3.3 Desk ItemCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 02/02/16
ITEM NO: 3.3
DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 15-811-9901 AND 15-811-9903 — FY 2015/16 ANNUAL STREET
REPAIR AND RESURFACING PROJECT AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION -
CRACK SEAL 811-9901 AND 811-9903
A. APPROVE THE REVISED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL
STREET REPAIR AND RESURFACING AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
— CRACK SEAL PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE TOWN TO ADVERTISE
THE PROJECT FOR BID.
B. AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE
AVAILABLE BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $2,232,782, WHICH INCLUDES A
15 PERCENT CONTINGENCY.
REMARKS:
After the initial staff report was distributed on January 28, 2016, staff received the attached public
comment (Attachment 7):
Attachments 1-5 (Previously received with staff report on January 28, 2016):
1. January 19, 2016 Town Council report.
2. June 2, 2015 Council Meeting: Proposed FY 14-15 Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing and
Pavement Rehabilitation -Crack Seal Street List.
3. June 16, 2015 Council Meeting: Revised FY 14-15 Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing and
Pavement Rehabilitation -Crack Seal Street List.
4. MTC StreetSaver Program and Types of Street Treatments Discussion
5. Currently Proposed FY 15-16 Street Resurfacing List.
PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 15-811-9901 AND 15-811-9903 —FY 2015/16 ANNUAL STREET
REPAIR AND RESURFACING PROJECT AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION -
CRACK SEAL 811-9901 AND 811-9903 '1
FEBRUARY 2, 2016
REMARKS (cont'd):
Attachment 6 (Previously received with Addendum on February 1, 2016):
6. Communication received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, January 28, 2016 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, February 1, 2016.
Attachment received with this Desk Item:
7. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, February 1, 2016 through 11:00 a.m. Tuesday,
February 2, 2016.
wo
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhood()yahoo com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:34 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Subject: Desk Item - Item - PPW Annual Street Project
I appreciate having had the opportunity to discuss most of this with some of
you in advance of tomorrow's meeting. The attached is intended to provide
information more substantive than what was provided in the recent Staff
Report. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
ATTACHMENT 7
DESK ITEM
PPW ANNUAL STREET REPAIR AND RESURFACING PROJECT
• Step 1— The Components of a "Street Bid"
• Step 2 — Actual "Street Work" Components
• Step 3 — Pavement Areas on "Scaled Down List of Streets"
• Step 4 — "Then and Now" on "Scaled Down List of Streets"
• Step 5 — New Project: Scope and Estimated Costs For All Streets
• Step 6— New Project: Comparison of Street Detail to Summary Bid Sheets
• Step 7 — Comparison of Cost/SgYd to PCTs For All Streets
Angelia M Doerner-SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 1
Step 1— The Components of a "Street Bid"
The following is a recap from the Lowest Bid received for the "Scaled Down List of Streets" shown in
Attachment 3 to the 020216 Staff Report - I refer to this as the "Original Bid". Please note the following:
• The bid included some "non -street" work that was not included in the scope presented to Council.
If such amounts are excluded from the Original Bid, the Bid Amount only exceeded the $900k
Council -authorized allocation by $19k or 2%.
• The bid included two hillside streets (Shannon and Kennedy with widths of 30' and 25',
respectively) - traffic control (including daily mobilization, etc.) is higher than, for example, Cross
Way (short, straight, low traffic volume). The largest variance between the three received bids
related to Traffic Control.
As expected, the largest component is the actual street work. Typically, in routine asphalt
maintenance, and without hillsides, it would represent more than the 79% shown below.
Traffic Control
Chngble Msg Brds
4" Digouts
6" Digouts
Leveling Course
Rubber Chip Seal
Slurry Seal
Chip Seal w Micro (Hwy 9)
Crack Sealing
Pvmt Mrk/Stripe Removal
Detail 2 Striping
Detail 22 Striping
Detail 27B Striping
Various Pvmt Markings/"Word
COUNCIL -APPROVED PROJECT SCOPE 061615
BID > $900k AUTHORIZED = REJECTED
080415
Est Unit
Bid
Unit
Qty Price
Amount
LS
1 $150,000
$
150,000
Ea
2 $ 7,500
$
15,000
SgFt
900 $ 19
$
17,100
SgFt
0 $ -
TON
350 $ 250
$
87,500
SgYd
83,000 $ 7.10
$
589,300
SgYd
SgYd
0
LS
1 $ 31,500
$
31,500
LS
1 $ 7,000
$
7,000
LinFt
2,000 $ 0.47
$
940
LinFt
9,000 $ 1
$
9,000
LinFt
13,500 $ 0.42
$
5,670
Varies
Varies Varies
$
5,998
Street
Subtotal:
$
919,008
Sidewks,
CG, 6 ADA Ramps
$
54,000
Total Bid Amount:
$
973,008
Let's go to Step 2 -A closer look into the actual "street work" components.
18%
-79%
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 2
Step 2 — Actual "Street Work" Components
The following is an excerpt from Step 1.
COUNCIL -APPROVED PROJECT SCOPE 061615
BID > $900k AUTHORIZED - REJECTED 080415
Est Unit Bid
Qtv Price Amou
4" Digouts
SgFt
900 $
19
$
17,100
6" Digouts
SgFt
0 $
-
Leveling Course
TON
SgYd
350 $
83,000 $
250
7.10
$
$
87,500
589,300
Cape Seal
(a)
Slurry Seal
SgYd
SgYd
(a)
(b)
(b)
Chip Seal w Micro (Hwy 9) (b)
Crack Sealing (c)
LS
1 S
31.500
S
31.SOO
(a) In the "Original Bid", all streets on the "Scaled Down List of Streets" were scoped as "RC" - Rubber
Cape Seal. As such, there was only one line -item in the Bid Sheet for pavement area to be resurfaced. As
discussed in Attachment 4 to the Staff Report, RC is application of a rubber -based chip seal with an
application of Slurry Seal on top. In the "New Project Scope", surface treatments on two streets (Forrester
Ct. and Kennedy Ct.) are now scoped as only requiring a Slurry Seal. Therefore the "New Project Bid
Sheet" shows the two components of an RC on separate line items. This will also provide a separate
"current market price" for a "stand-alone" Slurry Seal. In a future step, the Unit Price for Slurry Seal is
$2/SgYd (obtained from the 061615 Staff Report Chart).
(b) In the "Original Bid", LG/Saratoga (Hwy 9) was scoped as only requiring RC. In the "New Project
Scope", the surface treatment calls for Chip Seal with Microsurfacing - which is a higher level of
maintenance than RC as it levels and fills cracks in addition to providing skid resistance and protection
from water infusion. As such it is more expensive. In the "Original Bid Sheet", a separate revocable
"Alternate Bid" was included for Hwy 9 for this level of treatment -the Unit Price received in that Bid
(current market price) for this kind of treatment was $10.50/SgYd. This Unit Price will be utilized in a
future step.
(c) In the "Original Bid", the "Unit" for Crack Sealing was "LS" (I believe "Longitudinal Section") - but
what, where, or how much work that represents is your guess as good as the three bidders' - Lowest
(above) of $31,500, Next Lowest of $57,500, and Highest of $95,000! In the "New Project Scope" the Bid
Sheet indicates the scope for this work as 10,000 LF ("Linear Feet"). Similar to the Original Bid - the what,
where and associated costs, for lay -folks like us, is a guess. Therefore, I have excluded this component
from further analysis
Pavement Areas will be discussed further in Step 3. But, first let's complete discussion of the other
"street -work" components shown above: Digouts and Leveling Course.
Angelia M Doerner- SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 3
Step 2 — Actual "Street Work" Components, cont.
The following is the same excerpt from Step 1.
COUNCIL -APPROVED PROJECT SCOPE 061615
BID > $900k AUTHORIZED = REJECTED 080415
Est Unit Bid
Unit Qty Price Amount
4" Digouts
Sgft
900 $
19
$
17,100
6" Digouts
SgFt
0
Leveling Course
TON
SgYd
350 $
83,000 $
250
7.10
$
$
87,500
589,300
Cape Seal
Slurry Seal
SgYd
SgYd
!i-?
(bj
Chip Seal w Micro (Hwy 9) Ih:
Crack Sealing 0
LS
1 $
31,500
$
31,500
"Digouts" are easy to understand - basically, repairing "potholes' - which can vary in size. They
are scoped in SgFt. Typically, they are 4" (the depth of the existing asphalt on most Town streets). Some
streets have thicker existing asphalt; in the "Original Bid", there were "0" 6" digouts. In the "New Project
Scope" there are 6" digouts - for Shannon and Kennedy. For the Unit Price of 6" Digouts herein, I simply
increased the Unit Price of the 4" Digouts by 50%: Unit Price for 4" Digouts (above) of $19/SgFt multiplied
by 1.5 to derive Estimated Unit Price for 6" Digouts of $28.50.
(e', Leveling Course is described in Staff Report Attachment 4 as "a very thin layer of asphalt over
existing pavement". Envision a truck full of asphalt and workers shoveling it around onto the existing
pavement and then "compressing" it, usually with a steamroller, so that it "melds" with the existing
surface. As such, it is scoped in SgFt/Street but priced by "TON". Not having the time, nor inclination, for
a more precise calculation - I have determined the cost of leveling used in future steps as follows: In the
"Original Bid", the sum of Sq Ft amounts on streets requiring Leveling was 26,665 Sq Ft. And the Qty of
Tons stated on the Bid Sheet was 350. Therefore, as an estimate: 26,665 SgFt / 350 Tons = 1 Ton "covers"
76.2 Sq Ft (which is 8.47 SgYds). So, 1 Ton @ $250each / 8.47 SgYd = $29.53/SgYd.
Focusing only on the "Scaled Down List of Streets" - and using the quantities on the detailed street -by -
street worksheets in the Bid Packages (see discussion in Step 6), the increase in Scope for this type of
work (((i; and !s', above) is:
Original New . This only reflects the Increase in
Unit Bid/Scope Project Scope
Unit Price Qty Ext Cost Qty Ext Cost Est Costs relating to changes in
these specific scope items.
4" Digouts Sq Ft $ 19 750 $ 14,250 3,750 $ 71,250 . Step 3 (Next) will show you
6" Digouts Sq Ft $28.50 - - 8,746 $ 249,261 Increases relating to changes in
Leveling Course TON $ 250 350 $ 87,500 1,620 (a) $405,000 scoped Pavement Area.
$101,750 $ 725,511 . Step 4 will show you a complete
picture of Increased Est costs due
to all scope changes made on
(a) - Detail -derived 123,420SgFt / 76.2 (from(e)) = 1,620 Tons these streets since 6 months ago.
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 4
Step 3 — Pavement Areas on "Scaled Down List of Streets"
An important element of reviewing Street Project scope is Pavement Area (Length x Width). The number
of streets is NOT critical. Rather, it is the total amount of street surface that is being addressed. Once
again, in this Step, I am focusing only on the "Scaled Down List of Streets" - and using the quantities on
the detailed street -by -street worksheets in the Bid Packages.
IAI
IB)
Kennedy Ct Kenn End 530 32 16.960
Forrester Ct
Forr
End
Length
Width
Pavement Area
Street
From
To
In Feet
In Feet
Orig Bid New Proj
Mozart Ave l')
End
TLmts
1,140
35
39,330
Mozart Way
Mozart
End
234
28
6,552
Moionera Ct
Mozart
End
305
33
10,065
Oka Lane
Mozart
End
667
35
23,345
Oka Road
Lark
Nw Sctn
955
43
41,065
Paseo Laura
Mozart
End
296
33
9,768
Alberto Way
Hwy 9
End
1.290
33
42.570
Kennedy Ct Kenn End 530 32 16.960
Forrester Ct
Forr
End
384
Forrester Rd I')
Kenn
End
2,499
Leotar Ct
Forr
End
253
Short Rd
Shann
Old BH
1.580
I c Shannon Rd LGB Hicks
Oriz Total
26 9,984
30 73,721
20 5,060
30 47,400
30 195.000
Feet: ) 874,220
i' I Pavement Area is simply L x W. Beyond belief, PPW #s on these streets do not compute! The net of the errors almost
washes out. The Pavement Areas above on these three streets are from the Bid Package Worksheets.
(A) LG/Saratoga(Hwy9) - The Pvmt Area on this street has been increased by an incremental 11,000 Sq Ft - all
attributable to increasing the length of the street. 11,000 / 44 = 250 LFt, or (for visualization) 80 yards on o football
field. The defined From/To has not changed; the additional length can only relate to West of Alberto Way. CalTrans
vs Town responsibility is "close to' Alberto Way. One option is that the delineation mark was corrected since the
Original Bid. A second option is that the incremental length extends into CalTrans "territory" so they should be
participating in that work. A third option is that the length has been arbitrarily increased. The Cost Estimate for this
increase is (11,000/9) = 1,222 SgYd @ $10.50 = $12,831. Any otherideas?
(B) Kennedy Rd - The Pvmt Area on this street has been increased by an incremental 44,327 SgFt - all
attributable to increasing the length of the street. The defined From/To has changed - it now says "Varies". From
the maps included in the Bid Packages, it is evident that the scope has been extended "in and out of Town and
County areas - so an increase in length makes sense.
(C) Shannon Rd - The Pvmt Area on this street has been increased by an incremental 105,000 Sq Ft - all
attributable to increasing the length of the street. 105,000 / 30 = 3,500 LFt, or (for visualization) almost 12 football
fields. The defined From/To cannot change as Shannon begins at LGB and dead -ends at Hicks. In addition, the maps
included in the Bid Packages are the same. The Cost Estimate for this increase is (105,000/9) = 11,667 SgYd @ $7.10
= $82,836. Any ideas?
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page S
Step 4 - "Then and Now" on "Scaled Down List of Streets"
Once again, in this Step, I am focusing only on the 'Scaled Down List of Streets" - and using the quantities
on the detailed street -by -street worksheets in the Bid Packages. This schedule shows a comparison of
the "Scaled Down List Of Streets" as originally scoped (6 month ago) compared to how they are scoped in
the "New Project". Street details marked in "red" represent changes in scope and related estimated costs.
Street
Mozart Ave ('I
Mozart Way
Mojonera Ct
Oka Lane
Oka Road
Paseo Laura
Alberto Way
LG/Srtoga (HWY 9)
Shannon Rd
Short Rd
Forrester Cl
Forrester Rd (')
Leotar Ct
Kennedy Ct
Kennedy Rd I')
Est Increased
$664.9k , Costs: $753,2441 $1,418,144
Remember that these amounts only address "street work" components (except for Crack Sealing). It also
does not include Traffic Control. Given this analysis - a prudent person should ask:
Is the newly -defined level of work on all of these streets really necessary?
• If "Yes" -
o Why wasn't it considered - or even discussed - in the scope presented to Council in June
'15? When the "List of 51 Streets" (Staff's Attachment 2) was subdivided into the two lists
shown in Staff's Attachment 3 (the "Scaled Down List" and the "Dropped List") - the
substance of project changes was solely "What streets to do, or not do?". No changes
were made to the scope of work to be done on each street from what was originally
defined!!
o Why wasn't the "List of 51" a lower number of streets with a more appropriate scope of
work defined for such streets?
If the Original Bid had not been rejected, would PPW really have done RC on these streets -
knowing (if true) the extent of work that was really required?
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 6
Original Bid - By Street
New Project - By Street (Only "Scaled Down" Streets)
Pvmt Area
4"
Leveling
Est
Pavement Area (Sq Yds)
4"
6" Leveling
Est
Sq Yds (a)
Digouts
Sq Yds (a)
Cost
RC
Slurry tuts
Digouts
Digouts Sq Yds(a)
Cost
4,370
-
240
$ 38,114
4,370
240
38,114
728
-
5 5,169
728
5,169
1,118
-
22
$ 8,596
1,118
22
8,596
2,594
-
900
S 44,994
2,594
900
44,994
4,563
$ 32,396
4,563
1.111
65,207
1,085
-
$ 22,274
1,085
48
9,133
4,730
-
$ 33,583
4,730
660
53,073
-
$ 29,504
J'F
1 m•
75.467
,.
$ 153,833
33,333
-.333
731,099
5,267
750
$ 51,643
5,267
750
-
51,643
l,lo9
-
-
$ 7,876
i, iCr'
-
2,219
8,191
1,259
$ 95,349
8,191
2.000
1,259
133,379
562
-
$ 3,992
562
-
3,992
1,884
-
28
$ 14,200
1.F1-
28
4,585
17,297
$ 123,399
111
191,501
79,321
750
2,963
1 $664.9k
88,764
2,994 5,378
3,750
8,746 13,713 1
1,418,144
57.10/SgYd
$19/SgFt
$29.53/Sgyd
$7.10/5gYd
$2/50d 510.5/SgYd
$19/SgFt
$28.5/Sq Ft $29.53/SgYd
$ 563,182
$14,250
87,491
1 $664.9k
$630,224
S 5,988 S56,467
$ 71,250
$249,261 $404,955
51,418,144
Est Increased
$664.9k , Costs: $753,2441 $1,418,144
Remember that these amounts only address "street work" components (except for Crack Sealing). It also
does not include Traffic Control. Given this analysis - a prudent person should ask:
Is the newly -defined level of work on all of these streets really necessary?
• If "Yes" -
o Why wasn't it considered - or even discussed - in the scope presented to Council in June
'15? When the "List of 51 Streets" (Staff's Attachment 2) was subdivided into the two lists
shown in Staff's Attachment 3 (the "Scaled Down List" and the "Dropped List") - the
substance of project changes was solely "What streets to do, or not do?". No changes
were made to the scope of work to be done on each street from what was originally
defined!!
o Why wasn't the "List of 51" a lower number of streets with a more appropriate scope of
work defined for such streets?
If the Original Bid had not been rejected, would PPW really have done RC on these streets -
knowing (if true) the extent of work that was really required?
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 6
Step 5 - New Project: Scope and Estimated Costs For All Streets
The costs below are based on the Lowest Bid for the "Original Bid" which was rejected on 080215. As "
such, based on Staff representations that they were way too high, actual current costs should be lower.
Street
Moza rt Ave (`)
MozartWay
MoJonera Ct
Oka Lane
Oka Road
Paseo Laura
Alberto Way
LG/Srtoga (HWY 9)
Shannon Rd
Short Rd
Forrester Ct
Forrester Rd (`)
Leotar Ct
Kennedy Ct
Kennedy Rd (')
Subtotal "Scaled Down":
Amanda lane
Mullen Ave
Avery lane
Mi I brae lane
Rushmore Ln
Towne Terrace
Blackberry Hill Rd
Subtotal "Main Crews":
Bella Vista
Cross Way
Cypress Way (a)
Eugenia Way (a)
Foster Road
Johnson Hollow
Sund Ave
Subtotal "Other":
Grand Totals:
New Prolect - Rv Street /All Streetsl
Pavement Area
Yds
4"
6"
Leveling
Est
cost
RC
Slurry
MS
Digouts
!gouts
Sq Yds a
cost
Per ScIYd
4,370
240
38,114
$
8.72
728
-
5,169
$
7.10
1,118
22
8,596
$
7.69
2,594
900
44,994
$
17.35
4,563
1,111
65,207
$
14.29
1,085
48
9,133
$
8.42
4,730
660
53,073
$
11.22
5,378
1,000
75,467
$
14.03
33,333
8,714
8,333
731,099
$
21.93
5,267
750
-
51,643
$
9.81
1,109
-
2,219
$
2.00
8,191
21000
1,259
133,349
$
16.28
562
-
3,992
$
7.10
1,884
28
4,589
$
2.44
22,222
32
1,111
191,501
$
8.62
88,764
2,994
5,379
3,750
8,746
13,713
r$1,418.144
2,162
66
17,286
$
8.00
958
6,802
$
7.10
1,940
13,774
$
7.10
1,212
8,605
$
7.10
1,180
8,378
$
7.10
4,581
32,525
$
7.10
2,000
500
1,111
56,511
$
28.26
14,033 - 500 - 1,177 $ 143,881
3,898
27,676
$
7.10
1,118
7,938
$
7.10
3,836
2,010
2,700
145,157
$
37.84
2,080
3,500
1.111
114,079
$
54.85
2,965
21,052
$
7.10
851
6,042
$
7.10
2,399
17,0331
$
7.10
(a) Leveling Course Increased From "List of 51" Scope: Cypress Way (Up by 1,111 SgYds from 1,589),
and Eugenia (Up by 1,111 SgYds from 0)
Amounts highlighted in "red" represent scope changes from earlier PPW Bid worksheets. See Step 7 for further
review of Cost/SgYd compared to PCIS.
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 7
Step 6 — New Project: Comparison of Street Detail to Summary Bid Sheets
Totals for each component (column) in the Street -by -Street detail presented in the Bid Packages are not
provided. However, one might expect that if you added the detail (for each component) - it would tie
directly to the Summary Bid Sheet used by Contractors in filling out their Unit Prices and Extended Costs.
However, that would be wrong. Below is the comparison of Amounts for "Street -Work" based on the
detail sheets to the Amounts presented on the Bid Sheet.
4" Depth Digouts
6" Depth Digouts
Leveling Course
Rubber Cape Seal
Slurry Seal Only
Chip Seal w Microsurfacing
Unit
Qty
Per Street
Detail
Qty Per
Bid Pricing
Sheet
Bump-
Up
Unit
Price
Costof
Bump -Up"
SgFt
9,760
10,000
240
2%
$ 19.00
$ 4,560
SgFt
8,746
10,000
1,254
14%
$ 28.50
$ 35,739
TON
1,620
1,900
280
17%
$250.00
$ 70,000
SgYd
119,994
132,000
12,006
10%
$ 7.10
$ 85,243
SgYd
2,994
3,300
306
10%
$ 2.00
5 612
SgYd
5,378
6,000
622
12%
$ 10.50 1
$ 6,531
$ 202,685
As such, these "Bumped -Up" amounts are "included" in the Total Bid Amount provided by the
Contractors. That is, when the lowest bid is awarded the Contract, it has a "buffer" built in. Obviously,
there is no way for estimated quantities to be exact as well as that there may be some small level of
needed changes. But as there are already amounts "built-in" to the Contract Award amount, why then is
Council routinely asked to authorize an additional 15%+ of the Contract Amount for Change Orders?
The use of the terms "contingency" and "change order" have been used inconsistently in this and other
PPW projects. In many cases, there are allowances for both.
It is unclear to me what is actually being asked for in Staffs recommendation. Does the "15%
contingency" only relate to the engineer's estimate? If so, how did it compute perfectly to match the total
available budget? Or is the "15% contingency' supposed to relate to Change Orders above the Awarded
Contract (not to exceed the total available budget)? If for Change Orders - is that in addition to the
"Bump -ups" already included in the Awarded Contract amount?
Some clarification from Staff is warranted here -as well as consistent treatment on a go -forward basis.
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 8
Step 7 — Comparison of Cost/SgYd to PCIS For All Streets
This chart is from the 061615 Staff Report.
Street Life Cycle Cost
Sj��rlrf
&Main
evetenace
r
%e \ 1$2/SY
Mayr Maintenance
SZS/ SY
Y
��
$0SY
ALL STREETS SORTED BY Pa- HIGH TO LOW
Cost
Source Street Per SgYd PCI
Orig
LG/Srtoga (HWY 9)
$
14.03
59
vlaint
Other
Cypress Way
$
37.84
55
Eugenia Way
Ong
Oka Road
$
14.29
53
$
Orig
Kennedy Ct
$
2.44
50
7.10
Ong
Kennedy Rd
$
8.62
50
32
Orig
Mojonera Ct
$
7.69
49
)ther
Orig
Oka Lane
$
17.35
45
Forrester Ct
Other
Johnson Hollow
$
7.10
44
$
Orig
Mozart Ave
$
8.72
35
vlaint
Blackberry Hill Rd
$
28.26
35
)ther
Eugenia Way
$
54.85
35
Aaint
Avery lane
$
7.10
34
Aaint
Rushmore Ln
$
7.10
33
Aaint
Milbrae lane
$
7.10
32
Aaint
Towne Terrace
$
7.10
32
)ther
Sund Ave
$
7.10
30
Orig
Forrester Ct
$
2.00
25
Ong
Forrester Rd
$
16.28
25
)ther
Foster Road
$
7.10
23
)ther
Bella Vista
S
7.10
22
Orig
Shannon Rd
$
21.93
21
Ong
Short Rd
$
9.81
21
Ong
Leotar Ct
$
7.10
20
Other
Cross Way
$
7.10
19
Maint
Mullen Ave
$
7.10
15
Ong
Alberto Way
$
11.22
14
Maint
Amanda Lane
$
8.00
13
Ong
Paseo Laura
$
8.42
12
Years
Preventive �
Maintenance
S2/ SY
Based on PCI, the Cost/SgYd for these streets should fall
within the range between "Slurry @ $2/SgYd" yet still
above the Major Maintenance category g ry (significant Digouts,
Leveling, and then RC) of $25/SgYd.
Based on PCI, the Cost/SgYd for these streets should fall
well within the range of the Major Maintenance category
(significant Digouts, Leveling, and then RC) of $25/SgYd yet
still above the Reconstruction category of $70/SgYd.
Based on PCI, the Cost/SgYd for these streets should fall
well within the range of the Reconstruction category of
$70/SgYd.
Either there is no credibility in the PCTs, or the Scoping of Required Work, or Both.
Angelia M Doerner - SaveOurHood@yahoo.com Page 9
From: Angelia Doerner rmailto:saveourhoodCcbyahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:58 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Subject: Desk Item - Item 3.3 - PPW Street Project
I felt compelled to complete the analysis sent to you last night. I was
shocked that Staff made no adjustments, no elaboration (not even excuses)
in their Staff Report regarding their recommended use of these ENTIRE
budget(s) after your discussion at the last meeting. Yes - they provided
exactly what you asked for - not a smidgen more!
The matters I was able to share with some of you "live" have now been
quantified in Estimated Costs. "Step 4" is the most telling, as well as "Step
7". I have exhausted myself trying to understand some (ANY) plausible
rationale - other than what I think is obvious after searching through the
details.
Staffs Recommendation is simply, sadly, a blatant attempt to "eat up" all
monies available in the available budget(s).
If actually used as portrayed in the current Bid Package - the monies
will have been used ineffectively when considering Town -wide
needs.
If actually used for work other than as portrayed in the current Bid
Package - the monies will have been used by circumventing the
core authorization controls empowered in YOU - either within the
Town, or, more nefariously.
Either there is no credibility in the PCIS, or the Scoping of Required
Work, or, sadly, Both.
Please have the bids provided to Council before awarding this
Contract. The bids are "ready to go" - they can be back in front of
you within a month - no risk of missing the "summer scheduling"
process. There are too many needs in this Town to rubber-stamp a
project of such magnitude - and with so many uncertainties in the
scope.
Thank you for your commitment to doing right with Town's monies
on behalf of its Residents.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
ATTACHMENT 7