HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2005, PH3 - CONSIDERATION OF REPROGRAMMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS (CDBG) FROM THE HOSPICE ELEV council
j acEnaa Repoin
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: _ John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Doug Davidson,Housing Programs Manager j),-
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REPROGRAMMING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS (CDBG). FROM THE.
HOSPICE ELEVATOR PROJECT TO THE FIRE STATION #2
HANDICAPPED ACCESS PROJECT WITH THE REMAINDER
GOING TO THE HANDICAPPED CURB RAMPS PROGRAM AND
ANHOLM PARK IMPROVEMENTS.
HRC RECOMMENDATION
Do not approve the reprogramming of $60,000 in CDBG funds from the Hospice Elevator
project to the Fire Station #2. Handicapped Access project, but find another source of funding for
this worthy project.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Approve the reprogramming of$60,000 in CDBG funds from the Hospice Elevator project to the
Fire Station #2 Handicapped Access project ($35,000) with the remainder ($25,000) going to the
Handicapped Curb Ramps program($10,000) and Anholm Park improvements ($15,000).
DISCUSSION
Background.
The City Council decided in 2003 that Fire Station #2 was a priority for federal funds to bring its
handicapped access up to standard and improve the safety of the driveway and pedestrian
circulation in the area. In the 2003 CDBG program year, $30,000 was originally allocated and then
supplemented with $23,879 from CDBG Program Administration. Despite this additional funding,
the bids came in well over the budgeted amount. On November 1, 2005, the Council approved the
award with Granite Construction ($74,950) and directed staff to pursue reprogramming CDBG
funds ($60,000) from the Hospice Elevator project to Fire Station #2. Pursuing the reprogramming
includes a review and recommendation by the HRC.
Rational for Project and Reprogramming CDBG Funds
As explained on November 1, 2005, increasing construction costs and the continuing uncertainty of
CDBG and other funding sources, make this a timely opportunity to rehabilitate Fire Station #2.
The project is "ready to go." In contrast, the Hospice elevator project has been "lagging" for 3
years with no plans to construct it in the near future. All other CDBG projects of the last several
�I
Reprogramming of CDBG-Funds Page 2
years, including curb ramps, parks, Transitions Mental Health, and others have been actively .
drawing down funds recently. In fact, it is a federal requirement to spend the funds in a timely
manner, generally defined as within 18 months. Recently, for example, the City of Grover Beach
has been under pressure to more expeditiously spend CDBG funds. Therefore, Hospice funds
would have been reallocated shortly one way or the other due to the lack of progress. To meet its
CDBG funding performance standards, the City must reprogram funds to a project ready to start
construction,which is the case with the proposed projects.
HRC Review
At their November 2,2005 meeting, the HRC, on a 4:3 vote, recommended against reprogramming
the funds to Fire Station #2, although on a separate 6:1 vote agreed that they have previously
approved funding for the Fire station and are conceptually supportive of the project.
The reason the HRC could not support the staff recommendation is because they felt it was coming
outside of the usual process and without sufficient context for the decision. For example, the HRC
would have much preferred to consider the recommendation along with the new 2006 project
options — and with a list of existing projects that might need more funding. This is an
understandable desire and it is the staff's goal when this is feasible. However, in this case our
ability to be comprehensive was constrained by a combination of the need to act on this project
before bids expired and the 2006 CDBG schedule and cycle. At the time the proposal was taken to
the HRC, the CDBG applications were not yet available for presentation to the HRC. However,.
sufficient information is now available and shall be presented to the HRC on December 7d' which.
shows that there are no other current projects in need of this funding and no new applications for
this funding.
CAO Recommendation
The HRC only addressed the reprogramrning of$35,000 to Fire Station #2; the reallocation of the
remaining $25,000 specifically to Anholm Park and Handicapped Curb Ramps was not discussed.
On November 3; 2005 — the day after the HRC hearing - the City received notice from the
playground manufacturer that cost increases will take place in January, 2006 raising the cost of the
Anholm Park project by $12,000-$15,000.. For this reason, staff is recommending that the Council
reprogram$15,000 of the remaining $25,000 from the Hospice project to Anholm Park. To ensure
that all CDBG funds are properly accounted for and not "floating", the staff recommendation
includes reprogramming the remaining $10,000 to the ongoing City Handicapped Curb Ramps
program. Since $25,000 is the threshold for a "minor" revision to the CDBG program, staff
recommends that the Council reprogram the remaining $25,000 as suggested without review by the
HRC. Under the federal guidelines and our agreement with the County, the City may
administratively shift funding from one previously approved CDBG project to another. The City
has done this several times. For instance, the reprogramming of 2003 Program Year funds
mentioned earlier in this report ($23;879 of Program Administration to Fire Station#2) was done at
the administrative staff level. Staff is including the remaining $25,000 in our recommendation to
provide the Council a comprehensive overview of how the $60,000 is being reprogrammed.
Reprogramming of CDBG Funds Page 3
In weighing whether or not to bring forth a different recommendation than the HRC's, the CAO
offers this opinion: While the NRC's desire for a comprehensive picture is understandable and
appreciated, when it comes to matters of budgeting — and as much as we always try to organize
very complete processes— there are always adjustments that must be made to the budget mid-
year, in light of changed circumstances. The Council itself experiences such "interim"
adjustments fairly regularly given the "living" nature of any budget. This particular
reprogramming of CDBG funds is one example that the HRC has experienced, although such
changes in the CDBG program are certainly the exception and not the rule. The vast majority of
the time the HRC is afforded the opportunity to review the entire "landscape" of CDBG projects,.
issues and funding.
Public Notice/Action
A 30-day public notice advertising this CDBG reprogramming of funds was published in the
Tribune on October 22, 2005. No comments were received from the public during the comment
period.
The County of San Luis Obispo is scheduled to amend its Action Plan to recognize this change on
December 20, 2005. This will be a routine Consent Calendar item for the County solely intended to
keep the CDBG account up to date.
CONCURRENCES
The Hospice organization agreed in writing that they do not have the capacity to complete the
elevator project and that.the funds should be reallocated to a project that is ready for construction
(see attached letter). They did not comment on the Fire Station #2 Handicapped Access Project
specifically.
FISCAL IMPACT
No impact on the General Fund-CDBG is a federal entitlement program.
ALTERNATIVE
Fund the Fire Station #2 improvements from the Completed Projects account or the CIP Reserve
account. Fire Station #2 is an eligible and previously approved CDBG project. The proposed
project is the same in scope as originally planned — the request for additional funding is triggered
only by the increase in construction costs. Using the Hospice funds will put that money toward a
similar handicapped access project and keep more of the Completed Projects or CIP Reserve
accounts available for other important non-CDBG projects. The Handicapped Curb Ramps
program and Anholm Park are also ADA-related projects that can put to quick use the remaining
reprogrammed funding.
3-3
Reprogramming of CDBG Funds Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 -Letter from Hospice Director dated October 13,2005
Attachment 2-Minutes of November 2, 2005 HRC meeting
Attachment 3 -Council Agenda Report.November 1, 2005
dd/CDBGICCRpt 12-6
3-4
x(o6y[ce, w���� A ET 1
...because love never dies
of San Iuu Obupo County
a volunteer batpice organization est.1977
FCITYOFANLUIS OBISPOT 1 8 2005
October 13, 2005 r COMMUNITY DEVELON'i J
Doug Davidson, Housing Proframs Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Davidson:
This is to confirm our earlier conversation, that unfortunately our organization does not
have sufficient funds at this time to proceed with our elevator project. We most
appreciate C.D.B.G.'s granting Hospice of San Luis Obispo County potential
building funds, and we are hopeful that we will be ablelc,raise adequate fiinds in the
future to complete this worthy project.
I am glad to know that these .released funds will benefit another agency's access project.
Sincerely,
04t44
Donna Kean, L.C.S.W.
Executive Director
Hospice of San Luis Obispo County located in the Dorothy D.Rupe Center
1304 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805/544-2266 805/434-1164 Fax:805/544-6573
www.hospiceslo.org hospiceslo@hospiceslo.org
3—S
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
Wednesday
November 2, 2005
5;00 P.M.
City Hall
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER:
PRESENT: Chairperson Janna Nichols, Vice Chairperson Stephan Lamb
Commissioners Maureen_ .Forsberg, Bryan Gingg, Tom Sant,
Elise Wheeler, and Paul Wolff
STAFF
PRESENT: Ken Hampian; City Administrative Officer; Bill Statler; Director of
Finance and Information Technology (IT); Monica Irons, Director of
Human Resources; and Mary Kopecky, Human Resources Executive
Assistant
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: October 5, 2005
ACTION: Moved by LambMheeler to approve the minutes of October 5,2005
as submitted; motion carried 6:0. (Commissioner Wolff stepped down because
he was absent from the October 5, 2005 meeting)
PUBLIC COMMENT_
There were Bio public comments for items not on the agenda.
BUSINESS ITEMS
Item 1: UPDATE.ON.-POSSIBLE REVENUE BALLOT_MEASURE.
(STATLI R/HAMPIAN)
Director of Finan id.IT Statler presented an in-depth overview of the proposed
ballot measure to Increase sales tax one-half cent per dollar.
• At HES
Human Relations Commission Minutes
November 2, 2005 Page 2
Brief HRC discussion ensued.
Vice Chairperson Lamb spoke in opposition. He could not be supportive because he
believed the City employee's retirement package was too lucrative. He also thought the
Director of Finance and IT's presentation seemed too aggresive.
Commissioner Wolff expressed concern regarding how the funds would be used and
advocated using the funds for senior and homeless services..
Commissioner Wheeler spoke in support of protecting existing,programs and services.
She felt the tone of the presentation was inappropriate. She suggested Finance
Director Statler eliminate the word "stealing" when speaking of State take-aways
because it had an offensive connotation.
Item 2. REPROGRAMMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) FROM THE HOSPICE ELEVATOR TO THE FIRE
STATION 2 ACCESS REMODEL. (LYNCH/ZEULNER)
Deputy.Director of Public Works Lynch reported Council approved a contract to
remodel Fire Station 2 (a previously approved 2005 CDBG project) on November 1,
2005. At that meeting Council directed staff to meet with the HRC to discuss
reprogramming $35,000 of the Hospice of San Luis Obispo County CDBG grant toward
the completion of the Fire Station 2 remodel. She noted at this time Hospice of San
Luis Obispo County did not have sufficient funds to proceed with their project and had
released their grant back to the City.
Chairperson Nichols noted the HRC had already approved the Fire Station 2 CDBG
grant but at a different amount.
Deputy.Director of.Public Works Lynch stated the project had not changed; however,
the bids received were significantly higher than the engineer's estimate.
Vice Chairperson Lamb inquired if the money were not used at this time would it go
away or could it be rolled over. He expressed interest in using the money for other
projects. He opposed City staff making recommendations to reprogram CDBG grant
funds to City projects becaus%iffie bother CDBG grant recipients were not given an
opportunity to compete for tha.-f
Chairperson Nichols inquired if other City projects had overruns and expressed a
desire to meet with Director of Human Resources Irons and Housing Programs
Manager Davidson to discuss this issue.
CY'Jb man Rdatinn. commission%inUWSV 3NN0v=ba 2,2005 .d"c
- 3 -�1
Human Relations Commission Minutes
ATTACHMENT Z
November 2, 2005 Page 3
Commissioner Wolff shared concems about how to designate the remaining $25,000
CDBG funds. He acknowledged Hospice of San Luis Obispo County had placed their
elevator project on hold, but this project would need to be addressed by Hospice in the
future. He asked that staff note for the record that there were two distinct hospices in
San Luis Obispo.
Commissioner Forsberg questioned why other CDBG recipients weren't-informed this
money was available.
Chairperson.Nichols reminded the HRC that all applicants had timelines. She noted
staff was aware of the Hospice fulfillment dates but what the HRC did not know was if
there were other grant recipients who could have used this funding.
Commissioner Sant questioned why there wawsuch a disparity between the
engineer's estimate and the bids.
Debuty Public Works Director Lynch responded construction costs since Hurricane
Katrina had drastically increased with bidders giving high estimates that were only good
for 24 hours.
Vice Chairperson Lamb stated he could not be supportive without more information
and a greater understanding of the timelines and the other grant recipients' needs.
Chairperson.Nichols remarked the HRC has a workshop scheduled November 30,
2005 with the next regular HRC meeting on December 7, 2005. She inquired how that
fit into CDBG timeline.
Deputy Public Works Director Lynch responded the construction would start in two
weeks and the staff report was due`on November 23, 2005. She further stated Council
had approved going forward with construction but was waiting to hear from the HRC for
direction regarding the reprogramming of the funds.
Director of Finance and IT Statler pointed out that in the big scheme this was a.
relatively small allocation for a previously approved project. He urged the HRC to
approve the reallocation of funds since this project was ready to go, the City was ready
to award the contract and future projects were not ready to go. He suggested leaving
the remaining $25,000 unallocated to be put back into the total pot.
Chairperson Nichols noted the staff report which went to Council on November 1,
2005 did not state the unallocated $25,000 would go back into the pot Additionally she
noted HRC had not been informed if the $25,000 would be lost if it was not allocated.
Crum Rdauws ovemba z 2005 minora eoc
i 34
Human Relations Commission Minutes AT7ACHMEWT.1
November 2, 2005 Page 4
Director of Finance and IT Statler assured the HRC the State would not consider how
old grants funds were, but rather if the recipient was moving forward with their proposal.
ACTION: Moved by LambMheeler not to recommend reallocation of the
Hospice funds carry over and ask Fire staffto reapply for the returned funds; this
motion was later withdrawn.
Brief HRC discussion ensued.
Vice Chairperson Lamb withdrew his original motion.
ACTION: Moved by LambMheeler not to support reprogramming of the
Community Development Block Grant funds from Hospice to Fire Station 2;
motion carried 4:3,Gingg, Nichols and Sant opposed.
Chairperson Nichols suggested crafting an additional motion to indicate to Council the
HRC was supportive of the project.
Vice Chairperson Lamb argued had this project come in at $75,000 two years ago, the
HRC may not have approved it.
ACTION: Moved by Wolff/Giriga to note the Fire Station 2 project had received
prior approval from the HRC and-the HRC was still supportive of this project;
motion carried 6:1, Lamb opposed.
Item 3. REVIEW AND FINALIZE.2006-2007 GRANTS IN.AID (GIA)
APPLICATION. (NICHOLS)
Chairperson.Nichols suggested updating the timeline.
Brief HRC discussion ensued regarding including language pertaining to accessibility to
the GIA application. Commissioners agreed by consensus to add language to the
cover letterto indicate the:City encouraged all programs and facilities to be accessible
to the disabled.
Director of Human Resources Irons proposed adding language asking applicants
which priority funding areas their application supported. She recommended listing
funding areas on the application and having applicants check them.and add comments.
She also suggested reordering the questions. .
Commissioner Wheeler left at 6:50 p.m.
GAJ1aman Relations CommissionWinuo 00051Novembc 2.2005 minates.dw
3-9
Human Relations Commission Minutes ATTRCHMENT . 2.
November 2, 2005 Page 5
ACTION: Moved by Sant/Wolff to make the following changes to the Grants In
Aid application;
■ Add language to the cover letter regarding accessibility.
■ Add the question, "Which priority funding areas does your request
support," and list priority funding areas with boxes for applicants to check.
• Reorder the questions.
• Revise question #2 to read: "Briefly describe the program, project or other
reason you are requesting funds."
■ Revise question #4 to read! "What is the total number of County
(including the City) residents served by your agency;" motion carried 6:0.
Wheeler absent.
Chairperson Nichols updated the HRC regarding United Way and non profit disaster
preparedness. She suggested developing a plan to engage the non profit.groups but to
Waft on going forward with a survey.
Vice Chairperson.Lamb expressed concern citing New Orleans as an example of a
city that waited. He was supportive of waiting until the new Fire Chief was on board, but
wanted the momentum to continue because the City's close proximity to a nuclear
power plant.
Chairperson Nichols noted the 211 phone system was not in place in New Orleans
and concurred with Vice Chairperson Lamb regarding the need to move forward. She
asked for a volunteer to continue the dialogue with the Fire Department and report
back.
Commissioner Wolff agreed to take on that role.
Item 4. UPDATE ON THEHOMELESSENUMERATION. (LAMB)
Vice.Chairperson Lamb reported 1,900 people were counted in the enumeration and
the number was still rising. He stated the number was greater than projected and the
final results would be available in mid December 2005.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Chairderson Nichols asked commissioners to review their Grants In Aid year end
reports and be prepared.to discuss them at the November 30, 2005 workshop. She
suggested commissioners forward their questions regarding the Community
Development Block Grants to Housing Programs Manager Davidson prior to the
November 30, 2005 meeting.
G.\Human Rdations CommissionlhfmntesVJDOS\November z,zoos minnomAm
T1C -MENT .2
Human Relations Commission Minutes
November 2, 2005 Page 6
Director of:-Human Resources Irons reported Deputy Director of Community
Development Draze would be coming to the November 30, 2005 HRC to discuss the
Housing Programs Manager position.
There being no further business to.come before the HRC, Chairperson.Nichols.
adjourned the HRC meeting at 7:05 p.m. to Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 5:00
p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street:
Respectfully Submitted,
Ma J
Mary Kopec
Human Resources.Executive Assistant
eUl m=R.aWw CommudcnW mutw'aOO5Wov=ber 2.2WS mmutw.dw
� � ll
11 T ME h T 3
council `s Nov 1,2005
j ag8n6a REpoRt .14.6b. -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter,Director of Public Works
Prepared By:. Barbara Lynch,City Engineer
SUBJECT: FIRE STATION 2 ACCESS REMODEL, SPECIFICATION NO. 90466B
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the award to and execute a contract with Granite Construction in the amount of
$74,950 for the Fire Station 2 Access Remodel,Specification No..90466B
2. Direct staff to begin the process to reprogram the $60,000 Community Development Block
Grant(CDBG)funds for the Hospice Elevator Construction project.
3. Direct staff to return to the City Council on the December 6, 2005 meeting, after the 30 day
CDBG fund reallocation advertising and public comurient period, for final determination on the
reallocation of the CDBG funds.
4. Backfill the project with Completed Projects funds or CIP Reserve if additional CDBG funds
are not subsequently allocated to this project
DISCUSSION
Fire Station 2 was built in 1953 and currently lacks good access for persons with disabilities.
Those unable to negotiate the stairs must enter the fire station via the vehicle access doors. This
includes the Fire Department Chaplin. The station also has a safety" problem that results from the
use of their driveway by visitors to the University Square complex.. It is possible for vehicles to
cut across the front of the station doors from the adjacent parldng lot to go out the Fire Station
driveway. An interim solution has been to in a temporary road.bump in the area to
discourage this behavior. This has resulted in an improved situation. (See Attachment 1)
The Fire Department submitted an application for CDBG funds to construct an accessible entry
to the station and install a permanent planting area out front to eliminate the cut through
problem. The planting area would also improve the appearance of the station, which currently is
very utilitarian. Grant funding was approved.
In November of 2004, the CAO authorized staff to advertise forbids. Bids were opened for this
project in December of 2004. Four bids were;received, all of which were well over the available
funds. In January of 2005, the CAO authorized the rejection of the bids and the re-bidding of the
project with portions of the project broken out as Additive Alternates. The Additive Alternate
concept allows the award of a portion of the total project, giving staff more flexibility once bids are
received. Based on the bids received, it appeared that at least a majority of the work could be
accomplished with the available funds.
Re-bidding of the project was delayed until summer of 2005 due to the heavy spring and summer
workload of the Engineering Division inspection staff who would be assigned to observe
construction. Bids were opened for a second time on September 20, 2005. Two bids were received
ATCHT _
Fire Station 2 Access Remodel Page 2
with the low bid another 30% higher than that of December 2004. The low bidder in both ids was
the same. Granite Construction. Between the time the bids were rejected in Decembe and the
recent bid in September,construction has seen significant increases and it would appear this project
has suffered as a consequence: .Review of construction indicators shows construction costs
continuing to climb.
The project was bid with two alternates.. (See Attachment 2) The first alternate is the completion of
.some driveway work to allow the Fre Truck to back into the station more safely. The second
alternate is for the installation of irrigation and landscaping to wrap up the project once the
hardscape work has been completed.
CONCURRENCES
Before recommending to the City Council the use of funds from another project, the City's
CDBG coordinator contacted Hospice, who put forward the request for the Elevator Construction
project. Hospice indicated that they have made no progress on the project and are well short of
the necessary funds to complete the project. The Director of Hospice agreed that we should
reprogram all of their funds to.another project. The Director stated the elevator project won't be
feasible for some time, if ever. A letter to that effect has been submitted from Hospice. (See
Attachment 3). During the comment period for the reprogramming of the-funds, staff will also
return to the Human Relations Commission to gather their input on the use of the funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project was budgeted.in the 2003-04 program year, with funds from the CDBG program. In
the budget $30,000 was identified to support this project.. To date $5,000 has been spent to
procure design services.
When the project construction cost was estimated after completion of the design, it was clear
there would be inadequate funding to construct the project and$23,879 of CDBG Administration
funding from the 2003 program year was added to the project budget prior to the first bid period.
In spite of doing that;the project came in over theavailable funds in both bids.
Staff met.to discuss the pros and cons of award of this project given that it is well over the
original budget. This will probably be the last opportunity to have funding for this project given
the uncertain future of funding availability and the project is ready to go. Because the project is
funded using CDBG funds, a review was made of other CDBG projects to determine if any were
not moving forward.and could be funded another year without harming the project. Fortuitously,
the elevator project with Hospice appears, not only to not be moving forward, but probably
would have needed to be reprogrammed anyway because they have not been able to get
significant additional funds to make it a reality. Based on these discussions and findings, staff
has proceeded with recommending full funding with CDBG funds.
The Elevator construction project is budgeted with $60,000 of CDBG funds. Staff is
recommending the City Council reprogram those funds. Reprogramming funds.involves
advertising the intent to do so to allow public comment then returning to the City Council for
rT,Aj
'ftENT 3
r
Fire Station 2_Access Remodel _ r Page 3 rp
action and then to the Board of Supervisors for action. The 30 day comment period would allow
staff to return to Council the first meeting in December with a recommendation to shift these
dollars to other approved projects. The County will then have the item on their consent agenda
for December 20'. The award window of the Fire Station Access Remodel will expire before
either of the hearings. For this reason, staff is recommending proceeding with the award at this
time and backfilling funding in December.
In December, staff will request that the Council. authorize the use of a portion of the elevator .
funds for the Fire Station project. If, after HRC input and hearing public comment, the Council
believes there are more appropriate uses, staff recommends that funding for this project come
from the Completed Projects account, or, if that is not available, the CIP Reserve account. Staff
does not anticipate the County will refuse the request as the funding has been allocated to the
City and we are recommending supplements to already approved projects.
Current Available Budget. $48.,562
Recommended Contingencies&Testing Funding: <$59700>
Available Funding for Award: $42,862
Additional Funds Required.!
1. Low Bid(Base Project) - $48,825 $.6,300.
2. Low Bid.(Base Project+Alternate 1) $56,850 _ $ 14,500*
3. Low Bid(Base Project+Alternate 1 &2) $74,950 $35,000*
* Some additional contingency funding is assumed with these options.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Award only the Base Project. Impact to CDBG funds would be minimized. This option
would eliminate the construction of a widened driveway that improves the approach for Fire
vehicles. The driveway widening is intended to allow the engines to sweep over.the sidewalk
As they begin their left tum across the street prior to backing. This allows them to pull off the
street prior to turning and minimizes their time in the middle of the street and the delay to
approaching traffic. However; this option would still require supplemental funding of
$6,300.
2. Award the Base Project plus Alternative 1. This is a more moderate request on the CDBG
funds than award of the total project and.leaves only the irrigation and planting work that
could be accomplished later with a second contract as money becomes available. As
indicated above,this alternative would require supplemental funding of$14,500.
3. Reject the project and redesign it to include only the ADA ramp without the additional work
to the front of the Fire Station. Some additional funds would_ have to be expended on design
and a permanent improvement for the front of the building would not be constructed. The
project could very likely be built with the available budget.
4. Reject the project and complete it at a later date when more funding is available. The
Council should either postpone it indefinitely or make a commitment to fund it with General
Fund or CDBG funds in the near future. In this way, if the project is to be postponed
� t
ATTAC r 3
Fire Station 2 Access Remodel Page 4
indefinitely, the current grant funds can be reprogrammed so they will get used. There are
limits to how long CDBG project funding can "sit without being used before the City would
have to return it for another use.
In the case of either Alternate 1 or 2, a follow up project would be needed to complete the
remaining work. Given the current financial situation of the City, it could be some time before
the work was completed.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Project Plan Overview
Attachment 2- Bid Summary
Attachment 3 - Hospice Letter
Attachment 4- Copy of original report authorizing advertising
Attachment 5- Contract
itwa4eVrmWPmR+2oasW aWM a2 ecce¢M4M min rMLOM
� �� ENT 3
�• * 9.. \. 2 .I
�( .V—� 3 4 1 a
'F 6
/ a
xi.
I _
I - e
1 i f �! rr • r sr a er.. ... . _ .
. 1® + I I % ` _ gtQ s 1 83x.° 1 8
gs = gg j
s A E 9 9 9 9 [ SE loll q 7o fjt }�48ra { 4 a
- �^• I � F 4 � � b tC_
a .jY 3 3 FIRE STATION NO.2
N NoM ChWm Strut City of
} a �� DEMOLITION PLAN � IS OB1Sp0
w SITE&GRADING PLAN
!AW
•
ATTACHMENT "---��
O
MWO 08 M942
G8 S8
8 a 8 8 8 g9 9 9
U
40.
ce
sss
je
us,
Q ul.01 il I,II I I -J I I
—7F T 2 m m a w M _
ATTENAim
®syfce -
...because tove never dies
of San LarObiapo Coarry
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OGf '1 8 M
October 13,2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPME"'
Doug Davidson, Housing Programs Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Davidson:
This is to confirm our earlier conversation,that unfortunately bur organization does not
have sufficient funds at this time to proceed with our elevator project. We most
appreciate C_D.B.G.' s granting Hospice of San Luis Obispo County potential
building funds, and we are hopeful that we will be;able to raise adequate funds in the
firture to complete thisworthy project.
I am glad to know that these released fiends will benefit another agency's access project.
Sincerely,
Donna Kean,L.C.S:W.
E,xeoutive Director
Hospice of San Luis Obispo County located in the Dorothy D.Rupe Center
1304 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805)544-2266 805/434-1164 Fax:805/544-6573
www-hospi.esto.org hospiceslo@4os*;klo.org
ATTACHMENT
. 7 iL4I4.
CAO REPORT
November 3,2004- - -
FROM: Michael D.McCluskey,Public Works Director
Prepared by; Barbara Lynch,Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Fire Station 2 Access Remodel, Specification No.90466B
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve plans and specifications for"Fire Station 2 Access Remodel, Specification No.9046613."
2. Approve reallocation of CDBG funds from CDBG Administration to the project account.
3. Authorize staff to advertise for bids.
DISCUSSION:
Fire Station.2 was built in 1953 and cuiremly lacks good access for disabled persons. Anyone unable to
negotiate the stairs must enter the fire station via the vehicle access doors. The Fire Department
submitted an application for Community Development Block Grant to construct an accessible entry to the
station and funding was approved..
CONCURRENCES:
Community Development Department has given this project a categorical exemption and the County has
approved the federal environmental clearance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project was budgeted in the 2003-04 program year. $ 30,000 was identified to support this project.
To date$5,000 has been spentto procure design services leaving$25,000 to support the construction. As
currently designed,the project is estimated to cost more than is available in the project budSet. However,
$23,879 remains in the CDBG Administration account for the 2003 program year. These funds were not
needed for the 2003 year and are available to support this project. Within the CDBG program,
adjustments under$25,000 can be made administratively without a Public Hearing.
_ -Project costs Funding Available
Construction: - $35,000
Construction Contingencies: _$4,000
Total for Construction: $39,000
Printing: $700 Project Budget $25,000
Materials Testing: $700_ .2003 CDBG Administration --- $23,800
Total Cost: $40,400 $48,800
ATTACHMENT:
Plans and Specifications
y�m�.wwco�n9ue�reamm,s�m"n,.m,.mnewnmoamaw.aoc
con«K
_J
ATTAL61MENT
' '� •�- ,ai'CI I'i1r�'•
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT,made on this day of ,20�by and between the City of San Luis Obispo,
a municipal corporation and_charter city,San Luis Obispo County,California(heremaAer called the Owner)and
Granite Construction Company(hereinatler called the Contractor).
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows.
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be perforated, shall
provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, spendable equipment, and all utility and
transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
FIRE STATION 2 ACCESS REMODEL,SPEC NO.90466B
in strict accordagce with the plans and specifications therefor,including airy and all Addenda,adopted by the Owner;in
strict compliance with the Contact Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that.said''labor,materials,tools,equipment,and services shall be'firmished and said work perforated and
completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its. authoraed
representatives.
ARTICLE It, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful
performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, the
contract rices as follows:
Item Item Unit of t144-50
Item_ Price Total
_No.. --_--__-- -- _-- - - _ . Measure_ ---(in figures)--- - fl --
1 Clearing;grubbing&demolition LS 11550.00 $11,550.00
2 Concrete paving - M2 250.003 Stai>is LS 1000.00 $1000.00
4 Stair rail LS . 1951.50 $1951.50
5 Stair barrier rail LS 1.00 1650.00 $1,65b.00
6 -Ramp, M2 9.00 750.00 $6750.00
7 - Ramp rail LS 1.00 6610.00 $6,610.00
8 Curb --- -- M 34.60 26000 996.00
9_ __ mow curb. M_ _ 6.00-_ 200.00. - _- 11,200.00
10 Flag Pole LS 1.00 1670.00 $1670.00
I i Drainbox&connections L S 1.00 1800.00 $1800.00
12. Roof drain&connections M 5.50 65.00 6357.50
Roof drain wall penetration Si splash
13 block LS 1.00 665.00 $665.00
I4 Electrical connection LS 1.04 1DOM $1000.00
-_ _._ . __ . -_ -_ _ _ _-_TOTAL BASE BID-_ SKU5.00
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE 1
15 Sidewalk&driveway M2 40.90- - ts0.00 $6 235.00
16 Curb&.gutter M 8.60 150.00 $1,2W.00
17 Adjust SSMH to grade LS 1.00 450.00 $450.0
^dV
AT YN H ME"
3
18 1Adjust Electrical well to grade LS 1.00 m so oo $150.00
TOTAL ALTERNATE t BID S8 0zs.o0
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE 2
19 Irrigation -_ LS 1.00 �zoo.00E
00.00
-26- I and scapn - LS 1.00 6700.0000.00
it Establishment&Maintenance mo. 1200 350.0000.00
— - -
TOTAL ALTERNATE 2 BID: 0o.o0
— - — - -
TOTAL PROJECT BID: 50.00
B!D TOTAL: $74,950.00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the documents
made a part of this Contract.
Should any dispute arise resecting the true value of any work omitted,or of any extra work which the Contractor may
be required to do,or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor,during the performance of this Contract,said
dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final,and conclusive.
ARTICLE 111, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following
documents,all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full,and if not attached,as if hereto attached:
1. Notice to Bidders and information for bidders.
2- Standard Specifications,Engineering Standards and Special Provisions.
2. Accepted Proposal.
4. Public Contract code Section 10285.1 Statement and 10162 Questionnaire.
5. Noncollusion Demon.
6. Plans.
7. List of Subcontractors.
8. Agreement and Bonds..
9. insurance Reauiremeots and Forms.
10..Certification Concerning Labor Standards And Prevailing Wage Requirements(Attachment l)
11. Federal Prevailing Wage Determination(Attachment 2}
ARTICLE IV. it is ftirdw expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict
between the tams of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor,then this insrrr met t sial►control and
nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terns of said proposal conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to these presents have hereunto set thew hands this year and date fast above
written.
CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
Ken Ham-plan,City Administrative Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
-2-
_ r----s
r
3�2=I
AT
T� 3
J .Lowell. Granite Construction Company
City Attorney TL C.Allbritton;Vice President