The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About061693 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM o 43174 Business Park Drive JUNE 16, 1993 - 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 92- Resolution: No. 92- CALL TO ORDER: Mayor J. Sal Mur~oz presiding Flag Salute Councilmember Birdsall ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Parks, Roberrs, Stone, Mu~oz PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 21egendd0612e0 0el114/~3 COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Capital Improvement Workshop RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Conduct a workshop regarding the City's five-year Capital Improvement Plan and provide desired direction to staff to finalize the plan prior to the Public Hearing scheduled June 22, 1993. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: June 22, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California 21e0endNOe 1290 06114/~3 0C) ~ O~ ~0 0~ O~ 0 ~0 ~0 O =Z ~0 O~ l · ::: _== _.= _= = = = = = = =' ~ 0 0 C Z ic~ou govJ,~ ~j.U.nG l ~ Z N 0 I 0 oHo~~s 0 ! i o ~ ! ! '13 :::O 0 0 "I · 0 0 ~ o 0 '0 O' .. t 0 0 C) o 0 0 z~ I I BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 0 ~.. ,.-] 0 0 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 0 OAD ! ! 0 0 O 0 N' . I Z I Z ~111111111~-,~ I 0 0 0 p, > 0 > 0 < 0 :::0 0 i 0 0 '7 I--o ]::,.-~ -t0 Zl'rl O Z 0 i 0 I 0 0 0 Z 0 (--) 0 I"' 0 · I > 0 o ~ ~ q o i ~AD / ! / ;' 0 0 > 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 L'-' ,-] O \ > > 0 Z 0 0 . I 0 0 O< o o 'U o FY94-98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY Transportation Projects A. 33 Total Projects = $83,22zL323 in project costs B. 22 Projects are #1 priority with $50,949,323 in project costs 4 Projects are #2 priority with $13,625,000 in project costs D. 5 Projects are #3 priority with $5,050,000 in project costs E. 2 Projects are'#4 priority with $13,600,000 in project costs II. III. FY93-94 Expenditures = $15,188,500 For Transportation Projects Established rankings within priority Category i using the following. criteria: B. C. D. Congestion relief Public safety Funding certainty Construction readiness - ]. - pwO5\budget\cip\94-98\transp.imp 061593b TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT RANKING PROJECT WITHIN PRIORITY NUMBER I CONSTRUCTION COST DATE FUNDING SOURCE ALT. FUNDING SOURCE Ynez Road Construction *Winchester Interchange *Overland OVercrossing 4. *Rancho Cal. Rd. Interchange 5. Solana Way 6. Pala Road Bridge {3) (2) 7. Rancho Vista Sidewalks (-) 8. Pujol Street (13) 9. Winchester Road Right (-) Turn Lanes 10. Jefferson Avenue Storm (-) Drain 11. Traffic Signal System (12) 12. Liefer Road (7) 13. Nicolas/Walcott (8) 14. John Warnet {9) 15. Traffic Signal Install. (10) 16. I-15 Interchange St. (11 ) 17. Moraga Storm Drain (14) 18. Opticom (15) 19. First St. Bridge (16) 20. 21. 6th Street Parking (17) Margarita Road Sidewalks (-) 22. ° *Felix Valdez Realign (-) *FUTURE BOND SERIES (-) New Project 3,161,843 93-94 CFD88-12 SB300 8,328,350 94-95 *SB300 CFD88-12 14,442,535 93-94 SB300 *CFD88-12 ""' RDA 7,978,700 95-96 *SB300 CFD88-12 1,000,000 93-94 *CFD88-12 7,400,000 95-96 Federal Bridge Funds A.D. 159 Developer Bonds 22,500 93-94 SB821/D.I.F. 100,000 93-94 75,000 93-94 60,000 93-94 537,800 93-94 410,000 93-94 1,700,000 93-94 CDBG Measure A Measure A ISTEA/CMAQ TCSD Measure A 250,000 93-94 TCSD 861,600 93-94 TSM ISTEA/STP 100,000 93-94 ISTEA 200,000 93-94 Measure A 60,000 93-94 TSM 3,000,000 95-96 RDA 917,495 94-95 RDA 31,000 93-94 SB821/D.I.F. 312,500 96-97 (X)Ranking on 4/19/93 Funded D.I.F. A.D. D.I.F. D.I.F. A.D. D.I.F. A.D. CFD A.D. Funded -2- RDA CFD88-12 D.I.F. TSM A.D. A.D. TCSD A.D. TSM ' D.I.F. D.I.F. ISTEA FED. 'BRIDGE FUNDS D.I.F. D.I.F. RDA · *Does not include R/W Acquisition pwO5~budget\cip\94-98\transp.Pt 061593h DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CAPITAL PROJECT CONCEPTUALIZE PROJECT A. Define Limits B. Evaluate Constraints - R/W, Utilities, Drainage, Habitat C. Establish Preliminary Cost Estimate 1. Environmental and R/W 2. Design 3. Construction D. Evaluate and Select Funding Source E. Establish Schedule Based on Funding Source F. Prioritize within Capital ImproVement Program (Annually) 1. Modify Project 2. Delete Project 3. Appropriate/Reserve Funds 4. Modify S, chedule II. REQUEST QUALIFICATIONS FOR DESIGN SERVICES A. Prepare RFQ 1. Develop Scope of Work 2. 'Establish Cost Preliminary Est. B. Review Submittals 1. Interview Top Candidates 2. Negotiate Scope of Work 3. Establish Fee C. Submit to Council for Contract Approval III. DESIGN SERVICES A. Finalize Contract Documents/Open P.O. B. Monitor Progress of Consultant 1. Environmental Compliance 2. R/W Certification; Easements 3. Plan Check 4. Other Agency Permits a. Caltrans b. Fish/Game c. NPDES 5. Utility Coordination - SCE, Gas, GTE, RCWD, EMWD 6. Authorize Progress Billings C. Approve Final Plans, Specifications, and Contract Documents D. Request Council Authorization to Solicit Bids -3- pwO5\cip%devcon.cip 061693a IV. ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT B. C. D. E. F. G. Print Bid Packages Advertise for 30 Days Open Bids Publicly Evaluate Bids and Select Lowest Responsible Bidder Request City Council Award Project Request City Council Award Professional Services Contract for Soils, Survey, Contractor has 15 Days After Notice of Award to Compare and Submit Required Bonds, Insurance Forms, etc. Upon Receipt of Required Forms, Issue Notice to Proceed - Contractor has 10 Days to Start Work Schedule Pre-Construction Meeting CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Administration 1. Progress Billings - Contractor, Soils, Surveying 2. Change Orders 3. Reimbur~;ement Payments - Fed/State Funding 4. Claims/Liens 5. Notice of Completion 6. Bond Release B. Inspection 1. Observe that Construction is in Compliance Specifications 2. Weekly Construction Meetings 3. Progress Billings with Plans and -4- pwOS\cip~devcon,cip 061693a ] MEASURE A (MEAS-A) {] Balance of Available Funds Revenue Available S years $ 620,144 $ 3,570,429 Name of Projects to be Completed Measure A (MEAS-A) Nicolas - Calle Chapos Paving Morga Road Storm Drain Jefferson Avenue Storm Drain Winchester Road/I-15 Right Turn Lane Nicolas Road Improvements W~stern Transporation Coridor TOTAL Year in Progress 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 1996-97 Total Cost of Project 1,700,000 200,000 60,000 75,000 700,000 1,455,573 $ 4,190,573 Total Revenue Available Total Project Costs $ 4,190,573 4,190,573 REVENUE/EXPENDITURE -0- [ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Balance of Available Funds Revenue Available 5 years $12,441,580 $ 5.000,000 List of Projects Committed Name of Project Senior Center Year in Progress In Progress Total Cost of Project $ 558.420 List of Project to be Completed (Excluding Projects in Future Years) Sam Hicks Monument Park Northwest Sports Complex Old Town Parldng - Sixth St. Fire Station East of 1-15 First Street Bridge Realignment Auto Mall Marque Main Street Program Museum Old Town Building Facades Overland Overcrossing Old Town Demonstration Block Old Town Streetscape Felix Valdez Realignment Western Transportation Corridor City Corporate Facilities TOTAL 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 1994-95 1994-95 1996-97 1997-98 1997-98 $ 475,000 C3,750,000) 917,495 700,000 3,000,000 280,000 187,500 500,000 250,000 312,500 1,150,000 2,600,000 $ 18,622,495 Total Revenue Available Total Project Costs $17.441,580 18,622,495 [ CFD 88-12 1] Balance of Available 'Funds Revenue Available 5 years $12,362,313 $16,533,310 List of Projects Committed Name of Project Year in Progress Total Cost of Project Ynez Road Corridor In Progress $ 2,049,811 List of Projects to be Completed Overland Crossing Winchester Road Interchange Rancho California Interchange Solana Way - Ynez to Margarita Pala Road Park Site Margarita Park Site 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 $10,109,160 8,217,850 7,728,700 1,000,000 189,913 1,650,000 TOTAL $28,895,623 Total Revenue Avaihble $28,895,623 Total Project Costs 28,895,623 REVENUE/EXPENDITURE Balance of Available Funds Revenue Available 5 years $1,536,146 $4,721,232 List of Projects Committed Name of Project Year in Progress Total Cost of Project Road Projects to be Completed Traffic Signal Installation (Citywide) Opticon Signalization Margarita Sidewalk Project Rancho Vista Road Sidewalks Interstate 15 Interchange Study Pauba Road Improvements Interstate 15 Interchange Study Margarita Road Improvements Phase 1 (Winchester/Solana) Phase 2 (La Serena/Rancho Cal Rd.) Phase 3 (Pauba/79 South) Ynez Rd. - Rancho California to Santiago Rd. TOTAL D.I.F. EXPENDITURE 1993-94 $ 652,400 1993-94 60,000 1993-94 6,200 1993-94 4,500 1993-94 10,000 1993-94 1,320,000 1993-94 10,000 1993-94 1,200,000 1994-95 1,200,000 1995-96 1,800,000 1995-96 475,000 $6.738.100 Total Revenue Available Total Project Costs REVENUE/EXPENDITURE NOTE: $ 6,257,378 $ 6,738,100 < 480.722 > Revenue components for road projects include road benefit, traffic signal mitigation and services. Balance of Available Funds Revenue Available 5 years $ 726,513 $ 7,697,034 Name of Project Parks & Recreation Facilities Community Recreation Center (CRC) Riverton Park Loma Linda Park SUB-TOTAL Facility Projects to be Completed Fire Station East of 1-15 Park Projects to be Completed Pala Road Park Site Presley Park Parkview Property Sports Park Parking/Skateboarding Margarita Road Park Site Bike Path (Citywide) Construction Multi-Trails System (Citywide) TOTAL D.I.F. EXPENDITURE Year in Progress 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 1996-97 Total Cost of Project $ 909,699 468,750 485.000 $1.863.449 $ 700,000 3,010,000 150,000 1,000,000 1,125,000 3,000,000 375,000 1,000,000 $10.360.000 Total Revenue Available Total Project Costs $ 8,423,547 10,360,000 REVENUE/EXPENDITURE Note: Revenue components Parks/Habitat. for Parks < 1.9~6,453 > and Facilities include Public Facilities and CIP PRIORITY PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES FY PROJECT FUNDING COST 1992-93 1992-93 1992-93 Community Recreation Center Senior Center Loma Linda Park CSD Bonds RDA DIF $5,509,000 882,679 250,000 1993-94 1. 1993-94. 2. 1993-94 3. 1993-94. 4. 1993-94- 5. 1994.-95 6. 1995-96 7. 1996-97 8. 1995-96 9. Pala Road Park Site Riverton Park Sports Park Parking/Skateboard Project Sam Hicks Monument Park Project Presley Park Restroom Northwest Sports Complex (Phase I) City-wide Bike Paths Multi-trails System Margarita Park Site DIF DIF DIF RDA DIF RDA DIF DIF DIF $3,360,000 4.68,000 1,125,000 475,000 150,000 3,600,000 375,000 1,000,000 3,000,000' * * Currently under construction 3i%llatst~orloriW.l~t J CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 14, 1993 City Council/City Manager Harwood T. Edvalson, Assistant City Manager GRAFFITI 8ERrICES BACKGROUND: Graffiti removal is currently handled by contract with LaRue Painting. Complaints are received by the Police Department. Police Department personnel are assigned to "read" the graffiti, and the site is referred to the Public Works Department who in turn contacts the contractor and coordinates removal of the graffiti. Although exceptions have occurred, reported graffiti is generally removed within 48 hours of its report. Under the current contract, more expeditious removal of graffiti is dependent upon contractor availability. The following contract costs were experienced in the previous fiscal year and are also estimated for the current fiscal year as follows: Graffiti Removal Cost-- FY 1991-92 $ 4,625 Graffiti Removal Cost-- FY 1992-93 $37,000 The change in cost equates to a 700% increase in graffiti removal expenditures, and reflects only the contract costs, not the associated staff time. The new contract with its more reliable response time does cost the City more than under the old contract. Expenditures per square foot of removal currently average $1.29, while the old contract averaged $.71. Pros of the Current System. When considering graffiti removal services only, contracting is perhaps the most cost effective method. Although probably considered in the contract price, the contractor retains the costs associated with worker's compensation insurance, and the liability associated with the removal/painting process, which may also ultimately represent a cost savings to the City. Finally, the City may readily dictate the level of service and response it wishes to provide in graffiti removal services through contract provisions. All contract levels are generally cost driven. Cons of the Current System. Response time outside of contracted service levels is sometimes inflexible and/or difficult to arrange, and often precludes immediate response. Performance is a little more difficult to monitor with contracted services. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may choose to proceed with graffiti removal services as currently provided, or consider an alternative method that would bring graffiti removal services in-house. In-house Services. It has been proposed that two contracted services be combined to provide a cost savings in the area of graffiti removal-- specifically street stencilling and graffiti removal. The City will expend the following amounts on these two contracted services during the 1992-93 Fiscal Year: CURRENT FISCAL YEAR BUDGET VS FOUR YEAR AVERAGE FOR IN-HOUSE PROGRAM 1992-93 4 Year Avg. Proposed Cost Striping/Stenciling Contract Graffiti Removal Street Stenciling Street Striping $150,000 $ - 37,000 25,002 - 100,009 - 56.086 TOTALS' $187,000 $181,097 The in-house program proposal provides that two new maintenance employees be hired to handle graffiti removal, street stencilling and other street maintenance responsibilities as assigned. A new service truck would be purchased to carry the various equipment required to abate graffiti and paint street stencils, etc. Although much of the current street painting and stencilling program would be accomplished by City staff, there would be a continuing need to contract for street striping services. The costs associated with the startup of the new program and continued street striping contract are as follows: FIRST YEAR COST AND OPERATIONS FOR IN-HOUSE STREET PAINTING/GRAFFITI PROGRAM Labor Maintenance/Operations Capital Expenditures $ 64,289 89,050 45,000 Total for In-house Program-- $198,339 Anticipated savings during the next four years, which take into account the first year capital outlay for vehicle and equipment, is approximately $23,000 (See attached Exhibit). Pros of an In-house Service. In addition to the anticipated cost savings realized after the first year of operation of an in-house program, there are additional advantages that should be considered: (1) Providing services in-house enhances the manpower available to respond to emergencies and priority services. (2) An in-house service relieves overtime associated with lack of coverage experienced during vacations and sick leaves. Weekend standby requirements would be less burdensome to the existing staff, with flexible staffing an added possibility. (3) In-house staff would allow flexibility .in setting response times to graffiti removal should the Council desire removal in less than 48 hrs. or on weekends. (4) The proposed budget for in-house service includes street painting and stencilling four times per year for increased visibility. The current contract provides for only 2 times per year. Contracted Services in General. General government experience has shown that where a service is well defined and limited in scope a competitive contract approach tends to minimize costs. It is the Staff observation that this principle has not held true in the City's street striping and stencilling contract because Temecula is removed from significant urban centers of ~opulation. Travel time and smaller quantities of work result xn greater contracting prices, with the result that in-house staff may be able to provide the service at a reduced cost and within a shorter time frame. Cons of an In-house Service. Although the program would appear to bring a savings to the City, there are potential costs that are difficult to assess: (1) Because the new positions are labor intensive, there may be an increased exposure to worker's compensation claims. (2) The City would additionally lose the buffer of the contractor's liability insurance as City staff assume some of the previously contracted functions. (3) Although no increase in supervisory staff is proposed, there will be some allocation of management staff time and expense associated with supervision of new positions and services. (4) Should reduced service be desired in the future, it is easier to reduce a contract than to reduce numbers of personnel. 3 PROPOSED BUDGET AND FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR IN-HOUSE STREET STENCILLING/PAINTING AND GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAM (Prepared 6/14/93) FY 1993-94 COST AND OPERATIONS FOR IN-HOUSE STREET PAINTING/GRAFFITI PROGRAM Graffiti Removal and Stencilling Truck Graffiti and Stencil Paints Fuel, Truck Maint., Misc. Supplies i Lead Maintenance Worker(New) i Maintenance Worker(New) Vehicle Depreciation Contract for Street Painting Services $ 45,000 15,000 13,000 34,110 30,179 9,000 52,050 Total for In-House Program-- First Year $198,339 Expenditures over Cost for FY 1992-93 ($11,339) FY 1994-95 COST AND OPERATIONS FOR IN-HOUSE STREET PAINTING/GRAFFITI PROGRAM Graffiti Removal and Stencilling Truck Graffiti and Stencil Paints Fuel, Truck Maint., Misc. Supplies i Lead Maintenance Worker(New) i Maintenance Worker(New) Vehicle Depreciation Annual Contract for Street Painting Services Savings over Cost for FY 1992-93 $23,230 $ 0 15,750 13,650 37,521 33,196 9,000 54,653 $163,770 FY 1995-96 COST AND OPERATIONS FOR IN-HOUSE STREET PAINTING/GRAFFITI PROGRAM Graffiti Removal and Stencilling Truck Graffiti and Stencil Paints Fuel, Truck Maint., Misc. Supplies 1 Lead Maintenance Worker(New) 1 Maintenance Worker(New) Vehicle Depreciation Annual Contract for Street Painting Services Savings over Cost for FY 1992-93 $11,955 $ 0 16,538 14,333 41,273 36,515 9,000 57.386 $175,045 FY 1996-97 COST AND OPERATIONS FOR IN-HOUSE STREET PAINTING/GRAFFITI PROGRAM Graffiti Removal and Stencilling Truck Graffiti and Stencil Paints Fuel, Truck Maint., Misc. Supplies i Lead Maintenance Worker(New) i Maintenance Worker(New) Vehicle Depreciation Annual Contract for Street Painting Services Savings over Cost for FY 1992-93 $( 236) $ 0 17,365 15,050 45,400 40,166 9,000 60.255 $187,236 FINAL ANALYSIS OF MAINTAINING EXISTING CONTRACTS V. IN-HOUSE STREET PAINTING/GRAFFITI PROGRAM 1993-94 Start Up Expenditures over Cost for 92-93 ($ 11,339) 1994-95 In-house Savings over Cost for 1992-93 23,230 1995-96 In-house Savings over Cost for 1992-93 11,955 1996-97 In-house Expenditures over Cost for 1992-93 ( 236) In-house Savings over Base Contract Cost 23,610 Analysis assumes that contracting costs, in-house personnel and materials costs increase 5% per year over the four years analyzed. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA GRAFFITI SERVICES FY 1992-93 Contract Costs Striping/ Stencilling Contract $150,000 Graffiti Removal Contract 37,000 In-house Graffiti Expenses In-house Street Painting Program Continued Street Striping Contract Totals $187,000 Planned Four Year Average Costs for In-house Program $ 25,002 $100,009 $ 56,086 $181,097 PROS Reduced Liability Contracted Levels of Service Fixed Unit Prices CONS Inflexible Response Monitoring of Performance PROS Enhanced Emergency Manpower Staffing Flexibility Flexible Response More Frequent Street Painting Cost Savings CONS Initial First Year Outlay Additional Employees Added potential Liabilities Supervisory Costs Less Flexible Staffing Levels