HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/2011, B2 - DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 90979A council "'tt'`,°M`
LNovember 15 2011
accnba acpont 1` N.b.
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director of Public Works BL
PREPARED BY: Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION,
SPECIFICATION NO. 90979A
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a contract to John Madonna Construction Co. of San Luis Obispo for the Base Bid
in the amount of $666,446.80 for construction of the "Downtown Maintenance and
Beautification Project, Specification No. 90979A."
2. Approve transfers in the amount of$34,913 from the CIP Reserves account and $19,000
from the CIP Completed Projects account to the project's construction account to support
construction costs.
3. Appropriate $121,000 from the unreserved balance of the General Fund to the project's
construction account to support construction costs.
DISCUSSION
Background
One of the Council's "Other Important Objectives" in the 2009-11 Financial Plan was expanding
Downtown maintenance and beautification efforts. The intent was to "enhance the maintenance
and beautification of the Downtown through reprioritization of projects, new partnerships,
clearer standards and design guidelines, and improved internal and external communications."
Specifically, beautification efforts were to be focused on downtown signage, solid waste
collection, tree maintenance, news rack management, and other enhancements of existing City
infrastructure.
The final work scope for this construction project was developed over the past two years starting
with two walking tours conducted with staff and downtown stakeholders during the fall of 2009
followed by public meetings held with Council in February and June of 2010, and March of
2011. Copies of the three Council Agenda Reports are available for review in the Council
Reading File and summarized below.
At the February 23, 2010 Council meeting, staff provided an update on the progress of the
Downtown "Objective" and asked Council for direction and input on the desired improvements to
be made. Council's direction to staff was to first focus improvements on Higuera particularly the
completion of the block containing the Wineman.Hotel (Higuera Street, from Morro to Chorro) and
then to provide Council with options for other possible improvements in the downtown.
On June 15, 2010, after staff presented various improvement options for the project, Council
directed staff to move forward with design and construction of improvements on three consecutive
blocks of the downtown area - Higuera Street from Monro Street to Broad Street. Improvements
were to include completion of these City blocks by in-filling areas without Mission sidewalk,
B2-1
Downtown Maintenance& Beautification Project(90979A) Page 2
removing and replacing trees, upgrading existing tree wells and grates, installing pedestrian
lighting, updating trash receptacles, upgrading sign posts to new standards, and painting
traffic/light poles. Although not a part of the original work scope, tree lighting conduits were
included as a bid alternative.
On February 23, 2011, four bids were received for the three block project. All bids exceeded the
Engineer's Estimate and the available budget of $610,000. At the March 15, 2011 Council
meeting, staff presented the bid results and recommended that the project be downscaled to a
two-block project using a target Engineers Estimate of $545,000. The Downtown Association
agreed with staffs recommendation for a two-block project but also recommended that Council
consider approving the addition of the tree lighting conduit in order to facilitate the Downtown
Associations' proposed tree lighting project. Staff presented this work scope option to Council
with an Engineer's Estimate of $590,000. Council directed staff to move forward with the
downscaled two-block project (Morro to Garden) including the addition of the lighting conduits
in the base bid. Council also directed staff to rebid the downscaled project with a construction
start date of January 2012 to avoid holiday and summertime construction as well as to work with
the Downtown Association on ways to reduce project constraints, such as allowing larger work
areas or multiple work areas, in hopes of increasing contractor efficiencies and reducing costs.
On August 29, 2011, the City Manager approved the revised construction documents and
authorized staff to advertise the project.
Engineer's Estimate
Typically, the Engineer's Estimates are derived using the historical data approach which utilizes
the bid data received from the most recent bids. Bids are analyzed and reviewed for anomalies.
Unit prices are averaged and, if not a recent bid, adjusted by the CPI for inflation. The Federal
Highways Administration (FHWA) recognizes the historical data approach as an acceptable
method for cost estimating particularly where a municipality or entity does not have the
personnel or resources to provide an estimating department. This approach has proved to be
successful for most projects bid by the City. Since 2004, nearly 80% of the City's competitively
bid projects have come in under the Engineer's Estimate.
For this project, staff relied on the recent February bids to generate the Engineer's Estimate
where unit prices were calculated based on the average unit prices received from the four bids.
Coupled with the historic trend that bids are typically more competitive when bid in the fall,
when work is more scarce, staff concluded that the $590,000 estimate provided to Council at the
March 15, 2011 meeting was a reasonable estimate for the expected construction costs.
Current Bid Results
On October 5, 2011, the City received four bids for the two block project (Attachment 1). All
bids exceeded the Engineer's Estimate of$590,000 with John Madonna Construction of San Luis
Obispo providing the low bid of$666,447 - approximately 13% over the Engineer's Estimate.
In February 2011, the first time the project was bid, the City received four bids. The lowest bid
was received from Vinciguerra Construction and the second lowest bid was received from John
Madonna Construction Company. This time, in October 2011, the City also received four bids;
however, Vinciguerra Construction (the low bidder on the February bid) did not bid on the
project. This time John Madonna Construction Company provided the lowest bid. A comparison
B2-2
Downtown Maintenance &Beautification Project(90979A) Page 3
of John Madonna Construction Company's bid with their bid prices from February indicates an
average increase of around 8% in prices since last February. According to a statement provided
by the low bidder, this increase was largely due to prevailing wage increases that occurred during
the summer and higher fuel costs which affects fabrication, materials, trucking and equipment
costs. These higher costs could not have been accounted for in the $590,000 Engineer's Estimate
provided to Council on March 15, 2011.
Tree Lighting Costs
Per Council direction given in March, staff downscaled the project from three to two blocks and
added in the tree lighting conduits to the base bid to take advantage of the lower installation costs
due to the sharing of trenches with the pedestrian lighting system. The cost of the tree lighting
conduit portion of the project based on the low bid is approximately$81,000.
City Liaison
It is anticipated that routine inspection during the construction working hours of 2 AM to 10 AM
will be handled by in-house staff; however, staff recommends providing additional support for
the project through the use of contract inspection services to provide a daytime contact or liaison.
The City liaison would be available during the daytime hours to provide communication and
coordination between the contractor, the public and affected businesses and also be able to
provide inspection for minor daytime work. A budget for this additional support was not part of
the original budget and therefore will require an increase to the project's budget. A budget of
$25,000 would cover costs for the liaison for an average of four (4) hours per day for
approximately three to four months. Providing a liaison will help mitigate some of the impacts of
the project on downtown businesses and patrons and help improve communication about the
project progress and the upcoming schedule.
Basement at 858 Higuera
During the initial project scoping done in early 2010 it was not known that a large basement
existed under the sidewalk along forty feet of the frontage at 858 Higuera. The sidewalk is also
the basement roof. The suspended sidewalk/roof deck is old and showing signs of age and
deterioration. Due to the complexity of the design, the need for outside design specialists,
building permits and negotiations and agreements with the building owner, this portion of the
project has not been included in the project work scope. Plans are currently being prepared for a
design to rebuild the aging roof deck over the basement to allow construction of a new separate
sidewalk over the top of it.
Due to the proximity to the creek and potential for underground water, it is recommended that
this basement project be constructed during the driest time of year; between August and October..
Currently, with bids coming in higher than expected, the current project budget will not support
the cost of the basement upgrade; estimated to be in the range of$50,000 to $80,000. Due to the
level of deterioration, staff recommends moving forward-with replacement of the roof deck as
soon as plans are complete, agreements are reached with the building owner and funds are
secured. If project contingencies remain after completion of the Downtown Beautification
project, staff recommends directing these remaining funds towards the cost of replacing the roof
deck. Staff will return to Council to request additional funds if adequate contingencies are not
available. If adequate budget does not become available, then this forty foot section of sidewalk
B2-3
Downtown Maintenance&Beautification Project(90979A) Page 4
will not be upgraded to Mission sidewalk and the existing sidewalk/roof deck will continue to
deteriorate.
CONCURRENCES
1. The Community Development Department has determined that this project falls under the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in 2007 in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for utility work in the Downtown Core. Some
Archeological monitoring will be required for excavations.
2. The Downtown Association (DA) has been in support of the project and the inclusion of the
tree lighting conduit. The DA is in the process of working out the tree lighting design and
when ready, will come forward with their own project for installation.
FISCAL IMPACT
This project is solely supported by Measure Y funding, half-cent sales tax revenue, as identified
on pages 1-12 of the 2009-11 Financial Plan and comes from a combination of maintenance and
upgrade Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects approved for the Downtown as part of this
Financial Plan. While the funding was originally approved for six individual projects, Council's
direction was to combine the budgets and approach the work as one project. The City Manager
Report of July 20, 2010 (available for review in the Council Reading File)provides details on the
merging of the individual project budgets into one large downtown beautification project. There
is currently $10,430 remaining in the design phase and $601,284 remaining in the construction
phase of the project account. The current estimated project costs based on an award to the low
bidder is as follows:
Available Budget
Design $10,400
Construction $601,200 $611,600
Estimated Construction Phase Costs:
Construction Contract-J. Madonna $666,447
Construction Contingencies @ 12% $80,053
Materials Testing-Allowance $5,000
Archaeological Monitoring-Allowance $10,000
City Liaison-Allowance $25,000 $786,500
Estimated ShortjaA $ (174,900)
Funding Shortfall Sources
CIP Reserves $34,900
Completed Projects(apprx.) $19,000
General Fund Appropriation $121,000
$ 174,900
As shown above, an additional $174,900 is required to cover the estimated costs of construction
including contingencies, monitoring, testing and costs for a City Liaison. Staff recommends
B2-4
Downtown Maintenance 8, Beautification Project(90979A) Page 5
covering the shortfall through a transfer of the remaining balances of the CIP Reserves account
which has a balance of$34,913 and the CIP Completed Projects account which is estimated to
have $19,000 available once transfers from recently completed projects have posted. Given the
"one-time" nature of this cost and the importance of this project in accomplishing this "Other
Important City Objective," staff recommends covering the remaining shortfall of$121,000 from
the unreserved General Fund balance. Based on the 2010-11 interim year end results, 2011-13
Financial Plan and Council-approved project changes since then, there are one-time savings
available to support this project. This action is consistent with the Council's policy to expend
one-time revenue on one-time projects. If Measure Y funds are available they will be used for
this project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Reject Bids and down-scale the project. Council could direct staff to reject bids and
pursue a different work scope than what was approved by Council at its March 15, 2011
meeting. Staff does not recommend this alternative as rebidding the project would defer the
construction another year, to January 2013, as construction during late spring/summer was
not acceptable to the downtown businesses. In addition, costs will likely continue to rise.
2. Cancel project. Direct staff to reject bids. Council should provide direction to staff to
restore funding to the original project: budgets combined to create the funding for this
project, or to the Measure Y reserve to be reallocated for other priority work.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Bid Summary
2. Contract
COUNCIL READING FILE
1. Council Agenda Report-February 23,2010
2. Council Agenda Report-.June 15,2010
3. Council Agenda Report-March 15,2011 &Downtown Association Memo-March S, 2011
4. City Manager Report-July 20,2010
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\201 I\CIP\90979A Downtown Beautification\90979A DT Beautification AWD.docx
B2-5
1
ATTACHMENT 1 - BID SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BID SUMMARY SHEET
Proje Dowtown Beautification Project Spec.No.: 90979A Bid Opening: 5-Oct-I 1
Cont
act: Bridget Fraser
Estimated followup dates: Award: Request for bonds/ins: Pre job:
ngincer's Estimate John Madonna Construction Co.,IncMaino Construction Co..Inc.
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION San Luis Obispo. CA 93403 San Luis Obispo. CA 93406
NIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
Base Bid
I OSHA Compliance LS 1 4200.00 $4,200.00 15000.00 $15,000.00 5000.00 $5,000.00
2 Traffic Control LS 11 18000.00 S18,000.00 55800.00 $55.800.00 20000.00 $20.000.00
3 Changeable Message/Arrow Sign EA 1 5500.00 $5.500.00 3955.00 $3,955.00 10000.00 510,000.00
4 Water Pollution Control LS 1 7000.00 $7,000.00 4450.00 $4,450.00 5000.00 $5,000.00
5 Salvage U-shaped Bike Racks EA 4 135.00 $540.00 200.00 $800.00 250.00 S1,000.00
6 Salvage Trash Receptacles EA 7 155.00 $1,085.00 230.00 $1,610.00 400.00 $2,800.00
7 Remove Sign Posts EA 7 120.00 $840.00 275.00 $1,925.00 300.00 $2,100.00
8 Remove Parking Meter Posts EA 16 80.00 $1,280.00 220.00 $3.520.001 150.00 $2,400.00
9 Remove Street Light Pole EA 3 720.00 $2.160.00 1000.00 $3.000.00 6000.00 $18.000.00
10 Abandon Storm Drain at Higuem/Chonm SWC LS 1 1600.00 $1.600.00 3400.00 $3,400.00 3000.00 $3.000.00
11 Abandon Hose Connection LS 2 560.00 $1,120.00 3100.00 $6,200.00 500.00 $1,000.00
12 Mission-Style Sidewalk SQFT 5100 24.50 $124,950.00 22.00 $112,200.00 40.00 $204.000.00
13 Mission-Style Curb&Gutter LF 325 98.00 $31,850.00 85.00 $27,625.00 75.00 $24,375.00
14 Cast Iron Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3415) EA 8 450.00 $3,600.00 775.00 $6.200.00 900.00 $7200.00
15 Install(N)City Water Meter Box-(City furnished) EA 7 150.00 S 1.050.00 - 245.00 $1,715.00 400.00 $2.800.00
16(N)City Sewer Cleanout well EA 7 230.00 $1,610.00 325.00 $2275.00 500.00 $3500.00
17(N)City Fire Valve well EA 2 225.00 $450.00 370.00 $740.00 400.00 $800.00
18(N)City Pull Box(Light,Traffic) EA 2 495.00 $990.00 825.00 S1.650.00 2000.00 $4,000.00
19 Detectable Warning-(New Curb Returns) SF 38 45.00 $1,710.00 23.00 $874.00 60.00 - $2,280.00
20 Detectable Warning-Remove&Replace SF 220 50.00 $11,000.00 37.50 $8,250.00 70.00 $15.400.00
21 (N)Sign Posts'Signs EA 7 550.00 $3.850.00 580.00 $4,060.00 600.00 S4200.00
22(N)Parking Meter Posts EA 16 250.00 $4,000.00 315.00 $5,040.00 150.00 $2.400.00
23(N)Tree Gmte/Frame-Type A EA 10 1720.00 $17,200.00 1200.00 $12,000.00 1500.00 $15.000.00
24(N)Tree Gmte/Frame-Type B EA 3 1300.00 .$3.900.00 950.00 $2.850.00 1500.00 $4,500.00
25(N)Tree Gmtc/Fmme-TypeC EA I 1900.00 $1.900.00 1450.00 $1,450.00 2000.00 $2,000.00
26(N)Tree Grate/Frame-Type D EA 2 1275.00 $2,550.00 1025.00 $2.050.00 1500.00 $3.000.00
27(N)Tree Grate/Fmme-Type E EA 1 3050.00 $3.050.00 2700.00 $2.700.00 3000.00 $3.000.00
28(N)Tree Gmte/Fmme-Type F FA 1 3900.00 $3.900.00 3140.00 $3.140.00 3400.00 $3.400.00
29 24"Box Tree(Ficus)&(N)Tree Guard EA 1 1400.00 $1,400.00 1250.00 $1250.00 1500.00 $1500.00
30(N)Peak Bike Rack EA 61 1100.00 $600.00 600.00 $3.600.00 400.00 $2,400.00
31 Reset(E)Peak Bike Rack EA 1 220.00 $220.00 585.00 $585.00 200.00 $200.00
32 Reset(E)Benches EA 6 225.00 $1:350.00 410.00 $2,460.00 250.00 $1.500.00
33(N)Trash Receptacle EA 7 2250.00 $15,750.00 2350.00 $16,450.00 2500.00 $17.500.00
34 Remount LED enhanced Cross-walk LS 1 5800.00 $5,800.00 9350.00 - $9,350.00 8500.00 58.500.00
35 Curb Painting(various colors) LF _ 370 3.00 SLI 10.00 1.40 $518.00 6.00 $2220.00
36 Paint/Stain(E)Utility Box(various sizes)outside EA 49 75.00 $3.675.00 100.00 $4,900.00 110.00 $5.390.00
37 Paint Sign Post at Bulb-out EA 1 720.00 $720.00 850.00 5850.00 900.00 $900.00
38 Pole Painting Type A EA 1 2600.00 $2.600.00 2750.00 $2,750.00 3000.00 $3,000.00
39 Pole Painting Type B EA 5 2850.00 $14,250.00 .2750.00 $13,750.00 3000.00 S15.000.00
40(N)Signs on Tmtfic/Light Poles EA 2 200.00 $400.00 550.00 $1,100.00 600.00 $1200.00
41 (N)Double-Globe Pedestrian Light Standard EA 2 8600.00 $17,200.00 18500.00 $37,000.00 12000.00 $24.000.00
42(N)Pedestrian Light Standard EA 10 7100.00 $71,000.00 10900.00 $109,000.00 9000.00 $901000.00
43(N)PGE Connection Box EA 4 1000.00 $4,000.00 740.00 $2.960.00 4000.00 $16.000.00
44 3"Service Line(Street Lights&Tree Lighting) LF 217 50.00 $10,850.00 37.00 $8.029.00 45.00 $9,765.00
45 Street Light Conduit LF 7001 6.50 _ $4,550.00 5.50 $3.850.00 25.00 $17.500.00
46 Tree Lighting Conduit LF 1189 6.501 $7,728.50 5.50 $6,539.50 25.00 $29,725.00
47 Spare Conduit LF 1189 6.501 $7,728.50 5.50 $6,539.50 25.00 $29,725.00
48 Conduit Trench/Street Pavement Repair(conduits LF 804 105.00 $84,420.00 81.70 $65,686.80 60.00 548240.00
49 Conduit Trench below Pave out(conduits rum LF 460 55.00 $25,300.00 115.00 $52,900.00 30.00 $13.800.00
50 Tree Lighting Detail EA 24 1700.00 $40.800.00 825.00 $19,800.00 1400.00 $33.600.00
51 Pull Box(for Funure Meter) EA 3 550.00 $1,650.00 -700 00 $2,100.00 4500.00 $13,500.00
$589,987.00 $666,446.80 $757,320.00
1 of 4
B2-6
ATTACHMENT 1 - BID SUMMARY
ngineet's Estimate John Madonna Construction Co.,IncMaino Construction Co..Inc.
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
UN IT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
Bid Alternate(Broad to Carden)
AI OSHA Compliance LS 1 2200.00 $2,200.00 9535.00 $9.535.00 5000.00 $5,000.00
A2 Traffic Control LS 11 12000.00 $12.000.00 62900.00 $62.900.00 12000.00 $12,000.00
A3 Changeable Message/Arrow Sign EA 1 3000.00 $3.000.00 4100.00 $4.100.00 6000.00 $6.000.00
A4 Water Pollution Control LS 1 -5000.00 $5.000.00 4600.00 $4,600.00 5000.00 $5,000.00
AS Remove Tree&Roots EA 2 2300.00 $4,600.00 2800.001 $5,600.00 6000.00 $12,000.00
A6 Salvage U-shaped Bike Racks EA 2 125.00 5250.00 -450.00 $900.00 250.00 $500.00
A7 Salvage Trash Receptacles EA 4 190.00 $760.00 225.00 $900.00 500.00 $2.000.00
A8 Remove.Sign Posts EA 7 110.00 $770.00 275.00 $1,925.00 400.00 $2,800.00
A9 Remove Parking Meter Posts EA 17 75.00 $1.275.00 160.00 $2.720.00 200.00 53,400.00
10 Abandon Storm Drain at Higuem/Bmad SEC LS I 1600.00 $1,600.00 3500.00 $3,500.00 3500.00 $3.500.00
All Abandon Hose Connection LS 1 673.00 .$673.00 2700.00 $2,700.00 500.00 $500.00
Al2 Mission-Style Sidewalk SQFT 4720 25.00 $118,000.00 22.00 $103,840.00 42.00 $198,240.00
A 13 Mission-Style Sidewalk at Basement(STA 2+21.5 SQFT 285 36.00 $10,260.00 33.25 $9.476.25 80.00 $22.800.00
A14 Mission-Style Curb&Gutter LF 585 98.00 $57,330.00 87.50 $51.187.50 75.00 $43,875.00
A15 Concrete Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 34 10) LS 1 4500.00 $4,500.00 4900.00 $4,900.00 8000.00 58.000.00
A16 Cast Iron.Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3415) EA 7 450.00 $3.150.00 485.00 $3.395.00 900.00 $6.300.00
A17 Install(N)City Water Meter Box-(City furnished) EA 11 - 150.00 $1,650.00 190.00 $2,090.00 400.00 $4,400.00
AI8 (N)City Sewer Cleanout well EA 4 230.00 $920.00 345.00 $1.380.00 500.00 $2,000.00
A19 (N)City Fire Valve well EA 4 225.00 $900.00 600.00 $2,400.00 500.00 $2,000.00
A20 (N)City Pull Box(Light,Tmffic) EA 10 495.00 $4,950.00 750.00 $7.500.00 2000.00 $20,000.00
A21 Detectable Warning-(New Curb Returns) SF 58 - 45.00 $2.610.00 24.00 $1,392.00 60.00 $3,480.00
A22 Detectable Warning-Remove&Replace SF 36 50.00 $1,800.00 38.75 $1,395.00 60.00 $2,160.00
A23 (N)Sign PosWSibms EA 2 550.00 $1.100.00 600.00 $1.200.00 600.00 $1100.00
A24 (N)Parking Meter Posts EA 17 250.00 $4,250.00 310.00 $5,270.00 150.00 $2.550.00
A25 (N)Pedestrian Barricade&Sips EA 1 2100.00 $2.100.00 2650.00 $2.650.00 1000.00 $1.000.00
A26 (N)Tree Grate/Fmme-Type A EA 4 1720.00 $6.880.00 1200.00 $4,800.00 1500.00 $6,000.00
A27 (N)Tree Grate/Frame-Type B EA 2 1300.00 $2,600.00 935.00 $1.870.00 1500.00 $3.000.00
A28 (N)Tree Gmte/Fmme-Type E EA 2 3050.00 $6.100.00 2700.00 $5,400.00 3000.00 $6,000.00
A29 (N)Tree Orale/Frame-Type G EA 1 2500.00 $2.500.00 2100.00 $2,100.00 3000.00 $3.000.00
30 24'Box Tree(Ficus)&.(N)Tree Guard EA 3 1400.00 $4.200.00 1150.00 $3.450.00 1500.00 $4500.00
A31 Reset(E)Peak Bike Rack EA 1 220.00 $220.00 1150.00 $1,150.00 200.00 $200.00
A32 (N)Peak Bike Rack EA 2 1100.00 $2.200.00 1355.00 $2.710.00 400.00 5800.00
A33 (N)Trash Receptacle EA 4 2250.00 $9.000.00 2600.00 $10.400.00 2500.00 $10,000.00
34 Reset(E)Street Name Sign to Garden Street LS 1 300.00 $300.00 1125.00 $1,125.00 400.00 $400.00
A35 Curb Painting(various colors) LF 170 3.00 $510.00 1.45 $246.50 6.00 $1,020.00
6 Paint/Stain(E)Utility Box(various sizes)outside EA 34 85.00 $2,890.00 105.00 $3.570.00 120.00 $4,080.00
37 Pole Painting Type B EA 2 2850.00 $5,700.00 2725.00 $5.450.00 3600.00 $7100.00
A38 3"Service Line(Street Lights&Tree Lighting) LF 49 135.00 $6.615.00 42.00 $2,058.00 27.00 $1.323.00
39 Tree Lighting Conduit LF 664 6.50 $4,316.00 29.00 $19,256.00 27.00 $17,928.00
40 Spare Conduit LF 584 6.501 $3.796.00 5.70 $3.328.80 - 27.001 $15.768.00
Conduit Trench/Street Pavement Repair-(where
A41 LF
nuinotraninmernave 148 110.00 $16.280.00 92.75 $13.727.00 70.00 .$10.360.00
A42 Conduit Trench below Pave out(where conduits LF 422 55100 $23210.00 124.00 $52,328.00 35.00 $14,770.00
A43 Tree Lighting Detail EA 12 1700.00 $20.400.00 800.00 $9,600.00 -1500.00 $18,000.00
A44 Pull Box(for Future Meter) EA 1 2 550.00 '$1.100.00 770.00 $1,540.00 4800.00 $9,600.00
$364,465.00 $441,565.05 $504,654.00
$954,452.00 $1,108,011.85 $1,261,974.00
Listed Subs Pro Coatings D.A.Cmghead
San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 San Luis Obispo.CA
F Garcia&Son
Silver Oak Construction&Cone. Cayucos,CA
ipomo.CA 93444 Pro Coatings
San.Luis Obispo.CA 93401
ennyson Electric oeste Electric Inc.
Livermore,CA 94550 Grover Beach,CA 93433
Comment:minor calculation errorComment;calculation error on A39.
n A43,use unit price. use unit price.
2 of 4
B2-7
ATTACHMENT 1 - BID SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BID SUMMARY SHEET
Proje DoAlown Beautification Project
Coat Bridget Fraser
act:
Estimated followup dates: Award:
Granite Construction G Soca Construction Inc
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION Santa Barbara. CA 93160 Orcutt. CA 934.55
NIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
Base Bid
1 OSHA Compliance LS I 2500.00 _$2:500.00 40000.00 $40.000.00
2 Traffic Control LS 1 113000.00 $113,000.00 25000.00 $25.000.00
3 Changeable Message/Arrow Sign EA 1 9430.00 $9,430.00 3000.00 $3,000.00
4 Water Pollution Control LS 1 9500.00 $9,500.00 _9500.00 $9.500.00
5 Salvage U-shaped Bike.Racks EA 4 175.00 $700.00 300.00 - $1,200.00
6 Salvage Trash Receptacles EA 7 - 295.00 $2.065.00 300.00 $2.100.00
7 Remove Sign Posts EA 7 121.00 _ $847.00 100.00 $700.00
8 Remove Parking.Meter Posts EA 16 121.00 $1,936.00 100.00 $1.600.00
9 Remove Street Light Pole EA 3 k 900.00 $2,700.00 7000.00 $21,000.00
10 Abandon Storm Drain at Higuem/Chorro SWC LS 1 3800.00 $3.800.00 2000.00 $2,000.00
11 Abandon Hose Connection - LS 2 653.00 $1.306.00 2000.00 _ $4,000.00
12 Mission-Style Sidewalk SOFT 5100 17.00 $86,700.00 20.00 $102,000.00
13 Mission-Style Curb&Gutter LF 325 350.00 $113,750.00 100.00 $32.500.00
14 Cast Iron Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3415) EA 8 225.00 $1,800.00 6500.00 $52.000.00
15 Install(N)City Water Meter Box-(City famished) EA 7 155.00 $1,085.00 400.00 $2,800.00
16(N)City Sewer Cleanout well EA 7 400.00 $2,800.00 600.00 $4,200.00
17.(N)City Fire Valve well EA 2 450.001 $900.00 2000.00 54,000.00
18(N)City Pull Box(Light.Traffic) EA 2 750.00 _ $1.500.00 1500.00 $3,000.00
19 Detectable Warning-(New Curb Returns) SF 38 65.00 $2,470.00 50.00 $1.900.00
20 Detectable Warning-Remove&Replace SF 220 125.00 $27.500.00 40.00 $8.800.00
21 (N)Sign.Posts/Signs EA 7 525.00 $3,675.00 500.00 $3,500.00
22(N)Parking Meter Posts EA 16 775.00 $12.400.00 - 500.00 $8,000.00
23(N)Tree.Gmte/Fmme-Type A EA 10 1700.00 $17,000.00 1500.00 _ $15.000.00
24(N)Tree Grate/Frame-Type B EA 3 1420.00 $4,260.00 1000.00 $3.000.00
25(N)Tree Gmte/Frame-.Type C EA 1 1950.00 $1.950.00 1500.00 $1.500.00
26(N)Tree Grate/Fmme-Type D EA 2 1550.00 $3,100.00 1000.00 $2.000.00
27(N)Tree Grme/Fmme-Type E EA 1 3200.00 $3.200.00 3000.00 $3.000.00
28(N)Tme Grate/Frame-Type F EA I 3700.00 $3.700.00 3300.00 $3,300.00
29 24"Box Tree(Ficus)&(N)Tree Guard EA 1 2000.00 $2,000.00 2000.00 $2,000.00
30(N)Peak Bike Rack EA 6 800.00 $4,800.00 .500.00 $3,000.00
31 Reset(E)Peak Bike Rack EA. 1 450.00 $450.00 500.00 $500.00
32 Reset(E)Benches _ EA 6 460.00 $2,760.00 1000.00 56.000.00
33(N)Trash Receptacle EA 1 - 7 3100.00 $21,700.00 2800.00 $19,600.00
34 Remount LED enhanced Crass-walk LS 1 8500.00 .$8,500.00 10000.00 $10,000.00
35 Curb Painting(various colors) LF 370 - 8.00 - $2.960.00 5.00 $1.850.00
36 Paint/Stain(E)Utility Box(various sizes)outside EA 49 117.00 $5.733.00 100.00 $4,900.00
37 Paint Sign Post at Bulb-out EA 1 1610.00 $1,610.00 1000.00 - $1,000.00
38 Pole Painting Type A EA. 1 4500.001 $4,500.00 3000.00 $3.000.00
39 Pole Painting Type B EA 5 7500.00 $37.500.00 _3000.00 $15,000.00
40(N)Signs on Tome/Light Poles EA 2 300.00 $1,000.00 500.00 $1,000.00
41 (N)Double-Globe Pedestrian Light Standard EA 2 17032.00 $34,064.00 15000.00 $30.000.00
42(N)Pedestrian Light Standard EA 10 9920.00 $99,200.00 10000.00 $104000.00
43(N)PGE Connection Box EA 4 675.00 $2.700.00 4000.00 $16,000.00
44 3"Service Line(Street Lights&Tree Lighting) LF 217 10.00 $2.170.00 25.00 $5,425.00
45 Street Light Conduit LF 700 5.00 $3,500.00 26.00 $18.200.00
46 Tree Lighting Conduit LF 1189 5.00 $5.945.00 25.00 $29,725.00
47 Spare Conduit LF 1189 5.00 $5.945.00 25.00 $29,725.00
48 Conduit Trench/Street Pavement Repair(conduits LF 804 85.00 $68.340.00 80.00 _ $64,320.00
49 Conduit Trench below Pave out(conduits ran LF 460 , 20.00 $9,200.00 80.00 $36,800.00
50 Tme Lighting Detail EA 2 - 750.00 $18,000.00 1300.00 $31,200.00
51 Pull Box(for Future Meter) EA 3 650.00 $1,950.00 5000.00 $15,000.00
$780,101.00 $804,845.00
3 of 4
B2-8
ATTACHMENT 1 - BID SUMMARY
Granite Construction G Sma Construction Inc
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION. Santa Barbara, CA 93160 Orcutt, CA 93455
NIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
Bid Alternate Brand to Garden
AI OSHA Compliance LS 1 1500.00 $1,500.00 50000.00 $50,000.00
A2 Traffic Control - - LS 1 129295.00 $129.295.00 30000.00 $30.000.00
A3 Changeable Message/Arrow Sign _ _ EA_ I 3500.00 $3,500.00 1500.00 $1,500.00
A4 Water Pollution Control - LS 1 8240.00 $8,240.00 5000.00 $5.000.00
A5 Remove Tree&Roots EA 2 2700.00 $5,400.00 4000.001 $8,000.00
A6 Salvage U-shaped Bike Racks EA 2 175.00 - $350.00 200.001 $400.00
A7 Salvage Trash Receptacles EA 4 295.00 $1,180.00 _ 400.00 $1,600.00
A8 Remove Sign Posts EA 7 121.00 $847.00 100.00 $700.00
A9 Remove Parking Meter Posts EA 17 121.00 $2.057.00 150.00 $2,550.00
10 Abandon Storm Dmin at Higuera/Broad SEC LS 1 3800.00 $3.800.00 3000.00 $3,000.00
II Abandon Hose Connection LS 1 653.00 $653.00 2000.00 -$2,000.00
I2 Mission-Style Sidewalk SQFT _ _ 4720 _ 17.00 .$80,240.00 20.00 $94,400.00
I3 Mission-Style Sidewalk at Basement(STA 2+21.5 SQFT 285 90.00 $25.650.00 60.00 $17,100.00
I4 Mission-Style Curb&Gutter - LF 585 155.00 $90,675.00 100.00 $58,500.00
A15 Concrete Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3410) LS 1 4010.00 $4,010.00 6000.00 $6,000.00
A16 Cast Iron Sidewalk Underdrain-(STD?415) EA 226.00 $1.582.00 - 6500.00 $45.500.00
A17 Install(N)City Water Meter Box-(City furnished) EA 11 _ 155:00 $1,705.00 600.00 $6.600.00
A18 (N)City Sewer Cleanout well EA 4 400.00 $1,600.00 400.00 _ $1,600.00
A19 (N)City Fire Valve well EA 4 450.00 $1.800.00 1500.00 $6,000.00
A20 (N)City Pull Box(Light.Traffic) EA 10 675.00 $6,750.00 1000.00 $10.000.00-
A21 Detectable Warning-(New Curb Returns) SF 58 65.00 $3,770.00 50.00 $2,900.00,
A22 Detectable Warning-_Remove&Replace SF 3 125.00 $4,500.00 100.00 $3.600.00
A23 (N)Sign Posts/Signs - - EA 2 500.00 $1.000.00 500.00 S1.000.00
A24 (N)Parking Meter.Posts EA 17 775.00 $13,175.00 300.00 $5,100.00
A25 (N)Pedestrian Barricade&Signs EA 1 1600.00 - $1.600.00 2000.00 $2,000.00
A26 (N)Tree Gmte/Fmme-Type A EA 4 _ I700.00 $6.800.00 1200.00 $4,800.00
A27 (N)Tree Gmte/Fmme-Type B EA 2 1420.00 $2.840.00 1000.00 $2,000.00
A28 (N)Tree Gtme/Frame-Type E - EA 2 3200.00 $6,400.00 3000.00 _ $6.000.00
A29 (N)Tree Gmte/Fmme-Type G EA 1 2100.00 S2,100.00 2100.00 $2,100.00
A30 24'Box Tree(Ficus)&(N)Tree Guard EA 3 2000.00 $6.000.00 1500.00 $4,500.00
A31 Reset(E)Peak Bike Rack EA I 450.00 $450.00 300.00 $300.00
A32 (N)Peak Bike Rack _ EA 2 800.001 $1,600.00 800.00 51.600.00
A33_ (N)Trash Receptacle - EA 4 3100.00 $12.400.00 2500.00 $10.000.00
A34 Reset(E)Street Name Sign Garden.Street LS 1 859.00 $859.00 -500.00 $500.00
A35 Curb Painting(various colors) LF 170 8.00 $1360.00 7.00 51.190.00
A36 Paint/Stain(E)Utility Box(various sizes)outside FA 34 114.00 _ $3,876.00 100.00 $3,400.00
A37 Pole Painting Type B EA 2 3750.00 - $7,500.00 3000.00 $6,000.00
A38 3"Service Line(Street Lights&Tree Lighting) LF 49 10.00 S490.00 26.00 $1,274.00
A39 Tree Lighting Conduit LF 664 5.00 $3.320.00 26.00 $17,264.00
A40 Spare Conduit LF 584 5.00 $2.920.00 26.00 $15.184.00
Conduit Trench/Street Pavement Repair-(where
A41 conduitsw r v t LF 148 85.00 $12,580.00 105.00 $15.540.00
A42- Conduit Trench below Pave out(where conduits LF 422 20.00 $8.440.00 100.00 $42,200.00
A43 Tree Lighting Detail EA _ 12 750.00 $9,000.00 1300.00 $15,600.00
A44 Pull Box(for Future Meter) EA 2 675.00 $1350.00 6000.00 $12,000.00
$485,164.00 $526$02.00
$1,265,265.00 $1,331347.00
ennyson Electric Pro Coatings
Livermore.CA 94550 San Luis Obispo.CA 93401
'oeste Electric Inc.
Graver Beach,CA 93433
Comment:minor calculation error
linn A31,A38,use unit prices.
4 of 4
B2-9
ATTACHMENT 2-CONTRACT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT,made on this day of ,2011,by and between the City of San Luis Obispo,
a municipal corporation and charter city,San Luis Obispo County,California(hereinafter called the Owner)and
John Madonna Construction Company,Inc. (hereinafter 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 performed, shall
provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and
transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE&BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
SPECIFICATION NO.90979A
in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefor,including any and all Addenda,adopted by the Owner,in
strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work performed and
completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized
representatives.
ARTICLE H, 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 prices as follows:
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures)
1 OSHA Compliance LS 1 15000.00 $15,000.00
2 Traffic Control LS 1 55800.00 $55.800.00
3 Changeable Message/Arrow Sign EA 1 3955.00 $3,955.00
4 Water Pollution Control LS 1 4450.00 $4,450.00
5 Salvage U-shaped Bike Racks EA 4 200.00 $800.00
6 Salvage Trash Receptacles EA 7 230.00 $1,610.00
7 Remove Sign Posts EA 7 275.00 $1,925.00
8 Remove Parking Meter Posts EA 16 220.00 $3,520.00
9 Remove Street Light Pole EA 3 1000.00 $3.000.00
10 Abandon Storm Drain at Hi uera/Chorro SWC LS 1 3400.00 $3,400.00
11 Abandon Hose Connection LS 2 3100.00 $6,20-0.0-0-
12
6 200.0012 Mission-Style Sidewalk S FT 5100 22.00 $112,200.00
13 Mission-Style Curb&Gutter LF 325 85.00 $27,625.00
14 Cast Iron Sidewalk Underdrain STD 3415 EA 8 775.00 $6,200.00
Install(N)City Water Meter Box-(City
15 furnished) EA 7 245.00 $1,715.00.
16 City Sewer Cleanout well EA 7 325.00 $1275.00
- 1 -
B2-10
ATTACHMENT 2-CONTRACT
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures)
17 City Fire Valve well EA 2 370.00 $740.00
18 City Pull Box(Light.Traffic EA 2 825.00 $1,650.00
19 Detectable Warning- New Curb Returns SF 38 23.00 $874.00
20 Detectable Warning-Remove&Replace SF 220 37.50 $8.250.00
21 Sign Posts/Signs EA 7 580.00 $4,060.00
22 Parking Meter Posts EA 16 315.00 $5,040.00
23 Tree Grate/Frame-Type A EA 10 1200.00 $12,000.00
24 Tree Grate/Frame-Type B EA 3 950.00 1 $2,850.00
25 Tree Grate/Frame-Type C EA 1 1450.00 $1,450.00
26 Tree Grate/Frame-Type D EA 2 1025.00 $2,050.00
27 Tree Grate/Frame-Type E EA 1 2700.00 $2,700.00
28 Tree Grate/Frame-Type F EA 1 3140.00 $3.140.00
29 24'Box Tree Ficus & Tree Guard EA 1 1250.00 $1,250.00
30 Peak Bike Rack EA 6 600.00 $3,600.00
31 Reset E Peak Bike Rack EA 1 585.00 $585.00
32 Reset E Benches EA 6 410.00 $2.460.00
33 Trash Receptacle EA 7 2350.00 $16,450.00
Remount LED enhanced Cross-walk
34 signs/controller on Type IA pole LS 1 9350.00 $9,350.00
35 Curb Painting various colors LF 370 1.40 $518.00
Paint/Stain(E)Utility Box(various sizes)
36 outside of Sidewalk EA 49 100.00 . $4,900.00
37 Paint Sign Post at Bulb-out EA 1 850.00 $850.00.
38 Pole Painting Type A EA 1 2750.00 $2.750.00
39 Pole Painting Type B EA 5 2750.00 $13,750.00
40 Signs on Traffic/Light Poles EA 2 550.00 $1,100.00
41 Double-Globe Pedestrian Light Standard EA 2 18500.00 $37.000.00
42 Pedestrian Light Standard EA 10 10900.00 $109.000.00
43 PGE Connection Box EA 4 740.00 $2.960.00
3"Service Line(Street Lights&Tree
44 Lighting) LF 217 37.00 $8 029.00
45 Street Light Conduit LF 700 5.50 $3,850.00
46 Tree Lighting Conduit LF 1189 5.50 --$6-1-5-3 9-50-
47 Spare Conduit LF 1189 5.50 $6,539.50
Conduit Trench/Street Pavement Repair
48 conduits not run below gutter pave out LF 804 81.70 $65,686.80
Conduit Trench below Pave out(conduits run
49 below gutter ave out) LF 460 115.00. $52,900.00
50 Tree Lighting Detail EA 24 825.00 $19,800.00
51 Pull Box for Future Meter EA 3 700.00 $2,100.00
BID TOTAL: $6669446.80
-2-
B2-11
ATTACHMENT 2-CONTRACT
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 respecting 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 III, 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 forbidders.
2. Standard Specifications,Engineering Standards,Special Provisions,and any Addenda.
2. Accepted Proposal.
4. Public Contract code Section 10285.1 Statement and 10162 Questionnaire.
5. Noncollusion Declaration.
6. Plans.
7. List of Subcontractors.
8. Agreement and Bonds.
9. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict
between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor,then this instrument shall control and
nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first above
written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
Elaina Cano, City Clerk Jan Marx, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
By:
Astinetrick,City Attorney John Madonna,Chief Executive Officer
John Madonna Construction Company;Inc.
-3-
B2-12
RED FILE
From: Karen English [mailto:] MEETING AGENDA
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 20119:41 AM DATEIO / ITEM #—L-L—
To: Ashbaugh, John
Cc: dcash(adowntownslo.com
Subject: Re: Downtown improvements project-tonight's Council meeting
John,thanks for including me in the loop....being a tenant in the 3rd block, I am disappointed to
think that the two blocks prior to ours will be'beautified' leaving Garden to Broad untouched...you
have a lot of high end boutiques and very popular restaurants in that 3rd block....I would hope that
at least tree lighting and maintenance might be budgeted in...the tree directly in front of Romp and
Central Coast wines is a terribly messy tree, resulting in sticky residue being tracked into our
stores for much of the year....
I get the whole budget thing but would sure love to see our block at least touched up a bit....the
image I see in my mind in reading over the report is a huge change to the other two blocks,
leaving us look a bit shabby!!
My two cents... hard eo : emam.
o COUNCIL o CDD DIR
Best, a CRY MGR c FrrDIR
a AMCM o FIRECHIEF
o ATTORNEY o PWDIR
Karen a °EUW1UG a P'ouCEaUF
o PIS o PAW&REC DIR
a MMUNE o LMDIR
a NEWTDM aHRDIR
!Romp a SI.00RYNM a COUNCIL
o CRY MGR
714 Higuera Street °CUM
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
805.545.ROMP phone 805.545.7803 fox
www.rompshoes.com
• RED FILE
t " MEETING AGENDA
13
From: Sandi Sigurdson jmailto:slosandi805@yahoo.coml DATE ITEM # o-
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:23 AM
To: Marx, ]an; Garter, Andrew; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan
Cc: Lichtig, Katie
Subject: city beautification
Esteemed Council Members-
So husband Steve McGrath and I just got back from a little driving
vacation. Keeping our (paltry) bucks in-State we headed over to the #395 and
went north with good intentions of turning left over to Yosemite. Those Sierras
are un-freakin' believable. What a State. Anyway, weather prevailed and we
had to go up to Tahoe to cross back on the 80. Not actually a painful
experience. Then we dropped down into Gold Country and that was very
cool. We're not big "chain" people so got to eat at places like "Sweetie Pie's" and
stayed at the 19th century Cary Hotel in Placerville (terrifying elevator, BTW)
Ok, so here's the point- it was very clear which cities and towns were investing
in their town's maintenance and tourist-ready attractiveness...and which were
not.
On a really cold and overcast Sunday, Nevada City was bustling; restaurants
were full. There were flowers on the sidewalks and good signs lead you around
to parking and downtown businesses and civic buildings.
We stopped at Empire Mine State Park near Grass Valley- again, good signage,
and a welcoming feel.
The Apple Hill area north-east of Placerville is crazy busy with a 40-year old
farm cooperative attracting families to apple picking and cider and hay rides
and the like. The road to the farms was easy to find, everything
looked sparkling and welcoming. All a little precious for my tastes, but looked
like they were being precious all the way to the bank.
We wound up in the Bay Area visiting son Patrick and his wife Paula (Occupy
Cal!). A trip to the City and visit to Union Square was evidence of preparation
for the coming holidays and ensuring an urban vibrancy for which SF is known
and which tourists count on.
Listen, whether its clean, safe highway rest areas with informative
signage giving you the 411 on the place you stopped to pee; or clear directions
on where to ditch your car and walk in a given town; or creating moving
memorials to the people who built this state (like a soul-wrenching stop at
Manzanar);- we Californians have an obligation to welcome, manage and milk
the millions of tourists who who want to know and enjoy our state.
Now is exactly the time to demonstrate a little risk taking, some forward-
thinking leadership and some vision that San Luis Obispo is the place to be:
open for business and welcoming travelers.
Approve this downtown improvement package.
thanks for listening and thanks for your service to our city.
Sandi Sigurdson
665 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 hard copr. email:
(805) 440-8693 a 0OUN L a MD=
o CTTYMGR a FITDIR
o ASSTCM a ME CHIEF
o ATTORNEY a PW D1R
o CIMMRIO a POLICECHIEF
a FIB a pARKS&RECDIR
o TRIBUNE a UTI.DIR
o NEWTOM aHRDIR
o SLOCITYNM a COUNCIL
a CITY MGR
a CLER&
C
RED FILE
From: John D. Grady, CFP jmailto:iaradyslo@earthlink.netl MEETING AGENDA
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 20112:21 PM
To: Council ALL DATE 1 &s/ TEM #
Subject: Downtown sidewalk replacement&other enhancements
Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members,
I think it would be very irresponsible of you to approve the expenditure of$786,500 to upgrade
two blocks of downtown! This expenditure would be questionable in my mind even in good
times, but to spend such a sum for non essential items in these economic times is
unconscionable - at least in my opinion -and I imagine in the opinion of the vast majority of our
city's residents. A review of the current letters posted online show 2/3 of
our residents opposed to this expenditure.
At a time when you are going to every labor group and asking for increased contributions to
benefit plans and reductions in salaries, how can you at the same time even consider such a
discretionary expenditure? It surely weakens your credibility with our employees as well as
with the electorate.
I think it is time to curtail such spending and be more prudent managers of our city's limited
resources. I previously opposed your spending over$100,0000 to replace marking meters
(unnecessarily), but at least that expenditure will be recouped in time through the higher fees
charged. This new proposed expenditure of$786,500 (which by the way represents about 1.5%
of our general fund) will not ever be recouped, certainly not in any tangible way that you could
measure or demonstrate.
Earlier this year you denied an expenditure of less than this amount for an area 50% larger,
so why should you now approve an even greater expenditure for a smaller section of
downtown? If there are safety issues that need addressed then have city staff address these,
but don't waste dollars we cannot afford on this project.
And items such as conduits for downtown merchants to have access to outdoor lighting should
not be provided at the taxpayer's expense.
Thank you. I'll watch closely your deliberations this evening. hard copy: e'er'
D COUNCIL o CDD DIR
a CnYMGR o FITDIR
a AWCM o I=CHU
Regards, o ATroRM a Fwnla
a CLERMRIG o POLICE CHEF
a FIB o PARRS&RBCDIR
John Grad a T�� a�DHt
Y a NEWTOM a NADIR
SLO a SLOCI7YNM c COUNCIL
o CnYMOR
o CLBRI[
PS. I also read with great interest Peg Pinard's letter to you regarding the use of Measure Y
money. I believe that to keep the public's trust you must use these funds only for those items
for which the voters approved them. To do otherwise is disingenuous at best, and you surely
risk the defeat of Measure Y (and a loss of significant revenue) when it once again appears
before the electorate in a few short years.
From: Tim Williams
Sent:Tuesday, November 15, 20113:03:08 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada)
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Support for Downtown Beautification
Hello Mayor Marx and distinguished Council Members,
I'm unable to attend this evening's Council meeting, but wanted to share my support for the Downtown
Beautification project.
I know this is a tough time to spend additional money in any areas within the City. However,this project will
support and enhance the center of what draws in our tourism and TOT dollars.The money spent now would,
if delayed,cost us more in lost revenues and increased construction costs if we were to grant the contract at
a later date.
The Council must agree that the noted improvements are true enhancements,and failing to focus on this
important and visible part of our City will merely push us further behind the Cities that are making this same
kind of investment.
I will continue to work with the Chamber,the Downtown Association and all interested groups that are
willing to support your decision and contribute their time,thoughts and money. We want to see that this
project not only improve the 2 scheduled blocks, but will convince all of our City to support it's expansion
into the other streets that will contribute even more TOT dollars to the City's bottom line.
Thank you for your service to our great City!
Respectfully,
Tim RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
Tim Williams I Founder/CEO DATE// / / ITEM # Z�EP--
+1.805.781.9378 1 +1.888.781.WEST
Digital West http://www.dieitalwest.net
hard coDv. email:
o COUNCIL o COD DM
o CITY MOR o FIT DIA.
o AMCM o FIRE CMF
a ATTORNEY o PW DIR
o CLERKIORIG o POLICECIMEF
o PM o PARKS&RECDIR
o TRIBUNE o UTILDIR
o NEWTAIES o NRDIR
o SLOCrrYNEWS o COUNCIL
o CRY MOR
0 CLERK
RED FILE
November 13, 2011 — MEETING AGENDA
Attention: City Council Members DATE 4 AA ITEM # 7-3a—
Subject: Using Measure Y funds for the voter's real Measure Y ballot priorities
vs. staffs request for more Measure Y money for"Downtown Improvements."
The city surveyed city residents multiple times to identify what they would be willing to tax
themselves for and then the city put those items specifically in the Measure Y ballot.
Downtown improvements were NOT listed as a Measure Y ballot priority.
It would appear to most observers of the City's public process that this process has been
historically"massaged/manipulated"to give the appearance that"Downtown Improvements"
were a Measure Y priority for voters. This is simply not true! (See attached letter, January 25,
2009)
Now, according to the New Times, 'The city staff wants the City Council to pony up an
additional$174,900 on top of the$611,600 already allocated to 'beautify two blocks of
downtown SLO."
To quote the current staff report, 'This project is solely supported by Measure Y funding, half-
cent sales tax revenue, as identified on pages 1-12 of the 2009-11 financial plan"... "if
Measure Y funds are available they will be used for this project."
According to the staff report, if Council rejects adding more of Measure Y funding to the
already allocated $611,600 (of Measure Y funding), then the $174,900 could be added "to the
Measure Y reserve to be reallocated for other priority work."
Before the.Council takes more Measure Y funding away from the"real" Measure Y Ballot
Priorities the voters gave you, it would seem critical at this meeting for the Council to publicly
review the"real" Measure Y ballot priorities voted on by city residents and ask the following
questions; How much Measure Y funding is being allocated for each of the"real" Measure Y
ballot priorities in the 2009-2011 budget? How does this compare with the almost$800,000
you are proposing for downtown improvements? (Again, those were never a Measure Y ballot
priority!) nerd co email:
0 CDUNCIL 0 CDDMR
Sincerely, 0 UTYMGR 0 FITDIR
0 ASSTCM 0 F=CHIEF
�\ C ATTGRNR1 0 PoUCE
Q IIVnTJ 0 CLERH/oRIG 0 FUUCECFEC
/� 0 0 FARK86AECDIR
�(",/{� 0 TRIBUNE 0 U17LDIR
0 NMTnM c HRDBR
Peg Pinard 0 SLOCrrYNM 0 couNCm
0 CrrYMGR
a CLERK
P.S. It is very offensive for the city to continue to tell voters that: "Although the city's
Measure Y ballot listed specifics that voters believed the city, in good faith, would primarily
fund with Measure Y monies, that 7e a/1 Loe, the city doesn't have to do what the voters
expected the city to do." Had the Measure Y ballot question been phrased, "Would you vote
to raise your taxes for new trash cans, news racks, and other'niceties' for the downtown?"
does anyone think that Measure Y would still have passed?"
January 25,2009
To: Mayor Romero &The San Luis Obispo City Council
From: Pes Pinard
Subject: The Voter's "Measure Y Ballot Priorities"
Dear Mayor Romero&Councilmembers,
This is an extremely complicated issue.(The staff report on Budget Goal
Setting/Measure Y is over 300 pages). It is also extremely important,especially to the
voters who agreed to tax themselves by voting for Measure Y. Here are the basics;
How did we get"Measure Y Ballot Priorities"?
Prior to the vote on Measure Y,the City hired consultants for multiple resident
surveys and studies to identify possible ballot priorities for which residents would be
willing to tax themselves. Residents were then resurveyed to rank the identified priorities.
[Attachment#1,Ranked"Measure Y Ballot Priorities"])
This is the resulting Measure Y ballot with specific"Measure Y Ballot Priorities";
San Luis Obispo Essent W Services Measure: To protect and
manitain essential services—such as neighborhood street paving and
pothole repair;traffic congestion relief,public safety,including restoring Yes
eliminated traffic patrol,Fre Kvshal and fuefparamedic training
positions;flood protection;senior citizen services;
neighborhood code enforcement;open space preservation and otter vital
general purpose services—shall the sales tax be increased by one-half No
cent for ten years only,with citizen oversight and independent annual
financial audits?
How were these "Measure Y Ballot Priorities"implemented?
The council subsequently made the"Measure Y Ballot Priorities"the City's Major
City Goals for the 2007-2009 budget.They also added"Other City Goals"which were
not"Measure Y Ballot Priorities".(This is Council's right)These"Other City Goals"
were"Homeless Services","Affordable Housing","Hockey Rink and Skate Park
Improvements","Downtown Improvements", and`Sikeway Improvements'
(Attachment#2, Please note that the city carefully stated the "Measure YBallot
Priorities"on the first page of the 2007-2009 budget mailed to residents, then separately
listed Major City Goals on the last page. Presumably that was for Measure Y voter
accountability).
And the problem?
The City Council is now setting its 2009-2011 budget goals. The problem is that the
City is giving residents the false impression that one of the"other City Goals".
"Downtown Improvements" was a"Measure Y Ballot Priority"thev had voted for.
(Attachments#3 mailed rodent survey;Attachment #4 Ludwick Center Forum
Feedback Form; Attachment#5 Ludwick Forum handout of Measure Y Priorities).
The Mayor defined"Downtown Improvements"in the recent Palm Street Perspective
and he is clearly promoting them(Attachment#6)but,
"Downtown Improvements"was not a Measure Y Ballot Priority.Had the Measure
Y ballot question been phrased "Would von vote to raise your taxes for new trash
cans and news racks for the downtown?" does anyone think that Measure Y would
still have passed?
In these hard economic times it is especially important to be straightforward and honest
with voters and increasingly limited taxpayer's money. City residents voted for the
Measure Y Ballot Priorities. One sector's agenda for taxpayer funding of new downtown
trash cans and news racks should not be confused with the community's Measure Y
Priorities at the time they voted to tax themselves.Presenting"Downtown
Improvements" as if it were a"Measure YBallot Priority"is a"bait and switch"
tactic and it is being dishonest
And what is the impact of this?
By presenting"Downtown Improvements"in mailed surveys and forum feedback forms
as if it were a"Measure Y Ballot Priority","Downtown Improvements"not surprisingly
became the highest ranking"other city goal"in the survey and forum result(Attachment
#7). Because of this elevated"public support",more fimding for"Downtown
Improvements"will presumably follow.
Advocates of"Homeless Services", "Affordable Housing","Bikeway
Improvements",and"Hockey Rink and Skateboard Park Improvements"have every right
to be angry that their goals were not given the same special treatment to elevate their
ranking.As the New Times stated last week, "How(the Council)prioritizes the
(skateboardd park)in relation to other city projects.will be a large facto w much
city money goes toward the construction costs".
Voters may also be justifiably angry when they realize that some funding for the
Measure Y Ballot.Priorities they voted for may be siphoned off to fund Downtown trash
cans and news racks.If voters lose faith in the integrity of implementing their Measure Y
Ballot Priorities,it is unlikely they will vote to retain Measure Y.
What can the Council do now?
The Cay Council should "adjust"their final goals for 2009-2011 to
account for the unfair advantage given`Downtown Improvements"in the City's.Goal
Setting process.
In future City documents and mailings to voters,-staff must once again clearly
differentiate between `Measure Y Ballot Priorities"for which voters agreed to tax
themselves,and"other City Goals".
The manipulation of the process has got to stop.
Sincerely,
Peg l
P.S.The City also paid to have residents"rank*the identified Measure Y Ballot Priorities
as part of the City's Measure Y ballot effort(attachment#1).Measure Y Ballot
Priorities should be in that order when the Cay lists them.For example,by
consistently putting"Open Space.Presm va tionr at the bottom of Measure Y
Ballot.Priorities lists(aftachments#2,3,4,5),it gives the false impression that
"Open Space Preservation"was low on the Community's list of"Measure Y
Ballot Priorities".In reality,it was the fourth highest.
cc.New Innes,Tribune,etc.
Aftacbmfindo-
As of 2006 we have nerved over 1 to our 1 and #eedback
sarveys t34�. these,•only sevetdoeen said it was nat inopdasant to protecx and maintain vital public
Way and City sed 4=
TOP TEMM CONC:EM
As nt lected below, the results are very similar betweea the two feedback metods. Tb r tap dVee
concerns forbvth ate:
■ Repairing City stns(by a wide margin)
■ Redac ing traffic c ongestioa
■ b stn dmins
RZESYFLTS SUWIgARY t
'18e foIlowing Tieg the ed i,.2nnn�
�in rank order('I"is the N&g
1 Service Fes'
1 omg potholes and tep=mmg and mm Mb=g�Y street I
Fn
2 Reaming ttaff; mon 3
3 Upgrading our 100 year old st1 drains . 2
4
t 5 lig,training and tetrflmng addt>r�al firefigbieas a�paramedics 7
}
6 Park maintenance
` 5
1 7 pmwctmg senior programs and services
8- Mming more Police offiic ors 8
OMER CONCERNS
Of the 1,224 klieg as of My i,2006222%{275)identified concerns in addition to tbose above. Those
dw gmerated.fm comments or mole includm
Concern 1 -Number
bVmed bikeways andpablic ttaaspor=on 33
Affordable housing 23
Homeless serrrices ` 10
Yoath pros 10
Ugma Lake dredging 10
P'src art 7
-Adobe prat=-on 5
aunr 1 S=4-af RPacr�"
� zQ
Budget4n-Brief
200 7-09 Financial Plan Supplenient�.',
Se ��8 eSlQ,�i
! Approved 2048-09 budget
�s
j We're Still Focused on Measum Y Priorities but Fiscal Challenges Ahead
The purpose of this°budget-in-brief°is to summarize Measure Y's April 1,2007 effective date,this means
the second year of the City's 2007-09 Financial Plan that$12.8 million in added General Fund resources
by highlighting the City's budget process,key-budget will be available in this two-year budget. The use of
features, major City goals and basic"budget facts' Measure.Y funds Is detailed on the following pa ,
j If you have any questions about the City's budget or which reflects commun®es of:
would like a complete copy of the Financial Plan or
Supplement,please call us at 781.7125 or visit our - . -.:•. : .ResteFing thttei
e dlaw strew I
web site at www.slocity.org. program and catching-up'on deferred street
maintenance.
Purpose of the City's Two-Year Piiumc ial Plan . Reducing and managing traffic congestion.
j
The fundamental purpose of the City's Financial ' Improving publ service levels.
Plan is to link what we want to accomplish for the Improving flood aeon:including silt
community with the resources removal in our creeks and
necessary to do so. Our two- better storm drain
year Financial Plan process ` " ` maintenance.
does this by:clearly setting • EnhancingA[ol !
major City goals and other
servicn including
important objectives; ....e.. G` remodeling.the existing
establishing reasonable ..��.�-
timeframes and organizational
Senior Center•and planning
responsibility for achieving ahead for the future.
i them; and then allocating the • Strengthening
resources required for ..,,....m,, I?etghborhood aode
f implementation ^--�- p�+fi+ er±+t y adding a
*� •m code enforcement officer
j This process results in a two- and expanding the"SNAP"
year budget document that program.s
emphasizes Fong range + Restoring funding for 00011
pianning, budgeting for results, :•space:pn^sertratlon
effective program management and fiscal
j
accountability. While appropriations are still made
out Fiscal Challenges Ahead
annually,the Financial Plan is the foundation for
j preparing the budget in the second year. The Budget Message in the Financial Pian
Staying Focused on Measure Y Prom es Supplement described the City's fiscal situation as
stable but identifted three key uncertainties facing
The City's two-year budget continues to be focused
the City at thattime:
Of responding to community priorities that surfaced . Adverse fiscal impacts on cities as the State
before and after the Measure'Y campaign. This
3-addresses its very serious budget problems.
cent sales tax.measure,which was adopted with
65%voter approval in November 2006, results in • Direction of the local economy and its impact on
! about$5.9 million annually in added General Fund key City revenues like sales and property taxes.
j revenues in the 2007-09 Financial Plan.Combined Results of binding arbitration.
with carryover revenues from 2006-07 due to
!
I
city of San 1UIS OBI s o
p !
Attachment#2 b
The 2007-09 Financial Plan sets major City goals for the next two.years and links them with the programs,
projects and resources necessary to achieve them. Detailed work programs have been prepared for each of
these goals,including its relationship to Measure Y prioritieg,challenges:we will face in achieving the goal, action
plans and resource requirements. As reflected below,these goals are.cdosetylinked to Measure Y priorities?
� I
-Y Public Safety sets Levels. Roller Hockey Rink and
Improve�pub public safety service Skate Park Improvements.
levels,with an emphasis in Complete major upgrades to the
police services,on existing roller hockey rink and
neighborhood skateboard park facilities at Santa i
(particularly at traffic Rosa Park
safety-,and.on prevention and
1 training in fire services.
i Neighborhood Pasdag Homeless Services. Work with
and Defe social services partners to
. Restore tf 6 — develop'improved homeless
neighborhood and downtown? sheltering and services.
paving program,and cat—c up
with deferred street
maintenance.
4
Traffic Congestion Relief. °.`� Affordable Housing. �
Expand efforts to reduce and - Strengthen efforts to increase
manage traffic congestion affordable housing, including
throughout the City,including ways of augmenting existing
Milk
the Los Osos Valle Road .funding.
corridor and interchange j
i
<: Bikeway Improvements. Neighborhood Wellness.
Continue to work towards Increase building and zoning code
completion of the Railroad enforrx=ant to promote
Safety Trail;improve neighborhood wellness and
maintenance of existing community appearance.
i bicycle trails,lanes and
byways-,and consider
additional bike trails.
.Flood—Ovvotead(un.-deduce _ Downtown improvements.
oo ns c open"" the'Los Strengthen support for the
Downtown in multiple areas,such
z Osos valley Road/Highway
as maintenance, economic I
11 101 area of San Luis Obispo
Creek, pursuing improvements development Public safety,
to San Luis Obispo Creek in parking,tourism promotion,
the Mid-Higuera area and progress on the installation of
implementing the Storm Sewer pedestrian lighting and
Master plan comprehensive directional sign
program and other improvements
aslesouw allow. i
i
Senjor Citizen Facilities. Open Space Preservation. .
Enhance senior center Restore open space acquisition
ram
facilities through impm
roveents Pro9 funding 9 to at least
to the current senior center $200,000 per year and bring
and pursuit of plans fora forward opportunities should they
i, _ • i future senior center_ arise that further leverage City
j funds through grant programs.
Attachment#.3_
What are the most important things for the City to accomplish .
over the next two years?
Please share with us the three to five things that you believe should-be the City of San Luis Obispo's most
important,highest priority goals to achieve daring 2049-11.
t
For background
information preparing
a our oa s, a ollowmg
} emerged as Measure Y
priorities two years ago i�
® the 2007-09 Financial-Plan:
to Public safety, including
® restoring cut traffic
patrol, Fire Marshall and
training positions
® • Neighborhood BRying
and danerred street
maintenance
Are there any services or programs that you believe the City should • Traffic congestion relief
reduce or eliminate to save money in funding your top priorities? • Creek&flood protection
• Senior services ansa
facilities
• Npiah Ood.cDda
enforcement
• Open space Preservation
• Downtown improvements
Fald and Tape 4e.mjp!j Kagbx---------------.------------------- .
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
!F MAILED
IN THE
UNI7ED_STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST-CLASS MAIL •PERMIT NO.369 SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
POSTAGE NIL SE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-9936
'~ Attachment 44
F-
Community Forum Feedback
Thank you for participating in the Community Forma for the City of San Luis Obispo's 2009-11 goal-
setting process. Please take a few minutes to share your community priorities with us.
How would you surest prioritizing the City's activities? For each budget community priority
below,please indicate whatlevel of attention would be desirable for it compared to the current situation,
any suggestions about specific changes or potential goals and ideas about possible ways to achieve them.
Level of Attention
Community Priorities (Compared to Suggested Changes or Possible Ways to
Current) Potential Goals Accomplish Them
Less Smw I More
Public Safety(Police,Fire
&Paramedic Services)
Street MaiatananocRaving
Tragic Congestion Relief
Creek&Flood Protection
Senior Services&Facilities
Neigbboihood Code
Enforcement
Open Space on
=15owntown Protection/
Improvements
Measure Y Priorities and Funding Summary
• • 1 _Mt • -• A • d'1 1:
11 is
r
Traffic Signal Operations 73 ON 224 100 14,100
r �
_. � . _�._...-.�. .' ..- z. >_E"`5• ...�� -v �.�{y w. •.%"�".�•' '. ^ syr-•+fi.`.'(�.�3 i ""�`�.=;yW�F.,. �i,_._,k'__
- • •• ••-• -( rte _ �\ •r :11 •11 • .11 .• ►1
- - 1• • • 1► • f1 11
_ u
Johnson&BU6hoillnitiers"ectlon • • - A 1001wo 1/ f11
Bob Jones C*to-Sea Bike Trail gridges
Tassajara/Foothill Intersection . • - A125,000 125,000
Buena c,• Intersection 35,000 35,000 0,5001
Los Osos VaW Road interchange Design 701,900 701,900 1 115,000
Other Traffic CongestionReliefProjects 1 11t 1 1FI .t{
::3..:=.:c::a..._.�,�,,.i�.-.�-arc-:::_._...��ry ���+f�.-r...�:c...�MLi�,�:r_'r..r;�•�.sco. F�.h. :��"�'- �-`����"��.r.�71!.^-rr."#_+•'�,..:�'✓�'_
StormStorm Water Management Plan Implementation 1553 300 ! 803 800
_in Replacements • t l 1:112,400 132:200
Creek SR-Removdi 325,000 l� 89,200
Andrews Creek-Bypass Improvements 125,000 ; 208001
Bishop/Augusta Creek r_ • Ir_1• 111 /// /1
Storm - -r&CAdvert Repairs 1! 1 1/ t 1 111 • /1
CIP Project _•o- - s•evt=• 1116 goo 3,700
Senior1 - ia• _acne • 11/ off
EnhanceSenior Center Window Replacement
Senior Center Remo"
rV
Enhanced Building&Zoning Code Enforcement mom
/1
u�+ r K '' ..� � �x ..d3 C-+;.r�r✓- :xc.a,�s r^t`.Y `�ic+..:.,.a�„�'.•..�w s-'c'4:k�iF' �,:
••c wr~• ►• 1• -�-� �~ 'J► 11.1 ' IV 111 ,u1 111
•.- •_•v- _ft 1 :.• r= r a:AI -
+�f'e�c-� f 3- ���i:�?t X' .rxF..• '4..r+eyr` —,w,'N' s"�.ye�`+.n-s. - „��- _.
' 1]v.2Y...`-.2�._�utr.cl-aa ��'�,'Y_' •' C.L.e.�...vs-:_. �.`_.�6_._.--•` �T���b�. 3:v.'i��.u....u�
.-*•_ -- � 1 li/ 50,00011 6D,000 1111
.- • .. . rl IIJ 40,000 1 111
L'Fi • _ r r- '-•ca- - 75,000 75,000 '1 It
Fri
-wA • •.- ._,. .urr.� - Ot
$
Actual cam/•ecam/over from2006-07 • - wMeasure Y effective •_ 1- of April 1,2007) 1'11 Ilf
Actual:2// 1: ••• i/
I
oil ►
.x
u
PALM STREET PERSPECTIVE
ONE MORE TIME
By SW City MWr,Dave Remem
T WAS WITH SOME DEGREE OF SADNESS ON DECEMBER in THAT I ties to serve the expansion areas along Tan]
cTalaxed my sixik,and probably las;=taAstion ceremony as an elected official for Farm Road and the replacement of our.Hoc
our beloved San Luis Obispo. ey Rink.Well begin the long and arduous
process of updating the Land Use Element
I remarked on how fortunate we are to be able services our residents expe sny wonder- and the Circulation Element of our General
to follow such a peaceful and orderly transsi• measure Y Plan.Well simply have to move slowly on
tion of leadership.Few government agencies money will simply have to be=scaled other desirable but high cost improvements
in the world have that privilege.With genuine the a side,San Luis Obispo we need in SLOTOWN.
affection,we thanked Christine Mulholland Pow apo
and Paul gra for their yam ofservice, an outstanding staff,is very well managed pe one exception will be a concerted ef-
then watched them leave the council dais and and is on stable financial footing.We have fort to improve neglected public furnishing
take their place in the audience. made great strides in the past few years in such as street signs,traffic signals and stree
upgrading our water supply,treatment and . light poles.trash rec Iles,sidewalks and
In many ways our City Council undergoes a distribution system,our sewer collection news racks tri the core of own to mak,
new beginning as we welcome Jan Marx and and treatment system,the condition of our them new and truly beautiful-his would b
John Ashbaugh with hopes of continuing as streets,new traffic signals,flood protection a perfect complement to the repaved streets
a smooth running team.Well disagree on and downtown parking.Coming from a and the newly remodeled stores created wit]
many issues but will tryveryhard to be seen public works background,I have been one the seismic retrofit program:
as a collegial body whose primary interest is "happy camper."
a successful may, Pm sure the next two years wont be.as mud
For the next few years,the city will have to fun as the past few,but all things considerer
We'll be faced with hard financial times for concentrate on completion of projects now bang Mayor of our beloved San Luis Obispo
the next few years,as will government ager underway—such as the Nacimiento Water is still the best elected job in California.I
cies at every level.'the short and long-term Pipeline,the Public Safety Dispatch Center, am truly honored and grateful to serve and
effects of binding arbitration will further the Los Osos Interchange improvements, thank the voters for granting me this privi-
limit.our ability to provide the high level of construction of trunk water and sewer facih- lege one more time.
Mee-tinng Rooms Available
Available
is Hollow U Items:..ped
Rooms Theater Classroom Square Shaped Rates Internet,
Ovediead,
Califomia 150 75 70 60 $500 TV/VC MVD,PA
Monterey 120 50 50 40 . $295 1dhme%
f w2te5 LCD
San Luis 72 32 - 40 32 $265 Projector Food
Service
1930 Monterey St. Executrve 25 16 18 14 $125 Ftp
I -
BACKGROUND reductions acid binding arbitration repeal; and while
they continue to.beconcerns, failing below the"Top
15' are other infrastructure maintenance;
We inserted a "community budget. bulletin" in our interchangefintersection improvements; and limiting/
utility bills in December 2008 informing communityand
growth.
members about the City's �1-setting Pcnreas
inviting them to participate in the Community Forum Ildars;h 2005 and June 2006 Scientific Surveys. .
on January 15, 2009 and the Council goal-setting These results are also similar with those from
workshop on January 31, 2009. This reached all scientific:public opinion surveys the City completed
14,000 of our customers. in 4ar :2005.and June 2006. These showed street
repair, traffic 'congestion relief, creek & flood
Along with encouraging participation in these protection,:public safety, open space protection,
workshops, this.bulletin asked:what.do you believe senior services and code .enforcement as top
are the three to five most important things for the cerxms which are reffected in the results below.
City to do over the next two years?It:atso asked:are
there any services or..programs that you believe the
City should-'reduce or:e6rninate.to save;-money..in
TOP 15 T IEAAES: PRIORITES
funding your top priorities? Based on 302 Responses
SURVEY PARTIOPAMOM j Theme
1. Sheet tepaiffneighborhood paving •• 125'
Participation in this survey was very high: by 2. Open space preservation log
January 7, 2009, we received.3W replies. . This
response is especiallyrnctable since.this was an .3.... Traffic_congestion ref 96
Open-ended° survey insttument (it did not provide 4. PU.bliC safOtL 84
pre determined `check-ofPanswers), so it required 79
extra thought and effort on the:fit of respondents $. Senior services$,facilities
to complete and return the survey 6. Credi&flood protection 74
7_ tJoinhhnthnnd Code er>foroement 65
SURVEY RESULTS
g, �_ vdn_protectibnlenhancem47err
Caveat:Not a Scientific Survey 9. Spending reductions 36
1 o. Bikeway improvements 31
it is important to stress that-this was not a 'scientific 27
survey'and as such great ca A011 should tie.used in 11. Sinding arbitration repeal
interpreting— :the.results:.Nonetheless, the.results.are 12, .per&recreation 22
useful- especially when viewed "m conjt c6ori with 18
syste
the other forms_.cif feedback the Council w0f receive 13<.Transtirn .
in this process—m gaining additional InsInto the 14. 'Homeless concerns 18
ight
concerns of our community. .. 15. Affordable housing 14
But There Are"Themes TOP 5 THEMES: REDUCTIONS
Since these are.'open-endecr responses, it is .not gayedyi115:Responses
possible to provide a:simple, analA. Cal summary of .
the results. Nonetheless, clear "themes emerged_
The sidebar charts summarize ."Top Themes," 1. Reduce pubfic safety services 17
presented in order of the most common nesponses. 2 Reduce Pace salaries& 16
How Does this Compare with Other Surveys? benefitshepeat binding arbitration
3. Reducalefirninate open space 11
Two Years Ago. We conducted the same survey prion expenditures
on priorities two years ago as -part;of the.20U7-094. Don't build senhor center PwMV lot 14
Firranc'ral Mari and these results:are.very.sirriilar. in 10
fact 12 of the'Tap 151'fiemes"`are the same: The 5_ Reduce trage.mitigation efforts
additions are creek & flood protection, spending
council memonanaum
hard copr. email:
November 14, 2011 acrnaRs a FUDI
0 AMCM 0 MECHU
a ATTORNEY a PWDDI
TO: City Council 0 CUMK we a PoutECRIEP
a M a PAM&RECDIR
0 TRISM a UrILDIR
FROM: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer a MW711 s a BRDIR
a SLOf7NNM a CouNCR,
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager a CETY MGR
a CUM
SUBJECT: Downtown Beautification Project
Project Background (step by step history)
The genesis of the Downtown Beautification project originates in the 2009-11 Financial Plan
where funding totaling $640,000 was approved for six individual projects, 4 maintenance
projects, and 2 upgrade projects:
• Downtown Paving
• Downtown Urban Forest Plan RED FILE
• Street Light Painting MEETING AGENDA
• Warden Bridge Deck DATE//�S it ITEM #
• Mission style sidewalks
• Pedestrian Lighting
One of Council's "Other Important Objectives" in that Financial Plan was to enhance
beautification efforts in the downtown (Attachment 1). That resulted in staff preparation of a
work plan for the Mission sidewalk and pedestrian lighting projects. The other downtown
projects resulted from identified maintenance needs.
In the fall of 2009, two walking tours were conducted with staff and downtown stakeholders.
The first walking tour was held in September of 2009 and included City staff from Public Works,
Community Development, Administration, and Finance. Staff walked, observed and discussed a
wide range of issues including Mission style sidewalks, tree grates, tree supports, bicycle racks,
trash cans, sign posts, light posts, signal posts, utility boxes, news racks, tree removals, among
other items. As part of this review, Staff observed areas where the City's current standards and
guidelines were working, and which ones needed to be revised or new ones developed.
A second walking tour was conducted in October of 2009 to receive input from downtown
stakeholders, which included the Downtown Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and
graphics designer and prior Downtown Association President (and member of the team that
developed the "Downtown Concept Plan") Pierre Rademaker. The same list of maintenance and
aesthetic improvements was discussed and observed in the Downtown during this tour.
On February 23, 2010, staff provided Council with an update on the progress of the Council
"Objective" and asked Council for direction and input on the desired improvements to be made.
Council's direction to staff was to focus improvements on Higuera, particularly the completion
of the block containing the Wineman Hotel (Higuera Street, from Morro to Chorro) and then to
Downtown Beautification Project Page 2
provide Council with options for other possible improvements in the downtown. At that time,
staff identified the 6 projects (totaling $640,000)that would be combined to provide the funding.
Staff returned to Council on June 15, 2010 with various options for improvements in the
downtown based on the $640,000 budget. Council approved an option to include improvements
focused on three-blocks of Higuera from Morro to Broad. The preliminary cost identified for
this three-block option was $600,000 ($200,000 per block) for construction using high-end
estimates for construction costs to account for unknowns. The remaining $40,000 was to be used
for design costs, matching funds or held for contingencies. Staff moved forward with preparation
of detailed design and estimates based on this Council direction. The scope of improvements
included installing Mission sidewalk in areas where it did not currently exist, removing and
replacing trees and adding new trees, upgrading existing tree wells and grates, installing
pedestrian lighting, updating trash receptacles, upgrading sign posts to new standards, and
painting traffic/light poles. Council also directed staff to provide bid alternates for tree lighting
conduits along the three-block stretch as well as additional trashcans and pole painting on
portions of Higuera outside of the three-block section.
On February 3, 2011, the City Manager approved the plans and specifications for the Downtown
Maintenance and Beautification project with an available budget of$610,000 and an Engineer's
Estimate of$580,000. This report identified that the amount for contingencies might be too low
and that there may be a need to supplement the budget. However staff recommended that the
project move forward with bidding in order to capture real bid prices before determining the
amount needed to supplement the budget.
Four bids were received on February 23, 2011. The low base bid of$667,700 (received from
Vinciguerra Construction of Jackson, Calif.) was 15% or $87,700 over the Engineer's Estimate
of$580,000. This is approximately $220,000 per block. The bid alternate added for tree lighting
conduits came in at$230,000.
Staff presented the bid results to Council at the March 15, 2011 meeting and recommended that
the bids be rejected and that the project be downscaled to a two-block project from Morro to
Garden. A target cost of $545,000 was identified for the scope of work in order to provide
contingencies and keep the project with in the $610,000 budget. Council directed staff to move
forward with the reduced two-block project and include the tree lighting conduits in the base bid.
Using an average of the bid prices just received staff presented this option to Council with a
construction estimate of$590,000.
On August 29, 2011, the City Manager approved the revised construction documents and
authorized staff to advertise the two-block project including the tree lighting with the $590,000
construction estimate. That equates to $240,000 per block without lighting.
Four bids were received on October 5, 2011. The low bid of$666,400 for the 2 blocks plus the
tree lighting conduits (received from John Madonna Construction Company of San Luis Obispo)
was approximately 13% over the Engineer's Estimate of $590,000. The low bidder, John
Madonna Construction Co. was the 2 low bidder in the February 2011 bid. A comparison of
their bid prices for the two proposals indicates a 8% increase in unit costs between their February
Downtown Beautfcation Project Page 3
and October bids. The February low bidder, Vinciguerra Construction, did not bid the project in
October.
City Liaison.
Staff is recommending funding for a liaison for this project. In-house staff will handle routine
inspection during the construction working hours of 2 AM to 10 AM. The City inspector's day
will be ending just as businesses are opening up. Staff anticipates that businesses will be asking
questions, have concerns about the project, and will be wondering about schedules. The City
liaison would be available during the daytime hours to provide communication and coordination
between the City staff, the contractor, the public, and affected businesses. The liaison will also
handle public relations and be responsible to keep the public informed of the work. In addition,
it is anticipated that some minor low-impact work will be allowed during the day time hours. The
liaison will provide inspection for any daytime work. Providing a liaison will help mitigate some
of the impacts of the project on downtown businesses and patrons and help improve
communication about the project progress and the upcoming schedule. Staff anticipates the effort
will not exceed 4 hours a day, and will vary from day to day depending upon site activity.
858 Higuera Basement.
During the design phase of the project, it was discovered that a large unused basement exists
below the sidewalk at 858 Higuera in front of Coldstone Creamy and the old House of Bread
location. The sidewalk acts as the basement roof. Replacing the sidewalk/roof over the basement
is not as simple as replacing sidewalk supported by the ground. The design of the new
suspended deck requires a design by a licensed Structural Engineer, must meet current building
seismic codes and requires a building permit. The new design is around 75 % complete and is
currently being reviewed by the building department.
Staff has done some research and so far has found no record of when the basement was built or
whether or not there was ever an encroachment permit or agreement between the building owner
and the City. The current building owner has no record either. Staffs next steps will be to
continue looking for property records, meet with the City Attorney to determine the City's
responsibility and negotiate anew encroachment agreement with the current building owner. At
this time, the building owner has not indicated an ability to participate in the costs.
Financing
If Council authorizes the transfer of funding, there will be no balance remaining in the CIP
Reserves account and approximately $1,300 remaining in the general fund completed projects
account, until such time that more projects are completed under budget.
Downtown Beautification Project Bids
To estimate the current Downtown Beautification project cost, the bids were reviewed from the
first time the project was bid in February 2011. Staff reviewed the bids with the Council and
explained the reasons for the amounts over the Engineers Estimate. At that time, the Council
provided direction on how to restructure the base bid and alternates for the current project, and
confirmed the available budget for the project. The first time the project was advertised, the City
received four bids. The lowest bid was supplied by Vinciguerra Construction and the second
lowest bid was supplied by John Madonna Construction Company. The next time the City
Downtown Beautification Project Page 4
advertised the project the City received four bids, however, Vinciguerra Construction did not bid
on the project and John Madonna Construction Company was the lowest bidder.
A comparison of John Madonna Construction Company's current bid with their bid from
February indicates an average increase of around 8% in bid item prices. According to contractor
comments received after bids, this increase was primarily due to higher fuel costs and prevailing
wage increases for labor that occurred in late August.
The Downtown Beautification project will be demanding for the construction company that is
awarded the contract to complete the work. The Downtown is a hub of activity and the
contractor's work will receive a high level of scrutiny from all parties involved, including the
building owners, businesses, shoppers, tourists and just about everyone else who uses the
Downtown on a regular basis. The working hours in the contract will be stressful on the
construction company's workers, and there will be pressure to be "buttoned up" by the time
businesses open for the day. Special events, such as the weekly Farmer's Market will also
require the contractor to efficiently and effectively manage the work to ensure the least
disruption and maximum accessibility.
Engineer's Estimate Background and Historical Review
An Engineer's Estimate is what the engineer believes a project, as designed, will cost to
build. Engineering staff calculates these estimates based on previous bids received from recent
similar projects. Part of the engineer's responsibility during design is to look at the actual
historical bid item costs to evaluate if there is a wide range of values or if they are somewhat
uniform. The data is adjusted, if needed, based on CPI or other cost trends. At bid opening it is
normal to receive bid prices ranging anywhere from 80% of the engineers estimate to 115% of
the engineers estimate. However, during certain bidding and economic climates this range can
be much larger and it is largely outside the City's control. All contractors do not bid on all of
our projects. Contractors may be busy with other work, or may not want to bid on a certain
project because the profit margin would be too low for the amount of strain a project might put
on their resources.
After evaluating recent City project bids, as well as information from the State, it appears that
construction costs are starting to rise. The belief is the increasing bid prices are the result of
rising fuel costs (with a corresponding rise in asphalt prices), materials costs, and increasing
labor costs. Staff has collected information on estimates and construction costs since 2004. The
data provides the following information:
Total Number of Projects: 127
Project bids received below the Engineer's Estimate: 100
Project bids received above the Engineer's Estimate: 27
Total estimated (allocated funds)construction cost: $34,429,947
Total final construction cost: $29,593,911
Difference: $5,000,000
Essentially, this means that $5,000,000 has been made available for use on other City priorities
in the CIP, including Measure Y projects.
Downtown Beautification Project Page 5
Some projects return to the Council for additional funding when construction costs are higher
than anticipated by past bidding history. At that time the Council has the opportunity to review
the project scope and financial impacts with the best available information and make the final
determination whether expending City resource for that work is a priority. The goal is to ensure
that the funds available for the Capital program are utilized in the most effective way possible,
and stretched to get the maximum amount of construction completed.
As always, we will continue to monitor construction trends around our region and the State. If
Council has questions, please contact City Engineer Barbara Lynch.
Attachments—
1. FY 2009-11 Downtown Beautification Other Important Objective Work Plan
2. Statewide Historical Comparison of Low Bid vs. Engineers Estimate
G:\Staff-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\_CCMemos\2011\I 1-15-11 downtown red file-W.docx
ATTACHMENT 1
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES—DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION
OBJECTIVE
Expand Downtown beautification efforts to include enhanced maintenance and cleanliness, a review and upgrade.
of standards and phased physical improvements.
DISCUSSION
Workscope Summary
This work program is intended to enhance the maintenance and beautification of the Downtown through a
reprioritization of projects,new partnerships, clearer standards and design guidelines, and improved internal and
external communication. More specific program components include improvements in signage, solid waste
collection, tree maintenance, news rack management, street furniture, and other enhancements of existing City
infrastructure in the Downtown. In addition, it is recommended to assure more consistency in actual
implementation of improvements and better communication internally and externally with stakeholders that one
staff member be assigned as the Downtown"champion".
Background
The Downtown is generally considered the "heart and soul" of the City. It is an attraction for tourists and an
important part of community life. It also plays a significant role from an economic perspective, by supporting
sales tax revenues in its role as a regional shopping draw, and enhancing our transient occupancy tax revenues as
a result of prolonged tourist stays. In addition, the Downtown's many restaurants,movie theatres, and historical
offerings provide a hub for social and cultural activity and gatherings.
Existing Situation and Work Completed
The City Council approved Major City Goals for the Downtown in the 1999-01 and 2007-09 Financial Plans.
Work in past years has included street resurfacing, installation of pedestrian lights,new Mission Style sidewalks,
and other minor improvements.
During the last two years,work has continued on the goal of improving the downtown. Utility line replacements
and street reconstruction work occurred. Stairs in the Mission Plaza were replaced and tile repairs were made to .
sections of Mission Style sidewalk. New trees were planted with a new style of tree grate to replace trees that
were removed. A block of pedestrian level lighting was installed on Higuera Street to showcase the newly
adopted light standard. Staff resources were devoted to keeping the Downtown cleaned up through more frequent
sidewalk scrubbing as well as a one-half time temporary employee cleaning up each morning.
Staff has also worked with the Downtown Association to complete their Strategic Plan and evaluation of
alternative organizational forms. The Downtown Association has also become independent from the City to
allow it greater freedom to achieve its goals. Tourism and special event promotion is also ongoing to attract.
tourists to the City.
The Police Department continues to support the efforts of the Downtown Association with safety and criminal
issues. In the parking program, maintenance of surface lots and structures occurred. Work continues towards
provide bicycle parking options downtown as well as more marketing of parking options.
B-78
POLICIES 1 OBJECTIVES
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES—DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION
One of the largest work efforts for both staff and the Council was the review and adoption of the building height
regulations. Staff continues to work with development to implement the Downtown Physical Concept Plan and
encourage housing in the Downtown.
CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS
The maintenance projects are not anticipated to require specialized review and should proceed readily. Paving
and utility line work is often disruptive and will require the cooperation of the Downtown Association to proceed
smoothly and get the message out. Staff will complete project specific outreach for these projects.
Design standards, solid waste issues and informational signage are expected to generate considerable interest
from the business community and warrant outreach efforts to include the Downtown Association and the
Chamber of Commerce, along with specifically interested businesses and members of the Architectural Review
Committee. Staff anticipates workshops and regular meetings to encourage community involvement in any
changes to the current standards and guidelines.
STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholders for this goal are the residents of the City, downtown businesses, the Downtown Association, City
Advisory Bodies, and visitors to downtown including: tourists, shoppers,and parking customers,both automobile
and bicycle.
Staff has already met with representatives of both the Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce to
determine what role they can play in promoting this objective. Staff will involve both these groups to discuss
implementation options, covering both costs and sequencing, to be presented to the City Council. Both groups
have expressed particular interests as follows:
1. Downtown Association
The Downtown Association recognizes that these are tough times and that the basics,such as sidewalk scrubbing,
daily trash and graffiti cleanup,and tree maintenance are key maintenance activities for the City to continue. The
Association is very interested in working with the City on a donor program for pedestrian lighting as this the
Chamber of Commerce. In addition to collaborating with the City on design guidelines, the Downtown
Association will assist the City in identifying the areas that need the most maintenance to better focus our
resources. To supplement the City's efforts, the Association will serve the City Arborist as the "Downtown
Foresters"and their help with small tree care will continue. Finally,independent of the City,the Association will
continue with other independent support services, such as private security and events to promote the health and
vitality of the:downtown.
2. Chamber Commerce
The Chamber of Commerce has identified keyways it will support the implementation of this objective. One
example is the Chamber's strong desire to developing uniformity in street furniture. The Chamber has suggested
that upgrading an entire block with the newly approved standards, could be a good way to `lick start" such a
beautification effort. The Chamber intends to educate business owners on such things as cleaning, solid waste '
management, and maintenance of decorative pots. Improvement on these items not only benefits the Downtown
but also translates into improvements in water quality in line with the City's Stormwater Management program.
The Chamber has also volunteered to take the lead in an outreach effort to news rack owners to encourage their
support of a consolidated news rack approach.
B-79
POLICIES 1 OBJECTIVES
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES—DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION
ACTION PLAN
1. Review of Existing Design Guidelines. The work program proposes to start with a review of the documents
that guide the appearance of the downtown. That effort will involve not only City staff but members of the
community and City advisory bodies. From this initial review will follow a proposal of how to get to where
the City wants to be for the appearance of the Downtown and what that effort is likely to cost. One notable
area that will be reviewed is news rack clutter. A consistent news rack design and possible locations for
consolidation will be developed for the Council to review, and if appropriate, a trial installation funded.
There have also been some indications that proper management of trash and recyclables is also a maintenance
issue downtown. The specific concerns about those solid waste issues will be identified so that staff has a
clear understanding of the concerns and can then develop a way to address them Staff is also proposing a
review of the planters in the downtown area to determine their condition and maintenance needs for possible
future funding.
2. Maintenance Work Maintenance work, such as sidewalk repairs, Mission Sidewalk installation, tree well
upgrade and planting, repainting of light poles and replacement of others with updated standards, is also
recommended for funding in the 2009-11 budget. The tree well and lighting standards are recent adoptions, so
changes to these standards are not anticipated. Ongoing sidewalk scrubbing and general trash and graffiti
removal will also continue. Staff will evaluate possible locations for maintenance and improvements that will
maximize the return for the investment made. Staff will also investigate the possibility of combining the
proposed improvement projects into a larger project that will allow better staging and coordination of the
improvement work Any projects undertaken will need to be planned to minimize disruption for Downtown
businesses,and yet have a noticeable impact on the aesthetic appearance of the Downtown.
3. Communications Enhancements and Downtown Champion. Staff has discussed possible options to ensure
the Downtown Association and local businesses continue to have a positive flow of information to,and from,
the City. There are a variety of ways that communication occurs now. For construction projects,engineering
staff complete outreach to the Downtown Association and businesses. To schedule construction projects and
get the word out, engineering staff has spoken at Downtown breakfasts and attended Board meetings as well i
as providing simple email updates to be included in the Downtown Association newsletter. Maintenance
issues are called directly in to the Public Works Corporation Yard so that response time is reduced to the
minimum. The maintenance staff person downtown on a regular basis is a familiar face and can be contacted
directly. Questions or requests for City resources outside the current agreement are handled by the Economic
Development Manager and reviewed with affected departments. This gives the Downtown Association a
single point of contact when they wish to adjust previously agreed upon services. The Economic
Development Manager also regularly attends Board meetings and can serve to bring back any concerns to the
departments.
Generally, these strategies appear to be providing the needed links for information and communications with
the Downtown Association. However, staff proposes designating the Public Works Department Parking
Services Manager as the principal staff contact for the City for Downtown oriented communications and
activities. With the focus of this program and their physical location in the Marsh Street Garage, this person
will be available as a conduit to the City when concerns arise or information is needed, and to help ensure
consistent standards are followed when repairs or upgrades are undertaken.
I
i
B-80
POLICIES OBJECTIVES
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES—DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION
Design Standards&Upgrades
1. Assemble all current downtown design guidelines and standards. 8/09
2. Working with the Architectural Review Commission,review the current guidelines and standards and 3/10
revise or confirm the public improvement design strategy for the downtown including street furniture,
trash and recycling containers,and regulatory signage,for Council consideration.
3. Develop costs,spending options,and sequencing options to bring the downtown up to new standards. 4/10
4. Develop a design and identify possible locations for a centralized news rack enclosure to 3/10
accommodate a range of different papers in a consolidated and uniform manner,for Council
consideration,and possible funding approval.
5. Assess existing planters in the downtown for condition,including planter box,plant material,and 12/09
irrigation,and develop funding request for the 2010-11 budget to improve appearances.
6. Install pedestrian level lighting,repair Mission Style Sidewalk,and install other upgraded 6/11
improvements within selected areas of the Downtown.
Signage
Develop a coordinated program for the City informational and directional signage and recommend I 12/10
implementation plan.
-
Solid Waste
Identify solid waste issues with the Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce and develop a I 6/11
work plan to address them.
Facility Maintenance
1. Provide sidewalk scrubbing service and daily cleanup maintenance work Ongoing
2. Implement the Downtown Tree Management Plan. Ongoing
I
3. Complete Warden Bridge resurfacing project. 6/10
4. Complete painting of existing street light poles. 6/10&6/11
5. Complete downtown street and parking lot resurfacing projects. 4/11
6. Complete water and sewerline replacements. 4/11
i
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Facility maintenance costs are based on recent bids and account for funding currently anticipated to be available
to complete the work. Anticipation of seasonal work has framed the year in which certain work will be
accomplished,rather than the year of actual funding, Delivery of the work program assumes that staff reductions
are not so severe as to hamper delivery of the various tasks.
I
B-81
POLICIES-AND OBJECTIVES
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES-DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS
In coordination with the Parting Services Manager, Community Development will take the lead in reviewing and
updating design standards and guidelines. Public Works will also assist where the standards relate to
construction details. Public Works will take the lead on the facility maintenance work needed to complete the
goal. Utilities will be a partner in this area where it relates to their pipe systems. The Utilities Department will
take the lead for solid waste issues working with the Downtown Association and the Chamber. Administration
will take the lead on the implementation of an informational sign program in coordination with the Promotional
Committee and assistance from Public Works for installation efforts.
FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL
Cost Summary
Operating Program Capital Im rovement Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Comprehensive Directional Sign Program 25,000 50,000
Pedestrian Light Installation 70,000
Mission Sidewalk Installation 100,000 100,000
Downtown Urban Forest Management 25,000 25,000
Warden Bridge Deck Rehabilitation 45,000
Street Light Painting 50,000 50,000
Parking Lot Resurfacing 122,000
Street Resurfacing 200,000 500,000
Utility Line Replacement 151,000
Total $0 $0 11 $718,000 $795,000
Funding Sources
Operating Programs capital lumvprovement Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
General Fund 445,000 795,000
Parking Fund 122,000
Water Fund 65,000
Sewer Fund 86,000
Total $0 $0 $718,000 $795,000
GENERAL FUND REVENUE POTENTIAL
A healthy,vital,and attractive Downtown may result in stronger sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues.
OUTCOMFI FINAL WORK PRODUCT
A robust, attractive, and healthy Downtown is vital to its continued success as the retail, social, and visitor hub
for San Luis Obispo. The on-going maintenance activities by the City are a key component to keeping the
Downtown clean and therefore healthy. Not only does it enhance the Downtown to visitors but it continues to
position it as the place to be for our residents.
I
B-82
N
E
W
x
U
h '
C cp
Q �
� O �
� 3
U) O
W t
2t N C
Q N
V m W Ir rl
X $ am -
W OJ W
W LU 0 G6 UJ fn fLU
A c z
V O
W W Co W IX
LLJ LZ
z_ VOo
W W N c
LU
It
? LLLL. QQ -
z z
W W Q
LL 0
O �
z
OW
vs � -
W
oa
$ o0 0 0 0
O t0 CO V' N Oci
N '� T
r '
1N33b3d
From: rschmidt@rain.ors
Sent: Monday, November 14,201111:42:20 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US&Canada)
To:Council,SloCity RED FILE
Subject: downtown beautification
MEETING AGENDA
Dear Council Members, DATE /4& 1/ ITEM # �—_21
1 don't know about you, but I think residents of our city would find it unconscionable that the Council
spent another$840,000 on downtown beautification while pleading poverty to tend to life safety issues
like neighborhood flood maintenance and neighborhood sidewalk repairs that protect residents safety
and their property.
I am stunned by the absolute tone deafness of our city leaders on stuff like this.This is exactly what
Occupy is all about—discarded citizens fuming mad about turning public resources over to the profit
motivistas instead of first tending to the public welfare.
As you all well know by now, I've had a long battle with the city over the total lack of maintenance of the
city's Broad/Murray culvert on Old Garden Creek,which is largely filled with gravel, whose exits and
entrances function ata fraction of their design capacity because of untamed vegetation and the
resulting siltation of the stream at those crucial points, and even the fact that the city doesn't clean the
flotsam that accumulates at the culvert entrance(last year's junk is still there even as a new storm
season begins).The city has been stalling on this since the mid-1990s, as the situation becomes steadily
worse.
This is not an academic concern—this culvert has failed in floods when it has been properly maintained,
and our neighborhood has flooded.What will it do when its capacity has been cut by silt and plant
growth?The city is 13 years overdue for a 25-year flood which will cause havoc when it occurs.When I
have attempted to get action from the city,the arrogant public works director refuses even to respond,
and the city manager believes(as you know)that the culvert is "in the best condition to face the
upcoming winter,"thanks to her own inexperience being colored by propaganda fed her by public works
staff(who unlike myself have no institutional memory of actual SLO flooding). Recently I asked the city
manager when we could expect the city to do something about this situation, and was told: 2015 or
later.As a council whose butts will be on the line when the inevitable preventable flooding occurs,can
you concur with this style of running the city?You are in charge, after all, and if you don't feel this is
proper—as I certainly hope you do not—you have the power to change things instantly just by giving an
order. On the other hand, if you continue to do nothing, residents will know exactly who to blame.
As you also know, I've been in a months' long discussion with the city about maintaining its sidewalks in
neighborhoods(they're in terrible shape!), especially after suffering a fall on the Murray Street median
last.spring,from which I'm still in daily pain. That fall was on one of the 44 obvious trip-and-fall hazards
on this two-block stretch of city-owned sidewalk which has had little maintenance in decades.Again, it's
the arrogance of the public works department versus the people.They claim they've spend 50+ hours
doing repairs to that walkway since last spring(but that's got to be baloney unless they're counting
some work that appears unrelated),for as one can tell from looking, it would be hard to get past two
hours.They've even told the city manager they've done work it appears they haven't done at all. Even
after all this"work," there are still more than 30 obvious trip and falls. So,as with the flood
maintenance, I asked Ms. Lichtig when we can expect real repairs to Murray, and was told 2014 or later.
Why? Because public works only repairs sidewalks when it does major adjacent street repair, and,
l �1
Murray isn't on the list for consideration till 2014. Get that?The sidewalks can crumble away, but if the
adjacent street doesn't need work,they don't get fixed. This is total neglect of the safety of the walking
public.Sidewalks should be fixed when they need fixing, not on some street maintenance schedule.Why
do you, as a council,tolerate this?
I'm writing now because it will really be a black eye for this city if you approve spending$840,000 in
additional commercial beautification(on top of$1 million you've spent on pretty sidewalks on upper
Monterey and allocated for incredibly out of scale and ugly entry billboards)while allowing
neighborhoods to exist in unnecessary flood peril, and neighborhood sidewalks to continue to be
dangerous.
As a council,you need to focus on who you intend to serve as your main constituency—residents, or
business interests.The city has tilted too far towards serving business at the.expense of residents, who
are generally getting a raw deal. In flood maintenance,for example,the city recently spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars earmarked for neighborhood flood maintenance (under Measure Y) not in a
neighborhood, but to save the Madonnas the cost and trouble of fixing Prefumo Creek at the Target site.
We know this thanks to an item on the economic development department's web site bragging about it
—an item that quickly disappeared after I called attention to it.This is the sort of perverse spending
you're presiding over—transferring wealth from residents to the profit motivista class, and putting
residents and their homes in danger as a result. (Your on-going most-favored-developer dealings
involving gifting vast public resources to the Copelands and Westpac are even more annoying examples,
but don't have to do with flood maintenance.Then there's the city web page: "The city is open for
business." Indeed!That says it all.)
As a council you also need to ask why much-delayed badly needed neighborhood flood maintenance will
come years from now, only after the city has expended hundreds of thousands of additional dollars on
the most corrupt flood control project to be concocted in decades—"the mid-Higuera bypass,"which is
a totally unnecessary environmental catastrophe involving destruction of what is arguably the best
riparian habitat in the city.Why is this even proceeding? Do you not know that the Bush I Army Corps
and Fish and Wildlife Service collectively put a stop to it because of its environmental destructiveness?
Why is a "green city" even contemplating this atrocity? Why has it been allowed to move ahead beneath
the public radar?And why is it being given precedence over real flood maintenance needs?The project.
is yet another pro-development perverse allocation of scarce public funds—to make it more convenient
to develop commercial land. Convenient, but not necessary: it would be far cheaper to floodproof
existing structures, and any new ones(under existing regulations) must have floor levels one foot above
the 100-year flood level,so it will make no difference for them.The on-going tragedy of widening San
Luis Creek at this location(beyond even the environmental tragedy)will be that this sort of widening
doesn't work on its own, and will continually suck huge amounts of funds from the city,year after year,
for vegetation maintenance,just as the artificially-widened Mississippi River portion of the creek near
the sewer plant does at present.And that increases the likelihood of on-going neglect of flood
maintenance in neighborhoods.You need to pull the plug on this project.
Now!
Meanwhile, flood maintenance is a city-wide problem that gets neglected by a public works staff that
would rather build new things than maintain what we already have. It's not just Broad-Murray.On my
walking about town, I see problems everywhere. Santa Rosa-Murray is a major catastrophe waiting to
happen—the bridge approach is so silted in and crammed with vegetation the flow at that point has got
to be a small fraction of what is was in 1973 when Stenner Creek flowed over Santa Rosa and into the
' low-lying neighborhoods beyond (and left as evidence a huge tree trunk right in the middle of Santa
Rosa).
After the flood of'73, 1 was part of an advisory committee that walked the creeks, observed the
damage, formulated maintenance and management policies based on what actually happened
throughout the city.One thing we found was that every culvert,every bridge is a man-made obstruction
that causes trouble if not maintained.Your public works staff are ignoring what we learned, and what
was practiced for a couple of decades after that disaster.
Let's hope the council gets some sense and gets them back on track before you create—and are held
accountable for--a completely preventable disaster.As I said before,we're long overdue for a flood.
The cost of proper neighborhood flood maintenance is tiny compared to your other pro-business
expenditures, like the contemplated $840,000 in downtown beautification before you. Do the right thing
for residents for a change by taking care of their needs before allocating still more for making the
Chamber happy.
Sincerely,
hard copy, email:
Richard Schmidt a COUNpl, a CDDDIR
o Crry MGR a Fff DIR
o ASST CM a FIRECHEEF
c ATTORNEY a PWDIR
CLEREIORIG a PAARxs&R
a �
ECD
DI
o P1B
a ZRIEUNE a UTILDIR
a NEWTDW c HRDIR
o SLOCnyNEWS a COUNCIL
a MY MOR
a CLERK
U J
From: Jan Durocher
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 20118:31:26 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada)
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Sidewalk on tonights' Agenda
Greetings,
I appreciate your ongoing efforts to keep downtown and the several other communities here
lovely.
However, i was dismayed that you are considering the expense of over $700,000 for cosmetic
improvements to downtown sidewalks when the council has still not funded the failing
embankment on Pismo Street.
My kitchen table sits directly above that embankment. It is not comforting.
Please refer to the Soils Report from Earth Systems Pacific dated July 11,2008 and refresh
yourselves with the urgency of this hazard. It was addressed to Christine Dietrick, but i could
arrange to have a copy sent to each of you if you are unable to find it.
This is a detailed 6 page report, which i hope you will not take lightly. Comments include: "slope
failure or rock fall may be imminent", "decisive action is strongly recommended to avoid
potentially serious injury to people and damage to property". This bank was cut by the City many
decades ago to level Pismo Street and is currently failing. Not only are we having difficulty
selling our homes because of this hazard, but we are becoming less than comfortable living here.
Pressure washing the sidewalks downtown would please me quite a bit, and the more we become
a college cafeteria, the more attention the City will need to put toward just general cleanliness,
which is a lot less costly.
Please consider thoroughly the cosmetic expenditure on tonight's agenda, and the implication it
may have on the 17 apartments sitting on your hazardous embankment.
Thank you,
Jan Durocher
1415 Morro #6 hard copr, email
° COUNaL °CDD DIR
° aTY MGR °Frr DUt
RED FILE ° AWCM a MECH117
° ATTORNEY °PWDIR
MEETING AGENDA ° "�1f0R1G °P0
c M °PAWR88&REC8RECDIR
PATE O! I ITEM # a— ° T WTO °MMIRUMD1R
° NEWTA®5 o HRDIR.
° sLo crryNm °cOUNCIL
°MY MGR
°C=K
From: Sandra Rowley fmacsar99 ayahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday,November 13, 201108:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Jan Marx; Carter, Andrew; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan
Cc: Lichtig, Katie
Subject: Council Agenda Item b2
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Please see attached letter regarding Item b2, Downtown Maintenance and Beautification
Specification No. 90979A.
RED FILE
Thank You, MEETING AGENDA
Sandy !2
DATE/ s 1f ITEM #
Re: Item b2, Downtown Maintenance and Beautification Specification No. 90979A
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Reading the staff report left me with a few questions. I hope you will consider them when
making your decisions regarding what to do, what to do first, and how much to spend.
1. What is the amount of the unreserved balance in the General Fund and is it separate from
the 20% contingency the City maintains? In other words, what are we potentially giving up if
we use $121,000 of unreserved General Fund money for this project as suggested in the staff
report?
2. Reference the large basement that exists under the sidewalk along forty feet of the frontage
at 858 Higuera. The staff report states the suspended sidewalk is, also, the basement's roof and
that it is old and showing signs of age and deterioration. However, for various reasons (see
page 3 of the report), this portion of the sidewalk is not scheduled for repair and will not be so
scheduled for at least eight months and, then, only if additional funds are secured. The report
further states that if adequate budget does not become available, this forty-foot section of
sidewalk will not be upgraded . . . and the existing sidewalk/roof deck will continue to
deteriorate.
a. Is there a detailed report on the condition of this portion of the sidewalk? Do we know
the extent of the deterioration in terms of the estimated remaining lifespan of this suspended
sidewalk?
b. On January 29, 2011, four Major City Goals were established as follows: 1. Economic
Development; 2. Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health; 3. Neighborhood
Wellness; and, 4. Traffic Congestion Relief. According to the minutes of that meeting,
Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health was explained as follows, "Adopt a budget
that sustains the City's short and long term fiscal health,preserves public health and safety and
other essential services in line with residents' priorities, and includes cost reduction strategies."
(Italics added.)
G; ;
c. It would seem prudent as well as in line with the Major City Goals to address potential
injury/liability issues with downtown sidewalks prior to engaging in the beautification of them.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley bard copy: email:
Resident, SLO a COUNCIL a CDD DIR
o CITY MGR a FITDIR
o ASST CM a FOIE CHIEF
o ATTORNEY aPWDIt
a CLERMIUCY o POLICECHIEF
o PM c PAW&RECDIR
o TRIBUNE a UMDIR
a NEW mas a HIR DIR
a SIA CRY NEWS a COUNCIL
a Cf1Y MGR
a CLERK
15 November 2011 RED FILE
To: Mayor Jan Marx and City Councilmembers MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # 2
From: Deborah Cash, Executive Director
Re: Downtown Maintenance and Beautification
The Downtown Association Board of Directors voted recently to recommend to the City
Council that it provide the necessary additional funding and proceed with the Downtown
Maintenance and Beautification Project as it is currently designed.
Projects such as this provide for the ongoing investment required of older commercial
areas that have high use and aging infrastructure. The return on dollars spent can be
measured by the economic success of the district. Specifically, quarterly sales tax reports
show the Downtown, as a `defined' area, in second place as a revenue generator for the
City. The Downtown is also highly regarded as a destination for visitors for its shopping,
dining, services, entertainment, government and historic features; this project will
continue the tradition of`the care and feeding' of Downtown that these uses require.
As well, the Downtown Association Board of Directors has expressed the desire to
provide tree lighting in the evening, thus further adding to the value of the project and
encouraging increased use of Downtown after dark. The revised project design includes
conduit, provided by the City,to that end. Downtown Association staff has, over the past
months, worked with Thoma Electric, City public works staff and PG&E to develop
plans for installing lights in 24 trees in the project area. The engineering plans are
complete. However, the Board is struggling with costs being substantially more than
anticipated and it should be noted that the Downtown Association has not developed a
funding mechanism at this point in time.
Even so, the Board firmly believes the project is worthwhile and asks that the Council
vote to move the project forward.
Cc: SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Robert Horch, Downtown Champion
Bridget Fraser, City Public Works
Ed Thoma, Thoma Electric
hard co email:
o COUNCIL a CDD DIR
o CITYMOR a TTTDIR
o AMOM a FIRECKIEFF
o ATTORNEY a PW DIR
o CIMUUORIO a POUCE CHIEF
o PIE a PARKS&RECDIR
a MINIM a UTILDIR
o NEGVTAIES oIMDNt
o SIA CITY NEWS o COUNCL
a CITY MOR
a CLERK