HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/29/2013
Staff: Committee members: Steven Teglia, Assistant to the City Manager Willie Rivera, Chair
Ken Weir Terry Maxwell REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Monday, July 29, 2013
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
First Floor, Conference Room A
A G E N D A
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 25, 2012 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion Regarding Funding for TRIP Projects – Smith / Tandy
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
Committee Members:
Staff: Steven Teglia Ken Weir, Interim Chair
Assistant to the City Manager Terry Maxwell
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Monday, February 25, 2013
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North – Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 PM
1. ROLL CALL
Committee members present: Councilmember Ken Weir, Interim Chair
Councilmember Terry Maxwell
Staff present:
Alan Tandy, City Manager Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney
Rhonda Smiley, Asst. to the City Manager Josh Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney
Steven Teglia, Asst. to the City Manager Doug McIsaac, Community Development
Chris Huot, Administrative Analyst Ryan Bland, Community Development
Nelson Smith, Finance Director
2. ADOPT MARCH 26, 2012 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2013
Page 2
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding FY 2013-14 CDBG
Action Plan – McIsaac
Community Development Director Doug McIsaac summarized the Annual
Entitlements received by the City through the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). These entitlements help to improve the quality of
life of low to moderate income neighborhoods, improve infrastructure in the
neighborhoods, and promote job opportunities for low income individuals. The
HUD Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), HOME Investment
Partnership (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) entitlements for FY13-14
are $3,867,786. Staff is projecting $7,000 in program income for CDBG and
$30,000 for HOME. The total proposed budget for CDBG, HOME and ESG for
FY13-12 is $3,904,786.
FY 2013-14 Proposed CDBG:
The total resources available for FY 2013-14 are $2,713,993. This amount includes
the CDBG entitlement of $2,706,993, and the project program income of
$7,000. The total resources are allocated as follows:
Total Administration – 20% Cap: $542,799
Long Term Obligations: $407,483
Public Services: $350,170. Services include Fair Housing, Downtown, Old
Town Kern and Southeast Police Patrol, and the Bakersfield Senior
Center.
Low-Mod Benefit: $1,053,016. Services include Home Access Grant
Program, and New Construction Assistance.
FY 2013-14 Proposed Capital Improvement Projects:
Net resources available for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are $360,525.
Staff submitted the following consideration:
Planz Park Improvements
Director McIsaac stated staff continues to work with the Department of Finance
regarding the redevelopment funding for several housing projects in the
amount of $4,200,000. He then presented the following programs that would be
included in the CDBG program:
Home Investment Partnership (HOME):
The total funding available for FY 2013-14 is $954,293, 10% of which was set
aside for administrative costs. This amount includes the HOME Entitlement of
$954,293 and $30,000 of projected program income.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2013
Page 3
Proposed Housing Programs:
Staff estimates that the total Program/Project Costs and Direct Delivery for FY
2013-14 is $808,864. This Program/Project cost includes $138,644 in HUD
mandated Community House Development Organization (CHDO) sponsored
projects, and $670,220 for New Construction.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG):
Staff proposes $236,500 in emergency shelter to fund the Bakersfield Rescue
Mission ($61,000), Bethany Homeless Shelter ($61,000), and Alliance Again
Family Violence ($19,900); and $76,863 in homeless prevention to fund the
Bakersfield Homeless Center Rapid Rehousing.
Committee member Maxwell asked if there were any additional organizations
seeking funding for emergency services, and if so, to include them with the
three already chosen.
Community Development Coordinator Ryan Bland stated Flood Ministries
submitted an application for funding for the first time this year to fund a case
management position. Mr. Bland stated they could be included in the funding
for emergency shelter.
Committee member Maxwell requested staff include Flood Ministries request
and recalculate the amounts allocated to each organization.
Committee member Ken Weir stated the same organizations appear to receive
funding yearly and asked if there were any analysis or documentation
displaying each organization is accomplishing its goals.
Mr. Bland stated the HUD requirements have become more stringent and each
organization is required to submit a greater amount of details data. There has
been an overall improvement with each organization.
Committee member Maxwell made a motion to adopt the proposals with the
addition of a fourth organization receiving Emergency Shelter funding. The
motion was unanimously approved.
B. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Annual Audit Reports
FY Ending 2012 – Smith
Finance Director Smith provided a review of six separate audit reports for the
fiscal year ending 2012.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2013
Page 4
1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement
This report represents the City’s financial statements as of June 30, 2012.
The City complied, in all material respects, with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States.
2. Agreed Upon Conditions Report
This report is designed to increase efficiency, internal controls, and/or
financial reporting. There were two reportable conditions, the first of
which pertains to an unrecorded liability that was discovered during
the audit process. Staff has implemented additional procedures to
ensure that year-end accruals are identified and payments are
recorded in the correct period. The second condition identified
pertains to internal controls related to take home vehicles. Some IRS
commuting rules could have been misapplied and that daily logs
tracking business miles were not maintained. Staff has reviewed the
current take home vehicle policies and has discontinued the take
home vehicle program with the exception of sworn personnel who are
exempted from the IRS rule. The report also addresses one condition
identified in the prior year report, which has been resolved to the
auditor’s satisfaction.
3. Single Audit Report
This report pertains to federal program monies expended by the City
during the specified fiscal year. The City complied, in all material
respects, with federal program guidelines.
4. Independent Auditors Report
There were no audit findings.
5. Appropriations Limit
There were no audit findings.
6. Rabobank Arena, Theater, Convention Center, Bakersfield Ice Sports
Center, and Bright House Networks Amphitheater
The report presents the financial statements for the operational unit as
of June 30, 2011. There were no significant issues with the audit.
Committee member Weir asked why the Rabobank Arena, Theater,
Convention Center, Bakersfield Ice Sports Center, and Bright House Networks
Amphitheater report contained no comparable information.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2013
Page 5
Finance Director Smith stated that there is several inserts of comparable
information throughout the report in summary format. The information for all the
facilities is condensed together in the report.
Committee member Maxwell asked for a detailed report on the expenses
associated with each of the Rabobank facilities.
Committee member Weir asked if any solar energy opportunities have been
analyzed for installation on or around the arena.
Administrative Analyst Chris Huot stated Public Works staff has reviewed several
solar opportunities. Each facility has its own challenges; the most significant
being the unknown results of a High Speed Rail Project.
Committee member Maxwell made a motion to have the reports presented to
the full Council for approval. The motion was unanimously approved.
C. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the 2013
Committee Meeting Schedule – Teglia
The scheduled was adopted as submitted.
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:38 PM
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Bu
d
g
e
t
/ Fi
n
a
n
c
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
on
TR
I
P
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
an
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Ju
l
y
29
,
20
1
3
1
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
Re
v
i
e
w
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
co
s
t
s
an
d
fu
n
d
i
n
g
fo
r
TR
I
P
projects
Re
v
i
e
w
th
e
ba
s
i
s
fo
r
th
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
bo
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
amount
Re
v
i
e
w
co
s
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
an
d
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
Re
v
i
e
w
re
c
e
n
t
ac
t
u
a
l
bi
d
re
s
u
l
t
s
fo
r
tw
o
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
s
an
d
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Needs 3
Pro
j
e
c
t
to
da
t
e
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
/Futur
e
Ye
a
r
s
Es
t
.
Co
s
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
Overall Estimated
Bu
d
g
e
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
Ju
n
e
20
1
3
F
Y
20
1
3
‐14
an
d
be
y
o
n
d
C
o
s
t
s
‐ All Combined
To
t
a
l
Pro
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
s
‐
All
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
SR
17
8
Wid
e
n
i
n
g
1
4
,
9
5
3
,
3
7
8
$
41
,
5
7
9
,
8
3
1
$
56,533,209
$
Ho
s
k
i
n
g
s
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
4
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
31
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
35,700,000
$
24
t
h
Str
e
e
t
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
9
,
2
0
6
,
0
2
0
$
35
,
5
7
7
,
0
0
3
$
64,783,023
$
Ce
n
t
e
n
n
i
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
6
1
,
2
3
6
,
8
4
8
$
64
8
,
9
7
1
,
4
0
0
$
710,208,248
$
To
t
a
l
s
‐
All
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
1
1
0
,
0
9
6
,
2
4
6
$
75
7
,
1
2
8
,
2
3
4
$
867,224,480
$
Pro
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
s
an
d
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Needs 4
Pro
j
e
c
t
to
da
t
e
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
/Futur
e
Ye
a
r
s
Es
t
.
Co
s
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
Overall Estimated
Bu
d
g
e
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
Ju
n
e
20
1
3
F
Y
20
1
3
‐14
an
d
be
y
o
n
d
C
o
s
t
s
‐ All Combined
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/ Sta
t
e
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
:
SR
17
8
Wid
e
n
i
n
g
1
3
,
2
1
5
,
3
6
7
$
11
,
1
5
7
,
7
3
1
$
24,373,098
$
Ho
s
k
i
n
g
s
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
‐
$
‐
$
‐
$
24
t
h
Str
e
e
t
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
5
,
8
5
6
,
0
9
0
$
7,0
3
8
,
5
4
0
$
32,894,630
$
Ce
n
t
e
n
n
i
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
5
2
,
9
5
7
,
7
7
6
$
33
1
,
9
3
1
,
9
6
3
$
384,889,739
$
To
t
a
l
s
‐
All
Pro
j
e
c
t
s
9
2
,
0
2
9
,
2
3
3
$
35
0
,
1
2
8
,
2
3
4
$
442,157,467
$
Pro
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
s
an
d
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Needs 5
Pro
j
e
c
t
to
da
t
e
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
/Futur
e
Ye
a
r
s
Es
t
.
Co
s
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
Overall Estimated
Bu
d
g
e
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
Ju
n
e
20
1
3
F
Y
20
1
3
‐14
an
d
be
y
o
n
d
C
o
s
t
s
‐ All Combined
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
:
(in
c
l
u
d
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
fu
n
d
s
)
SR
17
8
Wid
e
n
i
n
g
1
,
7
3
8
,
0
1
1
$
30
,
4
2
2
,
1
0
0
$
32,160,111
$
Ho
s
k
i
n
g
s
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
4
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
31
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
35,700,000
$
24
t
h
Str
e
e
t
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
,
3
4
9
,
9
3
0
$
28
,
5
3
8
,
4
6
3
$
31,888,393
$
Ce
n
t
e
n
n
i
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
8
,
2
7
9
,
0
7
2
$
31
7
,
0
3
9
,
4
3
7
$
325,318,509
$
To
t
a
l
s
‐
All
Pro
j
e
c
t
s
1
8
,
0
6
7
,
0
1
3
$
40
7
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
425,067,013
$
Pro
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ba
s
i
s
fo
r
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Bo
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
6
To
t
a
l
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
=
40
7
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Co
s
t
of
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
(t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
bo
n
d
tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
2
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
(T
I
F
I
A
Lo
a
n
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
ex
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
)
Le
s
s
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
Ke
r
n
Co
u
n
t
y
:
(
5
7
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$
Le
s
s
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
Ke
r
n
CO
G
:
(
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$
Ne
t
Ci
t
y
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
=
34
8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
Le
s
s
An
n
u
a
l
Ca
s
h
Fl
o
w
fo
r
ne
x
t
fo
u
r
(4
)
ye
a
r
s
:
FY
20
1
3
‐14
(
1
9
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$
FY
20
1
4
‐15
(
1
9
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$
FY
20
1
5
‐16
(
1
9
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$
FY
20
1
6
‐17
(
1
9
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Lo
c
a
l
Lo
n
g
Te
r
m
Bo
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
=
27
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
TI
F
I
A
Lo
a
n
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
An
n
u
a
l
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
= $1
4
mi
l
l
i
o
n
pe
r
year
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
Pl
e
d
g
e
of
th
r
e
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
re
v
e
n
u
e
so
u
r
c
e
s
Ga
s
Ta
x
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Fe
e
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Su
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
/
F
r
a
n
c
h
i
s
e
Fe
e
s
7
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
n
d
s
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
Us
e
d
fo
r
Ro
a
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
s
8
200
7
‐08
2
0
0
8
‐09
2
0
0
9
‐10
2
0
1
0
‐11
2
0
1
1
‐12
2
0
1
2
‐13 Una
u
d
i
t
e
d
2
0
1
3
‐14 Budget
Gen
e
r
a
l
Fun
d
1
0
,
4
0
2
,
5
8
8
10,
3
5
8
,
2
0
7
8,5
4
1
,
3
2
4
8,3
4
7
,
7
7
3
8,4
0
9
,
7
4
0
10,
8
6
7
,
3
7
7
14,315,000
Cap
i
t
a
l
Outl
a
y
Fun
d
3
,
7
6
9
,
4
5
0
3,8
4
1
,
4
1
7
3,7
0
9
,
5
2
4
3,2
4
1
,
2
2
8
4,2
9
1
,
3
1
0
7,2
1
1
,
1
7
9
6,090,000
Sub
t
o
t
a
l
‐
Gen
e
r
a
l
Roa
d
s
1
4
,
1
7
2
,
0
3
8
14,
1
9
9
,
6
2
4
12,
2
5
0
,
8
4
8
11,
5
8
9
,
0
0
1
12,
7
0
1
,
0
5
0
18,
0
7
8
,
5
5
6
20,405,000
Des
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
Fun
d
i
n
g
:
Gas
Tax
Rev
e
n
u
e
s
5
,
2
4
1
,
6
5
4
7,2
6
8
,
6
9
2
8,1
7
3
,
1
8
1
8,2
5
5
,
9
9
2
9,2
5
7
,
4
0
4
8,3
6
2
,
8
4
8
7,320,000
Tra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Dev
.
Fee
s
1
2
,
5
1
6
,
5
1
6
12,
7
6
8
,
2
3
4
9,3
3
9
,
9
5
0
6,8
9
7
,
1
4
7
10,
1
5
9
,
8
8
3
16,
7
8
3
,
1
8
5
12,000,000
Utili
t
y
Sur
c
h
a
r
g
e
Fee
s
‐
‐
3,9
5
0
,
7
9
3
4,4
9
3
,
0
2
4
4,6
3
3
,
6
0
2
4,9
4
0
,
1
3
4
4,675,000
Tot
a
l
Roa
d
Rel
a
t
e
d
Rev
e
n
u
e
s
3
1
,
9
3
0
,
2
0
8
34,
2
3
6
,
5
5
0
33,
7
1
4
,
7
7
2
31,
2
3
5
,
1
6
4
36,
7
5
1
,
9
3
9
48,
1
6
4
,
7
2
3
44,400,000
9
10
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
’
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
Po
l
i
c
y
11
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
20
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Cost
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
,
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
Ma
n
u
a
l
Un
i
t
Pr
i
c
i
n
g
up
d
a
t
e
d
tw
i
c
e
a ye
a
r
(t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
of
items)
Ac
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
m
p
a
r
e
un
i
t
pr
i
c
i
n
g
wi
t
h
si
m
i
l
a
r
pr
o
j
e
c
t
bids
ac
r
o
s
s
st
a
t
e
Va
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
by
FH
W
A
on
an
n
u
a
l
ba
s
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
d
an
d
/
o
r
ex
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
it
e
m
s
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
fo
r
up‐to‐
da
t
e
pr
i
c
i
n
g
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
/F
H
W
A
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
12
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
C
o
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
30
%
to
50
%
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
St
u
d
y
Re
p
o
r
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
25
%
Dr
a
f
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Re
p
o
r
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
20
%
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
15
%
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
’
s
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
fo
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
i
g
n
:
10
%
of
th
e
co
s
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Fi
n
a
l
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
’
s
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
fo
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
i
g
n
:
5%
or
le
s
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
Ma
n
u
a
l
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
20
–P
r
o
j
e
c
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
N
o
t
e
: TR
I
P
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
ma
y
em
p
l
o
y
FH
W
A
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
Gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
13
14
CO
S
T
DI
F
F
E
R
E
N
T
I
A
L
S
$‐
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
EI
R
6
0
%
De
s
i
g
n
1
0
0
%
De
s
i
g
n
P
r
i
o
r
to
Bi
d
B
i
d
WESTSIDE PARKWAY P1 SR‐178 &MORNING DRIVE WESTSIDE PARKWAY P4 SR‐58 GAP CLOSURE
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
s
t
Br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
s
fo
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
15
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ph
a
s
e
It
e
m
s
:
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
Re
p
o
r
t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
Ri
g
h
t
of
Wa
y
It
e
m
s
:
RO
W
Su
r
v
e
y
s
Ti
t
l
e
& Es
c
r
o
w
,
Pl
a
t
s
& Le
g
a
l
s
,
Ap
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Su
p
p
o
r
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Le
g
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Co
n
d
e
m
n
a
t
i
o
n
/
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
De
s
i
g
n
/
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
It
e
m
s
:
De
s
i
g
n
e
r
Fe
e
s
Fi
n
a
l
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
De
s
i
g
n
Re
l
a
t
e
d
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
It
e
m
s
:
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Bi
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Or
d
e
r
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
i.
e
.
St
o
r
m
Wa
t
e
r
Da
t
a
Re
p
o
r
t
,
Habitat
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Su
p
p
o
r
t
Costs
i.
e
.
Ag
e
n
c
y
Fu
r
n
i
s
h
e
d
Materials, Dispute
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
Bo
a
r
d
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Services
De
s
i
g
n
Su
p
p
o
r
t
Du
r
i
n
g
Construction
16
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
’
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
vs
.
Co
s
t
at Bid
PR
O
J
E
C
T
YE
A
R
B
I
D
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
(P
o
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
B
i
d
)
CO
S
T
A
T
B
I
D
%
DI
F
F
E
R
E
N
T
I
A
L
CO
S
T
A
T
B
I
D
W
/
CH
A
N
G
E
O
R
D
E
R
S
% DIFFERENTIAL
SR
-
1
7
8
&
F
A
I
R
F
A
X
20
0
7
$
4
1
,
6
0
2
,
6
2
5
$
2
8
,
9
2
9
,
4
4
6
-3
0
.
5
%
$
3
3
,
4
9
6
,
5
7
7
-19.5%
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
1
20
0
8
$
4
8
,
3
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
,
7
2
8
,
2
2
0
-4
2
.
6
%
$
2
8
,
1
6
0
,
7
0
1
-41.7%
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
2
20
0
9
$
1
6
2
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
8
,
5
5
2
,
9
4
5
-5
1
.
8
%
$
9
5
,
0
8
6
,
1
5
3
-41.6%
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
4
20
1
0
$
2
8
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
,
1
6
7
,
1
5
6
-2
1
.
1
%
$
2
4
,
4
4
3
,
9
2
7
-13.0%
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
6
A
20
1
1
$
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
6
4
4
,
2
2
2
16
.
1
%
$
4
,
3
9
0
,
7
3
5
9.8%
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
6
B
20
1
1
$
2
0
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
4
2
1
,
7
0
0
-3
9
.
1
%
$
1
2
,
4
3
8
,
2
0
0
-39.0%
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
6
C
20
1
2
$
3
2
,
8
9
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
1
6
7
,
2
2
2
-8
.
3
%
$
2
9
,
2
2
7
,
2
2
2
-11.1%
SR
-
1
7
8
&
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
D
R
I
V
E
20
1
3
$
3
3
,
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
,
5
1
2
,
0
0
0
-1
8
.
8
%
SR
-
5
8
G
A
P
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
20
1
3
$
1
5
,
9
0
8
,
4
6
0
$
1
4
,
9
5
7
,
0
0
6
-6
.
0
%
Ri
g
h
t
of
Wa
y
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
17
Th
e
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Ri
g
h
t
of
Wa
y
ha
s
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
fo
r
estimating
ri
g
h
t
of
wa
y
co
s
t
s
wh
i
c
h
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
of
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ne
e
d
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
to
th
o
s
e
pa
r
t
i
e
s
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
d
by
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Cl
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
/
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
of
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
to
cl
e
a
r
th
e
ri
g
h
t
of
way
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
ca
u
s
e
d
by
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
R/
W
Su
p
p
o
r
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
(a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
s
,
R/
W
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
ti
t
l
e
& escrow)
Co
n
d
e
m
n
a
t
i
o
n
/
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
Th
e
s
e
co
s
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
ar
e
ba
s
e
d
on
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ma
r
k
e
t
da
t
a
Th
e
n
a 20
‐25
%
co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
is
ad
d
e
d
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fo
r
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in market
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
al
o
n
g
wi
t
h
a 3%
pe
r
ye
a
r
es
c
a
l
a
t
o
r
to
ac
c
o
u
n
t
fo
r
project
de
l
a
y
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Ju
l
y
20
1
3
18
No
n
‐TI
F
I
A
TR
I
P
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Ju
l
y
20
1
3
19
TI
F
I
A
TR
I
P
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
In
Su
m
m
a
r
y
20
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
fo
r
es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
co
s
t
s
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
ar
e
hi
g
h
e
r
than the
ac
t
u
a
l
bi
d
s
.
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
TR
I
P
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
ar
e
we
l
l
al
o
n
g
in
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
Th
e
fu
r
t
h
e
r
along, the
le
s
s
su
b
j
e
c
t
to
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
ch
a
n
g
e
.
$1
.
3
Bi
l
l
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
go
e
s
in
t
o
th
e
lo
c
a
l
ec
o
n
o
m
y
.
As
mu
c
h
as
80
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
wo
r
k
e
r
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
lo
c
a
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
on projects
Th
e
20
0
8
bo
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
wh
e
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
th
e
TR
I
P
Program
($
2
4
6
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
)
is
re
m
a
r
k
a
b
l
y
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
to
th
e
$2
7
0
mi
l
l
i
o
n
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
today
Le
v
e
r
a
g
i
n
g
$8
2
0
mi
l
l
i
o
n
in
fe
d
e
r
a
l
& st
a
t
e
fu
n
d
s
no
w
fo
r
ou
r
lo
c
a
l
roads
sy
s
t
e
m
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
ne
e
d
e
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
be more
co
s
t
l
y
if
de
l
a
y
e
d
.
TR
I
P
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
ca
n
be
fu
n
d
e
d
wh
i
l
e
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
fu
n
d
s
for other
lo
c
a
l
ne
e
d
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
se
e
k
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
TIGER V,
Ur
b
a
n
Gr
e
e
n
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
et
c
.
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
21