Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-05; City Council; 3780; Public Works Employment Act of 1976 (PL 94-369)_ CITY OF-CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. --!::F Initial: Dept: Hd. ✓�''� DATE: Oct�n�S,. to7� C: Atty. DEPARTMENT: Engineering C. Mgr. Subject: PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1976 (PL 94-369) Statement of the Matter A recently enacted Federal,Law (PL 94.--369) will provide 70 - 30 -rL llion dollars_.to the San Diego region for -public works con- structibn projects. The puipose' of the bill is to aid those areas of the country that have high unemployment. While the funding for this Act has not been appropriated (funding anticipated in next few weeks or less) the time schedule for commencement of on -site work is severe and is a prime factor when considering which City projects should be submitted as grant applications. The attached memorandum discusses some of the guidelines of the program as well as several potentially eligible City projects. EXHIBIT: 1. Memorandum from City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve specific projects for grant applications for funding from' -the Public Worjs Employment Act of 1976 (PL 94-369). Council action 10-5-76 The City Council approved specific projects for grant applications under the Public Works Employment Act of 1976. MEMORANDUM - October 1,. 1976 T0. City Manager FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: public Works Employment Act of 1976 (PC 94�-369) -;A recently enacted (but as yet unfunded) Federal Law PL 94-369 Eprovides for 1004 grants for public wozks construction projects in high unemployment areas. It is anticipated that Title I grants in excess of 20 million dollars will be available for construction projects in the San Diego Region. Eligible applicants include the State and County, cities. special districts (school, water, sewer) and Indian Tribes. The project ranking system gives some special preference to general purpose local governments. The law is somewhat complex, and implementation by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has all the qualities of an administrative nightmare. The legislation imposes severe time limits, including 60 days for-EDA,to review each project, and 90 days for an approved applicant to have labor on the construction site. The time parameters are of major importance when considering potential projects (i.e., there is -insufficient -time to design projects; and still follow the required contract award procedures). This means that only those projects which could be put out to bid within a few weeks of grant approval should be considered for a grant application. It appears that a low.percentage of applications will be funded. EDA anticipates that the "average'roject will be between $1.5 and $2 million and "hopes -' pthat very few small grant requests --- those under $100',000 --- will be submitted. At a briefing held in San Diego on September 28, 1976, well over 100 representatives from eligible agencies indicated that their respective.agencies would be submitting grant applications. Projects will be ranked with all other projects within California based on the followinq: 4 • V MEMO to City Manager A. "BASIC"CRITERIA 1. 30 points max. 2. 25 points max. * 3. 30 points max. 4. 15 points max, t -100 points max. .,B. "BONUS" CRITERIA * 1. 10 points max. 2. 5 points 3. 5 points l0 points max. -2- October 1, 1976 based on the number of unemployed workers in the project -area based on unemployment rate in the project area based on labor intensity- Crati.o of labor costs to total project costs) based, on ,level of per capita income if project has potential for longterm ber,'&fits ifT'project is sponsored by general purpose local iovernment (city) if project relates to existing approved plans of local community development Nowhere in the criteria do they consider cost of a project, so there is no advantage to be gained by requesting a grant of any certain size. The system encourages local government to "go for broke" in making their grant requests, with the probable result that a s.-Aller number of grants will be approved than Congress or local governments expected. The KEY CRITERIA over which the City will have control in selecting a project for grant application are the Tabor intensity (30 points) and long term benefits (m points) criteria. The following is an excerpt from a guide prepared by the Naticnal League of Cities (9/24/76) which explains these two criteria in better detail: The labor -intensity component is the only faac�tgr in the scoring process that applicants can control. T e lnztial reuulations published by EDA (Aug. would have given a great advantage to light repair and renovation projects because no ceiling was put on the %'e.►uht that would be given to this factor. In response t� pressure from Congress and city officials, EDA changed the regs on Sept. 13 to make it easier for new construction projects_ normA v etween 19 and 32 DFrnpnt i' ntansivej to compete. Now projects that ave labor intensity levels of more than 80 percent or less than 10 percent will be rejected. 4 MEMO to City Manager October 1, 1976 Projects with labor intensities of between 35 percent and 80 per- cent will receive the maximum points (30),, and projects with labor intensities between 10 and 35 percent will receive scores based on their respective percentages. This means, of course, that there is no longer any advantage in applying for projects with labor intensity greater than 35 percent, at which percent the maximum score is already in effect. This conforms to the basic purpose of the program to fund capital -intensive projects. Explanation n of Bonus scoring _E Lana -term benefits. The 10 percent bonus for long-term benefits has produced much discussion among potential applicants aver the question: "What is long-term?" Initially, EDA officials gave the impression that this uonus was a "throwaway" ten points, because most projects could be described as having some long-term benefit. EDA has now clarified the definition of "long-term benefits," and it is clear that every project will not automatically receive this bonus, but that points will be distributed as follows: 1. Ten percent will go to projects (a) to construct new public facilities or (b) to replace or completely renovate old facilities either for a new use or to prevent their being closed with the con- sequent discontinuation of a community service. The "10 perc­ facilities should represent basic community infrastruc ure (e=g., water a d_sewer); an essential community service racxTify'ie•g•, a fire st�tic,� ; or developmAnt facilities (e.g., industrial parks and""access roads) • 2, Five ep rcent will be given to projects which either (a) provide new community amenities such as pa„fK,S, recreation, and cultural fact +P , or istoFic preservation, aI b en�abili; iaty ^nmmn' nits infrastructure or facilities for an ongoing scyvice. No bonus will be given•to projects that consist of "cosmetic" renovations involving repairs rather than major rehabilitation or new construction (such as relandscaping, "leaf raking," or beautification activities). Other bnuus GQPLri2DpUjU The 5 percent given to applications sponsored by general purpose governments will not be given to special purpose units, such as school districts, even if the city or county approves of the special purpose project. • Finally, the 5 percent given to projects relating to local or regional plans is considered to be a "throwaway" bonus, because a proposed project does not actually have to be in such existing plans or programs. MEMO to City Manager -4- October 1, 1976 in summarizing the guidelines for project consideration, the following items are considered important in selecting a candidate project for a grant application. - 1. Labor should be at least 35% of the project cost to maximize rating points. 2. Essential community services (water, sewer) or development facilities (municipal parking lot?) get 5% more in rating scores than dti projects which provide new community amenities, such asYparks and'"cultural facilities. E 3:- No shortcuts in EI prscesses' permits (Coastal Commission, Water Quality Control, Air Pollution, etc.) are provided for, which favors projects that either already have such clearances or are truly envi-onmentally nonsignificant. 4. Competition for funding will be so severe that projects submitted should maximize the rating points in the few areas that the City can control. S. The severe time restrictions practically eliminate those projects not yet designed, or that could not be ready for bid within a few weeks. 6. The City- should concentrate on grant applications for a handful of high -rating projects, each over $100,000, rather than a large number of lower rating projects. Attached is a summary of potential grant eligible projects. It is recommended that this subject be brought to the attention of the City Council as soon as practical so that a policy decision can be made as to Which projects are to be submitted to EAA as .grant applications under Title I of PL 94-369. n Tim Flanagan City Engineer TCF.ms enclosure - Project List POTENTIAL -PROJECTS e Add'1.Coastal Labor Intensity Long-term Planr z Spaca AW LEIR Comm. Permit (t) Benafit 16 It ,y Retina Project Description Cost t Com late Needed Required , Bonus Points ' Bonus Points In CIP7 1 Construot 2700' L.P. of 250,000 95% No Yes (33-37%) 10 yes ( ' 54" dia. storm drrin in ATCSF RR troll Oak to 26.30 Juniper. (Replaces in- adequate capacity of :ran -made open channel 2 Modification to Buena SQ0,000 95% No No (35%) 10 Yes Vista Pump Station (Joint project vith VSD) 30 3 Vista -Carlsbad Sower 762#000 0% could be yen Yes/No (35%) 10 You Trunk -lino parallol fast-trackad (supple-• 13,300 L.F. of 27" simple design want) 30 i and 36" (joint Project in existingwith VSD) t easement i 4 Ocean St. sewor,4800 123#000 00 could bo No Yes (50%) 10 No ;} L.F. of 8" VCP feat -tracked parallol oxisting 30 inadequate lira 5 upgrade water lino 160,000 85% No Yes (50%) 10 'Yes system and install additional fire 30 hydrants-Olivo, } Sunnyhill, Highland, q Hillside, Avenida ( Encinns, Pasoo Dal Norto } 6 Construct lighted tennis 250,000 604 N.S. Yes/No (60%) , 5 No t ( courts 10-12 4 at high (Use existing (1 School, 2 at Valley, 2 Laguna Riviera 30 at Cannon, 2 at L.R.School, Plans) 4 2 at holiday ) 00051 i ff POTENTIAL PROJECTS ' L Add'l.Coastal Labor Intensity Long-term Plans & Specs Add'1,EIR Comm. Permit (8) Benefit Is It Rating Project DescriEtion Cost % Complete Needed -- Required Bonus Points Bonus Points In CiP? 7' Construct Comfoxt Stations - various 50,000 80% N.S, Yes/No (60%) 5 No _ (zar% sites (Candor. 30 Park, Levante Par, 8, Exprhsion of existing 1,5g0,000 25-308 No T7o (258) 20 -- niurAcipiil parking lot 0: El Camino Real/ 25 Akron Road 1, Qther Projects thatiwere considered include: Stz�t, lighting project to install ornamental lighting throughout the City - not labor intensive; potential EIR problems Park Landsdeping (Canygn Park; Cannon Pond; Levante Park) - no ready plans Stre.t construction (2,lanes-on Par% Drive, etc.) - not labor intensive 'Childrens' Library -longer range planning and design required Swimming Pool - longer range planning and design required Corporation, Yard - long range Police Department Building - long range Sewer trunk lines - no design or easements in unurbanized area - EIR complications t Bike lanes (Carlsbad Blvd., etc.) - design problems - EIR problem - Coastal Commission Bristol Cove drainage s7stem - design right of way, EIR and C,iastal permit problems Construct sidewalks, W; an curbs, wheelchair ramps, throughout city - low kr.iority(for upgrading type projects f -2- 0 h POTENTIAL PROJECTS i Add'l.Coastal Labor Intensity Long-term Plans & Specs Add'l.EIR Comm. Permit (8) Benefit IS It Rahinq Project Description Cost % Complete Needed Required Bonus Points Bonus Points In CIP? 1 Construct 2700'-`,L.F. of 250,000 95% No Yes (33-37%) 10 -Yes 54" dia. storm 3rain in 26-30 AT&SF RR from Oak to Juniper. (Replaces in- adequate capacity of man-made open channel 2 Modification to Buena 500,000 95% 'No No (35%) 10 Yes Vista Pump Station (Joint project with (+ 30 VSD) 3 Vista -Car. sbad,Sewer 762,000 08 could ba Yes Yes/No (35%) 10 Yes Trunk-lirj parallel fast -tracked (supple- 13,300 L.F. of 27" simple design ment) 30 and 36" (Joint Project, in existing with VSD) easement 4 Ocean St. sewer,4800, 123,000 0% could be No Yes (50%) 10 No L.F. of 8" VCP fast -tracked 30 parallel existing, inadequate line �- 5 Upgrade water line ; 160,000 85% No Yes (50%) 10 Yes ystem-and install additional fire '0 hydrants -olive, ! Sunnyhill, Highland, ' Hillside, Avenida Encinas, Paseo Del Norte 6 Construct lighted tennis -50,000 60% N.S. Yes/No (60%) 5 No courts 10-12 4 at High (Use existing School, 2 at Valley, 2 Laguna Riviera 30 at Cannon, 2 at L.R.School, Plans) 2 at Holiday