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