Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/2011, C5 - DOWNTOWN PARKING SIGN REPLACEMENTS Council tl` tober j acEnda izepoit °��rc�s C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Work Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager�/ Jake Hudson,Traffic Operations Manager SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING SIGN REPLACEMENTS RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve a new Capital Improvement Project(CIP) for replacement of downtown parking enforcement signs. 2. Approve the transfer of$102,500 from the Parking Fund completed projects account to the new parking enforcement signs replacement project. 3. Approve the plans and specifications for the Downtown Parking Sign Replacement Project, Specification No. 91139. 4. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid for the Downtown Parking Sign Replacement Project is within the Engineer's Estimate of$82,000. SUMMARY The original cost estimate for sign replacement to implement the Sunday parking change was $11,000. The revised cost to replace these signs has increased to $102,500. The primary reasons for the increase in costs are: 1). the need for federal standard, higher reflectivity signs, which are more expensive, 2). An increase in the number of signs needed, 3). The need for larger signs which require sign post replacement, and 4). The overall increase to the work scope requiring contracting the work out, instead of using in-house staff. With this change included, implementing Sunday parking operations is anticipated to bring an annual increase of$167,135 in net revenues. DISCUSSION Background In response to recent changes in both Federal and State sign reflectivity requirements and expansion of City parking services to Sundays, all regulatory parking signs in the downtown must be replaced. The cost of replacement was originally anticipated to be $11,000. This estimate was based on an estimate of the total number of signs, the assumption that the work could be completed internally by City crews (with no labor costs), and no new sign posts would be needed. However, since that time these assumptions have changed. First, additional parking signs have been identified for replacement increasing the total number of signs needing to be replaced. Second, having different or variable hours for Sunday parking enforcement require larger signs to conform to State sign legibility standards. Larger signs require C5-1 Downtown Parking Sign Replacements Page 2 replacement of the older poles and existing "P" posts for the installation of the new signs to fit. Other non-parking related traffic control signs will be upgraded at the same time (paid by another contract) so that downtown blocks will have a fresh appearance with new sign faces. Although it was originally believed that the City streets crew could complete this work, their current prioritized workload does not allow the crew to perform the sign removal and replacements within the required timeframe. As a direct result, the only way to complete the project is to be contracted out with a higher labor cost. All together, these combined changes result in the proposed project cost increasing to an estimated $102,500. The revised budget includes contractor removal of existing parking signs and posts on downtown streets, contractor replacement of those signs and posts, and construction management services. Although the cost for replacing these signs has increased substantially, staff still recommends proceeding with the project because new Federal Retroreflectivity requirements mandate that signs be replaced by January of 2015, regardless of the changes in Sunday enforcement. Also the expected net revenue from Sunday parking enforcement is approximately$167,000 annually which will provide a return on the new estimated cost in little more than seven months. Time Line for Sunday Parking Based on the time lines outlined in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for sign replacement, staff estimates that Sunday parking services will not begin until after the first of the year when the annual downtown holiday shopping season construction ban is lifted. Staff plans to work with the Downtown Association on a public outreach campaign in addition to providing notice to all of the downtown churches, posting information on the City's website and Channel 20, and developing press releases for the local news media. FISCAL IMPACT The Parking Fund's completed projects account has a current balance of $206,900. Staff recommends a transfer of$102,500 from the Parking Completed Project account to the Downtown Parking Sign Replacement Project. Following this transfer, $104,400 will remain in completed projects for contingencies and to support other Parking Fund capital projects. C5-2 Downtown Parking Sign Replacements Page 3 Estimated Project Cost by Funding Source • Parking Completed Projects(5 10 10 100- Total 99899999) Construction Estimate: $821.000 $82,000 Contingencies: $8,200 $8,200 Construction Management: $12,300 $12,300 Total for Construction: $102,500 $102,500 Current Funds A vailable: $206,900 Funds Avail after Transfer. 5104,400 Sunday parking will net approximately $167,100 annually. The capital cost of $102,500 for the project will mean the return on investment would be approximately seven and a half months from date of implementation. The table below provides information on the annual on-going costs and revenues estimates for Sunday parking. Table 1 —Sunday Parking l pm - 6pm 5 hrs Revenues Structures 37,600 Streets 106,750 Lots 36,000 Fines 32,000 Revenue Subtotal 212,350 Expenses Structures (15,800) Lots (9,854) Streets (19,561) Expense Subtotal (45,215) Total 167,135 ALTERNATIVES 1. Defer the sign replacement and subsequent implementation of the Sunday parking services. The Council may decide to defer the sign replacement project and in doing so postpone implementation of Sunday parking enforcement. Staff does not recommend this because Federal requirements mandate replacement of these signs by January 2015, regardless of changes in Sunday enforcement. Deferring implementation would result in an overall loss of approximately $400,000 between now and January 2015 considering the expected revenues and the cost of the signs. C5-3 Downtown Parking Sign Replacements Page 4 2. Direct staff to alter the existing signs in place. The Council may direct staff to alter the existing signs with the use of stickers or other similar methods. Staff has evaluated these possibilities in great detail and does not recommend any variation of this approach. The new information for Sunday enforcement requires additional information which will not fit on the current sign panels and reducing the font will make the new parking requirements unenforceable. In addition, altering the existing signs will not address the requirement for the signs to be replaced by January 2015 as part of the Federal Sign Retroreflectivity . requirements. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Request for Proposal/Special Provisions, Specification No. 91139 \\chstorc4\Team\Counci1 Agenda ReportsTublic Works CAR\201 ITarking\Sunday parking Signs v3.doc C5-4 ^ � U council MCMORAnoum RED FILE had oo • eniap: a COUNCIL a CDD DIR October 3, 2011 MEETING AGENDA a CITY MGR o FrrDIR Cc� / _" ITEM # o AssrCM aPWDUt F a ATiGRNEY oPWDIR TO: City Council o C BMMRIG a POUCECHU a PDI a PAW&RECDIR o TRIBUNE a UTILDIR FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Arks o NEW TIMES a HR DM a SLocrrvNM a rouxcn. VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager o CITY MGR a CLERK SUBJECT: RED FILE ITEM—SundayJParkinSign Replacements There have been several questions raised for the Sunday Parking Sign Replacement project, primarily regarding cost and federal retroreflectivity requirements. The purpose of this memo is to provide more detailed information on these concerns. Why is the cost so much higher than originally estimated? The new estimate is significantly higher primarily for three reasons: 1. Contractor labor was not included in the original estimate because it was assumed at the time that these sign replacements could be absorbed into the City Street Crew's regular workload. However, since the scope of the project has increased,the Street Crew no longer has the capacity to complete this work in the timeframe needed. As a result,the project must now be contracted out. 2. The original Sunday parking times proposed coincided with current weekday times, and the text required for this fit on a sign size that could be accommodated on current sign posts. However, when the time for Sunday parking was changed to be different from weekday times the sign size to accommodate this text needed to be significantly larger and requires replacement of older posts in order to accommodate the larger signs. This cost is substantially higher because it requires some concrete demolition and sidewalk repair for the sign foundations. 3. The original number of signs was estimated using an incorrect downtown boundary. During preparation of construction documents this error was identified, corrected, and the new estimate has been updated to reflect an accurate accounting of parking signs. The table below shows the approximate cost increase associated with each change in the project assumptions since it was first estimated, and contract inspection and contingencies are included in these costs. Original Estimate1$ 1.000 City Maintenance Crew at Capacity Requires Contractor Labor +S44,000 Change in Sign Size Requires Post Replacements +$32,000 Increase in Total Signs +$15,000 Federal Mandate on Sign Sheeting Material: Retroreflectivity +$500 New Estimate $102,500 How does the price of contract work compare to the cost of City crew work for this project? In order to try to create an "apples to apples" comparison, staff considered the new project scope, and estimated the cost difference between City Crews and contractor at approximately $34,000 or 33%. The significant difference between City and Contract work is due to Contractor's higher wages, overhead, & material markups. Also for Contract work it is customary to include contingency and inspection funding which would not otherwise be necessary for City Crews. It was preferential at the time to utilize City crews due to the lower cost and because the cost is already incorporated into the City's operating budget. However, because of the change in scope,the City crew is no longer the appropriate choice for that big of a project. City Staff i Contractor j i Staff Labor $28,000 Contract Labor $35,200 Materials $40,500 Materials+Markup $46,800 Contingencies $0 Contingencies $8,200 Inspection $0 Inspection $12,300 Total: $68,500 Total: $102,500 How do the Federal retroreflectivity requirements affect the project? The US Department of Transportation has established minimum visibility levels(Retroreflectivity) for all roadway signing. From a budgetary standpoint the project cost associated with these requirements are negligible, rather deadlines established as part of this requirement affect when these signs need to be replaced regardless of the project. Currently the City is required and in the process of replacing all non- compliant signs Citywide by January 2015. Replacing them now means that the City would be in compliance when the signs are replaced and would not have to do this work later. There is proposed legislation to eliminate this deadline, however until this legislation is adopted the City must proceed under the current regulations. It is important to understand that regardless of federal deadlines or new Sunday parking hours replacement of non-compliant signs will be required because these signs are in most cases faded to the point where they are no longer legible and cannot be enforced. The images below are examples of non- compliant signs in the downtown. ......vim 6 METERED PARKING QA.M. to 6P.M. EXCEPT Osu" 5 Return on Investment The City's Parking Enterprise Fund will see its return on the sign and post investment after 7.5 months once Sunday parking is established. The net Parking Fund revenue forecast for Sunday parking is shown in the table below: Revenues $212,350! Expenses -$45,215 Net Revenue $167,135. The $167,135 annual net revenues break down to a monthly amount of $13,927. In a little under 7.5 months the City will recoup the $102,500 investment in the sign and post replacement. ($13,927 x 7.5 = $104,453). It is also important to remember that the net revenue is intended to be accumulated in order to afford the Palm Nipomo Parking Garage as the next major investment in downtown parking assets. zT� GS f�s,S�L'�Tri X62 ffpKCH �cJGL. �D2N�y l�-ciaSorJ �!'LL, From: Betty Sloan Sent:Wednesday, October 05, 201111:13:56 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US&Canada) To:Council,SloCity Subject: sign increase I want to say thank you to the two members that seem to like to obey regulations and put their garbage cans as required. They seem to be the same two that know that when they OK a charge of a certain amount and then are told that it will be 10 times that amount, it is not proper. Thank you Kathy and Dan. If you other three were going to remodel your kitchen and were given a price of$10,000, agreed to that amount,and then told it was going to be$100,000, would you say, "Oh,well,go ahead, That is what we planned". What a disgrace. You better not even think about trying to put another vote for more taxes on any ballot. What do you not understand about people not having any money. Betty Buchanan 5449630 From: womouthag120 < To:j.marx <j.marxCcDslocitv.con Sent: Sun, Oct 2, 2011 2:59 am Subject: parking meters To the Mayor and all Members - having just read the article regarding the error made by the city estimators regarding the parking meter replacements, it reminds me of the error made in the estimate for the parking lot some 10 years ago, when they used metric system for calculations. These are the same government employees who retire at 45 and live off pensions. It's a perfect example of how the pension system helps to maintain mediocrity in the workplace. As for the actual issue of the meter replacements, it doesnt seem fiscally appropriate to spend the money presently. Parking is so horrendous downtown anyway, this might be an excellent rationale for delaying this decision downsizing the city departments that maintain this high level of expertise. As far as I have seen in the past 18 years here, the city planners and all of the extended departments have priorities that are self serving and would have been unemployed if they had worked in the private sector. Just one voters thoughts. Thank you for your time and consideration. anne keller From: Kevin P. Rice Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:33:54 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Council, SloCity Subject: Sunday parking: Surprise cost of$102,500 for new signs Regarding agenda item C-5 (10-04-2011): RED FILE http://www.slocity.orgLityclerk/agendas/2011/100411/c5.pdf MING AGENDA i PATIE4Q ITEM #,e_ I support the option to DEFER sign replacement at this time. A monumental staff blunder: "The original cost estimate for sign replacement to implement the Sunday parking change was $11,000. The revised cost to replace these signs is $102,500." If that's not bad enough... "Other non-parking related traffic control signs will be upgraded at the same time aid b another contract) so that downtown blocks will have a fresh appearance with new sign faces." STOP THE TRAIN, HONORABLE COUNCIL! Prior to spending this amount of money, can we please ENSURE that Sunday hours are agreeable and steadfast? You recall there was some bickering and 'splitting the baby' when hours were decided, right? Let's make sure we're not going to change the signs for a number of years if we must spend this money. However, I suggest deferring this project until city staff can perform the work for a lower cost. There is plenty of time before the federally mandated 2015 replacement. Kevin P. Rice (805) 602-2616 hard co cm9di. c COUNCIL o CDD DIR o CITY MGR a PITDTR D ASST CM o FIRE CHIEF o ATTORNEY o PW Dut CHIEF CLEASfORIG a PIRo PARKS&RECDIR 0 TRIBUNE o UTILDIR o NEW TNES a AR DIR o sLocrryNEWs oCOUNCIL o CITY MOR o CLERK From: James Smith Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 1:04:04 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Council, SloCity Subject: Parking Meters Hello City Council, I have an issue on how your spending my and other residents of SLO money. It doesn't take much intellect to figure that the $102000 spent for the sign replacement is way too much to make the investment worth it. To make it worth it all 130 meters would have to be used all 5 hours every Sunday for the next 3 years just to pay the investment back. Please have more common sense and watch how your spening my money. Jim Smith 26 year resident at 639 Leff Street From: Devina Douglas Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:17:17 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Council, SloCity Subject: Parking Sign Fiasco Dear City Council, I urge you to reconsider this fiasco you've create with the parking signs. You've got a great staff working within the city, why not reward them in these hard economic times by paying them the overtime to reduce these labor costs? It is ridiculous that we would pay an outside contractor to do such simple work. Please spare the city, and the taxpayers you are supposed to be serving, the expense and humiliation of proceeding with the plan you approved at this last meting. Thank you, Devina Douglas