t L5 ~4.0~.~ ~,~00.00 8. Trash Enc~sur~ ~ Cone. P~d, Ga:c ~d Cover 2 LS $8,500.00 SI7,~0.~ 9. 24" Wid~ ~n~r~t* B~ding 6~ SUBTOTAL PARKING LOT ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT SUBTOTAL ITF-.M DESCRIPTION (~UANTITY PRICE C- Se~ondar'/ Entry Plaza Ares I. Colored Concrete 440 SF $7.00 $3,080.00 Z 24" Concrete Bands 6'0 LF 514.0~ 51,120.00 3. 4' Co~cr~t~ Pav~ng 2.000 SF $3.50 4. 30' ht Wall w/riv~ock v~-~r 60 LF $150.00 $9,000.00 5. 36" ht colum~ 2 EA $1,200.0(} 6. g hi columns 8 EA $3,500,00 528,000.00 7. Entry Arbor Smacture ($30.00/SF) I L$ $30,0(}0.00 8. Accent Boutde~ I LS $5,0(~.00 55,0(}0.00 SUBTOTAL SECONDARY ENTRY PLAZA AREA D. Re~troOm/Aquatheatcr Plaza Area I. Urban Lake Edge 135 LF 51.50.00 $20,250.00 2- 24" Concrete Bands 625 LF $14.00 $8,750.00 3. ~tctlocking Pavet~ 4..]$0 ' SF $8.00 534,1100.00 4. 30. Et. Rivcrock Colunms 3 EA SI,100.00 $3500.00 $. 24' Hi. Rclaining Riverc~k V~eer Wall 248 EA $150.00 6. 4~' ~il Columns 2 F.,A $ t,S00.00 $3,000.80 7. 42' Su~l Guanirail 135 LF $100.00 8. R~treom Building ($240.00/SF} I EA $230,000.04} $7~0,000.00 9. Lake Exlge Tranai6cn Boulde~ [(1 ) 4'- 5150.00}] I (~0 LF $$0.00 SuB'rOTAL RESTROOM/AQUAT1-EEATER PLAZA AREA E. Aquath~at~' Area 1. 6'HT x 12.' Terraced Seating 890 LF $30.00 $26,700.00 2. 6' Conctel~ $~e~s (~quatheatet Ac~et~) 144 LF SgO.00 SI ! 3. 6' Conc~te Steps (Large Stairway) 345 LF $80.0~ $27,600.00 4. In~rloclcin~ Paver~ 201 SF 58.00 $1,608.00 5. 4' Concrete Paving 8,30~ Si: $3.$0 $29,020.00 5. 6" Concrete Paving ($~'v~ce area~ 7,300 SF $5.50 $40, l.$(}.00 T. aquatheatcr/S~a~e Urban S~a~, --~g'- 248 LF $150.0~ S37.200.0~ ~t. 6' C~ncre'.~ steps (ScrvlcedADA at'.a) 119 LF $$0.00 $9.520.00 9. Steel Handraits (Lg.$tairway.Se~,a, ce. ADA a:ea't I I I LF $.50.00 $5.550.0(} :0. Site! GuardraJl (Servicc arcs) 67 LF 550.00 $3.350.00 I1. Bt-idge crossings (ax:)~tcs~an) I EA $15,000.00 $15,0(~.00 12. 7' ~ Steel Fencing/Accc~ Gat~ 360 LF $[00.00 $36,00(}.00 13. aq u atheat~'/B ancl~ ta nd 1 EA $680,000.0(} 14. aquathcatcrtRcstroorc~'Dres'~ing Ro<m', (650 SI:). I EA $16~3,00~.0~ $163.0~O.0~ 15. Lak~ Edge Transition I~ulders I [~ $$,000.0~ $$,000.0~ SUBTOTAL AQUATHEATER AREA $1,091)24&00 P. ML~cellaneeus Paving I. 6' x g' concrete mowstrip 4,320 LF $11.00 $.*7.520.00 2. 8" n $' Gra~.~pave ectge ~.90 LF $13.00 $2,470.00 4. Grass pave (aqua,heater servic.-} 6,410 SF 53.50 ~.2,435.00 5. Interlocking Paver~ t,26~ SF 58.00 6. 4' Concrete Walkway (D.G. paving esl 53.27 st) 60,000 SF $3.00 S ! $0,000.00 8. 4' Concreae (alngl¢) p~cnic table pa~s 2 EA 5 I,100.0~} $2,200.00 9. 4' Concr~e (double) picnic table pads 6 EA S1,~00.00 $9,0~0.00 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS PAVING $2,73,70S.00 P~e 2 ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT SUBTOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUA~rTITY PRICE G. $lre~m ElemeaL~ I. Aqu~he~r~'r stream b. A~cnt Bo~c~ [ ~ S I 0,0~.~ SlO,~O.~ ~ Aqu~h~r s~m b. ~r~ Bubb~je~ 2 EA S2,~.~ ~,~.~ SU5T~AL ~REAM EL~ENTS H. B~ge ~em~u I. B~ge~sin~ ~) 2 EA S25,~.00 S$0,~.~ SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ELEMENTS [. Sile 1. C~ p~ie ~ /8 ~ $1~.~ $21,~.~ 3. ~ ~ ~le 6. Bike ~k SUBTOTAL S~E ~iSHIHGS , ~4~.~ J. ~inale 1. H~ p~g si~ 6 EA Ii 75.~ $ ~,~0.~ SU BTOT~ SIGNAGE K. Irggngon Elemenu SUBTOTAL IRRIGATION ELEMENTS L. Plan~g ~. So~ pr~gen ~ fi~ ~ading 5~70~0 SF ~0.15 $83.563.50 2. T~f ~ hydr~u~h smle~ 3~20~ SF $0.15 $58,813.50 3. Tr~ b, 36'~x 26 EA ~0.~ .$15,~.00 c. 24' ~x ~0 EA ~20.00 S33,~.00 d. 15 gallon gS0 EA Sg0.~ S20.~0.~ 4. S~b plan~n& //05~ SF Sl.~ SI38,~56.~ SUBTOTAL PLANTIHG ELEmEnTS S377~33.25 E~TIMATED UNIT UNIT SUBTOTAL ITEM DF.~SCRIPTION QUA~NTITY PRICE M. Site ~.~.ccric~l I. Light f'lxmr~ (l:~'~ng lot) 34 EA $3.000.00 $~,02.000.00 Z. Light fixCu~ ae, uatheaan'/walk'w~y (upp~ [~k¢) 3 ! E~ S3.000.00 $93,000.00 4. Light fix.~ure (~wer !aka wdlc#ay) 38 EA S300~0.00 $ [ 14,000.00 $. LiSJ~t fixate (upper paxk w~lkway) 14 EA $3,0~X).00 7. L-iiJu fixture (picnic sa-ucturc) I £A $1,000.00 $!,0~.00 8. Light fix. rare (2nd F-nm/$=ucmrt) 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000.00 9. Light Fixture (pn~ sig~) t EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 10. Elec. Com~ to irri& Conttolle~ ! L~ $2,500.00 $2,500.00 ! 1. £tec~cal Servicea i LS $40,000.00 $40.000.00 12. T~epl~ne servk:¢ SUBTOTAL SITE F.,LECTRICAL ELEMF_.~ITS $409,500.04) SUBTOTAL (A. oM.) 10~ CONTINGENCY GRAND TOTAL $4,4'/9375.90 THE .,UIOVE EST1MATE DOES NOT INCLUOE PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR OES!GN SERVICES. R,JM HAS PREPARED THIS ESTIMATE OF PRO~A~LE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ON THE BAS!S OF ITS ~EST PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND EXPF..I:I]I-=NCE WITH TI4E CONSTRUCTION ~qEXJSTRY. THE ESTI~UkTE, HOWEVER, RF. PRE~ENTS A,S~UMPT1ONS AND OP~'NIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION MARKET AND CONTR,a~TORS METHODS' OF DETERMINING ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS. OvER WHICH ~ HAS NO CONTROL. IF THE OWNER WISHES GREATER A~SURANCE AS TO THE~ CONSTRUCTION COST, HE $1-~L.L EX4PLOY A;q iNOEPENDENT COST ESTIMATOR. ,~xe: C_~cl~n$ usum=~ a balanced o~..ete ~r'a~;]~ o~:radon (nc[uainl; i,,~¢ cmUU'ucdon p~d'on'n~ tm(let ~= lteml, ~ In¢|ud~d in Cml E~tl~tete I. Co~1 E~Gm~te is not ba.~ed on fi~ strucr=~l =~Eiae~'tag c&lcuiztions or requ~cments. Tt~ will be mi~4 ~ receipt of Geo,-chnlcal R=pe~ fm~ City and fin.a] 5=$18;n 2. The Co~ Esimu= ~ n~ i~l~dc a~, p;ov~ea for aquathe~et p~'orma~e lightht~, axt;o, ~ ~dee The co~t estimate ~oes not include ~%', =mv~sion fo~ mugk ~.~ading (import. cxp~ or ov~rcxca,r~fie~h~cempa~on of soil) z~m~:~ :he ;i~ will ':~ delivered :n · ~cug. h ~'a,~c mznr~:r co~Jsc-.nt .~[t~ 'J=c RJ'~,( Des~g~ Gm,ko Conctptt~l Gta~ng Plan ~tcd E¢~ry I?. 2002. 4. The cos~ c~timat~ :1o¢s no! include on-r.~¢ .~.r~ h~,'~r~-r,: in~'astr~ctu~¢. $ PVC q~ar~ w~ reduced per ~rec:ic~ ::rom ¢iq~ ~-~-=;~c ,,,c~$ d.~.;.,~mcnt. Pa~e · 730-0 ! Pnat, e ~ Co~ Rio Vista Park l~ke~st'~¢~, California PHASE TWO Preliminasy C. or~u'~ct~on Cc~t E.L-6matc ('rotLor~Fallow Arc~ {rn~overnenCs) Rcv. l/l 4~003 ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT SUB'I'OTAL t'rEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE ,&. MOEIILIZ,4 TION. GR,,4DING. AND DIL41NA G£ EL£MENTS . I Mo~lizazion 1 LS $20.000.00 $20,000.00 2 Cleat and Grab ! L3 $ I O,O00.gO $ I 0.000.00 3 FLn¢ Grading I LS $15,000.00 S t $,000.00 4 Dr~n,a~e [mpmve'men~ · Toe Loc Sub~min 425 LF $ tS.00 S6,375.00 $ Surveying and Coeau'ucdon St;,ki~g I LS St0,000.00 $10,0~0.00 6 Traffic Contzol I LS S2,500.00 X2,$00.00 7 Demolition/Repair t LS 2[0,000.00 210,000.00 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION, GRADING, A..~'D DRAINAGE KLEM1;-NTS B. Tel ~ Piny Area I. Coacr~e roi lot ad&,e 500 LF 235.00 2. Accent Boulders I LS 210,000.00 3. Rubber play surfacing Coase and cane. footing) I,$00 SF $18.00 ~32.400.00 4. Washed ptasu:~ sand 38'/ CY 235.00 $13,54~.00 5. Tat Lo,. Equipmcnt ! LS ' 2{$0,000.00 $[50,000.00 SUBTOTAL TOT LOT PLAY AREA $22,3,445.00 C. To4 Lot Picnte~P1~za Are~, 1. 24" Concrete Bands [,144 LF 2{4.00 216,016.00 2= 4'Concrcu: Paving 12,380 SF 23-50 3. 4' Integral Color Cm~crctc Pav~g 9,Z30 LF $7.00 264,610.00 4. Tot Loc Arbor Columns S EA $3,000.00 $24,000.00' 5. Tot Lot Arbor Swuc~um($30.G0/S~ I EA $49,000.00 $49,000.00 6. 4~' HT Gu~'dmil Columns {0 EA $!,500.00 $15.000.00 7. 4.2' HT Stecl Guazdr'ai! l tO LF $100.00 $I 1,000.00 SU BTOTAJ-. TOT LOT ?ICN~Cf?LA.Z-~ .n. RF_._-x $~24,?06.00 D. Tot Lot BnikUng Elements 1. Resu'oom Buiidinsz (2240.0G,'SF~ I EA 2230,000.00 S230,000.00 2. Group Shade Structure (,ore-fabw/rock coturr'e-s) I EA 250,000.00 $$0,000.00 SUBTOTAL TOT LOT BUILDING ELF_..*,t];-~TS E.. MLt, ct,~tane0us Paving I 4' Concrete W~ov~y (D.G. p~vLa$ cst. ~3.?.7 sO 68,910 SF $7.00 $452,370.00 3 4" Concrg~e (single) picnic tnble ?~,~s 2 E^ SI,100.00 $2,200.00 4 4' Concrgte (double) picnic tnbie p~Ls I F.~ SI ,500.00 $ ~,500.00 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS P.-x¥'L'~CG S4~6,0'/0.00 ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT SUBTOTAL FI'EM DF_.SCRI PTIO~ Q U AI,~r1'ITy PRICE F. Bridge ~Jements SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ELEMENTS ~O0 G. ~te Far~ia~ 3. ~ w~ r~le 6 ~ ~.~ ~T~.~ ~. F~ ~e unit 2 ~ $460.~ 7. Pi~ S~m~ ~0'X 2~F~ 6' ht ~k ~lu~ 2 EA $30.000.~ ~0,~.~ S~TOTAL SITE ~I~NGS ~,~0.~ 1. Au~ i~ion - m~ 102~ SF $0.60 Sl21 ~.~ 2. Au~o~fic im~t~ - ~~~ ts~ SF $0.75 SI t,~0.~ SUBTOT~ [R~GA~OH ELECTS !. ~il p~ion a~ ~ne ~g 217~ S~ $0. i 5 ~0.~ ~ Tu~ ~ b~mulcb s~ 202~0 SF ~. 15 ~0~.~ 3. T~e . a. 48" ~x b. 36' ~x 15 ~ $600.00 c. 24" ~x 20 ~ S~0.00 ~,4~.00 5. 3" ~ w~ mulch 330 CY ~1.~ SUBTOTAL PLANT~G ELE~'TS J. ~te ElectS! ~emen~ 1 Li~t ~x~ (~t lot w~ay) ~ ~ S3,~.~ S27,0~.00 3 L~ght fix~ (~adc s~c~re) 1 EA S l ,~.~ Sl ,~0.00 SUBTOTAL SITE ELECTRZC~ ELEmeNTS Sl,614,2~.00 SUBT~AL (A,~.) ~/61,~.60 G~HD TOTAL T~ ABO~ EST~ATE ~ES NOT iNCLU~ PROFESSIO~ FEES FOR DES~N SE~S. ~ ~ PREP~D THIS ESTATE ~ PRO~ CONSTRUCT~N C~TS QN THR B~IS OF ~5 B~ST PROFESSI~L JU~MENT E~ERIENC~ W~H THE CONSTRUCT~N ~STRY. ~ ESTheTE. HOW'EVeR, R~~RESENTS ~$U~TIO~ AND OP~NS OF ~E CONSTR~T~N M~ET ~O ~NT~CTORS ~THO~ OF D~ERMININ~ A~U~ CON~R~TI~ ~TS, OVSR WH~ ~ ~ NO CO~RCL ~F T~ OW~R W~HES GRATER ~U~CE ~ TO THE C~STRUCT~N ~ST, HE S~ ~,OY ~ iN~P~NCENT CC~T 55T~TOR. F~ 17, 2~2. Rio Vista Park Bak~fi¢ld, California pI-L~SE THREE preliminary ConatrucO°n Co~t Es6mate (Main Entry pt~za, Overlook Ar~) Rev. I114F'gO03 F..ST1MATED UNIT UNIT SUBTOTAL ITEM D F_...~-'RIPT I 0 N QUANTITY PRICE A- MOBII. J~4~'ION, GRADING. AND DRAINAGE I LS $20,000.00 $20,~0.00 t Mobiliznfioo I LS $5,0O0.00 $5.000.00 2 Fine Cu'ading I LS $'7,500.00 $'7,500.0O :3 Demolition / 4 Sur,,~-ying and Com4ructinn Staking t LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 5 Traffic Coot~ot I t~ $2,500.00 $2,500.00 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION, GRADING, AND DEMOLITION ELEMENTS IL Main Entry Plaza Area 190 LF $150.00 $28..500.00 !. Uffoan Lak~ Edg~ 231 LF $100.00 $2.3,100.00 2. 6' x ~.4' wi~ concr~ su~ 3. 24' Concs~ta Bands g2O LF $14.00 · $11,480.00 4. 6' Cono'~e Planl~' Cuffo 140 LF $20.00 $2,800.00 $. 4,, Im~gr~! Colo~ Coocrete Paving 10,200 LF $7.00 $71,400.00 6. G~p Prefab Strucmr~ ~ */- $50,000.) 2 EA $50,000.00 ' $10O,000.0O 7. L~k¢ Edge Transition BouldersC(I) 4,'~ $150.00)] I LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 SUBTOTAL blAIN ENTRY PLAZA AREA C. Overlook Area I. 6' Concrete St~ps 293 LF :r~,0.00 2. 24,' Concrete B~ds 2R4 LF $14.00 $.3,976.00 :L 4' Concr~t~ Pav~g 4,000 SF $3.50 $1.4,000.00 d,. 4' In~"~al Color Cooct~e Paving 1,012 LF $?.00 $7,084.00 5. Ste~l H~ndmil 60 LF $50.00 $3,000.00 SUBTOTAL OVERLOOK AREA D. Site Furnishings ~. Concr':te picoi¢ ~bl¢ ~4 EA 51,200.C~3 Si6.800.~c~3 2. Co~cr~e park bench 8 EA $650.00 S5,200.00 3. Coocn~ wa.st~ recegt.xcl¢ 3 EA F460.00 SI,380.00 5. Family b,ub~ue unit 2 EA $460.00 $920.00 6. Drinking fountain I EA S3,400.00 $3,400.00 2 EA $3,500.O0 S?.000.00 7. llng:pole 4 E~ SI,200.00 g. B~tnncr poles 2 EA $1,100.00 $2,200.00 9. Bs'k~ rack SUBTOTAL SITE FURNISHINGS F..~IMATED UNIT UNIT SUBTOTAL ITEM DKSCRIP'TION QUANTITY PRICE F_.. Irri~,atlan Ele~nents 4500 SF $0.60 $2,700.00 I. Au~m,,'u~c irrigation - turf 2. Automatic imSadon - $,~rub/groum:k:ovcr 8500 SF S0.75 SUBTOTAL IRt~.IGATION E, LE~M.E.,NTS F- planting Elememts l Tree plauting 15 E.A $600.00 $9,000.00 b. 36"1~ 12 EA $2.20.00 ¢. 24' IX)x 8.500 SF $1.25 $10,625.00 2 Shrub plaming 100 C¥ g31.00 $3,100.00 3 3' de~h wood mulch $25,.36S.00 SUBTOTAl. pLANTING ELEM1~''4T5 G. Site Electrical Elemenlz 6 EA $3,000.00 I Light 2 Light flx,,,r~ (flaglmole) 2 EA $840.00 $t,680.00 .3 Light futtum ~icui¢ su-uctuze) 2 . EA S2,000.00 $4,0~0.00 SUBTOTAL SITE. EL~'-CTRICAL E.I,K:VI£NTS ~,680,00 $413 ,10~.00 SUBTOTAL (A.-G.) ~4~.,$10.00 ,,t 0% CO.N7'IxYGE~¥CY S4.5~410.00 GRAND T~AL T~ ~OVE ESTI~TE ~ES NOT ~UDE P~F~SIO~ FEES FOR DESIGN SEarCh. R~ ~ PREP~D T~ ES~TE OF PROB~ CO~U~ C~TS ON THE ~ERIENCE WI~ THE CONS~UCTICN ~NI~ ~ ~E ~TR~N ~ ~O C~T~CTO~ ~OS CF O~E~IN~G ACTU~ C~T~N C~TS. O~R WHI~ ~ ~ NO ~R~ · THE OWN~ WISHES GR~T~ ~SU~ ~ TO T~E CONS~U~ION C~T. HE SH~L ~OY ~ I~EPEN~ COST ESTI~TOR. C~t ~tima~ is ~t ~d on final ~-~1 ~C~ ~ ~om City ~ ~ ~ C~ ~i~ ~ not ~lud~ Fe~ IT. 2~. 4. ~ co~ ~dma~ ~s ~l incl~ ~-~ fire h~t Centennial Park is the best example we have of what our controlling documents ask us to provide as a local park. The 4 attached photos show most of the amenities. Almondale is the best example we could find of "basic level" park improvements Turf and trees with supporting irrigation only, ~ ,dermere, Windsor and Deer Peak are the latest example of parks we have provided. All are developer constructed, 6 acres in size~ with full amenities. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN ~'~'~ ADJUSTED FEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF PARKS WITHIN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WHEREAS, Chapter 15.82 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code requires the Public Works Director to submit an annual report to the City Council with updated, new or .additional information regarding the park development fee amount to be collected for each new dwelling unit, and that a public headng shall be conducted if the City Council determines that the fee schedule should be adjusted; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2002, said' Public Works Director's report was submitted to the City Council to consider adjustment of a fee for the puq3oses of developing and improving parks and recreational tacilities within the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2002, the City Council continued a public hearing to receive public comment regarding the proposed adjusted park development and improvement fee schedule; and WHEREAS, informational notices were mailed to the Building Industry Association, Architects Association and North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and the City of Bakersfield local implementation procedures have been duly followed by the City staff; and WHEREAS, for the above described resolution, City Council approved a Negative Declaration on October 17, 1990; and WHEREAS, new residential development generates a need for improved public parks and recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the fee addresses the City of Bakersfield's particular needs for the provision of improved local public parks for new residential development; and WHEREAS, Policy Three of the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan requires new residential development to provide improvements and/or in-lieu fees for parks; and '"' WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 66001 of the Government Code have been met; and WHEREAS, the Construction Cost Index indicates an inflationary increase of 1.95% based upon annual averages for calendar years 2001 and 2000; and G;~GROUP~AT~ADM INR F'1X20~2'~Jul 3 I~pkd~vfe~.r~s.wpd I WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adjust the fee for inflation in accordance with the Construction Cost Index; and WHEREAS, the City Council, from time to time, may consider adjust~nent to the fee schedule to reflect new information effecting the fee, as specified in Ordinance No. 3327; and WHEREAS, the amount of the fee shall be levied as follows, except as specified as exempt in Ordinance No. 3327. Single Family Dwelling $647 Duplex Dwelling Unit $647 Multiple Family Dwelling Unit $647 Mobile Home $647 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct, 2. All required public notices have been given. 3. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. 4. The Negative Declaration approved and adopted on October 17, 1990 is adequate for the proposed adjustment in the amount of park fee. 5. The fee is in the public interest and is necessary for public convenience, health, welfare and safety. 6. The fee established by this resolution is for the purposes of developing, improving and/or enhancing public parks and recreation facilities within the City of Bakersfield. 7. The fee shall be used to defray all or a portion of the cost of developing, improving or enhancing of public parks and recreation facilities serving new residential developments. These parks and recreation facilities shall be identified in the .,. capital improvement plan, the Parks Element of the '.. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan or other comprehensive plans concerning parks. 8. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee will be G:'~GRO U PDAT~ DM IN R PT~-002~J u 1 31 ~olr, cle vfce-"e~" wlxl 2 imposed because the fee is calculated in relationship to the number of people residing in the development and the current estimated cost of developing, improving or enhancing of public parks and recreation facilities. 9. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of parks and recreational facilities or portion thereof attributable to the residential development which the fee is imposed. 10. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for parks and recreational facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed because new residential dwelling unit development creates or contributes an additional demand for developed parks and recreational facilities at the level of service (standard rate) required by the General Plan. 11. The requirements of Section 66001 of the Government Code have been met. 12. The requirements of Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 15.82 relative to the Public Works Director's Annual report have been met. 13. Such fee as stated above is hereby approved and adopted, effective sixty (60) days upon adoption of this resolution. ................ o0o ................ G:\G ROU PDAT'~ADM INRFI'~002~Jul 31 ~okd~vf'e~.r~s.wpd I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on _nEc_. 1_ I ?0n? by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIl. MEMBER CARSC~.~ BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCIl. MEMBER rJ~,''''~-- ABSTNN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCIl.MEMBER ,\ ..~,~.'w.__ pAMELA A. McCARTHY, C~C CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfieid APPROVED DEC 11 ?nn~ Mayor of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney G:~GROUPDAT~a~)/v{tNRPI'~.002~Jul 3 I~pkdevf'ee.r~s.wpd . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Georgina Lorenzi, Assistant to the Public Works Director FROM: Nelson K. Smith, Assistant Finance Director ,~ DATE: May 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Park Improvement Fund Information You had requested some information regarding the Park Improvement Fund to be included in a packet of information being provided to the Building Industry Association. You indicated they were interested in the amount of money in each zone and how that money was going to be spent. Attached please find a summary schedule by park .zone and a more detailed project listing regarding the Park Improvement Fund. The summary schedule provides the balance in each zone as of June 30, 2002, along with projected revenues and appropriations (by zone) through June 30, 2003. The figures for the 2002-03 fiscal year represent budget estimates. Actual cash balances in each zone at June 30, 2003 may end up higher or lower than projected. The project listing provides more detailed information regarding projects budgeted by zone during the current fiscal year (2002-03). The expenditure and encumbrance columns represent actual amounts as of March 31, 2003. Please make sure the City Mangers Office has reviewed this Park Fund information prior to its distribution. I would be happy to make any changes in the format or presentation of the information that they may desire. cc: Gregory Klimko Stan Ford Rebecca Jamison Park Improvement Fund (PIF) Estimated Ending Balances by Zone Projected to June 30, 2003 '"~'":~' 2002-03 2002-03 June 30, 2003 Revised Budgeted Estimated Account June 30, 2002 Revenue Estimates Appropriations Ending Balances Number Pro. Jec~ Area Zone # Balance by Zone B~( Zone Transfer In ,By Zone By Zone PARK ACQ FEES 357-11 CAL STATE I 136,758.21 7,000.00 143,758.21 357-17 STOCKDALE 2 12,416.41 1,000.00 13,416.41 357-15 PANAMA 3 278,581.74 42,000.00 320,681.74 357-13 FAIRVIEW 4 139,396.55 25,000.00 164,396.55 357-12 CENTRAL 5 42,436.52 5,000.00 47,436.52 357-16 PANORAMA 6 0.00 10~000.00 10f000.00 . ' ,. 609,589.43 90,000.00 699~589.43 PARK DEV FEES 0'c)c) 358-18 STOCKDALE C&C 1 766,527.35 411,850.00 p_.~ '~ ~\ 1,178,377.35 358-11 CAL STATE 1 2,026,249.69 193,000.00 1,300,000.00 (4,305,425.00) (788,175.31) 358-17 STOCKDALE 2 38,419.44 635.00 39,054.44 358-15 PANAMA 3 1,102,430.46 170,000.00 (177,200.00) 1,095,230.46 358-13 FAIRVIEW 4 1,117,635.61 125,000.00 1,242,635.61 358-12 CENTRAL 5 154,785.12 .100,000.00 (234,785.00) 20,000.12 358-16 PANORAMA 6 467,112.81 75~000.00 (158f200.00) 383~912.81 5,673,160.48 1,075,485.00 1,300,000.00 (4,875,610.00) 3,173,035.48 Item not related to zones -") Market Value Adjslmt 57,469.00 57,469.00 TOTAL - ALL CITY 6,340,218.91 .!,165.,485.00 1,300,000.00 (4,875,610.001, 3,930,093.9~'""~ June 30, 2002 Estimated Estimated Estimated Trust Fund Trust Fund Project Trust Balance Balaqces Collections FY 02-03 .Dlsbumements Monies Held In Trust 208-32 NBRPD PK DEV 1,817,648.63 1 ~2671000.00 , (1,790,009.00~ 112941839.83 Schedule of Appropriations by Zone and Project # ' FY 2002-03 (as of March 31, 2003) Ac, coun~ Zone Prolecl~ Area/P.roJect Budnet Exi)endllure$ .E. ncumbrpnce, s ..R.~malnder PARK DEV FEES 358-11 1 ~P~.C020 RIO VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT 1,315,390.00 145,166.12 238,202.92 932,020.96 358-11 I ' P2C020 RIO VISTA PARK ACQ 37,965.00 10,000.00 27,965.00 358-11 1 P2C405 PIN OAK PARK INTERACTIVE WATER ELEMENT 155,695.00 1,685.21 154,009.79 358-11 1 P3C020 RIO VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT Ph2 2,200,000.00 2,200,000.00 358-11 I P7C003 IMPROVEMENTS VARIOUS PARKS 33,375.00 26,196.29 7,178.71 358-11 1 P8H001 CASTLE & COOKE DEER PEAK STATION PARK AREA 311,000.00 443.45 310,556.55 358-11 1 RIVER OAKS (REIMB TO DEV) 252,000.00 80~010.00 171,990.00 Subtotal 4,305,425.00 263~501.07 238,202.92 3,803,721.01 358-15 3 SEASONS PARK (REIMB TO DEr) 15,000.00 15,000.00 358-15 3 P3C006 SILVER CREEK COMMUNITY CENTER REMODEL 82,200.00 82,200.00 358.15 3 SILVER CREEK PARK (REIMB TO DEV) 55,000.00 15,875.00 39,125.00 358-15 3 STONE CREEK PARK (REIMB TO DEV) 25,000.00 25,000.00 Subtotal 177,200.00 161,325.00 357.12 5 P2C006 MLK POOL HEATER/FILTER 4,410.00 4,410.00 357-12 5 P3C084 JEFFERSON POOL REHAB 100,000.00 100,000.00 356-12 5 P0C003 JEFFERSON POOL HEATER/FILTER 48,700.00 48,700.00 358-12 5 POC018 JEFFERSON POOL RENOVATION 81,675.00 81~675.00 Subtotal 234,785,00 0.00 0.00 234,785.00 357-16 6 P3C025 MESA MARIN 158,200.00 14~475.00 1,288.25 142~438.75 Subtotal 158,200.00 14,475.00 1,286.25 142,438.75 TOTAL - ALL CITY 4,875,610,00 277,976.07 239~489.17 4,342,269.76 208-32 NBRPD P0C 113 NBRPD PARK DEV 49,960.00 49,960.00 208-32 NBRPD POCl15 NBRPD PARK DEV 71,277.00 71,277.00 208.32 NBRPD P1C 111 NBRPD PARK DEV 35,711.00 35,711.00 208.32 NBRPD PLC112 NBRPD PARK DEV 402,887.00 402,887.00 208.32 NBRPD P1Cl13 NBRPD PARK DEV 47,488.00 47,488.00 208-32 NBRPD P1Cl14 NBR~D PARK DEV 247,934.00 247,934.00 208-32 NBRPD P2C111 NBRPD PARK DEV 176,150.00 178,150.00 208-32 NBRPD P2Cl12 NBRPD PARK DEV 439,113.00 439,113.00 208-32 NBRPD P2Cl13 NBRPD PARK DEV 5,865.00 5,865.00 208-32 NBRPD P2C114 NBRPD PARK DEV 20,000.00 ' ' 20,000.00 208-32 NBRPD P2C116 NBRPD PARK DEV 45,000.00 45,000.00 208.32 NBRPD P3C 111 NBRPD PARK DEV 58,630.00 58,630.00 208-32 NBRPD P3C113 NBRPD PARK DEV 55,000.00 ~' ~, 55,000.00 _,.. 208-32 NBRPD P3C115 NBRPD PARK DEV 134,994.00 134f994.00 .... TOTAL - NBRPD 11790~009.00 0.00 0.00 1,790,009.00 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN DECEMBER 2002 Prepared By: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD COUNTY OF KERN The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan was adopted by the City of Bakersfield on December 11, 2002, and became effective on February 26, 2003, as per Resolution No. 222-02. ADQPT1ON DATES ~ ~C LM R ~I~AVID COUCH, VICE MAYOR Fourth Ward IRMA CARSON HAROLD W. HANSON First Ward Fifth Ward SUE BENHAM JACQUIE SULLIVAN Second Ward Sixth Ward MIKE MAGGARD MARK SALVAGGIO Third Ward Seventh Ward ' ""A~_.A~I TANbY/ ADOPTED: December 11,2002 RESOLUTION NUMBER: 222-02 JEF~ Tli~C, Vic~ Chairman W. EDWARD (TED) BLOCKLEY MURRAY TRAGISH DAVID S. GAY TOM McGINNIS BURTON R. ELLISON STANLEY C. GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR ADOPTED: October 28, 2002 RESOLUTION NUMBER: 135-02 CHAPTER Xl - PAR-KS ELEMENT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT~ The Parks Element is an optional element of the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65303. Cities and counties often prepare them due to the concerns of providing sufficient park land for residents, establishing a relationship between park space and the city's entire open space resource, and development. The Parks Element sets policies and minimum standards for the amount and quality of land devoted to parks. Park land is generally defined as any usable area of land or water designated on state, regional or local open space plans as open space or park land and is actively used for park and/or leisure recreational purposes with or without charge. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Parks are generally categorized as either local or regional. Local parks generally range from 1-2.5 acres (mini-parks), to 5-10 acres (neighborhood parks), and approximately 30 acres (community parks). Local parks generally serve a population within a three- quarter mile radius. Regional parks, on the other hand, can range anywhere from 20 to 1,000 acres and serve a population within living one hour's distance. The Park Classifications and Standards section discusses specific policies which establish minimum acreage requirements, utilization, and typical development improvements. Historically, park facilities within the planning area have been supplied by the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, Bear Mountain Recreation and Park District, school districts, colleges, and, most recently, private developers. The provision of regionaJ parks has been primarily the responsibiiity of the County of Kern. Figure XI-1 shows the location of all public parks in the planning area, including local and regional parks. Figure XI-1 provides an inventory of acreages and facilities at all of these locations. PARK RESOURCES 1. Local Parks The City of Bakersfield Geographic Information System shows the current park service. level at 1.88 acre per 1,000 population. This assumed the Year projected 2001 population for the metropolitan area of 402,100 people. ~ In~ Fe~t BEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD. · ~..~--=~ ~ '°'~" ~ ~ Existing (2QO0) Daily Traffic Volumes ~ '" ~'~ 111-,3 , - FIGURE II1-1 · .,· CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT The following table shows the current park acreage/population ratio. Local Park Type Metropolitan Area National Standard Mini-parks .0663 ac/1,000 .25-.5 ac/1,000 Neighborhood Parks 1.88 ac/l,000 1-2 ac/l,000 Community Parks 4.94 ac/l,000 5-8 ac/l,000 2. Community Park Centers A community park center is defined as an ~)utdoor and indoor recreational facility .providing large spaces for a wide range of organized community meeting and sports activities. The national standard for community parks and/or centers is I per 25,000 population. With an estimated 2001 population of 402,100, the planning area contaios three recreational centers (totaling 81.35 acres), Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, Silver Creek Recreation Center and Riverview Community Center. Smaller meeting room facilities do, however, exist at Greenacres, Heritage, Belle Terrace, Rexland and Sears Parks. 3. Regional Parks The planning area's two regional parks, Kern River County Park and the Metro Recreation Center, provide a combined 1,119 acres of regional recreation space. This represents a ratio of about 4.7 acres per thousand population. Other regional parks located outside the planning area, including Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area and Tehachapi Mountain Park also serve planning area residents. PARK CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS Development under the following park classifications and standards would address spatial and topographical requirements, land availability, types of improvements, service area, funding and maintenance costs. Local parks are to be developed at a minimum rate of 2.5 usable acres per 1,000 population. 'Usable' means area that people can use with an emphasis on active and group use. It includes essentially flat land that can be developed for facilities and activity areas. It is not land in very steep slope, land with unusually poor soil conditions not suited for park development, land areas subject to pedodic flooding, land with unique habitat worthy of preservation or water bodies unsuitable of park recreation uses or areas impacted adversely by adjacent or nearby land uses. 1. Mini-Parks Mini-parks function as small neighborhood parks in residentially developed areas where neighborhood standards are not met and where acquisition of sufficient acreage for standard neighborhood facilities is Prohibitive. The minimum size standard for public mini-I~arks is 2.5 usable acres. Mini-parks may also be located in areas to serve comm~)rcial uses. CHAPTER XI - PARKS ELEMENT II Devek~:xne~t improvements of mini-parks would typically consist of playground or tot lot area and equipment, picnic tabies, barbecues, fountain, landscaping and security lighting. Neighborhood parks provide both active and passive recreational actMtles for surrounding maidentiaJ development. The minimum site size standard for neighixxhood .pa~s is 10.0 usable acres. The location should provide adequate street frontage, parking and good accessibility. The service area covers the neighborhoods within three- quarters (3/4) of a mile of the pad; site. Development Improvements include a variety of facilities including single and/or group areas, ~s, fountains, playground area and equipment, tennis and/or game c~Jrts, open tmf area, landscaping, parldng and security ~. Community Park Centare " Community pad~ centers provide a wide range of recreational opportunities, facilities and equipment servicing the population comprised of several neighborhood units. The 'park would typically have a servfce area of a 3 t~ 5 mile walking radius. Joint development and/or use wtlfl schools should be recommended. The minimum size standard for community parks is 20 usable acres. These parks may contain specialized facilities not found in other parks. Typical devek~pment includes indoor recreation facilities, group picnic areas, barbecues, fountains, playgrounds and equipment, tennis and game courts, softball diamonds with lighting and/or other athletic fields, swimming pool, landscaping, parking, security lighting and restrooms. 4. Regional Parks Regional parks serve the population of a large regio~ - usually within an hour travel time. The responsibility for these parks generally rest with a county, regionaJ authority or state. Regional parks may range in size from 20 acres to 1,000 acres or mom. Features typically found in regional parks inck~de campgrounds, picnic areas, nature study areas and tral systems. In addition, a few of these parks may have scenic vistas, gardens, a golf course, sports fields, water features or be related to items of historical significance or special interest. SIGNIFICANT IS,SUES SUMMARY Significant issues regarding bhe planning area's parks and recreation resources are as follows: · in comparison to National Recreation and Park Association standards, there is a shortage of local parks in the planning area, CHAPTER Xi - PARKf 'LEMENT ('"'. The planning area's image stands to benefit from greater attention to the I design of parks and recreational facilities as well as from efforts to relate · recreational facilities to the area's natural resources. I · Due to limited tax revenues, it has become increasingly difficult for local governments to provide local parks and recreational facilities. · Inter-jurisdictional coordination should be improved in the provision of park and recreational services so that it results in more consistent standards and less duplication of effort. ° Some parks are supported by maintenance districts while others are supported by the general fund. GOALS AND POLICIES The following presents the goals and policies for parks in the. planning area. Implementing programs are contained in the following sub-section. At the end of each policy is listed in parenthesis a code beginning with the letter '1' followed by a number. This code refers to the pertinent implementing program. GOALS 1. Provide parks and recreation facilities to meet the planning area's diverse needs. '!~i:: 2. Supply neighborhood parks at a minimum of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons throughout the plan area. 3. Provide four acres of park and recreation space for each 1,000 persons (based on the most recent census) for general regional recreation opportunity as a minimum standard. Park and recreational space includes mini-parks, neighborhood parks, community parks and regional parks. 4. Provide a diversity of programs and facilities to meet the needs of the full range of citizen groups including the elderly, handicapped, and economically disadvantaged. 5. Coordinate development of park facilities and trail systems throughout the- plan area which enhance the centers concept and complement unique visual or natural resources. 6. Ensure that all park and recreation facilities are adequately designed, landscaped, and maintained. 'i~ 7. Require that the costs of park and recreation facilities and programs are borne by those who benefit from and contribute to additional demand. CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT 8. Provide safety, accessibility, and compatibility between parks and' adjacent residential areas through 'good neighbor' park practices. 9. Coordinate efforts by volunteer agencies, civic organizations, private enterprise and all government entities to assure the provision of a complete range of recreation opportunities for all residents of the planning area. POLICIES Goals will be achieved through the following policies which set more specific directions · and guide actions. 1. Require that neighborhood parks be developed at a minimum rate of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. This requirement may be met all or in part by on-site recreation for such developments as Planned Unit Developments. The City of Bakersfield may allow credit to meet the neighborhood parks requirement. 2. Allow the formation of special park districts which provide higher park standards than the minimum stated in Policy 1 (I-1). '~. Require developers to dedicate land, provide improvements and/or in-lieu fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing areas (I-1). 4. Require developers of new subdivisions to show and adhere to park locations (depicted on the Land Use Element). Park locations identified in master plans approved pdor to adoption of this general plan are reflected in this plan. Variations may be allowed based on certain constraints. See Policy 6 (I-9). 5. Establish as a target that mini-parks and neighborhood parks within the City of Bakersfield jurisdiction be situated within three-quarters of a mile of residents they are intended to serve (I-9). 6. Provide additional neighborhood and community parks and recreation acreage in areas substantially developed or in the process of redevelopment or improvement, using a combination of public funds, in lieu developers fees, and benefit assessment districts (i-1). 7. Provide mini-parks in developed residential areas where neighborhood standards are not met and where it is impossible to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood facilities. Use the same funding mechanisms indicated in Policy 6 (I-1). CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT 8. Require the following minimum site size standards in planning and' acquiring of local parks and playgrounds: Mini parks (public) - 2.5 usable acres Neighborhood parks/playgrounds - 10.0 usable acres Community park/playfield - 20.0 usable acres These acreages are intended as guides for City and County improvements. Variations may be allowed based on constraints, such as, land availability, natural obstacles, financing, funding and maintenance costs. The above acreage figures apply to usable acreage. Usable means an area that people can use with an emphasis on active and group use. It is essentially flat land that can be developed for facilities and activity areas. It is not land steeper than 4 feet horizontal and I foot vertical in slope, land with unusually poor soil conditions, land subject to flood water stagnation, land with riparian or otherwise unique habitat worthy of preservation or water bodies or areas impacted adversely by adjacent or nearby land uses (!-9). 9. Allow neighborhood park requirements to be met by community parks when community parks are situated within or at the boundaries of neighborhoods and when they provide equivalent facilities (I-9). 10. Encourage schools to make playgrounds and playfields available to local residents after normal school hours and on weekends (I-7). 11. Evaluate the feasibility of using publicly-owned lands and utility rights-of- way as recreational facilities (I-10). 12. Encourage development and maintenance of regional parks and rec- reational facilities through the cooperation of the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District and the Bear Mountain Recreation Distdct (I-8). 13. Evaluate the feasibility of including new regional parks as a component of proposed groundwater recharge areas (I-10). 14. Plan for and expand regional recreation opportunity in connection with the development and conservation of appropriate areas along the Kern River. (~-4, ~-8). 15. Designate multiple purpose areas for recreation and park use within the Kern River Plan area and in accordance with the goals and policies in the Kern River Plan Element (!-4). Accommodate social, cultural and ethnic needs in the design and programming of recreational spaces and facilities (I-2). ** ,~..' CHAPTER Xi - PARKS ELEMENT 17. Attempt to locate parks and design facilities to meet the needs of all population segments including children, seniors and the disabled (I-2). 18. Attempt to provide special recreational programs for seniors on fixed incomes, latch-key children, and the economically disadvantaged (I-2). 19. Locate and design local park and recreation areas for access to all age groups where practicable. Provide facilities for both active (play areas and courts) and passive (turf, walk-ways,, trees and picnic facilities where possible) recreational activity (!-2). 20. Operate programs at times convenient to the users (I-2). 21. Establish both passive and active park development in local parks, to accommodate programmed activities and drop-in use. Some usable area should be held as open turf for free play (I-3). 22. Attempt to provide and promote the use of alternative public funding for the acquisition, development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities in Iow and moderate income neighborhoods in which there is a recognized shortage of parks (!-1). 23. Encourage the development of parks adjacent to schools in order to provide a wider range of programs (I-7). ,".~, .... 24. Monitor program needs through surveys of neighborhood residents or ""*'~'.'/' other participation mechanisms and through pedodic reviews of park and recreational needs (I-2). 25. Promote the preservation of existing parks and encourage the development of other facilities near downtown (I-8). 26. Encourage the further development of the City of Bakersfield's specific trails plan (I-11). 27. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle linkages between residential and commercial uses (I-11). 28. Encourage the establishment of equestrian trials where they link. residential development to the Kern River in areas of the northeast and northwest where horses are permitted by zoning (I-2, I-11). 29. Design equestrian trails, hiking and bicycling rights-of-way to minimize user conflicts between them (I-2, I-11). ih..30. Evaluate the feasibility of using utility easements for recreational activity *~ (I-10). CHAPTER Xl - pARKS ELEMENT 31. Establish a program of design and improvement review, landscape development, and maintenance of parks, city and county building grounds and public wOrks projects, with quality standards established commensurate with intended function and relative impact on surrounding area (I-3). 32. Encourage variety in the design of park facilities to enhance the lifestyle of residents to be served (I-2, I-3). 33. Monitor the parkland dedication ordinance with in-lieu fee provisions (I-1). 34. Encourage coordination in the acquisition, development and use of parks and schools to avoid duplication of facilities and provide economic use of public funds (I-3, I-5). 35. Encourage the development of recreation programs by public agencies and sports organizations to involve more children and adults in outdoor recreation activity. Use volunteers to operate and maintain programs whenever possible (I-2). 36. Monitor the official park acquisition program to meet current and future needs. The program includes direct input for capital budgeting purposes including the scheduling of park dedication. The program is reviewed periodically with respect to changing growth rates and general plan policies (I-1). 37. Establish a formal mechanism by which the city may accept gifts and dedications of parks and open space (I-1). 38. Consider the use of eminent domain where siting of a park is required to serve neighborhood needs for parks and recreation facilities (I-1). 39. Consider the formation of Community Facilities Districts, especially in newly developing areas* (I-1). 40. Consider the use of special taxes** for financing services or facilities (I-1). 41. Provide for the creation of benefit assessment districts for park. acquisition, development and maintenance. These districts should conform as closely as possible to benefit service areas (I-1). 42. Encourage a community-wide parks and recreation distdct to equitably distribute support for the park system (I-1, I-6). "~ ~CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT 43, Encourage the develoPment of private and commercial recreation facilities under lease or concession agreements where such facilities 'are consistent with planned development and offer expanded recreation opportunities to the public (I-2), 44. Study the feasibility of a recreation and land management program allowing for the generation of supplemental revenue to offset the cost of necessary further land acquisition, development and operational cost. This could include establishing concessions, rentals user fees and land leases (I-10). 45. Develop lighted playing fields on community park sites (I-3). 46. Permit major traffic generating activities on community park sites only (I-3). 47. Community parks should be located adjacent to or near arterials. Neighborhood parks should be located adjacent to collector or local streets, rather than arterial streets (I-1, I-3). (CC 11/6/91) Situate swimming pools near high schools, wherever possible, and with 48. convenient access to elementary schools (I-3). 49.Design vegetation, earth form and activity areas to buffer noise, light, etc., from adjacent residents (I-3). 50. Allow the physical integration of canals in park areas where design measures can be incorporated to ensure public safety (I-3). 51. Enforce all regulations regarding public safety, littering and drinking in public parks (I-6). 52, Ensure that all park facilities be developed consistent with policies in applicable planning documents and elements of the General Plan (I-8), 53, Coordinate the provision of park facilities with other public services and schools and public roads (!-7, I-8). facilities, especially 54. Coordinate the location, planning, and functional uses of all park and. recreational facilities with affected local governmental entities and where feasible, promote joint acquisition and/or development to assure effective coverage of all needs (I-8). 55, Seek out and encourage the provision of volunteer assistance from civic .,. organizations, special interest groups, and individuals to provide program I~. leadership or facility development to augment recreation opportunities '~ (I-2), X]~,l 0 CHAPTER Xi - PARKS ELEMENT 56. Periodically evaluate the planning area to evaluate park deficiencies. (I-2) 57. Central Park should be expanded to facilitate the City of Bakersfield in identifying and recognizing its historical heritage, the heart of histodc Bakersfield, and to enhance the urban environment of the' downtown area. (I-12) * The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes local governments to levy special taxes within newly created Community Facilities Districts. The Act also authorizes local governments to issue bonds backed by these special taxes. Funds may be used to pay for capital facilities, including parks. Community Facilities Districts are established by a two-thirds vote of the residents of the proposed district. Special taxes are taxes collected and earmarked for a special purpose, such as a particular kind of service or facility, rather than being deposited in the general fund. For capital acquisition, such as parklarid, the Mello-Roos Act provides the most practical way to levy a special tax. Under Proposition 13, the levy of a special tax requires support from two-thirds of the affected voters. IMPLEMENTATION The following are programs to be carried out by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern to implement the goals and policies of the Parks Element. This listing is not to limit the scope of implementation of this plan. State law requires that planning agencies recommend various methods of implementation of the general plan as part of their on- going duties. 1. Establish and implement an official park acquisition program to meet current and future needs. Such a program shall include the following a~ons: a) Establish a mechanism to identify potential park sites. b) Identify funding strategies to pay for acquisition of new parks with funds reserved from the following sources. City and County General Funds Tax increment funds (in redevelopment project areas) Developer assessments (through use of Quimby Act or other similar funding mechanisms) '~ :. Business and fund-raising contributions Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act XZ-11 CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT - Special taxes - Benefit Assessment Districts - State and Federal grants and loans - Donations, endowments or trust funds c) Implement the parkland dedication ordinance with in-lieu fee provisions where developers contribute on a per unit basis. d) Establish a dedication program where gifts of parkland and/or recreational facilities may be accepted. e) Consider the use of eminent domain only where there is insufficient vacant land and where the need for parks and recreation facilities has been identified. f) Establish the administrative and legal mechanisms to allow for the creation of benefit assessment districts, community facilities districts, and special taxes, particularly for the development of community centers. g) Utilize general funds for park acquisition, development and maintenance in the following instances: Where developer's fees and grant funds are insufficient to purchase land for parks; Where residents of Iow income areas cannot afford to contribute to benefit assessment districts for acquisition, development or maintenance. 2. Consider recreational programming opportunities when developing park sites. a) Work with the private sector to promote: a) the development of more outdoor recreation and sports programs for children and. adults; and b) the development of private and commercial recreation facilities under lease or concession agreements. b) Communicate with civic organizations, special interest groups, and individuals to seek volunteer program leadership. -CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT In evaluating programs and park design, include the following: - Pedodic reports on level of service and service demand at existing facilities; - Pedodic public hearings regarding the adequacy of parks and recreation services and facilities; Periodically, do community surveys and market analyses to assess needs and demands. c) Coordinate park programming with the City of Bakersfield's Specific Trails Plan. 3. Establish a program of design and improvement review, landscape development, and maintenance of parks, recreational buildings, and community facilities. 4. Follow procedures .outlined in the Kern River Plan Element for designating multiple purpose areas for recreation use within the Kern River Plan area. 5. Review park and recreational facility proposals and programs on a regular basis to ensure complementary - as opposed to duplicative - services, programs, and facilities. 6. Work with the police and sheriff's departments to promote enforcement of all laws regarding public safety, littering and drinking in public parks. 7. Meet with school districts to discuss possible joint use of school facilities for public recreation. 8. Discuss with all appropriate government agencies the possible establishment of an interjurisdictional body whose function is to: a) Coordinate the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities with other public services. b) Monitor consistency of all planning documents which govern park and recreation development. 9. Modify the subdivision and building ordinances to: a) Require that local parks be developed at a minimum rate of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. .~ b) Allow developers (within the city) neighborhood park credit as follows: ,.. .- CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT 1) Up to seven tenths (0.7) of one acre per 1,000 population credit for on-site recreation or park-like development in P.U.D.s, open spaces, or publicly owned lands; 2) Up to one and one-half (1.5) acre per 1,000 populatiOn credit for on-site recreation or park-like development located within land encumbered with electrical transmission line easements and incorporated as a functional design . component of the residential development. c) Require developers to show park locations on development plans. d) Establish as a target mini-parks and neighborhood parks within the City of Bakersfield's jurisdiction be accessibly located within three-quarters of a mile of residents they are intended to serve. e) Require, where feasible, parks be developed with the following minimum acreage standards: Mini-parks 2.5 usable acres' Neighborhood Parks 10.0 usable acres Community Parks 20.0 usable acres; f) Allow neighborhood park acreage requirements to be met by ?.:;.. community parks when community parks are within or at ...... boundaries of neighborhoOds. g) Neighborhood parks may range in size from 6 to 10 acres at the discretion of the Director of Recreation and Parks. Reason for a size less than 10 acres may include Master park planning for a given area, land availability in areas with fragmented ownership or restrictions to a typical park service area. 10. Conduct studies in order to evaluate the feasibility of the following: a) The use of publicly-owned lands and utility rights-of-way as public open space. b) The inclusion of new regional parks as a component of existing and proposed groundwater recharge areas. c) A recreation and land management program allowing for the generation of supplemental revenue to offset the cost of necessary further land acquisition, development, and .operational i~. costs. CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT 11. Update and implement the Bikeways Master Plan adopted bYthe City of Bakersfield and County of Kern. Periodically review and update the City of Bakersfield's Specific Trails Plan. 12. a. To expand and enhance Central Park, pursue the assistance of adjacent property owners, civic organizations, special interest groups, and interested individuals in the preparation of a Central Park master plan. The master plan should reflect the ideas expressed for the park in the May 11-17, 2001 Downtown Design Charrette Report. b. Pursue the adoption of a Central Park master plan. PENDING ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM MAY 27, 2003 MEETING BETWEEN CITY, BIA, AND NBRPD STAFF Park Development Fee Meeting with BIA on 5-27-03 Pending Action Items Action Item Responsible Party Action Completed 1. What is the $1.3M shown as a "transfer in" on the Georgina Lorenzi Completed - worksheet entitled "Park Improvement Fund, Email sent to Estimated Ending Balances by Zone, Projected to Brian Todd on 5-28-03 June 30, 2003" (Refer to item number 7 on letter Attachment A addressed to the BIA from the Public Works Department, dated May 15, 2003). 2. Contact Cities of Fresno and Visalia to determine if Ken Trone Completed - they have constructed comparable parks recently Attachment B and, if so, obtain construction costs. 3. Contact Castle and Cooke to see if they will share Brian Todd Pending - their costs to construct Deer Peak, Windermere, and Attachment E - Windsor Parks. On Aug. 7th, staff received fax from BIA regarding construction costs for park in Delano. On Aug. 13 Castle & Cooke emailed some info. Staffhas not yet reviewed this info. 4. Thoughts on how to administer and compute a Brian Todd Pending "park development fee credit" for multi-family developments that include open space. 5. Obtain electronic copy of bid tabulations from Ken Trone Completed - Santa Clarita for construction of a park. Attachment C 6. Provide a summary of"average bids received" for Colin Bywater Completed - several parks constructed within the North Attachment D Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District boundaries (Liberty, Almondale, and Mondavi Parks). 7. Roger Mclntosh asked the following regarding Georgina Lorenzi/ Completed - estimated construction costs as summarized in the Arnold Ramming Attachment F April 15, 2003 memorandum from the Public Works Director to the City Manager. a. The unit price of $5 per cubic yard for grading a. $5 per cubic yard pricing is seems high. Mr. Mclntosh indicated that he reasonable. thought $3 per cubic yard would be more appropriate. b. He thought that the budget for item 16 b. Rate of 15% used - (Design/Development/Administration) was high. See Attachment F c. He thought that the unit price of $25 per linear c. Agree-unit pricing lowered foot of 4" inch sewer service line was high. to $17. 8. Roger Mclntosh will review the park development Roger Mclntosh/ Completed o cost calculations.prepared by City staff to Brian Todd On Aug 4th, 1VII'. Mclntosh determine other~tiuestions/issues he may have indicated he had no further (Brian, would it be possible to send these questions questions on the cost calculations. to me via email?). 9. Our next meeting on this issue will be scheduled Georgina Lorenzi Completed - after the above information is obtained. Scheduled for Aug. 14, 2003 ~ 2pm G:\GROUPDAlZGeorgina~Park Development FeesLMtg with BIA-5.27.03.doc ATTACHMENT A rgina Lorenzi - Follow-up to 5-27-03 Meetir-'~n Park Development Fee -- Page 1 I From: Georgina Lorenzi To: inet:briant@ kernbia.com Subject: Follow-up to 5-27-03 Meeting on Park Development Fee This email is in response to a question raised at yesterday's meeting regarding the $1.3 million transfer to the Park Improvement Fund as shown on a worksheet previously supplied to you. I spoke with the Assistant Finance Director regarding this question. He indicated that the City Council authorized the $1.3 million transfer of General Fund dollars to the Park Improvement Fund to assist with the cost of Rio Vista Park. By the end of this week, I will email you a summary of pending action items resulting from yesterday's meeting. Call if you have any questions. Thank you. CC: John W. Stinson; Ken Trone; Nelson Smith; Raul Rojas ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B Parks Division staff contacted several cities to research costs for basic park amenities. Following is a summary of their findings: · Attachment C-1 provides detailed information for the City of Santa Clarita. · Paso Robles recently completed an analysis of park improvement costs and set the number at $250,000 per acre. The document is titled "Paso Robles Development Impact Fee Update Calculation Report". This report is no longer available on their website. Parks Division staff has a hard copy of the 150 page report available for review. Copies of the report can be made if desired. · Fresno is going through a major realignment of the entire department and bringing on a new director. They have not returned calls. · Visalia has an opinion from their legal that directs them not to pay prevailing wage on projects using local money. Since the City of Bakersfield does pay prevailing wages on projects, costs would not be comparable. G:\GROUPDAT\Georgina\Park Development Fees~ttachments.doc ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C Attachment C-1 Bid tabulation worksheet prepared by City of Santa Clarita for Pamplico Park (Bid opening date of March 27, 2001). Attachment C-2 Worksheet prepared by City of Santa Clarita. It summarizes bid items (which are included in Attachment C-l) for the student drop off area. These items are not typical of amenities within the City of Bakersfield. Attachment C-2 was provided for informational purposes only. Note: Pamplico Park is situated in the Saugus area of Santa Clarita. It is approximately 5 acres in size and was completed in 2001. Not all of the line items on the spreadsheet, such as the references to a school dropoff site, would be considered as a basic park improvement for the City of Bakersfield. Therefore, the cost was not used in staff's estimates. G:\GROUPDAT\GeorginaXPark Development FeesXAttachments.doc ~T l.. ~obil~ado~ 1 LS $ ~,000.00 ~000.00 $ 60,000.00 60,000.00 $7~,500.00 7~00 $ ~. 5~,000.00 5~000 $ 67~70.~ ..... ..... - ............. Scb~l Site 12~ L~ $ 7.75 96~.75 $ 2~.00 3,125.00 $100.00 12~00 $ ' ~ 2~.00 3125 $ 40.00 iZ D~olisb ~d R~ove Esist~g Co~ete Pa~ at Sc~lSite 2,~50 S~ $ 0.7~ 2212.50 $ 1.~0 4,425.00 $2.00 ~900 $ ...... t 2.50 737~ $ 2.00 Scb~l Site 55-. LF $ 2.00 110.00 $ ~0.00 5~0.00 $17.00 935 $~,~' 10.00 550 $ 1~.00 4. D~lisb ~ ~ove E~isting ~ipe Gate ~ Scb~l Site I LS $ 650.00 650.00 $ 200.00 200.00 $290.00 290 $ ' 200.00 200 ~. D~olis~ ~ ~*e ~i~ T~ at Sc~l Site 1, LS $ 1,~00.00 1 ~00.00 $ ' 400.00 400.00 $600.00 600 $ 300.00 300 $ 6~.~ . ..... _ .............................. 1. ~.id~ ~ott ~ Site G~ ~ ~ ~ L ~i~cado~s ., 1. LS $ 66,750.00 667~0.00 $ ~,000.00 ~,~0.00 $~6,000.00 ~6000 $-.140.~000 140000 $ 67,7~.~ 2. ~ca, atio~ at Build~ Site p~ ~l~s ~d Sp~ificado~s (1~25 S~ ~ 2' De~) 90 C~ $ 5.00 4~0.00 $ 10.00 900.00 $4.00 360 $ ' 50.00 4~00 ~ 4.~0 3. O~e~excavatio~ a~d R~ompactio~ at HalfCo~ Basketball ~ad pe~ Pla~s ~d Specifications O,~72 SF) 297 CY $ 3.00 ~61.00 $ 5.00 1,435.00 $5.00 ...~. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,~ .~ ~, .-~-~ ~ 14~5 S , ~ 40.00 114~0 ~ 6.00 I. 2" S~ice ~i~ 2". ~et~ 1 ~ $ 2,100.00 2100.00 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00 $1,300.00 1300 $. i 500.00 ~00 2. 2" PVC, SCH. 40 Wat~L~e 190 LF $ 8.00 1520.00 $ 10.00 1,900.00 $5.00 950 $ ,, -,' 5.00 950 $ 57.~ 1. Ci~ G~b Site p~ PI~ ~d Sp~ifica6om 1 LS $ 4,000.00 4000.00 $ 20,000.00 20,~.00 $6,000.00 6000 .$ .151~.00 15000 $ 6~70.~ 2. 3" A.C. ~ 6" A.B. 13,800 SF $ 1.85 25530.00 $ ' 1.60 '22,080.00 ' ' $2.00 27600 $ ~ ' : 2.60 358g0 $ 2.50 3. 6" Cu~ 930 LF $ 10.00 9300.00 $ 15.00 13,950.00 $12.50 11625 $ .... ,,..~2.00 2~60 $ 12.70 4. Full Dep~ A.C. ~2 LF $ 6.00 492.00 $ ...... 10.00 g20.00 $6.00 492 S ' ' . 3.00 246 S 11.00 5. Sawcut Existing A.C. 82 LF $ 1.75 143.50 $ 5.00 410.00 $1.00 82 $ 2.00 164 $ 7.50 6. Remove Existing Pavement 82. SF $ 2.00 164.00 S 5.00 '410.00 '" $2.00 164 S ~'' ' 5.00 410 S 12.50 7. Co~ercial D~veway 2 each $ 1,850.00 3700.00 $ 2,060.00 4,000.00 $550.00 1100 $ 2',500.00 5000 $ 3,700.00 g. H~dicap R~p I each $ 350.00 350.00 $ 1,000.00 1,000.00 $700.00 700 . , S ..... "800.00 800 $ 470.00 9. 4" PCC Pavem~t 140 SF $ 5.00 700.00 $ 10.00 1,400.00 $5.00 700 $ ~ , ,,' 2.00 280 $ 5.00 10. 12"x 12" C~I ~on Catch B~in 19 ~ch $ 615.00 11685.00 $ 500.00 9,500.00 $450.00 8550 ...$ ' 250.00 4750 $ 170.00 11. 6" PVC Sto~Drain 1,060 LF $ 20.00 21200.00 $ 10.00 10,600.00 $6.00 6360 .~' ' t0.00 10600 $ 70.00 12. 8" PVC Stop,in 375 LF $ 23.00 8625.00 $ 15.00 5,625.00 $8.00 3000 g.' 12.00 4500 $ 77.00 13. 12"PVC Slo~D~in 195 LF $ 29.50 5752.50 $ -' 20.00 3,900.00 $15.00 2925 $" :' 16.00 3120 $ g7.00 14. 6" C~ ~d Gu~er ~5 LF $ 21.00 1785.00 ' $ 50.00 4,250.00 $16.00 1360 ~ , .S' ' 28.00 2380 $ 18.00 15. lg" RCP Sto~ Drain 140 LF $ 40.00 5600.00 $ 100.00 14,000.00 $50.00 7000 .$~ .. 40.00 5600 $ 97.00 16. Catch B~in ~d L~al D~ression I each $ 3,100.00 3100.00 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00 $3,400.00 3400 ~.S,' 800.00 800 $ 700.00 17. Conn~t to Exist~gCatch B~in I ~ch $ 700.00 700.00 $ 500.00 500.00 $900.00 900 - $-':~, ,300.00 300 $ 1,700.00 18. 6" Wide T~ch Dm~ 21 LF $ 120.00 2520.00 $ 50.00 1,050.00 $50.00 1050 . $ ~' .... 100.00 2100 $ 200.00 lga Trench D~nDe~il 6 sh~t C-3 500 If $ 10.00 5000.00 $ 15.00 7,500.00 $8.50 4250 .. ~;" 40.00 20000 $ 20.00 19. P~kwayCulv~ 1, ~h $ 1,500.00 1500.00 $ 1~500.00 1,500.00 $250.00 250 ~$ 600.00 600 $ 3,700.~ 20. 2'- 6" V-Dish 270. LF $ 30.00 8100.00 $ 20.00 5,400.00 .. $40.00 10800 ,~'. 30.00 8100 $ 22.~ 21. g" A~um~ 3 , ~h $ 170.00 510.00 $ 100.00 300.00 '~ $200.00 600, $~.~' 60.00 180 $ 700.~ 22. Adjust M~oletoG~de I . ~ch $ 300.00 300.00 $ 500.00 500.00 '~ $600.00 600 $ 250.00 250 $ 700.~ 23. 3'V-Gu~ ~0 LF $ 25.50 2040.00 $ 25.00 2,000.00 ' $14.00 .1120 ......... S'~t:' 40.00 3200 $ 17.00 24 R~oveplug 2 . ~ch $ 200.00 400.00 $ 1,000.00 2,000.00 $700.00 1400 .... $ .... 100.00 200 $ 200.~ ~st Bl~k I .... LS . $ 35.00 35.00 $ 500.00 500.00 $450.00 450 ~S 40.00 40 $ 1,700.00 2. 4" VCP Sewer 340. LF $ 27.50 9350.00 $ 12.00 4,080.00 $18.00 6120 . s 30.00 10200 $ 67.00 3. Cle~out 6 ~ch $ 200.00 1200.00 $ 500.00 3,000.00 $120.00 720 $ g0.00 4g0 s 200.00 1. S~dbags I LS $ 15,000.00 15000.00 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00 $9,500.00 9500 S g,000.00 g000 $ !,700.00 67270 $ 190,000.00 190000 $ 20,273.11 20273.11 $ 100.00 100 $ 59,255.39 5000 $ 60.00 7500 $ 43.10 5387.5 $ 64.00 8000 $ 36.64 5900 $ 5.00 14750 $ 2.12 6254 $ 7.00 20650 $ 1.89 ~ 990 $ 30.00 1650 $ 18.45 1014.75 $ 91.00 5005 $ 12.93 .,. 300 $ 300.00 300 $ 316.77 316.77 $ 300.00 300 $ 200.85 600 $ 550.00 550 $ 633.53 633.53 $ 1,500.00 1500 $ 385.44 67700 $ 93,000.00 93000 $ 72,309.12 72309.12 $ 50,000.00 50000 $ 68,376.14 405 $ 6.00 540 $ 4.62 415.8 $ 167.00 15030 $ 9.89 1722 $ 7.00 2009 S 5.59 1604.33 $ 88.00 25256 S 8.57 7000 $ .3,500.00 3500 $ 5,410.39 5410.39 $ 2,000.00 2000 $ 2,838.80 10830 $ 10.00 1900 $ 10.82 2055.8 $ 26.00 4940 $ 12.23 6270 $ 18,000.00 18000 $ 6,595.10 6595.1 $ 10,000.00 10000 $ 8,983.14 34500 $ 2.75 37950 $ 3.14 43332 $ 2.00 27600 $ . 1.82 11811 $ 15.00 13950 $ 13.43 12489.9 $ 28.00 26040 $ 11.33 902 $ 10.00 820 $ 10.14 831.48 $ 60.00 4920 $ 6.27 615 $ 3.00 246 $ 5.07 415.74 S 4.00 328 S 2.95 1025 $ 7.00 574 $ 6.34 519.88 $ 24.00 1968 S 4.73 7400 $ 6,000.00 12000 $ 2,534.14 5068.28 $ 5,000.00 lO000 $ 2,160.52 470 $ 800.00 800 $ 253.41 253.41 $ 5,000.00 5000 $ 502.93 700 $ 6.00 840 $ 5.07 709.8 $ 5.00 700 $ 4.13 3230 $ 550.00 10450 $ 1,849.92 35148.48 $ 600.00 11400 $ 471.24 74200 $ 13.00 13780 $ 35.48 37608.8 $ 30.00 31800 $ 18.06 28875 $ 16.00 6000 $ 46.88 17580 $ 32.00 12000 $ 21.86 16965 $ 25.00 4875 $ 57.02 11118.9 $ 40.00 7800 $ 27.50 1530 $ 22.00 1870 $ 19.01 1615.85 $ 28.00 2380 $ 19.13 13580 $ 65.00 9100 $ 112.77 15787.8 $ 100.00 14000 $ 58.10 700 $ 2,000.00 2000 $ 5,448.40 5448.4 $ 5,000.00 5000 $ 2,168.55 1700 $ 800.00 800 $ 1,393.78 1393.78 $ 4,000.00 4000 $ 699.22 4200 $ 100.00 21 O0 $ 240.74 5055.54 $ 100.00 21 O0 $ 92.59 10000 $ 15.00 7500 $ 17.11 8555 $ 50.00 25000 $ 14.45 3700 $ 4,000.00 4000 $ 2,090.66 2090.66 $ 10,000.00 10000 $ 1,517.58 5940 $ 38.00 10260 $ 22.81 6158.7 $ 100.00 27000 $ 21.60 2100 $ 400.00 1200 $ 1,583.84 4751.52 $ 1,000.00 3000 $ 380.48 ~. 700 $ 500.00 500 $ 633.53 633.53 $ 500.00 500 $ 397.94 -~ 1360 $ 42.00 3360 $ 15.20 1216 $ 100.00 8000 $ 19.15 400 $ 400.00 800 $ 975.65 1951.3 $ 1,500.00 3000 $ 421.96 1700 $ 300.00 300 $ 633.53 633.53 $ 5,000.00 5000 $ 452.94 22780 $ 40.00 13600 $ 30.89 10502.6 $ 100.00 34000 $ 24.74 1200 $ 250.00 1500 $ 285.09 1710.54 $ 1,000.00 6000 $ 179.39 1700 $ 25,000.00 25000 $ 24,074.32 24074.32 $ 1,000.00 1000 $ 8;909.29 " BID TABULATION PAMPLICO PARK CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA BID OPENING MARCH 27, 2001 ']. Construct Restroom Building per Plans and ~Specifications (547 SE) 1 LS $ 109,000.00 109000.00 $ 1~0,000.00 1~0,000.00 $134,999.09 134999.09 $ 9,400.00 9400 $ 147,000.00 1. Cons~ct P~k Silage ~d Concrete Bilk Seat / Re~ining Wall per Detail 4, Sheet CD-2 ~d Sp~ifications I LS $ 8,600.00 8600.00 $ 7,000.00 7,000.00 $24,000.00 24000 $ 8,500.00 8500 $ 12,700.00 2. Cons~ct Pl~t~ / Retaining Wall at Sch~l Site p~ De~il 4, Sh~t CD-3 ~d Sp~ifications 35 LF $ I 16.00 4060.00 $ 80.00 2,800.00 $250.00 8750 $ ~80.00 2800 $ 40.~ 3. Cons~ct Poured in Place Concrete Pe~et~ Edge at Tot Lots For Ages 2-5 per ~mil 1, Sh~t CD-3 ~d Sp~ifications 280 LF $ 35.50 9940.00 $ 25.00 7,000.00 $76.00 21280 $ 40.00 11200 $ 77.00 4. Con,ct Poured ~ Place Concrete P~met~ Edge at Tot Lo~ For Ag~ 5-12 p~ Derail 1, Sheet CD-3 ~d Sp~ifications 340 LF $ 35.50 12070.00 $ 25.00 8,500.00 $76.00 25840 $ 40.00 13600 $ 77.~ 5. Cons~ct T~h Enclomre p~ D~il 3, Sh~t CD-2 I LS $ 6,800.00 6800.00 $ 8,000.00 8,000.00 $11,000.00 11000 $ 8,500.00 8500 $ 10,700.~ 1. Cons~ct Scored Pedes~ Concrete Paving per Derail I, Sheet CD-I ~d Specifications 28,750 SF $ 2.65 76187.50 $ 4.00 115,000.00 $3.40 97750 $ 4.50 129375 $ 3.50 2. Construct Scored Vehicul~ Concrete at T~h Enclosure ~ Derail 1, Sh~a CD-! ~d Sp~ifications 140 SF 2a Cons~ct Scored Vehicul~ Concrete at ~h~i site per De~il 1, Sheed CD-1 ~d Sp~ifications 1,334 $ 6.00 80~.00 $ 5.00 6,670.00 $6.00 80~ $ 6.50 8671 $ 6.~ 3. Cons~ct 1/2 Cou~ B~ketball Pad p~ Pl~s ~d Specifications 3,850 SF $ 4.65 17902.50 $ 5.00 19,250.00 $6.00 23100 $ 4.50 17325 $ 6.00 4. Cons~ct Mow Curb per Detail 3, Sheet CD-I and Specifications 700 LF $ 7.50 5250.00 S 7.00 4,900.00 $20.00 14000 $ 10.O0 7000 S 8.50 5 Construct concrete banding 400 If $ 9.00 3600.00 $ 10.00 4.000.00 $20.00 8000 $ 10.00 4000 $ 20.00 1. Furnish ~d ~stall Fire Access Pipe Gate per Detail 5, ~heet CD-3 ~d Specifications 1 LS $ 2,800.00 2800.00 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00 $2,700.00 2700 $ 2~500.00 2500 $ 7,000.00 1. furnish and Nsmll Tot Lot Equipment at "Ages 2-5 Tot Lot" per Pl~s ~d Sp~ifications 1 LS $ 21,300.00 21300.00 $ 18,000.00 18,000.00 $18,600.00 18600 $ 21,200.00 21200 $ 21,000.00 2. Furnish ~d Nsmll S~d at "Ages 2-5 Tot Lot" p~ Pl~s ~d Specifications 120 CY $ 72.00 8640.00 $ 60.00 7,200.00 $67.00 8040 $ 90.00 10800 $ 25.00 3. Furnish and Nstall Risilient Rubber Sugacing at "Ages 2- 5 Tot Lot" per Plus and Specifications 430 SF $ 16.00 6880.00 $ 18.00 7,740.00 $15.00 6450 $ 13.00 5590 $ 20.00 4. Furnish and Nstall Drains at "Ages 2-5 Tot Loft per .. Pl~s ~d Specifications 1 LS $ 1,650.00 1650.00 $ 1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,500.00 1500 $ 1,400.00 1400 $ 7,000.00 5. Furnish ~d Nstall Dra~s at "Ag~ 5-12 Tot Lot" per Pissed Specifications I LS $ 1,800.00 1800.00 $ 1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,500.00 1500 $ 1,500.00 1500 $ 36,000.00 6. Furnish ~d Nsmll Tot Lot Equipment at "Ages 5-12 Tot Lot" per Pl~s ~d Sp~ifications 1 LS $ 36,100.00 36100.00 $ 30,000.00 30,000.00 ~,. $30,900.00 30900 $ 31,400.00 31400 $ 7,0~.00 7. furnish ~d Install 'Fib~' W~d Chips at "Ages 5-12 Tot Lot" per Pl~s ~d Specifications 258 CY $ 29.00 7482.00 $ 26.00 6,708.00 $26.00 6708 $ 40.00 10320 $ 32.00 8. furnish ~d Nsmll Bench per Detail 4, Sheet CD-I and Specifications 8 each $ 450.00 3600.00 $ 800.00 6,400.00 $450.00 3600 $ 400.00 3200 $ 700.00 9 furnish ~d Install B~ketball Backbo~d per Plus and Specifications I LS $ 2,200.00 2200.00 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00 $2,200.00 2200 $ ~.1,100.00 1100 $ 4,570.00 10. furnish ~d ~stall T~h Rec~mcle per Detail 5, Sheet CD-I ~d Sp~ifications 7 each $ 400.00 2800.00 $ 350.00 2,450.00 $370.00 2590 $ ~ 200.00 1400 $ 370.00 147000 Missing number $ 132,000.00 132000 $ 100,000.00 100000 $ 67,924.89 12700 $ 6,000.00 6000 $ 6,335.35 6335.35 $ 20,000.00 20000 $ 8,066.92 1400 $ 70.00 2450 $ 217.21 7602.35 $ 250.00 8750 $ 92.15 21560 $ 55.00 15400 $ 49.42 13837.6 $ 100.00 28000 $ 40.30 26180 $ 55.00 18700 $ 49.42 16802.8 $ lO0.O0 34000 $ 40.30 10700 $ 10,000.00 10000 $ 7,602.42 7602.42 $ 22,000.00 22000 $ 6,975.30 100625 $ 3.30 94875 $ 3.70 106375 $ 5.00 143750 $ 2.80 840 $ 7.00 980 $ 6.34 887.6 $ 7.00 980 $ 5.23 8004 $ 6.00 8004 $ 6.27 8364.18 $ 7.00 9338 $ 4.47 23100 $ 12.00 46200 $ 8.87 34149.5 $ 7.00 26950 $ 5.30 5950 $ I0.00 7000 $ 8.87 6209 $ 10.00 7000 $ 8.05 8000 $ 15.00 6000 $ 20.91 8364 $ I1.00 4400 $ 11.99 7000 $ 3,000.00 3000 $ 3,167.67 3167.67 $ 15,000.00 15000 $ 2,920.96 21000 $ 17,000.00 17000 $ 22,501.89 22501.89 $ 25,000.00 25000 $ 14,787.74 3000 $ 30.00 3600 $ 57.02 6842.4 $ 100.00 12000 $ 41.13 8600 $ 16.00 6880 $ 22.81 9808.3 $ 100.00 43000 $ 13.10 7000 $ 1,500.00 1500 $ 3,801.21 3801.21 $ 10,000.00 10000 $ 2,025.15 36000 $ 1,500.00 1500 $ 3,801.21 3801.21 $ 10,000.00 10000 $ 5,662.65 7000 $ 28,000.00 28000 $ 31,920.02 31920.02 $ 25,000.00 25000 $ 19,902.50 8256 $ 33.00 8514 $ 29.47 7603.26 $ 85.00 21930 $ 23.31 5600 $ 860.00 6880 $ 589.19 4713.52 $ 1,500.00 12000 $ 474.90 4570 $ 2,000.00 2000 $ 3,573.14 3573.14 $ 10,000.00 10000 $ 2,180.39 2590 $ 500.00 3500 $ 447.28 3130.96 $ 1,000.00 7000 $ 279.66 BID TABULATION PAMPLICO PARK CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA BID OPENING MARCH 27, 2001 ITEM DESCRIPtiON QUANTITY UNIT Terra Cai Pima " 250W HPS Parking Area Light Fixture, Pole and Footing 2 each 5 3,500.00 7000.00 5 25,000.00 50,000.00 $3,400.00 6800 S 3,300.00 6600 $ 3.100.00 2. 250W HPS Walkway Light Fixture, Pole and Footing 8 each $ 4,000.00 32000.00 $ 25,000.00 200,000.00 $3.800.00 30400 S 3.500.00 28000 5 3.700.00 3. 175W MH Sign Light Fixture I each $ 5,500.00 5500.00 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00 $5,300.00 5300 S 5.000.00 5000 $ 1,100.00 4. Underground Pull Box 20 each $ 210.00 4200.00 $ 250.00 5,000.00 S200.00 4000 5 200.00 4000 $ 350.00 5. Lot Underground Conduit and Wiring Including Trenching and Backfilling 1 LS $ 6,400.00 6400.00 $ 15,000.00 15,000.00 $6.150.00 6150 5 6,¢00.00 6000 $ 7,000.00 6. Underground Electric Service Conduit 400 LF $ 6.25 2500.00 $ 20.00 8,000.00 56.00 2400 5 i 6.00 2400 5 57.00 7. Underground Telephone Service Conduit 400 LF $ 24.50 9800.00 $ 20.00 8,000.00 524.00 9600 S 23.00 9200 $ 57.00 8. Lot Combination Meter and Panel I LS S 3,500.00 3500.00 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00 $3.400.00 3400 S 4,000.00 4000 $ 7,000.00 Install Irrigation System per Plans and Specifications ~ 1146,550 SF) 146,550 SQ $ 0.49 71809.50 $ 0.70 102,585.00 S0.54 ,:~., :" -.~ '.-~-.~ ...... -~',~'~ ......... ;¥~---~ ...... ~. . ............. , ........... ., ,-~ ...... 79137 S 0.50 73275 $ ' 0.75 Specifications 194,810 SF 5 0.14 27273.40 $ 9.15 29,221.50 $0.10 19481 S 0.28 54546.8 $ 0.30 2 Furnish and Install 24" Box Trees per Plans and Specifications 130 each S 190.00 24700.00 $ 250.00 32,500.00 S225.00 29250 S 240.00 31200 5 410.00 3 Furnish and Install I Gallon Container Plants per Plans and Specifications 1,120 each $ 5.25 5880.00 $ 7.00 7,840.00 S5.00 5600 S 10.00 11200 S 11.50 4 Furnish and Install Turf per Plans and Specifications 103,680 SF $ 0.07 7257.60 $ 0.08 8,294.40 S0.05 5184 5 ' 0.15 15552 $ 0.10 5 Fumish and Install Groundcover per Plans and Specifications 25,680 SF $ 0.19 4879.20 $ 0.40 10,272.00 $0.20 5136 S .t 4.32 110937.6 $ 0.30 i6 Furnish and Install Mulch (3") per Plans and Specifications( 48,260SF) 446 CY $ 5.00 2230.00 $ 10.00 4,460.00 S20.00 8920 S 20.00 8920 $ 20.00 7 00-Day Maintenance (All Hardscape and Softscape Areas) 146,550 SF S 0.09 13189.50 $ 0.07 10,258.50 S0.06 8793 S Sub-Total Sub Total 896599.45 1.207.659.40 ~, ooo,_mo no ' 5 1,081,935.40 BID ALTERNATES I. Fumish and Install Bid Alternate Walkwav. Li?qhtino~ ~ per Plans and Specifications (250W HPS) 9 each S 3,100.00 27900 $ 2,500.00_v2,_500.00 S2.600.00 S23,400.00 S _/.500.00'i 22500 S 2.700.00 Furnish and Install Bid Alternate Colored Concrete Half Court Basketball Pad per Plans and Specifications 3,850 SF $ 4.60 17710 $ 7.00 26.950.00 56.00 S23,100.00 S 6.00 23100 $ 1.70 3 Chain link fencing 520 LF S 18.50 9620 $ 2t).00 10,400.00 S 19.00 59,880.00 0 S 30.00 Bid Alts. $ 55,230.00 $ 59,850.00 $ 56,380.00 $ 45,600.00 Total Bid $ 951,829.45 $ 1,267,509.40 $ 1,055,870.09 $ !,! 27,535.40 ::5~ ~ MJS Bowe =~' Tapux Avernge E-~teiid~! ,., ~,~,i '~ ~ Unit'. Extended Unit Extended-' Unit Extended UnitPrice 6200 $ 2,000.00 4000 Missing S 2,000.00 4000 $ 4,600.00 29600 $ 2,800.00 22400 Missing $ 2,000.00 16000 $ 4,850.00 I lO0 $ 2,000.00 2000 Missing $ 2,000.00 2000 $ 2,050.00 7000 $ 450.00 9000 Missing $ 500.00 10000 $ 181.25 7000 $ 8,000.00 8000 Missing $ 10.000.00 10000 $ 5,268.75 22800 $ 22.00 8800 Missing $ 50.00 20000 $ 13.88 22800 $ 35.00 14000 Missing $ 50.00 20000 $ 19.88 7000 $ 4,000.00 4000 Missing $ 10,000.00 10000 $ 2,925.00 109912.5 $ 0.70 102585 $ 0.64 93792 $ 1.00 146550 S 0.48 ':,7. ~: ~ ~ -'.'./.~.:', i'~;-' .,.. "' ".7:: ' .;,;~ "i' .' '.% '" :":'7~:~ .~ ,"..J J: . ~'~ ' 7:; ', ,' ~ ~/~ ;'i~:'... :' :~ ~- :-' :.':: :. ~'!~:;/~"~ "~ ??i~, '2~',?,:~'.. :~/:..: -.' ':~'~ 58443 $ 0.13 25325.3 $ 0.16 31169.6 $ 0.10 19481 $ 0.14 53300 S 340.00 44200 $ 325.64 42333.2 $ 150.00 19500 $ 223.83 12880 S 7.00 7840 $ 7.60 8512 S 6.00 6720 S 6.01 10368 $ 0.09 9331.2 $ 0.13 13478.4 $ 0.30 31104 S 0.08 7704 $ 0.35 8988 $ 0.22 5649.6 S 0.30 7704 $ 0.72 8920 S 44.00 19624 $ 24.96 11132.16 $ 50.00 22300 $ 17.37 7327.5 S 0.09 13189.5 $ 0.10 14655 S 0.08 11724 S 0.05 1,277,000.00 S 1,121,140.00 $ !,049,041.28 $ 1,385,498.00 24300 $ 2,700.00 S 24,300.00 0 S 400.1)0 $ 3,600.00 $ 2.166.67 6545 S 6.50 $ 25,025.00 $ 10.14 39039 $ 5.00 $ 19,250.00 $ 6.22 15600 Missing $ 23.50 12220 S 40.00 $ 20,800.00 S 15.42 $ 46,445.00 $ 49,325.00 $ 51,259.00 $ 43,650.00 $ 1,323,445.00 $ 1,170,465.00 $ 1,100,300.28 $ 1,429,148.00 EXHIBIT "B" CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STUDENT DROP OFF AREA CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA BID OPENING MARCH 27 B. DEMOLITION Demolish and Remove Existim, Retainin,, Walls at School Siie 125 LF $ 7.75 $ 965.75 2. Demolish and Remove Existing Concrete Paving at Site 2.950 SF $ 0.75 $ 2.212.50 3. Demolish and Remove Existim, Curb and Gutter at School ~ite 55 LF $ 2.00 $ 110.00 4. Demolish and Remove Existing Pipe Gate at School Site t LS $ 650.00 $ 650.00 5. Demolish and Remove Existing Tree at School Site I LS $ 1.500.00 $ ' 1.500.00 C. EARTHWORK 1. Provide Ea,'thwork and Site Grading per Plans and Specifications S 66.750.00 LS 10~ $ 6.675.00 E. CIVIL SITE WORK _,. o A.C. Over6" A.B. 5.900 SF $ 1.85 $ 10.915.00 3. 6" Curb 550 LF $ 10;00 $ 5.500.00 4. Full Depth A.C. 82 LF $ 6.00 $ 492.00 5. Sawcut Existing A.C. S2 LF S 1.75 $ 143.50 6. Remove Existing Pavement 82 SF S 2.00 $ 164.00 7. Commercial Driveway I each $ 1.850.00 $ 1.850.00 8. Handicap Ramp 1 each $ 350.00 $ 350.00 I. 6" PVC Storm Drain 40 LF $ 20.00 $ SO0.O0 2. $" PVC Storm Drain ~)1') LF $ 23.00 S 2,070.00 16. Catch Basin and Local Depression 1 each $ 3,100.00 $ 3,100.00 18. 6" Wide Trench Drain 2! LF $ 120.00 S 2.520.00 19. Parkway Culvert I each $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 22. Adjust Manhole to Grade l each $ 300.00 $ 300.00 I. WALLS AND FENCES 2. Construct Planter/Retaining Wall at School Site per Detail 4. Sheet CD-3 and Specifications 35 LF $ 116.00 $ 4.060.00 J. HARDSCAPE 2a Construct Scored Vehicular Concrete at school site per Detail 1, Sheed CD-I and Specifications 1,334 SF S 6.00 $ 8.004.00 K. METAL WORK 1. Furnish and Install Fire Access Pipe Gate per Detail 5. Sheet CD-3 and Specilications I LS $ 2.800.00 $ 2.800.00 M. SITE LIGHTING ~..'~ 250W HPS:. Walkway, Li~ht~ Fixture. Pole and Footino= I each $ 4.000.00 $ 4.000.00 4. Undergrotind Pull Box I each $ 210.00 $ 210.00 6. Underground Electric Service Conduit 90 LF $ 6.25 $ 562.50 Sub-Total $ 61,457.25 15 % Contingency $ 6,145.73 TOTAL $ 67,602.98 ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D Attachment D-1 North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District (NBRPD) staff has prepared worksheets summarizing "average bids received" for several of their parks. Attachment D-2 City of Bakersfield staff's original proposal to the Budget and Finance Committee recommended that Item No. 15 (1/2 street improvements on 2 sides) be eliminated fi.om the fee calculations since an assumption was made that the developer would be responsible for all improvements in adjacent streets. NBRPD staff indicated that this would present a hardship to them since NBRPD constructs these street improvements. Attachment D-2 is documentation fi.om NBRPD on the historical cost ofvarious street improvements. Attachment D-3 This attachment, also prepared by NBRPD staff, summarizes Park Construction costs for specific parks. The "construction" and "additive alternate" line items are also reported on Attachment D-1. The other items are additional information. The May 13, 2003 letter from NBRPD also has several more pages of back-up for their schedule on park construction costs. Copies of this back- up can be made if desired. G:\GROUPDAT\Georgina\Park Development FeesXAttachments.doc North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Gala.D, Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 392-2000 June 10, 2003 Ms. Georgina Lorenzi City of Bakersfield Public Works Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 SUBJECT: Costs for District Projects Dear Georgina, Enclosed are detailed breakdowns showing the line item amounts for the various improvements included m the projects. This information shows all bidders, their bid and the average for each line item. The earlier information provided was for the low bidders, so these average numbers will be higher. They are, I believe, consistent with the way city estimates were prepared. Should you have questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Colon G. Bywater Planning and Construction Director CGB:bc Enclosures North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 93308 ..~ ~ (661) 392-2000 PROPOSAL DUE: Monday, September 17, 2001, 2:00 p.m. PROPOSALS FOR: Almondale Park Phase I Improvements, 5501 Verdugo Lane, Bakersfield FIRM Bonds, Grading Irrigation' Soil Prep BaSe Total AA #1 AA #2 AA Grand Start Up & System & Turf Electrical Plant Total Total Utilities Drainal~e Trees Omega Construction 41,700.00 39,700.00 76,700.00 32,200.00 190,300.00 17,250.00 16,700.00 33,950.00 224,250.00 E & M Construction 62,750.00 63,500.00 78,750.00 42,750.00 247,750.00 27,050.00 16,652.00 43,702.00 291,452.00 Brown & Fowler 36,167.00 33,000.00 71,765.00 31,734.00 172,666.00 28,000.00 17,000.00 '45,000.00 217,666.00 M. S. Walker 66,037.00 35,879.00 66,402.00 29,453.00 197,771.00 24,633.00 13,409.00 38,042.00 235,813.00 Gospich Construction 28,000.00 44,000.00 71,000.00 30,000.00 173,000.00 28,500.00 17,000.00 45,500.00 ' 218,500.00 Bowman Asphalt 7,500.00 72,243.00 73,309.00 ' 30,800.00 183,852.00 26,730.00 13,772.00 40,502.00 224,354.00 TOTAL 242;154.00 288,322.00 437,926.00 196,937.00 1,165,339.00 152,163.00 94,533.00 246,696.00 L412,035.00 AVERAGE 40,359.00 48,053.67 72,987.67 32,822.83 194,223.17 25,360.50 15,755.50 41,116.00 235,339.17 I North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Gal.._~ax'y Avenue, Bakersf±al.d, Cal.±foarn±a 93308 (663.) 392-2000 PROPOSAL FOR: Greenacres Park Playground Upgrade PROPOSALS DUE: Friday, March 14, 2003, 2:00 p.m. FIRM Demo Concrete Grading Picnic Install Surfacing Mulch Irrigation Land Total AA Pads Equip Install scape Remove Brown & Fowler Constr 1,900 6,902 7,200 5,658 14,540 7,680 4,200 4,668 3,600 56,348 500 Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 661) 392-2000 PROPOSAL DUE: Thursday, June 14, 2001, 2:00 p.m. PROPOSALS FOR: Liberty Park Phase I Improvements, 11225 Brimhall Road FIRM Bonds Grading SE Sump Plant Sump Area Irrigation Soil Prep & Plant Boxed Restrooms Play Area Picnic Utilities & Parkin~ Lot . S~stem Turf Trees Shelter Omel~a Construction 55,300 22,400 51,900 7,700 81,400 31,900 4,300 318,500 33,300 24,600 Gospich Construction 30,000 65,838 22,908 7,659 77,331 31,904 4,262 277,585 27,270 23,690 TOTAL 85,300 88,238 74,808 15,359 158,731 63,804 8,562 596,085 60,570 48,290 AVERAGE 42,650 44,119 37,404 7,680 79,366 31,902 4,281 298,043 30,285 24,145 North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 392-2000 PROPOSAL DUE: Thursday, June 14, 2001, 2:00 p.m. PROPOSALS FOR: Liberty Park Phase I Improvements, 11225 Brimhall Road FIRM Security and Parking Trash Park Int Walks Sump Total AA AA AA AA Grand Parking Lot Lot Enclosure Furnishing & Fencing Sports Plant Trees RR/Concession Total Total Lt~htin~ StrIpin~ s Flat Work Li~htin~ sinks, counter~ Omega Construction 107,600 3,100 6,000 4,600 81,200 12,000 845~800 299,000 13,500 12,900 325,400 1,171,200 Gospich Construction 107,586 8,050 7,906 8,579 82,335 18,347 801,250 300,000 14,000 15,000 329,000 1,130,250 TOTAL 215,186 11,150 '13,906 13,179 163,535 30,347 1,647,050 599,000 27,500 27,900 654,400 2,30'1,45{) AVERAGE 107,593 5,575 6,953 6,590 81,768 15,174 823,525 299,500 13,750 13,950 327,200 1,150,725 N°rth Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 .Galaxy Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 392-2000 PROPOSALS FOR: Mondavi Park Phase I Improvements PROPOSAL DUE: Tuesday, November 6, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. FIRM Bonds Grading Irrigation Soil Prep. Fence Base AA AA AA Grand & Start Up & & & Total Electrical Plant Total Total Utilities Drainal~e Turf Curb Trees Gospich Construction 32,000 32,000 59,000 27,000 10,000 160,000 22,000 11,000 33,000 193,000 Brown & Fowler 33,235 31,373 59,993 28,002 9,246 161,851 23,000 10,350 33,350 195,201 TOTAL 65,235 63,373 118,993 55,002 19,246 321,851 45,000 21,350 66,350 388,201 AVERAGE 32,618 31,687 5%497 27,501 9,623 160,926 22,500 10,675 33,175 194,101 ! North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Gal_axy Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 392-2000 PROPOSAL FOR: North Beardsley Park Playground Upgrade PROPOSALS DUE: Friday, April 18, 2003, 2:00 p.m. FIRM Demo Concrete Grading Install Wood Irrigation Landscape Install Base AA Grand Equip Fiber Sign Total Remove Total E~ui~ Nicholas Construction 2,984 10,259 9,406 17,160 14,495 7,430 7,430 2,697 71,861 8,950 80,811 Black/Hall Construction 5,975 3,398 4,295 18,406 11,015 14,375 5,415 3,007 65,886 5,975 71,861 Brown & Fowler Contractors 4,843 3,750 4,185 19,500 9,355 9,375 8,625 975 60,608 1,800 62,408 Omega Construction 3,700 5,000 4,500 18,500 10,700 11,500 14,200 1,600 69,700 1,000 70,700 TOTAL 17,502 22,407 22,386 73,566 45,565 42,680 35,670 8,279 268,055 17,725 285,780 AVERAGE 4,376 5,602 5,597 18,392 11,391 10,670 8,918 2,070 67,014 4,431 71,445 [ ~~'~x '! North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District I 405 Galaxy Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 392-2000 PROPOSAL FOR: Standard Park Improvements PROPOSALS DUE: Tuesday, October 10, 2000, 2:00 p.m. FIRM General Site Concrete Masonry Wood Thermal Finishes Specialties Mech. Elect. Total Requir. Work Work & & Plastic Moisture Spm~ger Construction 27,723 116,195 148,728 10,562 6,900 2,588 17,768 10,585 31,729 151,133 523,911 Gospich Construction 43,200 153,090 180,318 9,6(__)1) 9,888 1,296 14,364 11,045 54,095 159,040 635,936 . JTS Construction 28,900 125,190 153,920 '3,900 6,850 1,250 19,540 10,750 37,335 142,100 529,735 Summit Construction 99,000 101,612 134,415 3,500 9,059 5,000 10,000 9,204 36,385 141,075 549,250 Brown & Fowler 71,948 107,683 172,631 6,037 14,231 1,581 19,822 12,866 66,034 168,375 641,208 American Restoration & 44,000 199,500 197,300 3,750 22,000 7,000 4,500 12,500 69,100 153,500 713,150 Construction TOTAL 314,771 803,270 987,312 37,349 68,928 18,715 85,994 66,950 · 294,678 915,223 3,593.190 AVERAGE 52,462 133,878 164,552 6,225 11,488 3,119 14,332 11,158 49,113 154,204 598,865 North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 (66D 392-2000 May 20, 2003 Ms. Georgina Lorenzi City of Bakersfield Public Works Depai-tment 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 SUBJECT: Cost of Various Street Improvements and Fence Along the Canal at Madison Grove Park Dear Ms. Lorenzi: Enclosed is a listing of recently completed street improvement costs paid by North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District in developing parks. (This information should have been included in my letter dated May 13, 2003.) North Meadows Park is in the county. The others are city parks. As you can see, there are major costs to install street improvements. This is why we request that street improvement costs remain as part of the park development costs. Sincerely, Colon G. Bywater Planning and Construction Director CGB:bc Enclosure cc: Ken Trone Dave McArthur STREET IMPROVEMENTS Almondale Park - Verdugo Lane only Street, walk, curb & gutter, etc. $26,668.99 Liberty Park - Brimhall & [ewetta Jewetta Reimbursement (KHSD) $176,778.63 Brimhall Construction 128,940.80 Design,. Engineering, Testing 15,592.65 Madison Grove Park Street Improvements $81,764.00 Plan & Specs for Construction, 8,500.00 Surveying & Inspection-Norris Rd. Fence Improvements 27,36Z00 North Meadows Park Day Avenue Improvements $69,785.48 Day Ave Engineering & Construction Mgmt 9,411.38 McCray Street Improvements 96,000.00 Fees and permits not included in above amounts. North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Galax:}' Avenue, Bakersfield, Calijbrnia 93308 (661) 392-2000 A-' o & rne_.n Jc 19 -5 May 13, 2003 Ms. Georgina Lorenzi City of Bakersfield Public Works Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 SUBJECT: Park Development Fee Increase Dear Ms. Lorenzi: Included herewith are construction costs for some of our projects. All contracts are based on payment of prevailing wage rates. The projects were bid during the last three years. The summary sheet covers all projects followed by line item bids and award information. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. Is there a way to cause developers to provide all street improvements for our facilities like they are required to do for the city? If not, we recommend keeping street improvements in as part the estimated park construction costs. It is also requested that fees for permits and services traditionally waived for city parks also be waived for North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District parks. This will bring consistency for both city parks and North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District parks. If this happens, the construction estimates you have prepared treat both agencies equally. Without this, the fee should be higher in North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District to cover the added cost of permits and fees applied to our projects. Should you have questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Colon G. Bywater Planning hnd Construction Director CGB:bc Enclosures cc: Ken Trone Dave McArthur PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS Almondale Park (Bid FY 2001-2002) Construction $172,666.00 Additive Alternate $ 45,000.00 Plant Materials $ 10,967.81 Turf Seed $ 4,943.40 $233,577.21 Greenacres - Playground Upgrade (Bid FY 21302-2003) Construction $56,348.00 Additive Alternate $ 500.00 Equipment $42,360.85 $99,208.85 Liberty Park (Bid FY 2001-2002 & 2002-2003) - (Site graded by county. NBRPD's bid proposal included minor grading. Trees planted by volunteers). Construction $801,250.00 Additive Alternate $329,000.00 Plant Materials $ 16,037.16 Paulownia Trees $ 3,200.00 Equipment $ 62,130.51 Turf Seed $ 8,132.00 Basketball Court & Fence $ 52,395.00 $1,272,144.67 Mondavi Park (Bid FY 2001-2002) · Construction $160,000.00 Additive Alternate $ 33,000.00 Plant Materials $ 8,026.80 Turf Seed $ 3,466.80 $204,493.60 North Beardsley - Playground Upgrade (Bid FY 2002-2003) Construction $62,408.00 Equipment .$41,876.49 Trees $ 865.47 Sign $ 2,430.00 $107,579.96 Standard Park (Bid FY 2000-2001) - (This project did not include any landscaping) Construction $531,011.00 Equipment $ 68,896.89' Water Play Area $ 9,882.00 Restroom Improvements $ 18,174.00 $627,963.89 ATTACHMENT E Aug-07-03 08:09A BIA of Kern County 661 6331317 P.02 Page 1 of 1 Brian J. Todd From: Brian J. Todd [briant@kembia.com] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:47 PM To: briant@kernbia.com Subject: FW: Scott Workman's overview numbers Importance: High On an 8 acre park (not including land cost) 4~~. (~-~-o Sprinklers, grass, 200 trees, one baseball field, completed in 1997, $200,000. One bathroom $90,000. 7/29/03 ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F a. The unit price of $5 per cubic yard for grading seems high. Mr. McIntosh indicated that he thought $3 per cubic yard would be more appropriate. Response: After additional research, the unit price of $5 per cubic yard appears reasonable (refer to attached memorandum). b. Mr. McIntosh thought that the budget for item 16 (Design/Development/ Administration) was high. Response: The following percentages were used in this analysis: Design 8% (This rate is in-linewith national averages for projects of average complexity per the American Society of Civil Engineers Manuals and Reports No. 45.) Contract Administration 1%* Construction Staking 2%* Construction Inspection 4%* Total Percentage 15% * Historically used for city projects. c. Mr. McIntosh thought that the unit price of $25 per linear foot of 4" inch sewer service line was high. Response: Staff concurs with Mr. McIntosh's opinion and the unit pricing has been lowered to $17 per linear foot (refer to attached memorandum). · G:\GROUPDAT\GeorginaXPark Development FeesXAttachments.doc B A K E R S F I E L D Public Works Department Memorandum TO: Arnold Ramming, Civil Engineer IV Bill McClure, Civil Engineer If,,,~.. FROM: DATE: August 11, 2003 SUBJECT: Park Improvement Fees Pursuant to your request for a review of cost we used in developing park improvement fees for a typical 10 acre park, the following is submitted: Earthwork- Rough Grading Cost The original cost estimate staff used for rough grading was $7.00/CY. This price was obtained from .Tevis Ranch Park Bid Tab of 1/23/96 adjusted to 3/1/03 by using the Construction Cost Index (CCI) as published by Engineering News Record. Staff used only the top three bidders to arrive at the average unit price. Following is the summary of the three bids used: $5.88; $5.30; and $5.70 as shown on the attached bid tab. The CCI for 2/96 was 5532 and the CCI for 3/03 is 6627, therefore the adjustment was 19.794% yielding a current adjusted price of $6.74/CY. Staff also used the current bid results from the Realignment of Comanche Drive at SR178 (10/3/02) as a backup construction cost of $9.00/CY, copy attached. For the Park Improvement Fees the cost was set at $5.00/CY. Utilities - 4" Sewer Line Cost Likewise staff used $35.00/LF for 4" sewer line cost based upon recent sewer construction cost. The average for the top three Iow bidders on Panama No. 12 Annexation Sewer Improvements Bid Tab of 11/09/98 was $31.34/LF, see attached bid tab. Using the 12/98 CCI index of 5920 and the 3/03 index of 6627 yielded an adjusted cost of $35.08/LF. For backup, staff used the Gwendolyn Street Area Sewers Bid Tab of 8/7/01 to obtain the average of the top three Iow bidders cost of $35.65 ($21.00; $28.36; and $57.60). This cost was also adjusted to 3/03 cost using the Construction Cost Index to yield a current price of $36.98/LF. For the Park Improvement Fees this cost was set at $17.00/LF. Attachments: Bid Tabs: Tevis Ranch Park; Realignment of Comanche Drive; Panama No. 12 Annexation; Gwendolyn Street Sewers, and Construction Cost Index History c: · Jack LaRochelle Reading File WGM 8/13/03 S:\PROJECTS\BilI~Typica110 Acre Park\8 11 03 Memo Cost for Grading & Sewer Line.doc P~K)elot 4 · TEVIS RANCH PARK, Bid date 1123196 Checked 6y: Prepared By: TM Project Number: P6C0O8 ,~.. ed By: RM" Date Prepared: Janua~/.213, 1996 ' Date Pdnted: January 24, 1996 . - ~.0. BOX [ ersfield, t CAg3312 Item Qt, Unit Pd--'~- Extentsion Unit Price Extentsion Unit Price Exlentslon Unit Price I Exlentsion ~.~I~emove Existin~ m~-tion Line ~ ,~60 $~.78 ~ $1.00 ~ ~ $6.77, $2.437.20 ~_..~l~_c~_~ti_~. -$~-.86~ $97,020.00 -$5.30 S87,450.00 $5.70 $94,000.00 S5.81; $95,665.u~)' '"316~i~'~ ~i'~6 ~-'--- ........ ' 1 ,67.00 51,757.00 $~00.00 S~oo.oo S~,TSO.OO $~,?so,oo 54,~00.00 s,4,~00.00 -~-.~s~h~-~_0.nc~ete (Type B) 180 ~35.44 $6,379.20 --~,~1~00 $5,580.00 S~9.19 $6,855.00 1=,500 ~'~ '~22,~50.00 $2.20 s20.?00.00 $2,81 s~7,g35.00 ,s2,13 1 5,600 '$i~8§ $10,528.00_ '~3.00 S16,800.00 $3.09 $17,276.00 $2.57, $14,392.00 6~Minor Concrete (Sidewalk,ramp) '""_~]~i~0-r' ~~n-Site Curt)) '~[L--3-8 $4,502.4°` $9.40 $4,512,00 $10,40 S4,992.00 _$_9.49: S4,555,2_~.0 ........ ~-0$6,$0m00'- -$6.30 510,4S~.00 s4.e~' $6,1~.00 $6,43 510,673,~0 121M nor Concrete (9 x 14 Mow Cra'b) _ $'~-0-~)- S770.00 $676,92 $676.92 -~ ~Js-~'~ign --~ 6 ~.61 $1,563.66 $190.00 '$1,140.00 $152.17 $913.00 $197.44 . $1,164.64 '-['i-~ii-~)~"~tri in incl handicap parking) .~21.--~1 .~. · $521.21 $1,000.00 ,$1,000.00 _ $258.50 S258.50 $733.33 ! S73_3._3_3 -~-~TS~~~valves/fountain & pad ,224.12 ' , $22'4.12 $8,100.00 ~.~.R;IO0.O0 $12,~0.00 $12,150.00 $12,410.26 ~ 11~,410.26 ~-'{~l~Work .............. ~ 1 375 89 $58,375.89 - SSO,O00.O0 '.:;~$~,000.00 $59,400.00 ~0,400.00 ~6,756.10, ~8,7~.~. X ~'ii6i~i~;~'sys~em with ~nlroller & phone service ............ e I - :016.32 ~,~5.28 ~1,050.00 ~:'.,;j~;200.O0 $2,~93.00 510,772.00 , 25a~icnic Table under shade ~maur , 4 ~' . 26JBasketba Equipment ................... ; ........ ~_~ ~ ............ $2,112.00 , 27 Trash ~"c~o~r~ ................. ,09~:2~ --"~:~b:~ .... -$6:406.00 ,..$6,406.00 $8,085.00 ~8,665,00 Pro. t Name Realingment of Comanche Dri at Pegolof , SR178 and Traffic Signal Bid Tabulation ~~~[~m~lion Grilflth Company ~'~'~' lProp~r~U By: JVH ~ ~ille CA 95077 .' Bakersfield, CA 93307 Qt U~I . · · ' · ~rice Extension _ 1 Mobilization 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $72,020.25 $72,020.25 $87,490.05 ~7,490.05 2 Adjust Manhole 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $650.00 $1,3~.~ $610.~ $1,220.00 ~.. ~. "'"'/' '.' 3 Obliterate Sudace 1 LS $22,105.00 $22,105.00 $1,000.00 '$1,0~.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 4 Remove Traffic Stripes and marking~ 8,507 SQFT $3.00 $25,521.00 $0.75 $6,380.25 '$1.00 $8,507.00 5 Roadway Excavation 13,610 CUYD $7.00 $95,270.00 $10.00 $136,1~.~ $8.00 $108,880.00 6 Abandon 18" Storm Drain 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,0~.~ $3,000.00 $3,000.00 7 Finishing Roadway 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $500.00 $500.~ $4,100.00 $4,100.00 8 Class 4 Aggregale Subbase 6,671 TON $~.00 $53,368.00 $4.50 $30,019.50 $6.00 $40,026.00 9 Class 2 Aggregate Base 8,033 TON $2~.00 $160,660.00 $7.50 . ~0,247.50 $14.00 $112,462.00 10 Asphalt Concrete Type B 4,048 TON $40.00 $161,920.00 $35.00 $141,680.00 $36.00 $145,728.00' 11 Place AC Dike Type A 790 LF $9.00 $7,110.00 $3.00 $2,370.00 $1.50 $1,185.00 12 Place AC Dike Type E 2,128 LF $9.00 $19,152.00 $3.00 $6,~4.00 $1.50 $3,192.00 13 Sl~oulder Backing, Native 72 STA $100.00 $7,200.00 $50.00 $3 ~0.00 $75.00 $5,400.00 14 Concrete Structure, G-2 Drain 2 EA $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $3,000.00 $6~.~ $3,100.00 $6,200.00 15 Concrete Structure, G-1 Drain 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,~.~ $3,100.00 $6,2~.00 16 Metal Beam Guardrail 8A 112 LF $40.00 $4,480.00 $50.00 $5,6~.00 $55.00 $6,160.00 17 MBGR Terminal System SRT 4 EA $900.00 $3,600.00 $450.00 $1,8~.~ $495.00 $1,980.00 18 Install Roadside Signs 3 EA $500.00 $1,500.00 $350.00 $1,050.00 $380.00 $1,140.00 19 Remove and Relocate Signs 5 EA $400.00 $2,000.00 $150.00 ~ $750.~ $159.00 $795.00 20 Remove Signs 3 EA $200.00 $600.00 $125.00 $375.00 $132.00 $396.00 21 Remove and relocate Fence 1,100 LF $7.00 $7,700.00 $6.50 $7,150.00 $7.00 $7,700.00 22 Type III Barricade 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,150.00 ..$1,150.00 $1,235.00 $1,235.00 23 24" Reinforced Concrete Pipe, CLlll 204 LF $50.00 $10,200.00 · $100.00 $20,~.00 $93.00 $18,972.00 24 24" Bored & Jacked Pipe &Casing 130 LF $'/5.o0 $9,750.00 $350.00 ·$45;~.00 $465.00 $60,450.00 25 30" Corrugated Metal Pipe 35 LF $~0.00 $1,050.00 $50.00 $1~750.00 $155.00 $5,425.00 26 Inslall Su~ey Monument 6 EA $30'0.00 $1,800.00 $300.00 '* $1,800.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 27 Thermoplastic Pavement Markings 606 $3.00 $1,818.00 $3.50 ~ ~$2,121.00 $4.00 $2,424.00 28 'lhermopla51ic Detail 22 2,539 LF $1.~0 $3,046.80 $1.00 ':$2,~39.00 $1.00 $2,539.00 29 Thermoplastic Detail 38 1,560 LF $1.50 $2,340.00 $1.20 .. ~:$~.~87~oo $~.30 $2,028.00 30 Thermoplastic Detail 27B 4,679 LF $1.00 $4,679.00 $0.50 ' ;.;$~,339.50 $0.55 $2,573.45 31 Thermoplastic Detail 27C 130 LF $1.25 $162.50 $0.50 ~[?;$~5.~ $0.55 $71.50 32 Paif~ted Traffic Stripe Detail 22 1,276 LF $1.25 $1,595.00 $1.00 "~$~,276.00 $1.00 $1,276.00 33 Painted Traffic Stripe Detail 27B 2,552 LF $1.25 $3,190.00' $1.00 ~;';~,~$2,'5~2.00 $1.00 $2,552.00 34 T~dlic Signal 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00 $115,000.00 '$115~0.00 $123,000.00 $123,000.00 35 p~el)are St()rm Water Polluliof~ PI;m ILS $1(),o()o.o() $10,000.00 $2,000.00 '$2;0~.00 $22,500.00 $22,500.00 BID TABULATION PANAMA NO. 12 ANNEXATION SEWER iMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: ESK040 BID OPENING DATE: 11-09.88 Prepared by. Bob Wilson Checked by:_ ~ patscheck Elec& ContA HP$ Plumb,ng · ,-'~..' ~ ' Er~gineef$ E & M Constructors Halopolf & ~o~ll Date Preparedl i'1-09-98 Appr0~'~'~-~ - Estimate 14581 Tyler S~'eet 140 E. Mo~n Ave ,.' p,o Box 5341 PO. Box 6386 Sylmar, CA 91 342 Port,~rvile, CA 93257 :" Bakersfield, CA 93388 Bok~u.,~eld. CA 93386 Amount U,it Pi'ice Amou,"'--'-'---~Ur~,t Pnc----'~---'~ Ammm-'-"-"-'-~ Unit Price Amount Uml Price Amount ---'--'------- ~ ..... :'-------~-------------'--------- S4S0000 -'------'-'-- '-'-'---1 ~ .__~$10 000 00 . $5500.00 $550000 $325000 ~ $16823.53 $168:23.53 $480000 ~~ T~ench Patch 8" Main ~ $2.975 00 $8.00 $95200 $25.00 $2 975.00 $10,60 $1.26! 40 $14.._...._.._._~ $1695 ~te Trench Patch 8" Main $800 $3 840.00 $22 50 ~ $10 32 $4 953 60 $t4 2__....~.~5 $6 840 00 _ -------~~._ $2_~4(x~0~._..__~ .... $3,393G0 $27.14400_ $1800.00 ~ $271~905 $2231240 $277400 $22t9200 "-'----'---J~8 JSewerP~pe {4" pVCLateral) SuB.TOTAL S104,202.00 OTAL $105,210.3~ 'o rAL S¶0~,~18~0 'OTAL S111,a86.~ OTAL $121.~20,60 5% CONTINGENCY $5~2_10.10__ '[OTAL -~$109,412.1o Gf~lith Company W.M. Lyte$ - . Cai inc. P.O Box 70151 P O. BO~ 437? 2040 pealX~dy Road, Ste 400 Uaker~held, CA 9~301 F~esno, CA i)3744~i:-;' ~ Vacavdle, CA 958~7 Unit Price Amount Unit Price Am~fl~ ' Unit Price ! Amount ...... $__.]_0~ $9,0~ OO ..... $28.10 . $25,374 30 $~4 $10.00 $1,190 00 $2810 S3,343.90 $1596 $1.89924 -- $10.00 $4,800.00 $28.10 -. $13t488.00 $15.10 $7,24800 ___~2,~00.00s2~,,00.0~._ $2>oo0o ...... $55 oo $4.9 ~,_~.~_~ ...... $5~_3.60 -: ~F48,4~.~ , ,$.73 i..~1 $66 018 33~ $70.00 $8,33000 __ $4900 ' '/:.$5~831.00 $11799 $14,04061.. '-- $54.00 $,~.4_,820 0~ $57 60 "$47t9~4.00 $3691 $30~635.30 IOI'AL $147,$35.00 IOfAL $162,2i2..00 ;OTAL $170,957.78 "'::' ::? ,' ,,,./z F .: BID TABULATION ~.', GWENDOI,YN STREET AREA SEWF~RS : Date: uo/u~u, Checked by:_ -~-- '. By: C. Walker Approved by:. K.M. Sc[ivner Bid Opening Date: August.7_~.~OOf ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE BCI HPS Mechartical, Irtc. W.M. Lyles Co. · .....~..~ 5437 Adolphus Avenue 401 34lh Slreet ~.... 1210 W. Olive Avenue 9900 Cody Slreet ' ' ' ' '" Bakersfield,'CA 93308 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Fresno. CA 93744 Coalinga, CA 93210 (661 ) 399-6556 (661 ) 324-21'21 ,.i!.:;~ {559) 441 - 1900 {559) 935-0815 Unit Unit Unit Unit .~ ~-:~' Unil Item Amount Price ;~" Amount Price Amount Price Amount No. Descriplion Quanlit¥ Unit Price -'Amount Price t Compaction Test nq I LS ~5,000.00 ~5,000.00 ~;4,500.00 .~,4,500.0(~ ~2,200.00 ~12~200.00 ~7,800.0~ ~7,800.00 ~,6,000.00 ~16,000.0~ ~ L~S ~ ~ $7,000.00 ~7,000.0C. $10,500.0~ - ~10,S00.00 ~9,000.0~ :~9,000.0(] ,~56,560.00 ~56,560.0~ 3, ~ete Trench Patch 8'main ~ L~F ~ $7050.00 ..___._.~_~.~~~ ~~~ $1.75~ 4 ~e Trench Patch {6' main) 1,420 LF $5.0(] $7,100.0C ~ ~ ~ ~ 14-10 ~ $1.75 ~ 5 Asphall Concrele Trench Patch (4" laleral) 1,210 LF $5.00 $6.050.0(; ~7.50 ~9,075.00 ~19.2g ~23~340.9~ ~ ~17,061.0~ - ~ $2,117.50 6_..L T e 'A' Manhole 8 EA ~~.0_..~0: ~3,t00.00 ~;24,800.00 $2,917.r~ ~123,340.0~ $2,100.00 ~16,800.0~ ~1,187.00 ~,9,496.00 7~Cleanoul 2 EL ~~ $1 700.O01~----~.Z-~'~ ~ -~Z-q-q-'~'~~ ~~ 8 Sewer Pipe- 8' Main 1,410 LF ~0.00 $56,400:00 ~ ~ $36.54 ~ ~ ~ $9..._~2'7--.-.[7 ~, ~_ LF ~.~_~[~.~00.0~' ~34.00 ~48,280.00 ~;33.95 ??2 $48,209.00 ~23.40 ~,33,228.00 .~93.48 $132,74t.60 9 lSowe~ Pi o. 6'Main ~-~--..~'37 ~ BID TOTAl. ~ ~800,00 -..--..--- ~ - ~ · contractor total= $475,296.50 McGraw Hill "": CONSTRUCTION [wo~ Centers ~'_..~ [Our Sites ~lJ Ill Il ~,~li~lJ I~ I Reason #6 for ch~ing Accubld e~im~ing Enginee~ng Ne~-R~ord suOscrlpt~ons ~ aove~se I careers I contact us kill I mill pr,J,ct, i Br,ducb I B,.pI. l'~mp ~ .p~..= Buildings'eatures~c°versConstruction Cost Index Search Thisj us,ness, a o History Education finviro6ment Construction Co~t Index Histo~ {1008-200~) ~ow~r & Industrial HO~ fi~ 8HIL~ THfi I~DfiX: 200 hours o[ common labor at tho 20-ci~ avora~e oI common ~agor rato~, plus 25 c~ o[ standard structural stool shapo~ at tho mill o-Construction ~rior to 10~ and tho [agdcatod 20-ci~ pdco from 100g, plu~ 1.~ 28 tons of poffiand Tran~po~ation com~nt at ~o 20~i~ price, plus 1,088 board-~ o[ 2 x 4 lum~er at th~ 20-ci~ p~co. Indu~t~ Construction fieonomi~ . ~l~C, JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 'bEC ANNUAL ASSOCla AVG 1980 3132 3134 3159 3143 3139 3198 3260 3304 3319 3327 3355 3376 3237 1981 3372 3373 3384 3450 3471 3496 3548 3616 3657 3660 3697 3695 3535 1982 3704 3728 3721 3731 3734 3815 3899 3899 3902 3901 3917 3950 3825 19~ 3960 4001 4006 4001 4003 4073 4108 4132 4142 4127 41~ 4110 4066 ~~ENR~T__.... ~884 4109 4113 4118 4132 4142 4161 4166 4169 4176 4161 4158 41~ 4146 leSS ~1~5 ~53 ~15~ 4150 ~7~ 420~ ~220 ~230 422~ ~228 ~23~ 4228 4195 leSS 42~8 4230 ~231 ~242 ~275 4303 4332.33~ ~5 ~ 4~2 4~5~ ~295 ~USC~ search the DODGE 1987 4354 4352 4359 4363 4369 4387 4404 ~43 4456 4459 ~53 4478 4406 1988 4470 4473 4484 4489 4493 4525 4532 4542 4535 4555 4567 4568 4519 Archilectural 1989 4580 4573 4574 4577 4578 4599 4608 4~18 4~58 4658 4~8 4685 4615 ANNUAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG ~ea~:n ~he SWEETS ~r~duct ~ark~tptace 1990 4680 4685 4691 4693 4707 4732 4734 4752 4774 4771 4787 4777 4732 1991 4777 4~3 4772 4766 4801 4818 4854 4892 4891 4892 4896 4889 4835 ~ 1992 4888 4884 4927 4946 4965 4973 4992 5032 5042 5052 5058 5059 4985 1993 5071 5070 5106 5167 5262 5260 5252 5230 5255 5264 5278 5310 5210 1994 5336 5371 5381 5405 5405 5408 5409 5424 5437 5437 5~9 5439 5408 1995 5443 5~ 5435 5432 5433 5432 5484 5506 5491 5511 5519 5524 5471 1996 5523 5532 5537 5550 5572 5597 5617 5652 5683 5719 5740 57~ 5620 ~t~fimttok~w 1997 5765 5769 5759 5799 5837 5860 5863 5854 5851 5848 5838 5858 5826 ~; , .~ ~ ~ . .f, 1998 5852 5874 5875 5883 5881 5895 5921 5929 5963 5986 5995 5991 5920 1999 6000 5992 5986 6008 6006 6039 6076 6091 6128 6134 6127 6127 6059 2~ ANNUAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 'DEC ooo 6 o, ' 2001 6281 6272 6279 6286 6288 6318 6404 6389 6391 6397 6410 6390 6343 2002 6462 6462 6502 6480 6512 6532 6605 6592 6589 6579 6578 6563 6538 2003 6581 6640 6627 6635 6642 6694 6695 6733 Base: 1913=100 ANNUAL AVERAGE ~~( 1908 97 1931 181 1954 628 1977 2576 1909 91 1932 157 1955 660 1978 2~6 170 1956 692 1979 3003 1910 96 1933 UPDATED SCHEDULE FOR ESTIMATED. PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE Analysis of Development Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park rem # Description of Items Qty Unit Unit Price Extension' I 1 Earthwork / Grading (Flat, Hilly Playfield, Etc. - Subject to specific site conditions) $135,000 Clear and Grub Site 10 Acre $1,500 $15,000 Rough Grade Site (1.5 foot average over site) 24,000 CY $5 $120,000 2 Utility (Electrical/Water/Sewer - Subject to specific design requirements) $43,100 6" Water Service / Meter / Backflow Prevention / 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Connection Electrical Meter & Panel 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 4" Sewer Service Line 300 LF $17 $5,100 Sewer Cleanout 2 EA $1,500 $3,000 3 Irrigation System $258,400 A Automatic Irrigation System 380,000 SF $0.68 $258,400 B Booster Pump (Not required for 10 acre park) $0 C Maxicom System (Included in Automatic Irrigation System) $0 4 Security Light System (20 poles for 10 acre) $50,000 Convenience Lighting 20 EA $2,500 $50,000 5 Restroom Facility with Storage Room - ADA Accessible $120,000 Restroom 600 SF 1LS $120,000 $120,000 6 Parking Lot (36-40 Cars: w/landscaping) $22,440 40 Stall' Parking Lot (16,000 SF) 4" AB and 2" AC Aggregate Base 380 Ton $18 $6,840 Asphalt Concrete 200 Ton $42 $8,400 Curb & Gutter 400 LF $13 $5,200 Commercial Driveway 2 EA $1,000 $2,000 7 Concrete Work Interior/Driveway & Mowstrip- minimum hardscape $46,500 4' Wide Sidewalk 12,000 SF $3 $36,000 Mow Curb 1,400 LF $7.50 $10,500 8 Picnic Facilities (BBQs, tables, shade structures, etc.) $50,000 Picnic Facilities 10 EA $5,000 $50,000 9 "Landscape Plant Materials (Trees, Shrubs, Grass and Ground Cover) $149,340 Soil Amendment 380,000 SF $0.19 $72,200 24' Box Trees 136 EA $200 $27,200 5 Gallon Plants 200 EA $13.20 $2,640 Hydroseed Tud 380,000 SF $0.10 $38,000 Mulch 3" Deep 300 CY $31 $9,300 10 Drinking Fountains (Combination Standard/ADA) $3,000 Drinking Foun?n~: 2 EA $1,500 $3,000 .~, 11 Multigame Slal~.(60x60; Y2 Court; wire reinforcement footing; no lighting) $18,000 Game Court 3,600 SF $5 $18,000 12 360 Day Maintenance $57,000 Landscape & Irrigation System 380,000 SF $0,15 $57,000 Analysis of Development Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park Item # Description of Items Qt¥ Unit Unit Price Extension I 13 Playground Equipment with ADA Requirements $124,000 A Slides, Swings, Sand, Trashcans, etc. Tot Lot Equipment 2 to 5 years 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Tot Lot Equipment 5 to 12 years 1 L $40,000 $40,000 Washed Sand 400 CY $30 $12,000 Resilient Rubber Surfacing 600 SF $25 $15,000 Trash Receptacles 10 EA $500 $5,000 B Shade Structure (size not specified) Shade Structure 900 SF 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 C Concrete - Amount can vary per park site Tot Lot Concrete Perimeter Edge 500 LF $10 $5,000 D Benches - 2 per acre Park Benches 16 EA $750 $12,000 14 Sign/Monument Wall (5'x12') 1 EA $3,600 $3,600. $3,600 15 Y2 Street Improvements on 2 Sides of Park Site $92,000 A Sidewalk: 1250 LF 5.5" wide 5.5' Wide Sidewalk 6,900 SF $3 $20,700 B Curb & Gutter 1,250 LF $13 $16,250 C Pavement: 32,600 SF 6" Aggregate Base 1,180 Ton $18 $21,240 4" Asphalt Concrete 805 Ton $42 $33,810 Construction Total $1,172,380 16 Design / Development / Administration, including Construction Inspection (15% of Construction Total) $176,000 TOTAL REVISED COSTS OF IMPROVEMENT ITEMS $1,348,380 Analysis of Development Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park Item # Description of Items Qt¥ Unit Unit Price Extension I ADDITIONAL REQUIRED AMENITIES AND COSTS 17 Civil Site Work - Storm Drain System $41,000 18" PVC Storm Drain 1,500 LF $25 $37,500 24" Christy Box Catch Basin 7 EA $500 $3,500 ' 18 Architectural - Trash Enclosure $8,500 Trash Enclosure (Walls and Slab) 1 LS $8,500 $8.500 19 Site Furnishings - Basketball Pole & Backboards $5,000 Basketball Pole & Backboards 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 20 Site Lighting - Parking Lot. Basketball Court, Electrical $45,000 Parking Lot Lighting 4 EA $2.500 $10,000 Basketball Court Lighting (30 foot tall poles, 2 ~ 1000 watt 4 EA $6,250 $25,000 lamps per pole) Electrical Distribution to Parking Lot & Basketball Court 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 21 Delete Offsite Street Improvements -$92,000 5o5' Wide Sidewalk -6,900 SF $3 -$20,700 Curb & Gutter -1,250 LF $13 -$16,250 6" Aggregate Base -1,180 Ton $18 -$21,240 4" Asphalt Concrete -805 Ton $42 -$33,810 22 Double Size of Game Court $18,000 Game Court 3,600 SF $5 $18,000 23 Two USTA Tennis Courts $80,000 Reinforced Concrete Slab 12,960 SF $3.90 $50,400 10' High Fencing 456 LF $32 $14,600 Lighting Poles with 12,000 watt illumination 12 EA $1,250 $15,000 Sub-total of Construction Costs for Recommended Changes $105,500 24 Mobilization (5% of All Construction Costs)* $64,000 25 Contingency (10% of Construction Total)** $134,000 Sub-total of items 17 to 25 $303,500 26 Design / Development ! Administration, including Construction Inspection on items 17 to 25 $46,000 (15% of Construction Total) TOTAL COSTS FOR NEWLY ADDED ITEMS $349,500 TOTAL COSTS FOR TYPICAL 10 ACRE PARK (A + B) $1,697,880 'Sum of Construction Total on page 2 ($1,172,380) and Sub-total of Construction Costs for Recommended Changes on page 3 ($105,500). **Construction Total computed as follows: Construction Total on page 2 $1,172,380 Plus Sub-total of Construction Costs for Recommended Changes on page 3 $105.500 Plus Item 24, Mobilization $64,000 $1,341,880 PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE WORKSHEET Method Used to Calculate Fee: 1. A 10-acre park serves 4,000 people based upon the General Plan and Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 15.80 standard of providing park land at a rate of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. 2. Cost of developing a 10-acre park is divided by 4,000 people to obtain a cost per person. a) $1,697,880 + 4,000 = $424.47 cost to # pop. Served cost per person develop by 10-acre park to develop park · 10-acre park 3. Number of persons per dwelling unit type: Type of Unit 2000 Federal Census Persons Per Unit Single Family (SFR) 3.01 Multiple Family (MFR) 2.77 Note: Consistent with the Planning Division, permits are categorized into 2 type of units as identified above. In prior calculations, 1990 Federal Census Persons Per Unit data was used for the duplex and mobile home units. The 2000 Federal Census recategorized many of the unit types. Mobile Home and duplex information are now included with multiple family. 4. Based on last 5 years of building permit data, the ratio of type of building permits is: For every 100 permits there are 97 permits for single family and 3 permits for multiple family. 5. Weighted average of persons per dwelling unit: 97 SFR X 3.01 persons per unit = 291.97 3 MFR X 2.77 persons per unit = 8.31 (291.97 + 8.31) + 100 = 3.00 weighted average persons per unit (pp/du). 6. Calculate the fee using the weighted average persons per unit: 3.00 pp/du X $424.47 (cost/person to develop park) = $1,273.41 per unit G:\GROUPDA%Georgina\Park Development Fees'q:~lf wksht 8/13/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D Economic and Community Development Department :..!.:?~ ~'~.i "'. ~~ August 1,2003 TO: Budget and Finance Committe~ ~-~,/ FROM: Donna L. Kunz, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Loan PolicY Options to Consider for Forgivable EcOnomic Development Loans and Response to Using Owner Equity in Underwriting Guidelines At the April 21, Budget and Finance Committee meeting, you asked for some written examples of when forgivable economic development loans may be acceptable. While the loan policy guidelines you adopted require loans to be repaid in full, you may wish to be more flexible when it comes to the funds set aside for economic development activities in Southeast Bakersfield. All of the ideas below presented for your consideration are allowable under HUD CDBG economic development lending redevelopment guidelines: Currently we have a policy in place that requires all of the loans to be repaid. Continuing this policy would retain the status quo, structuring loans in Southeast Bakersfield the same as all other loans. This position was initially, approved bY the committeein order to recyc!~ limited economic development resources. Unless there was a defaUlt, tl~e amount t© be repaid under this option would be 100%. However, it should be noted that since the new prevailing wage law has been in effect, the economic value of a business accepting a loan with 100% repayment requirements does not offset the cost of the required compliance with the prevailing wage increased development costs. Thus, none have been given in this manner since the law change and unfortunately California is not as competitive for new job creation using only an economic development lending program with these added cost constraints. We have recently reallocated some funds from the SE business loan program for two business development assistance requests to provide financial assistance for required public improvements associated with their new developments. This is a creative financial assistance method that allows for prevailing wage costs to be applied only to the public works component of the project and does not impact the remaining commercial development costs. We can also structure our loans to be forgiven each year that the borrower meets a previously-agreed to employment benchmark. In the past, these benchmarks have been · employment of a certain number of workers for each year, for a period of years and that at least 51% of that number each year be Iow - and moderate-income individuals hired. The average amount of loan dollars to job creation that the City has participated in the past was S:\DEBBIE'S~Budget & Finance\B & F ED loan Policy 4.doc approximately $3,500 of loan funds to 1 job created. In any year that the borrower failed to meet the criteria, the loan amount due for that period is paid. This structure has been utilized in the past for several larger projects that created livable wage employment opportunities for our citizens. It is important for staff to have some flexibility in structuring these business deals as we want to be able to address larger job creating opportunities and also address key redevelopment goals that remove blight and provide important neighborhood services. The amount to repay under this option can vary from 0% to 100%, depending upon how well the borrower met the conditions of the loan. Another flexible idea would be to allow at least half of the loan amount to be forgiven under the same philosophy as detailed above. The amount to be repaid would be a minimum of 50% of the total loan amount and it could reach as high as 100%, depending upon how well the borrower met the employment conditions of the forgivable portion of the loan. This may or may not appeal to borrowers depending on the impact of the prevailing wage cost to their project. Partial repayment, however, will keep some of the limited funds revolving for future business opportunities.. As you can see, there are many creative ways to structure economic development assistance using an array of grants, forgivable loans and Iow cost loans. Each project should be carefully analyzed for its relevant merit and financially structured to meet the required gap that keeps it from being attainable if done privately. Several of our staff members have been trained and certified by various national economic development councils to analyze and structure economic development assistance packages and have many years experience in doing so. Staff would encourage the committee to allow deal flexibility on a case by case basis. The opportunity to discuss any transaction structure is available with this committee on each request that is to be considered. Staff will include a summary of the deal points for the committee's consideration in all CDBG financial assistance request packages. This same information is provided to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council for their consideration. Lastly, the committee has also requested the Economic Development Department to explain how "Owner's Equity" fits into our underwriting guidelines for the purpose of this program. The department examines owner's equity for the purpose of evaluating a reasonable return to the owner from the project's expected cash flow after development or rehabilitation has been completed. This is called - ROI (Return on Equity). The size of the loan is determined by the development costs, the project's available and expected cash flow and its ability to debt service a loan and lastly by the current loan amount size constraint placed by the committee of not to exceed 50% of the project's costs. Typically, an owner will use their "equity" portion identified in the project development proforma to help them obtain the matching private financing needed for the 50% cost of the project not provided from our loan. Our loans can be subordinated to a commercial bank that provides the primary financing for the project. Private bank loans usually require the property as collateral and sometimes the owner's equity as security for their commercial loan. Under our current lending guidelines, We typically provide gap financing between 10% and 30% of the project development costs. The balance of the project's costs - 70% to 90%, is typically privately financed by the owners and their commercial banks. S:\DEBBIE'S~,Budget & Finance~B & F ED loan Policy 4.doc B A K E R S F I'E L D Economic and Community Development Department M E Mo'R A.N D U M July 25, 2003 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Donna L. Kunz, Economic Development DirectOr SUBJECT: Request from Bakersfield Civic Light Opera Association (a.k.a. Bakersfield Music Theatre) for Early Release of Mortgage Collateral Associated with its CDBG Loan Bakersfield Civic Light Operation Association (BCLOA) has requested the release of the real estate collateral that secures its CDBG-funded loan that was Provided from the City of Bakersfield. BCLOA, also known as Bakersfield Music Theatre, has a short term window of opportunity to sell the property being used as collateral and use the proceeds to reduce its bank debt. A consortium of banks provided a business loan to BCLOA. These banks are 'considering donating part of the loan payoff if the debt is retired at this time. BCLOA would like to take advantage of this financial opportunity and has requested speedy consideration of their request. In 2000,.Council approved Agreement 00-140, .a CDBG-funded loan to assist BCLOA in relocating its Stars Dinner Theatre to a downtown location at 1931 Chester Avenue. The purpose of the loan was to pay down the long-term lease of the new location. The original amount of the loan was $50,000 and is forgivable. Like all other CDBG- funded loans, the borrower agreed that 51% of all jobs created will be Iow - and moderate- income individuals. BCLOA has met this requirement since year one and payment for the first three years' obligations ($10,000 for each of the three years) has been forgiven, leaving an outstanding loan balance of $20,000. The collateral used to secure the loan is a first deed of trust on commercial property that BCLOA owns at 10518 Main Street. in Lamont. If the collateral is released, it would result in the City of Bakersfield having an unsecured loan on the remaining $20,000 (forgivable) loan balance. Loan guidelines adopted by the Budget and Finance Committee last year call for new loan proposals to have adequate security and be repayable. However, the BCLOA loan was in place prior to the adoption of the new guidelines. The Committee is currently reviewing amending the guidelines to allow for loan forgiveness for job creation efforts. S:~Darnell~2003Bud&FinCom\memo bakers music.doc Budget and Finance Committee July 25, 2003 Page 2 BLCOA is.reqUesting only the release of the collateral. Its employment obligations under the loan agreement would remain in effect until the expiration of-the loan on May 23, 2005. A release of collateral would require an amendment to the agreement approved by Council. BLCOA has technically exceeded the employment requirements in the agreement annually and intends to continue to pursue additional employment opportunities for Iow and moderate income persons. The Stars Dinner Theater is an excellent commercial reuse redevelopment project and a quality investment in our downtown. The quality theater activities encourage positive community enjoyment of our downtown and help attract visitors to other downtown retailers. Allowing BCLOA to amend the agreement and release the collateral helps assure the long- term financial success of the Stars Dinner Theater in our downtown. Staff recommends approval of an amendment to Agreement 00-140 to release the collateral. S:~Darnell~2003Bud&FinCom~memo bakers music.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT ME~ I lNG DATE: April 30, 2003 I AGENDA SECTION: Consent I ITEM: c~. s~. TO: Honorable Mayor and 'City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD /~ DATE: April 11, 2003 CITY A'I-rORNEY ~/~,//'/~, CITY MANAGER ~' SUBJECT: Review Proposal for In-House Liability Claims Administration RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Budget & Finance Committee BACKGROUND: The City of Bakersfield currently contracts with AIMS to handle all liability claims made against the City. These services include setting up claim files, maintaining reserves, investigation and settlement of liability claims. The City currently pays approximately $115,000 per year to AIMS for these services. Staff feels there is an opportunity to save about $40,000 in claims administration costs by bringing that service in-house. The following report outlines cost savings in administration and Claims costs that would result from the change. Survey of Cities For some time City staff has been analyzing the effects of bringing Claims administration in-house. To begin with, a survey was sent out to cities similar to Bakersfield to determine how they adjusted liability claims. I have attached the survey spreadsheet for review. Of the eight entities that responded, seven adjust claims in-house. Of the seven entities that adjusted claims in-house, all expressed an opinion that this was' the best way to handle the adjusting process from both a cost and service perspective. The cities surveyed agreed that claims administration is not difficult to manage in-house and is generally less expensive that private management. The City's Risk Manager, who in his previous position managed liability claims for a private sector employer, agrees that liability claims can be managed more effectively in-house. ,Administrative Cost Savings Charges from AIMS are incurred on an hourly basis. On average for the past 3 years we've paid AIMS about $115,000 per year for liability claims administration. This is based on a case load of abOut 180 claims per year. Of course, if the number of claims were to go up over time, we would expect our cost for claims administration to rise as well. Bringing claims administration in-house would require that a claims adjuster position be created with the City. The annual cost to fill the position and administer the liability claims function is shown below: Apdl 22, 2003, 1:37PM S:~,dmin Rpts~003~in-house liability admin 04-30-03.doc AT:al Page 1 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Liability Admin. Budqet YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 Claims Adjuster's Salary50,000 52,500 55,125 Fringe Benefits 13,930 14,626 15,357 Vehicle use 4,500 4,500 4,500 Computer 1,013 1,013 1,013 RMIS software . 4,000 4,000 4,000 Total · 73,443 76,639 79,995 . AIMS Claims Admin. ($1-15,000) ($116,150) ($117,312) Annual Savings $40,370 $39,511 $37,317 There would be a one-time cost of $20,000 for claims administration software in Year 1, and annual maintenance and software upgrades cost of $4,000 per year (shown above as "RMIS software"). There would also be a one time cost of $2,000 for a standard desktop personal computer, and annual maintenance and depreciation costs of $1,013 (shown above as "Computer") .Other Cost Savinqs and Service Advantaqes Bringing the liability adjusting function in-house would decrease the time and energy tracking claims. Currently, new claims are logged in the city clerk's office and sent to risk management. Risk management assigns a number, logs the claim, sets up a file and then sends the claim via mail to AIMS. Upon receipt of the claim, AIMS enters the claim into their system, sets up a file, and then forwards the claim to the adjuster for handling. In essence, the same information is logged in twice, and we are charged by AIMS by the hour for the work. If the claims were handled in-house, an adjuster could contact the claimant immediately upon receipt of the claim at the clerk's office. Sending the claims to AIMS adds another three to five days to this time frame. Studies show'that the sooner a claimant is contacted and the claim is concluded, .the less it will cost. The reason for ibis is the claimant has less time to worry about their loss and less time to contact an attorney. Early contact also prevents the claimant from becoming frustrated, by lack of attention. Once an attorney is retained the costs increase dramatically. Savings in actual claims costs and settlements is potentially great, but difficult to quantify. The City paid $890,000 in claims payments in FY 01-02 at an average cost of $4,944 per claim. Conservatively, if only 18 of our claims 180 claims (10%) were handled more quickly; a 5% cost reduction in those claims could result in a dollar savings of $247 per claim or $4,450 per year. Again, these savings are potential in nature, but not guaranteed. However, staff is confident that potential for savings does exist. From a service perspective, handling the claims in-house allows quicker contact and resolution of claims with citizens. An in-house adjuster also would .be available to handle claims and speak with citizens 8:00 to 5:00, while AIMS' availability is more limited and divided between other clients. Efficiency Bringing the liability claims handling function in-house would also result in greater efficiency. As demonstrated above, we are duplicating certain tasks as risk management maintains files and a record keeping system in-house, and the same system is maintained by AIMS. 'April 8, 2003, 11:09AM S:V~dmin Rpts~003~in-house liability admin 04-30-03.doc AT:al Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Risk management has numerous conversations with claimants before a claim is filed, and while the claim is being adjusted. All our conversations must be passed on to AIMS. An in-house adjuster would handle these calls personally and save time spent on duplicate conversations. AIMS currently keeps us apprised by sending written reports that must be dictated, typed, and mailed to · the City. We are charged for that work on an hourly basis. An in-house adjuster would work off a computer system and keep notes, action plans, and settlement information in our office. Writing and mailing reports to another entity would no longer be necessary and we would not be charged an hourly rate for that service. Communication between risk management and the attorney's office regarding litigated claims would be enhanced by an in-house adjuster, who is available at a moment's notice. The City adjuster would alSo be available to staff throughout the City at no additional cost to user departments. Having a liability information system on computer network would also improve the quality and availability of claims and loss control reports. Agencies we surveyed found value in having a system they controlled and managed. The AIMS' liability management information system is proprietary and requires them to fax or email reports to the City .upon request. Available Claims Adiusters Our research also indicates that there are a number of individuals residing in Kern County that would qualify as a claims adjuster. Our survey of cities found that most agencies had many qualified applicants when adjuster positions came open. Kern County's Claim Manager has been employed by them for many years and believes the position would be very attractive to qualified applicants. Furthermore, insurance companies have been consolidating at a fairly fast past which has lead to layoffs for adjusters. All these factors point to a more than adequate labor pool for claims adjusters. Staff looked into the i3ossibility of hiring part. time or contract adjusters. The sUrvey cities responded that a contract adjuster is really the same as using a third party administrator with a dedicated adjuster for the account, which is what Bakersfield currently employs AIMS to do. The survey cities felt that part-time or contract adjusters were good to use as back-up in case the in-house adjuster is off, but not in place of full-time staff. Conclusion Staff recommends bringing the liability adjusting function in-house and hiring a full-time claims adjuster. There are real cost savings available in claims administration and potential savings in actual claims payments. Given the state of the budget, we believe it is wise for us to look for savings in every City operation. Based on our claim volume and the types of claims we receive, most if not all of an adjuster's time would be spent adjusting claims. If time was made available, we would recommend the position serve as a Smith System driving instructor for all new hires and existing employees and assist with other safety programs. These activities also have cost saving benefit to the City. We recommend this item be referred to Budget & Finance Committee for further consideration. April 8, 2003, 11:09AM S:~Adrnin Rpts~2003~in-house liability admin 04-30-03.doc AT:al Page 3 B A K E R S F I E L D RISK MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM March 21, 2003 TO: ALAN CHRISTENSEN FROM: PAT FLAHERTY SUBJECT: IN-HOUSE LIABILITY ADJUSTER Please find a summary of the responses I received from various cities (Anaheim, Fremont, Modesto, Santa Ana and Santa Monica) regarding the questions that were raised at our first meeting with Alan Tandy. I am meeting with the Kern County claim manager and liability adjuster next Friday to discuss these issues: 1. What internal controls are in place to prevent fraud: Limiting the authority level in risk management was the first response. Most cities had similar authority levels as Bakersfield - risk management $10K, city attorney 25K, and anything above 25K needs to go to council. Most cities also require two signatures before a check request is submitted - usually the adjuster and the risk or claim manager. All cities require check requests to go through accounts payable with proper documentation. The last response was a claims audit is done periodically to ensure claims are being properly investigated and settled appropriately. 2. Is there pressure from council to settle certain claims: All cities reported very minimal involvement from council in the claims area. Most cities stated this occurred once or twice a year, with minimal pressure from council. 3. What are your thoughts about part time or contract adjusters: Most cities responded that you might as well keep your TPA and use a dedicated adjuster to the account, which is what Bakersfield currently does. They felt part time or contract adjusters were good to use as back-up in case the in-house adjuster(s) is off work. 4. Most cities reported a lot of qualified applicants when adjusting jobs have been posted. I suspect the reason is most adjusters would like to get out of the insurance company environment. However, the cities I spoke with were in larger metropolitan areas. Another positive point in this regard is insurance companies have been consolidating at a fairly fast pace which has lead to lay offs. January 30, 2003 TO: ALAN CHRISTENSEN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: PAT FLAHERTY, RISK MANAGER ,~[c SUBJECT: LIABILITY ADJUSTING CURRENT SITUATION The City of Bakersfield currently contracts with AIMS to handle all liability claims made against the City. These serVices include setting up Claim files, maintaining reserVes, investigation and settlement of liability claims. The City currently pays approximately $115,000 per year to AIMS for these serVices. Approximately 180 .claims per year are presented against the City. SURVEY A surVey was sent out to cities similar to Bakersfield to determine hoTM they adjusted liability claims. I have attached the surVey spreadsheet for review. Of the eight entities that responded, seven adjust claims in-house. The only city that used a third party administrator was Ontario. Of the seven entities that adjusted claims in-house, all expressed an opinion that this was the best way to handle the adjusting process from both a cost and serVice perspective. .ADMINISTRATIVE COST As mentioned, we currently pay AIMS approximately $115,000 per year for their serVices. The cost to bring the liability adjusting function in-house is estimated below on an annual basis: YEAR 1 Salary 50,000 ~ Benefits 13,930 50,000 Vehicle use 4,500 13,930 4,500 Computer and phone 2,200. 2,200 RMIS updates 4,000 RMIS purchase ~ 4,000 Total 94,6,30 ._.__Q0 74,630 The cost savings in year I would be as follows: 115,000 - 94,630 -- $20,370. The cost savings in subsequent years would be as follows: 115,000 - 74,630 = $40,370. SETTLEMENT COST AND SERVICE Bringing the liability adjusting function in-house would decrease the settlement costs to the City. Currently, new claims are logged in the city clerk's office and sent to risk management. Risk management assigns a'number, logs the claim, sets up a file and then sends the claim via mail to AIMS. Upon receipt of the claim, AIMS enters the claim into their system, sets up a file, and then forwards the claim to the adjuster for handling. If the claims were handled in-house,' an adjuster could contact the claimant within a day or two of receipt of the claim at the clerk's office. Sending the claims to AIMS adds another three to five days to this time frame. Studies show that the sooner a claimant is contacted and the claim is concluded, the less it will cost. The reason for this is the claimant 'has less time to worry about their loss and less time to contact an attorney. Once an attorney is-retained the costs increase 'dramatically. From a service perspective, handling the claims in-hOuse allows quicker contact and resolution of claims with citizens. An in-house adjuster also ~weuld be available to handle claims and speak with citizens 8:00 to 5:00, while AIMS' avail,ability is more limited. EFFICIENCY Bringing the liability claims handling function in-house would also result in greater efficiency. As demonstrated above, we are essentially duplicating certain tasks as risk management maintains files and a record keeping system in-house, and files and a record keeping system are maintained by AIMS. Risk management has numerous conversations with claimants before a claim is filed, and while the claim is being adjusted. All our conversations must be passed on to AIMS. An in-house adjuster would handle these calls personally and avoid duplicate conversations. AIMS currently keeps us apprised by sending written 'reports that must be dictated, typed, and mailed to the City. An in-house adjuster would work off a computer system and keep notes, action plans, settlement information, etc. on line. No time would be 'spent writing and mailing reports. Communication between risk management and the attorney's office regarding litigated claims would also be enhanced by an in-house adjuster. Having an in-house risk management information system would also improve the quality and availability of claims and loss control reports. These reports could then be shared with departments to help with loss control efforts. ~RECOMMENDATION Based on' cost savings and increased service and efficiency I recommend bringing the liability adjusting fUnction in-house. Also,. based on our claim volume and the types of claims we receive, I estimate the in-house adjuster would also have time to serve as a Smith System driving instructor for all new hires and help with the driver training of existing employees. .# OF .ii OF RISK I ~ I ~ I 'INSIDE I # OF HA VE A ~ ~-. ~ _P..~R._Y_E,~R_._ ._~ ' AD~ ~ __S?;_7~E~_.. MANA_._....... ER Anaheim 328,000 ~)~ ~' I .... ~-~ ..... --t' ---~'0~'00--~ ......... ~si-~--- 2 54 to 74k ATS Yes 65 to 91k claim manager who also performs ...................... ~ ......................... / t other risk 1,200 I 7 200 1,000,000 --- -!n-s.!cl- e .... -- Ile~ "~-~- I 1 50 T~ 6Ok' ~__~a ..... ~-~-'-' Santa Monica 90,000 I 1,700 11.5 550 * 1,500,000 Inside --~/' Santa Anat 338,000 ;:l 1,600 full 10.5 204 -' ___~: 1___~,.0..0~.- .... Inside ~ 2 -- 62 ,o 72k Valley Oak Yes l---8-0~'-'part--- -- ............................... (1 assistant~-- Ontario 160,000 t 1,000 3 ~'(~){~ ---- 1,5-~--~,~(~' TPA ........ +i '1 _ None ___U_ s. ed..t0_- Trackability __ ~ from Monterey_. 30,000 '~ 1.5 __1.5 .... 60- ............._1_0-0-_,000-. ...../~s.i_d_e__ I ? recordables No _County of Kern 661,000 -~'. 9,000 23 300 ? -- Inside 1 ! __ 59,000 v_a!l_eyPa~ Yes. mop2f_ ~_c._a.!~__~ _. - ........... Patrick Flahert)/- RE: AIMS Liability Fees Pa~e 1 From: "Dave Whiteside" <dwhiteside@aims4claims.com> To: "Patrick Flaherty" <Pflahert@ci.bakersfield.ca.us> Date: 12/27/02.12:02PM Subject: RE: AIMS Liability Fees Pat, I hope you had a great Christmas also, I apologize for the delay in providing this information. Unfortunately, part of the problem was associated with retrieving the information for all five years. This was due to the previous conversion of our internal accounting system. I was having a hard time getting the information, since I was not familiar with the previous system. The last three years makes it easy as I already had that information available. The numbers I am providing include the total annual cost to the City of Bakersfield, which includes fees and expenses. Since our original contract started in August, we used August-to-July as a program year. I hope this will give you the information you need for your budget forecasting. The three years are as follows: 8-99/7-00 $122,519.61 8-00/7-01 $ 99,445.05 8-01/7-02 $114,266.45 3 Yr. Avg. $112,077.04 If you require any additional information, please don't, hesitate to call. By the way, Have a Happy New Year. Dave W. ..... Original Message ..... From: Patrick Flaherty [mailto:Pflahert@ci.bakersfield.ca. us] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 11:13 AM To: dwhiteside @ aims4claims.com Subject: AIMS Liability Fees I hope you had a great Christmas. I still haven't received the information · on the liability fees we have paid AIMS the last 3 years. Thanks Summary of the AIMS payroll for the past 5 years FY 1999 FY 2001 June/July $ 12,851.00 June/July $ 10,883.00 May/June $ 4,315.00 May/June $ 9,561.00 April/May $ 8,047.00 April/May $ 10,440.00 March/April $ 10,395.00 March/April $ 9,677.00 February/March $ 5,109.00 February/March $ 12,910.00 January/February $ 7,458.00 January/February $ 8,133.00 December/JanUary $ 4,723.00 December/January $ 5,048.00 November/December $ 10,072.00 November/December $ 9,860.00 October/November $ 9,243.00 October/November $ 2,063.00 September/October $ 10,206.00 September/October $ 9,525.00 August/Septem ber $ 6,478.00 August/Septem ber $ 4,165.00 July/August $ i2,551.00 July/August $ 12,166.00 TOTAL $ 101,448.00 TOTAL $ 104,431.00 FY 2000 FY 2002 June/July $ 16,506.00 June/July $ May/June $ _ May/June $ 10.883.00 April/May $ 13,314.00 April/May $ 10 705.00 March/April $ 15,709.00 March/April $ 7 572.00 February/March $ 9,946.00 February/March $ 7 612.00 January/February $ 12,346.00 January/February $ 12 329.00 December/January $ 8,318.00 December/January $ 14.917.00 November/December $ 20,949.00 November/December $ 12,807.00 October/November $ 11,085.00 October/November $ 9,206.00 Septem ber/October $ 19,164.00 Septem ber/October $ 10,019.00 August/September $ 10,184.00 August/September $ 9,525.00 July/August $ 14,262.00 July/August $ 12,755.00 TOTAL $ 151,783.00 TOTAL $ 118,330.00 FY 2003 September/October $ 9,877.00 August/September $ 10,416.00 July/August $ 12,755.00 TOTAL $ 33,048.00