The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/20/2017 Item 9, Reed Purrington, Teresa From:Shawn Reed < Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:50 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Orcutt Area Specific Plan - proposed Reimbursement Agreement for Public Infrastructure 2017.06.15 OASP Proposed Reimburesment Response.pdf; OASP Figure 6.1.pdf Attachments: Mayor and City Council, I write to share a letter my colleague Aaryn Abbott drafted directly to Mr. Dave Watson, Contract Planner this past Thursday, in hopes that you are aware of our disposition regarding the subject prior to your Tuesday meeting. The letter outlines our concerns in great detail. My aim here is to also point out what we feel is a flaw in the process to establish the reimbursement agreement terms. As a fellow parcel owner within the OASP and thusly one of the key stakeholders involved, we were completely surprised by the lack of transparency and corresponding timeline in our neighbors efforts to intitiate and complete this process. Very late in the game, only weeks ago, were we made aware by City Staff of the proposed reimbursement agreement and all of the detailed analysis that was produced.What was delivered and now is before you, is a one-sided analysis that the other parcel owners in the OASP couldn’t review until after it was placed on this Tuesday’s agenda. Specifically, after our careful review, quantities of materials, trench distances, pipe sizes, unit cost data, proposed design/consultant costs, etc seem flawed (to the benefit of our neighbor). We do not dispute the need nor legality for sharing in mutually beneficial infrastructure costs, but it is puzzling that one stakeholder (out of many) in the OASP has been able to get this far down the path without the other stakeholder’s involvement. It is and has been our expectation that fair reimbursement terms would be carefully reviewed and analyzed by all stakeholders prior to any formal approval. But under the current circumstance, that is simply not the case. Should you have questions or would like to discuss this item prior to Tuesday’s meeting, feel free call me at 805-234-2936. Sincerely, Shawn Reed SHAWN REED |Principal 1308 Monterey Street, #210. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.234.2936 MOBILE | 805.543.7277 MAIN OFFICE www.RobbinsReed.com 1 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), Å¼new 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