HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1999, C-11 - SOUND WALL FEASIBILITY STUDY,A
SUBJECT:
counat
acEnaa
Report
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Worl "F
Sound Wall Feasibility Study 1 v�
CAO RECOMMENDATION
M.finD�
tat I?
Ism N ' l
1. Authorize staff to waive standard consultant selection process and negotiate directly for
consultant services with various consultants.
2. Authorize the CAO to award the contract if the total amount is within the budgeted amount
3. To appropriate $25,000 from the general fund for consultant services.
DISCUSSION
At its meeting of December 17, 1998, the City Council considered an agenda item to construct a
sound wall along Brizzolara Street, between Brizzolara Street and Highway 101. The City Council
decided to proceed with the project by formally setting aside funding and design performance
objectives. However prior to initialization of actual design and construction documents, the
Council authorized a feasibility study to determine cost and design implications of the project. The
results of that feasibility study were to be returned to the City Council for consideration prior to
authorization for final preparation of design documents.
Funding which was set aside for construction of the project, $500,000 of SLOCOG designated
funds for the sound wall and $500,000 of City contribution from STIP funds, cannot be used for
feasibility studies. Therefore, the funding for this project must come from the City's general fiord.
Staff estimates that the cost of this study to be $25,000.
Mr. Steve DeVencenzi, Principal Planner with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, stated
that the Council of Governments would allow the City a six month period from the date of that
Council meeting to determine whether or not the City would like to pursue design and construction
of the sound wall. In order to retain a consultant to perform the feasibility study and have the
results available for City Council consideration within the six month period, an expedited
consultant selection process is necessary.
The City's standard consultant selection process involves City Council approval of Request for
Proposals (RFP); followed by a thirty day period in which consultants can propose on the project;
followed by a two week period in which interviews take place; followed by contract negotiations
and insurance submittals. In general, this entire process takes about ninety days from the date of
Council authorization to the date at which the consultant can begin work. This would only leave
about ninety days for the consultant to perform all necessary studies and return to the City Council
for consideration. This time frame is too tight, in staff s opinion, in order to meet all the deadlines
necessary.
C11 -1
Council Agenda Report — Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 2
The fastest mode available to retain a consultant in this type of tight time frame would be to waive
the City standard requirements for the RFP process and allow City Engineering staff to negotiate
directly with a series of local consultants. Based on those consultations and the funding available
from the City Council, the CAO would be authorized to enter into a contract with the selected
consultant Standard insurance requirements would not be waived. It is estimated that this process
could save the City approximately forty five working days in securing the services of a consultant
for the feasibility study. This should yield a sufficient amount of time for a consultant to perform
the necessary studies and make the necessary reports, in order for Council to make the necessary
considerationswithin the six month period allowed by SLOCOG.
The City Engineer and the Engineering staff are currently fully booked with work projects. The
urgency of this project will demand that some projects be dropped in order to pursue this project. It
is not known at this time which projects will be affected.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no funding appropriated for the feasibility study; there are sufficient in the City's
Unappropriated General Fund balance to fully fund this project.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not fund this feasibility project and direct staff to inform SLOCOG that the City no longer
wishes to pursue the sound wall project.
LCouncil agenda reports/sound wall feasibility study2
C(f - Z