HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-17; City Council; 3406-1; Consultant Contract: Jud NaimanCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. 3^/O(s> ~ JL*ip*JLi~«4~& */
DATE: October..! 7;, 1978 C. Atty.\VFA
DEPARTMENT: Engineering C<
Subject!
PROPERTY OWNER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
CONSULTANT CONTRACT - JUD NAIMAN
Statement of the Matter
(See attached memorandum dated August 28, 1978.)
Exh i bits
Memorandum from City Engineer dated August 28, 1978 (with attachments)
Recommendation
That City Council file the report.
Council Action:
10-17-78 Council directed staff to take the necessary action to bring
the project to a conclusion.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Engineer
DATE: August 28, 1978
SUBJECT: PROPERTY OWNER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS - CONSULTANT CONTRACT
The City Council approved an agreement for consultant services with Jud
Naiman on July 1, 1975. The services were to include:
1. review of existing future improvement agreements;
2. field review of existing public improvements with a specific doxmtown
(old Carlsbad) area to determine which streets might have improvements
completed utilizing future improvement agreements and State law ("the
Block Act"); and
3. recommendations for a perpetual record-keeping system (cross indexing,
etc.) to keep track of existing improvements and future agreements.
Attached is a copy of the agreement (Enclosure 1). Article V of the agree
ment gives an itemization of the fees for the three parts of the study.
Also attached are a summary of "Property Owner Agreements" (Enclosure 2)
and a survey of "Existing Improvements" (Enclosure 3). Not enclosed, but
on file in Engineering, are approximately 90 assessor's maps of the down-
town area on which are plotted existing improvements and future agreements.
The end product of parts one and two of. the study are not encouraging. The
bottom line is simply that the consultant could not recommend any area of
downtown for completing public improvements because there were not sufficient
street frontages between intersecting streets that had either existing im-
provements or a recorded future improvement agreement.
Enclosure 4 is a memorandum critiquing the status of the work submitted to
date. In it I recommended that "Item III Record System ($1,000)" not be
commenced until the consultant completed a "...detailed report to include
an explanation of the study (including procedures), applicable State leg-
islation on the Block Act and assessment districts and recommendations."
This work was never fully completed although the consultant did prepare a
brief pencilled draft that was determined to be insufficient.
The consultant has been paid $2,940 of the $4,000 authorized (73.5%).
Due to lack of response from the consultant in working toward completion
•of the entire contract, and based on the preliminary indications that
there are not a sufficient number of future agreements in any one area to
justify utilizing the Block Act or assessment district proceedings for con-
struction of public improvements, the consultant has been notified that the
project is considered to be closed out. No additional work on the project
is anticipated nor are any further payments to be made to the consultant.
City Manager -2- August 28, 1978
A purchase order change request has been processed to close out the project.
It is recommended that the $1,060 unspent portion of the original purchase
order be-returned to the General Fund.
Tim Flanagan ~f/
City Engineer Cx
TCF:veb
CC: Public Works Administrator
Enclosures (4)