city council agenda regular meeting city of half … · mac dutra plaza remodel construction...

CITY COUNCIL AGENDAREGULAR MEETING

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 04, 2016

Adcock Community/Senior Center Rick Kowalczyk, Mayor535 Kelly Avenue Deborah Ruddock, Vice MayorHalf Moon Bay, California 94019 Marina Fraser, Councilmember

John Muller, CouncilmemberDeborah Penrose, Councilmember

7:00 PM

This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address the CityCouncil on any matter not listed on the Agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the City Council to resolve, may comeforward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the Agenda and will have a maximum of three minutes todiscuss their item. Those wishing to speak on a Public Hearing matter will be called forward at the appropriate timeduring the Public Hearing consideration.

Please Note: Please Provide a Copy of Prepared Presentations to the City Clerk

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in the Office ofthe City Clerk at City Hall and the Half Moon Bay Library where they are available for public inspection. If requested,the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.) Information may be obtained by calling650-726-8271.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in this meeting canbe obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification will enable the City to makereasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

http://hmbcity.com/

MEETING WILL CONCLUDE BY 11:00 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BY COUNCIL VOTE

1

http://hmbcity.com/

CONVENE REGULAR MEETING

ROLL CALL / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONSSAN MATEO COUNTY LIBRARY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL

PUBLIC FORUM

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.A WAIVE SECOND READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

1.B ACCEPT THE MAC DUTRA PLAZA REMODEL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION

1.C ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 1 OF PACIFIC RIDGESUBDIVISION

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION

1.D AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM(PHASE II)

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT 2

1.E CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR THE 2015 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION 2

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/29418/STAFF_REPORT.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/29417/RESOLUTION.pdf





https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/29424/ATTACHMENT_2.pdf



ATTACHMENT 2

1.F REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION

2. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS

3.A REVIEW AND AFFIRM COUNCIL PRIORITIES

STAFF REPORT

3.B SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE – RECYCLED WATER PROJECT

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1

FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

3







BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: October 4, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager

FROM: John Doughty, Community Development Director Peykan Abbassi, City Engineer

TITLE: ACCEPT THE MAC DUTRA PLAZA REMODEL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting the Mac Dutra Plaza Remodel Project and releasing retention and applicable bonds upon filing a Notice of Completion with San Mateo County.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. STRATEGIC ELEMENT: This project supports the City’s Infrastructure and Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements. BACKGROUND: On March 17, 2015, the City Council awarded the Mac Dutra Plaza remodel project to the lowest responsible bidder, Half Moon Bay Paving and Grading, in the amount of $380,645. A contingency of $15,000, or approximately four percent (4%), was allocated to address potential needed change orders. Project construction started on March 27, 2015, and was scheduled to be completed by July 4, 2015. Due to unforeseen field changes during construction, and delays in fabricating and delivery of the pavers and decorative plaza light fixtures, the project was not substantially completed until September 7, 2015. A grand opening ribbon cutting ceremony was held on September 17, 2015, and Mac Dutra Plaza was formally opened to the public. Although the Plaza was officially re‐opened to the public on September 17, 2015, there remained a few punch list items that still needed to be completed. One of these items was the installation of a bronze grate for the fountain and replacement of a concrete band around one

4

Mac Dutra Plaza Remodel Construction Project October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 2

of the tree wells that had settled. Another issue arose when it was discovered that the paint was peeling on the galvanized trellis structure and handrails. These items have been stripped, re‐primed, and repainted. Seven change orders were issued for a total amount of $10,825, or 2.48 percent, of the original contract amount. The final contract amount was $391,470. DISCUSSION: The City is obligated to release retention and applicable bonds upon completion of the project and filing of the Notice of Completion with San Mateo County. This completes the obligatory requirements of the City for the capital project. The City will retain a warranty bond for one year from acceptance per the contract to address any unforeseen construction related issues. Therefore, staff recommends release of the retention and final payment after filing the Notice of Completion with San Mateo County. ATTACHMENT: Resolution Accepting the Mac Dutra Plaza Remodel

5

RESOLUTION NO. C‐2016‐ _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE MAC DUTRA PLAZA REMODEL PROJECT AND

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WHEREAS, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Mac Dutra Plaza Remodel Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving, in the total bid amount of $380,645 on March 17, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the City has administratively approved contract change orders 1‐ 7 for additional required work in the total amounts of $10,825.21; and WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed all improvements in compliance with the contract documents for a total amount of $391,470.21; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council accept the Mac Dutra Plaza Remodel Project for the City’s maintenance and authorizes staff to release final retention, bonds, and file a Notice of Completion with the County of San Mateo’s Recorder’s Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby accepts the Mac Dutra Plaza Remodel Project for the City’s maintenance and authorizes the Staff to file a Notice of Completion in the County Recorder’s Office.

***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 4th day of October, 2016 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote: AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Rick Kowalczyk, Mayor

6


AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: October 4, 2016

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager FROM: John Doughty, Community Development Director

Peykan Abbassi, City Engineer TITLE: ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 1 OF PACIFIC RIDGE

SUBDIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution granting initial acceptance of public improvements for Phase 1 of Pacific Ridge Subdivision, subject to one‐year warranty period and release of securities for the faithful performance bond and labor and materials bond. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. All costs associated with this subdivision are covered by the various development fee payments. STRATEGIC ELEMENT: This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment, Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements. BACKGROUND: On May 17, 2011, the City Council approved a subdivision improvement agreement with Ailanto Properties, Inc. for the Pacific Ridge at Half Moon Bay, Unit 1 Subdivision. The agreement was for the construction of public improvements, including streets, curb, sidewalk, paths, storm drainage, and utility systems. These public improvements have been completed by the subdivider per the approved improvement plans and are now ready for initial acceptance and ownership by the City in accordance with the agreement. The subdivider’s securities for the faithful performance and labor and materials bonds will be released upon the City’s receipt of a Warranty Bond in the amount of $427,250 from the subdivider, which is 25 percent of the value of the improvements, in accordance with the agreement.

7

Acceptance of Phase 1 of Pacific Ridge Subdivision October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 2

DISCUSSION: The public improvements for Phase 1 of the Pacific Ridge Subdivision were inspected and completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and initial acceptance is ready to be granted to the subdivider. After initial acceptance is granted, the subdivider and City will enter into a one year bonded warranty period in which the subdivider will guarantee or warranty the improvements against any defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished. Security for survey monuments as included in the agreement is not required in Phase 1 as the monuments were installed, certified by the project surveyor, and accepted by the City. ATTACHMENT: Resolution Granting Initial Acceptance of Phase 1 of Pacific Ridge Subdivision

8

Resolution No. C‐2016‐____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY GRANTING INITIAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING RELEASE OF SECURITY OF

FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND LABOR AND MATERIALS BONDS AND APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF WARRANTY BOND FOR PHASE 1 OF PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION

WHEREAS, the Public Improvement Plans for Phase 1 of the Pacific Ridge of Half Moon Bay were approved by the City Engineer April 22, 2011, under and pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Development Agreement (“agreement”) between the City of Half Moon Bay and Ailanto Properties, Inc. (“subdivider”); and WHEREAS, Ailanto Properties executed and posted securities conditioned upon the faithful performance and labor and materials provisions of the agreement; and WHEREAS, the Public Improvements for Pacific Ridge Phase 1 project have been completed; and WHEREAS, the agreement provides that the security shall extend for a period of one year after the date of acceptance of Public Improvements to cover the warranty period of said improvements under the agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council is willing to release the securities for the faithful performance and labor and materials upon receipt of a warranty bond; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made a final inspection of the Public Improvements for the Pacific Ridge Phase 1 project and recommends that the City Council accept the Public Improvements as constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:

1. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Those certain Public Improvements installed by Phase 1 of the Pacific Ridge project, are hereby accepted as constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications upon recommendation of the City Engineer.

3. The penal sum of that certain Security furnished by the above‐named subdivider in connection with the agreement may be released by the City upon receipt of a warranty bond from the subdivider in the amount of $427,250. Said warranty bond shall apply form the date of completion and acceptance of said improvements and to extend for the balance of the term of one year of said security. Provided however,

9

that nothing herein contained shall in any way be deemed to be a waiver, release or relinquish by City any obligations imposed upon the subdivider or his/its surety, or sureties, by law or by the agreement, save and except as expressly set forth herein.

*****************************************************************

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 4th day of October, 2016 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote: AYES, Councilmembers:





10


AGENDA REPORT


TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager FROM: John Doughty, Community Development Director Peykan Abbassi, P.E., City Engineer TITLE: STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PHASE II) ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Schaaf and Wheeler for development of a Storm Water Capital Improvement Program (Phase II) for $93,000. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this recommendation, as this project is included in the City’s FY 2016‐17 Capital Improvement Program budget that allocates $187,000 for the preparation of a storm water capital improvement program for drainage improvement. STRATEGIC ELEMENT: This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment, Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements. BACKGROUND: On September 16, 2016, the City Council accepted the Storm Drain Master Plan (Phase I). As part of the discussion on Phase II work, the Storm Water Capital Improvement Program, the City Council requested consideration and study of the effects of climate change on prioritized capital improvements, and further clarification and implementation of sustainable elements and green infrastructure into the prioritized capital program. DISCUSSION: The Storm Water Master Plan CIP (Phase II) identifies the improvements and upgrades necessary for the City’s drainage system to work properly. In addition, other areas that are included in the Phase II are: identifying regulatory issues that may need to be addressed during implementation of CIPs, identifying water quality and conservation opportunities that may be implemented along with CIPs, and developing drainage design standards. Also, this phase of the plan studies the effect of climate change on the drainage system as well as a comprehensive look at the possibilities of implementing sustainable design and use of green infrastructure elements in the

11

Phase II Storm Drain Master Plan October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 2

City’s drainage system. System deficiencies identified in Phase I will be mitigated with proposed improvement projects. Improvements may range from pipeline upsizing to new pump stations to ditch improvements. Alternatives for larger projects may be developed to provide design flexibility. Projects should be prioritized based on the categorization of the deficiency. Based on the projects and prioritizations, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will be developed. This program will also include options and alternatives for implementation of sustainable design elements as well as consideration for climate change. There are many regulatory guidelines and requirements which have to take into consideration and may affect the implementation of the CIP. The most significant regulatory requirements for storm water management in Half Moon Bay are found in the State of California’s Construction General Permit (CGP) and the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase II report will provide a general outline of the various guidelines and legal and regulatory requirements applicable for floodplain management, storm water management, surface water and groundwater protection and riparian and wetland protection. At the direction of City Council, staff has worked with Schaaf and Wheeler to modify the scope of work for Phase II based upon the City Council discussion of September 16, 2016. The cost of the revised scope exceeds the amount initially approved by City Council on September 6. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute a contract with Schaaf and Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers, for $93,000 to prepare a CIP for the City’s Stormwater and drainage system

2. Scope of Services for Phase II

12


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A STORM WATER CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PHASE II) WITH SCHAFF AND WHEELER

WHEREAS, Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers was awarded a contract to prepare a report on the City’s Stormwater Master Plan in December of 2015; and WHEREAS, Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers Completed the said report and obtained the approval of the City Engineer on August; and WHEREAS, the report provides recommendations to develop a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program for the City; and WHEREAS, the report includes options for implementation of sustainable design features; and WHEREAS, Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers is the most knowledgeable on the City’s drainage issues and deficiencies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby

authorize the City Manager to award a contract for development of a Storm Water Capital

Improvement Program (Phase II) to Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for $93,000.

*****************************************************************






13

City of Half Moon Bay Storm Drain Master Plan – Phase II

Scope of Services Task A: Progress Meetings and Project Management To remain in regular contact with the District, we plan to have face-to-face meetings with City staff at key points during the project. These meetings will involve reviewing work products and making decisions on future steps. Our team will be available to City staff throughout the project via telephone and email. Our engineers are also available to attend quick meetings on short notice.

Schaaf & Wheeler is scoping for four (4) one hour meetings with the City as well as two (2) Council presentations on the master plan and CIP.

Task B: Drainage Design Standards Schaaf & Wheeler will review the City’s current drainage design standards and criteria and will work with the City to revise and augment these standards to meet existing and future needs. These revisions will make the City standards consitent with methods applied to this master planning effort and flood control measures of agencies which may operate drainage facilities within Half Moon Bay (such as Pilarcitos Creek and Frenchman’s Creek). The new drainage standards will include methods for:

• calculating runoff,

• sizing draiange facilities and flood control channels,

• determining detention sizing criteria, and more.

Proposed standards will also incorporate current NPDES requirements and other regional standards. A standard policy for on-site detention systems that can be used in the construction of private development projects will be developed.

Schaaf & Wheeler is scoping for a draft technical memorandum on revised drainage standards and a finalized version based on review by City staff.

Task C: Develop Capital Improvement Project List Task C.1 – Climate Change Modeling Watershed Hydrology Scaling factors to be applied to the design storms to represent the potential effects of climate change on watershed hydrology. The 2050 and 2100 timeframes will be analyzed. To develop the scaling factors, Schaaf & Wheeler will evaluate potential impacts of climate change on future rainfall intensity, duration and frequency. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions scenarios from the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) are recommended for this analysis. Schaaf & Wheeler will work with the City to review scenarios and select the emissions scenarios for which the scaling factor will be developed. Emission scenarios to be considered are RCP 4.5 (for medium conditions) and RCP 8.5 (for high conditions). Downscaled global circulation model output for the selected scenarios will be evaluated on a daily time step covering the period 1950-2100, and changes to intensity-duration-frequency will be evaluated for a 24-hour event.

Sea Level Rise Sea level rise scenarios will be developed for the 2050 and 2100 timeframes. Studies by the IPCC and California Coastal Commission will be reviewed, and Schaaf & Wheeler will work with the City to review and select the sea level rise scenarios that will be used in this analysis. The selected scenarios will be used to develop future tidal boundary conditions. The boundary conditions will be analyzed concurrently with the future land use and 2050 and 2100 watershed hydrology scenarios.

Task C.2 – CIP Modeling System deficiencies identified in Phase I will be mitigated with proposed improvement projects. Improvement projects will be identified using the models developed during Phase I. Improvements to be considered include: pipeline upsizing and network extension, infiltration and detention basins, ditch

14

improvements, and green infrastructure. Alternatives for high priority projects will be developed, if feasible, to provide flexibility. Condition related improvements will be developed for CMP pipe located within the City right-of-way. Opportunities to combine stormwater management goals with capacity improvements may also be analyzed. Schaaf & Wheeler will work with the City to prioritize improvement projects. A project summary sheet will be created for each major improvement project. These sheets will provide a clear and concise summary of the current problem, improvement components, and construction costs.

CIP scenarios to be analyzed include:

• Improvement projects to mitigate flooding with existing land use, existing 10-year design storm, and existing sea level condition;

• Improvement projects to mitigate flooding with future land use, 2050 10-year design storm, and 2050 sea level rise condition;

• Improvements projects to mitigate future land use, 2100 10-year design storm, and 2100 sea level rise condition.

Cost Estimating Schaaf & Wheeler will estimate the cost of each identified CIP project using a combination of unitized costs and site specific details. Contingencies will be added to account for administration, design, and construction management and construction costs. Schaaf & Wheeler has compiled project costs from several storm drainage projects throughout the Bay Area and will utilize that data to develop realistic unitized cost for pipeline, channel, basin, and green infrastructure projects. Schaaf & Wheeler anticipates City’s assistance with cost estimation for easements and land acquisition. All improvement costs will be clearly summarized and adjusted to current ENR indices.

Capital Improvement Program and Schedule Based on the projects and prioritizations, our team will develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). CIPs will be organized based on priority ranking, which may be influenced by project cost and complexity. The proposed CIP may incorporate annual maintenance costs as well as improvement projects to correct maintenance issues.

Schaaf & Wheeler will present the Draft CIP to City Council. The CIP will be finalized once comments from City Council and City Staff have been received.

Task D: Prepare Report Schaaf & Wheeler will produce a complete Phase II draft master plan report that will:

• discuss drainage design standards and design criteria,

• document technical methodologies for identifying improvements,

• list and prioritize improvement projects,

• estimate costs for all improvements,

• summarize the recommended CIP,

• identify water quality and conservation methodologies that may supplement CIPs, and

• identify national, regional, and local regulatory guidelines and requirements that may impact the implementation of CIPs.

The document will be formatted and organized to layer the study information. It will provide a concise overview of the study findings and recommendations in simple non-technical terms with sufficient information for the general public and City officials outside the engineering field, such as Council members. The report will also supply the technical community with detailed implementable information on the drainage system to execute proposed projects. Appendices supplied as a part of the Storm Drain Master Plan may include model results, improvement figures and detailed cost estimates. The report will be supplied in hard copy as well as electronically, in MS Word or PDF format.

Schaaf & Wheeler will work with City staff to develop a master plan format that works best for the community. Schaaf & Wheeler submissions will include:

15

• Draft CIP at the 90% level – including figures showing CIP projects and cost estimates to be presented to City Council;

• First Draft Report at the 90% level - including preliminary model results and improvement projects; and

• Final Report – will be submitted once City comments on the 90% report have been incorporated and the final CIP and project schedule have been developed.

The final report will be submitted to City Council and presented at a formal meeting.

16

Hourly Rate $225 $225 $200 $180 $155

Task AProgress Meetings and Project Management 20 16 44 28 28 26,300$

A.1 Progress Meetings 4 8 4 12 5,080$ A.2 Project Management 8 20 5,800$ A.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control 16 3,600$ A.3 City Council Presentation 8 16 24 16 11,800$

Task B Drainage Design Standards 4 0 4 16 8 5,800$ B.1 Research Standards 4 4 1,340$ B.2 Develop Draft Standards 2 2 8 4 2,910$ B.3 Finalize Standards 2 2 4 1,570$

Task C Develop CIP 8 0 36 66 146 43,500$ C.1 Climate Change Modeling 2 8 16 32 9,890$ C.2 CIP Modeling 2 12 20 50 14,200$ C.3 Cost Estimates 2 8 12 24 7,930$ C.4 Develop CIP 2 8 18 40 11,490$

Task D Report 6 0 24 36 32 17,600$ F.1 Draft Report 4 16 20 16 10,180$ F.3 Final Report 2 8 16 16 7,410$

TOTAL 38 16 108 146 214 93,000$

Tota

l

City of Half Moon BayStorm Drain Master Plan - Phase II

Schaaf & Wheeler Fee Proposal - September 2016

Dani

el J

. Sch

aaf,

PE

M. E

liza

McN

ulty

, PE Em

ily D

. Stra

ley,

PE

Sara

h Ra

him

i-A

rdab

ily, P

E

Ass

istan

t Eng

inee

r

17


AGENDA REPORT


TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager FROM: John Doughty, Community Development Director Peykan Abbassi, P.E., City Engineer TITLE: CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR THE 2015 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the contract for construction inspection and support for the 2015 Street Reconstruction Project with CSG Consultants, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $35,000. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this recommendation, as the City’s FY 2016‐17 Capital Improvement Program budget includes sufficient funds for Street Reconstruction Projects and related inspection and support services. Staff is not requesting any additional budget appropriation at this time. STRATEGIC ELEMENT: This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment, Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements. BACKGROUND: On April 21, 2015, the City Council approved a resolution to execute a contract with CSG Consultants, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $65,228. On September 15, 2015, the City awarded a construction contract to Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving for reconstruction of Ventura Avenue and Washington Boulevard. The CSG Consultants contract was for design of Washington Boulevard and Ventura Avenue. Due to changes in the design to address geotechnical conditions and delay in completing construction due to the winter rains, additional construction and design support is required. DISCUSSION: CSG Consultants, Inc. of Foster City has provided design and construction support for the various cities for the past 33 years. During construction, the contractor encountered interference with water and power conduits in addition to some other changed conditions for the conform limits at

18

the existing improvements. These unforeseen conditions require design modification and additional work at the site. Design changes and modifications require construction management support at the construction site. The proposed additional services includes construction management, contract administration, final inspection, reviewing quantities, and revising design details and changes. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the contract with CSG Consultants, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $35,000 for the 2015 Street Reconstruction Project

2. Scope of Services

19


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS,

INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR THE 2015 STREET RECONSTRUCTION

PROJECT

WHEREAS, CSG Consultants, Inc. was awarded a contract to provide construction oversight services for the 2015 Street Reconstruction Project on September 15, 2015; and WHEREAS, CSG Consultants, Inc. has assisted the City in revising the design and provided construction oversight for the 2015 Street Reconstruction Project; and WHEREAS, due to construction delays caused by postponing construction, and changes to the design, additional construction support is required; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby

authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the contract with CSG Consultants,

Inc. for Construction Oversight in an amount not to exceed $35,000.

*****************************************************************






20

550 Pilgrim Drive Foster City, CA 94404 phone 650.522.2500

fax 650.522.2599

www.csgengr.com

FOSTER CITY | PLEASANTON | SAN JOSE | SACRAMENTO | NEWMAN | ORANGE

September 15, 2016 Peykan Abbassi, P.E. City Engineer City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 RE: 2015/2016 Pavement Reconstruction – Design Engineering and Construction Support

Costs Dear Mr. Abbassi: As per your request, we have prepared this proposal for additional work related to the 2015 Street Reconstruction Project. This constitutes a summary of the previous discussions and agreements related to this project. As discussed and agreed to at the meeting of June 22, 2106 there are unpaid design costs in the amount of $10,325.50, an amount that was included under the original purchase orders for the design portion of the project but which were closed prior to this amount being invoiced or subsequently paid. In addition we request an amendment to the construction support / construction management portion of the subject project. Construction commenced in early October 2015 and was expected to be completed within approximately four months. The project experienced multiple delays such that substantial completion will not be achieved until near the end of September 2016. These delays included:

Unavailability of the concrete subcontractor. Delays in the water district relocating its water mains due to unexpected conflicts with PG&E

high voltage lines. Waiting for PG&E to schedule a power shutdown in order to pothole and locate the direct-

burial high voltage electric cables. Evaluation of alternative pavement section designs.

In addition, there have been additional requests for support services including:

Changes in design due to encountering unexpected underground facilities. Field changes to account for actual encountered conditions. Meetings and coordination with the contractor related to changes in design and schedule. Additional meetings and coordination with homeowners relating to schedule and drainage

issues. 21

2

Therefore we request an adjustment in our contract amount of $24,674.50 to carry us through the completion of the construction activities and final settlements with the contractor and preparation of record drawings. The original purchase orders and their amounts are summarized below. PO # Amount Purpose 516 $79,700 Washington/ Ventura Reconstruction (Design) 603 $65,288 Washington/ Ventura Reconstruction (Design) 621 $7,460 Washington/ Ventura Reconstruction (Design) 714 $66,200 Washington/ Ventura Reconstruction (Construction Management)

The total design contract previously allocated amount equals $152,448.00 and this amendment authorizing $10,325.50 to pay outstanding costs will not change that total. Construction support, due to the delays and changes will increase as follows: PO# Amount Purpose 714 $66,200.00 Construction support original budget $24,674.50 Amendment $90,874.50 Amended Total Construction Support The total requested amendment is: Unpaid Design costs 10,325.50 Additional Construction Support 24,674.50 TOTAL 35,000.00 Our hourly rate schedule for this project is: Senior Engineer $160 Associate Engineer $125 Inspector $120 Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, CSG Consultants, Inc. Ed Slintak, P.E. Project Manager

22


AGENDA REPORT


TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager

FROM: Russell Brunson, Administrative Services Manager

TITLE: REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT ______________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the contract between the City of Half Moon Bay and Regional Government Services for interim staffing services for the Public Works Division for an additional amount of $3,807. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional budget appropriation needed for this item. Funding for the additional contract services is available because the Public Works Division’s Superintendent position was vacant and the savings resulting from the open position will fund the additional cost associated with this contract. STRATEGIC ELEMENT: This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment and Healthy Communities and Public Safety elements. BACKGROUND: In June 2016, the Community Development Department’s Management Analyst position was vacated. In order to maintain the service level and continue to provide project management services to the department, the City sought contract assistance. Staff met with representatives of Regional Government Services (RGS), an agency that provides interim staffing services and entered into a contract with them for project management services in an amount not to exceed $30,000. On June 30, 2016, the Public Works Division also experienced a vacancy when the Public Works Superintendent retired from the City. Staff approached RGS to have the interim project manager who was assisting in the Community Development Department reassigned to serve as the interim Public Works Superintendent while staff conducted a recruitment to fill the position permanently.

23

Amendment No. 1 with Regional Government Services October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 2

The transition from Community Development Project Manager to interim Public Works Superintendent was effective on July 1, 2016. The Public Works Superintendent position was permanently filled on September 6, 2016. DISCUSSION: Initially, it was estimated that the Public Works Division would only require the RGS contracted interim Public Works Superintendent to work 40 hours per week until mid‐August 2016. However, additional services were required until the incoming permanent Superintendent was on board, which resulted in the overall RGS contract exceeding the City Manager’s signing authority. The City negotiated RGS Amendment No. 1 to cover the overage for an additional $3,807 over the original contract amount of $30,000. Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment to the contract with RGS for additional staffing resources for the Public Works Division. ATTACHMENT: Resolution authorizing the City Manager to Execute the amendment to the contract between the City of Half Moon Bay and Regional Government Services

24

Resolution No. C‐2016‐

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES FOR INTERIM STAFFING SERVICES

WHEREAS, Regional Government Services specializes in project management and interim staffing services for public entities; and

WHEREAS, the City entered into a contract with Regional Government Services in July

2016 to provide interim staffing and project management services for the Community Development Department and Public Works Division; and

WHEREAS, the City Council‐approved purchasing guidelines grant the City Manager

purchasing authority of up to $30,000 for consultant services agreements; and

WHEREAS, additional funding for Regional Government Services interim staffing services was needed to staff the Public Works Division until a permanent Public Works Superintendent was hired. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby authorizes the City Manager or her designee to execute an amendment to the professional services contract with Regional Government Services for interim staffing services in the amount of $3,807.

***************************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on this 4th day of October, 2016 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote: AYES, Councilmembers:




ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ _________________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Rick Kowalczyk, Mayor

25


AGENDA REPORT


TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager FROM: Danielle Sanderson, Senior Management Analyst TITLE: REVIEW AND AFFIRM COUNCIL PRIORITIES ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Review and affirm the Mayor and Vice Mayor’s recommended top ten priorities. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with prioritizing these projects. However, depending on the specific direction provided by the Council, additional resources may be required. STRATEGIC ELEMENT: This recommendation supports the Healthy Communities and Public Safety, Fiscal Sustainability, and Inclusive Governance Elements. BACKGROUND: In February 2016, as part of the annual budget preparation process, the City Council held a retreat to determine the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and other priorities the Council wanted to move forward. At the April 19, 2016 Budget Study Session, additional projects were identified as “Council Interests” for inclusion in the budget study session for further review and discussion. At the June 21, 2016 City Council Budget meeting, the Council was presented with a list of 16 Council Interests Items for consideration in the FY 2016‐2017 Budget. Additionally, staff presented three other items for consideration, which were an additional $50,000 for the Boys and Girls Club, additional coverage for traffic and bicycle units in the Sheriff’s Department, and funding for Zero Net Energy for the new library building. At that budget meeting, the City Council adopted the FY 2017‐2017 recommended budget as well as all of these 19 projects and interests. The City Council also approved the CIP budget for FY 2016‐2017 which included 34 projects. This brings the total number of projects in FY 2016‐2017 to 53.

26

October 4, 2016 Council Priorities Page 2 of 4

Since adoption of the annual budget, staff has received additional requests from members of the City Council and the community that are of great community interest. DISCUSSION: City staff would like to accomplish all projects the City Council and the community are interested in and to do them well. Unfortunately, staff is not able to complete or begin all of these projects at the same time. It is likely that staff cannot complete all of these projects within the fiscal year given the large number of projects. In addition to these aforementioned projects, City staff is tasked with balancing on‐going assignments and regularly scheduled projects that are required to run a City. Due to these challenges, the City Manager met with the Mayor and Vice Mayor to share staff’s work and the various lists of priority items. The City Manager asked the Mayor and Vice Mayor for guidance in prioritizing these projects. After reviewing all of the lists, the Mayor and Vice Mayor have identified the following as their top 10 projects:

1. Homelessness 2. Real Property Inventory and Evaluations 3. Affordable Housing Activities 4. Grant Writing and Funding Advocacy 5. Pilarcitos Creek Environmental Issues 6. Sidewalk Repair Liability Policy/Street Trees 7. Playground Safety/Inspection 8. Assessment of Parks and Recreation Committee Role 9. Beacon Flag Pole 10. Trash Cans on Main Street

Staff is asking that the entire Council affirm the top ten projects identified by the Mayor and Vice Mayor which will provide staff with the required guidance in moving those projects of most interest forward sooner. This does not mean the remaining 43 projects will be ignored, rather staff will still work towards completing them as the top ten items are moved forward. Lastly, most of the projects are self‐explanatory based on the title. However, two of these projects are not well defined and multi‐faceted, and as such are further defined below. Affordable Housing Activities: As of September 29th, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund Balance is $1.79 million. The funds are available for the City to use towards affordable housing activities at Council’s direction. In February 2016, staff presented to the City Council a report outlining several options share information regarding affordable housing in Half Moon Bay. The options presented included new housing development, an accessory dwelling program, a down payment assistance program, and a housing rehabilitation program.

27


At the Budget Study Session in April 2016, staff recommended hosting an affordable housing workshop specific to developing accessory dwelling units as well as surveying the community as to their needs around affordable housing. The City plans to host this workshop in mid‐January 2017 and will include the housing affordability questions in the community survey. By way of information, at the countywide level, staff participated in a monthly task force dedicated to the Jobs/Housing Gap. In September 2016, the task force ended and the County announced their new initiative, Home for All San Mateo County. The City Council most recently passed a resolution in support of this initiative which in part, called for establishing a leadership group to continue to find countywide solutions to the affordable housing crisis. Staff plans to participate on the Outreach and Community Engagement sub‐committee to stay engaged and coordinate with the County to provide resources and opportunities to address the lack of affordable housing. The City also contributes funding to HIP Housing’s home sharing program. The City has reached out to HIP Housing about increasing their presence in Half Moon Bay, adding their home sharing program in our electronic newsletter, and increasing their presence on the Coast. Additionally, staff is working on collecting affordable housing resources to connect the community with what is already being provided. These will be accessible at City Hall, other city facilities and the same resource information will be posted on our redesigned website. To determine the best course of action for addressing affordable housing, staff will come back to Council for a study session by the 4th Quarter of the current Fiscal Year on affordable housing. Homelessness: For the past several months, staff has been actively working to explore solutions to the City’s homeless situation. Again, by way of information, San Mateo County has taken the lead on addressing homelessness countywide and has developed a plan to end homelessness in the County by 2020. To do this, they are focusing on the “Housing First” model, using Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) case managers to reach out to the homeless and offer services and support, including assistance with finding housing. The HOT team meets with the homeless behind Safeway several times a week. Additionally, a new program called “Street Medicine” accompanies the HOT team and offers medical assessments and onsite prescriptions. As part of a countywide collaborative effort to end homelessness, the City provides financial support to the HOT team and attends monthly HOT team meetings. Additionally, local non‐profits and core agencies support the homeless by offering a variety of services including a free weekly breakfast, assistance with obtaining housing and short term employment opportunities

28


for those who are interested. City staff is also working with local non‐profits to have showers and laundry services through Dignity on Wheels on a regular basis in Half Moon Bay. The City is also actively engaged with San Mateo County’s Center on Homelessness, the countywide agency that is tasked with ending homelessness by 2020. City staff strongly advocates for more resources and services to be provided for the homeless on the coastside. The Countywide feasibility study to establish a rotating shelter on the coastside was recently completed and staff will continue to monitor those efforts and provide updates to the Council. Staff understands this is a slow process with no easy answers. Many of the homeless in Half Moon Bay have lived here for nearly 10 years, and are considered “chronically homeless” with many challenges. However, with the constant engagement and outreach of the HOT team and others, four individuals have received housing and most recently, one gentlemen entered into a residential treatment facility for alcohol addiction and is doing very well. Staff continues to monitor the situation. If Council would prefer that a more proactive and aggressive approach be taken, this will require a more in‐depth conversation about the options available and the implications of resolving this delicate situation. Staff will continue to engage with non‐profits and stay on top of opportunities to match or enhance the work they are already doing to support the homeless. Staff is committed to providing Council on‐going information and updates on a quarterly basis.

29

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AGENDA REPORT


TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager FROM: Angelique Gaeta, Interim Deputy City Manager Vivian Housen, Sewer Engineer TITLE: SEWER AUTHORITY MID‐COASTSIDE – RECYCLED WATER PROJECT ______________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff regarding the execution of a consultant agreement with SRT Consultants for 25% Basis of Design related to the Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside’s Recycled Water Project for an amended cost to the City of Half Moon Bay of $90,097.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Recycled Water Project (Project) was not included in the Annual Operating budget for the Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside (SAM) and therefore was not included in the City’s budget allocation for SAM. The fiscal impact associated with this action and the Project is $90,098 from the City’s Sewer Fund Reserve. This amount is equal to half the sum of costs for Tasks 1 through 5 of the Project (which total $173,606), plus half the sum of costs for SAM staff hours needed to support the Project (which total $4,805), as more fully described below. BACKGROUND: On August 26, 2016, SRT Consultants (SRT) submitted a second revised proposal for the Project which included microfiltration/reverse osmosis in each of the three (3) alternative treatment methods they would analyze to produce recycled water for Phase 1 of the Project. The proposal included four discrete tasks, plus a fifth project management task. The total proposed cost for SRT to complete all five tasks is $173,606. The revised tasks do not include any meetings that SRT would be required to attend with City staff, the SAM Board, or the public; nor do they include any work SRT would need to perform related to SAM’s pursuit of grant funding. Instead, those particular tasks are categorized as “optional” and are listed at an additional cost to SAM of $82,330 and $53,550, respectively. SRT also categorized “Peer Review” for Tasks 1 and 2 as optional and listed those tasks at a cost of $20,590. On September 20, 2016, in response to SRT’s August 26, 2016 revised proposal, and City staff’s report (Attachment 1), the City Council voted to approve the execution of a consultant agreement with SRT as follows:

30

October 4, 2016 Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside – Recycled Water Project Page 2 of 2

That the City agree to pay the sum of half the total costs for Task 1 ($51,805) and Task 2

($87,432), as well as half the cost for the optional workshop at the end of Task 2 ($11,630), for a total of $75,434;

That the SAM Board and member agency staff, CCWD, and OCP be given an opportunity to review the Task 1 Analysis prior to SRT working on Task 2;

That the SAM Board be required to approve the Task 1 Analysis and to approve SRT to move forward with the completion of Task 2;

That Task 2 include a workshop, during which SRT shall educate the SAM Board and the community on SRT’s analysis, as well as provide an opportunity for the Board and the community to provide feedback; and

That SAM be required to conduct outreach to the community within SAM’s service area so that the public is given ample notice of the meeting time, date and location of the above workshop.

On September 26, 2016, the SAM Board reviewed the City Council’s September 20th action and voted to request that the City Council re‐visit the August 26, 2016 proposal from SRT and amend its September 20, 2016 action to approve the execution of a consultant agreement with SRT that would include the cost for all of Tasks 1 through 5, plus the cost for SAM staff hours needed to support the Project, which had not previously been included in the Project; a total cost to the City of Half Moon Bay of $90,097. The SAM Board further voted to recommend to the City Council that a workshop not be requested or included in the agreement with SRT. Instead, the SAM Board voted to recommend to the City Council that it agree to execute a consultant agreement that requires both a “check‐in” at the completion of each of the 5 Tasks and SAM Board approval of each task deliverable before SRT could proceed towards completion of the next task. In addition, although the SAM Board agreed that community outreach was important for this Project, the SAM Board felt it best to conduct outreach following completion of the 25% Basis of Design; and, at that time, the SAM agencies could decide on the best way to inform the community and hear its comments. DISCUSSION: Staff has revisited the August 26, 2016 proposal provided by SRT as well as the additional cost of covering SAM staff hours related to the Project. The total cost for Tasks 1 through 5 is $173,606. The total for SAM staff time is $4,804. Given the request of the SAM Board, further direction from the Council is needed as to how City representatives should proceed regarding the execution of a consultant agreement with SRT for 25% Basis of Design for the Project at a cost to the City of Half Moon Bay of $90,097. ATTACHMENT: City staff report dated September 20, 2016

31

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: September 20, 2016

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager FROM: Angelique Gaeta, Interim Deputy City Manager Vivian Housen, Sewer Engineer TITLE: SEWER AUTHORITY MID‐COASTSIDE – RECYCLED WATER PROJECT ______________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff regarding the execution of a consultant agreement with SRT Consultants for 25% Basis of Design related to the Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside’s Recycled Water Project for a cost to the City of Half Moon Bay of $75,434.

FISCAL IMPACT: This project was not included in the Annual Operating budget for the Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside and therefore was not included in the City’s budget allocation for the Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside. The fiscal impact associated with this project is $75,434 from the City’s Sewer Fund Reserve. This amount is equal to half the sum of costs for Task 1 ($51,805) and Task 2 ($87,432), plus half of the cost for an optional Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside Board workshop ($11,630), as more fully described below. BACKGROUND: On February 3, 1976, the City of Half Moon Bay (City), the Montara Water and Sanitary District (Montara) and the Granada Sanitary District (Granada) entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) creating a public entity, known as the Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside (SAM), which would be responsible for the treatment and disposal of wastewater collected within its service area. The City and each District’s share of fixed costs were allocated in the original JPA and amendments. Through these documents, the City is responsible for 50 percent of the capital costs associated with the treatment plant and Intertie Pipeline System. Although recycled water facilities are not described in the JPA, there is an understanding between the SAM agencies that this cost allocation would also apply to the early phases of recycled water project development.

32

September 20, 2016 Sewer Authority Mid‐Coastside – Recycled Water Project Page 2 of 6

In 2008, SAM issued a recycled water study which included treatment of collected water using both microfiltration1 and reverse osmosis2. In 2010, at SAM’s request, SRT Consultants (SRT) prepared a Recycled Water Facilities Planning report which concluded that although reverse osmosis (RO) was initially considered as a treatment option for recycled water, it was ultimately eliminated due to high capital and operation and maintenance costs which would make a recycled water project that included RO financially unfeasible. SRT’s report also included a project site plan required for a recycled water facility at SAM’s treatment plant. Because RO was not included, the project site plan only detailed the space needed for microfiltration. The report also documented what would be an extremely constrained treatment site given the limited space available at SAM’s treatment plant and recommended the use of existing sewer treatment facilities for recycled water storage to make the project work. There was no indication that RO could be added to the site at a later date without compromising other aspects of the design. SRT completed additional studies in 2009 and 2010, and considered microfiltration only, without RO. In January 2015, SAM joined the Coastside County Water District (CCWD) and Montara in a Recycled Water Project (RWP) that would include the construction of a recycled water treatment facility at the SAM treatment plant to treat generated wastewater to a water quality level sufficient for its use as recycled water which would then be distributed and sold by CCWD and Montara. Phase 1 of the RWP was specifically intended to provide recycled water to the Ocean Colony Partners (OCP) golf course and consisted of two components:

(1) A recycled water treatment facility located at the SAM plant, the capacity of which shall be designed, at a minimum to serve recycled water to OCP’s golf courses; and

(2) Recycled water transmission and distribution systems for CCWD’s service area, specifically for transmitting recycled water to OCP’s golf courses.

The parties agreed to self‐fund the design and construction of Phase 1 and if grants or low interest financing was available, the parties agreed to pursue those funds. The parties also agreed that SAM would be reimbursed for expenditures related to the project and not covered by grant monies; presumably, from contracted customers. In response to a Request for Proposals from SAM, in February 2016, SRT provided a proposal for completion of a Basis of Design for recycled water facilities at the SAM plant. The Basis of Design involved a plant that would require the use of existing SAM facilities for recycled water

1 Microfiltration is a type of physical filtration process where a contaminated fluid is passed through a special pore-sized membrane to separate microorganisms and suspended particles from process liquid. It is commonly used in conjunction with various other separation processes such as ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis to provide a product stream which is free of undesired contaminants. 2 Reverse osmosis is a water purification technology that uses a semipermeable membrane to remove ions, molecules, and larger particles from drinking water. Reverse osmosis can remove many types of dissolved and suspended species from water, including bacteria, and is used in both industrial processes and the production of potable water.

33


storage and did not include RO. Around this same time, OCP indicated that its required water quality standards for the use of recycled water at its golf courses would need to be consistent with CCWD’s and that OCP preferred the use of both microfiltration and RO methods. In this regard, the RWP facility, as designed would not have met the stated OCP water quality standards. Thereafter, discussions at the managers’ level indicated that the OCP water quality standards would be relaxed, thereby allowing the use of microfiltration without RO. However, City staff continued to receive indications from OCP that they preferred RO to be included as well. In April 2016, SAM was prepared to move forward with an agreement with SRT for a 25% Basis of Design for a recycled water facility at the SAM treatment plant using microfiltration, based on the February 2016 proposal. On April 21, 2016, in response to concerns about the operational and financial risks that were presented by the project under consideration by SAM, the City Council directed its SAM Board representatives to authorize SAM to solicit proposals for the development of a Recycled Water Business Plan which would include RO. Specifically, the Council requested that, at a minimum, the Recycled Water Business Plan include the following components:

Initial capital costs for a SAM recycled treatment plant

Initial capital costs for CCWD pumping and distribution facilities (from CCWD)

SAM annual operations and maintenance costs

CCWD annual operations and maintenance costs (obtained from CCWD)

Annual cost to disinfect and certify the SAM clarifier for recycled water storage

Rental cost to SAM for use of the aeration basin, second clarifier, and/or other facilities for recycled water storage

Potable water costs for flushing water on a bimonthly basis, or as needed, to address salts from the recycled water supply (to include any other potable water charges that may be assessed by CCWD)

Annual recycled water costs of service, as compared to available funding (including funding from OCP)

Plan to recover costs if clarifier storage and associated recycled water production are discontinued due to treatment plant needs

Plan to recover costs if the aeration basis is not available for storage in the future

Plan to recover costs if the identified recycled water customer, OCP, decides to utilize potable water sources in lieu of recycled water for irrigation of its golf courses

The approved motion also included a provision that, upon completion of the Recycled Water Business Plan, SAM obtain written confirmation from CCWD that it had reviewed the same and agreed to proceed as a partner in the RWP. The motion also included a provision that the consulting firm selected for development of the Recycled Water Business Plan be a different consultant than that which had rendered the previous reports.

34


On June 3, SAM’s engineer responded to the above concerns raised by the City which SAM’s Manager believed was responsive to the above requested plan. On June 14, 2016, to solidify its requirement regarding the desired water quality standard, the CCWD’s Board of Directors voted to adopt a minimum water quality specification for recycled water that requires both microfiltration and RO. Thereafter, OCP indicated that in order for the recycled water to meet OCP’s water quality standards, the RWP must include RO that at least ran at a blended 35‐50% rate. On August 15, the CCWD and SAM Joint Recycled Water Committee (Committee) met and discussed the City’s concerns with the RWP. The Committee voted to have SAM contact SRT and request an update to their 2010 report to account for the need to add 35%‐50% RO blending as noted by OCP to be required to meet its own water quality objectives. The Committee further voted to request that in its updated report and back up analysis, SRT specifically update the executive summary, market study, treatment options, project alternatives, facilities project plan, construction financing plan and operating costs from its February 2016 report and analyses. On August 19, 2016, SRT provided a letter proposal to update its SAM 2010 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Report. In its letter, SRT responded that the Committee’s request was already addressed in SRT’s February 12, 2016 proposal to SAM for the RWP project in that the proposal stated that SRT would:

“develop and evaluate up to three (3) alternative concepts for recycled water treatment. The three (3) alternatives to be developed would be determined based on initial meetings and input from the SAM staff, Board of Directors, and other stakeholders.”

SRT then pointed to the February 2016 report providing for a two‐step process, with Step 1 including the development and analysis of alternatives, selection of the preferred alternative, development of basis of design for the preferred alternative, development of capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs for the preferred alternative, and development of a project finance plan. According to the August 19, 2016 letter, the cost would total $82,046, with the City paying half. There was no mention of RO being one of the alternatives that SRT would consider or be required to consider. Further, when City staff revisited the February 12, 2016 proposal, it determined that not only did it not include RO, it specifically eliminated RO from the analysis because SRT had determined that RO was not needed. As such the August 19, 2016 letter was non‐responsive.

35


On August 22, 2016, the SAM Board met and discussed the RWP. The Board unanimously approved a motion to request that SRT amend the existing February 2016 scope of work to specifically include RO in one of the methods that would be analyzed. The Board further requested that an updated report include a financial analysis, similar to that performed under SRT’s 2010 plan, for all evaluated technologies. On August 26, 2016, SRT submitted a second revised proposal for the SAM RWP which included microfiltration/RO in each of the three (3) alternative treatment methods they would analyze to produce recycled water for Phase 1 of SAM’s RWP. (Attachment 1) The proposal includes four discrete tasks, plus a fifth project management task. The total proposed cost to complete all five tasks is $173,606. The revised tasks do not include any meetings that SRT would be required to attend with City staff, the SAM Board or the public; nor do they include any work SRT would need to perform related to SAM’s pursuit of grant funding. Instead, those particular tasks are categorized as “optional” and are listed at an additional cost to SAM of $82,330 and $53,550, respectively. SRT also categorized “Peer Review” for Tasks 1 and 2 as optional and listed those tasks at a cost of $20,590. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the August 26, 2016 proposal provided by SRT and has determined that the updated scope addresses the need to include RO treatment in the project configuration. SRT has proposed to deliver the project through four discrete tasks and a fifth project management task. SRT has also proposed seven optional tasks. The total cost SRT is proposing to complete Tasks 1 through 5 and all seven options is $330,076 (with $173,606 for Tasks 1 through 5 and $156,470 for the seven options). It is worth noting that Tasks 1 through 5 do not include workshops with the SAM Board, agency staff, or public. Further, of the $156,470 that SRT has proposed in optional costs, $82,330 is proposed to cover all project‐related workshops. When compared with the design cost SRT is proposing, the cost for workshops seems high. In addition, staff reviewed the optional workshop being proposed for Task 1 and it seems appropriate for SAM and member agency staff to review the work products from Task 1, Alternatives Analysis, without a costly workshop. SRT has also proposed $20,590 for the option of having SRT manage a peer review of its own work product. This additional cost does not seem warranted as SRT is required, by contract, to have the necessary expertise. Finally, SRT has proposed $53,550 for the option of having SRT provide grant and loan funding application assistance. This task can be discussed in the future, if the RWP moves forward based on its technical and financial merits. Given the Council’s prior direction to authorize SAM to solicit proposals for the development of a Recycled Water Business Plan to include RO, and SRT’s recently revised proposal dated August 26, 2016, further direction from the Council is needed on how City representatives should proceed regarding the recycled water project. Should the City Council elect to move forward

36


with SRT’s proposal for 25% design, as set forth in SRT’s August 26, 2016 revised proposal, City staff would recommend that the Council specifically approve as follows:

That the City agree to pay the sum of half the total costs for Task 1 ($51,805) and Task 2 ($87,432), as well as half the cost for the optional workshop at the end of Task 2 ($11,630), for a total of $75,434

That the SAM Board and member agency staff, CCWD, and OCP be given an opportunity to review the Task 1 Analysis prior to SRT working on Task 2

That the SAM Board be required to approve the Task 1 Analysis and to approve SRT to move forward with the completion of Task 2

That Task 2 include a workshop, during which SRT shall educate the SAM Board and the community on SRT’s analysis, as well as provide an opportunity for the Board and the community to provide feedback

That SAM be required to conduct outreach to the community within SAM’s service area so that the public is given ample notice of the meeting time, date and location of the above workshop

That SRT be required to address all relevant feedback from the SAM Board and the community in its Task 2 report

Once SRT delivers the Task 2 report to the parties, each will be better informed regarding the full impact of a recycled water project with microfiltration and RO and whether such project is financially and physically viable at the SAM treatment plant. ATTACHMENT: Attachment 1: August 26, 2016 Revised Proposal from SRT. *All other reports referenced herein can be found on SAM’s website under “Recycled Water” at http://samcleanswater.org

37

August 26, 2016 Kishen Prathivadi, PE, PMP Engineering & Construction Contracts Manager Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside 1000 N Cabrillo Hwy Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Subject: Recycled Water Project (RWP) at Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM)

– SRT Consultants’ Revised Proposal Dear Mr. Prathivadi, SRT Consultants (SRT) is pleased to submit for your consideration the attached revised proposal for the SAM RWP. SRT will serve as your prime consultant, providing project management, alternative analysis, and conceptual engineering services. We have assembled a team of highly qualified professionals and experts from SRT and RMC Water and Environment (RMC), combining local knowledge with industry expertise, which would allow us to develop your RWP while optimizing your assets and minimizing your costs. The SRT-RMC team also offers you an exclusive collaboration with:

• Mark Massara, a renowned attorney and coastal advocate, will be available on as-needed basis to support SAM’s efforts with the key resource agencies.

• Hazen and Sawyer (Hazen), who will be available to provide an independent review of key engineering deliverables and participate in workshops with the stakeholders and staff, if authorized by SAM.

Please call me at 415.776.5800, x301, if you have any questions about the attached proposal. Sincerely,

Tanya Yurovsky, P.E. Principal SRT Consultants

38

SEWERAUTHORITYMID-COASTSIDE//RECYCLEDWATERPROJECTSCOPEAugust26,2016

SRT CONSULTANTS | Page 1 of 14

RECYCLED WATER PROJECT CONTRACT SCOPE OF SERVICES The SRT-RMC team proposes to execute the SAM RWP within five (5) main tasks detailed below. Tasks 1 through 5 address the scope of services requested by SAM in the 2016 RFP as modified via electronic correspondence dated August 23, 2016 and the City of Half Moon Bay request dated August 17, 2016. Optional Tasks 6 through 8 and several optional subtasks include services that the SRT-RMC team offers to SAM for consideration for the purpose of expediting work, realizing efficiencies, and improving results. The estimated costs of optional tasks are not included in the fee estimate. Table 1, below, includes an overview of the services offered in this Scope of Services. Table 1 Overview of Proposed Scope of Services

Base Scope Tasks1 Optional Tasks2

Task 1: Alternative Analysis This task includes the development of up to three (3) alternatives and the selection of the preferred RWP alternative.

Task 2: Basis of Design This task includes the development of the 25-percent design based on the Preferred Alternative selection completed under Task 1 and the Finance Plan.

Task 3: Implementation Schedule

This task will develop an Implementation Schedule utilizing critical path method (CMP). The schedule would identify critical milestones for the RWP completion, including permitting, design, bidding, construction, startup, and closeout.

Task 4: Identify Environmental Review and Permitting - Under this task, the SRT-RMC team would prepare a Draft Project Description to use for CEQA review and a preliminary Draft CDP Application.

Task 5: Project Management - This task serves to monitor the SRT-RMC team scope, budget, and schedule, and communicate the status and progress of the work to SAM.

Task 6: Grant/Loan Funding and Application Preparation – OPTIONAL

This optional task would include the evaluation of grant and/or loan opportunities, preparation of funding applications, and tracking of funding opportunities.

Task 7: Public Outreach – OPTIONAL This optional task would include providing support to SAM with public outreach meetings and Board workshops concurrently with the permitting, finance plan, and Basis of Design development. Task 8: Streambed Alteration Agreement – OPTIONAL The SRT-RMC team offers to provide support to SAM with the development and procurement of the Streambed Alteration Agreement for the CCWD’s pipeline crossing of the Pilarcitos Creek under this optional task.

1 Included in Fee Estimate 2 Not included in Fee Estimate

39



Scope of Services Tasks

The scope of services is detailed below within five (5) main tasks with various subtasks. The development of this scope was based on the following documents and communications received from SAM:

1. Electronic communication from SAM dated August 23, 2016, including Schematic 17 attached to the 08/23/2016 communication;

2. Letter from David R. Dickson, General Manager, Coastside County Water District, to Beverli Marshall, General Manager, Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, with attached Technical Memorandum #1 (FINAL) titled Phase 1 Recycled Water Project Water Quality and Quantity Evaluation, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, December 15, 2015;

3. OCP’s Recycled Water Position (8/2/2016); 4. Technical Memorandum #2 (FINAL) titled Phase 1 Recycled Water Project Conveyance

Facilities, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, March 21, 2016.

Task 1 Alternative Analysis

Task 1 includes the evaluation of alternatives for the production, storage, and delivery of 550,000 gallons per day (gpd) of average day demand (ADD) with 800,000 gpd of maximum day demand (MDD) of Title 22 recycled water that satisfies the OCP-prescribed water quality parameters as described in the Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Technical Memorandum (TM) #1 (FINAL) dated December 15, 2015. Task 1 will focus on treatment, storage, pumping facilities, and the pipeline to deliver recycled water to OCP.

1.1 Develop RWP Alternatives

The SRT-RMC team will develop and evaluate up to three (3) alternative concepts for recycled water treatment, storage, and delivery. The three (3) alternatives would be defined based on input received from the SAM staff and other stakeholders (see above) that would form the foundation of these alternatives.

Based on input received from SAM staff on available areas and process facilities at the existing WWTP, the re-purposing of existing underutilized structures would be one of the components included in the alternative evaluation. We understand that the existing tankage at the WWTP considered for the RWP utilization may only include the existing 125,000-gallon future primary clarifier and a 260,000-gallon aeration basin No. 2. Furthermore, as instructed by SAM, the process selected for consideration for the purpose of this RWP includes membrane filtration (MF) treatment followed by the reverse osmosis (RO) treatment with 30- to 50-percent blending of the RO stream. For storage and pump station sizing, “on-demand” vs. “controlled demand” storage and recycled water pump station operation would be evaluated.

The following are the RWP elements that will be included in every alternative under consideration:

1. MF/RO Treatment 2. Pilarcitos Creek Pipeline Crossing

The variables will include but will not be limited to the following examples:

1. On- and/or Off-Site Storage Options 2. Creek Crossing Installation Options

40



3. RW Disinfection Options 4. Pump Stations’ Sizing Options 5. RO Blending Ratios

1.2 Develop Preliminary Site Layouts

Up to three (3) preliminary site layouts will be developed for the alternative evaluation and would include the approximate footprint requirements for major process components (i.e., filtration, disinfection, storage and pumping). It is assumed that the RWP treatment train will be located at the SAM WWTP property and the only off-site component to be reviewed would be storage.

1.3 Develop Alternative Analysis Matrix

Under this subtask, the SRT-RMC team will develop a matrix summarizing the three (3) alternatives under consideration and outlining their benefits and drawbacks, together with their respective capital and O&M costs.

Preliminary details for each alternative would be summarized in the matrix as a basis for comparing the alternatives. The evaluation would include conceptual layouts and benefits associated with each of the alternatives (up to 3) under consideration.

As an optional service, this subtask can also engage review and input from our team’s experts from Hazen, including a recycled water design expert, a recycled water operations expert, process engineers, and a cost estimator. Third party participation would afford SAM an opportunity of receiving an independent review and input from internationally renowned professionals in the field of process engineering and water reuse. These optional services are in addition to the fee estimate provided for the base scope of services. The additional cost for these optional services is estimated at about $8,560, which includes 8 hours of support from a four (4)-expert team.

1.4 Develop Recommended Preferred Alternative – Draft Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandum (AA TM)

Based on input from SAM and the RWP stakeholders, this subtask will result in the preparation of the Draft AA TM that will be submitted electronically for SAM staff review and comments. The Draft AA TM will detail all of the information developed in the previous subtasks, presenting the alternatives in detail and recommending a preferred alternative based on the alternative analysis matrix results.

Assumptions and Limitations:

• Estimated recycled water demands (quantity and timing) and water quality parameters provided by SAM would be used.

• The development of a full user survey and demand estimates is excluded from this scope of work.

• SAM would be responsible for process sampling and testing (if any). • SAM would provide existing information (e.g., record drawings) of the existing

WWTP, including utility and all yard piping information. • SAM would provide the SRT-RMC team with a consolidated summary of SAM

comments on all review submittals. • Existing survey information provided by SAM would be used. No topographic survey

was included in the scope of work for this task.

41



• Up to three (3) alternatives to be developed and evaluated were included in the fee estimate for this Task 1.

1.5 OPTIONAL SUBTASK: Peer Review of Draft AA TM and Staff Workshop

This Optional Subtask 1.5 is offered to provide SAM staff and stakeholders an opportunity to discuss the Draft AA TM findings with the SRT-RMC team and receive comments from the independent industry experts (Hazen).

OPTIONAL SRT-RMC Team Deliverables:

• Presentation materials and participation in a 4-hour workshop with staff and stakeholders

SAM Deliverables:

• Staff participation and facilities for the workshop

These optional services are in addition to the fee estimate provided for the base scope of services. The additional cost for these optional services is estimated at about $22,370.

1.6 OPTIONAL SUBTASK: Board Workshop to Review and Approve Preferred Alternative

Under this Optional Subtask 1.6, the SRT-RMC team together with the third-party experts would prepare and participate in a public meeting with the SAM Board of Directors and other stakeholders with the goal of receiving input from the policy makers and stakeholders and concurrence with the proposed Preferred Alternative. This optional workshop would provide an opportunity for the policy makers to provide input to the RWP development process while streamlining the development of the Basis of Design Report (BODR) under Task 2.


• Presentation materials and participation in a 4-hour Board workshop

SAM Deliverables:

• Stakeholder participation and facilities for the workshop

These optional services are in addition to the fee estimate provided for the base scope of services. The additional cost for these optional services is estimated at about $11,630, provided it is coupled with Optional Task 1.5. If this Subtask is authorized without Subtask 1.5, the cost would increase to $22,370 due to the need for the reviewers to familiarize themselves with the project.

1.7 Final AA TM

Based on the comments to the Draft AA TM received from SAM, the team will finalize the TM and submit it to SAM in its final version.

TASK 1 SRT-RMC Team Deliverables:

• Draft Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandum (AA TM), electronically • Final AA TM electronically and five (5) hard copies

42



SAM Deliverables:

• One consolidated set of comments to the Draft AA TM within two (2) weeks of receipt

Task 2 Basis of Design – 25-Percent Design

Based on the selection of the Preferred Alternative completed under Task 1, the SRT-RMC team will develop the Basis of Design Report (BODR). Task 2 includes the conceptual design for the recycled water production, storage, and transmission pipeline to OCP and constitutes the 25-percent completion level.

2.1 Prepare Draft BODR

The work completed in Task 1 would be further advanced and compiled into a Draft BODR. The SRT-RMC team would prepare the Draft BODR and submit for review and comments by SAM staff. The Draft BODR would include critical design parameters, descriptions of the proposed facilities, and 25-percent-level design drawings of the proposed facilities.

2.2 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

Under this subtask, the capital and O&M (electrical power, chemical storage and consumption, staffing, etc.) engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for the selected preferred alternative would be developed and included with the Draft BODR.

The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI) developed metrics to classify estimating accuracy through project development. The cost estimates to be developed would be considered planning-level estimates based on a 25-percent level of project development. Based on AACEI guidelines, actual project costs are typically within +50% to -25% of the planning-level cost estimate.

2.3 Prepare Final BODR

The SRT-RMC team would incorporate relevant review comments from SAM into a Final BODR.


• Draft BODR (25% design), electronically • Final BODR (25% design), electronically and five (5) hard copies

SAM Deliverables:

• One consolidated set of comments to the Draft BODR within two (2) weeks of receipt

2.4 Prepare Draft Finance Plan

The SRT-RMC team would prepare a Draft RWP Finance Plan that would be included in the Draft BODR. The Draft Finance Plan would include the following elements:

• Pricing policy for recycled water • Costs that can be allocated to water pollution control • Annual projection of:

o Water prices o Recycled water used o Annual costs of recycling project o Allocation of costs

43



o Unit costs o Unit price of recycled water o Sensitivity analysis assuming user fails to use recycled water

• Sunk costs and indebtedness

2.5 Prepare Final Finance Plan

The SRT-RMC team would solicit comments on the Draft Finance Plan from SAM staff and other stakeholders as relevant and appropriate. We would incorporate comments received as applicable and prepare the Final Finance Plan that would be attached to the Final BODR.

2.6 OPTIONAL - Peer Review of Draft BODR and Staff Workshop

This Optional Subtask 2.6 is offered to provide SAM and stakeholders an opportunity to discuss the Draft BODR with the SRT-RMC team and receive input from the team’s experts.

This optional subtask will engage an independent review and input from our team’s experts, including a recycled water design expert, a recycled water operations expert, process engineers, and a cost estimator. Their participation would afford SAM an opportunity of receiving an independent review and input from internationally renowned professionals in the field of process engineering and water reuse.


• Presentation materials and participation in a 4-hour workshop with staff

SAM Deliverables:

• Staff participation and facilities for the workshop


2.7 OPTIONAL - Board Workshop

Under this Optional Subtask 2.7, the SRT-RMC team together with the industry experts would prepare and participate in a public meeting with the SAM Board of Directors and other stakeholders with the goal of receiving input from the policy makers and stakeholders on the Draft BOD. This optional workshop would provide an opportunity for the stakeholders and policy makers to provide input to the RWP development process while advancing the RWP.


• Presentation materials and participation in a 4-hour Board workshop

SAM Deliverables:

• Stakeholder participation and facilities for the workshop


44



Task 3 RWP Implementation Schedule

Under this Task, the SRT-RMC team will develop a RWP Implementation Schedule utilizing critical path method (CMP). The schedule would identify critical milestones for the RWP completion, including permitting, design, bidding, construction, startup, and closeout.

SRT-RMC Team Deliverables (all electronic unless noted):

• Draft Implementation Schedule in MS Project format for SAM review and comments • Final Implementation Schedule in MS Project format

Task 4 Identify Environmental Review Studies and Permitting

Under this task, the SRT-RMC team would initiate CEQA and Coastal Act compliance work for the RWP.

Subtask 4.1 Prepare CEQA Project Description

The SRT-RMC team would develop the project description for the RWP. In addition, the SRT-RMC team would prepare an initial CEQA checklist to identify potential significant impacts of the project and risk areas that could warrant preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) vs. a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Subtask 4.2 Prepare Preliminary Draft Coastal Development Permit Application

The SRT-RMC team would prepare a preliminary Draft Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application under the City of Half Moon Bay LCP. For this subtask, the SRT-RMC team is offering SAM an exclusive support and expertise of Mark Massara, an environmental attorney and coastal advocate, who has been instrumental in supporting various projects that have provided coastal habitat restoration and protection, such as the SAM’s RWP. We believe that Mr. Massara’s expertise and input would greatly assist SAM and its partners in moving forward with the project implementation.


• This task includes a limited effort to only prepare a Draft Project Description and a preliminary Draft CDP application.

• No environmental studies (e.g., biology, hydrology, archeology, etc.) are included in this task.

• The SRT-RMC team is fully prepared to provide additional environmental permitting services and studies under this task on an as-needed basis. These additional services would be billed on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the hourly rates and other fee schedules included in this proposal.

• This task can only be initiated following the development and approval of the AA TM and BODR in Tasks 1 and 2.

• Services of Mark Massara are optional, offered on a time-and-materials basis, and are not included in the base fee estimate.


• RWP Project Description, Draft only, electronically • Preliminary Draft CDP Application, electronically

45



The SRT-RMC team is fully qualified and prepared to provide additional environmental permitting services and studies under this task on an as-needed basis, up to and including the preparation of the CEQA and CDP documents. These additional services would be billed on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the hourly rates and other fee schedules included in this proposal.

Task 5 Project Management

This task serves to monitor the SRT-RMC team scope, budget, and schedule, identify corrective measures, if any, early in the process, and communicate the status and progress of the work to SAM. The fee estimate for this task is based on the 6-month contract duration requested by SAM.

5.1 Team Coordination and Management

This subtask includes internal team coordination and monitoring utilizing various project control tools and measures. Operations managers and the SRT-RMC Quality Assurance Committee would regularly audit projects to ensure they are being executed in a timely and efficient manner that is consistent with SAM’s goals, schedule, and budget.

5.2 Monthly Reporting and Invoicing

As part of our regular monthly invoicing, monthly progress reports would prepared to present updated budget tracking, including reporting of the percentage of budget spent relative to the portion of the task completed, along with schedule assessment and identification of potential issues that could impact the project performance.

5.3 Quality Assurance and Control

All project work products would undergo internal review prior to being submitted to SAM. The SRT-RMC team project manager would be responsible for seeing that these reviews are undertaken and appropriate, and that the project team initiates follow-up actions. Calculations, design criteria, hydraulic models, technical memoranda, reports, drawings, and specifications are all subject to review under this process.


• Six (6) Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices • Six (6) Monthly Progress Meetings with SAM

OPTIONAL Task 6 Grant/Loan Funding and Application Preparation This Optional Task 6 includes the work related to tracking, securing, and administering grant and loan funding from the State of California. Completion of negotiations between SAM and CCWD is critical to the RWP implementation as the executed agreements between the water purveyor and recycled water distributor (CCWD) and recycled water producer (SAM) and between the water purveyor and recycled water customer (OCP) are required prior to submitting any grant or loan funding applications to the State Water Board.

If authorized, this Optional Task 6 would be executed within the following five (5) subtasks:

6.1 Evaluate Funding Alternatives and Eligibility

The SRT-RMC team would track funding opportunities from existing state funding programs, including the grant program name, administering agency, program purpose, funding availability,

46



eligibility requirements, and timing. We would provide ongoing communication with funding agencies and SAM to track potential funding opportunities, educate funding agencies about SAM project(s), and provide outreach as necessary. As funding program guidelines are released, the SRT-RMC team would review them to determine applicability to SAM and, if requested, prepare and submit comment letters on SAM’s behalf.

6.2 Prepare Funding Applications

The SRT-RMC team would prepare grant and loan application(s) in accordance with the state funding agencies' application submittal guidelines, using information developed in Tasks 1 and 2, and input from SAM. The SRT-RMC team would also assist SAM in preparing for funding discussions with applicable state funding agency staff. This task would include, but may not be limited to:

• Preparing and maintaining a project schedule, noting key project milestones, meetings, and deadlines to ensure timely submittal of each grant/loan application and for stakeholder outreach purposes.

• Compiling and producing all data and information needed for grant/loan application submittal.

• Preparing and providing draft copies of the grant/loan applications to SAM staff for review.

• Submitting a final, revised copy of the grant/loan applications to SAM prior to final document production and submittal to the state agencies.

• Submitting the grant/loan applications using FAAST (Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool) or other means as requested by state funding agencies.

• If applicable, revising the grant/loan applications as directed by SAM or via any instructions provided by the state agencies after grant/loan application submission.

• Providing a total of five hard copies of the grant/loan application(s), including figures and appendices, and five CDs.

6.3 Funding/Grant Tracking and Documentation Support

The SRT-RMC team would administer grants and/or loans on behalf of SAM. This would involve compiling invoice and progress report information, and coordinating with other consultants and/or contractors, SAM, and the administering agency. We would prepare templates, schedules, communication and coordination procedures, and other protocols as needed for use throughout implementation of grant administration to ensure consistent invoicing and billing among all consultants and contractors.

The SRT-RMC team would prepare and submit the grant/loan disbursement invoices and reports with information as required by the administering agency and conduct necessary coordination under this task.


• The SRT-RMC team will provide this scope and corresponding level of effort to SAM on an as-needed basis, upon approval.

• No federal funding assistance was included in the level of effort estimate; should SAM desire assistance with the federal funding applications, the SRT-RMC team would provide additional services under this task on an as-needed basis.

47



• These optional services would be billed on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the hourly rates and other fee schedules included in this proposal.

OPTIONAL TASK 6 SRT-RMC Team Deliverables (all electronic unless noted):

• Board presentation, Draft and Final, for the review of the Finance Plan • Draft SAM Board Resolutions for the grants/loans • Funding Applications (grant and loan)

SAM Deliverables:

• One consolidated set of comments to the Draft Board presentation, within three (3) business days of submittal

• Fully executed and signed Board resolutions for inclusion with the application packets • Fully executed agreements: SAM/CCWD and CCWD/OCP for inclusion with the

application packets


OPTIONAL TASK 7 Public Outreach: Hold Project Workshops and Public Meetings

This optional task includes providing support to SAM with public outreach meetings and Board workshops concurrently with the permitting, finance plan, and BOD development.

7.1 Prepare for and Administer Project Workshops (2)

Under this subtask, the SRT-RMC team would develop presentation materials and conduct two (2) Project Workshops with SAM staff and stakeholders.

7.2 Prepare for and Administer Public Meetings (2)

Under this subtask, the SRT-RMC team would develop presentation materials, a Project Fact Sheet, and conduct two (2) Public Meetings with SAM staff and stakeholders.

OPTIONAL SRT-RMC Team Deliverables (all electronic):

• Draft and Final Project Workshop No. 1 and No. 2 presentation materials • Project Workshop No. 1 and No. 2 summary notes • Draft and Final Public Meeting No. 1 and No. 2 presentation materials • Public Meeting No. 1 and No. 2 summary notes • Project Fact Sheet, Draft and Final for public distribution

SAM Deliverables:

• One consolidated set of comments to each of the two (2) Draft Project Workshop presentation materials within two (2) weeks of the Draft receipt

• Date/time, location for the two Project Workshops and staff and other stakeholders attendance

• One consolidated set of comments to each of the two (2) Draft Public Meeting presentation materials within two (2) weeks of the Draft receipt

• Date/time, location of the two Public Meetings and staff and other stakeholders attendance

48




• Two project workshops and two public meetings, each of a four (4)-hour duration are included in the fee estimate

• Two SRT-RMC team staff would attend the meetings • Draft CEQA+ document is required to file the applications


OPTIONAL Task 8: Streambed Alteration Agreement

The SRT-RMC team proposes to provide support to SAM with the development and procurement of the Streambed Alteration Agreement for the CCWD’s pipeline crossing of the Pilarcitos Creek.


• This is an optional subtask to be provided on an as-needed basis • The effort for this subtask would be billed on a time-and-materials basis in accordance

with the hourly rates and other fee schedules included in this proposal

OPTIONAL SRT-RMC Team Deliverables (all electronic):

• Administrative Draft Streambed Alteration Agreement for SAM’s review and comments • Draft Streambed Alteration Agreement Submittal to the California Department of Fish

and Wildlife • Support with negotiations

These optional services are in addition to the fee estimate provided for the base scope of services. The effort for this subtask would be billed on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the hourly rates and other fee schedules included in this proposal.

49



RECYCLED WATER PROJECT CONTRACT SCHEDULE

The following provides the proposed milestones and durations for this contact, assuming the overall six-month contract duration.

• SAM Board Award of Contact September 26, 2016

• Notice to Proceed to SRT from SAM September 28, 2016

• Kickoff Meeting with SAM Staff October 5, 2016

• Develop RWP Alternatives 4 weeks

• Develop Alternative Analysis Matrix 4 weeks

• Submit Draft AA TM November 30, 2016

• SAM Review of Draft AA TM 2 weeks

• Receive SAM’s comments December 14, 2016

• Submit Final AA TM December 28, 2016

• Develop Draft BODR 8 weeks

• Submit Draft BODR February 27, 2017

• SAM Review of Draft BODR 2 weeks

• Receive SAM’s comments March 13, 2017

• Submit Final BODR March 28, 2017

The following tasks will run concurrently to meet the schedule:

• RWP Implementation Schedule can be developed concurrently with the Draft BODR;

• CEQA and CDP project description will be prepared during the Draft BODR

development;

• Funding Procurement (Optional Task 6) and the Streambed Alternation Agreement

(Optional Task 8) Application can be completed concurrently with the Draft BODR.

50



RECYCLED WATER PROJECT CONTRACT FEE ESTIMATE

The following table presents a summary of the fee estimate to complete the five main tasks detailed in the Scope of Services. The optional tasks’ fee estimates follow.

TASKS Total Cost

Task 1: Alternative Analysis 1.1 Develop RWP Alternatives $8,989 1.2 Develop Preliminary Site Layouts $13,149 1.3 Develop Alternative Analysis Matrix $8,689 1.4 Draft AA TM $12,929 1.7 Final AA TM $8,049

Subtotal Task 1: $51,805 Task 2: Basis of Design

2.1 Prepare Draft BOD $27,506 2.2 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $7,979 2.3 Final BOD $28,547 2.4 Prepare Draft Finance Plan $11,700 2.5 Prepare Final Finance Plan $11,700

Subtotal Task 2: $87,432 Task 3: Implementation Schedule

3.1 Draft Implementation Schedule $4,860 3.2 Final Implementation Schedule $3,780

Subtotal Task 3: $8,640 Task 4: Initiate Environmental Review and Permitting

4.1 Prepare CEQA Project Description $8,224 4.2 Prepare Preliminary Draft CDP Application $2,365

Subtotal Task 4: $10,589 Task 5: Project Management

5.1 Team Coordination and Management $4,860 5.2 Monthly Reporting and Invoicing $4,860 5.3 Quality Assurance and Control $4,920

Subtotal Task 5: $14,640 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) $500

FEE ESTIMATE TOTAL $173,606

51



Optional Services Fee Estimates3:

1. Optional Peer Review in Subtask 1.3 $8,600

2. Optional Subtask 1.5 $22,370




6. Optional Task 6 $53,550

7. Optional Task 7 $36,700

8. Optional Task 8 on a time-and-materials basis

9. CEQA and CDP Completion Support on a time-and-materials basis

3 Not included in the base fee estimate on Page 13

52

Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Recycled Water Project Billing Rates, Direct Labor Rates, Overhead and Profit

Firm RoleTeamMemberClassification

BillingClassifications BillingRate

DirectLaborRate

FirmOverhead

Multipliera

FirmProfit

FirmOverall

Multiplier(ProfitandOverhead)

TanyaYurovsky Principal $205 $74.01TimMonahan PrincipalEngineerII $180 $64.98BillMcCarthy PrincipalEngineerI $200 $72.20BradSneed SeniorEngineerI $165 $59.57LisaPezzino SeniorEngineerIII $150 $54.15MariluCorona StaffEngineerI $135 $48.74NinaMao StaffEngineerI $135 $48.74Admin/CAD Graphics/Support $100 $36.10DaveRichardson EPS-13b $316 $117.01RobinCort EPS-10 $264 $80.24ChristyKennedy EPS-8 $238 $72.12MikeMatson EPS-13b $316 $110.81MarkTakemoto EPS-9 $234 $71.10EPS-2 EPS-2 $119 $36.06TECH-4 TECH-4 $150 $45.43Admin Admin $93 $28.25ChrisPortner CostEstimating $180 $57.32IreneChu ProcessEngineer $180 $57.32KevinAlexander VicePresident $250 $79.62TroyWalker VicePresident $250 $79.62PaulPitt VicePresident $250 $79.62

Notes:

b.RMCEPS-13rateiscappedat$316

e.Allratesaresubjecttoa3-percentadjustmenton01/01/2017d.10-percentmarkuponsubconsultants

PrimeConsultant

1.52 10% 2.77

Subconsultant 1.91 10% 3.20

Subconsultant 1.85 10% 3.14

SRT

RMC

Hazen

a.Overheadratesshownforeachfirmexcludeprofitandincludeindirectpayroll,employeeholidayvacationandsicktime,payrolltaxes,employeeinsurance,professionaldevelopment,officerent,officesuppliesandleases,generalandadministrativeexpenses,legalandaccounting,professionalliabilityinsurance,professionalservices,telephone/internet,auto/travel,businesstaxesandITsupplies/services.

c.OtherDirectCosts(ODCs)arebilledatcost,nomarkup

53

city council agenda regular meeting city of half … · mac dutra plaza remodel construction...

Documents