Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works Department - Miscellaneous Documents and Staff f , I RECAST FOR CITY C UNC L ACTON Submitted by Paul E. Cool: Dgmrtment Public Works Date Prepared F&niai_y 19 , 19_0 Bm*up Mewlel A. !J Yrs f+b City Adminhtmtor's Commons APPROVED By CITY COUNCIL. : Approve as recomended. c:xx Statement of IMM,Reoornmendation,Analysis,Funding Scarce,Altemative Actiom Statement-of lw e: I exists to eve the effetfiiveness and efficim y of the City Is street s6vepin3 cx�rmien3e�d"Actions: 1.Authcrize the -niture of a--cocilotely $57,000 for five years from Capital, Outlay Funds to frur new street ors. Z. Reduce personnel, in the Public works Dept. by one Equipment Operator. 3. Make a In, itmmt to retain in-house street sweeping rather than onfiact2xv for this service. 4. Authorize purchase and installation of parking prohibition signs at an estimated cost of $15,000 for sweeping each side of streets in the townlot area boucxied by Lake, Pacific (bast iiic,hway, Goldeniest and Palm and authorize strict enftxrcment of these signs. 5. Authorize tranufer of $5,600 from Police Dept. permanent salaries to the Police Dept. ParkLV Enfor.ceimerlt Px0gra m temporary salaries. s • Autbcrize the Initiation Of a public information mn iaogram r irdi ng street sweeping for all other areas of the City at an estimated cost of $5 000 frau the Capital.Cutlay.A=d.,. �ttac��d report on b-treet s'weeping has been prepared in order to describe our eras City w-Vr + and tha problems inherent in it. basically, the are two =jor probbams that =Ast Lv alleviated if we are bo isp Qom the efficiency and effectiveness of street sweeping in H= ingtan Beach. One is the poor conditi m o, crsr current fleet of swears. The other problen is the inability of our sus to c OnsiB,,-ntly clean street gutters be=zc of Mel the obstacles d by parked automobiles. Mie program cannot be sigriificintly iapzo ed unless both prublem3 are addressed. Becau--, of frequent Lraloac�wns, our sweepers are unable to maintain a consistent schedule of s«neping City streets on a bi- kdy Innis. even Mudern 09.tipmnt is not effectiL13- if Parked vvl iclee preclude nw-Wing 9uttEas. LY ca-des to correct the first: problrm, we are rcoorrr=x1ing Wat four new diesel. Gweepern be lc+:wcd for a five year period after uidch tile City will exam tt-.=. 711ia mcthnd of txxdkme is lCOL dive ovnr the life of t3y-- nv►*cLp2ns t2kan outright puzdkzo of four r"e r,z%vc,-t=s. atn st a `' Aequea for Wuncil Asti . February 19, M0 Page 2 Wears y than the m-street parking problem be ' by an 6 tensive public infoxarati on progrr the City -0 F- the emcption of the.townlot area.,,-,�:In that section of the City, pasting of parking pr-Adbiti,on signs an euft side of. the i &;;t for:alternate amepliq days is Ie1. Yf, after a one year trial. pe IWO we find that,the padAic 3nfarmatimi program is not affective, we will d that. parking prti+dt3bit3An signs be posted at. entaram es to tracts and strictly enforced. Also attwbed is a nmD from the dal• Maintenance � ni'V why diesel engines are xeaiended for the new sweepers rather than 13rr engines. Another memo £*cm the Police Traffic Bureau Cb=wzxler is attached describing their peramu el needs far wmidng enfcarorecnent to implement this pregr�sr. Be fuels the enforc er` wi11 Csily generate enough revenie to cover oasts. - The it6e s4eepinc3 rq=t and its *..ions have been reviewed and eancu=z-i vith by the City Coun=l N1= =nittw c=Liting of awxtil persons M ngc, Pk ley and Altzir I dies: . 51156ffirie street sweeping in the City. 2. Continue the present costly and ineffective street sweeping program with no changes. 3. A idmize the pasting of parking signs for sweeping 11=4iout the entire C-.ty.,at an estimated initwI.al cost of $75,000.00. (. -Ftm� Sour°ct � ` tOutlay F=ds in the a=wit of $57,000 for five consecutive years for new rweepers , and $5,000 to initiate a public info=tion I r r qz-aa11. H.C.D. Funds in the amount of 4,15,000 I for paw prohibition signs in the taa act area. PW:jY Attach. i i i t s i H CITY OF HUNTIM�GTON .NUACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ; To Floyd G.Belsito From Paul E. Ccd(, Director City Administrator Public Works Subject STREET SWEEPING Date January 25, 1980 The following report represents an overall evaluation of the City's present street sweeping program together with recomr)endations for implementing Improvements to the program. 1. Statement of Issue During the last several years the City's street sweeping program has been criticized as being ineffective and costly. Several reports have been produced regarding on-street 4! p,:tcing prohibitions on street sweeping days as well as contract versus,in-house sweeping. This report is intended to review all past studies and experiments as well as deccribing new techniques which we feel will lead to an improved street sweeping program. Concerns about this program are not unique to Huntington Beach. In fact, our sweeping cost per curb mile is considerably lower than over ouce according too recent study.'. All the other cities for which I have worked are continually reviewing their methods of street sweeping to make the program more cost effective. Also,our research shows that the majority of the cities in Orange County have conducted similar studies. We have taken advantage of the experiences of these cities when considering the recommended improvements in our program. There are two major problems with our program that must be alleviated if vi.'are to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of street sweeping in Huntington Beach. One is the pear condition of our current fleet of sweepers. The other problem is the inability of our sweepers to consistently clean street gutters because of the obstacles presented by parked automobiles on our streets. This problem is more serious in certain areas of the City than it is in others. Our recommendations, while admittedly providing a higher level of service in the problem areas, are intended to alleviate this problem at the least cost. In the face of limited revenues, The City Council must decide whether the street sweeping program is a high priority when conpared to other City programs since street sweeping cannot be improved as recommended without an initial expenditure of capital outlay funds and continued support from ihe general fund. The alternative of establishing u street sweeping fee as many other cities have done is not recommended at this time. However, it should be considered a viable solution to the problem of increr3ing costs and limited revenue caused by recent legislation. Next page please. . . . r Mr.Belsito Page 2 January 25, 1980 11. Street Sweeping Equipn!ent The City currently has six street sweepers, four of which are used on a daily basis in our narmul program. However, only one of these sweepers is still within its normal economic Gfe of seven years. The average age of our sweepers is 9 years...Since the optimum replacement age for street sweepers averages 7 years and maintenance costs rise drastically after this point is reached, it is obvious that part of the problem lies here. Ve are now repairing parts such as major structural components which under normal vehicle replacement cycles should never have to be repaired. Our sweepers and the mechanical systems they use reflect a technology which is largely obsolete. This outdated design contributes to the high operating and maintenance costs. Fuel cansvmption alone is nearly double what it would be with modem single engine machines. Downtime caused by the inability to promptly obtain 'I . repair parts for our obsolete sweepers is a major cause of the inefficiency of our { program. Driver safety and improved engine exhaust emissions are two more important factors which would be improved by replacing our current sweepers. In order to improve efficiency, it is apparent that modem sweeping equipment must be acquired. Initial capital outlay required will be recouped in two ways as follows: I. Four reliable modern sweepers can be used in lieu of the obsolete machines now in daily operation. This will obviously cruse a significant reduction in operating, personnel and maintenance costs. 2. Maintenance costs for sweepers in their first seven years of life are much lower than for older obsolete machines. There are two methods by which to acquire new sweepers, full purchase or lease purchase. The attached Exhibit A shows the advantage of leasing over full purchase. This method of purchase is becoming very popilar with public agencies needing to keep dun-.rcl costs as low as possible. Based on a five year lease, the annual cost for four new sweepers is $56,471. After the lease period, the City owns the sweepers. The annual cost of leasing four sweepers is less than the purchase of orie machine at $60,075. When calculated as an annuity, the lease purchase method is less expensive than full purchase over five years. During the month of December, 1779 records were kept an the downtime for the sweeper fleet. The downtime totaled 194.5 hours which is nearly one full month fcr one sweeper. Next page please. . . . . i f l E 1 I i 'Mr.Belsito Page 3 January 25, 1980 When all:cost factors are considered such as fuel, repairs, downtime and persome!; it is estimated that $18,000 can be saved annually if four ne.wIsweepers are leased at compared to maintaining our current sweepers. Amortized over the full seven year life of the sweepers,a total annual savings of $21,600 woull aocrue. Of course, this does not even consider the increased sweeping efficiency inherent in the modem machines. III. Contract versus In-House Street Sweeping We have analyzed costs in the'1979-BO budget attributable to street sweeping as shown on Exhibit B. The total is $168,044.80. This does not include amortization of four purchased or.leased vehicles. The following analysis shows the cast advantages of in-house sweeping over contract sweeping: A. Present costs with no amortization $168,044.80 B. Present costs with amortization of four purchased ;.weepers at $60,075.00 each over seven years, plus$4,700 for pickups and front loader. $191,373.66 C. Present costs with amortization of four leased sweepers at $56,471.0'4 each per year for five years amortized over seven years,plus $4,700 for pickups and front loader. $197,381.26 D. Costs for contract sweeping I. Contract costs proposed July 20, 1979 $168,683.00 2. Retention of one sweeper and operator for spills and accidents, pre-cleaning for street maintenance and striping, bike paths, service roads, public parking lots, and special events $ 420011.20 3. Conservatn,e 5% inventory addition per year 2 (for annual average) = 2.5% X 168,683, or 4,217.08 Total Costs for Contract Sweeping $214,911.28 Next page please. . . . . 000) Mr.Belsito i Page 4 January 25, 1980 In addition there is the unknown cost of inspection and administration that would further.Increase'the costs of contract sweeping. We have received retorts from other cities who have contract sweeping which show that the majority of theist are dissatisfied with the service citing sweeping speed, complaints, recalls, inspections and other inconveniences to the agency and the citizens. One such City, Cypress, reported that the contractor requested a 33% increase in rates in October, 1979 becouse his costs were increasing. The contract sweeping proposal shown as D abuve was obtained in July, 1979 which indicates that a new proposal would probably be much higher. : It is.felt that the City should remain committed to in-louse street sweeping. Additional cost savings would appear to be available if a consortium of several adjacent cities were established to share street sweeping resources and costs. IV. 'On-Street Pair{cing Obstacles In addition to the inefficiency of our current sweeping fleet, the obstacles created by automobiles parked on the streets during sweeping days create a largely ineffective sweeping program in many areas of the City. During the past two years, we have experimented with signs of the entrances to certain tracts starting that no parking is allowed on street sweeping days. This experiment had a beneficial effect on sweeping effectiveness when a parking officer was enforcing these signs. When enforcement stopped due to lock of funds, automobiles gradually began to reappear al the streets to a point where we now are receiving requests to remove the signs If we are not going to enforce them. During the two year experimental period, 10,000 homes were affected by the no parking signs. Only two complaints by people receiving citations were handled by the City Council. In a sample interview . conducted by City' staff,81%of residents were in favor of the parking restriction! for street sweeping. Nearly all cities in southern California have wrestled with this problem. As examples, Anaheim is posting its entire city for no parking on sweeping days, white Yorba Unda uses the newspaper to ask for volunteer cooperation. Eight of twenty two cities surveyed in Orange County da not post any signs for street sweeping. Others post only their worst an-street parking arevs. Some cities post both sides of each street while others past only the entrances to tracts. *As can be seen, there has Leen no uniform policy established in this matter. Each City seems to place a higher priority an clean stre-.ts by adding to their budgets for installation and maintenance of signs as wAll as enforcement officers. Others do not wish to inconvenience residents ar iswe citations to them. Next page please. . . . . 9 -Mr.Mr. BelSit0 l Page 5 January 25, 1980 Frequency of street sweeping also varies from City to City. Frequeincy ranges from , ' once'a day in business districts to once a month an residential streets. Most cities t sweep residential streets once a week.. Most of the medium sized and large cities.in Orange County sweep less frequently than in'the past and have little or'no pasting of r signs. These Cities all have more than the average number of complaints. Hint 1.tgfan'Be:ach has several choices to resolve the problem of on-strut parking and s,eeping frequewies. Among them are the following: 1. Port the entire City foi-parking prohibitions on residential streets and sweep on a -..; bi-weekly;basis. `Assuming that tracts would be posted only at their entrances ftom aitez ial highways and the old tarrm id stem would be steel on eon, - 9r' system Po street; initial costs for the signs wovid be about$75,000 and cnnual maintenance costs would be$7,500. 2. *Do not ast an streets but use an extensive public information system to`gain P Y - cooperation from residents for bi weekl sweeping. Annual costs would anP Y approximate $4,Q00. At the same time, adjust sweeping schedules so that the. , streets with the most parking problems are swept after &04 a.m..when the,least number of automobiles would be expected. 3. 'Do not post single family residential tracts using only the public information system but post the old town residential area. Estimated initial costs would be: $20,00G with annual maintenance costs about $5,000. - { 4 k. Sweep ISt single family residential areas less frequently such as once a month # while sweeping the problem areas more frequently such once a week. P n9 P le fr Y � � I The public :iformatian system would consist of occasional newspaper articles and notices it auded in water bills. It could also include individual notices left on doors to repeating offenders although this step would require considerable staff time with ' no offst:ttirg revenues. It Ivor assumed that enforcement of parking prohibition signs if posted would at least cover the cost of the parking enforcement officer. in addition,a goal should be set for this program to also cover the cast of maintaining the signs. It should not be difficult to attain this goal if the officer is actively writing citations on a daily basis. An alternative of pasting all streets in tracts throughout the City so that sweeping would be done on alterrmte sides of the stree` cn different days was rejected as being prohibitively expensive. In this case signs posted only at the entrances to trac would not be acceptable because it would be impossible to Next page please. . . . . Mr. Belsifo Page 6 January 25, 1980 clearly describe the sweeping program'on the'signs. In order to sweep alternate '. sides of the street in tracts throughout the City, $500,000'for purchase of signs would;be necessary. This doesn't include additional aperating costs requlred by. excessive de adheodhxl.which is estimated at over $100,000 annually. This latter problem does not exist in the old town area where the grid pattern of streets makes sweeping of alternate sides an different days a viable alternative. It ap*rs'that a coirbinatian of the above choices would result In the cleanest. streets while maintaining reasonable annual costs and a sense of faimess to the. citizens. Our recommendation is that an extensive public information'system be used rather than posting signs in most single familf residential areas of the'City: Swe�ping frequency would remain at twice a month. The town lot area bounded by Lake,Pacific Coast Highway, Goldenwest and Palm would be posted with two signs on eoch side of the street per,block. Each side of the street would be swept on alternate days so Phut residents could always park on one side of the street or the other. The initial cost for this program would be$2000 while annual costs for maintenance and public lnfarmatlon would be$3,500. ri lUthis alternative is not acceptable or is found by the courts to be discriminotory; single familytracts could beposted at their entrances. ?his would iricrea initial costs by$45,000 and annual costs by $3,000. The lowest cost would b? realized if an extensive public Information program included the entire City and no signs were posted. This annual cost would be $4,000. However, it is.doubtful that this sytem would be successful In areas where off•atreet parking is insufficient or less permanent residents predominate. The recommendations in this section represent our feelings as to the optimum alternative to providing on efficient and effective street sweeping program at the lowest cost while still being palatable to most citizens. If it is found that voluntary compliance in residential tracts will not suffice, we would recommend posting all entrances to tracts and strictly enforcing them- V. Summary and Recommendations Because: City revenues contirrie to decrease and costs increase; the City Council mrmst make a policy da islon regarding our street sweeping program. A commitment to cleen streets means that equipment must be upgraded so that sweeping costs can be reduced and parking problems must be alleviated so that the sweepers can be effective. An extensive enforccment program is not compe;tibfe with our present sweeper fleet because the frequency of breakdowns does not allow us to maintain a reg-War sweeping schedule throughout the City. The extreme alternative to Next page please. . . . . Page 7 January 25, 1 y80 this commilt-mmfis to eliminate the sweeping program altogether at an annual savings of about $200,000. -Since street inventory is continually iricrcasirg becouse. of development and inflation is increasing costs faster than.City revenues,it is Pelf that a'street sweeping fee is the only viable Io rmi term solution to this problem. A., fee can keep pace with inflation and development while property taxes under current laws cannot. Without such a fee, it is ake!y that sweeping services would have to be .. ; once a montfi at some future date. eot��cedprobablye fu rther r to , Presuming than the City Council is committed to clean streets by providing an adequote sweeping service, the following are our recommendations to be implemented as soar as possible. I. Acquim four new street sweepers through lease purchase at an annual estimated cost of$57,000 for five years after which the City will own these sweepers. 2. Reduce personnel by one equipment operator. 3. Make a commitment to retain in-house street sweepirx. rather than contracting for this service. 4. Install 9 parkin P 9 rohibition si rgs for sweeping each side of streets an alternate ti. days in the town lot area bounded by l�:e,Pacific Coast Htgj way, Goldenwest and Palm and authorize strict enforcement of these signs. This would require an initial capital outlay of$15,000 for signs which is recommended to be financed with Housing and Community Development funds. It would also require authorization fa-the Police Department to implement an enforcement program to be offset by revenues from parking fines. 5. Initiate and continue a public information program for all other areas of the City. This program will be evaluated for one year to determ-ne if It fms been effective. PC:se R� 11-20-79 Exhibit A COST COMPARISONS OF PURCME VERSUS LEASE OF 5 YARD STREET SWMZRS I'.0MDIATE PURCHASE COST PER SWEEPER. INCLUDING SALES TAX $ 60,075.50 COST FOR FOUR SWEEPERS 240,302.00 FIVE YEA.'t LEASE COST PER S1IEEPER 60,075.50 34% ADD ON ZttTEREST 10,513.21 ::_�•S"�*`Yt;��c� * .•_� TOTAL 70,56..71 MONTHLY LEASE PAYMENT 1,176.48 ,+• ; A:tttUAL LEASE COST 14,117.76 A!%NUAL COST FOR POUR SWEEPERS 56,471.04 FIVE YEAR COST FOR FOUR SWEEPERS 292,353.20 MWARISONS = 1. MtSDIATE PURCHASE WOULD COST $240,302.00 1. FIVE YEAR LEASE WOULD COST 2A2,355.20 1. AIMUITY INVESTMENT IMEDED TO EQUAL FIVE YEAR LEASE COST t BASED ON 101/YEAR COMPOUNDED � 1 DAILY ,225,133.44 Notat Even if investment interest dropped to 70, the annuity type funding needed would not 1 4. I-EAS3 ADVAttTAGE VRSUS PURCHASE �uscead ira�odiate purchase casts. E a. Four sweepers could be leased for an annual cost of $3,604.46 less than purchase of one. b. Leasing would not rewire immediate front moasy. ` c. Lease is terminable without penalty other than loss of first and last months lease payment. } EIIHIBZT.8 . GuHK RY OF 19?9-80 PUDUr t iaR FOR P.CCOM No. 520 ASSIGNIWLB TO ASSIMAWA TQ COST DYTAIL ALLpT�NT STREET v J188IGNA$LK TO RSSIGNABL3 TO 39JS..PZN_d_ pMR� � CLEIININO � 510 A11'.O1:H A£8IGNABLS TO Personnel Total 189,9{i.GO CREW 310 CONCRETE CiiEP1. . 520 ST. yam; � Crewload�r 25t 3,BSZ.25 j Wa4warker (5101 23,760.00 25t 201 5.665.80• 51 5 Evip. Oper. 3,664.00 IOt Z 1:416:45 50% 14,164.50 Paint. Svc. wkr. 91,867.90(4 Opar+l09x1) ,576.00 50t 12,880.00 5% 1,288.00 Paint. ►lkr. Sr. 200843,00 90 ZOt 20% S,152.00 Overtime 13% 1,151.25 21,C63.00 20,166.10 25t 1,918.75 St 383.75 SS OPER. TOTAL385.75 54t 3,837.5p 9 '::,•: ,200.00 1 Vac.9v.2pt8 in 510 acct. 5 Pxr.Sv.3pts •a. a01 84.40 it► 510 acet.�_ in 520aeet ~~ 6,330.00 . 1 Ft. Iflr.1 pt. � r { DI-v Tk.I pt. aa. 422.00 90t 759.60 i I Points Assigned -Total 1,68Q.00 Eruils 22 -$422/ea. i 224,964.00 111,644.80 j Fuel/Mech. !taint. 45,500.00 32.g07.55 14,590.20 I .ac. Sw. 13,E36.25 Z9,915.Z0j S Pv:, Sw. 700.00 1 :t. Ldr. n,000.00 4 Ouop Tk. 700.00 6,300.00 2,800.00 TOTIVA $277,484.00 $169,044.40 $35,707.55 $14,680.20 $15,836.25 $36,215;20 '. t _.. .'-:5e �_._�✓d.tf`FS'�/ TR,�II 1 3' ! '1'!i."i[S" r[[.II7l716� _ .[ .. -..P � "s`_.. ._..... .. . .. _. .. .. .. ... _ - ... RECEIVE*, DEPr.OF PUBLIC WORKS. . J• CITV of HUN'TINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION FEB 51980 HU►1MG1ON 01401 MUFMINOTON BzAcli. CAC-1R. . To FIDYD G. BEISI70, CITY AUHNISTRATOR From J.B. PRICE, U. Via Chain of Command Traffic Bureau Commander . i Subject STREET SWEEPING ENFO<ZMIENT Hate 2/14/80 Pursuant to a request by bfr. Paul Cookc, Director of Public Works . we have analyzed his report of* January 25, 1980, that was direct d to you. On Page 7 of this report, included in Item #4, is a pl •t: to post the "town lot" section of the City. ?-fr. Cook requested I advise you of the projected costs of enforcing the prohibited parking applicable to this recommendation.- Utilizing a part-time parking enforcement officer on a 20 hour Her week schedule, his salary costs would be $5,564 annually. We are . of the. opinion that this would be sufficient to provide adequate enforcement time for this particular project. We would require no new equipment expenditure, as we have adequate rolling stock on +. board now. - There would be some. slight incidental expenses regarding uniforms, ticket books , etc. , but these would be minimal. The citations generated by the officer working this assignment should, at the least, offset his salary costs. 1 I would prefer to hire a full -time officer if we begin expanding the present enforcement program to include an expanded street steeping operation. His salary costs, with benefits, amount to $15,316 annually. I make this recommendation, even if it means losing one of the part-time officers, as I assume if the City adopts a viable street sweeping program, there would be an eventual expansion of the parking enforcement duties in this area. Prior to such an expansion, as reported in our earlier memos regarding the parking detail , there is sufficient parking violations occurring on a daily basis to keep such an additional officer busy. I am also finding that the part- time officers are net as efficient , due to scheduling problems, as the full-time employees . i If hIr. Cook's recommendations are adopted by the City, the revenue generated by either a 40 hour full -time or 20 hour part-time employee will be considerably increased if we bring our parking fines in line with the surrounding jurisdictions. � ►. 'r re. .t.� Traffic Bureau Commander cc: Mr. coon, 1111b1 i c. h'orLs 'v •.� DEPT.OP PUBLIC WORKS •�� CITY OF HL111 TINGTdaN BEACH ' INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION F''� � 1 ���� 1"Ifil Iuw sous ' fit.lrrRNt7TOtV d:a4pi.CAur.' .. To DONALD W. KISER From DEL GRAY DIVISION ENGINEEP. HECIIA..IICAL MAIiiTENANCE SUPERVISOR y` Subject SLI?.EYER ENGINES D3te FEBRUARY 8, 1980 The: question has been asked as to why you recommended the diesel eng;.. ;+ ;.„ option, at an additional cost of $7,000 per unit, on the purchase of new street sweepers. I totally agree with that recommendation and find ,*. f it cost effective for the following reasor.3. 1. The offered engine is a new type John Deere industrial designed for maximum fuel efficiency. It will use approximately two gallons per hour less fuel than the standard Chrysler gasoline engine. At 1,000 .' hours running time per year, we 'Will. save approximately $2,000 in } operiting cost per unit, per year. This alone rxill recover the cost of the opts.-r_:.1 engine in 3.5 years. As the price of fuel goes high- >' er rate cost recovery will be quicker. 2. The cost of diesel fuel is slightly lower than gasoline, approximately . 6% at this time. In a normal years consumption this cleans an addition- al $180 saving over an equal quantity of gasoline, b ued on 3,000 gallons usage per unJt. 3. Dles+-1 engines Are Inherently stronger and more heavy duty than gasoline engines. This results in a minimum of 50X longer life before overhaul is needed. In sweeper service the average life of a primary gasoline engine is 5,000 hours ar 5 years. A diesel engine • j Eels 7,000 to 8,000 hours of life, and some go as high as 10,000 )sours. This means that in the normal economic life of a sweeper, f:even years, the gasoline engine would absolutely have to be over- hauled, and the diesel would probably not, at a saving of $1,500, 4. Tune-ups, ignition and carburatlon, are non-existent on diesel engines. Since they have neither electrical ignition nor carburator type fuel systems, this eliminates two major maintenance cost areaa ! common to i;as:+>lin+� ��s�gin�♦r:. 5urr.perrs nr: r::pecially vulnerable to tills coat bccaut�4 -.f the dusty cnvironmenr in which they constantly run. The diesel engine is compression ignition with a sealed fuel inJectiors system, practically maintenance free, and requiring only t perioaic filter and all changes. This results In an average $200 per unit, per year cast sat•i+ii;. 5. There are also other fringe benefits to the diesel engine pact4age. The heat of tfivrse Its that yott fret an AJI1Fon AT540 truck transmisr.ion wJ th a VI'II rating, or over 35,000 putinds in I;Hce cif the standard Chrysler 727 unit, which is: basically a Jight truck unlit and Miould i • i page -2- not be used in any vehicle with a GVW rating of over 15,000 pounds. Tito dry weight of these sweepers is over 15,000 pounds, and kith a hopper full of wet.dirt, plus a full water tank the total weight could approach 30,000 pounds. Under these operating circumstances, the annual overhaul costs on the smaller, trans;nission could amount to $300. 'The Allison transmission should have no problems for 7 or more years, an it is 24 times more heavy duty tijan the Chrysler. 6. Another fringe benefit of I this total package is in the accessory electrical system. The diesel engine requires more battery and starting power, hence standard equipment is a heavy duty starter, battery and alternator. Since sweepers are extremely rough on batteries and .alternators due to the constant operation of trAf£ic- warning lights, the increased capacity in this area will reduce maintenance costs on the electrical system. Estimated savings $100 annually. As you can readily see, 'the direct savings possible with the diesel engine package in operating and maintenance costs will' result in total . � recovery of the $7,000 price in three years or lens and the savings will continue at basically the same annual rate 'up to 7 or 8 years. If the sweepers are kept in service beyond that point, the savings rate will diminis►t on maintenance related items, but will continue at It constant rate on operating items. All factors considered, it. is a very attractive package and I highly recommend it. In fact, I recommend diesel engines for all medium and heavy duty truck -and equipment applies- tions as being very cost effective at this time. Del Cray Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor VG:bit cam: Paul Cook its g.. ti7+tit:,.s.:o;-Xix:s.�'..7.w:,aurw+...ne.a......,...... ...._..._. _. .._._._..,....�..�... .....................�.-... ......._ .. . _.. ....._.�..�_.. ---...__........._.,,,,,u,y . • i I'MC CorporalIon Ivlitt:irll►.al F(1111hlllpfil,alr;./5arvica I PO1 1.-j:►1 noelrirlion SIfor-1 1'mtun.1 Crtl1lurnin ft 1760* (714)6294071 Fart:;6232111 'lae' � g February 18, 1980 Mr. Donald W. Kiser Division.Engineer City of Huntington teach " P.G. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Proposal Update . F2%IC Model 2-12 Four Wheel Street Sweeper Dear Mr. Kiser: We are'pleased to update and confi'in our Previous proposed of ::, November 15, 1979 for'FMC Model 2-12 street sweepers. •,. Since the Novamber. proposnl FMC has revised its intrrast rates .upward Pvvo 47. annual add-on interest. Unfortunately, we •are unable to avoid :this change. In ,addition, on..January 14, 1980, FMC announced a price increase raising the 'unit price as proposed from $60075.50 to •$62,947.00. This was an approximate 52, increase amount.tng Ito..- }' $2,871.54 per unit. Please note'.that.46c 'to-the fact. this praposnl . has been under active consideration, FMC shall hold the .old per ►init;, i price firm until March. .4, 1.980, thus allowing the City the opportunity to take•appropriate council, action on-the proposal. i The attached revised proposal reflects the increase in interest-rates . ; only and is firm'"until March 4, 1980. Except for .the revision in i interest rates, the basic tevms of FDIC's Rental/Purchase Agreement remain unchanged. We look forward to the, opportunity of providing' Che City of Huntington Beach with the wozldb most modern and most• productive street sweeping I equipment. Should you have any questions or wish additional information, please contact me at (714) 629-4071. Yours truly, r� Bill Schaeffer Sales Representative • i wb • d i I FMC Cotporation Swoopo► Division POWER SWEEPER 1201 East Lexinp��.5 ttoat , 'Pomona Calllorn, �66 UOTATION ' For. 'Mr. Donald W. Kiser � Submitted By FMC Swobp'or Division .�•• ' Division" krir;i'neor Bill Schaeffer City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Notice: 5% price increase shall become effective March 4 , 1980 .j Revision Date: 2/18/80.. , i OuantitV Description Pries FMC Model 2-12 5 Cubic Yard 1 ea. FMC Hl doll 12 John Deere diesel with AT540 Eranimission California noise suppression Backup all ra 360 rotating beacon Beacon .limb guard, right hand limb guard Dual sun visors„ Slow moving vehicle emblem Sub total ` $62',972:00 Less factory discount 6 297.:00 Sub total 56 675`.'00 6% sales. tax 3,400.50 , F.L.T. (exemption required) N/C Freight N/C Total $60,075.50 Delivery approximately 180 days. Warranty - 1 year ..: .5 Year Rental-Purchase Cash price $60,075.50 �•, 4% annual add-on interest 12,015.10 . Total of `payments '72,090.60 1. :. Monthly payment 1,201.51 Purchase option 1.00 First and last payment due upon receipt of equipment. Note: Add ,$973.00 delivered price for air conditioning or ?' ' $19.06 a month on rental basis. Deduct $7,017.00 delivered price for gas engine with Chrysler automatic or $137.42 a month on rental basis. :' Equipment as above F.O.B. Terms .. Subject to Applicable State Tax Prices Firm Until Net 30 or as indicated 'As indicated March 4 1980 Accepted By Preparedly. ,r' Company Af / , RIC Corporation 136:iida�.�t::::J..:•AC:.J�'tal t:.a.wr►..w.•.--.... ..... �.•.......,......r.�......... ..-.-...,..•.•....... ......-......-... .. -..._ -.-.......,...-_'_..._... ___" • L a CCITV OF HUN TINGTON BEA,Ct1 • INTER-DEPARTMENT-COMMUNICATION o,,T-• A ?>i�et; #KA'T1aeuw uAn+ 7 . To . Floyd G. 'Be'isito From Ralph R. Leyva Acting Director of Public Works Traffic Engineer Subject Enforcement for Street Sweeping Date August 22, 1979 &tatemer�t:'Of Issue: Al the`,'Council meeting •of'August 20, .1979` Mr. Barber c6mpia3.ned about parking enforcement •in .connection with the ,street sweeping program. ' . Cancern'was expressed by `the City Council relative to 'the merits of j the 'program. I Recoimnandation t The program should continue., with some basic changes :as follows s is infarcement of. the;l arkin restrictions should' be consolidated P g with the Police.'Departments. 2.•.. Fines for: violation. uf:'parking. restriction should be in from $5:00 to $10.00 'to provide uniformity throughout the Citya Analtsi�s s Mic..Barber :essentially,,stained"'that he owns °5,:wehicles.:and that Having 'to` park ofE,-street;;twice:.'per month. for,a'.period4bf 4 hou=s .oach':time was-,a hardship= to his•,.family Mr'.; Harber's situation is not,,typical of'residents.xih:the�.City.. Most`:households,possess twos;or.:three vehicles: Single family res;tdefi&d 'naive=been constructed::with a twc or,three carp garage, ther .i�y. allowing `they,off-st=eet 'parY.irig of'four to''six,;vehicles.: . However, many,;-households; use:.tti'e;garage for gto=age ..of ;other;items,;; such,;-aid boats, dune buggies, motorcycle's, etc.',r...and coneequently`must park aame;.:of the vehicles. in the street If the C#X. Council'wishes to est Abl 'sh a permit procui dure.to accommodate special probl`ems,. this can be accomplished by resolution. T ..curren jai !:a . .. .. 'C�. .. '.. i ..�.'. "t •".'k '' r' ".r.: he�` t program;covers!18 reporting;'districts :which';affects; :10,585ndwe1ling units. Since November 1978.-when the -program was ex- ; pinded. bye- he City- Council;.(Res. 4695), wo. have, received two other contacts siiriilar .to Mr. Barber!e. complaiA. We; have.`received numerous calls, regardiinq; the enforcement level. These;'ca11' appear to be 'evenly divided:between vo�;mucli, enforcement and:not enough'.enfoicement. We': hive:also:received letters.;and telephone,';ca11s requesting. that the enforcement,pjrogram'be expanded into additional areas or streets.:.:, The ratio 'of "requests for :expansion versus the requests for- elimination of the program is about four to one. (See results of survey in pre•- vious RCA.) • 1 -------------- , i 1 Floyd .G. Helsto Acting Director of Public Works August 22, 1979 Page 2, In thf' enforcement of the parking restrict.L we have established the following policies: 10 Citations are, issued "only` in advance of the; street:`sweeper, not during the entire four hour restrictive period. With only one officer in a given area,. this procedure requirer. that. some .vehicles would not be cited in order to stay in advance of the sweeper, 2. Every opp .rtunity (with. a few exceptions) is givan to• the resident to move his car including honking of horns and ringing doorbells when time permits. r' 3. Utility.vehiclest disabled vehicles and vehicles performing services to, residences are,, exempt from;citations. vehicles in- violation of the 72 hour limit are ci..ed by the Police Department. ; t,. „ .. 4. C.ita►tions are',voided if extenuating"circumstances•-can be,.showrn, such a's`"death-1'in the family,_ or a person is temporarily, disabled . or,Ia" citatibii'ls issued contrary, to the`provisions of item 3,:above. Citations issued to U.S. Government vehicles while in the.perw , formance of duties for the Secret Service or the F.A.Y. are also voided. Ai6initivea: There are several alternatives available to the City Council at this time. 1. Retain the street .sweeping program but eliminate the enforcement of no parking. on street sweeping days. 2. Sweep only one. side of st=set at, a.time;`And retain," the'en- forcement program. The additional cost' of this alteinitivepis very:'high. . ,It is, estimated that it would cost approximately'. $3f,000:to' place signs on every street within thej8 existing , reporting districts. The current policy"is to place.signs only at the entrances to the tracts. (See additional information.) 3. Ellminate. thei.street.oweeping program at an annual savings-of. about $200r000, but retain an enforcement program similar. to the weed abatement program;;or the clearance of public right�of-way program. This alternative would place the responsibility of clean streets on property owners and residents. ` 4. Amend the existing program to include other reporting districts or the entire City. Floyd G;''$el'ito Acting Airector of Public Works Auguat 22, 1979 Page 3. aificr Source: `All;'phases o£,•;the. street wdeeping.'and anS.rorcement program are funded through.,the general;"fun%a. Anticipated revenue from fines• and forfeitures -is identified in the RCA by the Chief of Police for tho Council meeting of September 4, 1979. Ralph R. Leyval. Traffic Engineer . RRL:%k A ciachments3 _ cc: Earle W. Robitaille Chief of Police " I w� I . I, y I/ i .. M•rwuM+'+�w'.r... .�. _ . �.........w.,yw•rr.ww. �... w��.+..r.sa ..../..J.r+.Y.. ,....•wew..n.w.. V•�...�r�.......r.rw.q , r I 5 July, 1979 Chi of-of- olice P . Huntington Beach, Calif. Dear Sir. Ply wife received a parking ticket on her car today and my daughter also got a ticket on her car today. This is an un" ust law. The entire city must, be posted and !. it is not. We are being punished and other taxpayers a're not. In the United States the laws are suppossed to be equal for all of the eitizees of a particular Site. I have five (5) cars and two (2) trailers. I 'have one trailer in storage because you have a law against that. The other trailer is out of sight in my garage. I park my work car in front of the house. My wife parks her work car in front of the house. My daughter parks her work -car in front of the house. We all work and work "in different directions. I park my 3J4 ,ton pick-up in my drive because it really does not belong an the street. It pulls my trailer. I park a 172 ford in my dr;re tlhat I am !. trying to sell . 14y wife does not go to work until 9 :00 f ` an"d my daunhter 'did' not go unt11 1000. t I sweep and clean my "w street at the curb anyway because the sweeper does such a poor jots. I am not going to park 6b the grass anymore. (Come see the hole) . Plea a take car-- of these tickejts. Thank you, •r rb a 6432 Shields dv. Huntington Bch REQUEST' FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION x Submitted by if• E. llartge Department Public Works - 't Date Prepared October 30, lg 78 Backup Material Attached Yes [:] No Subject Parking Control Resolution Designating "No Parking" Areas on Certain City Streets for Street Sweeping Purposes City Administratar's Comments Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions. Statement' of. Issue:. Enforcement .rof prohibitions:against parking on City streets during street `sweeping 'hour, is now being, carried out in two areas of the City. In ordc:t, to expand .the program throughout the City, a resolution restricting parkir• .1 •• on additional City streets where signs giving notice will be placed is required by the Municipal Code. Recommended Action: } . Adopt the attached =solution. Anal sus: , The City has initiated ,a posted sweeping program in two areas or the City . The two areas are located (1) in the area bounded by Dolsa, Goldenwest, . McFadden," -and Edwards and (2) the Meredith Gardens area southeast o.f Adams � and Drookliurst. Experience in these areas has shown that the program in- creases the effectiveness of street cleaning by making more lineal feet of gutter available *to the sweeper. During the month''of May, .1978, a survey was conducted in these. areas in: order ,to determine" the public support fer the program. The parking enforcr.- ment officers found that most residents support the City's regulation of f restricting parking during street cleaning hours. They knoc'.:c on the }. door of 4200 homes within the posted areas and received 100.1 replies, an almost 25% response. On the question of the City's "No Parking" *regulation, 909 responded favorable, 86 opposed such a regulat.i.cn, 6 had no opinion. These results represent a 90% Favorable response rate to the program among residents. On the question of citations, the survey found that 80t of the residents who have received a citation still support the program. The parking enforcement officers also received comments from 537 of. the residents interviewed. Eighty-sevdn percefit of these residents made favorable comments while 15t; made comments against the posted street sweeping program. P10 3/78 Request for City Coun4il Action parking Control °Resolution Designating "No Parking Areas on Certain City Streets for Street Sweeping. Purposes October 30, 1978 f Page 2 In another survey of the areas being considered for expansion of. .the program, enforcement officers found 85% favorable response rare' to the program among residents. Attached is a map of the ,'No Parking" areas. In order to expand the program to the proposed .,areas, it is anticipated that: the cost to install signs will be approximately' . $200 per quarter section or $2400 for all twelve. At 'the same' time the• program will more. "than pay for itself by generating $12,000 in Fiscal Year 1979 if the expansion: is undertaken. If the--attached resolution is .approved, signs, indicating the;hours . and days when parking is prohibited, will be, placed' at the tract entrances. Warning notices will .be issued during the fi;.st and sebond week of enforcement. Parking control will issue oitati6n'� after 'the initial warning period. This new. area will be phase one of the expa' n- Sion program. The program will be expanded to other areas of City as , funds are made available for this purpose. Alternatives: 1. Do not approve resolution. If this* program . is not 'approvcd for, , expansion to other areas of the City, then the ."No- Parki;ig" regula- tion should rye repealed -in the posted areas with a resultant loss of revenue to the City. 2.' Amend to include other streets, or the entire City in the 'prog' ram. Fundi_nq Source" Revenue Sharing and General Funds will be used Afiar posting;t;ie "No Parking" signs required ,by' the recommended action. Alternative No. l . regtlkres no additional funds. Alternative No. 2 would require -addi- tional funds. i HEII:JWW:mc i. ' I "+es.7arL':i.R.:c�".."m•a."r'�^�'...'..«+.�......--.....—.,....�.«.,...r..�.�..r.«.....+...w_r.t::'. /.... .....•,et•y..y,.,,,r, ....rrre'siVVLti::'»1:.FnUlvwtw.r "fib-PARKING" ARMS FOR STREET SW.EFPlk;[ +ING w `v/ y NN PIN No " �•••rt--,7Liy;v� � y!rr.ffi. Siff�? •\ �� PROPOSE), REA A \ � IAa .t r,r ' ,. .. Aftwu •. JJ J CITY OF c<"„ f HUNTIN. TON BEACH . WAWC MMTY. GALIFORM A x I'• a .,. • j :r . .. .. ._. .. . .'a:.'r.'swi'i•.n..-...•-wr.T!'^^`r:w '. r• '.t ... ,.t=,s. �,_ _ "..' • '. r. :. �.» .'.ly� r ' STREET SWEEPING SURVEY TEST AREAS Ili, I r.m an employee of the City of Huntington Beach. I out taking a survey on street sweoptng. May I explain the City't. pragraw and ask you a few Questions? As you probably know, tho;City has instit6ted a program of prohibiting on-street parking durink the haurs scheduled for street sweeping in your neighborhood on a trail basis. The purpose of the program is to free the street of: parked cars so that the sweepers can clean the gutters as thoroughly as passible. The' parkins prohibition is .in effect• froa 7:30 A.M. to, Z:30 P.M. two days per month. Soon the number of hours that the prohibition is in effect will. be reduced to A hours per day, Z days per month. The eiiation . carries a $S.00 fi;:.- to those receiving a ticket. Removing cars from the street means mere efficient use of the City's street sweepers and - • -the personnel who operate them. It alsa'n,cans cleaner streets for a . more attractive neighborhood. QUESTIONS 1. DO 'YOU FAVOR'THE CITY�S PROHIBITION OF NO ON-STREET PARKING DURING 3 THE HOURS SCHEDULED',FOR STREET'SWEEPING AS I HAVE DESCRIBED THE . . ' PROGRAM TO YOU WITH'THE NO PARKING PROHIBITION IN-EFFECT 4 HOURS PER DAY, 2 DAYS PER MONTH. YES No 2; HAVE. YOU, OR ANY MEMBER OF YOU% FAMILY, RECEIVED A PARKING • CITATION FOR VIOLATION OF THIS REGULATION? YES No 3. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM? ANSWER 4. YOU NEED NOT GIVE .YOUR' NAME, BUT IT COULD BE HELPFUL IN VERIFYING ' THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY. MAY ] RECGRD YOUR NAME? NAME ADDRESS SURVEY TAKEN BY } ,t, ., .. ... ;..,-+ yj Frri.,.. " ... ..,•.c .., .....,. .r..,,. r--M•:4"',P'_ 1 .... .S'�"..... .. .,,...c,.«..w.lrs.r,•-•+•.. +.+rw:.r•',ti.,. .wa'1Cf.� INTt:-H-DEfAhTM9NT COMMUNICATION ru♦rr�r.rrn rr u n To Michael Zambory From Ralph R. Leyva • Director of Public Works Traffic Engineer =; SuNc-ci Parking Enforcement Drina June 20, 1979 On June.19, 1979 ,11es Bell and Jody Jones wrote 162 citations for violations of tho Parking Restriction .Ordinance during a six hour period.. This day's activities.-represent a revenue to -the city of � .'. $729;,based .on" a return `of $4.50 for each five dollar, Gitation. ;.�. Previous activity indicates a variation of 86 citations to a high ., of-170 citations par Oay and an average of about 120 citations per enforcement day for two people. A Al. hough,we have 3- people in the, enfdreement program at the present time,. only 2•,are being used because of "the .need to have one person on the. sign,-truck as .we discussed previously., Using 2 people and an.:average of 120 citations per enforcement day times 8 days per r{ month, :represents, a revenue of $4320 per month. However, if the citations.:were $10, this would represent a monthly revenue of $9120 , to the city. -in contrast •to the mutiicipal parking violation Fine, .any fii:e levied for""a.violation"of the .California Vehicle Code:•now is $25.1ninimum with Wo -exceptio'ns pertaining to parkiho'.uiolations on. state property. In other words, a $10. or $25 parking .violati`on fine is not considered to be excessive any,'longer. d1 $25 violation would generate, $23,520 per month using the aboIre assumptions for enforce ;..; ment level. Even a $10 violation represents an annual revenue of $109,440. ;> Therefore, it appears. that the enforcement program should be re- tained particularly when you, consider that a majority of the citizens support this program. 1I Ralph R. Leyva JY Traffic Engineer �,�-��r ��• RRL:ek , '"*+rjfJLi.74:.z.Crr..-aw-----^--- ^^ -------.....+_..,,........a,...»...,...«._...--.......:At+n.......,......e...,.,..—._-.._......r....«- .... ....- __.... r UI.VC4 le+1/ , REOU`r'.r FOR CITY' COUNCIn-Ad, , 1•- k�;.�� .D�` Submitted by FLOYD G. DELSITO Department PUBLIC WORKS Date Prepared AUGUST 23 , 19 79 Backup Material Attached ) Yes No Suhjec'i HSC-1631 REPLACEMNT OF BOAT. LANDING FACILITIES City Administrator's Comments Eov7 Ep BY C17Y COUNCIL. q3 Approve as recommendedCITY CLLUIC Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: STATEI�JT't?F"15SUE: Resulti`of bid opening scheduled for August 23, 1979 were that no bids Were submitted for this project, and only one firm had taken out plans and specifications. RECOMMENDATION: Autharize' Public Works to negotiate one or more force account purchase orders to have the work performed on a time and material basis, and adopt the attached resolution. • 'ANALYSIS: {{{{ . The project was estimated at $15,000 which is a relatively small contract during prime busy times for the industry. A , >wras previously reported, there are $6,67S or more of Federal Disaster Relief. Funds.available for this project, however we have been notified the final date for completion is December 4, 1979; and that there would be no further extension requests honored. Therefore, to readvertise could consume valuable time and result in not meeting the deadline date. The above "recommendation is in accordance with Section•614 of the City Charter which allows' for'work $25,000 or less to be performed by" City forces or by purchaoe on the opera market. FUNDING: The City Council at their regular adjourned meeting of August 6, 1979 approved $15,000 from the Contingency Fund for' this project. } r aio ane "_""'arrll•4'ilJ..1Js++.irN.rk..sa.,u+.w+.....a 4a.r«.n b..r....w./'.L ..... ..w:«M.rr....i.... .aL...J. .......s..r.r.�r..�.........�..�........ _ ..-���— �.. ._-.....��. . INVIV Superior Court na'TNY. STATEOFCAI.IFORN1A In and for the Ccninly of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACII r CITY CLMK d'!i44FQE i Bids MSC 163 � F44; � ��� T!lta, state ref CAlifoMia 1 tsrl6 4 W'Ck� Itrrb, j GWntyofOrange Is"' swi Rita J. Richter s�"' ` }` A i .. That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States,over the age of tb enty-one years,and that I am not a party tt%nor interested in dw•above entitled matter. ahl�ti taut I am the pdodpal.Berk of the printer of the t '•!wt +wt ►n I "s.Fwr sal�d(wy 1Yy, �Yk"Ffd W i'yi dt Nuntlnlston• Beach Independent ReVIew Ott+n+e+ Ps+�ekw�a � sf a newspaper of general circulation,puhl6W In the City of �. Huntington Beach County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the ,yNy" R4 disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac• ,rx ANt 1�si �rt�yJsiirlrN tet,and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still h:.*a bona fide suincription list of paying subscribers, �' i WSW* avd which newspaper has been established.printed and pub- !T stt si drift.. lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for is 'ni period eze"di g one year; that the notice, of which the ainesed Is a primal copy.his been published in the regular aYchW aW and entire issue of said newspaper.and not in any supplcment thereof,on the fnlloaing dates,to wit: st dsr�, j j tnrrsy � x As bw elwr+q • hcCwox ky. wwt August 9i 26i, 1.974 f, Ills. isc�l�Irii LL I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the forego- Garden Grove Dated at................... ., : Ca ornia,t u�,6,th" yo Eu5t.1�4...... . . . ..: ........... Signature . i,. f , l� I I Fonn No.4104s7a - ....—.r •.1 .. .. ....... ._. .-. ....�..•�rr...r...tK,'aY,'!irY'V l.M„I'.r,.'..,+•r.. `.,uwr,/ l r 1 i .P Ma -3 :NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS Q�" 71� m.S.C. 163 j Notice is hereoy given that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California will receive sealed bids for the removal and replacement of boat landing i Facilities in the City of Huntington Beach,- California in accordance with the plans and specifications and special provisions on file in the office of t!.e Director of Public Works. Documents will be available on August 9, 1979. A charge of $20.00, not refundable, will be required for each set of specifications and accompanying drawings. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ESTIIMTE Work Item Quantity Replacement of boat landing facilities Lump Sum In accordance with the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code, the State of California, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations shall determine - the general prevailing rate of wages, applicable to the work to be done; copies of the latest general wage rate determinations are on file at the office of the City Clerk and the office of the Director of Public Worka of the City of Huntington Beach, California. i Plans and specifications, together with proposal form, { s may be obtained at the office of the Director of Public ?, Works, City Hall, Huntington Beach, California. No bid will he received unless it is made on a blank i form furnished by the Director of Public Works. The special attention of prospective bidders is called to the proposal I requirements, setforth in the specifications, for full directons as to the bidding. Nl w;.yLH p`i.,.'q,......14J1,!'.:+tt a...:.V.. ....,...........,r...a..t... _. _.._.... ..�...-..._. ...,. . .,.... ...... ....... �._......_.»._..w-......_..,...«._....�..........r.,....-.�^^•'.1.,..r"—. .r1 The foregoing quantities are approximate only, being given as a basis for the comparison of bids, and the City ; of Huntington Beach does not express or by implications agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith but reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount �. of any class or portion of the work, as may be deemed necessary or expedient by the Director of Public Works. All bids will be compared on •the basis of the Director of Public Works estimate of the quantities of work to be done. No bid will -be accepted .from a contractor who is not licensed in accordance with the law, under the provisions y of Chapter 791, Statutes of 1929, as amended or Chapter 17, Statute: of 1939, as amended, or to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Huntington Beach. Each bid shall be made out on .a form to be obtained at the office of the Director of. Public Works, Development Wing, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California; shall be sealed and filed with the CJ.ty Clerk at the Civic Center, Second floor Administration Building, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, :California, on or.,before' 1*0's00 A.M. .'of August '23, '1979, and shall be, opened by a committee aom posed .of ,the City Clerk, the City Attorney and Director o£ Public or 'their authorized representative and the results of said bidding will be reported to the City 'Council of said City of Huntington Beach ELt their regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, Sept6i6er 4, -1979, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the City Council. Chambers in the Civic Center of said City of Huntington Beach, and shall be acted upon • by said City Council at the regular meeting of September 4, 1979. ` t, The City of Huntington Beach, ,California reserves the right to reject .any. or all bids, and to accept the bid deemed 'I for the best interest of the City of Huntington Beach, California. f' N2 ♦ .www++AW.L..I�r+.Y.M.+'++«�._....._.._....�.......�.......�... ,..�.-........'_�...�.�..... ... ....r.................-...r. �.. _. ..w.....-...�.....-..........mow.WrM�.++^^�'•^ -.»����...... '. } By order of the City Council of the City *of Huntington Beach, California this August 6, 1979. ATTEST: Alicia Wentworth City Clerk. •,gyp i; t ', N3 , � REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION �I Submitted by Michael Zambory / Department Public Works Date Prepared July 26 , 1979 Backup Material Attachod FX] Yes No Subiect Replacement of Boat Ramp at End of Municipal Pier �I ...rr City Administrator's Comments APPROVED 13Y CITY COUNCIL Approve as recommended ^ 1921 ctrr c�xc :1Statement`of.Issue, Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,AIternatnre Actions: `�J/►1�^�///�� r9�..��.Fir.�r��Irlgrllrirrr�rlrr�11�1Y7•/I.Itl�.rlr.'r1 i�r�ArwlrMYe��l.�r I�III�i�P111.��, Statement of.,Issue: On Fe , a raging sea storm totally demolished the boat ramp which existed beneath *and at the erd of the municipal pier. Recommended:Action': revammendad that the Ci &xi c a the Tans.and s_pecifirationa..fp,_the boat_ It is: rPPe__--. p- ramp r�.placment at the end of the munici 1 ier and approve the call for bids for its tttiction-- ._---_-.._. _.. . _ Ana ysie:;#. I On Dec...18,, 1978 the 'City- Council approved the replacement of. the boat,'ramp at.the:end of the municipal.`pier and- the estimated $15;000 reli aired for the replacement; cost:was 'set,aside.,.in the"1978-79 budget. However, because 'of ati. extensive backlog.of work within,:tlie Dept. of Publio Works, ,the plans and speciiiaations were not--completed during the 1978--79. Yiscal year. As a re- sult of this delay:;the funds set aside 'for the 'project were unexpended and no longer exist within the- 79-80 budget. mhe„ramp in, "+question was .used `for loading,.,and unloading','persons rescued from alie sea and;:for certain lifeguard activities. .,.It was also used by they Orange County;:Harbor' Patrol and occasionally by private and commercial vessels' .loadingor, unloading passengers, or supplies. . .For this reason it is felt that;*he.,ramp is a necessary facility and should be replaced. Funding:Hource:; :r,.• bur ng the`-initial:; storm'.damage survey by the, Army Co--ps. of. Engineers follow- ing the great .Storm of Feb.:,10, 1978 it, was agreed that Federal Disaster Relief funds,"in the amount of°.$6,675 would r be available for thi;s project. However, should the replacement`cost .ekceed this amount, .we were assured that the additional funds would be available so' Ion g- as the original scope of work was not altered. , It is therefore recommended' that the $15,000'be `ob- taine& from the Contingency Fund of the General Fund and later reimbursed when the Federal Disaster Relief funds are received. Alternative: o not replace the boat ramp. MZ:jy no one :i+.r;i.,...;.,:...:otitir`....i.>ri.',aas'fn.►ti..+-.s«.._................_..........-._.....—...—,...�...... ,..a.,... . ...._........._..........-_._'-__._.._......-_-__�... ....r.+_....-.....,....,.....+%...wu Asa+sa.q.*ku�. � R 7 I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT Protect Name Boat .RaW Replacement Description To replace boat ramp at end'of municipal pier which was destroyed . during storm of February 10, 1978. �rr.r...�.ral..-.maw r r�rrw•�.r• - ...•.rrw. 1. DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1.1 One-Time Costs Larja Furn., ac - Acquisition Construction ties, E ui men t Other Total Cost $ I5,000 $ 15,000 1.2 Recurring Annual Costs Ad2ftlon'al Materials Outside Pa roll Personnel SY.Pplies Services - Revenues' To 1 Cos 1.3 Replacement/Renewal Costs Unknown. 2. INDIRECT COSTS None. . ++.•r.www ......+.-...�.....«.. .......�.,.... .+vr.►..+e4v., ... ./.. ....... s: ...-... .._........r........,....i...ruj lrJJ....yra.1lw•Ira1 t[�sY`+a•.►' . t Financial Impact Repor. "• '-r Page 2 ' 3. NO11-DOLLAR COSTS None. t t=ROrl THE PROJECT BENEFITS TO BEDERIVED Torprovide a necessary facility for loading-and unloading rescued-persons, I_ r�� �r•.1/.111 nedical,aid victims and lifeguard personnel. Also to be used b Oran a Count Harbor Patrol, private and commercial vessels for loading and unloading purposes. I rPrryr r r - I 5. PROJECT USAGE . 'City, County, 20ylle gnd cn=r ia1 11se --- I� 1 r r.rrr YA �++.w.r+++ ___ __ rr�rrn r r rrir ■r �.rrrrrr ■�.rrrrairrr�r.rrrr.��• r��•.w+.�-�w.rrrrrr. 6. EXPENDITURE TIMING Upon completion of project. 7• COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT Ugne eN CITY OF 14UNTINGTON BEACH ?L`t INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION �1 fM,riJttiG/pv L1ACN To Floyd G. Belsito From F. B. Arguello City Administrator Director of Finance 1 Subject Financial Impact Report - Date July 30, 1979 Boat Ramp FIR 1: 80-2 F ' In response to your request for a Financial Impact Report on the proposed •replacement of. the municipal pier boat ramp, the attached has been prepared for your use and infor- . mation. -If the' Clty'. Council wishes to approve this request, there'are•funds available in the ` ge6er6lYfund 'contingency account from which this expenditure can be made. The - Army,.,Corps.of Engineers in its initial survey of repairs several, months,'ago approved $6,6T5 from` the. Federal• Disaster Relief funds for this `prroject.. They_ alsa indicati!& . that if replacement costs .exceeded this amount that additional,•funds might,be avaltable to cover the replacement:cost as described in the federally approved report.. 'if,-,- to proper approvals are :forthcoming," the effect'on the contingency account tiill."iilkimately:.• ;. be,zero. Prior to reimbursement by the• federal government the balance•remaining in the contingency account would be $551,100.00. i F. B. Arguell t Director of Finance FBA/4 f . ' b - l REQUEST FOR CITY COUKI . ACTION Submitted by Paul E. Cook, Director Dapartment Public Works pate PrepBml October 27 , 29 $0 Backup Material Atudwd Bx Yos [] ?Jo Subject RESOLUTION AinHMZING DIRE CMR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO T-]VM INTO LICWE AND HOLD HA04L-SS AGPJXHNi s TO OBTAIN R.IGhIS'of FNftrY City Administrator's Comments 4PJF? QVED UY CITY C)UNC Approve as r commended. 4. cl �r I' Statement of low,Raconunendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions: �/. .....Y,�.._..r_. A STATEMir. OF ISSUE:_ In connection with Public Works'prkjects, many Rights of Entry Agreements may be required to be brought to the City Council for approval. RFA A►TION: Mopt'resolution authorizing.Director of Public Works to enter into license and hold harm- less agreements to obtain Rights of Entry needed to perform work on private property. ANALYSIS: Many Public Works` I'rojects`entail some work on private properties . necessary.to improve or;correct situations resulting from the'projects. ExaWles are driveway reconstruction, slopes or banks, object relocation, grading, drainage snails or strictures, etc. To perform war:/c on private property, a Right of Entry is obtained from the owner and a 3iscense and hold harmless agreement is executed. To enable the Director of Public Works to `enter into agreement to obtain the Right of " I` Entry would expedite this process and eliminate bringing each agreement to the Council. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do noeladopt this resolution and request Council approval on each individual agreement as requuired. . FiINDING sown: No funding necessary. a . l , j PEC:JMtik • l z � no are �ti •. .. .. ... + ,. , i.... , ,. ... . --.t•;':.. ... .,r...,.�..:�}.t•aY,).:'Li;.'+•:ii`K .tr`--r NrJfq •7.;;,1,�.'iw 1«:eaJ.i:it.11:' ., :+.1. a.'a{r�...: ... J. J.u. ,...r^ ,.r , . ....... , .. _ .., a... _r� a i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION q3 � Submitted by Paul E. Cooke Department Public Works Date Prepared Auguat 8 , 19,p B&*up bt"i3l Attsdtsid 0 Yes NO Subject Revision of Fiscal 1980-81 Special Fund Project Lists for the Gas Tax, Sewer,and Drainage Funds City AdminbW oes Comrnartts pWpV��SIC 19� Approve as Recommended ds Stat&Tvxt of Inn,Aeeommomuktion,Analysis,Funding Source,Afternativ+e Actions: Statement of Issue: Cotuicil approval is required to revise the fiscal 1980-81 special fund budgets for gas tax, sewers and storm drains. Recormendation: Approve the revision. Analysis: Due to 'project change orders -ard funding altcratioris (i•.e. loss of.,some PAU support because of Federal budget cuts and'a decline in anticipated ' revenue) , the special funds project lists prepared last.February are in . need,'of revision. Some projects have.been postponed, some have been -increased or c3ecreased,. and some are new. Revised project lists and fund balances are attached. Funding Source: Gas tsx, sewer, and drainage funds. PEC:JS:jy na ure .,r rnW.C,►.Y.i[:d:.ii�4tiJ.+a.ts•.x:mtn....,.....•.....r...,.....................«.. >..:.,.........._....... .. ,.,......... ......•__ ... ......� .+www+......r.+...e.-ww...a.wi:t; 1� rQ. / REVISED GAS TAX PROJECT LIST NUMBER TITLE CITY OTHERS TOTAL, 740590 Street .Maintenance $ 460r000 $ --0- $ 460000 742480 Talbert-Gothard to Newland 218ia tg -00^ 214,�80 Z4250Q Ellis Ave. Underpass , 40 00 34299u Yorktown Imp. Ma3.n to Hunt 480,000 760,000 1,240;000 743800 Safer Roads Demo 32,500 -0- 32,500 743930 Warner Avenue Bridge 630,000 225,000 855000 744120 Misc. Imp. (w/248) 30,000 -0- 30,000 744420 Edinger-Bolsa Chica/WCL 275,000 220,000 495,000 744620 Goldenwest & Ellis TS 45,000 --0- 45,600 744890 Bolsa Chica/Warner Drain- 20,000 -0-- 20,000 744930 TS Goldenwest & Palm 20,000 -0- 20,Q00 745000 Brookbitrst IMP INCT 15,000 -0- 15,000 745030 Edinger/Springdale (FAU) 3921*000 2,008,000 211400,000 745040 Lower Yorktown 25,000 --0- 25,000 745160 TS PCH ti, 5th 400000 370,500 77,500 745200 warner/Lynn Improvements 101000 -0- 10,000 745220 Gram/Glenstone Beacon 4,000 -0- 4,000 745320 Misc. Street improvements 50,000 _0- ' 50,000 746560 Transfers to General Fund 8490000 -0- 849--000 $3,636,880 $3,250,000 $6,897,380 I , I i i li i ��wMY..M++.+r'".�a- �...... ...»...�.....-.....�.�...-...+..r.r..�.��ww w. ..wr..u. .i.-.. .w._ ......__��........ ......wrra e...wV+t./J.yn�Mk*YNIMfMf♦.M N!�1C/PKM 1. r GAS TAX FUND BALANCE 1980-81 Assets Fund Balance (6-30-80) $1,791,880 Encumbrances 1,2571250 REVENUES MY 1980-81) Gas Tax 11845,000 Others 3,250,500 $8,144,630 Ex 2enditures Encumbrances $1,257,250 Projects 6,887',380 $8,144,630 Anticipated Balance $-0- j• F ' �^..+aw[.N�sauwwf.:..�r -�. ...__.._...�,........,.., ww,..:..•ra.:..w......�..--..»-._ ......r.,....ai.w.v tiwt'.wTc r REMISED SEWER FUID PROJECT LIST 1980-81 CC Title Amount S 299 Yorktown Sewer $2209000.00 1 471 darner Avenue Relief Sewer 500,000.00 474 Master Plan of Sewers 19000.00 481 Gothard/Talbert Sewer 1,000.00 511 Huntington Harbour Infilt. Study 5,000.00 512 Ellis/Delaware Bypass 175,000.00 521 H. H. Sewer Lift Stations 300,0001000 525 Upgrade Atlanta Pump St. 75,000.00 527 Talbert Bypass Sewer 130,000.00 j $194079000.00 SEWER FUND BALANCE 1980-81 i Assets Fund Balance (6-30-80) $2,508,315.00 Encumbrances 5234000 Revenue (1980-81) 370 $2,930,655000 Expenditures Encumbrances $ 52,340.00 Projects 1,407,00000 $1,459,340.00 Anticipated Balance $1,471-9315000. f w . REVISED STORM DRAIN PROJECT LIST 1960.81 CC Title Amount 299 Yorktown Storm Drain $120,000.00 476 Storm Drain toaster Plan 1,000.00 481 Gothard/Talbert Storm Drain 11,009.00 489 Balsa China Storm Drain 200000.00 495 Slater Pump Station Building 200,0000,00 509 Yorktown/Worchester S.D. 200,000.00 526 Edwards/Freeborn Inlet 20,000.00 537 PumpStation Controls 40'000.00 � $7829000.00 DRAINAGE FUND BALANCE 1980-81 i Assets Fund Balanice (6-30-80) $1,362,426.67 Encumbrances 140,773.47 Revenue (1980-81) 700,000.00 !i $29 203,201:54 Ex ndif6r'es Encumbrances $ 140,773:47 t Protects 782,000.00 $ 922#773.47 Anticipated Balance $19280,428.07 i f�w�f4Wyy, .M�M�++w'.. -.�.._.w...-..-. .r�......- . . ...... ... ...�.w • ....r... • ....•.r....w�•... -.. ..-.. ....�...-..w......-.-....« w...•v . swMw+�•MMYafVnYwwnMai}�"w'•'.I ' L I'• ". too,) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION :. Cook Public Warkg Submitted by Paul I � ..,. Department Me Prepared May 2 , 10so 6ad:up Material Attached xl Yes C1 No Subject Amendment to Section 3.02.190 of the Municipal Code Relating to . Public Works Construction Contracts City Admirrismoes Comments AYP3tUV�.!) ifY CL rY Approve as recomm Statement of issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actiom: Statement of Issue: Section 3002 of .the Municipal Code relates to purchasi:.g policies in the City., ,-. This-ordinance proposes to amend the- code to include ptiblic works construction contracts and bring the Code into conformance with the City Charger. Recommendation: Adopt. the attached ordinance by adding new subsection,. (f) to Section 3.02.190 of the Municipal Code relating to public works construction con- tracts. ' Analya*ia: Section 614 of the, City "Charter states that -every construction contract involving an expenditure of more than $251000 shall be .let to the lowest possible bidder after a formal bid process has been completed. Section 3.02 o£.,.the Municipal Code states that purchases of,,supplies, services and equipment of estimated value greater than $8,000 shall be by * competitive written bid. . At the present time these two documents may by ,A in conflict although construction contracts are not now specifically men- tioned in Section 3.02 of the Code. The Public Works Dept. has always used City Charter. as a guide to determin- ing whether a project should be subject to formal bids or not. Therefore,the .subject ordinance is for the purpose of .mending the Muncipal Code to include provisions of the City Charter with regard to public works construc- tion contracts. Funding Source: Ordinance change only. No funds involved. PEC:jy C ..tin:irn•_......._.,,.._.... a_.. .. . , ..... .__ ,.,1Ls , ,. .. .. .. ..:..y..a.. ..,•.i.`[,i t7 .wJi.I r.r J-.1 Cur V.:]ta•x1."„('Aii r H. B. INDEPENDENT Publish Date June 12, 1980 LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE 110. 2433 "AfI ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW SUBSECTION (f) TO SECTION 3.02:190 RELATING TO PUE3L I C WORKS CO(ISTRUCTION CONTRAM. (Copy 'on file in the City Clc:.,V s Office) I , SYNOPSIS: Ordinance No. 2433 amends the Hun Lington Beach Municipal Code to include public works constructioli cri1'V;acts and briny the municipal code into conformance with the City Charter. i ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at XM a regular meeting held Monday, June 2 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, Finley, L,;111#�y, MacAllister, Mandic. Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk i (ED % REQUEST FT CITY C04MCIL• ACTION Submitted by i'aul E. CookV Depettment Public Works Date Prepared June 13 fg 80 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject Resolution Authorizing Director of Public Works to Approve- Construction Change orders City Administrator's Comments APPROVED CITy Approve as Recommen ed i�. r - • Wrr CL .- Statement of Iowa,-Recomm Waition,Analysis, Funding Source,Altarnatime Actions: .....___._..b Statement of Issue: the City Council meeting of 5/19/80, the ree.ommandations in the attached R.C.A. -'were approved. However, the City Attorney felt that a City Council Resolution was necessary for this action pursuant to the City Charter. 'Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Virectcr of Public Works, or the City Engineer to approve construction change orders to an accumulated '" total of 10% of the contract_ amount, not to exceed $50,000. The City Council shall approve change orders exceeding that amount. i - ! Analysis: The attached R.C.A. ,dated 5/l/80 analyzes the problems we have Experienced with construction change orders. The attached resolution will effectuate changes in the current process which were approved by the City Council on 5119180. r Funding Source: No funds involved. Pciicy change only. I PEC:jy PIO 3#78 w •� "loot REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Pa13n, Director Dejmnmem pIYP� ent SCM11ras Date PreMrad May 22,�, , 19 M Backup Material Attached © -vr. � W c� � ` Subject SUBMISSION FOR HUD PRE-APPROVAL OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY i w n i City Administratiur's Comments Approve as Recommended 1 r Statement of love,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions: J . i STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The� U S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has invited local jurisdictions to, submit application for the review of.publicly owned or controlled.`resl property ns potential subsidized housing sites. Two sites within Huntington Beach appear to be appropriate for sub- mission to HUD. RECOZVENDATXON: Authorize the submission of: 1. Lake Street Fire Station Site, and 2. Old City Yard Site for consideration by HUD as pre-approved sites for subsidized housing. II ANALYSIS: HUD io .currently accepting requests_from local governments for the j inspection and pre-approval of government-owned real -property. that may be suitable for subsidized housing. This procedure requires: I. A written request for pre-approval signed by the Chief Executive Officer identifying the site(s) . 2. An offer by the jurisdiction to make the site(s) available for housing. f 3. Approximately 60 days to complete. Fra era ••++YTw as,.h.tarn'.:"irJ..+�aLita,yenr.,�..-._ ..... . ... ...-.-..........�.._«...........,..,...,.. ;, n... ...........-.....�.............r........«...........y,6a::"/.Fk:S'is:cL.:e...:iai.71�!AwJnCY•A[4W'+� Page 2 �r f The`procedure does not: 1. Preempt, the selection or rejection of a developer by the local jurisdiction at some further date. Z. Nor asitii:6 that housing funds will ever be allocated to the site(a) . If;-any•sii:ers within Huntington-.Beach ��ere "pre-approved" .by,-,HUD.,, it would permit developers to submit 'proposals to the City"when;„HUD ad- 'verti$es that-.subsidy.-funds are available. If the City selected. a piroposal.� for such :a. site,. it would .then be forwarded to ,HUD. 'for re- view. The City would retain ownership and use of ,ths property for. 14 - 18 months after a developer is selected, at which time the property world transfer to the developer at a previously agreed price. It iz;impo):tant to note. that the agile price of the property would be fair market value, unless the City chose to write down the prise to encourage the development of affordable housing. Thes'a two sites were selected as candidates for pre-approval because they: are not adjacent to any other similar project; r are reasonably close to schools and public transit; ¢ are near recreation facilities (Lake Park and beach) ; are'relatively' small and consistent with the desirable S "scattered site" approach to the provision of affordable housing (See attached maps) . While the. submission.of, a pre-approval request.to HUD does not. assure .that subsidy funds will be .made available,. the City should seriously desire housing on any sites submitted for HUD's consider- ation. ALTBRNATMS: The City may select other sites.to submit to'HUD for pre-approval or the City may elect to submit no sites. FUNDING_: ; Housing and Corcaaunity Development Program (no funds required). j; Respectfully submitted, 1: aames W. Palin, .Director Development Services f • JWP:SVK:jb '0*311a:.MVWTx1lt1T+w71!TMT.^Yf"e!'7I47Vn!aw>rLov.t.q.. ..rw. .M.•r wv.fit.:•.i„r+,._ v r ' *� . • w n...••••....�.,......�..�......-....... - ....,.......�..........•.-..•.....•,.w• I"r•.r.:►...«-�.....�..�........,�.rr i.aJ�i►Yr..^r!M#3T,ttati•'t•r..�� K1 y • ••,t ..• YYet •.�; . . . _ � h rf • . • • ';r" 'M!y)J► 1i • it N M �• r a M M tR 1 •; � � L% a i+- M Y L• . , � t ¢ del'^ t •« "rrg•wrr•�rrrr.�rpr�w•�•y wwnr�...�..� ^l ..� '� .. .T• 1.PA#C1L Na a LAND Usf 210 C l t; s'^a'" ADS MS 3 CtlltllAL*LAN LA%O L1Lt •"tQ1an'ttt9A .`. Dtetftr to:laen:�rt r 01]%,#-1 9-Tf1 �^ _ . . - � tonnNCG►naaa,uCor.�.:��cr. ,,+�s;' 1 j ¢ •� ' - '" — s eRwr.TateoNO"'�s; } -�` ••_ �:3 *. eF„r. i• VAN' _ wmasta VALut ? ✓f f 1 =�' 7.Lt"L09USIP?ICNS" t*l*wavil _ ���•� T�eAeT a ont • s w.s ar N. a / ! It T.J.2stscm!s'Ra-mob;' .. `t� iK• •- Ott •: OTO.1 +. ,yv ue: �s Q•.` �'� i •��� � •i�a.. hR�t,pO.SnsetfLt: CaCt.? OC �, �. � . f �FLou - . # . ��� •_ _ .r .. .,, f L41lQf{AtRti 301 ; T. -.• '•du'� . IR i ���^ t.. •;w-r' •� ""• t. t kL#4rClt att- 'T.J -T- C! Z.-7—=- .7 am, .`�` - � ; '� �;fit:_ 'w.fw:.'.:�• ...ti3+�n:.M �.-..F.y�-4a•_ • • �_ _ 72 1t � )t � 1 �, •^yaur.A•.«rilsrh- �E74 i�p1j�'�w ti.. t 3 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION '�� I Submitted by Paul E. Cnuk �G C1eFaRmtnt Public Works y Date Prtpered May 1 , 1$g,0, Backup Matwiel Attached C] Yet (x No Subwv Aut oAty to_Aaarovg C_oastriact on Contract Change Orders City Administrator's Comff)". ` APPROVED BY CITY COU1vCI..i I Approve as recommended ._ .�� CITY CLE1tK ...... 'statemant of Itwe, Recummendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Aiternativa Actions: / State, maiit of Issue: Cuientiy, City policy calls for the City Council to approve all "construction contract change orders before they can be paid. This creates decisfa' n making problems and can cause significant delays to the progress of a construction project. Recoiamendation: 1. Tbat'the Director of Public Works and tiie ,City Engineer be authorized to approve contract change orders to an accumulated total of 10% of .the project contract amounto+-{o,9r5�a omo 2e That the Finance Director be authorized to pay the -contractor for change t orders approved by the Director of Public Works or City Engineer. 3. That City council approval be required for change orders in excess of 10% of the project contract amount, ax,*50,000. Analysis: 'I During the progress of construction projects, it is nor more Piave one or more' contract change oilers, amounting to a few dollars .or many. thousands 6f`dollars. Current City policy requires that the City Council approve all change orders before the contractor can be paid for' them. . ..This policy creates. considerable indecision';on the .part of our inspectors and project ' • engineers. They become faced with a potential change order situation in the f'eld and must decide whether to authorize a change order on tine hopes that the City Council will approve it or whether, to shut the job down .at �I considerable expense to the contractor and the City until. the City Council has approved a change order prior to the work being accoiiplished. Because. shutting the job down would create additional expense to the City, our inspectors and engineers in consultation with the City Engineer or Director of Public Works usually authorize change orders so that the work can a#^ Vivo .J�.'.1. w.........n........ .,...................,a. ...,. -_. �__'___._...-+,...,.......uw.....+...• ...r.y.r....+w a ryiwr! Request for Council Action May 1, 1980 'Page 2 progress, This leaves us- in a very awkward poaition if the City Council does not approve these: change orders. It is. felt that the current poliGy, is `not practical because City Council meetings 'are infregixent and construction delays are very costly. There- •'fore; '.it �i.�s our, recommendation 'that;the ,Director.,,of Public Works• and the, City Engineer::be'authorized to.approve change orders up'.to an:accuimulative total, 0 i. 10 of" the to�:al "contract amount. The 10$, limit 'could be; eached in,one- large_change order' Sn ithic}i case the City Council could approve it before work progresses;,or the,10%, 6ould ,be reached. after several smaller change ,oider,s •at which point .the City Council would want to become aware ; of the rasing costs 'of the project. -Funding.'Source:" No Rinds involved. Policy'change only. . VEC.jy ,r. r • ►i •�AI r t 11 r"i%�{• :lM .•.ww•v...w..•,•. 4•'tJM,..r..++:e..w...... ...,...._.._. ....e•.+,rtrwv .tir►dt,^N,YMW.:1 r REOUEST FOR CITY COLINCIL ACTION 4ttvd by Paul E. Cook Publl.c Works Oats Frepared Me►v_1_ . 19'LO. Badwp 419vial Attached 0 Yes 3 NO Subject. AWLhority. to A20geyA ,Qns„tguction Cgntr4gt Ch acts Orders City Adminiarato s Comnwft . APPX0VED By CITY COUNCIL Approve as recommended CITY CLt2K Statanat of Ion,Iteommffm ddlon,Analysis,Funding Source,Altematbm Actions: Statement of 48 sue s Curr ently:City policy calls for the City Council to approve sil1 con iructic n ; contract change orders bofore 'they can .be paid.. This creates* decidion Making.problems and can cause significant delays to the progress of a construction project. ' Recommendation: Y. That the Director of'PublR., Woskrs and the City:Engineer be authorized to approve contract chisnge orders to an accumulated total of 109 of the ; project contract amount mv�-�.9y�t,�Q,, $a'rc5:°mO { t , 2. `That the Pinance Director b'd authorized to pay the contractor for changes;., orders approved by the Director of Public Workn or City Engineer.. 3. That City Council approval be required for change orders in* excess of i. 10 of the project contract amount., e.%,#50,080. C : Ana�iss - . 1luring- the progress of construction projects, it is normal to have otte or i. mare-contract change orders amounting to a few dollars or. many -thousanda ;, .;. of.dcllarrts. Current City policy, requires that the City Council approve all change orders before the contrketor .can be paid for them. This policy create's conelderable indecision on the part of our inspectors and."project engineers.,. `.`hey. become faced with a potential change,-order situation in the field acid.mutst decide whether to authorize a "change order;on the hopes that the City Council will approve it or whether to shut the "job dcr4n, at considerable expense to the contractor and the City until the C;ty Council has approved a change order prior to the wore being accomplished. Because shutting the job down would create .additional expense to the City, our . ; Inspectors; and angineers in consultation with the City Engineer or Director of Public Works usually authorize change orders so that the work can a ell wrf ♦ni M!'+f#11..47LiNJ\ir6'7�,:,�{.RiArWr.M 4,w..rw�.. r'.-..+v...ww.�r •�...l.,r, r, . . r .. «uN ..h.-.��.•.ww,n ..ww.rr..r....++.w. Request. for Council Action May 1, 1980 Page 2 . Okogress. This heaves us in a very awkward position if the City Council does not spprove, thexe change orders. it"is fait that the:current:.pol ay, is'not practical because -City Council ' meetfizgs-:are lnfiicguent and construction"delays are very.-.costly, There- `fore, it is: our .re,co=endation•,that the Director of Public Works"indl the City Engihe"Or. be auth6xriied.toy,approve, change .orders.-up to an"-accumulative total .of lob-of ths'-fdtal contract amount. The lot limit could be.,reaohed : " in one ,la►ige`'change 'order in which case the. City Council would approve it before stork.progreasen,or .the. lot, could be reached 'after sevaral• smaller change orders at which point' the City Council would want to become aware of the rising costs of the project. P:inding Source; No funds involved. Policy change only. PE dy t �a• • ft° '.S is FrI; tlt Si 1• • f l .•r..""MLLw.(lN1W5IMY1?MYNa•+r...+ � ...... .. �...'••`^+.+..,...•..r«.w 4/ . •. .rr LW'.r..a...+ry•..r......�•.....�..w.rv.r.—.....•w �.�.,..,..eYN.iI+'.Yiw.w.....ww..+..+.wr• t %• t�' CITY OF HUN1T1�YCs'iON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 11UMilYG1L'M ilACll , i 1 To Engineering Staff, Kiser, From Paul E. Cook Elevatorski & Smith Subiect Processing of Public. Works Date January 23, 1980 Contracts• & Agreements The City Administrator has authorized us to begin processing Public Works Contracts & Agreement as described in my attached report. Basically, the significant changes to i our'present method are as follads: I ^�nts 1. I.w i sign all Requests.for Proposals rather than the Purchasing Agent. A sample, ropy of the RFP along with the list of consultants to whom it was sent shall be given to the Purchasing Division. 2. 7fie appxWriate.division head shall review .the proposals and prepare the R.C.A:, with my concurrence, r�acnnending that an agreement be prepared with the consultant submitting the most appropriate proposal. 3. After Council approval, the division.head should worl: with the consultant: on an agreement and, after it is approved as to form by the City Attorney, prepare an R.C.A. recomTending approval of the agreement. 4. Subsequent: to City Council approval,of the agreement, the City Clerk should send it to the consultant for execution and direct: then to submit it to the mbl_.c h1lorks Director .for .review and.,approval of the appropriate 'insurance certificate. Also, the division be, should initiate a Material Requisition for the consultant. After approval, the division head shall transmit the agreement to the City Clerk for execution by this City. Construction Contracts 1. After approval of the low bidder ,(or recaxmvnded contractor) the City Clerk should ,send the standard agreement to the contractor for execution and direct that they 'submit it together with the appropriate bonds and insurance certificate 'to the Public i Works Director for review and approval. After approval, the package uhall'be sent to the City Clerk for execution by the City and a Material Requisition shall be prepared. 2. .Progress payments, on any acceptable form, shall be submitted to the Supervising Inspector for processing. I am working with the Risk Manager to develop more realistic insurance requirements for consultants and contractors. The RFD's and the contract specifications shall specify ' I the insurance and bonding requixements. We will be responsible for assuring that these requirements are met and the certificates are executed properly. The Supervising Inspector and appropriate Project Engineer are responsible for processing progress payments, and notices of completion. This. process is a-throwback to :he good old days when the originating department was J totally responsible for agreement and contractt administration. very careful consideraticn should be given to each sEep of the process. Foul.ups will inevitably re..rul.t in a lack of trust by the other departments and a return to tlir crvVlicated procrAtirr_s of thn T•►st. REQUEST FOR CITY CC)UNCIL ACTION Submitted by Paul E. Cook� Oapartment Public Works 1)36 pr"red March 27, , ig 0 Backup Material Attached X y" U nn NO Subject RESIDENT PMTION REQUESTING mwmy LANDSCAPING ON TALBERT FROM MARBER LANE WESTERLY w li City Adm'inhut tor's Comment: 1►i'fKQVl;U I$y CITY COttNCIL Approve as recommended oiTx arc Statement of Issas, Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions: STATEAM OF ISSUE: The parkway landscape area west of Edwards along the north side of Talbert Avenite is void of all landscape material which died from excess water. RE JDEI) ACTION: Table'.this matter until the City's financi.al'outlook is more clear. ARALYSIS: : A petition signed by 121:.residents was received by the City�Cauncil requesting that;lancl- scaping.be.replanted in the parkway on the narth. side. of Talbert from Marber westeriy, to the Bolsa Chicas. , Residential lots adjacent to the,subject:parkway area, nin are substantially higher and "all excess water.fimro the lots run into the` landscape area,'drowg the 'original plant material. This problem'also exists in a few other areas of the City; however, this specific problem is of a far also magnitude than others. It would cost m,estimated $12 000 to correct this drainage problem;and replant the .land- sc:aping.. :Jt: would cost about �800 per year to maintain this landscaping. Because, of the possibilit}r of greatly reduced City revenues next year, it is felt that this matter should be,tabled for six months until the financial outlook is more clear. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1, Correct the drainage problem and replant the landscaping at an estimated cost of $12,000 ! :plus $800 annually,for maintenance. 2. Concrete in the entire parkway in lieu of landscaping at an estimated cost of $11,600. 3. Fill landscape area ifith dirt and rock at an estimated cost of $3,000. FUNDING SOURCE: No fiords involved at this times. REC:ik ! .,wL1:l.:wl..a-.d... .rU.• ...1•. ,,..,1.. ,,, -.. '•+wu+.i.:.F.+Os ta'.w'sJ,YyidJ.iI ir'wri'i� ♦ : ., RECtJEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION r. Submitted by Paul E. Cook Department Public Works f: Date Prepared 019 80 Backup Material Attached .3 y" 0 ft � Subject Residen - etition Requesting Parkway Landscaping on Talbert from Marber Lane Westerly City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. 0,?v 3117 CV,0-e1Av0--e) -rd '�... 't Statement of love, Remmmendation,Analysis,Funding Soura:,Alternative Actions: r; �i'ateinent of Issue: The right. of way landscape area west of Edwards along Talbert Avenue is void of all landscape material which died from excess water. Recommended Action: Approve .funds from Contingency (approximately $12,000) to correct; problem. . Analysis z 'i' a'r Resiaential _lot:s adjacent, to the subject landscape. area are substantially higher-and all .excess water from the lots runs into the landscape :area, drowning the plant material. This problem alac exists in a few other, areas of, the City; however, this specific problem is of, a far greater magnitude _ than others. We will be attempting to correct the other areas as .time .'1 allows; however, the size and scope of this project is one we recommend to be "contracted. .If _funds. are, authorized, it: will probably be June or July before the project could be completed since we must prepare plans, bid documents, advertise for bid and approve a contract. a . Alternatives: 1. Approve additional $12,000 for Public Works 1980-81 budgot to cover the cost of this project. 2. Do not undertake the project at this time. Funding Source: Contingency Fund: $12,000 PEC:DDS:jy 1 l -.., K..... a-. :.;_.w•.;, .._......ar,.+-.....�.-►............s...........,w+w....a+.ar..w.+,+.a...w+..0 y�^a1Y+.!(r ' t t CITY OF IHUNTING'' ON BIRACH INTER-O< PARTMENT COMMUNICATION ' Mur�rnvcnw MAUI r To .Paul L. C. . From W=Y1 �. 8raith Director of Public Works Supt., Farks/Tree & Landscape : Subject Petition re. Talbert Ave. Landscape Date Feb, 27, 19$0 t The right of way landscape area in question west of Edwards along Talbert Ave. was ri- , ginally planted by the developez- in various phases as the suladiv sions were constructed. Pr= the beginning of residential development of this area about 1972, we estakished ttf axjh s of ll testing.the f tot that the soils were very poor relative'to �"^il tlSal meltability,and fertility. Mie area 3m questu r, was never farmed and baniraUy was'an ` established'oi , field operation. Major concern for.develognent 6f this area was for the enguxmriny principals necessary to provide drainage and stable ground needed for &-velopnent of the site `abd not neces- sarily a',convern for plant growth. .The lots of these subdivisions were aonstrwted to, ovine'drainage ofc excess,water int•.o the public right' of way. This arectuitxd.the Eats . t o be raised-in Grade by fill and, therefore, m rh of the water drains isnlar and tlirtragh the block walls and into the Iandscaps areas as well as into the local streets. Large aorrentrnt:icns of salts and excess;water which are aarinful to plant`growth'have caused the failure"of the iandscake in this area.. These salts and excess water are . leached through the backfill soils and into the: landscape arean along Vil berg We have l+een aware of the problem.for saveral years and, while working'with a private . laboratory as well' as the-University &.!.ansion Service of Orange Count-y, we believe we have developed a solution to the problem. We are preparing'plans for reconstruction of the.subject Imescape arm. The e4trui3ted { cost of the project'is $12,000 and t;mse f rods are not available in our present 'fiscal.. ! budget. . Toe do not have the nw power to av=Wl i sh, this work and at the some time maintain C the 1 1/2 million square feel: of landscape area which presently exists on our:streets and highway system. Therefore, .as= reoarmend the'project be' contracted if the City Council ' were to authorize funds from other sources. Tb contract *-his project we must .finish the detail plans, prepare bid doc:ir=tsadvertise for bid and aprrove the contract. "be tineInvolve9 in this process would dictate the project would probably r� he coWleted prior to June or July of 1980.. This would_h not, meet the desires of fie petAi ti►•mers who Dave asked that we start onnstruction in March of this year. I ' The effort and furt's to be expend to correct the: petit-.loners' c=cerr► wild be greatly enhanced 'if the re3idUmts3 wtose property,hack onto the landscape,areas. would maace every effort to roduce thi amount of wa- r applied 'in the vicinity of the block.wall. t MS:jy dra TALBERT AVE. PLANTER WALL REDESIGN (Between Marber Ln. & the Bolsa Chicas) COST ESTIMATE 3--•6-00 I. SHRUBS: i 19 - 5 gal. Eugenia M. 'Compacta' @ $18.00 ea. $ 342.00 79 - 5 gal. Raphiolepis X. 'Rosfa' @ $18.00 0a. 1,422.00 . 68 - 5 gal. Larissa G. !Tuttle" @ $18.00 ea. 1,224.0n 44 -- 1 gal. Uriope Gigantea @ $4.00 ea. 176.00- 113 - 1 gal. Hemerocallis spa. @ $4.00 ea. 452'.00 �} Sub-Total $3,616.00 II-. IRRIGATION: l06 Shrub Heads @ $18.00 "ea. $1;908:00 3 - 1 1/4" Manual Valves @ . $60.00 ea. 180:00 Sub Total $2",088.00 III. SOIL: 15 du. yda. @ $15.00 ea. (top soil) $ ••'•225.'00 = w i IV. DRAINAGE: Augered Hole to Sand Layer, Filled w/Gravel ` 2 850.00 ' } V. - GRADING: 5,280 sq. 'ft. @ .160 sq. ft. $ 950.04. VI. ',WALK ON-BARK ,5,280 sq.. ft. 1" Layer 15 yds @ $18.00 yd. $ 270.100 , VII. PRE-=EMERGENCE 5,280 sq. ft. - @ .060 sq. ft. 316.00 _ VIII. MAINTENANCE 90 Day @ $150000 mo. $ 450.00 Sub-Total of All CaMegories $10' 765.00 ' 10 contingency 1 076'00 *GRAND TOTAL' . $11;841.00 t • ssa►-..4:tr.r.u.{�.w.M.....:r.w.r..'t«.0{rnil.�J. ...h.s..•Y.....u..sww.,...---...�.-•+..-..—+. .+.+..we.�'.::fu.,l.riA[:is/M.+rsTi+m[iY+rw i�S. ,.1 j-M+ ,-•. ��(,r; i w 5 �S ty y•. tr,'� : S•'��.i1'r �' .R �'r r.1 lk a� - A ` 9 Al o 'r. � �•r . r`.v,.. lr}� J�,.. d �r, �j!, {....,,.�?'.. �'i x,:��.siSr`I.� a;,�„ a r n1 r) �.. i }.p ry .I • 1 + ' I r y 'r Fr;' t �'•y It .� ' � � r '{�: I �� , x r r'. ti r� r '.�4 � �r �y� .•! j ,�� ■ '%ri :� • r x, r I r 1, I '� � 'i 1,'�.( ,L, i �1 � � {��� + � a4I�' *!rt•S /'; I r1 r .r /4T ri/r �L d.'•;t .�1 t 1.!'.1.r�5i.w.:.rtii�l'rr�';'�s "Si�i�:ra��� I + � (,�s.ld�irM� II1�.k�i�lJ�,�tSir�^�_'�s:��-+�r,�rA F ",4:�a is f - n j""'�iTlyy f (7J• Jf .., . .� ^s� iyj�;.iJJyl%.s.)r---++.-..:..t..re•.[+'r"%:..rw.1S.'.ri::i..�.iw w:...r�.._.---vCY,e•;, � �, .... �.� .f h��,t.:;`i^ti/.•A. I.R '!' ;.,�j,.h� sYi�lj .'.•.i .J J� { l , l.�r.� t`��.�� i' I r r , r .r. n � �'t � �ti• �+ 4.Jw +l 1. " .� }� v. � „ r�1..r•. y � +!. rw' l ;�, f *j � 1, t.• ,1•j { ^ ., s Rr f1{ •. t.N��, A}.;�.T ' �.nr^ �, ,�..; •+; 'M .0 •. }t r',- � s !1 Y ' l Nr''F y i n ��•'�! Ss�..•r• .1�{ Vt'r w. a"� ilf! (ri k!�� , .'s'�. '�f`�' r.�' •) .a ,Z�e�,i� ! �y.•/,°1y•� � !'�' ��� Av t J '�:��� {rr,.1�:,� S *j w. i S �>F' s t h ,. � t�... y }�'" {�-� >•.'f�i'"iJ 4X�M3.�i.'C'��.'��S�7j+'kSS�.t�;.Sift. isJ'i,^(..1rtfi!!'i �'.`1f.�i�'i�.7yrzS'Iyt7d.R���r� ��uih� �,7.�'1«;�.t1r�C4ls'.��.'�'�'Y+.�l 'i���'�i�.'�.C]� e G: tv Y 7 ' • � [' � } 1� Y A /':" 1.1 l t � M t y � 1 � fit" } lf �s"rr �.�,t r ,•� � � ���� ��� ..j' R i '+ k i s•' 04.�",.. '! t. �t ,`l .7� rt J r r !4'. � ' ,Y�' + � y1"� 4 `,, �, .4• � ,n 1 to Vii �{. :�i{� y.. { '►+ t •� ,'Y �'�+�' r''v R_ a�!� ' 4+�' k ' F . 1 r , 1 � ;' t 'fit w � r rr e• ' ,` s � 'in r " t r n , yr: ..1 ) ! _ d �Yf,�'T't{� f�♦l�{ ,� yt?� ��fIr r'i'��ij �: rt t�/itt�', .�R.�yfr r.�y,�,� a i 'Y y ,! a r� �/ ^* '.fr r 'yj r,i'�r4� '`� � "'` ,� ,A4��,1{� {�. `+�tji A� s'' •�) � + S I� ��� ..7� � � � ��if♦ +�,�+'� �r fir. ��i�.�fis. A ��ti, y }� , .,iiMr,;; { ,fir.• �r�,�'�:,,}4 1.� '�.��•t� T� �4Y { ��,a. :��'^ �� i%�(e a"��N' ,�,.� a 4 t '�";�'i��'�'Ft£S'�' •t�l����11��ar wl ..1, .. _. _. _ - - _ - �I rV CW HUNTING .NIMMH ti INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION I , Ow+r.cia+.wa� To 'Floyd, G..,' 'Be l s i to Froni Frank 8 . Arguel to Citv- Administrator Director -of Finance" Subject FInanc'idl Impact ,Report #80-15 Date March 7, 1980 -_Parkway,, Landscaping on Talbert from Mar13e'r Lane Westerly .� In' ,'response to, the . reques.t-'of the Director of Pub1 is Wor,k's ,., 1 am •hereby submitting a Financial• Impact Report relative to Parkway landscaping on Talbert from Marber Lane Westerly. I f `the;,CI ty_ Councl"1 desires to approve this :project, there are• funds available ,in the General Fund Contingency account from which this eicpen"diture. 'can be' made. I{ The• uncoimmitte`d. aiance in the contingency account after this , - ex would be: $5,k0q. Frank-B. Ar ello: Di rector of Finance " FBA/Im D HAR 0 7 1980 CR OF IiUlfiINGTON.BFACII ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICF � r ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT Project Name Parkway Landscaping Oescrlpticn Parkway landscaping on Talbert Westerly from Marber Lane. . 1. DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1.1 One-Time Costs an urn., c Acquisition. Construction ties, E ui meat Other Total Cost $12,000 $12,000- 1.2 Recurring Annual Costs A ditlonA Materials S uts de Pa roll Personnel Sypelies . Services Revenues ; 'Iota Cos 1.3 Replacement/Renewal Costs i 2. INDIRECT COSTS Time for preparation of plans ', bid documents , 'advertising and contract approval . j ' � 1 11 • ' 1 . Y Z A .�y " " 1 1 I . f , r ti Ir" � n r },I t7,Tr'�... r ' f .A� 4 S �,rr /Y�+� , j '•L /:1' r+}�. low 1 ♦ r r` 1 . -`L � .. I I. � � �.•�1 '♦:� 'Ir r �� Y�r�?F �: � ; �,i� F • , }.*�t� �'.• �I I. �y �1'ti.t at ..r`f ,.{ , � 1 �?, � y' r� 1'���'l�t �,,d ! „�i• j}�t} .�� fir" i r� p �:�t Arr,� ,',� N S �., �` � � 14 . r t yr. � ',� /•t � r *� _� r, � r y} � 1'F � I 4 4Y, ti'F�"� �r ,� r 1 a 4'.. , �/ Yr i .1 � � 1 � � ii' � 1.'.:1 r' prl> Jy� n+ }}�� 1. .1� •�S±r } r }- � J + yl i • f 1�, +1 M{.� M't „+. i r 1� j a' 1h ,.. h�1`� r ;1• 1 r� � ,�r r r i.f t {� r•�/ , � +I ,!? 'Tr y �. { t � �, , l 4 1. � � .1,r� f ♦ � r w r f �. l� .� A, f/ rF ��, •1`� � /� t �, `po ,� � ' ,} � "r>� ��. rltdti ,r-.•,i• �'', - t•"'I ,4 i; `,.j r �T' t � ,4 R '%",I; �,r, ,. �1. r w Y^ / I r �kw �.� P I�r� � `'I Y ,7,r ���1 Y j y r rF r 1 i �#s •• y y t` 1 f� h„,, � ,.� i ! � .4 r` r ;�} �' 1 x. �,A''''i ��if• r ��kt•,s? �� v 4wA 1 " ,J,. � � + yy r 1.,�r I i ��A. :.` r+ �, y,k��: ��'' •� , i r rr •Iris t� +y, , tT )' ♦ )��' l�j .1� s : r rl'F '�.t IA l R t S i Ll� 41.j t + T VL •'C + w. `'('r/ �.h �S / /.' n I 1 f } �� n 1 - 1 y• r y -t.�r Tt y 1 . r. 4 ; r J � lY' !'' w +^ f '�•�4 ((( rr' � 1" r j'';�' i 4 � .�� � �{ R� � �1 Y' � '� � 4ti r•ti ,f. + + 1l F � r`1. 1F r � th., `k�r a,` if 1 s� ,°�f!• � �„j1 t�' ° ^. � ,��r,�r�' '# '��t:. 1•�sH>h.y'�r r r'� �♦t � " o �1��//� •1 ,{ t ,�1 �1' . :�'t a a�1. ,+r s �I � rr, S y : . t >; � ^t, rl s r r ` f ��r' ��,( " / >�� ,•; t 1.' � i • � ��� t � .�. �f , r. Y F 1, ir1 d i', of �X' �' �S*K� r k�� lr �� ' S rt� '� � d r�'�T •'�7 •�^! f � , /n p-�"* •r� ��, „� r h: a rl�y'F,• {�1rM r`y+ �.�� � F �� i ,1'� � ,rr •1'' LYr t,i d w:•' i "?1!i{ /'"� 'L r� Y, !•Z r "�; Y5 , . i`'; 4 ;, a ,.` k,.. >•� a r r y ^�� ..: I" #" �4 l�r ,r l }r. ft iv. � L,�� 7�+ { r¢� r�, rr Sy aiJ+ j! t S; t j, N 7•rr '� } � + � �f l� y �_.:'.� ,�r•��r/Ty n � f''Ft;,4 ,l,t'_ �`�'� -f 'i ��C a>!VI r t�+�j)^� � I+ 1 at .�YC� •�': l ���.'�r •' I f 1,r * r� , � .:� '�r. 1J kk F ��., rF r � ♦ j � 1y��4� ".t7 f 1�� �� 1 �' �,9� � `/� r ny •r "' �"f":•' 'if";!(` » �. rVr tciq 7 'Mw tier ,4r ,h •� }r ..,. ' ..,♦ ..� �.' r r REQUJE T FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTIN Paul E. Cook Public Works Submitsed by Department Date Prrtpared March 4 , 18 80 8nckup Material Attached YH No j Subject Site for Reservoir Hill Booster Pmp Station ! City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Approve es 'recommended --•------�- X9� ct7•x r;Statanlent of..Issue;Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions: ` State menti of=Issue: r a, s Reservoir.'Hi11 booster 'stst~ior► is located on.tihe eau art,corner of:Clay Arid Go:J eA r,.st (Be*' a on''1a6di limbd from the Huntington'Beach+'acainparW ;. Bquipment in'the;stzttion is., tiquated aiid'needd'to replaced and 'inczeased in capacity. , A..pre- feried,,new site wo7Wd be the nortt st corner:of`Cla}•'grid Goldei>ti�st (tee att+achiylit),. Zhese ]ands"are also 64ned by'filie'Hu nld;; ca Beach Caiup�-iny. Tentatively, .the Hunt ingteoii Beach'Oanpany'has"agreed to pmvicl3aig the lands for the new site, at 'no.' cost to t:i13 City, irl_exchange„for the City's rel it the existing location. aF i�r� i s i rr ApPrOve t� al for the Hun teach ,to' a the site for'.the­new P�8 n Y Paid boaster station, .at no cost to the City, in exchange.for ihE. City a,re1ir�+,+��+;*� the 'exist. in4"location. Authorize the preparation of an .agreetmt incoLWrating the folio M provi sions: 1. Huntiiajton Beach 00. would prova.de a parcel of land' at the northwest comer'of`Clay and ' Goldermest as shown,on the attached map as a location for the new booster station. 2. The Ctty would quitclaim its right to the-existing Reservoir'Hill site. „. 3. Mw'Cii'y'would construct, the booster station"it an estltitateed'cost:.of $400,000.00. 4. The,Ci would be reitnbuirsed for 'the.'vost.of the new• star e F ty_ booster Lion based:can°an'acr�g feed`for. stye'property to be served by tine booster. station. All property to be'served ; wilii,pay. a fee at the tune of devel cpmant�of the`property. Property which is �Uready j developEd, such as Seaciiff Village, Would pay. its fee upon covpletion of the booster . station. However, existing residential units will not be involved in this process even tho"agh they may be served by the new booster station. W—&4b6oster station was constructed in.1972 of three used pwrps; and enginesand an 16 year old hydropneumatic tank. rbst of the controls were fabricated. fran older equiipment iri storage at the.water warehouse. The worn-out equiCnent is ver.1 unreliable and, in the event of failure, there'is no hack-up. Also, the haphazard location of all eompanents, resulting front insufficient roam, is unsafe and definitely dons not meet OSHA standards. Major improvarents are now necessary. . '_•rE.titf:.µ.. �..r•.,N.r L✓.y;i: ,.• ..f.,, ... . ♦ ". iA G 1 r � I i IJ ramt r ++ t.."'t"�."2� �i r l k0 �r T�r '� �``rr { fw• 1�F."•�,f• z?,, hr; 4� '/t !1 1g .1'4 ' �` Cka♦r �a. � i ' r;J: ��.k: ('' i t�i.t, '�kFj �,, /: r•�• ;� iM tl ;°Cr'1 "7"fir !�„'y,.r: �{,. ",fir"t.� ��:ri g� r� a.}}� kr -;:��,"•,.,}}�Ly at �'t t+�), l y 1� ��� .ir," /'t,k, �y~r ', �+�• ��y..i��� � �C:I .t s,'ti'.?: 'F�l.tjl' '���• y"^3 ;"'k �n.4.'.�i f' �i' +li.eef 7i�u�'i�+'�!iTa4 '• a F .�tr s:l.!', y./`, �,�� SFt•:T'1 '� 'r • rYr?' '� ! k ,Y i �j t{r.iS• , ;ti`�,,. i�p¢ f�,r f � ti.... j ., z i�' .�t ,�r.1 tti• •..( 3i•�',�T+t�zS � �r � S�.Y�.!etS�+t 1.ryr} � �,'�1;�� {'+'�;.5� $,Ci.#�11 �l,ykki 7 t�p�,J �,�•.� l tole � .�5�. �:x!,A,,: � F'��:�•�`. tT��L� { i,�.�';!-.�q;_#�. y.�+.���„��!'i'd;. i:s.�w.r 1�y4{��i � ,A J.r,,+,t.�'«.t ��5:.. i r { .3E�{'.4 �:��` �'wy ; .1.� r ui3 tx:,,i;.t.lL1: ,: !r 1��4 c�� � .1 :t FF iaYj+..�.sz r•i..;•1 il; ''� { / ) .+ i'"�. ! � :� �} � �.� e ��,J✓�5,,`s�-{'.�..�_ f 'k •'� ..iy .t� ,t '. 't(t -.'7� '� "� iS •q s + 4 �: �L?.4 i f<4•r:`rr� G. 1� i �,J. t ti.� a 1 N +, Sj'; k .r,y:y y.., ,' 4 r,: ,2 ,S t ,3 � i; .'•. 'dal �• �•'F. r ��k a� �,,i..J > ,-`{�. +",J t ..i � 1 7'..I�' z�+. 'i „�+ r 0 'wqq k:,}r�1• i,..'k-t;�..�,1 1. } �.yC � { � {f`:,.a. Kt". v,t � Z A .�!• . � YS �, �'! i ,4r S "t ti:i'' t, �,.�•�•` r; ,,)t,t.��r 1., �"t y� l , �,�, j �t'1:",.�� -t^+.5�'M .� - f i C r�;, R 7i .�;�- i, y�z,, �tj ,Jt1.4i3f. rv� r jl'. jtq,'�y}�i,�(e.i,YjtF qN,y.. ^,,�.�'��S�t,yt',�, .�t.•vl' •t{r rIt'i;'. vt. ?..�. 'f 2� ��� �'��j( �s,z4+r t,�`�� }.� �t�.'"".lYt^ ,;F ttl'1 y;�!'(,�. h�'�?}!� f 4Ntd �a.q 3"!t�s�A�'A•".t"<. 1,I;. p"�� �' a�t� rwt�i),ut.��,t"... Ft"'; er. �t �+ ��. F�1>iFk i�aA."t;.�?1 _ilk"+:7'�['f A�nkIS�Ri���{td +1iiy.,+t�"1'�i!k.�?.tf+'':'J�.'�t'j'.�sitl.f�tJ .xk,�.`.}�i:��.'¢.t�(}'1"!'���'777J»)i�i+ l:�^.ttr��J�'(;re�. ts� `{c��4F4.R117.� f�,.j•�' � •ZAP. Request for Cour�iil Action arch 9, 1980 Page 2 T.ocated an,leased 1mnds, there is also, por3r awes to the•e=' tang stall m.which is' fully visible frcxn Golden. The new site wxdd be'on Lands to be deeded t-a the City, with better access. It could also be landscaped to provide an aesthatically pleAskJ Source: . Nave for land wict�f oonstruatim cost of booster station, $900;000, in- eluded in MVx3ed FY 80�-81 Water Division budget. AlteriiatiVe: , Ito utilize present site and construct a new facility on lamed lands. PDC:EAE:jy 1 JKiY3i%l�l N,f itFY:.:+la r:'.'lllafZ74 «w iY:aM .:w.I'w....:fir.J+i v.- .. . •'r..e .�.ne{'e:.tt A'S'. .:%.t,%.W�X.:. +r'41..�ba�.+r�1�''n N�L�,.S�%+F:Sr1����'4,��1 . .4 o- +f CF- •�,�, � ; 11(11IIDI0� �I�Qlll {ll 11 s _ ✓Kly.h, 1 IDINT �IfUHlllt�� I�.`� 77 41 77 7,77741 ,. y r / h 1 . PI*O PgS/i0;`/PSG p`� � " ..-d)'w� •`• / c,�rio it � �' �,•��Rl1MP/�Vi..dT�7I�' ;. + � 4� 1 �.. T'Y err 1 , 0 F ' +ti/ ti•`�� �� N/t 1. TATiO� HUNT(NGTON BEACH r. M .0 WAT E R D I V!S I ON .�'�;Yf �•~�, �w- -------v �-- • roRkrowv. • � ICJ �+"r CF-E CF ISV• HIG • is H PRESSURE ZONE NUMBER R TWO CITY BEACH /Y OF HAT � y, .. a , SITE: WARNER AVE* BRIDGE DATE: SEPVEMBER 21, 1979 NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Federal Highway Aid procedures outlined in the Local Programs Manual of the California Department of Transportation, notice is hereby given by the Public Works Department of the City of Huntington Beach of the intent to remove and reconstruct the deterior- ated Wainer Avenue Bridge in kind .for purposes of structural adequacy and public safety. . The ptoposed project is located at the existing bridge site along Warner Avenue, 800 feet east of the Pacific Coast Highway -(State Highway 1) at the Bo?sa Chica Bay inlet to the Wetlands . from Huntington Harbor. The new structure will be a pre-cast, pre- , stressed concrete slab bridge consisting of three equal spans with .the width iccoipmodating four traffic . lanes, two bikelanes, a sidewalk and provisions For another sidewalk in the future. Construction hopefully will begin'in Mash or April of 1980. Required agreements and permits are being processed with the U:S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, State Lands Commission, State • Coastal Commission, and the State Division of.Fish and Game. Interested agencies, such as the U.S. Dept. of Fish .and ,Wildlife and' the California Department of Transportation have provided advice regarding' the *project `scope and impacts. historical and archaeological guidelines will be observed along .with the suggestions of special interest groups such 'a's . Amigos de la,Bolsa Chica. The approved Negative Declaration statement for this project was pre- viously published in local newspapers and posted. in the City Clerk's office on September 14, 1978, for a 10 day public review period with all responsible agencies being notified. No written comments were recieved as a result of the public posting and agency notification. The City is soliciting additonal input from the public or other interested parties concerning the processing of this project with a Y ;,'Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing September 21, 1979 Page 2. Negative Declaration relative to the localized environmental impact of the project and any methods or alternatives by which adverse consequences to the environment may be avoided or mitigated. All interested persons are invited to furnish their co=ents in writing within a . 30 day period from posting of this notice ending on' October 29L 1979 if requested by an interested agency or general pubic. member, a formal Public Hearing will, be conducted. Such requests should be submitted no .later than 21 days after posting of this Notice. The .Negative Environmental Declaration, maps drawings, . etc. are available for, inspection a'nd copying at the City of Huntington Beach, Public' Works Department, 2000 gain Street,. P.O. Box 1.90, Huntington Beach, CA., 02648. Contact can also be made by 'telephone at (714), 536-5431 Paul, E. Cook Director of Public Works POSTING DATE: �Syimr 28i 1972 J 77 r ....._, is �.. ...+.....« .r.. . t OFFICE MEMORANDUM � TO Alicia Wentworth DNtc 8�3U�79 ;+ Fmn Office of the City Attorney in Be ' Yacr .ragupet 'dated 8/29/79 P �rdina*ice allowing* notices i, sting bids, to be p tY � g --gontsaat-projects < has been 'assigned to staff Ydblbli3W Intern, Linda Moon Please communicate with him direct. � . t• DPB!ahb thank you! ° r. 10, ` ` 1 Vol! - A I I titT[-CtYY ATY[iRN[Y 'I. Crfy ON IrUNTINGTON MEAC11 NO t it D '7UM-CITY CLeattt:.. +-CITY AMINISTRATOR REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION \ CAARY`DEi'ARTMLNTAL ,,.�..... � parr Request made by ncpartment t.,,•,� Ci t `% C I cr k tji INSTRUc.`t"IONSt rile request in the City Administrator'r Office Puickly as possib!e but not Lr. '(an noon,one preparation off orw"kdorinance.in t"PSI-Ste print to the Council hduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney"use t.. jecting at which it is to he intro � the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to tLe subject.All appropriation requests must paragraph outline briefly reasons for inance before whmitting to City Administrator's Office. be cleared and approved by the Director of F Preparation of an Ordinance Or Resolution is Hereby requestrd: is:c?lrc�s� for urciin�nce allolling notici:s invifiin�- bias to ar,° published G' . ore G�ty �t...� t e i, '1y fumai:•d priject notiCt!s Sri I i p�R,lisiler ct7sh ct:F:tract projects. G 4., and t`_t.t,rd i hlice pr State Code. i t, The savings to the City will i)c very Sl !'Jeattntial. i� (see: rttrFcho%! bf.ck-up rtlr:t(:r;::1) l j Si rds Approved as to atailability of funds Desired effective date gn Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit ptintcd topics to this office byi City Administrator , low ti '•r. � i r . 1?.t^ ..�v. i L T.i.: I,j.'*X.} t C,.t�' l t. ! ��',>r yi{`� M F �t�t 4 x trS.'r .t i.. S t f �y t,�} `a,{ 'L, .• 'K•'f3,.,;x.li••p. !' }w.. .�.�t. r w` y {�.�'s:'�.. }t{'{t H'f •}x' '(,••f t�x.vr e•� `'r tt�;drrlt },• � �.••` w, �•' ,,k'` tii:Jt'f Ft��sr'tr..is•s'� .k ,'ry?:.r �y ��t 1'.,.;,i� t. ' 'is ���.•`S,�t_ 17ey uti Y� XIJ. TY 7t�rlr V L• }�i-5^` � t��s.+'�y'1�tr t � ; r l i , '� <.t? s,' 4 lr ', F•,` .., .�;'t Y a, w r H t y , lY�; t t..;4 . u , t� X i+r. = t !``` #;;i' t, i'nr ,}'r, } 1rlks �t' ^"{1 •, tt,.' S s t r, 4 r� Yn' +! • 't) ^:,f C .:ti.F �...� ++ "x ,j t yyk 1✓ nod + ��. t.: ). �,i'�+•;;''�e� 4+Y ;.}t}' t'}`;.j}' ��-• �.' n j F �. :C'IrKa' .+a• `Cl e3 �P�i'L �' tr { _ � r.�{r:. .�¢.{;,�Sr-rr+,?'��t�y.�.�: e r ✓li ;'}::'f r .+ fii+r?7� „'�,i �•1�.+; �f"• J i+��' 1 roJ S IS��' t T'' �ri.• t. .'�;jt'�A �•le tli�'��p%t�i �.t y..� ,' ;i�, t�r�L�rt.�r.�ta�y k� �xj�rr^ l��t�l' •c+ {.�,t t?,* Y,:r�,j r.�',�.ri �r �fi .'1 f s :i,.�,-. �. ; ''4`l Tit .}(a.Y'TtF' ,�•j'Y( ��f'(;.v;, � �i;�.(r�,'?�t't +' •o. S�+t'+ � ,�; , tipa . ��Y�,�..k t� ,• 1.,. �'.�y KE\."r t ^(t S Y `Y• �" •I ��} ,�1 ��i;t f<wlle �{ 'yet_ .r i,,,Kl�rt F ! ,� Y+y(°S 7t S't,�U: f ? � �ti,:. .t,,.�,� a.�;,� fit' } ; '�{y:,�, '��'Z rx -�';'`i;fM i•�•'' 1'�::" } � k �.��Ci :il�t t t•i y ,�t 1+ •���. � '�.', ��ti,,>,. r••',� t t err i fFY:� 1. t�' a''-'� 1". 1 a tti at l rat,_ +�. �„ ;yacl,. ,�,�� ,tii >a�•�:�;,:'r}�y7�}t,� t,��:ti•�1,: r.�„r.; l�,a��;�ii+it�,'�.'�.. �.;�,'>;t` ;�=$. t�4'"-' y��`tci}'��s. �'•4�,,�`1 ;�,'1��4+�'t` �it`x"„1.�,y���r �'t�:�t`'.r„a`�t tl�•}.,.rl>'�y.�.,l,+lt -y�.R#p } •Y, f t z,�' Z'�1, �v t"k"li Y'cl l.ii ( '((��.�.1.a (`..�1 + ��• [f t,e� .r7 )�t �1'•"",� ;.T�Fft: 4 i••e. q ��`�., �t �l �1 5}• ,ri rr•. 7. � [t! ,l � } •}i�i� ' 4.+'��i°t�. r�'": • 1° s � �'lY, ,'I{, �1 {•, .li}�Y}rc i�i`, °i;7 � .t � W Yy..��, pelt.�'�.,..Y `'��.t4 !,yr R t f;••. ;4 1 ;y+��i { �''` t'r'�.f'2j� k•��e" �.p'`i�. /1 f it .t� �.��y . ittL•.tY 1'a:1: w1',p' -•, 4` atr�DTl:i�. �ly,t=� t'S t' 1:v'�� .a<: lY.�'' 1 i.}i'JA'' y� �_ �' t�c_( � �'t'{�`i.xR' e`".Z' T'i .�'�. ' y.,�t.(.. 1; r�`i'�'�,i2i��"•:x } 1y�4 �'�, �;,ri two �, j�' 7xay,•{t7 �4S �.'�,.r.r �' f•7y ''�{,r,''• tr�'1`'�• Y���. '�^.Y �3� �.� t ",.t�'+'�+Fri rj�i �```"��3 fsd�t: •�lr,tyy+�4..��i'��d� `•� ti jF�.?tr�A�r� i5;7.y�}F�•�.��t�,, {�r'4 r Y•i;.f,� fd i�t �+• ';rKf-.�.1'Y"'�.� ��"�,4.ex�`��;F c'}� �}`.��F!�tt ��;"� ;R'��,� ki.�,,�� �Us� �gl; f►ay# ,lthfri} ' t` / Y t t't {. iryh'. N JR {�3 1f nt� ,�}' K. �`+tj`,(S�•'� tl. t t jS 1. 11 . _ lt, ,ty +f t t$Y 714�'� 10 sue► : J• CITV OF HUNTINGTOl+i BEACH WI& z INTER•DEPAHTMENT COMMUNICATION Z } •�, �,�► rx.r+r�ctoN ten+ �y `� G• �,.t+�� f j S 1� To $ Za>nbory From Alicia ft. Wentwo Director of Public Works City Clerk $ubjctci. Notices Inviting Bids Date .ist 10, 1979 Publication Costs Due to the cost.of publications, we recently requested an opinion from the'City Attoxtiey's Office xelative to whether it would be permissible to. pdbliah Notices Int-Ling Seated Bids only once. Attached is the•memorandum legal opinion and according to the last- Para- graph, .the City may enact an ordinance to require only a single publi-' cation for City-funded cash contract: projects. Note the next to the last paragr"ph. A City ordinanco would allow one-time publication for City funded projects, but Federal and State funded projects Would require publication tfico. It-you think it.appropriate to amend the ordinance code to allow this t saving, please inform this office. We attached copies of recent billings for =„Your information. AW.cn cc: City Administrator { i t i t t i s r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ram' INTER-nENARTMENT COMMUNICATION 1 INW(N of moo To ALICIA M. WENTWORTH From JAMES GEORGES City Clerk Deputy City Attorney Subject NOTICES INVITING BIDS Date August 6, 1979 MEMORANDUM OPINION STATEMENT OF FACTS: State iaw requires that notices inviting bids on all contracts subject to bidding procedures be published twice. Each publication costs the city well over fifty dollars. Federal law requires two publications on federally funded .projects. QUESTION:- Would the city be within the law if the city published state and feder 1 ally. involved notices twice and city funded notices only once? No. ANALYSIS: California Government Code §37903 provides that, " The notice inviting bids shall set a date for the opening of bids. The first publication or posting of the notice shall be at least ten days before the date of opening the bids. Notice shall be published at least twice, not less than five days apart, in a rewspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- lished in the city, or if there is none, it shall be posted in at least three public places in the city that; have been designated by ordinance as the places for posting public notlee n." Huntington Beach City Charter §503 does not; indicate whether the publi- cation shall be once or twice. w.. X,�{.�};J� i{.'+•. ii.`r��if`� �. .'�„... ,y.{•- s • a, tr . r•r ,i .. �w . . ;�:.. f +.'4 wA i .: .w` ..777tr( tMt .♦ . - .... '3 .ray...i` � .YdC iMnC7C"1 r.. Memorandum' Opinion He Page two Notices Inviting Bids August 6, 1979 In construction contracts involving federal or state var ts3 the city has to comply with their conditions as to public at .'i,.;. ,r. Note that a charter city may by ordinance require only a single publication of notice inviting bids, and thereby save money. - .JAMS 3EOROES D^p,-ty City Attorney ;..: MIM APPROVED: (SAIL HUTTON City Attorney : • •r r 1 r Rao.too. 1 $� a D[►A/r11M�N1 uf[ 1.Ol 1.4,O,1 l-- y, .t._I H A n a I Am't No. 12 M IA D ►� Y U D D Y Y 25 78 so y170+t.Required is 1q 24 x N!/tlw4ux MATERIAL RequMed by Alicia H. Waawrth• City Clerk Approval ' RfQ, S �T1��11 Approved ly ._... Contacted L NAMFor additional information a �,X call-- � . Pfio�� �RV�II"l81i`�1� e .r. phone DATE 1. 1979 VENDOR w P.Q.• E ' West Or�tng�r Publishing Cawpany H Cad= on P Gar&m Wave, ralifomia 92648 u ' F.r es O�tin•tloe DNir•ry vAthin conflem - nu: -►L•hp•y 6/tQd: Tormt: do" QATE INVOICE CXSCRIPTIOM 16MOiJ�ti' 5/4/79 10119 •Sim - CC:250': 53 5/4/79 10294 Revenue Staring Hur.liq 20.09._ r 61141'179 10293 BSds =_CC-490 Bti:' ' 5121M 10353 Bids - CC416 5/21/79 10440 Ordinance #2355 16.17 5/21l79 1001 Ordinance #230 15.09 5/P.1/79 10442 Ordinance 12367 16.17 5/21/79 10443 Ordinance #2368 16.52 5/25/79 IN" Ofds'CC-412/4271428/449 91'.73 5/21/79 70542 Ordinance #2370 ,13.27 5/31/79 10543 Ordinance #237i 13.27 5131/79 10544 Ordinance #2372 16.17 v/31/79 10545 Ordinance #2369 19X4 5131179 10346 3i/ /7 Ordinan ce #z36o l3 Zi 5/31/79 10467 Bids 5/31/79 10468 Bids . 98.22, i TOTALS H25,79 RLP MO. A►touNT tIRD."0. AMouHT Mao,"a AmoumIr t a a • a i DEPARTMEUT COPY • • +�� t 1S ih NT UisR RQO.No. 'J H G�R-INe k—A—M O V ?b 7t 7 ^call No. 17 „ h1D 41 EO Q*to H.qun.d Z MA_.....�� YantiKlrth 1 TERIAL Requested by Alicia H. a, g jty Clerk Appoval REQUISITION APProved by -,*�- ��- Contacted �������� For additional infortni:ion call Be1`J'1� Phone _ Phone 522c DAU J41Y 2. 1979 veNao:« P,o.M y f E ' Nest Orsi" PublishinC2. H DD 13261 CsntgZ vd. P F.ML Destination DMY+wy within Confirm Pits Fit.•P►may&Add: T•rms: days 1 DKTE 1MYO� DESCRIPTION AHD41lIT i 6/5/79 10530 Bids.- CC-434 $1020*06 J 6111/79 10641 Hearing -• 79-5 `:15,79 6111179 70642 Budget Huring 73.27 6120179 107A9 Ordinance =5 12.57 6/20/79 10710 Ordinova 2374 12.57_, 6/25/79 10717 Bids. . .."r ..._; . 100.80.; I 6/25/79 10790 Public tearing - 79-3 11.83- 6/26/79 10802 Bids - CC-300:8 CC-423 50.N • " 6129179 10803 Ordinance 12385 17:72 6/29179 10804 Ordinance 02384 14.70 6/29/79 10805 Ordinance 02383 15.09 6/28/)) 10806 OrdinancU 02381 15.79 j 6/29/79 10807 Ordinance 12382 15.79 6/29/79 1OS08 Ordinance 12380 13.27 6/29/79 10809 Ordinance No. 2379 12.57 6129179 10810 Ord intnce /2378 14.35 � 6/29/79 10812 Ordinance 82376 13.65 6129179 10811 Ordinance 02377 16.17 6129179 10813 Ordinance 12362 14.70 , 6/29/79 10814 Resolution 14764 56.00 ' TOTALS 53a.45 ntp.NO. AMOUNT N[O.NO. AMOUNT mt0.NO. AMOUNT = t DEPARTMENT COPY 1 i a i r 14J8� H A � . • • • '.:x 1tKC.NO. Q[IA11TM[NY Ui[ 1 19 A 4,0.11 f , , , -,. ' I _._ , I , _,.I U t_�f' 1 8 7 AaC't No. 12 M M 0 G I Y M M O D Y Y 20 78 8o 4 t 13Prt.ne4uurd fd to 24 IWPOGUNAAA 'TERlAL R&41tttedby. .iO& I VWtr tM- ci,ts Clark APWoval REQUISITION Approved by Cantscted ' r !r Vnf%Fl!SjL 1 For additional information call Phone j Ph" DATE Mort 3, 1979 VENDOR• P.D.a E ' Mat or a putali:hIng CO. H ' N 1361 Cola= SLlf& P Gad= Gnu O F.O.&WafMtlon GWvay vdthin Confirm Plus Fm-Fnp[y i Add: Trans: do" DATE INVOICE -McrLIPTIOM '4 .7/9/79 10011 Bids -' CCr467 55 70 ' 7/9/79 10985 Bids - MSC 159 M.� 7/9/79 10930 Bids - "tington Ctr. Pk. 139.55 . >` 7/9/79 16M Bids'--, M5C SH - .46.66 7/19/79 IM95 Resolution 4776 63.88 7/24/79 10112 Adbption of BWget 5.39 7/30/79 10736 Public Fearing - 1119719 14.35 7/30/79 10137 Public Hearing - 79/45 6 79•17 16.17 i 3 TOTAL$ 387.22 I1913.No. AMOUNT tt[Q.NO. AMOUIIT n[O.NO. AMOUR? s s t DEPARTMENT COPY *A4 niff CITY OF IiUNTINGTON BEACm r{r j INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ►w«Mao"K L To Mike znxbory From Alicia H. Wentworth Director of Public works City Clerk Subject Noticss Inviting Hide Date August 10, 1979 Publication Costs Dine'to the cost of publications;• we reonctly requested an opLa:on from the City Atto=ey's office-relative to whether it would b~ 7armisvible 'to publish Notices InvW*9"6"Sed side only once. Attached is the mseorandnw legal opinion and according to the lnat pare- graph, the City gray enact ea ordinance to require only a single publi- cation for C.l`.ty-funded cash contract projects. Mote the next to the last paragraph. A City ordinance would allow one-time publication for City funded projects, but Federal and State funded projects '.� would require publication 'twice. If you think it appropriate to amend the ordinance coda to allow this saving, please inform this office. We attached copies of recant billings for your information. AWs cb ccs City l+dainistrator r d4 nW CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH xO. tlh INTER•DEPARTNiENT CoMiAUNICATION - Inwftv.ttw M41'll To ALICIA M. WENTWORTH Froln JAMES GETORGES City Clerk Deputy City Attorney Subjec! NOTICES INVITING BIDS Date August u, 1979 MEMORANDLff4 OPINION . 'STATEMENT OF FACTS: State law requires that notices inviting bids on all contracts subject to bidding procedures be published twice. Each publication costa the city well over fifty dollars. Federal law requires two publications on federally funded protects. QUESTION: Mould the city be 'within the law if the city published state and feder- ally involved notices twice and city funded notices only once? : ANSWER: ANALYSIS: 4 California Government Code 937903 provides that, " The notice inviting bids shall set a date for the opening of bids. The first publication or posting of the notice ehall be at least ten days before Vie date of opening the bids. Notice shall be published at least twice, not less than five days apart, is a newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- lished in the city, or if there is none, it shall oc posted in at least three public places in the r. ity that: have been designated by ordinance as the (sincen ror postItir public pat Leen. " I11rntJ119tnn Ile-rich City Charter §503 does riot: I1"l[11c7tO whether the publi- cation shall ►te once or twice. • r, I andl�unrlum Opinion n� [': e two = . 116G1ces InvitingBids Auru:t; 6, 1977 In construction contracts involving !'ederal or state grants the city has to comply with their conditions as to publication. _ Note that a charter city may by ordinance require only a single publication of notice inviting bids,,--and thereby save money. '-37JAMES GEORQEs. Deputy City Attorney JG:Im APPROVED: GAIL HUTTCZI :t City Attorney 'i � I � I i i ' + i A i I I I i it I .` ' . • � It[ti.h0. ~w� gllArttlM/Nt UZ•!.:�• .. ... r Ulm yy / a 7 Aet't NO 1? M M D .Ir M M p r. ,rat Y r 7L 16 DC t�Cato rta,lu t 1D )4 . Iaw1:,..unNww: City Clark :. MATERIAL pAqu st•dbv Alfcfa M. WmtwrtJ ,_ Approval REQUISITION ApproYad by Contacted For additional Information call_ Betty PhonePURCHASINPhone DATE J1�sf! 1. 1979 VENDOR . • Vat Ormi" riblithl CommaM __•. aAas*dam r L42!!f !!!!. a __._.�... _..___.. f.p 9.o.rttn.tlon ow1my t� CMniwm ht.Y FM•Powev ai,rAd: Twnw: i IMOICE WMIPTION err } 5AM 10119 :lidv- a-Ma�y3l`�� t 5/4/79 10204 Uv rAw Sharing H"rfig Zoo09. + 6/11179 10293 bi+la - OC-490 ' St:4l.r�. 5/2 10363 �.lff • ("Irp li.tt' 5/Zi/T9 10440 Ordfu sce #2365 16.1r 5/21/79 10441 Ordinance (2366 1S.O9 . 5/21/79 10442 Ordinance 02367 15.1X 5121/79 10443 Ordinance t2368 15.52 5/25/79 10444 Afdb'GC-412/4V/425/41Si : : '.91.T3=; 5/21/79 10542 OrdfrAim d2370 e13.27 5/31/79 10643 Ordfnam fZ371 13'. j 27 5/31/79 10544 Ordfi-ante 52372 16.17. : 1 6/31/79 10646 Ordinance l2369 19.04 low' S%31�9 10#67 dfOr�f r�rx�s /2350 - .- 13.27 � :13663 , I 5/31/79 10468 Olds r, viLt , TOTAL. $ " 1190.No. AYoUNT Rao.No AMOUNT .r[o.No. AMOUIIT 1 ! ! i DEPARTIAE tn• COPY '.J 6 1 1-c t Na 17 U M O ^ 44.O Q`v r ?b il 24 ...� Oar•R•gwI•t • MATERIAL.. PAOmlsdbr Alicia H. Mrj&orth, Gity cigrk Approval REQUISITION ao, +e„ w Contacts r V�HASI� For additional information calf . _ Phone Phone 5226 M1_. DATE ,V�tl2 1� - VENOM• IA.• E gait Or&MM Pablfsaflg w09 H D I3+'t61 f►allt�lry Blvd. _`."...""_.....,.` " G�ettdM..6�xint,..l1. fill; 0 f.O.r.0��1aad�n t#MW"WAVAiN Wn"M 1140 Ha•VV80W A Add: 3Mny: i15/79 lOr5J8 •'hit � CC�434'� ' ' : ;'10T.ai 61111" 10"1 HMrf 79.5 '.15.7►0 6/11/79 1" 8&dget Hurfng 13.27 6/20179 I I�A Ordf lrAwe 2375 12.57 6/20179 10?'10 Ordfera 2374 12.51 6/25/79 10717 /1481 . ... 100.8I1 . 6/25/79 101"9O #kifc Huring - 79-3 11.83 6126179 I OW2 Eiit cc-x* b.GG423 WSW. 6129179 10803 Ordf name I2385 17,2 6/29/79 1OW4 Ordfnum #2384 14.70 6/29/79 Ims Ordfnance #2383 15.09 6/28/79 10803 Orifnance #2381 75.79 61n179 10Of11 Ordinance #2382 15.79 6129179 1Ow M dinance #2380 73.27 6129179 IN" Ordf r» No. 2379 12.57 6129179 16810 Ordfnano f2378 14.35 6/29/79 10812 Ordfnaacs f2376 13.65 6129179 10811 Ordfnaram #2377 16.17 6129179 10813 Ordinsim /2362 14.70 6129179 IM14 Gesolution $4764 56.00 TOTALS 513'45 1 RtO NO. AMOUNT RJR*.NO. AMOUNT "go No, AMOUNT � 1 = i i i 1 r i DEPhMENT CoPY i r . • ���x�7+� I p[tAgiMLNi USL ' I C A"'P B 1 i cc 1rO 11 14 AA L r ��� �r IA Q n v r ?r. 1Q Rn ty 1M 14 2s a..n.W. w ti+wlrv.p►►PMr. , MATERIAL ER� �L Flowaud by 61104 t- i■ te h- CI AX Cl� Approval REWISITI v� 0ni APprod by Co�,c,cted pU,,,, For Witional inlarn-mion call ��..� Phone �(� phorm fags ._. 4 PATE _ }itit 3. VENDOR to a 1w1 11 4- O . CA- by C / in 1.0 6.owtpftSt t� O irt.•mpoy i Add: Term: L T M1101t3r LIES t�i'TI011 IU�T . 7/9/79 1flC11 f�fi�'- 7 6+ai.TO 7/9/79 low ot& - OW 7/9J» 10930 a �. Mrwt1> l cf�':.VS, :. t�.�.. 7/9/79 t098�r HiC �� 44.W f 7/i9iT3 i6t195 Ruclution 4776 F3.88 ; 7/24/79 10112 Adwtfon of Swlgtt 5.39 MOM 10136 Public Hearing - 010119 14.35 7/30/79 10137 Pub1fc Hearing - 79/45 6 7P-17 16.17 fs f s TOTAL S 387.22 "to NO. AMOUNT NOD NO. AMOUrlt Ago NO AMOUNT T oE.PAf TF ENT covy M r U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON.D.C. 20590 ;d . r 2 8 JUL 1979 . 9N REPLY 11trER TO; Ms. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 +y thintington Beach, California 92648 Dear b1s. Wentworth: Y � 'This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 5 to Secretary i of Transportation Brock Adams which transmitted a resolution for Zurther appropriation of Safer Off-System Roads program fiords, We ,•?� appreciate very much your interest in this program. cerely yours, ` James L. Foley, Jr. ' Director, Office of Highway Safety a` •. t - 7 i } 1 i jt i i t� r,r i . I I i I I 1 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION A. Submitted b) _Michael Zambory D"rtrrent Public Works Data Prepared June 12 19?9 Backup McWial Attsdwd rl Yw No Resolution Supporting Safer Off-System Roads Project and Requesting Allocation of Funds i City Administrator's Comment Approve as recommended Statement of!seta,Recommendation,Analyse,Funding Source,Alternative Actio= +��rl�IrrrrA -, i 4r�rrrr�..�.r...n.rrrrrr� .��.+• ��r�a�.orrr�rrr+rir u, Statement"of-Issue: Congress Eas not appropriated the full amount authorized for the Safer Off-System Roads Program. Recomn+endatian Isdopt reso utioa supporting Safer Off-System Roads Program, and requesting Congress to appropriate in full the authorized funds for the 1978 and 1979 Fiscal Years. Analysis: >x�s for use by Orange County cities in the amount of $987,000 were allocated by the Board of Supervisors, but only $105,000 has been obligated. The remaining $782,000 cannot be obligated unless Congress appropriates additional funds for the program, i Alternative Action- 1 Do not a apt reso ution. Funding Source: Dane required. f MZ:BHG:jy , !I �i �I 'I r10 snag OAise of Mu dMr4 to •, City of Hu tow Beach _.. .: tra.sxacss�► wno�rws� The Honorable Jamie L. Whitten, Chairman i House Appropriations Comitt•e Washington, O.C. 20.610 >4 . J may.q.wrya/,V. r.�.r.r�.•rw .. , - aCity of Huntington fcrlch MA UK sso ctirr+o+t�►ss�s 1 l ,. , The Honorable Senator Alai Cranston Unites States Senate Senate Office Building Washington, O.C. 20510 a =a of coy CLk i City of Huntington Budi ow I '. �0 raanxsasa Cu ►W" q. The President is The White Huase Washington, O.C. 205M 's r,A r �i - r ` 1) t.: r. s a 71 7yb,:r�.'saeN!.}., wa,;.1 :l.r:)'-'.,_.... ., ... ..s . .•k l:,:r+•+ 'f:a+�+.+M.wn+c.... ..... ... r�„' own d do Clip 014of Hllatlll�, .1 Jkidi ' RP VAL003MtateeADlrlrtwi+s ��, r r; The Honorable ban Lungren The Pouse of Representatives 1313 Lonparth Hasse Office Builaing Mashington, D.C. 20515 • h . i1Ma�of dN Cft CIAaCAch • City of H,untuip, The Honorable Brock ms Secretary of Transportation 400 — 7th Streeet@ S.W. r1� Nashin9Lon, D.C. 20590 _ i 0730011LICRICkA �y c1ty of Huntington Bach Cy • aa:ux 190 �1 eson, Chair"n ,• � - G. pa9n .; The Honorable Marren Senate Appropriations Cara'ittee S 1235 Sentoate Building Washing r • 1IM;Or . I r • ,j, cow of l4 Gvr cc�, City of.Huritiagi�?Duch f r.a�wc�w CAUNWO" The'Hworable Senator S. I. Hayakwa United States Senate Senate Office Building Washington, O.C. 20510 .t . . Y.. r, 4 j f.....�r,w,.•.�.�...._._r.._-._._._ .w..wr...r.w+.+.+rrsr.w.rrvAr�rJ�rq-+.»r+..+.r---+•----�w..w.w.rr.w.r..w�+..ww.++.....+-..•.�.-......� .. 1 lie City of Hun: tirigton Beg ch P.O. wax ttD CALIFORNIA sit OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 5, 1979 ihie Honorable Alan.Cranston United States Senate:s , Sena te'Office Building Washington, O.C. 20510 Dear Sena'tor: . i The City Cai�ncil; of: the City:of Punt ington'Beach' at its reg�ilar meeting held July 2,,.1979 adopted• Resolution 11o. 4770 supporting the Safer Off-System Roads -program and requesting Congress to appropriate the remaining funds authorized for the 1978 fiscal year and appropriate the full authorization for the 1979 fiscal year. We have enclosed a certified copy of Resolutfon 1(o. 4470 for your information. Sincerely, t Alicia M. Wentworth r City Clerk AMN:cd ' Enclosure F�. I '^'+'�-r..M«vw.v.ww.�vr+.+�+.+.�..�...+-+ti+�,r..w..a:%rr a ,.2:.......vww.�"'^'. __. .._...•�....��..... -.--.�.rr.w.w.w.��rr.....�+ti�rr.wY�► . i + I I a - ` Senate Bill Na 406 ' CHAMM 423 An act to amend Section 1773.2 of the Labor Code, relating to public works wages: IAIrMoved by G~r Aupw 21.1977 Fjkcd with semb"dstate August s7.1M.) { I.ECISLAMVE ODUNMIS DICEST i SB 4K Zenovich. Public works:prevawing wage rates. Existing law requires the Director Pf.Indtutrial Relations to deter- mine the general prevailing wage rate of per diem wages In localities ti in this state In accordance with designated standards.It also piinWta the body awarding any conti t for public work,in lieu of specifying the rate ofper diem wages for each type of worker in the call for bids, { 1 the bid specifications, and the contract, to Instead refer to copies 1 thereof on file at its principal ofCiec.In such event the awarding body f is required to annually publish in a newspaper of general circtilation ' 1 its determination of the prevailing rate of wages,and to post a copy 1 ateach•fobsite. M • . This bill would insteadpermit tbe*award:ng body,in such call for bids, bid specifuatkms,and contract, to include a statement that { copies'of the,p:evailing rate of per diem wages are on file at its i y principal oiT-ece and would require the awarding body to post it copy of the determination of the director of the prevailing rate of wages ` at each,job site.The bill would conform the bill to existing law by deleting the requirement that the awarding body publish its deter- mination of the prevailing rate of wages. + t ?he people of the State of Califormfa do*enact as follo w.r " j Sg ITON 1.Section In 2�of the Labor Code is amended to:raid: 17732. The body 'awarding.any•contract for public work, or otherwise undertaking any public work;shall specify in the call for bids for the contract,sinnd in the bid specifications and in the contract itself, what the general rate of per diem wages Is for each craft, classification or type of workman needed to execute the contract: In lieu of specifying the rate of wages in tha call for bids,and in ; the bid specifications and in the contract itself,the awarding body ` tasty,in such call for bids,hid specifications,and contract,include a t' t statement that copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are ott file at its principal office, which shall be made available to any Interested party on request. The awarding body shall also cause a copy of the determination of the director of the prevailing rate of per diem wages to be posted at each,fob site. . o 1 2 4M as 41 t ri 4r pe V . ti.,M#e COW M. "mrourvTo" suAcii bow INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 4j I N To 11.B. Hartge From: Donald W. Kiser Subject Work Orders Date : February 23, 1979 I will appreciate your. communication to all Department Heads, either by separate memorandum or by transmittal of a copy of this memorandum, of information regirding personnel and work orders. The Corporation Yard had a personnel complement of 183 in March of 1978. We were allocated to have 155 in the 1978 -1979 Budget, :however only 129 are presently aboard. This shortage of 54 is 30% of the former complement which obviously forces a review of goals and objectives, and for the establishment of operational policies outlined below. Compounding the shortages are the backlog of 83 outstanding work orders, 22 for carpenters, 16 for. painters, 18 for electricians, 23 for the body shop, and 2 miscellaneous. The following shall be the polle,• , f the various divisions operating from the Corporation Yard, unless directed otherwise. 1. Maintenance Administration :rile assign a 'priority to all workorders,, bt:.sed as follows: a. (H)-- High Priority shall be assigned only to emergency type work which is deemed necessary for the safety of persons, buildings, or equipment. b. (S)-Scheduled Priority-shall be assigned by chronological receipt of work orders for work affecting a Departmental operation. c. (L)- Low Priority shall be assigned by chronological receipt of work orders for cosmetic or nice to have .items of work which would -not affect a Department's operation if they were not done at all. 2. Department Heads are hereby notified that commencing March 1,1979, only emergency work orders will be placed in the work load due to the fact the outstanding orders will keep the forces busy until July 1st. '��+yp�/wkIK7GiIf7ti3N%J.1/wyJ+ta.i+�•V•'X.'ac l.. ...+w..aw.iwatl4Y�'..:...:..: �'rilr:ff.:.A3Rd+r.•n.iYN/iNl+-+.(.'j+./3:N+teA'Ll'7.4•iM4•iiT: {iL+�•Y.�h . ' Y t ' r ..r.. 3. Department Heads are hereby notified that in thalr preparations of 1979-1980 budgets to carefully analyze the I I , size of plLnned projects, and to budget enough monies for , :outside contracts Sorg all large fobs. These are not definable A *. dollars but rather by the type of work and time involvement for maintenance personnel. For examples: work orders for masonry or plumbing aro a workload for single positions and those for vehicle body sl:up are a workload for .only` two positions. Should t' a-De rtment 'Head'need assistance in decidin . whether a work order '_ would be considered large, then they shoul``d c11 and briefly describe ' the-planned 'project and I or one of the Supervisors will advise them. , 4. Department Heads are hereby notified that the basic goal . �• of the maintenance divisions is to preserve and maintain the present valuable inventories of 'pubiic ,facilities, and the' f the divisions are to res and to' all emer encies •and objectives• o 8 P- to establish scheduled preventative maintenance of the facilities, within personnel, limitations,which, will approach as high a percentage of the goal as , is possible. Work Orders shall be ds secondary to scheduled work,, except for emergencies. {' 5. The above policy is NET an invitation for other Departments to perform, work which requires journeymen craft personnel; ie. �y if our maintenance personnel cannot accept the work load of-a , 'Ir particular"wp.rk order then it should be contracted, out. I trust you agree with the,above and will establish this memorandum as an approved Department Policy. i•Y DWK: Approved: Date: �3 w .J ►. . H.E. Hartge Director of Public Works '1A�'Af�y'4iC.�iJe4"JiL"/. ia.i:.uLrs:.7.laecw sr+w....�r.+..w..wrrMrwWi.trszs..+a�++via IiJweQW r .. r "; A ' REQUEST FOR• CITY COUNCIL ACTION .ji ; Submitted b Fi. E. Hart-ge Pubx•ic� Works y Department _._ ..� gate Prepared Jan. 5 , i9 79 Backup Material Attacised Yes LJ No Subject Construction of Miscellaneous Public Works Improvements at Various Locations Within the City; CC-412 City Administrator's Comments A rove as recommended. �'� '�' '1`s��'/Z PP .L�� eq iv C.l 0 ■■r rrr r...■i nrr■..wir i ..■rr m i r. i i �� Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Soures,Alternative Actions: .■■ ir+r�+wa■� rrrrrr.�■.r r.urrr■r.r� r��rrr.rr�� Statement'of Issue: Results of bids obtained for the construction .of miscellaneous public"*works '6.. improvements at various locations within the City as previously authorized by City Council. Recommended Actions ; Reject all bids and authorize the City staff to include this work in 'other.. upcoming public works projects. Analysis: Bids were received on Jan. 3, 1979 for the construction-oUmisceiiane.ous. public .works improvements at various locations with the City. The bids are ' listed below in order of dollar amount: 1. Silveri and Ruiz Construction Co. 7$253',666.75 2. Cat-'Ex Paving $275,509.00 3. Richard Gosselin Co. $288,405.00 4. Sully-Miller Construction Co. $36241870.00 The City's estimate for this work was $260,00.00. This 'project had been advertised for bids previously; however, the bids were rejected because the low bidder, Silveri and Ruiz Construction "Co. had claimed that an error had been made in their bid preparation. �s The City Attorney has stated that ,the California -Government Code 'Prohibibi the City's consideration of a contractor's suhseguent bid- on a. project when fit' the..contaractor has claimed a mistake in bid preparation for an earlier bid on the same project. Because of this, the City cannot now consider the low bid of Silveri and Ruiz Construction Company. .Rather than award the contract to the second low bidder, Cal-Ex Paving, at an additional cost of $21,842.25, it* is recommended that all bids be again rejected. The work to be done as a part of 'this contract will then 'be P10 3"S WV ,�j�f:J.}��+"n4r"■•lww.►rwrw.•+r-.... ....� ...,........ay.....w.rs..o.,...n. ,_,,. ...:r....K.'e.i++a :w.+liF'3tiiYrwa•:.::ii..it.1f i 6J.rL..M'tsaA:ti+syY W,L. 4 r + t ✓t �I»")iA ct 3yy 6l =• y%;t.a :, j ,:' r. �rP«K.'4#al, ..�yt(•,•r Y .`k, t� ;L r: `M'! l i�f.' t? .t'f i�rrk' f r. . .rtt. . •',. .`.'.'#J F ..f�i�'�, e . ",:". Y'{f.YS"i . �.'('"!j"t�w71.'ir„ML.it`t Z"r.M-1Ci.titZK� r 'Requests for council Action Januai.;y 5,' 1979 "F ' 'Page `2 combined with,other upcoming projects and since the scope of-.work�.would ff,; ' be: changed,, the gotential of not being able to award to the low bidder' `. will be eliminated. r Aitern fives: 1'. . •:Award :to -the second low bidder, Cal-En Paving, at an additional cost of $21,842.25. >> 2. Award; to'Silve' ri & Ruiz- Construction Co:; however, Cal-Ex Paving has , threatened to sue the City if this is done. Funding Source: ' If thli project is awarded to Cal-Ex Paving the funding. breakdown would, be.. as follows: ;.City 'Gas Tax Fund $247,909:00 Private Funds/HB'Union Nigh school District 24;000.00 City Contingency Fund }- ' (CATV, installation as previously authorized 37600 by City Council) 00 <` Total Bid $275,509,00 • '' HEH:RLL:jy Ili' -:--...—.t.».,..Y...s.....awrw----"---•,,..........-.--....., >t..+-----^--^•"<+.ws •,,.er r:.>,..+rw.rn�+crrt III •, . ' .. . J c+ } ell %'` ti U�l CITY OF .:, qy H'Ui TING TON BEACH •• WIMCZ COUNTY CAUFORMA • yL f. . •�`•••rr.•wr+s.F K•/j ni.:.•.%r•rkwtMwl+i+•+a:.+.w.wl+Y+aeKr.ww+w+++.rweMYaiikitluiw.� • ` _ ` - ` � , •t � � •' .may': BID SUMMAIIY SHEET DATE- Jan. 31 1979 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: JOB AND CC NUMBER; IJiscellaneous Street Projects; CC--412 BIDDERS NAME TOTAL BID AMOUNT ;r All American Asphalt Cal -Ex Paving Co. David B. Coon CraneVeyorr Corp. T. J. Crosby . DAmon Const. Co. • � Dyno Construction i' Richard. J. Gosselin Griffith Co. • Iienson Const. Inc. Hydro Conduit Corp. J. F. Shea Redhill Const. Co. Inc. Rodriguez Const. Co. Silveri & Ruiz �J3, G tkfo. 15 Sully Miller 3�� 870• co 1 A• . rr• Aas�/'S3:�trfY+�f.r.way+........+�.•�»+...�+.•r+�.w,4:ycxa..:+wsYlw3}.sc+ '+.wra�^K•.++*faf 'W�.L�vAf+RsN.�""!*; III; t l•. .. .. +: 'r .UNA NUNTINOTCH BEACII►CALIF. IO 61 AN '79 .. r• '. is '+ .. ••�' '. r t ' I 1 )' LY j BEST PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION POSSIBLE TRUE TO { EANDfR: ow AG . OF ORIGINAL � DOCUMENTS 'd or or 00F, r. t p" �o ;oorol 000, OOF 4 1 Y j ALLIED MICROGRAPHICS• 13766 ALTON PARKWAY,SUITE 143•IR V!NE. C?►. 92718 , i 1 � •� v, ► r I 1 1 I 1 y� r 4 1 1 • 1 t , • tm nm Superior Court OP nm ,. STATE Of GAD!OHNIA is and for tho County ai drmige PROOF OF PUBLICATION ._»»:.......�..............w......,..»........,._...,.•,.»..._.......�....�...._...._.» ••t�bt�ts•inv�l�ir�t•�i�l�.t�l...���2 ........ State d�aufornta Coeantr r M }a• , , That I am and at all tuna heroin maWoned was a dUm d tht Dotted M+des,arar tt�a ale of twcatyt"nt yeah,and that I a:n o9t a i� "'"k � 5 w fi . patty b.oar'b�tet eskd W the abovs retitled taatter;that I am the <`u''� , pctadpN clerk of the printer d the # 4 ..ituntlfl:ten.3J�ttt:ft..tnt2eaRndettt.:?�vie"�r.. t' � re,�pig: a mwor.WT d gtrwO ckmtstioa,publishtd in the City of ... 1' ..................................i111ltttN1 Ilt •c�•�; �1oe�s t�= + i3 i.rttiw=��'• rl Cauwty of Orasp and wWch new"per is paWi"for lot dW "almatlon d local am act intcul=eowt a a prntral dwactcr. and ut"aewsptper at all times knis maatlowd bad mad null boa a bow►taw b rn��d payed x bear.aad wfikl, ; :,a •a,�, w N,>s,• r, �iaWe raid$]ewer d "t at regular W Y y Oro"for a period cu'lu ing ww race$tree$Uw nwlwe,of•hkh the annexed is a priatod copy"bps +� ��• rrk.a«r..tiw: dy F Rwa p+rbiWW to the rersar rnd entire leave at gaud nernpepes, mad net In any mVVLnnrnt tWiW.on On foltmiq darts+,to*ut: a►'r ,y mit .....Dcc4mber•9r•19'Tit................................. ss C s> ;jc f,l•t � �tt��,41 �x:�� .....,...1....................................................... A go .................v......,.....................................•. t for deetart l Undov Penalty d that the kreens is true mad cow:t r z' Garden Grove Dated at ....................................................... , California,this.,Utb.day cf...ftC! Mr..T6,. .....tlt�•Rine•J,.••Rith4tr•...................... St�usua FU.:4.4i{.•wr;!�".acriii.�3..:,...''ll.aa'.t a.tir.r....,.,....,•.• .... ..v.._.... ... .... rt AS( �".A � � �y�.- �yt•. .'L� � � H _..� t -� f r NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS 'I CC -412 Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California will receive sealed bids for construc- tion of highway improvements and storm .drain facilities on the following streets :in ,thea.city of Huntington Beach, California:",.F Goldenwest-eStreatr:., Wairner',Ave. to 630' feet:."sou`ths Warner Avenue: 0 eet'..;west 'to eet=:east= o Go enwest:..St. ;,�Warner*Avenue't'at green 'xtee.:Lanet :Pa moa e.) treat: 7 eet,asout o . arner: venue; Got hard Street:.:� n er �Avc. to 360. feet-�south;.-..Got ar ;St: 7406 feet -northto.. eet northo ...E s Avenue Graham tree nn ear Avenue to Cross.Dr ve in accordance w1th t e p ins an-a specifications and special prov, s ons on file in the office of the Director of Public Works. Documents will be available on Dec. 11, 1978. A charge of $15.00, not refundable, will be required for each set of specifica- tions-and accompanying drawings. Prior plan holders for this project will be provided sets at no cost. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOMIS ESTIMATE Work Item Quantity, 1. Clearing and grubbing Lump Sum 2. Roadway excavation 4230 C.Y. 3. P.C:C. curb and gutter (Type A-»3.) 2105 .L.F. 4. P.C.C. curb and gutter !Type B-2) 395 L.R. 5. P.C.C. curb and gutter (T%,pe B--2 Mod.) 575 L.F. 6. P.C.C. sidewalk 33600 S.F. 7. P.C.C. commercial driveway 1600 S.F. 8. Asphalt concrete 1120 Tons 9. Aggregate rock base 5500 Tons. 10. Catch basin '(modified, one grate) l Ea. 11. Catch basin (modified, two Irate) 1 Ea. 12. Outlet basin '(one grate) 1 Ea. 13. 18" R.C.P. (15006) with coi !rate hackfill 136 L.F. 14. 6.1' ,.A.C.pipe (Class .II) 70 h.r. 15. Storm drain junction strucl -re 1 Ea. 16. Standard catch=basin 2 Ea. 17. 241' R:C.p. (1250D) 14 L.F. 18. 18" R.C.P. _(2000D) 36. L.F. 19. Construction tree well and pi.ant tree 2 Ea. 20. Highway signing and striping Lump Sum 21. 2" P.U.C. cable television c- nduit and appurtenances Lump Sum 22. Deleted 23. Fire hydrant assembly 1 Ea.: .14. 1 1/2" Water service 2 Ea. 25. Soil impurt 170 C.Y. In accordance with the provisions c►f Section 1773 of the Labor Cnde, the State of California, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations shall determine the general prevailing rate of wages, appli- cable to the work to be done; copies of the latest general wage rate determinations are an file at the office of tli-? City Clerk and the office of the Director of Public Woks of the -ity of Huntington Beach, California. .e •�Y ■7 J Notice Inviting Sealed Bids CC-412 Page 2 } . t Plans and specifications, together with proposal form, may be obtained at the office' of the Director of Public Works, City Ball, Huntington Beach, California. No bid will be received unless it is. madP .oh° a blank form furn- ished 'by the Director of Public Works. The special attention `of prospective bidders is called tc she proposal requirements, set forth in the specifications, for full directions as to the bidding. The foregoing quantities are approximate only,•.being• given. as. a bass for the comparison of bide, and.'the city of Huntington_,_Beach does not express or by implications agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith bur reserves the right to increase or . decrease the maount of any class or portion 'of the work, as may be deemed necessary or expedient by the Director of Public Works. r., All bids will be compared on the basis of the Director of Public ' . Works estimate of the quantitiee of work to be done. No bid will be accepted from a contr'actor..who; is not licensed in accordance faith the law, under,the provisions -of Chapter. 791, : :a Statutes of 1929, ;as amended,. or .Chapter 17, Sta'tutes'of .1939, as amended, or to. whom a proposal form has not been issued by the city of Huntington Beach. '• Each bid. shall be made..out on' a form--.,to, be obtained at'.,the office of the Director .of. Publ`ic..Works, ;Development.Winq, 2000. Mai`ti Street, Huntington=.Beach,, Califo,rria'j shall :be sealed and, filed with the City. Clerk at the Civic .Center,-,.-Second`: Floor,Anministratio* Build-• _t s ing,,, 2000 Main Street, Huntington'Heacti, :California;, on or,.before 10:00 A'_ t_M of Januair": 3;r.'1979,' and-shall be `opened: by a coininitree. composed,,of the City Clerk, the City; Attorney,,' and the Director of . Public Works or their .authorized representative and .the..riiiults. of ` said. biddind will be. reported' to the City Council of said'City of. Huntington Beach at their regular` meeting.'to. be held on .Monday, the 15th of January, 1979, at the -hour of 7:30 :P.M. in the City' Council r` Chambers in the Civic Center of said city of, Huntington Beach and shall be acted upon by said City Council at the regular meeting of January 15, 1979. Tho 'city of Huntington Beach, California reserves`the' right to reject ::..�. or all bids, and to accept the bid deemed for the best t, interest of the city of Huntington Beach, California. !-�' By order of the City Council of .the city of Nuntf.ngton Beach, ' California, this 4th of December, 1978. ATTEST: 1: Alicia Wentworth s ' City Cler'k__.�..' •4 4'.' j r ` ` f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Al , Suba fitted b- H. E. HartgeP4e//1 Public Works Department ._ Cate'°repared November 22, ,1978 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject Construction of Miscellaneous Public Works Improvements at �• Various Locations Within the City; CC-412 — 472 City Administrator's Comments 1� ? Approve as recommuded. c Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative'Actionsc 6,�.• '' .Statement of'`lssue: Silveri '& Ruiz,'- the low bidder on this project, has requested at their . j bid not be considered because an error in the amount of $37,0 has been ma „pre (7Re commendation: ject all bids and authorize the readvertisement of bids. Analysis: ,. Hids weer"e- received on November 91 1978;;lor,;the-, construction of.•Miscellin- eons •Public .Works. Improvements at Various Locations within the City. The.. r, bids are listed below in order of dollar amount: 1. Silveri ,& Riiiz Const. Co. $2151544.0,75. •' 2. Cal-Ex'•Pavi;,g Co. $2691375 60 3. 'T..;J. .Crosby ,Co. , Inc. $272,520:00. 4. Richard 'J. Gosselin $286,755000 5. Damon .Const. Co. $2301,4ll.00 6. Dully-Miller Const. Co. $362,,870.00 The City's estimate for this work was $255,000. Several_ days'!after ,the- opening of the,_bidd, Silveri .& Ruiz, the low, bidder requested that their bid not be considered because an error in the. amount of $37,000 had been 'made in the prepn ration 'of their bids. The,City .Attorney had ,advised that under, the cir*cumety' ces, the best course of action would be to reject all bids and •readvertiset. Alternatives: The City Attorney had advised that two other alternatives are available: 1. Award the contract to Silveri & Ruiz, however, 'H l;:: Government Code makes provisions for Silveri G Ruiz to sue the city to recover for Plo 3lTB �• 5r;J4Ji3 .+Ly i::Xln'+.w..-•.....:.+r•....+y'...:t,,,j:r�,•.;.:.e.t.ra:-.e.-.-......+...w....xwua;b.axa:ail. tM.u:J,ieJrN•��w'w+•r'Jw;'::..76i' %YRYt,,• y..r�r1•� .`.L�::e+3liiiw:..r.h.n•,.:.w.r., ..u..cx • ` Request for Council Action November 22, 1978 Page 2 loses due 4o the errur'•in bid preparation. 2. 'Award to the .second low bidder, however, this would result in a higher cost for the project.- Funding Source: There are no funds involved in the recommended action. HEfi:RLL:lw r i` i. .q.sr.a+....•.rrr....,......•—____.__......__^'�.rw.....................,...,,,.,.w.:v;v.s-'ti. ..a,,...He,......�.,......._r.... . .—•--,`-..:.m'� i 10 1 5 i HUNTINGTON "BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA • ar r*0 . is _ - _ _ i ••.+waaWrr•-»--"w•+••wurJi:+a.:X yn...w... ..syb7`.': • Pull r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACSJQN Submitted b H. E. Hartge Department Public Works Y Date Prepared October 10 � 1g 7a Backup Material Attached © Yes r' No Subject Call for Bids for Public Improvements at Various Locations within the City; Miscellaneous Improvements, CC 412-472 City Administrator's Comm Arr�oY �'By ot'rY c �9/, Approve as recommended, CITY~ C pF•7p,{��,,;Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: . nY Y W Y Ii71Y.. Statement'of Issue Prior..Ccunci :�approval. to advertise for'.bids for public improvements at five locations within,' the City has. been received. Subsequent to this approval three. additioral' and:; 'similar projects are desired. Recommended' Action: Reaffirm prior actions to call for bids for public improvements on Warner Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Graham Street and Gothard Street. 2. Approve plans and specifications for additional improvements on 'Got:hard .,: Street and Palmdale .Street. Authorize call for bids of the eight projects; CC--412. AnalYsi.sri. �t On„Sept. 151 1977 the City Council- authorized the call' for bids for five public. improvements -projects within the City. Due` tro. project;modification's and a delay in the relocation of Edison Co. facili' ties the call for bids was postponed. Subsequent -to thlis approval three similar type projects are desired., The projects .have.been combined in one contract to realize an advantage ' in' unit price costs experienced in a larger project. Projects' description locations and estimated costs are listed below. 1. Warner Avenue between 30t01.-.' west' of Goldenwest Street and 11001t east.,of Goldenwest Street. Reconstruction and widening of 'street at Ocean View; High School and the northwest "corner of the intersection $11001000 Project modified to exclude traffic signal works. 2. Goldenwest Street between Warner Ave. and 6001± south. Widening of street . at Ocean View High School. $301000 3. Warner Avciue atIGreentree Lane. Construct drainage -by-pass for Greentree Lane. $20,000 4. 'Grahan Street between Edinger Ave. and 10001± north. Street widening. at Marina Park. $55,000 No We n i j�g6b,.li+w...w-.—+-.�...w.�.+...+.....�....,,.......«.,..... .. ... „ ,a ... -_ ......4-)+..a...q-.• .+�..v.rl.:'4)a..a a... w,+.1.tl.:X. �Y .GdY..ta ua . ..i...,. ,, ., ,..•,,..r.. - �t :-.t4rJN+ u,Z?u3 1tf.7M.�7 t DID SUMMARY SHEET DATE; November 9, 1978 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: $255,000 JOB AND CC NUMBER: Misc. Street Projects; CC-412 BIDDERS. NAME TOTAL BID AMOUNT All American Asphalt Cal-Ex Paving Co. `Z o4 David B. Coon Crane veyor Corp. T. J. .Crosby, Co. , Inc. w2 T Damon Const. Co.' .g 5� Dino Const. '�tichard J. Gosselin Ay -Griffith Co. Henson 'Const. , Inc. J. F. Shea ' Silveri & Ruiz_ Const. Co. Sully Miller J :k"du`i.y:l,:i0i�:..a:....w.r.,.......-----...._... _._...._.._. ..... .+v__+.a...._,,.:.., . -... ....._.._. ._. ..___._... __. ....rr.s.......,.....-..+..r..,r...y,..y,��, ti '. • oats REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION! • H E. Hartge %%�is� Public Works Submitted by Department Date Prepared November 9, , 19_g Backup Material Attached 9 Yes No Subject Construction of Miscellaneous Public Works improvements at Various Locations Within the City; CC-412 & 472 City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. L Ltxc! �oZ% .¢ O Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: 'r'�r '�•+� rr�. i rr rrr r�� rr.�wwA Statement' 76£ Issue: Results 'of bids7'6btained. for the construction of miscellaneous public works improvements at various locations within the city as previously authorized by the City Council. I(e00mmen"dation: Accept the low' bid and award the contract .to bilver' i & Ruiz' 'Construction company in the amount of .$215,544.75 and reject all other bids. Analysis: At the•'October 16, .1978 ,Council meeting, authorization .was given f6',adver .tise. for:bid' for .ihe construction of miscellaneous, public works improve- ment's• at various-locations within the City. Bids were: received on Nov ember 9, 1978 and are 'liuted below in order of dollar amount: 1. Silveri Ruiz Const. Co. 2. Cal-Ex Paving Co. $269,37500 3. T...jr. Cresby,.,,Co. , Inc. $2,72.0 510' 00 4. Richard J. Gosselin $286.755.00 5. Damon Const.. '.Co. $299.411'.55 6. Sully-Miller Cont. Co. ;362.870.00 The City's, estimate for this work was $255,000.00. i Funding Source: 1. Approxiimtely. $26,000 will be Zontribute' d by the Huntington Beach Union ' High School District and the remainder will be aid from the Cit 's P Y Gas Tax Fund. HEH:RRL:lw t Pln 3178 ' r. •� f � j i i L 5 { ,'1� .}l h,+,�.,t w� �/2t•�'i c t L.. ',vt r L �,R4(�•ur r [� Y�..♦ 3 1 !(r{: �.. � �'� � ,.hd,�•x 7 '° d� �: i � }• � f r r. }:•,� r t i- �T- y•1�� :'r�, ? �t r } ;�5�tl* rt I1; 1 '* r AS.1`•tn.�• � („ 'Y�` rl •.fir .�..�, ,d�Y�-e . � � '� � x i.Yf � � ca�l�li �j ,nf.0.t ,�s�. �hr.r .�,�fdv 1...a�ta.+ {; ,�;�, r �•A r nJ��kt1: � ..f'. r (.,,.,. r «rJ s '�1, .y ! +i'+' f r iy. 6 �� i �f R. a•i!v. .�{fd'f � � 'r., '4" �[ � A• ����#. : f��}yy};�s r � A' ,���' ar}.1�"`�� 7 ��:�rv� �p�l�A'i� � {f yf�F �.LS;�Y�' •� dr�� e � rl.i' � ��d�+�r �{. Ir 5 r T � �.^r-;�i fiht ,r f. � 'ir7. � Sr ut'� N,J} ;r��,` �'���r�. �q: .er ♦ r� ;`� +,r�'�yf�jt''z p r,,d!'�.I��`Ftx�� f.t, � '��'�� � �y�� d/`�rt ¢el.k�' +,�`�,�, i I''j5 ri �/.tI�r5 ir'r +v�:�. r�I*I, x"f/r --ft�N r�jlj�"�,f' y.��Sr� �'t';�p'rZ ��'r.`i� �� fr}1� �. 1�3"� js K}`r+��• Y t�,h�'i.J� �(, F`fr{r.', '�;,���• ��t� t�5 s��''^�fM`+ ,►r}�t I,p r,�Sr Gr�,+r Y' ',�,/�!r�"';R����r��[�,!�to�y.�+tMr: �"�� �r,a ,� r"d� 'l� �� �r�'�r� y�$�'.Ph9�� r�i r,� �'�` '4`��'�i' �`; �,);(�.� ��r1 �� l� t�����j�' ��.�y,�i/i�+� �,rj�"�;'� ,(�sS� �ttr:{'�,�,'��y j ��y`���Y��r�"�ijf. ►�� x 1�� �fr +�. �4 5'� %i1(��;��7rJ�'{y�'�v{fyp�.r�r�G� ����'� rf r�i��;.{S[�5�. ,'�.+•L11K,:':��i.t�:1:'Sr1I,'��ifj�n.�if' �u�'/l r-Ki%:.�Ta�f�"I+ r>�.t��9�JtPIT.�r..,"/!�''7��Q��. � y�aE.'J•t�4'f.'.'A►� f' ..:? �sl !'d,k�r5"ii{rp^rI-+Z. fi,'.firy �,O�fit� 4 1 1 BEACHgo STON ORANOE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1 r DEPr.OF: PuaL_ID WORKS r CITV OF aea.6r� TIFIG'�'ON 8��,�e-s JAN 0 91979 .J INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HL'NTI GTON 5E401 Hurmtvcirc,N BEAct1. Cqur To H. E. HARTGE From JAMES GEORGES Director of Public Works Deputy city Attorney Subject CASH CONTRACT 4123 Date January 4 , 1979 REBID BY .LOWEST BIDDER, ' • MISTAKE . i This is in response 'to your memos addressed to .the City- Attorney dated'December 5 ,19?8 and January 3, 1979. This memo confirms the memorandum opinion transmitted. to you' dated November 20, 1978. Silveri & Ruiz shall be prohibited from participating',in 'further bidding .on the project, according to Government Code Section 4205. We are aware that it will .cost- the city an .additional $21,842.25 .to have the subject public project performed. It is unfortunate that .Section 4205 is included' in the Government Code. There are no annotations to Government Code Section 4205, which provides : "A. bidder who claims, a ,mistake or who forfeits, his bid security shall be •prohibited from ,participating in , further bidding on the project on which the mis- take was claimed or security forfeited. " There is 'no Government Code section or other code section which counteracts Government Code Section 11205., , I•;und.erit'and;�that . you; view Silveri, &. Ruiz' . mistake:'as a cl.erical'.error.,. and, not an: error in judgment; however, .i:hey are., pena]azedJrom..further bidding on the "project. We also understand. that .•Silveri & Ruiz. i, have submitted a low- bid on the: readvertisement, for bids. on' this . project. 'Silveri & Ruiz' bid should not be cofisidered because of Section 4205. It .seems' that' the .policy behind -the law of Section 4205is -to discourage contractors from claiming a mistake after the bids. �f are opened. It is in the form of a penalty. If it were other- ,wise, after the bids were opened and If the next lowest bid- were much higher than•,the lowest bid, then contractors in 'general would not be restrained from claiming a mistake in their bids. t I received a telephone call, from the attorney who represents I' California Paving,, and he threatens a lawsuit against ,the city ' if Silveri is awarded the contract. His lawsuit would be, based upon the prohibitions given in Government Code Section 4205. The alternatives are: 1. . Award contract to Silveri & Ruiz and risk a lawsuit from California Paving. i` r l , i' Page Two 2. Award contract to. California Paving, which will cost . $22,000 more than Silveri & Ruiz. 3. Reject all bids; 'modify the project by changing the existing project . together..with deletions and/or add-ons, then readvertise for-.bid. irvitations. In this manner,. Government Code Section 4205 will no longer apply, .and Silveri's bid can be considered. I understand that in the second notice for bids in this pro- Ject; the specifications were changed insignificantly -- not enough to classify it as a different project and to be able to consider Silveri's rebid. JAMES GEORGES JG s s • . ., APPROVED: GAIL HUTTOII City Attorney I . .•—^ •___...... ..,..-.c t.µcti.:.,n:a.1r.....�»� ...._......_._.. •+w.arresR:7vawa _r, r f �• CCPT.OF PUBLIC WORKS , INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION JAN 0 9 1979 nvnz:kCf0N IIACH HUM"1401 N ©XACF{.CALIP. To H. E. HARTGE From JAMES GEORGES Director of Public Works Deputy City Attorney Subject CASH CONTRACT 412, Date January 4, • 1979 REBID BY LOWEST BIDDER, MISTAKE This is in .response to your memos addressed to the City Attorney dated December 5, ,1978, and January 3, 1979. This memo confirms the memorandum opinion transmitted to you dated November 20, 1978. Silveri & Ruiz shall be prohibited from participating in further bidding on the project, according to Government; Code Section 4205. We are aware that it will cost the city an .additional_$21,842.'25 to have the sub'ject public, project. performed.. it is unfortunate that. Section 4205 is included, in the Government Code. There are no annotations to Government Code Section 4205, which .provides: "A' bidiler, who •claims a'mistake or who forfeits' bis bid .seaurity, shall be prohibited from participating in further bidding on the .project on which• the mis- take was claimed or security forfeited. " There is;,no Government Code section or other code section-which '1 codAte'racts Government, ,Code Section 4205::. ;:1 ,uhderstdnd ,,tfi t 4' t you view. Sil,veri•,& Ruiz,' .mistake as a, clergy^cal; larror, and :not an. error. in judgment; however, they are..penalized from;.2'urther . bidding on 'the-pro, cot. We also understand that: Silveri. & Ruiz r4 have submitted a low bid on the readvertisement: for bids. �on this, project. ` Silveri. & Ruiz' bid should not be considered because of 'Section. 4205. It see s t at•:.t a policy behind the • law of Section"420 is �to. m h h y 5 p disco rracontactors• from claiming mistake after the' 'bids If it were.'other- are opeiied. It is- in the form of a penalty. . , • t b _ o opened d. if the ext loves id wise after the bad's were en an n p w,re much lii her than the lowest bid then. contractorF ,in ; eneral B P would i istake in heir bids:t not be restrained from claiming a m I received a telephone' call from the attorney who re>>pre..sdnts California Paving, and he threatens a '.lawsuit against the .city if Silveri is awarded the contract. His lawsuit would be based upon the prohibitions given in Government Code Section 4205.. The alternatives are: I. Award contract to Silveri & Ruiz and risk a lawsuit from California Paving. /, �,�•;f�����i�'4':.+.:WSr'+..."'A'r.""""'..«...« ...,...v.-.._... ........�..........-ww.ww.I•.ti.1r rr•.•n.wn. ..�. ....._... .....--.....�....�._..--..�.wr�.M•.YY/Fs,t+s Page Two 2. Award contract to California Paving, which will cost $22,000 more than Silveri & Ruiz. f 3. Reject All bids; modify the project by changing, the existing project together with deletions and/or add-ons, then ' readvertise forbid invitations. In this manner, Government Code Section 4205 will no longer apply, and Silveri's bid can be considered. I understand that in the second notice for bids .in this pro ject, ,the specifications were changed insignificantly -- not. enough to classify it as a different project and to be able .. to consider Silveri's rebid. JAMES dEORGE5 JG:ps APPROVED: GAIL HUTTON City Attorney vJ . ,{T"'"M+'�.J��ji�,�EHSiii+Y'o1A n+wr.rn.w,+-..�..•....�._..........��.. ._.._..._..._.. .�..� .s..w,....w .�...._ ... ..»..� -._,�.. ►.wwwsw�wlu.a.arw+ww...+,swNwrr.r� .i " 0 r .�� City of Huntington Bey.'ch i P.O. Cox In CALIFORNIA 2ZW OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 15, 1977 J. a. Crosby Co, Inc. 840 W, Grove P. O. Box 6589 _ orange, California Dear Mr. Crosby: (and Thb City Council of the City.of Huntington Beach at its ad meeting hold Holiday, November 14, 1977 rejected all,bids for.Proj4Z1.,.,crinstruction of. tho Senior's Recreation Center Parking LoecreatiPacilities Construction Project located at 17th and Orange.City Council,�also approved the Director of Public Work'snda ontrat the architect be directed to 1:6dify the iproject so ton- ctrnctior. cost will be more in line with the project budget. We aro returning your bid bond and wish to thank you for your interest in the project. If further information is desired regarding the proposed project, please contact the Department of Public Works it 536-5431. sincerely yours, j Alicia M, Wentworth CAty clerk !: AMWsbt y. �I I , .' _rrai��a�1iA ?' ® �f �Iu �i t m Beach J.� 01 ' City P.O. sox 190 CALIFORNIA SWU OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i j aoveaber 15, 1977 Ryco Construction,. Inc. 2003 S. Averill A`•enue San Fedro, California 90731 Dear Bir: Tha City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its adjourned meeting held Monday, .November 14, 1977 rejected all bids.for Project"CC-421, . , construction of the Senior's _:ecreation Center Parking Wt and Recreation Pacilities Construction Project located at 17th and Orange Avenue.. The city Council also approved the Director of Public Work's recommendation that the architect be directed to modify the project so that the con•- struction cost will be more in line with the project budget. We are returning your bid bond and Irish to thank. you for your interest in the project. if further information is desiro.i regarding the proposed project, please contact the Department of Public Works at 536-5431. incerely.yours, aAli'ciat Wentworth City Clerk WIW:bt �. , 1 r - a� City ��f llnnti tort Bead P.O. PP sox Igo CALuroRM1A um OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 15, 1977 Barbara Campbell La Palos Equipment Rental Corp. P. O. Box 741 Yorba Linda, California 92666 Dear Hs. Cttss:pb•alls Thd.CLty Council of the City of Huntington Beach at lis adjourned meeting hold Monday, November, 14, 1977rejected all bids .for Project CC-421?1 j construction of 'the Senior's Recreation Center Parking Lot and Recreation racilities'Construction Projoct locatad at 17th and Orange Avenue. The City,Council also npprover? the Director of Public Work's recommendation that the architect be directed to modify the project,so that tho con- strtiction cost will be more in line with the project budget. We are returning your hid bond and wi6h to thank you'for your interest 'in -theproject. if further information is desired re arding the groposed project, please contact the Department of Public Works at 536-5431. . Sincerely.y s. Alicia H. Wentworth City Clerk AW LL 4 T+u..w.+.'.�'_ .----.�.�._.... .....-�._.r-... ...:.. 'r...-.....-_....--....:ar..,. ... ............�....-..,�_...-.....,.........�.�..........�.�.+..w.r.<.tsSY::+R't»:4+�7.w/.sseYcv4�!LI.�c Yicrr+aw 1 1; REQUrT. FOR Ci1y CQUNCI TION ' Submitted by H. Es . Hart e 9 �' Department 'Public Works Date prepared July 26 978 Backup lvlatarial Attached. Yes No Suhlect Plan Checking Pees City Administratu,'s Comments pN �K Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Aftcrnative Actions: Statement of` Iisue: The current plan checking fee is not sufficient to cover.the cost. of Providing "this service. Recommended:Actioni Adopt:the attached resolution establishing a new fee schedule for clieckih' street" improvement: plans. Analysis: The;;Public Works.:Lepartmentnow ohaiges a fee. of. $30.00 per sheet for checking street�improvemencs•plans for improveinents: to be constructed:. ,. in .the -public right ,of way. The current fee :was established by resolution of the City.. Council in December 1976. Since then, . the costs of plan checking have„increased due to labor, .materials-,. and overhead. - ; These• costs `during FY 1977-78 were approximately' $40.�00 'per sheet, thert,fore,, the new,rate should be $40.00 per sheet which is a 33% increase. Fun din Source: There 'is no expenditures of funds involved in the recommended action.• HEH:MZ:jWW:lw Attach. . t I: NO Ulu i ��►..�....•.--_._•_.._........`._....__._......�.�._.T..�..._.._....-. ,_ ... ..y:......... ,,......r......_. w....-.-+.r....._ .. w.u.w!L+an'iift:i�.u'.iX Jfi..•ri+.M.�•}l-ll+i,.,;'p'i,.', S: E T FOR Cif Y COUNCIL ACTION REQU DOPUM It 1a is Warks submitted by Date Prepared duly 27. 197F3 Backup MmLnial Attai led Yes No Subject " Enaineerin iiid• Inspection reds City Administrator's Commentslo - r'uve as recommended. ` D D commeridat Statemc:n:of Issue, {�e ion, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Aotic�ns: ' smerit of Issue: in " acid inspection fees are not sufficient to ''cover The present engineer g these services. the total CO stS o providing "-t;;sj.^.ti.�^(ICJ' — • .. • Recommenaed.`Action.• increased engineering and I the attached or establishing inspection fees. insp� on AlialYsis: s..: the'. purpose ose -- services. is Woiks .Department is authorifearoviding�engineering .t.e p The publ the City gor the; cost O p of„reimbursing the City Council 3n Marsh 197 . these services has increased due tcosts . The. current fee schedule was- adopted the by estimated develop since then thelcossu pliesoandlpVerhead. - The are as fellows: labor, materials P to the public Works Department far FY 197fo Vela I. nt Costs and Revenue to Cit for ire • Dev. Related Costs pro ram $` 20r500.00 Administrative 7.8,200.00. Engineering Services 141400,0'.00 5ur��eying 150;5,00, 0 0 Constructioll Inspection 46500.00 Traffic ngineering 3 0,1.0�O:�D E Total Dev. Costs, Estimated Revenue to City $197,000.00 from Fees at Current Raise 1110 :Ins 4 Request for 6 nc.:il Action Engineering and Inapection Feos Page 2 Estimated Revenue to City from 'Fees at Proposed Rate $2501'000.00 These figures show that the Public Works Uepartiuent incurs more expenses 'than 'are offset by revenues. ' In.;addition to these 'engineering, and, inspection fees, the Public Works nepaitment_ 'colZectes.;fees for the installation of pavement on local.. streets. The costs of_ pavitig streets is estimated by 4his .d+epa�tment and is paid. by the applicant befoxe: the woxk' of paving .is commenced•. The existing fees. which ,weie established in' Mirch 1974 are no. longer suffi ' lent to cover the total. expense for labor, matezial and 'cverheac�. ;r The current deficit is being charged to the street mainte,iancP section. Funding'Souxce: There is no expenditures of funds involved in the recommended. act ian.. HEH:MZ:JWW:Iw t, Y, 4 ' S . ,,.`. ...www�./'.�.VGA..r:'6:WJ-•.'M..f.("./T..I.JMfi11\11L::i'i iir..is.w.lMww.•.+w. ...... �.+r�..r��. ���.w+w/NIY.iMMtfMMflf'M+Y•�.�.�.�". X• r REQUEST' FOR CIT Y COUNCIL. ACTION Sulimitted by H F._ u, r _ Department _ _Fuulic Works Date Prepared July Z7; , 19 78 Backup Matutial Atlachux.1 UX Yes No Suhl�;ct Engineering and Inspection Fads w • rt:ity Administrator's Comments6-11 ,1f 4 Approve as recommended. 6m w Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Sourco,Alternative Actions: St:atement'.of .Issue: The present engineering and inspection fees are not sufficient to cover the -total casts of providing these hervices. r V Recommended Actions X Adopt the, att;ached ordinance establishing increased engineering and inspection fees. . Analysis: . The Public'Works , Department is authorized to collect, fees for the purpose of 'reimbursing the City' for the cost of providing engineering. services. The. current fee schedule wary adopted by the City Council in'.March 1974. Since then the 'cost of protriding these services. has increaser due to labor, material, sapplies and overhead. The estimated development costs to the Public works Department for FY 1970--79 are as follows: Coats and Revenue to City for Development Program Dev. Related Costs Administrative; $ 20150000 Engineering Services 78,200.00 Surveying. 141400.'00 , Construction Inspection 150,500.00 Traffic Engineering 46,500.00 Total Dev. Costs , 0 Estimated Revenue to City from Fees at Current Rate $197;000.00 s• No ins ,f y .. ,�. . < .. 4... ,, ,.. ..:c.•...t. .. .. ...i....... ..1,t7•,:. :iT`i . ,'F,.�...',!r'� "'l'Jh��ifl'M• .L��y�jt\71y�'::.:.r.M1ry:/1•!S: .... .. . .. . . . . .. . ^trr. t t Ib F. rr . Request for COuncil, ACtiun Engineering and I spo-otion Fees �. • Pagz Z ;t Estimated Revenue to city tram Fees at Proposed Rate $250,000.00 There figures show that. t3ie Publ"ic ii Works Departsrnmt in more 'expenses t2:an are offset by revenues. `Ind adi�itfon; tio.i. hesa'.en i g niiirlho and,,_,--opection 'feee, the Publi'c''Works { txepartment colieatr�s `fees "for.the .installation -of pavement.au Iocal ;{ . atrae4:s. The' costs,of. pav$ng• etregts.-is estimated.:by this departn'nt tird ,xs 'paid by' the 401icarit before; .the work, of. paiiing is commenced.. k"', The- exzsting fees .whic;i srer+e i�stablished isi March 19 74 "ar - Ei"c a no .lbn e iant' ta. Cover the i.otal expense for la*aor, material and o4eghead. ThFi' current db ficit is being 'charged to the street tnttfntenance section. Funding Sources _. There is no expgnclitures of funds involved in the recoimrAi ded acticin. E� 1 REH i tdZ JWW:Its Nwl .._._.............. .. ... ...._.................,...•......, ....... ............. .. ...... ..._...r........r» rY,,T/ka," IZ,J}/.�.`1r:'+w w'�skY�l)� s r' Thanlan i.cc Churl 8192 Ef ill1wad rir.1, ��untin�tun Denr411 ra. 926r16 June 129 1978 To: City of IluntinL:ton ,Beach Councilpercon,e v Re: Wee do and mainteiiainco around Variner' s Cove Dever, Enc:Photographs, Sides A & $ April 6; 197a I contacted the Cl.ty Council secretary, Iva, about the conditioria at' the harinerts Cove' planter areas. Slie, informed me that she would contact the appzo- priat.e people concerned: April 19, 1978 x talked with Walt Lippos who said that lie had been notified and he would bend a letter"'to narinerIn Cove requesting. they remove; weeds and riainttain the area as thw:lfad agreed with the u3 ty. May 8,. 1978,I .talked with 14r. Li.pps. };e said he tivciuZd 't make a 'field inspection. May 27,,. 1978 Mir. Lipps couldn't: getrin in t;aei•�s Cove lletreloper�ent. Iie wrote another letter. ; June 7, 1978. Mrs Lipp:`informed me' that he, had -received--' , no response fro:r, �-:arinarfn Cove from any correspondence. 'I have unclosed pictures -of, the. :tarinerfsa 'Cove -planters. The City of Iiuntintton Beach doeb `the maintenance .on three. ' ` } (3) sides. Pik fiqi Ia.CovQ is stiewsed to do the ihtenan_ce Mr, Lipps informed Me. ren_uont ttiat the planter area I not being.mai'ntainad; `~ kte weeded and landscaped by Rari�nerl s Cove. . I talked. with Mr. Lippo June 7,. 1978 and asked tiiic ..to provide 'the City Council with copies of his co'rrespundance with Msarincrls Cove and any information he thoue'ht might be heluful In the Council i s Invest-leation. r Sincerely, 4 t',a � ,1w�.'r..•... .w....w...+-r....+.r►r+sr�MtN.7.!»au.yY.+..rv..ar.lv.•e++ti,SSA.f:'.:.;i/bRwl4.rw.vr«+...-._-_.�.-�.....-+��...�.... wed 1 REQUEtiT FOR CITY COUNCIL yACTION Submitted b 01. E. Hartge � %� Public Works Y Department Date Prepared y 23 , 19 78 Rack-up Material Attached Yes No of • Subject Con! uter Model of City Water System n�3 r k ' City Administeitor's Comments DEFERRED Ap prove asrecommended. � BY COUNCIL To : ` Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: tf ' Statement -of Issue: 'At 'a:-previous meeting; the 'City. Council authorized the purchasing' officer to- obtain proposals from' private,cohsultants for, the.computer model•;of tre r: City water system as previously authorized by the City"Council'B r, .the , preparation of a .computer:model of the City's• water' system. The proposals have been received and analyzed. Recommended Action i Accept, the proposal from Engineering--Science, Inc. to'.complete the•'study a for:•a lump, sum of $26,950 and authorize the P ation of a professional. service agreement. Analysis: The original estimate;,of cost for the study as previously stated, to the City, Coun it was $35,000. The proposals received are as"f'ollows: 1. Engineering-Science, Inc. $26,956 (lump• sum) 2. James H. Montgomery, Inc. $31,000 Jestimate) 3. CH2M Hill Engineers $34,500 (estimate) - i The proposals we're reviewed by the Data Processing Department and by. the Planning Department as well as by the Public Works Department. Haled 'on •, these. reviews it is recr.mmended that Engineering-Science be awarded this project. Fundinq Source: Funds in .the amount of $35,000 were budgeted for this study in ,FY 77-78, Water Account No. 920-992. L HEH:EAE:jy PIO 3178 • y, '^.. '.•* •��L.::i?GY:x.L.ti'.va•+.wr..»..,n..ti..x+.t....t.i.r-t.i.:a..w:r..A...r . ,-..._.......`... .�., w•...w+... 1 s TO:',.- Iionorablo' 14ayor. and City.. Council., ATT27s ..Floyd .C. Aelsito, City Administrator 1 j FROM: Ii. E. liaitge, Director of Public works DATE 'December 5, 1977 SUBJECT: Computer Model of City Water 'System STATEMENT.'.OP PROBLEI4s The water 6&Eircea of the City include wells, integrated with purch;i86d 11q water stored in ground-;level reservoirs.;, Annual .powey costs are approxi-- mately $218-,000 , to cperate . the well.s . and boos ter: pumps, to,,meet the daily water depends by., pumping.water.into' the .distributionsystem. The numerous sources. 6f supply along with their scattered locations make it difficult to regulite flows and provide uniform pressures within the, system. Under j certain demand conditions, water.,may be pumped back. and forth between storage reservoirs,, thereby needlessly•wasting energy. in,. addition; there are numerous. dead-end water mains in the system and several, areds :*ith known,defi.cia'nt fire flown. Capital improvements- to I eliminates theib` deficiencies cannot be planned until a .master 'w,mter 'plan has"been completed. RLCOLOIEI106' ACTION s:- Au4. 3or ze t e.,purchasing officer to aliLei» proposals from professional on j gineering consultants for the ,preparation of a _computer model. of aux ;cater 1 system along with a comprehensive system analysis. AP,IALYSIS The project .would 'consist'of the compilation 'of water, system,demands 'and physical data frrr programming, the computer network model., comprehansive. system analysis:�and identification of deficiencies. It is intended to meet: the following objectives: t (1) 'To determine the most optimum operation of reservoir booster stations in.order to reduce energy costs. } (2) Prioritise system deficiencies and develop a capital improvement ' program. (3) Selection of size and class of pipe for new inntallations. (4) Computer analysis of pressures and fire flows in system.undeyr conditib when specific water sources are not operable 'or not .available.,_ . (5) Determine the parameters for automatic control of. supply. facilities. (6) Cost estimatba of determined improvements and their � piorities. The 'data processing steering committee has evaluated the project and recomitended that .thee computer model be prepared by an independent con-sultant. This approval was subject to the consultant_ providing a software package op.rational on the City's B 2771 computer. ALTERNATIVES: Contir:ue to operate systom in present inanner making capital improvements . V' without the benefit of a comprehensive master plan and Expending enargy for pumps and boosters in excess of actual need. A rwi6,ltlr SOURCE-, The F.Y. 77-78 budget includes $35,000 in account 920992 for the water system anal.ysis. 1if'��t'j: ✓{ :.a.r{,..r....... a...r...r awe.l'.ry,..r•nr .. ... >t.. , ,i'J%i f r�.�.L j�Ii.I.l.;r st•4 L►••C1LIf ti REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL' ' ACTION 78 - 12 Submitted by Floyd G*. Belsito Department Administration Date Prepared June 8 , 19 78 Backup Material Attached Yes No Subject _-_CITy ALLF SWEEPING City Administrator's Comments Please approve' as recommended. n lr i Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At ,the June S,` 1978, Council meeting, the City Council votad to defer consid- eration of alley sweeping until after the results of the June 6, 1978, election.were known. ItECOMMENDED ACTION: Do not begin a new program of alley sweeping in the city. ANALYSIS: . f The passage of Proposition '13 willrequire reductions in most service levels { .'In� the --city :due to. decreased revenues. At a time when we are facing cut- backs ,throughout the city, it. would seem inadvisable to initiate this new program. A memo from, the Department of Public Works is attached which €I indicates that in 'order to undertake alley sweeping -the current. street . f: sweeping•"budget would have to be .increased by $26,000, or the street sweeping schedule for a portion of the city would have to be rescheduled from every second week to every third week. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Council may choose to initiate this new program through providing additional 1 funds, or by providing reduced levels of street sweeping. FUNDING SOURCE: No funds are needed if. Council chooses not to implement a new program. if Council desires to implement the program, it could be includedin the new budget for the fiscal year 1978-79. FB:JC: ik ' Plo We i i ! ...Y."'�::.P'+iw Yi+wW.'ir�w.a.�r.r�....wvr..r .....••ayv.r....w.+... ....1 rn.y.•... ............ ...�..-..... .�._ � . 5..(`yywfw •.a}_..lr:s...v++...n ...r .... ...�•.w.nlfVrft.4a.`.MMMw.....r.r+�wrrnw►i'. • a i L)J Nma. n a 16 CITY OF51UNTING :AC1� MAY 2 6 197� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CRY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . humn+GM"W' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE A TO Bud Selsito From H. E. Hartge Subject Feasibility Report on Alley Date May 24, 197E . Sweeping Recently the City Council requested the Public Works Department, to investigate the feasibility of sweeping all of the alleys existing in the City. The subject of alley swe©ping. has been considered a number of times over the 'years. Thd 'following are 'some of the reasons-we have, not swept alleys in the past and why they are presently not being swept: 10 Some of the alleys in,our. City,:.and-,especially-those doiihtoym- are only .'' 15 feet wide These' 'narrow-alleys usually. have ,delivery:..or service trucks on thciu, throughout .the day. ,:A street sweeper enter- ibg* such"an alley"'cannot'pass a parked. vehicle. This results in the sweeper operator having to back his sweeper.:"out, of, the, ailey. ' Backing up,a street. sweeper is a dangerous practice becatiae of.' the lack of sight clearance.* it has caused property 'damage accidents l upon occasion. 2. • Some alleys in'our,City are 'either.-,dead end with a so-called. °haa=er head" or they -form right angle."turns. Either.of the".con- ditions would force 'the "sweeper operator to have to backup his. sweeper 2 or more 'times :in order to, continue his run. These back- up maneuvers are hazardous to both 'pedestrians and property., ., 3. The constructed cross section o£. many, of our alleys, is such 'that. the drag shdee, on the. 'sweeper are 'damaged wheri the aweeper maneuvers across the 'alley gutter centerline while 'going .around refuse cans and power poles usually found within the 'alley right of way. 4. When trash "exists in the 'alley, it is- normally. found along the edge of:the alley tray. Because of trash barrels. and power poles, it is difficult and occasionally impossible for a sweeper to clean up such 'debris. This lends itself -to unfair complaints about the service of the sweeper operator. 5. Historically, the Police Department has now been able to enforce alley parking. If alley sweeping is to be 'c•onsidered,. the Polio. Department Would have 'to actively enforce alley parking on a regular basis.- 6. if alley steeping is to take place, some 'areas of th.e City which presently enjoy' a two-week street sweeping schedule would have to be placed on a three-;week 'street sweeping schedule. ...�.. •i, ...alrs.J... .»«...a-r. .a.e.<.....,........ .. ....._....,.. ..,.t:r.-... .... ..,..._. ............-_...-.........,.-.t.,,,, ,.................... ........e.,u.., ......:iL-.+w*w+r.+.w.� r Memo to Bud 'Belsito May 24, 1978 Page 2 7. We..have considered the use. of the smaller "Tennant" sweeper norm- ally used -for large industrial buildings or for parking lots. Such,a sweeper could maneuver within the narrow alley-,.ways; however, the pay load capacity of the small .,sweepers is ouch that it would require frequent diunping which in turn would necessitate. a quick follow-up by a pick--up truck or dump truck. s. Because of the above. and other considerations, we feel it 'inad- visable for the City to attempt to sweep alleys at this time. If. despite these reasons the decision is made that the alleys are to be swept, we offer the following alternatives: (1) There are approximately thirty sweeping miles of alley-..within the. City. 'This equates to a' nor►nal .ona-day operation for a sweeper. oper«tor. if no increase in personnel or equipment is permitted, then a portion of the City presently enjoying street sweeping every second week will have to be rescheduled `to every third week. (2) . On the other hand, if we are to retain all present.-street sweeping schedulcs within- the City and are to add alley.. sweeping on. a bi-weekly basin, w? wi1T need one additional street •sweeper, operator. .;..We. will also have to incre.ase .the street sweeping. operations. accouist twenty percent. The total. annual cost of this additional labor and :material is-estimated at $26,000. Although not all of -the $26,000 annual iincre could be attributed 'to-bi-weekly alley sweeping, the total expenditure would have to be made in order to accomplinh the ;fcrk. This repast does not relate at all to the Jarvis-Gann: Initiative. Should Jarvis pass this entire matter would require a re-evaluation. Zw � r chael Zambcvfyr Acting Dix ct of P [forks HEH:MZilw 1 ----��.w.......r. ..w�...._ _. ..... ...... ...,.....,.. .. .._ _.. .........r- .._......�,_._ -.. ... ....... .. .. _...... y ...... .....�o.f•'l.a lt::`�.ti�f::.:CiNrr,,..t a 6?8 CIS CW �+ wrl"G iP 1 CCl� CA 78'- COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION' F , To Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito City Council Members City Administrator Sut✓ject SHAMEI, ASH FUNDS TRANSFER Date February 24, 1978 On February 21..the" City Council authorized Lhe.,,expenditure of. $1001000 f .from the' contingency account in order to continue the Shamel, Ash tree . program through the remainder. of Fiscal Year 1978. A resolution effecting the transfer is required. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. attached. Respectfully submitted, I(v Floyd Belsito City dministrator FGB:DLC:bb Attachment •�r�ROVpp �y Clr C0U`VCj4 ,Y C�fi r • l FLA, a CITY CW HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 78-24 COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION � HUWnW.1C"ltp" o To Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito ` I City Council Members City Administrator �I �G) Subject SHAMEL ASH FUNDING Data February 15, 1978 In .-the attached .memorandum, Public Works Director .H, E. Hart& requests $100,000 from the contingency account in order .to continue concrete and asphalt repair work necessitated by Shamel Ash tree damage. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. Alternative No. 1, 'temporarily discontinuing the repair program until July 1, 1978, and reassigning concrete - repair crews to tasks for which funding is available. i ANALYSIS: Approval,,of the ;"request would .reduce the.'balance of ahe "contingency account to approximately -$7D,000: as pointed, out in 'the attached •FIR prepared. by Finance Director Ben Arguello. That amount could well be insufficient to cover. other xequired contingency expenses through the end of the fiscal year. Public Works received more` CETA wor.%ers .far the Shamel::Ash,. project than, anticipated,.this 'fiscal year. As..a• result,•.the ! funds. allocated for'FY 1978 have' been expended: sooner::.than '! rr expected.. Trust .funds have been'collected insufficient amounts to- fund".:street improvements in the- Town Lot..area during` the' remainder of the�: fiscal .year. ' Cr ews_.now. assigned to.'the. Shamel Ash•, program could accomplish this work with: ihese: ded.icated ftirids until 'FY 1979 Shamel Ash funds are appropriated. '..:. Respectfully submAtted, -Floyd Belsito j City Administrator FGB:DLC':bb Attachment 'may J�.1Y rr•1.+.....w •.. .. s..... I.e.. .. - .... .. - ...._.... . .. _ .. ..V......................,......+-......� ...........w.....r ..�. .w.i.+.�si++n.+w.M.4/u.l+ r, i .. -. 144 CITY . OF HUNTlNCTON BEACH 1 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNI:ATION FTO ►1Mct tNnv rtAc►i ` To City Administrator From H. E. Haxtge Subject Ash Tree Program Date February 14, 1978 STATEMENT: Funds are needed to continue repairs 'to street damages. caused by the Shamel Ash Tree. RECOMMENDATIONz Allocate $100,000from' Contingency Fund or by budgetadjustment to "con-• .;.'► :time the Ash Tree'Program. .ANALYSIS: . •jig ?' F i j.rry , ,' . :All.-2 700'ash.`trn•; ees: in the- ublic.�rig hts�'of ara have been. re�ioved: Cori �r cre'te:'and;street .re airs have beenv madd,1h 500. locations.. . These.have'" p . . laeen;.:in areas of ,major. amage. The manpower, consists:of,.4'-permanent ;_.;. employees and 12,'C.E.T.A. employees. Fun3ing'of the `program,to 'date of repairing the. streets 1976' 77 Revenue Sharing $122,000 197677.7,'HCD 43,000 t...3 1977�78 Revenue Sharing 218- 000 " • At budget time' it' as pla hea to haves ;,C.e . . Tree . w nn ix E' T A' 's in;the Ash s 'j Program.:-:As it :turned out,, t+re° received. 'twelve C:E.T.A`."s:` `This,.iri! :•crease-1abor,16ice resulted-in ,increased productivity, which in torn. 'resulted''`in increased expenditure for materials`"and supplies. In.addition, ' ,.. .a.used'dump;.truck was purchased.at.;a cost of $13;000. . :For;these .reasons : .. . ttie'$218,000 Ash' Tree.Program budget' for 1977-78_will:be expended: by 7,mid-Febxuary. .'To continue,;the piogram ,as:presently ;set up will-take $25;000, per month -for supplies and materials. !ALTERNATIVES. ' (1) "Cea'se the p'ro_gram nnti.l" the .ehd of the fiscal :year and rey-assigii`'the y. personnel' to other projects. (2) . A1locate� $50;000 `and glow down the repaiir, work. - .The crews would be`; ' split;up. with 'a portion of them making repairs; :in. the 'Townlot area. } using' Trust Account Funds (funds deposited by builders) . E. Hartge Director P lic s SEHcM2:jy. • , -1. cliry OF HtWTINGTON BEAW". FEB 15 1978 t1 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION r...,, �„�„�a„s,� CITY of NUNTHIGTori BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE", To Floyd G. eelsito From F. D. Arguello City' Administrator Director of Finance Subject Financial Impact Report - Date February 14, 1978 'Ash Tree Program In. response.;to a request from:'the Public Works. Department ;to prepare" a Financial . lmpact' Report on the above subject, I am submitting the attached. -.At .the present• time there are funds..availeble in the City's contingency account (101593). which may be used for this project 1f`the City Council so desires. The curl ent,balance In . the eontingency'account would be $69,849.54 (if this request for S1009000:00 is approved). Because'-of the uncertainty resulting,from the Jarvis.lnitiative, I would re'u mend that this project be• considered"for funding I' the ,1978-79 budget. F. B. Director of Finance FBA/EH/cg cc. H. E. .tlartge, Director, Public Works' • ' Yr ' CITY OF WNTINGTON BEACH FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT Projcct Name A� 21i Tree Prr,29xam Description To cocontinue. funding of repairs to street, sidewalk and curb- damage caused by-the Shanxi Ash Trees 1. DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1.1' One-Time Costs Furn., ac -: Acquisition Construction ties, E ui ment Other Total Cost $ 100*000.0 $ 100,000;00 1.2 Recurring Annual 'Costs ., .. ,y d it ionat." Mater ais uts e . Pa r,�l 1 -. . Personnel Supelles Services Revenues T a 1 Cos" 1.3 ReplacenwiURenewal Costs All 'the shamei' ash''treey have been removed from the public.rights of waY and It.Js-a matter of. repairing the street and .concrete in.2;200 toca- tions. When.`this is done, normal maintenance will.'cover the costs. . 2.. "INDIRECT COSTS i None � w i i • E f 1 l .,r..........�.».....,e..w-,.-•.r•..�..- �..»�..."................. .,.,.•.....��..._....... „... - -- .... ..........___�.._..._.-��."...._�-•__...._.....+..«wy.4..re...,w+m.:rw....a..*�..,........—.: Financial Impact Repot `. Page 2 :, s 3. NON-DOLLAR COSTS None 4. BENEFITS TO. BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT Street and concrete damage in areas where the shamel ash.trees were. removed Will be repaired. I I 5. PROJECT USAGE Those tracts that had shamel ash trees in the public rights of way. ■.+....+r.r..r.n r 1 b. EXPENDITURE TIMING —� �i ! ,ro ect is a�..i�rovedt it will be expanded at the rate of $25,000 ii' i.r(.ar .rrrrrrrrrrwiri t .Dar L1 tb Dart Ln'S in March. r 7. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT None --employees can be transferred to other projects and project can be considered for funding in the 1978-79 budget. ..—+,r...-.. ........�._........�._..«..�........�.�._.......�.�. ........-..�. L ..» .. ........ _..-.—�_.. _.+..�..............—r...,.....r........H 4�+'..'.n.(li.t iw{rw...aQi..1r�.2:.��: I - I City of Hu'ntit n .,V {L"rJ ; Q V y P.O. Box 190 CAL1FOFA1A[fflW C� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT J A N 1 i; l 979 CITY OF HUNTINGTON I BEACH To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ADMINISTRATIVE COME ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator " FROM: H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works .04101" J DATE: January 11, 1978 SUBJECT: Citizen Petition for Block Wall and Sidewalk ' STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A •petition, has been, received from the property owners ad a, cent to the west side of Newland St. between-Yorktown Ave. and' Bri7�ggeport, Inane.�., The: petitioners, request-the vacation of an unused" st93.drain easement adjacent to their properties, and the construction of 1100 feet' of sidewalk and 1100 feet of a 6. foot high block wall along Newland`.Street, RECOMMENDED,rACTIONs 1j' ;,' s-recormaeB ed that the ity. Council;authorize the enpenaiture,of $1 00 from; 'Trejs..fun fo the •c `r`u f,. Bid ilk n i $27; from: an ingenc u for ons c e'. oc wa It is als a omm ded at th co• au orize initiation 'of . vacation pro eding t nu dra g Basemen y7 � . -7 ANALYSIS s Some',years ago' the City anticipated the construction of a storm.dr in '� z channal..along:.the *-wAt.-side: of Newland' Street between Yorktown Ave.' 'And ' Bridgeport Lane. Ultimately 'the 'storm drain was constructed as a pipe within Newland St. itself where 'it exists'today. Because the 'land was never used, it ha's. giown .into •an eyesore annoy-fng to the traveling public and to the adjacent property owners alike. j' Recently a• petitf6n was presented to the City by. the property,.owners adjacent, to ttis unused drainage 'eaIsem.ent requesting that the. land be vacated'`in frvor of each of the •abutting property owners and'that a. block wall 'end sidewalk be 'constructed along the 1100 feet of Newland Street frontage. There are existing overhead utilities which presently have easement.... rights over' the land. The utility companies involved have been notified of a potential vacation. They have no objection so long ais theirease- ments remain unaffected. ALTERNATIVES:: 1. Permit land to remain as is - an eyesore but not critical to health or. safety. No costa 2. Construct an 8 feet wide sidewalk adjacent to the existing curb on Newland Street. Vacate the retaining 14 feet of right of way to they adjacent property owners retaining easements for the overhead utilities. This could result in a hodge-podge of individual improvement or lack of improvement by, each landowner unless the City required the property owners to construct a uniform block wall along Newland Street as a 1 condition of the vacation. Cost - $11,000 for sidewalk. :. :r � «t..:.ir.3;>_yr .a• .r.:2t:._ . -..,.. ,. .. ... ... .:..,; .. .. .. ...... .. -: . .. .. ' ..�...•_, '.... ,r .i.�j• p:S�..;..d• ' 1 I A _ t' t" t Honorable Mayor and City Council • January 11, 1978 Page 2 3. Retain the right-of--way. Landscape the area, install a sprinkler system and construct an 8 feet wide nidewalk. Cost - $29,000, Annual maintenance - $1800. 4. Vacate the right-of-way. Construct the 8 feet wide sidewalk.. Form an Assescrient District for the construction of the $281"000 block wall. Coet for sidewalk. - '1141000. 5. If ,it is felt.inadvis`able to use the contingency fund at. this time, this project can be considered for funding during the ' 1978-79 budget hearings. FUNDING SOURCE: Gas Tax Funds $11,000 .for the 8 feet wide sidewalk. , Contingency Funds $27,500 for the block wall. An FIR is attached. HEIi:MZ a jy 'Attach. k . i .�'.oaLL`?i r...»a.y4ietr.c......r... ».» ..r..«..<,...,............_..,. .a,..,. .. _.v.• ........ ...... ...,»......... ..t; +u.... ...w......+..,-.+..,:...a.✓.,en'.'...t.;.:.lt.+�.i4'i:•c�.�ebii.,3i.'i'W*' •Pt a>~Nunn ��1 znlrlrrc' � DM SECTI�N/�l DISTRICT MAP ... rq►[ Cirl,Y OF ■7prt(! Mt !9.MH ..a►..w...r..n1• M/M.•A++.G••r•r•I w C»I to " so to 1/O ArI•w1 N,•.IN.•I•t"..to _ e�.�tu a� ���ua aRaa urtlm j •• ,•wrR u• t•ro-rr Irr, . IITT�TIltirG7. BEACH .,, ,..•h Sel la;{w1 •v...taY.q«••t, ,o+,a s,t ,"1 12 •„o 1: '+'••..•••. ,n•.tf Rf.r.0 RjR 011ANC1: . COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �`:. �;� �_�""" `"""` } 4 wr.r.a w^aar..r rv.ct 1 AM - W,•N MO"ENDED By ZONE-CASE. •wr } O,,N�.Xa•l;.,l��M,iJLs,.r»,,w,Irs.lfyMr,ru.as.�ar•l2,K»•as.u,»•,. r•. n•, yr►.ruK.o F N.•r•w•Q.X•M of" V„ „r• C�ilc■..•r r. a .■rra•«� � .rfa..• a+t I I•r�. GAArCLO JIL RI N' MI-0 Ott 1 RI RI RI t�Rl RI N RI ' {" tI. • i ! - ..RI RI CF- — RI a' RI RI Ci4 ' as G - r - CFE R RI '�. RI -- y. } RI "r { I 1 RIRI Al IC4 RI RI RI ' RI .R ,,. .. :r----�----� —n i RI x� RI. at a• .ir•. i R) u wa: r. RI RI r. f+ R) r RI R1 sww r c too o.,v.rr RI nRI RI : RI►ta. t■ RI Fa 1 Rr, 1 •„• `.r•ar.•trtlrrx.�l i RI ; RI s RI \` arr'"' •j RAW RI. Rl R2 �+ MMf• .� i •.i RIci +a tl1 { T CF-E RI t 1 �lwnrr ' R1 3" a C 2 p I' ' iw'�'•■'f'• ■rtw, RI RI RI RI RI { _ y t •s i�`" RI RI j RI RI z i RI _RI RI r J RI RI 1 ! ' r RI R1 1 RI R1 RI + ! RI V ..wM % rl�■y •• hR.r� � a a•,rns` 1 � '� - ���.w h • _ Ur.�SII�"'+ r • i� : R 1 i ,. RI RI RI RI RI ��C2 c _ slrtat5 AVE.