Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch . Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater REGULAR MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, September 22, 2003 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 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, DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF SALE OR LEASE OF. PROPERTY 5. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MISDEMEANOR PROSECUTIONS BY THE CITY A'I-rORNEY 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT B A K E R S F I E ~ D Alan lan agor Su~ Bonham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMI'I'I'EE Regular Meeting Monday, July 21,2003 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:03 p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan arrived at 1:05 p.m. 2. ADOPT APRIL 28, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMI'I'rEE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ORDINANCE REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF SALE. OR LEASE OF PROPERTY City Attorney Bart Thiltgen gave a brief perspective on why the current ordinance was set up to require a 2/3rds super majority vote. It was also mentioned that there was no memory of when this had posed a problem in the past, that at one time the Council served as the Redevelopment Agency, and that it could have been the Council did not want to relegate the authority to the Redevelopment Agency. Finance Director Greg Klimko also mentioned that in the beginning the Redevelopment Agency was an unknown quantity. Agenda Summary Report DRAFT Legislative and Litigation Committee July 21,2003 Page 2 Staff recommendation is to require a simple majority rather than a super majority, which also provides consistency and conformity with other ordinances. Committee Member Jacquie Sullivan indicated she supported staff's position for consistency and conformity. Committee Chair Sue Benham and Committee Member David Couch indicated some doubts about the need to change the ordinance since it has not appeared to pose a problem in the past. Additional discussion included, among others, questions on eminent domain in Redevelopment proceedings. Committee Chairperson Benham, as staff responded there was not an immediate need for a decision, indicated she felt staff should provide additional information before a decision is made. The issue will be revisited at the next Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting. B. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE CITY'S BIDDING PROCESS Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle explained that the request for proposals (RFPs) process for professional services is a qualifications-based process and is not a Iow- bid process. The first step is a solicitation for requests for qualifications (RFQs), then for RFPs. During the process, a selection committee meets to discuss the requirements, proposals are issued, and interviews are held. Based on a point system (with points earned at various stages in the process), the one with the most points wins. At that .point, negotiations on price begin. Mr. LaRochelle noted that the City can combine a RFQ/RFP process into one in certain instances when using local *funds because we are a charter city. State Transportation Impact Projects (STIP) using state or federal funds have their own regulations which must be followed. In response to a question from Committee Member Sullivan, Mr. Klimko responded that the City doesn't "shop for price" as there are a number of issues which arise. One of several downsides is that people stop submitting proposals and over time the group that does submit slowly increases their pricing. The City needs the flexibility to obtain the most qualified provider. Different types of contracts call for different types of procedures to follow, i.e., an annual contract for service, a contract for a specific project, or a contract for purchase of equipment. Equipment purchases have minimal standards identified and normally include "or equal" qualifications. Some bidders depend on the "or equal" clause to meet specifications. The City can reject those bids if it feels they do not meet specifications. Several representatives from agencies which have submitted bids in the past spoke. Mr. Matt Kouri, Refuse Power Systems, indicated he thinks the City's process is one of the best he's seen. Mr. Richard Neal, Central Valley Truck Center, indicated the specifications are generic and his experiences with the City have been good. Mr. Kurt Schoppe, Morbark, Inc., indicated he has seen lots of specifications, would like to see more RFQs in equipment, and indicated specifications can be discussed. Mr. Klimko indicated that lots of time when the City 'bids equipment the specifications are analyzed before the bid process. Sometimes a vendor brings up an error or makes suggestions and this can .be added as an addendum which can extend the bid date; everyone Who has asked 'for the bid packet gets the addendum. Agenda Summary Report DRAFT Legislative and Litigation Committee July 21, 2003 Page 3 Mr. David Muncy, McClellan Equipment, indicated he was not happy with the City's process. He likes pre-bid meetings. Mr. Muncy indicated two days before a bid ended the City sent out an addendum due in three days. The City took his specifications sheet word for word. The City wrote him out of a specification where it single-sourced his water truck body. In this, someone could sell a "B" model for $10,000 less than his equipment. Mr. LaRochelle indicated the desirability of a pre-bid meeting was offset by the practical matter that not everyone can attend and that attendance could not be made mandatory. Fleet Superintendent Ernie Medina identified Fleet's and Public Works's responsibility to ensure bids were correct. He noted that there may be as many as 40 bids per year. Current practice is when bids go out, vendors call in if there are questions or suggestions and an assimilation of all the information is made by City staff. Then, if needed, addendums can be sent out. ' Committee Member Couch asked staff to look at a pre-bid meeting, with sending what comes out of it to everyone. Committee Chairperson Benham mentioned that the City often looks at what other similarly situated and sized cities do when reviewing our procedures. It might also be helpful to see how prevalent is the use of pre-bid meetings. This issue could be followed up an upcoming Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting. Mr. Klimko suggested that if a pre-bid meeting procedure is to be followed that a dollar amount should be established so that smaller bids not needing the procedure could be excluded. A comment was made by an attendee that at a pre-bid meetings, the bidders will try to dictate to you what you need. Some may add specifications not everyone can meet. Mr. Schoppe indicated pre-bid meetings generally clarify the scope of the project and he would love a mandatory meeting. He agreed that a pre-bid meeting on every project is excessive. Mr. LaRochelle clarified that a pre-bidding meeting gets everybody on the same bidding page. He indicated that in his experience, not a lot of people show up, and those that do show up do not always share how they want to attack a certain project because they are in competition with the others in attendance. Committee Chairperson Benham indicated she would be interested in what the Public Works Department would think the benefits to the City would be in having a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting but does not want to get into a situation where accommodation to others expends too much staff time. She encouraged Committee Members to feel free to ask staff for clarification on any questions they may have between now and the October 20th Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting where this issue will again be discussed. C. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAGUE VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO ANNUAL CONFERENCE Committee Chairperson Benham mentioned that this year's annual business meeting of the League was being held on Wednesday, September 10, at 10:00 a.m. and that a Council meeting was scheduled for that night. Committee Member Sullivan indicated that her schedule would not allow her to remain at the League meeting through that morning. Agencla Summary Repo~ ~~FT Legislative and Litigation Committee July 21, 20O3 Page 4 Committee Members discussed various possibilities for Delegate and Alternate. As other Council members and the Mayor were not planning to attend the Annual Conference, the Committee felt staff should be appointed to represent the City. Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater indicated she had been in contact with League staff and had been told that there were two resolutions which were being submitted (which would be available to cities for review by around first-week in August). After discussion regarding staff attendance, the Committee recommended Trudy Slater for Voting Delegate and Alan Christensen as Alternate. Committee recommendation to Council will be placed on the July 30 Council agenda as the League is requesting the designation of the Delegate and Alternate by August 8. In further action, the Committee will send League resolutions directly to Council after traditional department head review. The Committee schedule precludes another meeting prior to the League's annual business meeting. 6. COMMII'rEE COMMENTS Committee Member Couch directed staff to forward copies of three articles to elected leaders and staff. Articles were: ,Western City 'Local Democracy at Risk' and a League memorandum titled 'Initiative Issues and Options" and "Budget Update" dated July 16. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:12 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Manager Alan Tandy, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Alan Daniel; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle, Fleet Superintendent Ernie Medina; Finance Director Greg Klimko, Purchasing Officer Darlene Wisham Other Attendees: Kurt Schoppe, Richard Neal, Matt Kouri, Jack Henslee, David Muncy (L030721-MIN) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT  -~-'~G DATE: April 30, 2003 AG~ SECTION: Consent Calendar lIT'EM: 11.d. I TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: April 15, 2003 CITY ATi'ORNEY CITY MANAGER _ SUBJECT: An Ordinance Repealing Section 2.24.023 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code Relating to the Approval of Sale or Lease of Property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends first reading of the Ordinance. BACKGROUND: California Health and Safety Code section 33433 requires the legislative body (City council) to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving any sale or lease of real property which has been acquired by a redevelopment agency directly or indirectly with tax increment-monies. That statute only requJres a simple majority to adopt such a resolution. However, the statute does authorize a legislative body to require a 2/3 vote to adopt such a resolution, if the regislative body adopts an ordinance containing that super-majority requirement. The City Council adopted such an ordinance in 1987. It means that 2/3 of the entire Council (5 members), not 2/3 of the Council members present at the meeting must vote affirmatively before the redevelopment agency can sell or lease its property. So, in the event that three Council members are absent or have conflicts of interest, the sale or lease of property could not be approved. A repeal of the ordinance just reestablishes a majorfty vote to approve the sale or lease of redevelopment agency property. $:~COUNCIL~.dminsVdasaleo rdan~end, doc 4/15/2003 4:15 PM 2.24.010 2792 § 1, 1982: Ord. 2586 § 1, 1980: prior code Chapter 2.24 {} 1.84.020) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2.24.021 Effective date. The city council of the city shall cease to be the rede- Sections: velopment agency of the city; and the offices of the mem- 2.24.010 Creation. hers of the redevelopment agency of the city appointed by 2.24.020 Membership. the council pursuant to Section 2.24.020 shall become 2.24.021 Effective date. effective on the date and at the time the council resolution 2.24.022 Continuity. referred to in Section 2.24.020 becomes effective. (Ord. 2.24.023 Approval of sale or lease of 3045 § 2, 1986: Ord. 2792 § 2 (part), 1982) property. 2.24.030 Ordinance copy filed. 2.42.022 Continuity. The ordinance codified in Sections 2.24.020 through 2.24.010 Creation. 2.24.022 does not in any manner change the status of the The city council finds and declares pursuant to Section redevelopment agency of the city as a public body corpo- 33101 of the Community Redevelopment Law, that there rate and politic as provided in Section 33100 of the Call- is a need for a redevelopment agency to function in the fornia Health and Safety Code (Community Redevelop- city and the agency is authorized to transact business and ment Law), which agency has continued and continues to exercise its powers under the community redevelopment exist as a legal entity without change since the date it was law. (Prior code § 1.84.010) determined that there was a need for the agency to func- tion by Ordinance No. 1709, new series, dated December 2.24.020 Membership. 18, 1967. (Ord. 3045 {} 3, 1986: Ord. 2792 § 2 (part), A. The council of the city does hereby determine that 1982) it shall no longer function as the redevelopment agency of the city and declares that all of the rights, powers, duties, 2.24.023 Approval of sale or lease of property. privileges and immunities vested by the community rede- Before any property of the agency acquired in whole or velopment law in the redevelopment agency of the city in part, directly or indirectly, with tax increment moneys is shall be and are vested in an agency composed of seven sold or leased for development pursuant to the redevelop- resident electors of the community to be appointed by merit plan, such sale or lease shall fh'st be approved by a resolution by the mayor, with the approval of the council, two-thirds vote of the city council after public hearing and B. The initial membership of the agency shall consist pursuant to the provisions of the California Health and of two members serving a four-year term; two members Safety Code Section 33433. (Ord. 3103, 1987) serving a three-year term; two members serving a two-year term; and one member serving a one-year term. Thereaf- 2.24.030 Ordinance copy filed. ter, all appointments shall be for four years. The first The redevelopment agency authorized to function shall chairman of the agency shall be designated by the mayor cause a certified copy of the ordinance codified in this with the approval of the legislative body and shall serve as chapter to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. chairman for one year. Thereafter, and whenever a va- (Prior code § 1.84.030) cancy occurs, the chairman shall be elected by members of the agency. C. Any member may be removed from the agency upon the mayor's recommendation and approval by the city council, as a result of any of the following: 1. Continued absences from meeting: four consecu-' tive absences or a total of eight absences per year. The city council may waive such removal for just cause; 2. Repeated disqualification as a result of economic interest in matters considered by the agency; 3. Unruly behavior, which continually disrupts meet- ings. (Ord. 4105 § 1, 2003: Ord. 3045 § 2, 1986: Ord. 43 (Bakersfield Supp. No. 4, 05/03)