HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2002, C6 - 2002 STREET SLURRY SEAL PROJECT SPECIFICATION NO. 90324 i
council 06 X64-02
j ac En oA RepoRt c6"�cr
C I T Y O F SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey,Public Works DirectoQA-
PREPARED BY: Daniel Van Beveren,Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: 2002 Street Slurry Seal Project
Specification No.90324
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve plans and specifications for 2002 Street Slurry Seal Project, Specification No. 90324;
2) Authorize staff to advertise for bids;
3) Authorize the CAO to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the engineer's
estimate of 215,000.
DISCUSSION
The City's Pavement Maintenance Plan (PMP)was adopted by the City Council on April 14, 1998.
Key elements of the PMP include establishment of eight maintenance areas within the City and a
maintenance plan in which each of these eight areas will receive maintenance over an eight-year
period. The maintenance that any street is to receive is based on the condition of that street and the
budget available. Selected streets within a scheduled maintenance area receive major rehabilitation
(overlay or reconstruction). The remaining streets in that area receive a seal coat treatment (slurry-
seal). This is the policy recommended in the PMP.
Of the eight maintenance areas within the City, Area 5 is scheduled for pavement maintenance in
2002. The 2002 Street Slurry Seal Project is for streets in area 5 that will not receive major
rehabilitation this year.
This project also includes the train station parking lot. Coordination efforts between the City,
Union Pacific Railroad, and Amtrak are currently ongoing. It is anticipated that this parking lot
work will be phased into two days, and that signs notifying users of the upcoming work be posted
two to four weeks in advance so that public inconvenience is minimized..
This project is very similar to last year's seal coat project. The Type H Slurry Seal used for the last
several years has generally yielded successful results and satisfied citizens.
CONCURRENCES
A Notice of Exemption has been filed through the Community Development Department.
C6-1
Council Agenda Report—2001 Street Slurry Seal Project, Specification 90138A
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
There is currently $2,230,300 in the Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing budget. The majority
of that money will be needed for the Summer 2002 paving project, and for additional street work
in the South Oceanaire neighborhood. The amount needed for the 2002 Street Slurry Seal project
is $215,000, and is consistent with the amount to be spent on previous years' seal coat projects.
A budget transfer of the bid amount plus contingency and testing money will be processed after
the bid opening. This will create a project budget specific to this slurry seal project.
Estimated Construction Cost
Engineer's Estimate $215,000
Contingencies (10%) 21,000
Money needed for inspection and testing services 10,000
Total $246,000
Available Remaining Budget in Street Reconstruction& $2;230,300
Resurfacing 2001/03
ATTACHMENTS:
No. 1: Map of City Pavement Areas
The Plans and Specifications for "2002 Street Slurry Seal Project" and the 1998 Pavement
Management Plan are available in the Council Reading File.
1ACo mcil Agenda Aepons4CAR-90724 Save[Slurry Seal 2002.doc
C6-2
.•. �-. � fel
ONE
= ---
any
AA 0 �I
1,
��) ! .n
1
r �
i
1
council 0 04-02
j acenda REpoat 'C7
C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Robert F.Neumann,Fire Chief
SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT FIRE STATION#3
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the Mayor to sign a Letter of Understanding with the Augusta Street
Partners (ASP)that outlines improvements to be made at Fire Station#3.
2. Allocate $15,400 from'the Capital Reserve Account to fund Fire Station#3 driveway
improvements.
DISCUSSION
ASP is developing the vacant lot behind Fire Station#3 with a multi-residential project. The rear
driveway that services Fire Station #3 is deteriorated and is extremely narrow for our fire
apparatus. In fact, the Ladder Truck now stationed at this facility must now back in from Laurel
Lane, creating a traffic and safety hazard.
Fire Department staff approached the project manager, Hamish Marshall, in the development
review process and requested he consider improving our access. Based solely on goodwill, he
agreed to modify his original plan.
A Letter of Understanding has been developed and is attached. It includes a plan of the project.
In general, the project would widen the driveway approach, improve the sidewalk, replace the
deteriorated fire station driveway, reposition a utility pole to provide underground service, and
replace a section of block wall at the rear of the fire station.
This action is prudent for the following reasons:
1. Over the last five years, Fire Department staff has requested funds for this project
through the normal budget process,but have not been funded due to other priorities.
2. All fire station improvements will be completed by the developer, paid for by the City,
and done in a coordinated fashion with the other project improvements.. This will lower
the cost and inconvenience to the City considerably.
CONCURRENCES
Because we are repositioning utility services, Teri Maa, Information Systems, has been involved
from the start and concurs with this component. The City Attorney has reviewed the attached
letter and finds it acceptable for legal content.
C7-1
Council Agenda Report -Driveway Improvements at Fire Station 3
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a new project and it is estimated to cost $14,000. A 10% contingency has been added to
bring the total to $15,400. The Capital Reserve account currently has a balance of$269,300,
deducting $15,400, would leave a balance of$253,900.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter of Understanding with plan.
Electronic File Path:G:/COLJNCIL AGENDA REPORTS/CAR-Sta.3 Improvements
C /-2
V
- ATTACHMENT 1
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING is made and entered into the City of San Luis
Obispo on this day of ,by and between the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
AUGUSTA ST. PARTNERS, hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Contractor is developing the vacant lot behind Fire Station No. 3 with a
multi-residential project; and
WHEREAS, the rear driveway that services Fire Station No. 3 is deteriorated and is
extremely narrow for City fire apparatus;and
WHEREAS,Fire Department staff approached Hamish Marshall, the project manager for
Contractor and requested he consider improving Fire Department access; and
WHEREAS, Contractor agreed based entirely on their goodwill to modify their original
plans to accommodate this Fire Department project; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2002,Hamish Marshall, Rick Koon, Brad Brechwald, Aaron
Dixon, Tom Zeulner, Darren Drake and Marcia Walther met at Fire Station No. 3 to discuss all
issues concerning the dedication of an access easement between the Fire Station and the Augusta
project known as Adelaide.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The construction manager for the Adelaide Project should be the coordinator for all
improvements within the area of the easement and improvements to the affected surrounding
areas between the project and the fire station.
2. Costs for the City will be computed for their portion of the project prior to the start of the
project.
3. Payment to Contractor for improvements will be delivered after the completion of all
C7-3
ATTACHMENT i
improvements.
4. The party responsible to complete the task and/or pay for the task is indicated as "Contractor"
or "City" after each task. The tasks to be completed include the following:
Plans/Management -
a) All plans. (Contractor)
b) All permits. (Contractor)
c) Project Management. (Contractor)
5. Demo -
a) Existing block wall to be cut approximately 10.5 meters from the sidewalk and block
wall removed. (Contractor-construction, City-pay)
b) Existing concrete flat work from sidewalk to expansion joint at 14.5 meters and to the
back door of the engine room will be removed. (Contractor-construction, City-pay)
c) Existing driveway ramp to be removed. (Contractor-construction, City-pay)
d) Existing power pole will be left in place until late in project when it will be removed
when power and other utilities are rerouted underground. (Contractor)
6. Improvements-
a) Trench to be dug for utilities (power, cable TV, fiber optic,phone) from project to closest
comer of fire station. (Contractor)
b) Conduits in trench provided by Contractor. This issue was discussed at an earlier
meeting held at Fire Station #1 and noted by Teri Maa, Information Systems Manager for
City.
c) Cable TV, fiber optic and phone conduits terminate within 1/3 meter or less of block wall
for foundation of fire station at the rear comer. (Contractor)
d) An in-ground vault will be located near utility trench next to existing underground power
C7-4
ATTACHMENT 1
conduit within 1 meter of fire station. (Contractor-construction, City -pay)
e) Cut over for all utilities will be timely, coordinated and essential to be completed in an 8-
hour time frame. (PG&E, Pac Bell, Charter Cable/Fiber)
f) Grading to be completed for new driveway from street to back door of engine room.
Final approval of slope detail by Fire Department at time of grading to insure proper
slope. (Contractor-construction, City-pay)
g) New driveway ramp, approximately 10 meters wide with ADA sidewalk detail, thick
enough to hold weight of fire engine. (Contractor-construction, City -pay)
h) New concrete flat work to be 6 inches thick with rebar and doweled to existing concrete
with 8 inches of base. (Contractor-construction, City -pay)
i) When power pole is removed (Contractor), concrete to be filled in. (Contractor-
construction, City-pay)
j) Saw cut on block wall to be faced with similar color end cap. (Contractor-construction,
City -pay)
7. Job completion-
a) All construction debris to be removed from fire station site. (Contractor)
b) Contractor construction manager will call a meeting when all tasks are completed.
Meeting will be on the site of improvements at the fire station. Representative for City
and Contractor will attend and agree that the scope of work for the project is complete.
8. Cost Agreement-
All costs associated with tasks listed in this Letter of Understanding which identify the City
as being responsible for paying have been estimated to be $14,000 by John L. Wallace &
Associates and Rick Koon, Construction Manager for Contractor. All costs to the City to be
actual costs.
C7-5
ATTACHMENT 1
9. Drawing of easement and fire station attached and are incorporated into this document as
Exhibit A.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the
day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: AUGUSTA STREET PARTNERS
By:
Fire Chief Augusta Street Partners Representative
Name & Title
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
C7-6
\7tNI Uy- JUHN L TYHLLHI,t� - OUD:.1M4'/c`J'/, sarn-cc"uc •u.oue♦w\, I ..u� cl..
CLCL
o
Ad a aLLJ
U
nc
tzi
25
LLJ
LLS
�.,, .. .; ,• .• it
w .4r
Com• F. _ \ - '��� � � �^ ' Y �• •` � ��
• f: .• 1. `ter' �•� , : _'1'\ w- N
C7-7
J
Dcouncil M" 6nDp 6-4.02
acEnaa Pepont 3
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance yk"�
SUBJECT: REDUCED WATER IMPACT FEES
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution reducing the planned increase in City-wide water impact fees by $3,191 per
equivalent dwelling unit effective July 1, 2002.
DISCUSSION
Overview
The current Water Element of the General Plan sets the goal of developing 2,000 acre feet of
safe annual yield from new water supplies as a reliability reserve. At its May 14, 2002 meeting,
the Council considered a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of trying to achieve this goal.
After evaluating the limited added protection that this goal would provide in light of the
significant ongoing costs that it would take to achieve ($3.1 million each and every year), the
Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to the Water Element of the General Plan to
eliminate this goal.
It is important to stress that the 2,000 acre feet reliability reserve is a goal, since it does not exist
today. In fact, developing this reserve is a key driver in determining new water supply needs
(and related costs)for current as well as future users.
Along with this action, the Council also directed staff to reduce the recently adopted water
impact fees to reflect this prospective revision in the Water Element. The attached resolution
accomplishes this, reducing the water impact fee per "equivalent dwelling unit" (EDU) that
would have otherwise been in effect July 1, 2002 by$3,191 (from $11,256 per EDU to $8,065).
Background
On April 16, 2002, the Council adopted revised water impact fees (effective July 1, 2002) that
reflected the results of the recently prepared Water Master Plan, which focuses on distribution
and treatment system improvements, as well as an updated analysis of water supply costs. For
all three of these types of water system improvements, the analysis identified the portion of these
improvements costs related to new development and calculated revised impact fees accordingly.
The fees approved by the Council were set in accordance with adopted City policy that new
development pay its fair share of the cost of the facilities needed to serve it as well as State
requirements for setting impact fees under AB 1600, which require a nexus between fees
imposed, the use of the fees and the development projects on which the fees are imposed..
3-1
Council Agenda Report—Reduced Water Impact Fees
Page 2
As reflected below, the most significant factor driving the fee increase at that time for City-wide
impact fees is the water supply portion, which accounts for 90% of the total fee:
ImpactWater
Per Equivalent Dwelling Unit Fee @ Fee @
Based on Single Family Residential 7/1/01 7/1/02 Variance
Treatment and Distribution 804 1,144 340
Supply 6,255 10,112. 3,857
Total $ 7,059 $ 11,256 $ 4,197
The main reason for the increase in the water supply portion was the significant change in cost
assumptions from the "low-range" identified in the 1994 Urban Water Management Plan, upon
which the prior fee was based. As project costs have become refined since then, they have
trended towards the "high" rather than low cost range. All other key assumptions from the 1994
model remained the same in the updated analysis, including population at General Plan build-out
(56,000), annual growth rate (1% per year), per capita water demand for planning purposes (145
gallons per day, which reflects non-residential use as well) and the goal of developing a safe
annual yield reliability reserve of 2,000 acre feet per year.
Reliability Reserve: Drives Impact Fee and General Purpose Rate Increases
As discussed with the Council at the March 12, 2002 study session and April 16, 2002 public
hearing, a significant portion of increase in water impact fees is related to the current General
Plan Water Element goal of developing 2,000 acre feet of safe annual yield as a reliability
reserve. This same assumption also drives the need for a significant general-purpose rate
increase at some point (estimated at 21.5%), since about 80% of the reliability reserve (with a
related cost of$2.4 million annually)benefits current users, not new development.
As presented to the Council on May 14, 2002, the following compares the impact of a changed
assumption of eliminating reliability reserve goal on water impact fees, general-purpose rate
increases,new water supplies needed and current supply availability:
Changes in Water Impact Fee Assumptions
At 41602 1;9vised
Assumptions
e Demand:Gallons per capita per day 145 145
■ Reliability reserve(safe annual yield acre feet per year) 2,000 0
■ Current population* 44,613 44,426
■ Current safe annual yield(SAY):Unadjusted for siltation** 7;735 7,790
■ Next supply cost after water reuse $1,550 $1,550
■ ,Water impact fee(supply,treatment&distribution) $11,256 $8,065
■ General purpose rate increase 21.5% 1.1%
■ New supplies needed(SAI) 3,861 1,806
■ Current availability(SAY):Adjusted for siltation 273 304
* We recently received our official State population estimate for January 1, 1001.
** The March 11, 1001 analysis incorrectly used the safe annual yield from the 1994 Urban Water Management
Plan;it has since been adjusted by 55 acre feet. 3-2
Council Agenda Report—Reduced Water Impact Fees
Page 3
As reflected in this summary, the need for future general-purpose rate increases is essentially
eliminated; and the water impact fee per EDU is reduced by $3,191 (from $11,256 to $8,065)
with this changed assumption.
Note: The portion of the City-wide fee for treatment and distribution ($1,144) is unaffected by
this change, nor are any changes recommended in the special area "add-on" fee of$746 per EDU
in the Airport-Margarita Area.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development and Utilities concur with this recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Assuming the Council ultimately eliminates the goal for a reliability reserve, there are no adverse
fiscal impacts in reducing the fee. In the event that the Council decides to retain a reliability
reserve, then this will have an added adverse impact on general-purpose rates to the extent that
we under-recover water impact fees.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution reducing City-wide water impact fees effective July 1, 2002.
G:Water and Wastewater Impact Fees/Adoption of Reduced Impact Fees/Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Reduced Water Impact Fees
3-3
�l"1'��c� ✓vl��lf
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REDUCING CITY-WIDE WATER IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, chapter 4.20.140 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code establishes
water impact fees, and provides for the setting of fee amounts and other matters by resolution of
the Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2002 the Council approved updated water impact fees effective
July 1, 2002 based on master plan for improvements to the City's water treatment and
distribution systems; updated cost analysis for water supply improvements based on current
water planning policies; and related cost studies identifying appropriate impact fees based on
these improvements; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2002 the Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to the
Water Element of the General Plan to eliminate the goal of developing 2,000 acre feet of safe
annual yield from new water supplies as a reliability reserve, and to reduce the water impact fees
adopted on April 16, 2002 in an amount that reflects this prospective revision in the Water
Element goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
a. The purpose of water impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare by providing adequate water supply, treatment and distribution facilities to satisfy the
needs of new development and to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's water
facilities and improvements.
b. The water impact fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used only to
pay for facilities and improvements identified in the impact fee analysis and shall not be in lieu
of any other fee or tax as may be required.
C. There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the
impact fees are imposed and the use of the impact fees and the need for the facilities and
improvements. All new development.requires adequate water supply, treatment and distribution
facilities to protect the public health and safety.
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the facilities and improvements attributable to the developments on which the fees are imposed.
The estimated costs of facilities and improvements, including financing costs, to be paid for by
water impact fees are shown in the February 25, 2002, Water and Wastewater AB 1600 Fee
Study Update report prepared by David Taussig and Associates, Inc., and the March 12, 2002,
Water Development Impact Fees report prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance
Department. The costs have been allocated to new development on the basis of residential
3-4
6LCJA M purr
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
dwelling unit type or water meter size, which are reasonably related to the water facility capacity
consumed by a development project.
e. The Water Development Impact Fees study prepared by the City of San Luis
Obispo Finance Department on March 12, 2002 has been revised to reflect updated data for
population and current safe annual yield, and to eliminate costs associated with the goal of
developing a reliability reserve safe annual yield of 2,000 acre feet. This revision results in a
decrease in the City-wide water impact fee of$3,191 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit.
SECTION 2. COST ESTIMATES
At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities identified in the impact fee
analysis changes, the Director of Finance shall review the impact fees and determine whether the
change affects the amount of the impact fees. If the impact fees are significantly affected; the
Director of Finance will recommend to the Council a revised fee for their consideration.
SECTION 3. AMOUNT OF IMPACT FEES
Effective July 1, 2002, water impact fees shall be in the amounts set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the Council, the amount of the fees will
automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each subsequent year by the annual percentage change in
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), all-
cities average for the prior calendar year.
SECTION 4. TIME OF PAYMENT
a. Impact fees for any development project or portion thereof shall be payable prior
to issuance of building permits required for that development, and shall be collected by the
Building Official. Under Government Code Section 66007(b), the City is authorized to collect
the fees at the time of building permit issuance because the fees are for public facilities and
improvements for which an account has been established and funds appropriated, and for which
the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule; or the fees are to reimburse the City for
expenditures previously made.
b. For any development project or portion thereof, impact fees shall be assessed at
the time of application and remain valid for as long as the processing time period allowed by the
Uniform Administrative Code as adopted by the Council.
SECTION 5. EXEMPTIONS
Upgrading existing water service and/or meters for the sole purpose of providing new or
improved fire protection facilities shall be exempt from any impact fee provided for in this
resolution.
3-5
A+i ckc h m e n{-
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 6. SEPARATE ACCOUNTS
The Director of Finance shall deposit fees collected under this resolution in a separate
water impact fee account as required by Government Code Section 66006. Within one hundred
and eighty (180) days of the close of each fiscal year, the Director of Finance shall make
available to the public an accounting of these fees, and the Council shall review that information
at its next regular public meeting.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted on June 4, 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:.
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
G. J rge y n,� y Attorney
3-6
EXHIBIT A
Water Development Impact Fee Schedule
Effective July 1, 2002
Impact
Area-Specific
"Add-On"
Airport
EDU* Citywide Margarita
Residential: Per Unit
Single Family Residential 1.0 $ 8,065 $ 746
Multi-Family Residential 0.8 6,452 597
Mobile Home 0.6 4,839 448
Non-Residential: Meter Size
3/41nch 1.0 8,065 746
1 Inch 2.0 16,130 1,492
1%z Inch 4.0 32,260 2,984
2Inch 6.4 51,616 4,774
3 Inch 14.0 112,910 10,444
4 Inch 22.0 177,430 167412
,6 Inch 45.0 362,925 33,570
* Equivalent Dwelling Unit
3-7