HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/20/2017 Item 9, Abbott
June 15, 2017
Dave Watson
Contract Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Dave Watson:
We have received your letter regarding the Proposed Reimbursement Agreement for Public
Infrastructure dated May 30, 2017, as well as your updated letter dated June 5, 2017. We are
disappointed that we were given notice so late in the process. Nevertheless, we have 3 specific
concerns about what is being proposed:
1. Cost distribution between projects 1a and 1b
2. Cost sharing request on required onsite recycled water mainline, project 3
3. Unit costs considerably higher then bids we are receiving for similar projects
Cost distribution between projects 1a and 1b
Assuming the quantity take offs on the cost estimates for projects 1a and 1b are accurate, project
1a includes 800 LF of water line and 1b includes 1,280 LF of water line. This works out to 38.5%
and 61.5% for 1a and 1b respectively. However, the budget for 1a is more than 200% larger than
1b. Put another way, part 1a is 38.5% of the total length, but 68% of the combined budget. A
more even distribution per foot should be considered given this is really one project broken into two
parts for cost sharing purposes. For example, while the large telemetry cost may physically exist on
project 1a, both projects require, and benefit from, the connection and required telemetry.
Cost sharing request on required onsite recycled water mainline, project 3
Many of the proposed improvements on the various Ambient tracts require recycled water service
per the standards set forth in the OASP. Whether or not the public park was part of this project,
recycled water mainline would be installed to serve landscape buffers, multi-family landscaping, and
common area landscaping.
Per the OASP (page 6-1), żnew development will utilize a dual-water system to allow use of City
recycled water for public landscaping in the parks, landscaped buffers, the community commercial
mixed-use area, and common outdoor areas in the multi-family residential areas. Commercial mixed
use and multi-family development projects will include reclaimed water irrigation systems in their
landscaping plans.Æ
OASP, Section 6.1 Water Supply, pages 6-1 to 6-2.
The CityÈs goals to maximize the use of recycled water may result in requirements to
install recycled water mains beyond the limits shown in Figure 6.1. Such recycled
water main extensions may be eligible for reimbursement by the City
and/or future development in the area, when the extensions are required
to be installed beyond that needed to serve the proposed development.
Figure 6.1 shows onsite phase 1 reclaimed water main all the way to what is now called Tiburon.
This should all have been anticipated as required onsite recycled water mainline and not subject to
cost sharing or reimbursement. Further, per the OASP, extensions beyond the limits shown in
Figure 6.1 are only eligible for reimbursement by the City and/or future development in the area,
when the extensions are required to be installed beyond that needed to serve the proposed
development.
Without having the draft final map or PIP plans to review, I would surmise from above that Tiburon
and Ranch House Road have landscaping buffers that require recycled water. In addition, onsite
multi-family landscaping along Tiburon, and multi-family landscaping on the Jones tract along
Ranch House Road will require recycled water per the OASP. Unless I am missing something,
these requirements make the recycled mainline extensions not eligible for reimbursement by the City
and/or future development in the area.
If the argument was that the pipe size is increasing due to demand from the park and/or
downstream users, one argument that may be supportable would be an increase in required ductile
iron pipe size from say a 6Æ pipe to the proposed 8Æ pipe. The cost difference is roughly $10 per
linear foot for the proposed 2,471 LF, or a total shared cost of $24,710 (vs the proposed
$475,934). The difference is that the base level infrastructure would have been required regardless
of Public Park or downstream users. The only thing that is changing is the pipe size.
Unit costs considerably higher then bids we are receiving for similar projects
We are currently receiving subcontractor bids for offsite and onsite underground improvements at
West Creek and are seeing some large disparities with the numbers being proposed:
Description Ambient Robbins|Reed
8Æ PVC Water (LF) $104 $39
12Æ PVC Water (LF) $165 $72
8Æ Ductile Iron Pipe (LF) $114 $84
Fire Hydrants (EA) $8,510 $5,850
Design & Consultants (%) 15% 3.5 Ã 4.0%
We would like to better understand the bid approval process, and how fee amounts will be formally
adjusted when bids are verified and approved.
Best Regards,
Aaryn Abbott
VICE PRESIDENT