HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0502 CC REG ITEM 11Hi
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Mayor
1 ELOISE BROWN
Mayor Pro Tem
THOMAS C. FERGUSON
Councilmember
JOHN GALLOWAY
Councilmember
BERNARDO PEREZ
Councilmember
MAUREEN W. WALL
City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PARK
o mi
MEMORANDUM
The Honorable City Counc l
Steven Kueny, City Manaq r
May 19, 1987
Feasibility Study ConcPr9irg In -House Engineering
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J.KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
THOMAS P. GENOVESE
City Treasurer
The purpose of this study was to generalo background information and issues tobeconsideredtodetermineifthefeasitlit.y of employing a City Engineer andre:atccl staff sh:1i1d be considered fur +',er I formation and issues reviewedcluz:
Development activity and revenue
2. Funding sources
Estimated expenditures and staff ^iq
Protection of time needs
5• Survey of three (3) cities conc.:e iinq their %ity Engineer operationsG. General conclusions
Dov ir.d the City,s first year of incorp:aration, iJor'k.s Agency the County of Ventura Public
provided enclil;eering sery ties to
riuring that first year (1983;1984) dec'tied
the City. The City Council
to litilize
prov4ue these services. Willdan was selt:ted and
the contract basis to
began work July 1, 1984.
Since that time the City has teen dr vo rp nd at
addition a relatively rapid pace. intotheapproximate2,150 iept,iai snits approved by the Countypriortoincorporation, the City approved about
July 1984. As 2,220 residential units since
you are aware, most f ;ie - esicrential
maps and /or have pulled huilding The
projects have recorded
permit
250 residential permits per year throuIh 1995
City is currently limited to
There 549
units that have approved tentative and,o Flanneo
are residential
Development permits that areproceedingwit`s a `; :)al map or rclat, elt!t'ement with the objective ofsecuringanailocation `,r a c t ild n: Nrmit hese include the f ollowingproje-cts.
99 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark (;alrforn a 93021 8 -6864
Griffin Tract 3963 (phase 2 -4) 341)
nits
Glen Haven PD 914 22 .,nits
Oliver Tract 4095 27 wiiis
U.S. Condo Tract 3049 93 writs
Villa Campesina Tract 4174 62 writs
With the initiation of the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements oftheGeneralPlan, the number of proposed residential projects to be consideredinthenext18to24monthswillberelativelysmall. Urban West Communitieshasfiledproposedtentativetractmapsincludingabout1,045 residential lotsfortheWestVillageandanother55uiitstocompletetheNorthVillageofPC -3. In addition, applications are l kely to be filed for the Burnette andGislerFieldproperties.
Since July 1984 the City has approved about 1,700,000 square feet ofindustrialbuildings. About 708,000 square feet of these approved projectshavenotyetpulledpermits. In addition, about 416,000 square feet -is
currently proposed and /or in process. A much smaller number of commercialprojectshavebeenreceivedbytheCity. Since July 1984 (excludes TownCenter) the City has approved about. 91,000 square feet with another 5,000squarefeetcurrentlyinprocess.
With the expected continuation of risinu interest rates for at least the nextfewmonths, changes in income tax laws and current vacancy factor there willprobablybeamuchsmallernumberofindustrialprojectssubmittedforapproval. For some of the same reasons plus the need to achieve certainmarketcriteria, the filing and constri:c;tion o; commercial projects is also
expected to be relatively slow in the sh+11t • °ur.
The City currently uses the County of Ventura fee schedule for engineeringrelatedfees. This was adopted in 1984 The County has since increased theirfeeswhiletheCitycontinuestousethe1984rates. A review of all planninganddevelopmentfeesisplannedfor ; 987/88. Exhibit A illustrates theprimaryfeescurrentlychargedbytheC!t.y Exhibit B is an excerpt from theagreementwiththeCityEngineerconce,ning method of payment for work ondevelopmentprojects. Since 1982 State aw requires that a fee charged is nottoexceedtheestimatedamountreasonabl,, required to provide the services forwhichthefeesarecharged. Since 1.9 1r= the City has included engineering, building and planning fees as part of t °,e community development activities tocomplywiththislaw. The following it ustrates the amount of fees collectedforplancheckandinspectionforrecentrner *, of varying size:
1. Residential P1 a,i Check Inspection
Tract 4037 (CalProp) 66 unit. 19,346 19,346PD1010 (Palmer) 370 uni" 15.126 15,126Tract3525 (Warmington) 87 uni 29 047 29,047Tract3019 (Warmington) 130 urli- 23 155 23,155Tract4141 (UWC) 233 uni, S6 666 66,666
2• Commercial Plan Check Inspection
PO 966 (Mash) 10 289 10,289
3- Industrial Plar Check Inspection
DP 318 .(Kavlico) 512 210 12,210
As you are aware, the current agreement provides that the City Engineer is
limited to 75% of the fees collected li)e City •eceives the remaining 25% and
uses it to fund community development, a( %ivities including the City Engineer's
monthly retainer of $1,900 ($22,800 annually). he City needs to charge about
91,500 in development project fees plan check, inspection, map check,
grading, encroachment permits) to fun,7 ±:t:, irnja' retainer.
The City currently takes in most development, fees on a deposit basis. As the
City Engineer bills against that deposit, the City retains an additional
one -third of that amount as its revenue to cover overhead and administrative
costs. For the 1986/87 fiscal year, as a result of the extraordinarily high
volume of activity, the City is estimated to receive about $200,000 from this
source. (These monies are currently still in the City's Trust Fund but is to
be recognized as revenue before the close of the books for the 1986/87 FY).
Part of the budget proposal for 1987/88 will be to create a separate CommunityDevelopmentFundtoholdtheserevenuesforfuturecommunitydevelopment
activities for both planning and engineering act'aities.
Most nondevelopment activities are charged to sources other than the generalfund. Design, inspection and contract administration of improvement projects
are charged to the same fund as the project itself. This includes the gas taxfunds, park improvement fund, grant funds, such as 'SB 821 or one of the Area ofContributionfunds. Traffic engineer ng studies such as signal warrant
studies are charged to the traffi :fjty find or one of the Area ofContributionfunds.
Expenditures for a minimum staffed engineering department is estimated to cost220,000. This does not include any start tip costs such as furniture,
vehicles, or needed supplies and equipment.. l4 also assumes no additionalcostsforofficespaceandrelatedtempor ' iability insurance. Under the
present terms of our City Engineer Agreement, the City provides primaryliabilityinsurancefortheCityEngineer <., activ ties.
A summary of the costs is as follows:
1. Personnel Salary & Fringe Berefi s)
City Engineer $60,000
Civil Engineer 50,000
Inspector 45,000
Secretary 25,000
Total '5180,000
2. 0 eratinq and Maintenance
Vehicles /Mileage $7,200
Office Supplies /Copier 14,000
Printing 5,000
Special Dept. Supplies 8,000
Telephones 4,800
Conferences, Training, Books, Yemior,,hips 1 000
Total 40,000
With the current level of activity, Wiildan is providing the equivalent of
three (3) public works inspectors (it was 2 during the previous year) and two
and one -half (2 112) plan checkers 'his excludes work on City sponsored
projects. During the peak period in the summer of 1986, in excess of four (4)
plan checkers were working on projects in the City. As illustrated by the
survey of other cities, contract nlari checkers are used to either perform this
function or to supplement City staff as needed. In addition, the CityEngineerandAssistantCityEngineerandotherpersonnelsupporttheplan
check and inspection services and provide administrative and information
services to the City. The time needed f:ar such support service varies, but itisestimatedontheaveragetobetheequivalentofoneperson. Excluding theTierraRejadaBridgeandLosAngelesWideningprojects, City funded projects
are estimated to require the equivalent of no more than one -half an inspector
position during the next year. This incljdes the following:
1. Slurry Seal
2. Overlay _
3. Curb, gutter and tree work
4. Moorpark Avenue Storm Drain (proposed)
5. Rubberized Railroad Crossings
6. Tierra Rejada /Gabbert at 118 Signal
7. Condor Drive at 118 Signal
8. High Street - curb, gutter, sldew -ilk
9. Park Improvements
In addition, administration of the contracts for, these improvements would berequired. Recent experience indicates that the equivalent of about
one - quarter to one -half of a position would be required for the above work. Both of these functions are currently :harged to non general fund sources. The two City -wide assessment districts equire approximately 200 total hours
of engineering services.
As part of the report, three (3) cities with an in -house City Engineer were
surveyed regarding various aspects of their operations. The cities selectedarecurrentlyexperiencingrapiddevelopment, (Palmdale), controlled
residential growth (Camarillo) and litt.'e or, no growth (Santa Paula). A
summary of the survey is attached as Exhi °it ;.
While it is difficult to generalize, V om the practice of these cities itappearsthatifMoorparkhiredanin -hou -. Ci t9 Engineer, contract engineeringserviceswouldstillberequiredfor:
a) design of major capital improvement? ur:f as traffic signals, constructionandwideningprojectsandstormdrain;
b) plan check of privately sponsored improvements on at least a supplementaloroccasionalbasistoinsurereasonabl(:, tirn around time;
c) traffic engineering since it is unli,ely the City Engineer would have the
expertise or time to perform these duties
In addition, most of the City Engine =r time would appear to be needed foradministrative /management tasks such a, supervision, development review and
contract administration with little t m., o- plan check or design work. This
position would appear to decrease but not eliminate the need for contract
engineering services.
An in -house City Engineer would allow Tor more competition for design work. At present the City Engineer has inc::icated they would not submit design
proposals when other proposals are sougi t, but would serve as an evaluator oftheproposalsandwouldadministerthe _ontract If the City did seek other
proposals, this would be an appropriate pole for t:he contract City Engineer toavoidappearanceofconflictandinsureagoodworkingrelationship. The
in -house engineer would expend time for prepara °Lion of the scope of work andthebidsolicitationandreviewprocessatisalsoevidentthatregardlessofthefeeschargedthatsomelevelofgeneralfundsupportwouldbeneededduringperiodswithrelativelyminoramountscidevelopmentactivity. Thiswouldbeminimizedbyholdingdevelopme,M1t. reveroe in a separate fund for useinsubsequentyears.
In conclusion, it is not possible to ietermine if better service would tie
achieved with an in -house City Engineer This is a qualitative and relativejudgement. For development processing Some standard for plan checking wouldneedtobemaintained. Other cities do this by using contract plan checking. Another objective would be expenditure savings or a related revenue gain. Because of the limitation on fees relative to services provided and theapparentneedforatleastsomecontracplancheckandotherservices, thiscannotbeaccuratelyestimatedwithoutAdditionalstudy. As you are aware, development activity fluctuates and for a number of reasons has slowed downandwouldappeartobeatmoderatelev(: for the foreseeable future. CostsrelatedtoCityfinancedcapitalprojecl :s would continue to be funded by nongeneralfundsources. It appears that iiiuch of :.he design work would need tobecontracted. It would be a new expenditure to administer this contract. There would appear to be potential for avings cn contract administration andinspectionservices, if the hour-Ty 'ity personnel is less thancontractpersonnel.
Under the present contract, the City ha, not needed to use the general fundforengineeringservices. It would appe.ir to more likely be required with anin -house staff than with the contract. even with no development activity, themaximumgeneralfundliabilityunder '.he urrent contract is $22,800.
As stated in the introduction, the int:en ion of this report is to identify themajorissuesfordiscussionbyther_ 1 -he alternatives for furtheractionare:
1. direct that a more detailed st.uo oe performed on the feasibility of
establishing in -house engineerirc service,;
2. determine the contract method sha lc .ontinue
a) with present agreement,
b) consider modified terms f r agreement with Willdan,
C) consider solicitation of "oposal: For contract City Engineer
services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider the report and direct staff as -,mod appropriate_
EXHIBIT
RESOL l' "I'
cL-
A RESOLU'T`ION OF THE: ' . I'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITYOFMOORPARK, CALIFORT4.1 ", ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULEDFORPUBLICWORKSSl-'pv 'E`3 :,N: PERMITS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tl,- CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, D'.TERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That Subdi .'i:; -Lon Final Processing Feesshallbeinaccordancewith _he fo:Llowing schedule:
SUBDIVISION FINAL PROCESSING FEE SCHEDULE
ITEM —
FEE
1. MAPS
a. Issuance of tract or P,t; ; -el
b. Final Map, Parcel Map
25.00 fixed fee
Fixed fee of $200.00 plus
3.50 per lot plus the actual
cost *(including overhead) to
City, not to exceed $1020.00
Plus $21.00 per lot. This
4ill cover the first three
ihecks only. For the fourth
ind each subsequent check, thea_e'e will be $340.00 plus $7.00erlot. Any alterations to
he exterior boundary or re-
if'sign of any interior lots
f -ter the initial map check
gill be considered as a new
Ulhmittal. The deposit shall
to made at the time the map isuhmitted.
Actual costs (including
verhead) represents staff
abor cost:; plus overhead
lnl/or contract labor_ costs
leis nverh(rad.
2. FLANS
Subdivision Improveit e ,
Plan Checking
b- Subdivision Improvemert
Plan Change
3. INSPECTIONS
a. Subdivision Constructit)f
Inspection
b. Subdivision
Extension of
agreement.
Actual cost (including aver -
nead) to City, not to exceed
the amount set forth in the
ee Deposit Schedule in item 4
herein, which is based upon the
estimate of improvement costs
Including work for which a gradi
permit must be obtained. A fee
leposit in said amount shall be
made at the time improvement
plans are submitted.
An Improvement Plan Change Fee
of 30 of the estimate of costs
of additional improvements
including work for which a
Grading Permit must be obtained.
Actual cost (including over-
head) to City, not to exceed
the amount set forth in the
Fee Deposit Schedule in item 4
herein, which is based upon the
estimate of improvement costs
including work for which a
trading Permit must be obtained.
fee deposit in said amounthallbemadepriortoapprovalftheimprovementplans.
Time
111 $300.00 processing fee + aImprovemen- deposit of 10% of the fee de-
Posit made under 3a above. The
ime Extension deposit will be
ornbined with any remaining
c ;,rtion of the inspection deposit
p<,n comletion and acceptanceItheimprovements, any balance
maining ,I ter deducting actual
Est )f inspection ( includinq
J t,rhead) to City shall be
funded to developer. In the
actu'il cost exceeds
ri.l<ir le deposit funds, develope
roll pay balance due up on
r ipt_ )f invoice therefor.
c-oir.rbined deposits have
City will not-ify
d_vc 1oF < r Ic(_-ord frig I y)
1
c- Deferred Corrstructj(-);
Agreement 300.00 fixed fee for processingthisAgreement
4- FEE DEPOSIT SCHEDULE (to ,., ir.c c3
s= >parate.ly with 2 and 3 above) Im rc
0
1,000
10,000
50,000
100,000
1,000,000
vement_ Costs
999
9,999
49,999
99,999
999,999
and over
5. PARKLAND DEDICATION
De c !c
3
341
1 6`r
15%
10%
of cost over 1.000
5,O "( 5$
of
of
cost over 10,000
8,l [ 2% of
cost over 50.000
26,11( 1$ f
cost over. 100,000
cost over 1,000,000
Costs incurred in processLnQ
the Parkland Dedication
Requirements
6. CERTIFICATES
Issuance of Certificate of
Compliance
150.00 fixed fee
2'.50.00 per parcel fixed fee
J
shall
SECTION 2. That Gradir,c: Permit and Plan Ch eck Feesbeinaccordancewiththe ',llowir,g schedule:
1.
ITEM
GRADING PERMIT AND PL, tiN (.HEC:'K FEES SCHEDULE
FEES
GRADING PERMIT FEES
50 cubic yards or less
51 to 100 cubic yards
101 to 1000 cubic yard;
1001 to 10,000 culbic yards
f 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yai i;
30.00
45.00
45.00 for the first 100
ubic yards, plus $20.00 for
l.3ch additional 100 cubic
rr-cls or f. action thereof.
5.00 for the first 1000 cubic. rrds plus $17.00 for eachciditional1000cubicyards orttionthereof.
7E3.00 for the first 10, 000
cabs c yards, PI u`; $76.00 for
additional_ 10,000 cubic
r_:.'s or fr.ict ion thereof.
100,001 cubic yards or more
2. PLAN CHECKING FEES
50 cubic yards or less
51 100 cubic yards
101 200 cubic yards
201 300 cubic yards
301 400 cubic yards
401 500 cubic yards -
501 600 cubic yards
601 700 cubic yards
701 800 cubic yards
801 900 cubic yards
901 10,000 cubic yards
10,001 - 100,000 cubic yards
100,001 - 200,000 cubic yards
200,001 cubic yards or more
1{'')0.00 for the first 100,000
111IL _c yards, plus $43.00 for
1'1C'1 10,000 cubic
bards or fraction thereof.
8 O 0
3 C, 0
Q 73
82 00
1rj2 010
2 00
l 00
161 00
1 2 00 _
202. 00
3 00
1..00 for the first 10,000
Cubic yards, plus $15.00 for
rIcf additional 10,000 cubic
lr- i s or fraction thereof.
34:x.00 for the first 100,000
ubic yards, plus $9.00 for
ac,, additional 10,000 cubic
Yar!is or fraction thereof.
421.00 for the first 200,000
ub i c yards, plus $4.00 for
ach additional 10,000 cubic
fraction thereof.
3. TIME EXTENSION FEES
75.00 time extension fee will h required for each 6 -month timeextensionrequestedtocover idd t o n:i: processing of eachGradingPermitissued_
4. CHANGE ORDER FEES
75.00 or 50% of the Grading Pc,r :_ E0c , whichever is less, willberequiredformajorrevisions, > 4:1, ,Iiginal_ grading plan_
37.50 or 50% of the Grading 'c r i_ t c whichever is less, willberequiredfor- al l major Chl-3r<<;
5- EXCEPTION FOR SUBDIVISIONS
Grading Permit and Plan Checl;
inasmuch as the actuaj . costs
been included i!a t"le final
spection fees_
apply to Subdivisions,
and inspection have
nci cons truc-ti on in-
6. ILLEGAL GRADING FEES
200% of the applicable _;i<::inqforanygrading Permit fee will be chargedprojectun
that is in violation of ti
ier'_akeri without a grading permit
rad 1,1 Ordinance.
SECTION 3. That Enc:_oa
accordance with the followinq
thmen : '(.rmit Fees shall be in
s hedu I
I. GENERAL ENCROACHMENT PERMI
1- Application /Issuance F «.•e: There shall be
application /issuance f'",c
for f ten dollars $10.00)
a minimum
each permit issued
dollar ($25.00) iss;L,:;
and an additional
charged
twenty -five
engineering review. or permits requiringg an
2. Permit /Inspection Fees
in addition Permit fees shall be collectedtotheiss ;i 3ncE' fc e. as follows:
a. Construction of C'r.l xut' er
and /or sidewalk
25.00
b. Construction of r- e! de-it.i-•} 1 drivewayeachopening)
25.00
C. Construction of _rc.n, e_ ;i a. driveway
each opening)
25.00
d. Use of City righ _ -r; way fl) r_ access
to private property' wi;nminq pools,
equipment access
25.00
e. Major tree trimm, -n rree emoval
stump removal
25.00
f. Approved landsca[_> i -r
25.00
9. Surveying and try:, f co;_.n t i ngPeryear)
50.00
h. Miscellaneous con,;1 ir_ti< >n and /or
Of City road right
use
25.00
Annual blanket per,
100.0()
i. Placing and /or relc<<ti_n f
or telephone pol(,
power
1 ;
per year
c ;>erm.it
100.00
Each permit for pp)
and /or relocation
15.00
J. }iandl ing arid load ._n ; f ru l r- 'ontai_rner_;
on ';houlc er" s of f h- c; ( ye, rr) 100.00
II.
III -
EXCAVATION PERMITS
1 - App Iicati.on /Issuance>
applicat—iO—r' Ti ssuance
for each permit is: >ue
dollars ($25.00)
engineering review.
2_ Permit /Inspection Fees:
collc.'cted in additio-e
shall be a minimum
en dollars ($10.00) charged
cn additional twenty -fiveEcforpermitsrequiringan
for" e }.cavations shall be
C : the issuance i=ee as follows:
100 linear feet of lr >s_;
1.01 to 1,000- line, f' -E,t 50.00
1,001 to 3,00o 1_]_r, ar fe(,t 75.00
3,001 to 5,000 fir a.
100.00
150.00
Excavations exceeding, 000 -,i_nearcharged $1.50.00 plu:> $ feet shall be
linear foot over 5,OCJ"
f E,,;_ linear feet for each
3. Annual blanket permit
exceeding two feet
z uti_ i_ty trenches notnlength, dug at a rigfr °:. i_dth and sixty feet
rnglr, t
in
of the road, or an e x{' o the centerline
at i, ,nthirtysquarefeetill
not exceeding
E >'3
100.00
Each excavation perm; .
blanket d cl rarr
permit
15.00
4- An atlas fee of $0.06 tinstallationparalleLir;
r Li.nea.r foot of :subsurfaceirewillbechargedLa-(.r
centerline of
L the road
arc excluded.
MOVING PERMITS
I. APPlication /Issuance N',,
10.00
2. Permit Fee: Truck E:r
exceeding legal width., actur and load
legal Height and/or- 1( ",.
l 1ega ( ngth, 1tStateofCaliforniaVe , wei as per
1,
vehicle per _ o,!ES (per
10.00
2- Annual Blanket Permit:: r i =} and load , maximu d t } r tractor
2height (loaded) 16 fe,_'r
maximum
lengt}l 7 feet , weigh _ is
n i<i nuri total
uPrple h <clinq (per v,,
c e ,c -eed
50.00
IV. MOVIF, AND TELEVISION F1 L,t-'. G
1 App licat ion /ISSU<_3nC -_' f c
10.00
2- Permit Fee: A f i lm i r c.
charged for each da
or partial day
100.00
3. Inspection Fee: Ther,- ;h11l .
encroachment permit is p(.,ctor
at all times during fi mi.ng opublicroads. The per.; itc•e
to the City the actua ';
the inspector
e an
present
City
hall pay
r providing
The minimum charge for are emergency "call out" based upon a minimum time shall be
D four hours per employee used, regardless of the actual t: iic
outs" for the purposes oi
nvcl.ved• Emergency "call
i_ rF >sc,lution shall be definedasprovidingmenandequi.p.nt. if ,. ' imes when normalWorksoperation. are sect. Public
VII. ISSUANCE FEE EXEMPTION
The following shall be exeriFPermit /Inspection fees: "N',
all departments of the Cctr,
and any school distri.ct_.
from paying issuance and
Unites States, this State,
ir,y 'nunicipal corporation,
Any special district orga, -,,
exempt a
n < r State lw shall bemptfrompaYi'1g the
but shall be subjecttoPermit/ Inspec' -_ion fc e
Actual cost)
V. EXTRAORDINARY INSPECTION
LABOR AND MATERIALS. 3TS ANP CHARGES FOR CITY _
Extraordinary costs and cit,,
materials due City shall
qes for inspection labor andtp
cost. Extraordinary cost: labor
charged on the
ind ch<rrges for
basis of actual
and materials shall 1 del, i.ned for
City inspection
resolution as any costs _.. purposes
harc7es incurred
of this
from permi.tte's failure t` a om:)ly by City resulting1
j conditions, ordinance,
rith all applicable permit
VI. EMERGENCY "CALL OUTS"
The minimum charge for are emergency "call out" based upon a minimum time shall be
D four hours per employee used, regardless of the actual t: iic
outs" for the purposes oi
nvcl.ved• Emergency "call
i_ rF >sc,lution shall be definedasprovidingmenandequi.p.nt. if ,. ' imes when normalWorksoperation. are sect. Public
VII. ISSUANCE FEE EXEMPTION
The following shall be exeriFPermit /Inspection fees: "N',
all departments of the Cctr,
and any school distri.ct_.
from paying issuance and
Unites States, this State,
ir,y 'nunicipal corporation,
Any special district orga, -,,
exempt a
n < r State lw shall bemptfrompaYi'1g the
but shall be subjecttoPermit/ Inspec' -_ion fc e
VIII. TIME FXTENSION FEE
e
fifteen ($15.00) time cx ;i,s_,ion fee may be charged foreachpermitextentionbey -); 3 t h: expiration date.
SECTI(..)N 4 • That t}. [
4asofJuly1 , 198
c,,<i ul ion shall be operative
PASSED AND ADOPTED th 1 8t 'ay of July, 1984-
ATTEST:
i
EXHIBIT
B. For services to be provi.j d undo- Paragraph I -C and D,
75% of the then current. rig public works fees
collected by the CITY_
For services provided under. Ilara,Ir:-aph I -C, where
planning fees are coll(!ct_j, omoensation shall be at
the hourly rates speci- i,- r, t.x i.rbit A, not to exceed
25% of the fee collected..
C. For services to be provi-d-d under Paragraph I -E -1
for large projects (over 100,000), compensation to
ENGINEER shall be amount 3 2gtia1 '.o the lower fee
schedule curve, for fully ITY-- funded projects, and the_.
upper fee schedule curve, for projects involving Federal
funding, as said prevailig fee schedule curves are
published and revised fror time t:-_o time by the American
Society of Civil Engineer Manu;il No. 45.
For services provided under Paragraph I -E -1 for large
projects (over $100,000) avc,lviaq Federal funding, where
the Federal Agency doe_-, 1 t &l1oo.,, fee schedule curves,
compensation shall be at fie noui:ly rates specified in
Exhibit A, or at such otrl r f ixe -i amounts as may be
negotiated.
For services to be prO_Vid, j under_- Paragraph I -E -1 for
small projects (under 101 000) and Paragraph I -E -2 and 3
or another preliminary d,2 igr, Est idies or miscellaneous
work desired or request.e,1 t :lie f,!e shall be at the hourly
rates specified in Exhibi or at such other fixed
amounts as may be negot -i 3 c
D. For services provided un l r Paragraphs II and III, and
for specially assigned s- r.ce; iot specifically covered
herein, compensation st:ai e it the hourly rates speci-
fied in Exhibit A or at or h ,r. fixed amounts as may
be negotiated.
E. ENGINEER shall invoice CL Y mont.:ily for services
rendered and CITY shall ) y ENGI'1FER as soon thereafter
as CITY'S, regular prod,,1 rcw z__e. In no case shall
i
1
EXHIBIT
CITY OF PALMDALt
CONTACT PERSON: George Blumfield, City nq,nee-
1. City Population: 33,000
2. Total City Operational Budget: 10,000,i)00
3. Department Operational Budget. 90(,00(1
4. Expenditure of Time by the City ngineer
a. Management /Supervision /( nt:ract administration /Development
Review: 95%
b. Plan Check and Design: Review the work of others.
C. Field Inspection:
d. Other:
5. Staffing:
a. Review & Development Pro)ects Plan Check: Use three plan
check engineers in -houso p'us up to two more on a contractbasisatcurrentratF o 32.00 /hour
b. Inspection: Four inspec ors inspect both City and privatelyfundedprojects.
C. Clerical: Two full -time including departmental secretary and
one part -time position
d• Support Services /CIP DF s jr: CIS Projects are designed bycontractfirms.
e• Other: The department h aii As,istant City Engineer and
Engineering Aide.
f- Total number of full-t.im, employee, S 12
6. Other Functions Handled In -hou, by Department: The City Engineercurrentlyhasthetitleofpub
with that
c 4ork, Director but a new position
title has been creat(:
7• Related Functions Handled In -h)
by e t)y C ty: None, water is provided
private :_-ompan ;es and sewo r ,tr ,Pts are currently contractedouttoL.A. County
Fxhihit C '
8. Contract Engineering Services Used Ly the Department: TrafficEngineeringServicesincludingdesignoftrafficsignalsandare
provided by L.A. County on a con'.ract ba,is; some contract plan check; CIP projects are designed an,i record map checks are performed bycontractenqineer,. They ,i.
geologist_
have are ongoing contract with a
9. How Department is Funded: Gerera Fu;ds. They currently do not
distinguish development fees fron otter p)rtions of the General Fund.
10. Monthly Salary Ranges for Key Po t'cn,.:
a. City Engineer: $4,420 c'Vdes .12 of PERS)
b. Civil Engineer:
C. Sr. Public Works Inspect(
d. Public Works Inspector: h2,000 t(r $2,500
e. Secretary: $1460 to $18E
f. Other:
11. Turn Around Time for First Plan C-eck: 3 to 4 weeks
12. Hourly Rates Charged for: Flat r,tes pursuant to their fee schedule.
Exhibit C 0 i(, ,f 6
CITY of (_AMARILLC
CONTACT PERSON: Dan Greely, Directo,• ) Frnginee ing Services
1. City Population: 46,000
2. Total City Operational Budget. 1 ,n00,000
3. Department Operational Budget. ;500,OOC
4. Expenditure of Time by the C,t;` ngineer
a. Management /Supervision;'( nt.ract Administration /Development
Review: 95%
b. Plan Check and Desigr: in review of other's work —
C. Field Inspection:
d. Other:
5. Staffing:
a. Review & Development Projects /Plan Check: Use a CivilEngineerandCivilEngineeringAssistanttoprimarilycoordinatecontractpla, check of privately sponsored public
improvements and for G-5lic contact at counter and relateddevelopmentreview.
b. Inspection: 1 Senior In pector and 2 Inspectors inspect both
City and privately funde prc,,jec'.;,
C. Clerical: A departmenta secretary and two other clerical
staff.
d• Support Services /CIP De -sign: 1 Engineer, 1 Engineering Aideand2Technicians. They- do minor design for projects such as
street overlay and slurry seal but most design of capitalimprovementiscontra( ta,d. Th(ry average a few million in
projects each year. hey put together bid documents and
coordinate project impl+nenta,ic_ in addition to interfacingwithcontractdesign `i, .
e. Other: 1 Traffic Engir-er and 1 Technician. Some traffic
studies are still contaictecl o.t Director of EngineeringServicesservesasCi , y ; g r e(,r.
f• Total number of full --,imp ernploye s: 15
6. Other
lighting
Functions Handled In -hot, -, ;)y f)npartment: Provided street
design
street
and assessment. t.,,'; engineering services for their
lighting di,trict.
Fxhibit C f c - 3 r= f
7. Related Functions Handled In -louse by City: The operations and
maintenance of water, sewer end tr,ets are provided through a
separate Community Services I')ep,i -tmen°
8. Contract Engineering Services t, >ed by the Department: Design of most
public improvement project,,, ome traffic studies, plan check ofdevelopmentprovidedimprovomerountysurveyorforrecordmapchecking.
9. How Department is Funded: Estiro,ited at 'i0% each from General Fund
and development fees.
10. Monthly Salary Ranges for Key P( ,it. ions:
a• City Engineer: $4,0! )9 ? $4,935
b. Civil Engineer: $3,42' o $4,160
C. Sr. Public Works Inspe(,ts: $2,!)79 to $3,135
d• Public Works Inspector $2,339 to $2,844
e. Secretary: $1,745 tc s2 122 (titled Admin. Assistant)
f• Other: Civil Engineer A sociate $3,044 to $3,701
Engineering tech iciin I $2,011 to $2,445
Engineering Tech ician 11 $2,278 to $2,708
Administrative C -ri 111,367 to $1,662
Secretary $2, 05 t-)
11. Turn Around Time for First Plan ?ieck 4 weeks.
12. Hourly Rates Charged for: Flat. ',ite,, pursuant to their standard fee
schedule which is similar to Mr' - -)a -E and County of Ventura.
Exhibit C 4 r,F E
CITY OF ` ANI A PAUL A
CONTACT PERSON: Norm Wilkenson, City, ,r irleer E rector of Public Works
1. City Population: 23,500
2. Total City Operational Budget: 5,6'70,0(0
3. Department Operational Budget: 19(:),(00. This is the portion funded
estimated one -half of tf,
administration tasks ,o,
by General Funds and is clas,,
Administration. The
ied in their budget as Public Works
balance
funded by the the public works /city engineering is
Clerical: Secretary i:,
sewer and refuse
The sewer fund funds 20%
enterpri,e funds and gas tax funds.
is equivalent to one -ha?.;
eact
Analyst, and Civil Engineer Assistant
or the City Engineer, Administrative
Support Services /CIP E.
20% of the city Engineer and
Gositions and the refuse fund
0% of he Civil Engineer Assistant.
supports the activitiF,
Engineer and Civil
These two funds provide funding rr, °,he equivalent of one position.
4. Expenditure of Time by the City ^ngineer
improvement projects ,u,,.,
a• Management/Supervision/,' rIt -act Administration /Development
projects designed by c1r'ratt
their
Review: 94%
b• Plan Check and Design:
C. Field Inspection: 1%
d. Other:
5. Staffing:
a• Review & Development Pro,ects/Plan Check: 1 Civil EngineeringAssistantassistsCitvf:r ineer i +r this process.
b. Inspection: 1 position which pr,rforms inspection service anestimatedone -half of tf,
administration tasks ,o,
time. The other time is spent in
uut'lic wr,rks activities.
C. Clerical: Secretary i:, hared w th two other departments andisequivalenttoone -ha?.; positior
d. Support Services /CIP E. sig ,,: 1 Administrative AnalystsupportstheactivitiF,
Engineer and Civil
of *he previously mentioned City
Frig leering Assistant for their smallimprovementprojects ,u,,., is street overlays with largerprojectsdesignedbyc1r'ratt
their
e- gineers. They put togetherown ,yid documents
e• Other: Most traffic 't die; area done in- house. Final mapcheckisdonebythe (:i-% Er!ci r,ee lie also stressed need for
good record keeping.
f• Total number of full -ti emplovees: The equivalent of 4full -time positions._ tv Fngineer indicated he is
Exhibit C n* (
Exhibi t t ,a i,, r t;
proposing the addit on of cne enqineering position and one
technician position
6. Other Functions Handled Ln -r
lights
use by Department: Additions of street
are reviewed by the
is required but., if needed wo,
ity Engineer. No assessment engineering
d probably be done by existing staff.
7. Related Functions Handled [ house ~y City: As mentioned, the CityEngineerservesasPublicworksDirectorandsupervisesthePublicWorksMaintenanceSuperintencent
sewer and street systems, l::rks
who is responsible for maintenance of
maintenance activities, local floodcontrolchannels, City yarc end residential refuse collection. Sewer
treatment is handled by con *ri,ct with the Regional Sanitation District.
8. Contract Engineering Servic,.s Used by the Department: The onlysignificantcontractisfordesign :f improvement projects excludingminorprojectssuchasstreetDverlay,. _
9. How Department is Funded:
I
ne genera'I fund provides the funding fortheAdministrative /support ortion of the combined City EngineerPublicWorksAdministrationt,udget. The City Engineer estimates onlyafewthousanddollarsfrom
As
development fees is received each year. mentioned, the sewer and efuse enterprise funds and gas tax fundsprovideotherportionsoft:.he undinq
10. Monthly Salary Ranges for Key Io5
a. City Engineer: $4,13
b. Civil Engineer: $2,1 tc ;2,628
C. Sr. Public Works Iisoa for
d. Public Works Inspect.) 1.861 to $2,262
e. Secretary: $1,387 t) 1 EBE;
f. Other: Administra.i, ,/F- Analyst $1,762 to $2,141
11. Turn Around Time for First P <i heck: 3 weeks or less dependinguponnatureofproject.
12. Hourly Rates Charged for
basis. They
Fhey currently charge on a flat rate
charge a combines
for plan check and inspect
1 112% of the value of the improvements
conducting a study of fees
an services. The City is currently
wh
rate basis.
r rnav -esul t in a change from the flat
Exhibi t t ,a i,, r t;