Loading...
Staff Report�,10�I-N OF �' �IpSX,G pjOS DATE: TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: 10/20/15 ITEM NO: q COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 12, 2015 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31— ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL PROCEED WITH THE ALMOND GROVE PROJECT BY: A. CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ADA WHERE NEEDED. B. PHASING THE PROJECT WITH BROADWAY AND BACHMAN FIRST. C. APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDDING BROADWAY AND BACHMAN FOR ASPHALT AND CONCRETE RECONSTRUCTION WITH THE CURB LINE IN THE EXISTING LOCATION AND NO ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OF DESIGN FEES. D. ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DESIGNING THE REMAINING EIGHT PROJECT STREETS. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council proceed with the Almond Grove project by: Constructing sidewalks in compliance with ADA where needed. Phasing the project with Broadway and Bachman first. Approving plans and specifications and bidding Broadway and Bachman for asphalt and concrete reconstruction with the curb line in the existing location and no additional allocation of design fees. 4. Issuing a Request for Proposals for designing the remaining eight project streets. BACKGROUND: The Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation project is a Council priority. This report identifies specific decision points for the Council to move it forward. On September 15, 2015 the Council discussed the Almond Grove project and voted to: • Keep the curb line in its current location. Remove and replace street trees in accordance with the Town's Tree Ordinance and the staff analysis on trees provided in the September 15, 2015 staff report. PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY Director of Parks and Public Works Reviewed by: Town Manager gown Attorney PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT OCTOBER 12, 2015 BACKGROUND (cont'd): The intent of the October Town Council discussion is to decide on the remaining design elements for the project, provide direction on project phasing, and approve issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for full design of the remaining eight streets. The report, addenda, and desk items prepared for the September 15, 2015 report provide additional background information. DISCUSSION: DESIGN ELEMENTS The Council had some discussion on retaining existing sidewalks. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates specific requirements. These requirements include compliant ramps at street corners as well as regulation of the path of travel, which applies to the width and cross slope of sidewalks and the elimination of obstructions in sidewalks. Staff explored the applicability of ADA for sidewalks as they relate to this project and determined that compliance is a requirement. Staff is committed to reviewing the sidewalk with the selected contractor and retaining as much as reasonably possible, within the limits prescribed by the ADA. FINISHING PLANS AND SPECIFICA TIONS FOR BROAD WAY AND BACHMAN In considering the Council direction to hold the curb line at its current location and the interest in bidding Broadway and Bachman for asphalt and concrete, staff has identified an alternative funding solution. These costs, as previously provided to Council, are $35,000 for the curb line redesign and $25,000 to bid the project for both asphalt and concrete reconstruction for a total of $60,000. The current contract with Nichols Consulting has a balance of $46,000. These funds were intended to bring Tait from 70% to 100% design and to provide bid support, such as responding to contractor questions, throughout the bid process. Staff has negotiated with the consultant to further reduce the design costs to equal the balance of the contract. Parks and Public Works staff will take on the bid support role and the final design of Tait would be completed through a subsequent design contract. This will allow for the design modifications with no increase to the consultant contract amount. PROJECT COSTS Council has spent significant time discussing the project costs. Staff has described the most accurate project cost to be those obtained through bidding the project. It is, however, typical practice to utilize a project estimate to make decisions on the project scope along the way. As the project scope becomes more defined, the estimate becomes more accurate. Attachment I provides additional information on project estimates in a Question and Answer (Q &A) format and Attachment 2 provides several tables that outline project costs, including costs that are fixed and variable across paving materials and project elements. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT OCTOBER 12, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): Because the design on Broadway and Bachman is near completion, staff recommends bidding these streets for construction. This will allow for confirmation of the accuracy of the engineer's estimate and the extrapolation of that cost information to the other eight streets. In the current market conditions, this can provide the sensitivity analysis in respect to overall market impacts on pavement costs. The contract award for Broadway and Bachman is expected to set the design direction for the balance of the streets. In making the award decision, the Council will be able to see the total project cost across all ten streets and how these costs align with available funding. This could provide the Council the information necessary to make the decision between asphalt and concrete and to provide direction to staff as to what level of supplemental funding should be pursued. Additionally, this option provides the opportunity to begin construction on two streets next summer. The staff recommendation will allow the construction to run concurrently with completing the design on the remaining eight streets. DESIGN OF REMAINING STREETS Council has expressed a desire to complete the remaining Almond Grove streets. To complete the remaining streets, the streets will need to be designed with final plans and specifications and put out to bid, as required by the Public Contracts Code. Staff is recommending issuing an RFP for the design of these remaining streets. The REP would be issued requesting the design consultant provide a breakdown of costs (by task and staff time) based on the paving material selected by Council for Broadway and Bachman. The remaining eight streets can be bid two at a time or all at once after the design work is complete. FUTURE DESIGN COSTS As previously provided, the design costs for Broadway, Bachman, and Tait totals $328,000, which is approximately six percent of the estimated project construction cost. Staff did outreach to design firms to get cost estimates for the remaining streets. Based on the informal infonnation provided, the costs range from $600,000 to $700,000. These costs are within the range included in the project cost estimates. As discussed at the September 15, 2015 Council meeting, the design consultants are under contract for a fixed amount to design the project as described in the REP for their services. This contract amount is not calculated as a percentage of the project cost, but rather is the result of competitive market pricing with a fixed contract price SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS The following list of next steps expedites the required public design and bid process. It also attempts to align various steps so that they arrive at Council for approval on the same Council meeting. PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT OCTOBER 12, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): When staff brings the award of the consultant design contract to Council in February of 2016, staff can provide options for moving forward with the bid of the remaining Almond Grove streets. These options can include bidding the project for all remaining streets at one time, bidding the project for two streets per year, or other alternative as directed by Council. FISCAL DISCUSSION The rehabilitation of the Almond Grove streets has a total project cost ranging from $19 million for concrete to $16 million for asphalt reconstruction. Up to $14.3 million of one -time, cash on- hand is available to fund this project. As previously discussed with Council, the Almond Grove street reconstruction in concrete will require staff to identify an additional $4.7M in funding for this solution and reconstruction in asphalt will require staff to identify an additional $2.8M in funding (Attachment 3). These funding sources were identified at the September 15, 2015 Council meeting in agenda item six, "Long Range Capital Funding Options." ALTERNATIVES: Council could provide direction based on the following alternatives: Alternative 1: The Council has discussed bidding all ten streets for construction at one time. Bidding all ten streets would provide construction costs for the entire project at the level necessary to execute a contract. In order to achieve this, the following would need to occur: 1. A design contract for the remaining streets would need to be put in place as plans and specifications are a requirement. 2. Either a decision on concrete or asphalt would need to be made prior to awarding a design contract or the design of all of the streets would need to occur for both paving solutions. .. k �- Y n Bid /Bachman December 2015 yypBroadway Ow o. 5 Wi{ +nHS }7 Receive Bids for Broadway/Bachman January 2016 Council Award of Construction Contract Broadway /Bachman (with February 2016 decision on paving material) 15 3r nENINO 'j� ?i ,�.5,x k.. 5 i; tc¢ u. v i : e :��, .. • 'S :`Ei l£ci h�'j�Fr„' il �Vid�G{.. �.'Sv {' i i k .� ,i5.:, . A y't,�x.; uy ' a.e Begin Construction Broadway /Bachman May 2016 When staff brings the award of the consultant design contract to Council in February of 2016, staff can provide options for moving forward with the bid of the remaining Almond Grove streets. These options can include bidding the project for all remaining streets at one time, bidding the project for two streets per year, or other alternative as directed by Council. FISCAL DISCUSSION The rehabilitation of the Almond Grove streets has a total project cost ranging from $19 million for concrete to $16 million for asphalt reconstruction. Up to $14.3 million of one -time, cash on- hand is available to fund this project. As previously discussed with Council, the Almond Grove street reconstruction in concrete will require staff to identify an additional $4.7M in funding for this solution and reconstruction in asphalt will require staff to identify an additional $2.8M in funding (Attachment 3). These funding sources were identified at the September 15, 2015 Council meeting in agenda item six, "Long Range Capital Funding Options." ALTERNATIVES: Council could provide direction based on the following alternatives: Alternative 1: The Council has discussed bidding all ten streets for construction at one time. Bidding all ten streets would provide construction costs for the entire project at the level necessary to execute a contract. In order to achieve this, the following would need to occur: 1. A design contract for the remaining streets would need to be put in place as plans and specifications are a requirement. 2. Either a decision on concrete or asphalt would need to be made prior to awarding a design contract or the design of all of the streets would need to occur for both paving solutions. PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT OCTOBER 12, 2015 ALTERNATIVES (cont'd): Construction would need to be put off until the summer of 2017 to allow time to design the project for the remaining streets. Staff has not recommended this alternative as it does not allow for construction to begin in 2016 and it locks in the project costs at a time when the construction industry is at an expensive point. Alternative 2: Council could provide a set budget for award of the construction of Broadway and Bachman in either concrete or asphalt to expedite the project schedule. Under this alternative, staff would not return to Council for award of the project, but rather would provide the bid results in a summary after the contract award. Council would need to authorize the Town Manager to award the contract within the budgeted amount. Staff has not recommended this alternative as it does not allow an opportunity for the Town Council to review the bid results and to determine the paving material based on bid pricing. Alternative 3: Council could provide a set budget for award of the design contract for the remaining streets to expedite the project schedule. Under this alternative, staff would not return to Council for award of the consultant design contract, but rather would provide the RFP results in a summary after the contract award. Council would need to authorize the Town Manager to award the contract within the budgeted amount. Staff has not recommend this alternative as it deviates from the Town past practice where the Town Council reviews and approves consultant agreements. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council proceed with the Almond Grove project by: 1. Complying with ADA with respect to sidewalks. 2. Phasing the project with Broadway and Bachman first. 3. Approving plans and specifications and bidding Broadway and Bachman for asphalt and concrete reconstruction with the curb line in the existing location and no additional allocation of design fees. 4. Issuing a Request for Proposals for designing the remaining eight project streets. COORDINATION: This staff report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the Town Attorney. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption has been filed. PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31— ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT OCTOBER 12, 2015 Attachments: 1. Q &A 2. Project Cost Breakdown 3. Funding Plan 4. Public Comments received through 1:00 p.m. Thursday, October 15, 2015 Almond Grove Q &A Question: How can the Town identify the actual total costs for the project? Answer: Town staff and the Town's consultant have developed detailed cost estimates. These costs are refined as components of the project are finalized or as market forces create change. In the case of Broadway and Bachman, the design is near completion. A completed design provides for detailed quantities of the project components, e.g. curb and gutter, ADA ramps, and paving and the resulting pricing is much more accurate. In the case of the other streets, the design is conceptual. In a conceptual design the quantities are not as precise. This is because very limited time has been spent on the design of those streets. Cost estimates are provided as a way to help the Council understand the potential total cost of a project and to provide a target for identification of funds. Question: How accurate are the project estimates? Answer: The project estimates grow in accuracy as the design is completed. A project that is ready for bid has an engineer's estimate that is in the range of 20% of the total project cost. It is typical to receive project bids both slightly above and slightly below the project engineer's estimate. Once in a contract, the project is typically within 10% of its final cost. The final 10% comes in the form of change order contingency for unanticipated costs. The period between project concept and final design is a continuum where project scope and project cost are refined. In the case of Almond Grove, this has taken the form or moving forward with the design of Broadway, Bachman, and Tait. This recognized limitation of scope has been due to the limited funding available for the project. The other streets are less refined in scope and cost. Recent projects have generally seen the engineer's estimate reflect bids accurately: Project Engineers Estimate Median Bid Low Bid High Bid Frank Ave. Storm Drain $115,520 $115,675 $81,820 $159,699 Street Repair and Resurface $700,000 $1,136,448 $973,207 $1,444,444 Annual Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk $363,000 $474,913 $296,920 $513,198 Question: How is a Request for Proposal (RFP) used? Answer: An RFP is a means for obtaining professional services such as design services or engineering services. An RFP is not price determinative, but rather evaluates proposals based on various elements, potentially including the experience of the proposer, the quality of the proposal, etc. An RFP is not an appropriate means to contract for a construction project. Question: Why can't an RFP be used for construction projects? Answer: The process that aligns with an RFP for construction contracts is called a "design build." In a design build process, the contractor would provide the design and the construction of the project. The California Public Contract Code does not allow for a design -build process for street projects, but rather Q &A - 1 Attachment 1 requires a process where plans and specifications are required in order to conduct a formal bid for the project. Question: What is a bid? Answer: A bid is a process for obtaining costs for a construction project. Plans and specifications are provided to multiple contractors who provide pricing based on those documents. Bids are required for Public Works projects. Question: Why can't we just give the project plans and specifications to a contractor and ask them for a price? Answer: We could do this, but with little to gain. If a contractor provided the information the result would bean estimate. This information is similar to the work done by Nichols Consulting. The estimate, based on unit costs, was provided by Nichols Consulting and verified by Town staff. A contractor's estimate would not be binding and would likely change in the actual bid process. Question: Can we save costs by further evaluating the conceptual design? Answer: No. Costs can be saved by changing the scope. As the scope is refined and becomes final, the costs will be adjusted. Broadway and Bachman have an engineer's estimate that closely identifies the cost. Ultimately the other eight streets will be at this same final design stage and will have an engineer's estimate similar to Broadway and Bachman. Question: Can we bid all of the streets at once? Answer: It is possible to bid all of the streets at once. In order to bid all of the streets at once, the Town will need a design for all of the streets. Designing all of the streets will require either a decision on the paving material (concrete or asphalt) or a design for both. Additional design will require time to complete. Staff has estimated 18 months for this component, which includes time for an RFP, consultant selection, contract execution, and design. Staff can achieve design and bid for a targeted 2017 construction start for a bundle of all ten streets. Staff believes a comparative outcome can be reached by bidding Broadway and Bachman for both pavement solutions and using the resulting award as the design basis for future streets. This will allow for construction to occur in the summer of 2016. Question: What are the impacts for completing or not completing ADA sidewalk work? Answer: Specific to the Broadway and Bachman portion of the project, there are approximately $60,000 in sidewalk reconstruction costs where the sidewalk is not otherwise impacted by the project (e.g. adjacent to ADA ramps and driveways). This would be the amount the Town could save by not doing this work. Making a decision not to address ADA requirements could leave the Town open to legal challenge. This makes the decision one of risk management. Staff continues to recommend an ADA compliant project. Question: Why do we have to remove the curb and gutter? Q &A - 2 Attachment 1 Answer: The curb and gutter need to be replaced for several reasons. The number one reason is that the gutter line (where the gutter meets the street) won't match the new street height. There are two options for this situation. One is as recommended — raise the curb and gutter. The other is to lower the street. Unfortunately the utilities under the street are not deep enough to allow the street to go lower. Curb and gutter are constructed together as one thing. The function is to provide a flow area for water — the gutter is the bottom and the curb the back. A seam where the two meet would provide a way for water to get behind or under it. Water within any paving surface causes deterioration and failure. Q &A - 3 Attachment 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank N r R C7 0 0 c 0 F r M M r c E V m y v U (� O O m +7 Q i N c O U 0 .y d 0 O O r d M R t a m 'o a c O cnU 3 N C O V V cn 0 i� M c O E 0 0' in: rn v ao O kR N d N M V3 69 M_ 1� V3 of K � o F Y i LL LL it i I I a i I � a c m Y @I IV m LP y i p N C a � � a (2 Wi M w w .x 'x 0 W, W W L]m x m' �' im'[_KI K A 0 E K O O to w a E K .o m a e K a E U ATTACHMENT2 N O Im V N O J O c O F M M T C R E L V m y R O 3 U R O M0 W Q L T N d c y O O U L c T a 0 c rp N y d e+ O z 7 a c Q Q O V V c L O +� U N c O � v d fn LJ a c 0 E Gl n OW N O O O NOON1I' 0 < O' N n n ii ' Qp 7 O O) i , W W W" CD q N N V �'ffl O fA N i(flf9 M N ff3 f9 N EA . K � 4A f9 N N N E O OOi O N G O O O O N i d NFU r A v3 » » f f9 u> u3'» Y31 of iva uj JEA ~ I.N w O �I I O I f I Y Y Z (n M N N II N> Y LL U U w U) � I I I i pI i i " 3 i I I I I C7 I ia' I j f a m m E. m > rn m m @ m m c c � m G V OJ Q i GO > W O O m N v6 SJ m c > E E C c_ U W� H_ U W O K K. 6 L O U U C N N > @ a o - N 0 o E O O K N 9 U � 10- 9 Q W a E K U E a U N O N O I O O I N O N Y I— NO INf�� NIN a N m o ua!» cn e»e» ~ I I O N N Q) 1 I i LLILL�LLILL LL , I i I I i Ei I of i � U NO L a = a EIE E; g' o o 0 o o f s U U U m 3 3 3 i o O I m m d > > > I m N N N N N 3 N o E O O K N 9 U � 10- 9 Q W a E K U E a U N O N O ��010�0 m 0 ojolff—,� W� C 0 In N ! 1 �q 0 6 1 6 C5 1 c; 1 6 o ID In IF o w1w1wiWI mm 01W1210 EI —01 ? :61 > ih 1 > 7. 0 > > o > o O m O N co) 01�1011 :9 >,312 1 .6 46 T .01 1:5 X!Wlm of I ly mE o> o> >0 o E E E E E T 0 E O �F- �IV 0j71- IN 6 o C; 6 �i oil . 6 0 z 0 0 !mil 6 z ILD z 0 Z 0 4 Z V 0 M z z 0 0 < 0 W:W�Wlw!w W�W< > L IN IUD N m, IrnIW m. y c u 110 E 0, E 010�0,01 lz�zi>o�%! CAN P .10� xml_ T C� x ol ol > 0 LL 112 j >0 > Eo EO E E Ell:O O 0 Almond Grove Funding Plan and Funding Schedule Attachment 3 Spring 2016 r Spring 2017. Spring 2018 Spring 2019'.: Spring 2020 Rehabilitation Cast Food Balance + FY2015/16 ;. FY 201627: FY2017/18 FY2018119 FY201920 '! Broadway /Bachman S 339IA39 ExisMg Projeei Budget S 3,696,000 S 3,391,439 $ 3,391 439 Total Fords Available Tait/Bayview S 4,440,248 EskfirW Project Budget S 304,561 $ 304,561 Capital Projects Realkcatuoi S 2,132,700 S 1.500,000 GF Reserve for Capital S 940,000 S 940,000 FY 2014/15 YearPM Excess S 2,000,000 $ 1,500,000 GF Reserve (Execs Above 25 %) $ 2,020,178 $ 195,687 S 4,440,248 Foods wls Available GlenRidge /Almendea S 3,468,653 Capital Projects Reallocation S 632,700 $ 632.700 FY 2014/15 Ye., Ead Excess S 500,000 $ 500,000 GF Reserve(Faccss Above 25% $ 1,824,491 S 1,824,491 GEAR Food Balane $ 438,792 S 358,462 Specetl Studies S 153,000 $ 153,000 Total Fuaits Available S 3,468.653 Wilder/Bean S 2,988,333 Equipment Repbcentent $ 3,488,687 $ 1,488,687 GFAR Ford Baktwe $ 80.330 S 80.330 Post- Reti. Medical S 400,000 $ 400,000 Desigtated Productivity S 100,000 $ 100,000 ace. INAF $ 330,000 $ 330,000 Compensated Absetwes (muinuGis 75 % Hauling level) $ 2,281,656 $ 589.316 $ 2,988,333 Total Fords Available MassoWiebolson TS 4,664,439 NewRevenoe �� S 4664439:. Total $ 4,664,439 Total Rehabilitation Cost S 18,953.112 528953,112 Attachment 3 Almond Grove Funding Plan and Funding Schedule ALMOND GROVE REHABUITAT10N SCHEDULE: ASPHALT Note: A similar table was provided in the September 15, 2015 staff report. The rehabilitation cost for Broadway /Bachman has been updated from that table to remove the design costs of $25,000 for these streets as staff has provided a solution that does not incur this cost. Attachment 3 Rehabilitation Spring 2016 Spring 2017 Spring 2018 :Spring 2019 (Spring 2020 Cost Fond Balance FY 2015116 FY2016/17 = FY2017/18 iFY2018 /19 :FY2019/20 $ 2,882,723 cE- x1sung $ 3,696,000 S 2,882,723 S 2,882,723 Funds Available rCaptal $ 3,774,210 ect Budget S 813,277 S 813,277 ects Reallocation S 2,132,700 S 1,500,000 f or Capital $ 940,000 S 940,000 FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess S 2,000,000 S 520,933 S 3,774210 Total Funds Available Gk Glen $ 2,948,356 Capital Projects Reallocation S 632,700 S 632,700 FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess $ 1,479,067 ,$ 861,731 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) S 2,020,178 S 1,453,925 $ 2,948,356 Total Funds Available Wilder /Bean $ 2,540,084 1Y 2014/]5 Year -End Excess S 617,336 S 617,336 Equipment Replacement $ 3,488,687 S 590,435 Excess ERAF S 330,000 S 304,205 Couipensated Absences $ 2,281,656 S 589,316 GEAR Fwd Balance S 438,792 S 438,792 Total Funds Available $ 2,540,084 MassoFNicholson $ 31964,772 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) S 566,253 S 566,253 Designated Productivity $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Special Studies S 153,000 S 153,000 Post RetrementMedical $ 400,000 $ 400,000 New Revenue i - _ 5:2,745,519! Total Funds Available $ 39964,772 'I otal Rehabilitation Cost $ 16,110,145 $16,110,145 Note: A similar table was provided in the September 15, 2015 staff report. The rehabilitation cost for Broadway /Bachman has been updated from that table to remove the design costs of $25,000 for these streets as staff has provided a solution that does not incur this cost. Attachment 3 From: tomaboyce < > To: mjensen <mjensen(0N0sgatosca 90v>; bspector <bspectorplosgatosca qov >; SLeonardis <S Leonard is(a)losgatosca qov >; maricosayoc < >; robrennie3 <robrennie3(g)aol com> Sent: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 2:14 pm Subject: Almond Grove Paving Summary Report Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, Thank you for your diligence in understanding the issues and listening to the concerns of Almond Grove residents. I commend the Council's decisions to: - establish funding sources to include all ten streets - eliminate asphalt overlay as a pavement option - retain the current curb line (no lateral or vertical move) - construct new ramps to meet ADA requirements - retain existing sidewalks except sections needing repair for safety - remove trees only as necessary in accord with the Town tree protection ordnance Obtaining comprehensive cost information that highlights a comparison of concrete paving reconstruction with asphalt paving reconstruction remained a challenge. I appreciate you staying beyond midnight to explore how best to move forward with a design decision. From the perspective of my prior experience as an engineer and project manager, I suggest that the Council may wish to consider directing the Town Staff to prepare a Paving Summary Report. The Paving Summary Report would incorporate the scope decisions made by the Council at the September 15 Council Meeting (above). The report would cover only a paving project (including required ADA ramps). (Sidewalks, curbs and gutters, driveways, and trees would be treated separately. I am in the process of preparing an illustrative Curb and Gutter Summary Report and an illustrative Sidewalk Summary Report.) Section 1 of the Paving Summary Report (3 -4 pages) would summarize concrete and asphalt paving specifications including paving thickness and base thickness and would cite references to published paving codes used. Section 2 of the Paving Summary Report would be a table showing the staff's estimate of quantities of pavement per street per year and the construction cost of concrete reconstruction and asphalt reconstruction per street per year. (see attachment 1 for illustrative format and reverse engineered estimates). [I expect the total paved area to be approximately 482,499 square feet ; unit costs using concrete to be approximately $12.27 per square foot ($$3.50 + $8.77); and unit costs using asphalt to be approximately $9.66 per square foot ($3.50 + $6.16).] Section 3 of the Paving Summary Report would be a table showing the staff's breakdown of task -by -task costs per street per year (see attachment 2 for illustrative format and reverse engineered estimates). ATTACHMENT 4 [I expect the total Town budget for concrete reconstruction to be approximately 8.9 million dollars and for asphalt reconstruction to be approximately 7.3 million dollars.] I believe such a Paving Summary Report could be readily prepared by the staff from material they already have at hand in a short amount of time. (It took me about 6 hours to prepare the illustrative example tables using reverse engineering from prior reports.) The Paving Summary Report would provide the transparency needed for residents and the Council to understand the cost differential between concrete and asphalt options and to understand the total costs associated with the latest project scope. Council may wish to consider at the October 6 Council Meeting to direct the staff to prepare such a Paving Summary Report in time for discussion at the October 20 Council Meeting. I will be out of town for the October 6 and October 20 council meetings so will not be able to make a 3 minute presentation at those meetings. However, I will be available to answer questions about the idea of a Paving Summary Report in person on either September 29 or 30 or by telephone thereafter. Let me thank you again for the many, many hours you continue to spend on our behalf. Your dedication as public servants is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Tom Boyce 134 Wilder cell 408 460 6872 G O Q N O N Q g Q M Q H O W a P O b Q N N H tlF W M OI c v P f0 � L p 6 N W d C v o0 C V nv°,q m v o O N O ry Z G may � c q q v O O o ° E M Q C q m q m 9 � m c � F O v G '^ E o L Q y O C O z o a � o m c o V q N O E � L y C m C O O � N C C y P c v p 9 x.o c p3 q N q o � o a u w 0 z A y O F v `v v C q n W N N W U c O G O u QIO M M tl1 W � bL n a m N voo�om aeon onn v O T M.+nNN b f�N M W W w ti O N Ot ti at q ti ff O CO, N> O O a a a o a s N q Np � O VI N N N N ON � •� N ti N O O vI g O m O N LL O O m N N y v 5 -E > q> z z o c E E E Q a m E v E v m m 01 U q - m v G C 0- O O O 8 u o E E E o 0 uo'v owgv VU OUI ❑ -� q Ot p N m > O oc N q v._ W O O> o QOE °va va a O T O W O G q m LL Kl LLO. N IOi O 61 o v EE Q f a£ O J O N O U ;Fu Q U T Q � m N .y m N 6� E C p n n �O n t0 N v1 �O M V1 a �O M nN a O a O mP ago mn m Io ON M ll) M M n N e c o O U y o0 ev mN+ mm on C 3 m U N r q t o O vl W W N a n M N dS ++ N a N 4!1 n t0 N O M n O O G 0 na mm ao a+n om q n ti up p 'vi t0 M O V N W .Y ti E v p m 0 c om roo mIO ao a o p M O Ol M 1!1 N O a ti O n M O W W M U) M N ti O m m a a o o m W Ip OO N m b O vl f0 N III N Opwj OIU nV Nn OHO VIN M N� j C n a OI M VI M N N N O m d `v o O W W M VI N m N O O U m OR o o N n O m D> U b r M N n O V a n W o E' M .fl v m 0 0 O O N O m W N O N O u n O O n P P Oi M .O N W n N VI N N W O v1 V v� N O M ti m n O N m M M N O N M M cY M n N K i Q o r a 3s N n III 0 n M lD 1O p N M O U P N O On 1 N m N O m m I N n M Z N L y a_ 0 ti N q 3 V O N O � Z F _ a L� tp O N M a N L J 5 Z N a � n V 3 E 3 a q L > C O o E E v O - L u m`mq FiOm ¢(9 3mv EZ a P O b Q N N H tlF W M OI c v P f0 � L p 6 N W d C v o0 C V nv°,q m v o O N O ry Z G may � c q q v O O o ° E M Q C q m q m 9 � m c � F O v G '^ E o L Q y O C O z o a � o m c o V q N O E � L y C m C O O � N C C y P c v p 9 x.o c p3 q N q o � o a u w 0 z A y O F v `v v C q n W N N W U c O G O u QIO M M tl1 W � bL n a m N voo�om aeon onn v O T M.+nNN b f�N M W W w ti O N Ot ti at q ti ff O CO, N> O O a a a o a s N q Np � O VI N N N N ON � •� N ti N O O vI g O m O N LL O O m N N y v 5 -E > q> z z o c E E E Q a m E v E v m m 01 U q - m v G C 0- O O O 8 u o E E E o 0 uo'v owgv VU OUI ❑ -� q Ot p N m > O oc N q v._ W O O> o QOE °va va a O T O W O G q m LL Kl LLO. N IOi O 61 o v EE Q f a£ O J O N O U ;Fu Q U T Q � m N .y m N 6� E Jz \ / Mo \ / / / \\ ` \ / / \� / / \/~ So Jz \ / Mo \ / / / \\ ` \ / / \� / / \/~ M @SfloOV •- h N •�: 4 O y N m @Sn u0 P� @rn W Q% tD so Oi ��yy py P 4 rn M fY f0' �'N - m ai 045 lrnf5 N M W P iD O 4J M •°[5 m r N Oi E9 U} ig b3 Ui ffJ K Vi i9 iy £R tPr iii ig 0 0 0 6• pp4 ° a O O O a oo o o a IfJ 4S Sp R�R � `[ t0 M N W P °4 •0 W N c0 W 4 M N® ©° W ah iLJ f6. W Oi @ O u a � - bi to c? vi b3 � vi sH ei c9 64 iA &3 iq . tH wi #g 0 0 0 •,a a o 0 0 0 0 U n M •� Q N @ rQ N 06 Oi V' N M W m {j v Qcs a U U :� • f9 Hi N}4R to H} OI b rz 43 yy d m�CVS ash om �� � �c mO to ,m m C E > t G E > U ¢ p t6 a6 p m n R m C �U p a ? S3 a _ iL y VC m ° 0 @ � Gf io @: U 46 ppC O O C U m � •_- m m .0 .� Km m V,.d' m E m Q@m G ¢Q IC{C,li Q c t p t m.0 2 IL 0 Cj fi �. N M 41i 0 Q.4$ a E N O F m n vJ ti M Ca j c6 m. m Iq Q iF ¢ ¢ 4 ¢ v N °yi Uj b = 2 2 S 4 Q. 2 S S a n n v a u 'n 4 a �? "" ry a Q 4 4 i E n n Y y n m n rn o w m Ln tp ui r: m %- P1' N.. to b o o �R U) to m QT M cn, to �My h n Ol Q ri 3 Q. R h+ V} ri rd M H N e-t CS M +' N r�' N e-! W F{}. Vi. V} V} �V� V. V� V} iR ih N . c g a a O. G M O� m W ri Fzl M ry M 4!1 m O~S H h SP WL N ONi M r-4 Qf P„.. y y yy m W Q N N t1 Cn 11 U M ri Ql N1 m CL p !x i fN Ln t t Amy l tn zzap a W o °u a Q a E a 4 ^ Q Jx U u m w o? m u v m m 0 s'e cc co z <C chi chi A i� Vy F�- ty V? M1 rt U k p v, 3a��• •J Qt �r � � N 4 a. fN G 1 Q e-� a s . a o V O U C3. O F tit tit r 00 N r rz t w c U a w dr, Q m a o to y, 7 u ' U v:C -0 3 � �ss zs y m p c o J 41 •� 4I •� � � ski °� '� u' U c U 7a. o fl E- cJ CL >�>� U U U G CA tS L O iti '3 54S..3,, U k p v, 3a��• •J Qt �r � � N 4 a. G V zg tit tit r 00 N r rz t t% <- c i w ; 0 K.` �... � 41 •� 4I •� � � ski °� '� U 7a. o fl E- CL 75 U U O 3a��• •J Qt �r � � N V zg tit tit r 00 N r rz t t% <- c i w ; 0 U 7a. o fl E- CL 75 U U cn tn 0 0 m O } � a � ' O xar .max m. § - ds a r�ca;zzc °o °O °O °o h o O m L6 'ON q o° W in i to O H ai 96 sAF. O m — -� � H H' m aM u O� T`. v ymy-- Cl O iti� fl O p•2 ? H +� Kcc 4O m '� rm Q N :..g '04 '00 0 -0}a ts Z v .� > a o. .° From: tomaboyce(abaol.com [mailto:tomaboyce(abaol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 2:58 PM To: Laurel Prevetti; MMorlev @LosGatosCA.gov, Cc: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; maricosayoc(a>yahoo.com; robrennie3(abaol.com; Janette Judd Subject: Re: Meeting with Town Manager Dear Ms. Prevetti and Mr. Morley, Thank you both for setting aside an hour in your busy schedules to speak with me yesterday morning. I appreciate your willingness to consider in some detail the suggestion I have made to the members of the Town Council regarding the need for a brief Paving Summary Report that would provide transparency for residents and council members to understand the cost differential between concrete and asphalt options. I am pleased to hear the Town Staff has already begun preparing a report for the October 20 Council meeting. I sincerely hope that it will provide additional detail along the lines I have suggested. As our meeting closed, you mentioned that all Town materials are open to the public. In that light, I am formally requesting that the Town Engineer provide to me, by email, three key numbers that Town Staff would have used to prepare the cost estimates for their September 11 report: 1. Total square feet of area to be paved (all ten streets combined) 2. Unit cost ($ per sq ft) for concrete reconstruction (including demolition, removal, base, and concrete) 3. Unit cost ($ per sq ft) for asphalt reconstruction (including demolition, removal, base, and asphalt) I would appreciate receiving these three numbers prior to the October 6 Town Council meeting. You also correctly noted that the total Town budget for the Almond Grove Reconstruction Project needed to not only include costs for a paving contract and but also costs for a contract to repair or replace gutters and curbs, sidewalks, driveways and trees. I completely agree. I shared with you my worksheets that are in process to create a separate illustrative Summary Report for Gutters and Curbs, Sidewalks, Driveways, and Trees. I expect to complete tables for that illustrative Summary Report by next week to submit to the members of the Town Council for their consideration. I will include you both on distribution and would welcome your questions or comments. Again, thank you for your continued interest in this important project Best regards, Tom Boyce From: tomaboyce o aol.com [mailto:tomaboyce(aaol.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:37 PM To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; robrennie3@aol.com Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Matt Morley Subject: Driveway, Sidewak, Curb and Gutter, and Tree Summary Dear Mayor, Vice - Mayor, and Council Members, Attached is an illustrative format for a Driveway, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, and Tree Summary Report. The report would include four straightforward tables. Table A is a Driveway Summary. Table B is a Sidewalk Summary. Table C is a Curb and Gutter Summary. Table D is a Combined Summary. The Council may wish to direct the Town Staff to prepare similar tables along the lines of the illustrative examples as background for the upcoming Oct 20 Council Meeting. [I expect that the total square feet of driveway is approximately 23,760 square feet. I expect that the total square feet of sidewalk is approximately 76,044 square feet. I expect that the total lineal feet of curb and gutter is approximately 20.234 square feet. I expect that the cost to replace all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters and remove trees to be approximately $2,853,085. 1 also expect that by only repairing as needed the driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and trees, that all repairs could be made for approximately $641,025, a saving of more than $2,000,000.] Such savings would only be possible if the surface of the new paving matched the current paving surface resulting in no change to the elevation of the gutter. How could this happen? If one were to assume that the streets were engineered for the proper thickness of concrete back in the 1950's when they were constructed and that the soil characteristics and the traffic loads have not changed since the 1950's, then one could suggest that replacing existing concrete with the same thickness of concrete would be a feasible solution. In fact this seems be demonstrated in a very large patch of concrete repair on Glen Ridge (see attached photo 118 Glen Ridge). New concrete has been poured to a width of about half the street and stretching several houses which shows no signs of cracking and which matches the original gutter lines with no damage to the original gutters. Simply replacing existing concrete with new concrete of the same thickness would open up the savings of the "repair as needed" approach for the driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and trees. The Council may wish to consider to direct the Town Staff to investigate this option including arranging for two qualified engineers for two days to walk the ten streets to identify and record by house number the square feet of driveway, the square feet of sidewalk, and the lineal feet of curb and gutter that need to be repaired and the number of trees that need to be removed. Such a modest level of effort would seem a good investment toward the potential amount to be saved compared to replacing everything. And once again, let me reiterate my appreciation for your dedicated service and your continuing interest in this complex project. Best regards, Tom Boyce 134 Wilder Ave Cell 408 460 -6872 W tt Z Q b'I N y Q g 0 W a a HE!y 00 Om O Om � O Om Om O� O N O tO inN O V ry 3! .+o .:v "^ Z d ._ .i .�. M � M M o� N v o n � � O W a p` h > 00 00 00 00 0o e LL 3 n n rams vmi ry n m m y ry a M H N N M ti 10- v > N � O .y .. .. .. ..ti N.ti .. .N. G 6pva1 W W M m ti N N �O m Y W M N ti M pi Q V! a Q ya aW 3� W Z T C 5 o_ O QO mm �m ¢� 3m Ez r a o 0 0 0 0 N 00 00 p0 00 00 p Y O O O O O O O O O b Om O s y d w - 00 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 o 0 10 00 a v N 7 00 00 00 00 0o O s LL 3 n o v y 3 N � - 3 W 6U VI q w - ` v D Q Ego a � o W E a Z + p z G T� d m o O o E v `vM -6 a 05 ••> Ec. m a — m °n Mc m ¢� � m � z i= m m o 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N w N wm wN ww wbl wM N O P i0 O w C 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ou ww ww ww ww ww Nj y LL Y. � V1 b M O N O� V vPI w M p N N on N. Soo ao mm a o n p Qv 3 �r rnP n�o � O - a a ] y v n M b P M m v01 n M b I/wl v o v � N o P o O O P o w a b m m r �O Y p n ro m b -`o -a v..+ ; vl •i N c .-r fr .� .r .r n ..r N m° on °m .Pr mm n _Oy-'9 O+N bW v,. 3 vi •r N ., .. J^'4a°w � oN non ao-m �n nM LL m 'N L p r r C m¢ Z N O J o r O p O p U W � wa zor° � Y W o ac j q N O O O N N f E O u E N O O v 0 3 v vo° O `v 3 N ao v n° nv 0 0 9 a < y° O O O O m � R ti O yNj ;u m'� ob Nb W a'a ww Nww wa. ww vpin ww m 000 00 0 v m g o ww w.a ww ww ww Nu C rvm Nw a Lu dLL O= .r0 On m O ip � F N w N s,o gv9 ion �P �nP nb ti N E PQ w E a? y� MN mb mP "'m uml M° IfPi u L O u w m w' .o .i0. v v 3 i`w Gov nn Me w ti v a - v ] ao Po oP mm ° °p � mo- n w m° N U1 o P w m n ^ `o Wina °L v oiEo O orn Prn v mn Ol E -cmq O 6 ,2 EEC aN $oa N w � ao°ro a ra 6 C a O 3 E n o E O u E N O O v 0 3 v vo° O `v 3 N ao v n° nv 0 0 9 a < 4 Z 6 Vy N E f O LL w S m a w F o S � w N Z � m wa Y m m a 6 Z m az m m0 un 60 A f `y c �Dm om �Dm oo mQ m '�Oj 0o nn mQm o6 �1 o ro .y m ti m N O vi r N � a d d app QW +A mNW +AM MW W N arum w 'u u 00 00 0o Oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 oU w.» v. av ww ww ww L J LL (L � a F J v 3 N u' > Q P M mQ vPl N N P P W N W V M M N >Ory D ti Q O Q O O m tD �D O N O a m 0 a m m rn rq m y�L a m U_ U n N N c K r r m 0 Q O � U Li O a C Z ~ 6 d - aL N O O O O m >� > fl a v N O � O a i T n= N o > O Q a iO � O Q* m W 7 O a m m u J a a W m z O n O 0 V V P Q O M � y� V d w w w ei to in P N � c m 'u° w u - °o °o 00 00 00 00 ^'v o Oo 00 00 �E 00 00 00 0 00 `tv N iDUm mw w�Om »�Ow uw � v e°v U > o q d 9 N v C C y m > C a a N P o Q N w n m Y F c d 3 N N O Q N N Q m b m b W T d P M m N P M ti N r m N q QO~ Lq i ur O Q O°i O Om ., v mQ ry O L w Y D U � m _ u'_ o °P 1 _ O �' 9 P O N �➢ h N P P d d = C U � A am nm - q r C K D Q J v A 0 0 u° og N m O Q N tp vl 'a O P v EEip P 00 C h P P P O ry O E Z F C A m > v c zz O O O O N October 14, 2015 Town Manager Laurel Prevetti Mayor Marcia Jensen Members of the Town Council I am writing with regard to the proposed baseball backstop at Baggerly Field in Blossom Hill Park. This component is included in the current Parks and Public Works CIP budget. During the Town Council meeting in December 2014, the council made the following comment regarding improvements to Town parks, "there is a parks commission and staff that should be able to determine improvements at the parks ". At the February 2015 Parks Commission meeting, I presented the need for a new backstop at Baggerly Field. The existing backstop is over 40 years old and in need of a lot repairs. Investment in repairing the backstop is not recommended because the antiquated design is a significant safety concern. The clamshell design encourages kids to climb and hang over the front. Furthermore, the front support is positioned over the catcher and umpire. Pop -ups hit this support and ricochet down on the umpire, catcher, or batter causing injury. In addition, the clamshell design inhibits development of baseball in our community. The design prevents catchers from playing pop -ups. Once the ball strikes the backstop, it is a dead ball. Our local youth leagues including Los Gatos Little League are unable to host higher level tournaments without the ability of the catcher to field pop -ups. The proposed backstop would be one similar to the one at Balzer Field on Miles Ave. LGLL had that backstop installed approx 30 years ago to replace the original backstop that was constructed with wood poles, and had become a safety issue for different reasons unassociated with the design of the Baggerly backstop. As per the License agreement with the Town for use of the fields, LGLL will pay 50% of the cost of the new backstop. Sign ups for the coming season will be happening soon. Our fund raising campaign begins at the time of sign ups. LGLL needs to know at this time whether matching funds from the Town will be available so it can meet its financial obligations to fund our share of the cost of the new backstop. The timing of this project is also important if the new backstop is to be installed in time for the coming season. If there is any possibility of addressing the funding of the proposed backstop individually, and not have it included with the whole of the Parks and Public Works budget, it would be appreciated. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need further information Regards Phil Knopf LGLL VP Community Relations (408) 354 -1046 From: Jeff Williams - Home Email [mailto:iefwil@comcast net] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:34 PM To: Council Cc: Phil Knopf Subject: Baggerly Backstop Dear LG Town Council, as a past LGLL President, I would like to send my full support for the league to replace the current clam shell backstop with a newer, safer model. During my years on the Board, this was an ongoing concern by the Board, which I am happy to hear is now being seriously addressed. I'm sure the Board has given their reasons why it is important to replace the outdated clam shell design. The concern I've had for years is the safety of the players and volunteer umpires. Foul balls hit straight up often hit the pole directly above home plate and comes straight down and hit either the catcher, batter or umpire. A hard hit ball gives none of these individuals much reaction time to get away. I've seen these individuals more times than I can count. Regards, Jeff Williams