Desk ItemPREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
S\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\4-19-16\AlmondGrove\Desk Item V1 4/19/2016 12:20 PM SH
MEETING DATE: 04/19/16
ITEM NO:
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: APRIL 19, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13-31 – ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
411-811-0003
A. AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE
DESIGN FOR THE REMAINING EIGHT STREETS IN THE ALMOND GROVE
PROJECT TO WILSEY HAM IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $809,778,
WHICH INCLUDES A 10% CONTINGENCY.
B. AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN SERVICES ON A TIME AND
MATERIAL BASIS TO SUPPORT FIELD DESIGN CHANGES FOR
BROADWAY AND BACHMAN TO WILSEY HAM IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $10,000.
REMARKS:
After the staff report was distributed on April 14, 2016, the attached public comment was received
(Attachment 5).
Attachments 1-4 (Previously received with staff report on April 14, 2016):
Attachments:
1. Agreement for Consultant Services – Design Professional Services
2. Agreement for Consultant Services – Construction Design Services
3. February 16, 2016 Council Agenda Report
4. Wilsey Ham revised proposal
Attachment (Received with this Desk Item):
5. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 19, 2016
ATTACHMENT 5
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhood@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:42 PM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Agenda Item 5 - Almond Grove; Design Firm Missing Info
Excerpt from the 041916 Staff Report:
Interesting that information in the Staff Report concerning the "additional firm"
(Mark Thomas) does not provide the cost estimate . Also, its interesting, that
"Attachment A" summarizing costs in the Town's requested format (and the
section detailing rates/hours by task, etc.) is not available with the proposal on the
project website (Although Attachment B - Firm Info IS included). I contacted the
Firm and .... they have been instructed by Ms. Petersen that I must receive it by
calling HER directly.
Well - I would have found it informative to see the hours/cost information - but ...
As an important note - I am fine with the Wilsey Ham (and Twining)
recommendation. However, I think Mark Thomas will not have been given a "fair
shake" in this process. Also, I found it interesting that PPW never included BKF
Engineering in this RFP process as they were the only Firm that had responded to
the initial RFP (for Phase 1A) back in Dec '13. At that time, their design fee was
only $40k higher than Nichols when they had no benefit of all the work already
done by Nichols in the 2011 Conceptual Design. Oh well, its history. Trying to clear
my mental vault of this stuff...
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
ATTACHMENT 5
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhood@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:23 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Agenda Item 5 - Almond Grove - Comments on Wilsey Contract
Please accept the attached in connection with the above-referenced Agenda Item.
Thank you.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 5
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhood@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:38 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Agenda Item 5 - Almond Grove - Addt'l $10,000 Engineering Contract
This is obviously a good thing to do given the potential savings - as I understand
it, more than Tom Boyce even surmised by an additional 20%! In this regard, I
have the following comments:
I find the discussion in the Staff Report and definition of Proposed Services
woefully lacking. I think, at a minimum, the particular value-engineering
matter should be referred to specifically. This is the option of using full-
depth concrete versus the current design (referred to in Tom Boyce's
presentation as "Option One"). Also, the geotechnical findings should
already be available for their review.
Twining has excellent credentials. With a matter of this magnitude, I believe
Twining should provide a Report directly to Council concerning its evaluation
of the viability of this option. This requirement should be added to the
"Scope of Services" in the proposed Contract.
Ms Sayoc - I heard you loud and clear that you wanted specific information
about this option from a non-engineering perspective. Too bad, Staff wasn't
listening; or, rather, felt you didn't need it to approve a $10,000 contract.
Although it does require a "pavement design engineer" to determine
viability, it is a rather straightforward concept/comparison/explanation. I
have something from my research efforts moons ago that is right on-point -
I will share it with you and other Council. I just don't have time right now to
scan it, etc.
In a very simplified version: Use a thicker layer of concrete (say 6.5"-7") to
provide the strength/durability and not have to use all (8"), or as much, of
the "aggregate base" (crushed rock) under a thinner layer of concrete (5")
(the current design). Have you ever looked at the concrete (old
street) under the asphalt on N. Santa Cruz? I have - I've even measured it.
In fact, I did it for the second time just a couple weeks ago when the street
was "opened" for some work near the intersection of Andrews (@ Safeway).
The old concrete ranged from 8-9.5" and was on the dirt. BTW, N. Santa
Cruz was the "thruway" between SJ and SC before Hwy 17 was built. It was
still in great shape when they did the asphalt overlay! We're talking the
same "dirt" here... and not heavy arterial/industrial traffic levels (weight nor
quantity). Just my opinion, of course.
ATTACHMENT 5
I have routinely been stumped by some of Staff's "facts" - and they did not
fail me on this topic:
o "The contractor (Vanguard) for the Broadway and Bachman phase of the project has
provided value engineering proposals that could reduce the schedule and cost of the
project. These changes significantly modify the concrete pavement design and are
made possible due to specialized equipment that Vanguard owns."
I guess this is not factually incorrect - but it is definitely, IMHO, misleading.
It is "correct" in that the type of machinery necessary to "pour" these streets
is different than that required to do someone's driveway. But, I believe, any
Concrete Firm that does significant Caltrans work has to have this kind of
"specialized machinery". Let me share some facts from the bids received on
this Project:
o 6 Firms submitted bids
o 3 of those Firms - Vanguard, Albanese and Granite - were going to
"pour the concrete streets" utilizing their own "specialized machinery"
o The other 3 Firms - Redgewick, Galeb amd Interstate - were all going
to use a subcontractor to "pour the concrete streets". All three were
going to use Vanguard!!
Also, this option was brought up - by Residents - prior to completion of the
design. The suggestions were ignored. NCE (under Staff direction) provided
the Town engineering services - just not value-added engineering.
I firmly believe Twining will find it to be acceptable - given the nature of these
streets (residential) and the qualifications/credibility of the Contractor actually
doing the work. I am anxious to validate these anticipated cost savings to relieve
the pressure of looking for more funds as well as having a more optimistic outlook
when considering the CIP Budget (which should be coming up pretty soon).
Thank you.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
ATTACHMENT 5
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhood@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:44 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Agenda Item 5 - Almond Grove - Conduit Conclusion!!
IT IS TIME TO CONCLUDE THIS "ISSUE". JUST SAY NO!!!!
IMHO, PPW's responses on this matter are not only irresponsible, they border on
the brink of negligence.
Withholding/omitting information provided to Council throughout
this lengthy process including numerous Staff Reports and Staff testimony
- utterly silent concerning plans/intentions to place conduit on Broadway and
Bachman;
Not disclosing the cost embedded in the Broadway/Bachman phase
($124,000 before contingency, construction support and admin;
$154,008 all-inclusive) in the Cost Estimate Schedules dated August 2015
and presented to you as an integral part of the Oct 20 '15 Staff Report;
apparently "burying" the costs in the component titled "planters" of
$166,455 - with tree removals/plantings shown separately!!;
Other blatant disregard for their fiduciary responsibilities relating
to proposed use of Town funds. Instead of exercising appropriate
judgment (or, frankly, common sense) and having the chutzpah to tell the
Broadway Residents that this conduit is worthless - that fiber optics is
installed using existing utility poles - and that it is likely to be obsolete by
the time these streets are completed - they have suggested adding MORE
conduit in the Other 8 streets (a literal patchwork of underground PVC)! And
you want us to pay more taxes to be spent under this Staff's
direction????
It is time to "SAY NO" to this added "feature" - NOT ONLY ON THE
"OTHER 8 STREETS" BUT ON BROADWAY/BACHMAN AS WELL! THERE IS
NO COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS "CHANGE ORDER" ON B/B - ONLY
$$$$$ SAVINGS OF THE TOWN'S PRECIOUS FUNDS!!!
B/B Other 8 Total
Bid $ $124,000 $575,017 $699,017
15% 18,600 86,252 104,852
ATTACHMENT 5
Subtotal 142,600 661,269 803,869
8% Adm/Mg 11,408 52,902 64,310
SAVINGS $ 154,008 $ 714,171 $ 868,179
Ms. Jensen - Using your math, that would pay for 24 intersections of
green bike lanes!
The only thing you will find in print from PPW regarding this conduit is in
the following excerpt from an email thread provided to Council in Public
Comment for the Feb 16 '16 Council meeting:
From: Maria Ristow < ristows@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 11:10 PM To: Matt
Morley, Lisa Petersen Subject: Fwd: Re: BROADWAY STREET RECONSTRUCTION
Subject:Re: BROADWAY STREET RECONSTRUCTION Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 08: 51: 36 -0800
From:MIke's Mail <mwasserman(a-)aol.com> To:Lynn Brandhorst <Idbrandhorst(&email.com>
CC:undisclosed
On Feb 13, 2016, at 11: 21 PM, Lynn Brandhorst <Idbrandhorstt7a,amail.com> wrote:
Dear Broadway Neighbors, ME: What is the feasibility and ultimate cost to homeowners of
relocating all overhead utilities (i.e., power, telephone, cable services) to underground
during this project, as well as feasibility ofan underground conduit for future optic data
and voice communications service. We are willing to contact PG& E directly if you would
prefer we do so.
TOWN: The cost for undergrounding is about $ 550 to $ 850 dollars per lineal foot. PG& E requires
undergrounding projects to scheduled; these schedules are several years out. The current
Broodway/ Bachman Project will include undergrounding empty conduit for future fiber
optic use. [ While I would love to have the overhead utilities underground, I think it is tilting at
windmills at this point. It means $ 27,500 to 42,500 for a fifty -foot lot front, and I doubt this
includes all on -property costs to go underground all the way to each service entrance (which may
need to be relocated as well). The Town is not going to pay for this, nor does PG& E other than
sometimes working out a payment plan. If we attempt to convince the Town to pay for part
of it, we will be branded as greedy after the money that is going to be spent on street
reconstruction, ......]
Enough is enough!! The time to ACT is NOW! JUST SAY NO!!!!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood@yahoo.com >
To: Town Council <council@losgatosca.gov>; Barbara Spector <bspector@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc
<msayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Marcia Jensen <mjensen@losgatosca.gov>; Steven Leonardis
<sleonardis@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Laurel Prevetti <lprevetti@losgatosca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:43 AM
Subject: Desk Item - Please Post in "Written Communications" on 040516 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 5
I saw a Town posting on Nextdoor about work being done at Shannon and Hicks -
where a crew is installing fiber optic cable ON THE POLES. This is further
confirmation regarding my assertion (3 mins on 031516) that the specification in
the recently approved bid for the AG streets to place a 2" conduit under the
street at the face of the gutter on the South side of the street is not only
unnecessary - it is, in my honest opinion, a blatant example of lack of judgment as
to value (zero) versus cost (big bucks).
I also believe it is indicative of complete disregard concerning the use of Town
funds - especially when so many other Town projects are "waiting in the wings".
From the onset of my "campaign", I have been troubled by the lack of
transparency and accountability in connection with this and other PPW
projects, and have focused my efforts on trying to promote a higher level of fiscal
responsibility. This has been extremely challenging - when so much of my effort
(hours galore) has had to have been spent challenging scope
definitions, researching/disclosing incomplete information (and/or,
unfortunately, disinformation), and identifying/quantifying possible cost savings.
Thankfully, under your stewardship, many of my efforts, and those of my
neighbor, Tom Boyce, (as well as several other residents' voices) have paid off -
for the benefit of this project as well as our Town's coffers!
However, let's review this "conduit issue" from a number of aspects. In my
opinion, it exemplifies some of the broader issues plaguing PPW projects.
Yes - In 2013/14, a few residents voiced the desire for a conduit for fiber
optics or other new technology for high speed internet connectivity. Such
requests were typically met with a resounding "No".
I have a copy of an email dated 051515 from Nichols to PPW addressing the
availability of high speed broadband services for the two subject streets
("B/B") including Sonic, Etheric, MegaPath, ATT and Comcast. Comcast
confirmed it already existed and was widely used; others who responded
referred to using phone lines if they ever ventured into LG. We spent a
blended rate of $165/hour for these letters, phone call follow-ups and other
documentation. A complete waste of effort and money. I have been using
high-speed internet from Comcast for several years -that info would have
been free. A simple Google search of "how is fiber optics being installed"
would have provided the info - "utilizing existing poles/utility
infrastructure"! That should have been the end of such "conduit"
discussion.
In ANY Staff Reports or ANY testimony by Staff - did you ever see or hear
the word "conduit" or any inference that such was included in the scope of
this Project?
In Attachment 2 to the 102015 Staff Report - which was the first disclosure
by Staff of estimated costs for B/B (combined) by major cost component -
was there ANY line item for "conduit"?
ATTACHMENT 5
Yet, in the 021616 Meeting, in response to a Councilmember's conduit
question, Staff replied "We had always planned on putting in the conduit.
Ultimately, we had to finalize the design to determine where the conduit
would be placed. It is in the street."
I admit I overlooked the conduit when the Bid Package was initially
published for contractors. How did that happen? Well, it (and the "pull
boxes" for each end) were Items 48 and 49 - of a total of 49 Items on the
Bid Sheet. Hmmm..... "planned all along", an afterthought, an intentional
"holdout"?
FYI - the Unit Cost for the conduit in the approved bid is $50/LF (for a total
of $120,000 for B/B) which is consistent with the other contractors' bids.
Excluding the lowest Unit Cost, all other bids were within the range of $44-
$55. Why so much? After removing the existing concrete and then an
additional 5"+/- of dirt necessary for total pavement depth, the Technical
Specs require the contractor to trench another 8" down (total of 18") to
place the conduit. By the way - this placement is to be 2.5 feet "into the
street" measured from the face of the curb!
And remember my discussion of requirements to avail oneself of such
conduit "benefit" - especially if you reside on the "North side" of the street -
Nonsensical, impracticable and essentially worthless.
If PPW has some rationale that I have missed or misunderstood that
warrants this feature please advise me. Otherwise, please Council: Say
"NO" to this added "feature"! Savings of:
B/B Other 8 Total
Bid $ $124,000 $575,017 $699,017
15% 18,600 86,252 104,852
Subtotal 142,600 661,269 803,869
8% Adm/Mg 11,408 52,902 64,310
SAVINGS $ 154,008 $ 714,171 $ 868,179
Ms. Jensen - Using your math, that would pay for 24 intersections of
green bike lanes!
Big Question - What process is there for Council to demand/approve this
type of Change Order? What about other change orders (plus or minus) of
this magnitude? How can these matters be communicated to the public?
Thank you for your consideration and response.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often