Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 2000/07/18
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 18, 2000 ~r 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CI'iY OF CHULA VISTA City Council City Manager Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr. John S. Moot City Attorney Stephen C. Padilla John M. Kaheny Mary Salas City Clerk Shirley A. Horton, Mayor Susan Bigelow The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47 AGENDA JULY 18, 2000 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIlE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF TIlE DAY · OATH OF OFFICE: RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION - CHARLES "STEVE" THOMAS · PRESENTATION BY DAVID MALCOLM, PORT COMMISSIONER, REGARDING THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 7) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that the item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed afier Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on July 11, 2000, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. 2. REPORT OUTLINING STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT'S REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE MOBILE SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM, AND PROPOSING A GRANT OF $215,000 TO REPLACE A DIESEL BUS WITH AN ELECTRIC BUS TO SERVE ROUTE 708 (THE CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER AND VISITORS CENTER) (Special Operations Manager) The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) makes funds from the Vehicle Registration Fee, Mobile Source Reduction Program available to local agencies to reduce local air pollution. The process requires agencies to submit "proposals" by June 30, 2000. Staff has submitted a preliminary proposal and will return to Cotmcil with a design and full report for review and consideration if the proposal is recommended for funding by the APCD. Grant applications are awarded based on the proposal's ability to demonstrate the project's cost benefit, the total emissions reduction, use of matching funds, and "strategy measure" (a strategy measure implements a part of the local and/or regional air quality plan). The goal of the City's proposal is to eliminate the emissions generated by a diesel bus that serves the Chula Vista Nature Center by replacing it with an electric bus. Staff recommendation: Council accept the report. 3 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH FOR FIRE DISPATCHiNG SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BONITA-SUNNYSIDE FiRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR FlRE DISPATCHING SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SA1D AGREEMENT Chula Vista currently has agreements with the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District to provide fire dispatch services. The proposed agreements, which are virtually identical, replace the existing dispatch contracts and allocate the costs of providing fire dispatch services to each of the participating agencies. The proposed agreements authorize the City Manager to adjust the related fees on an annual basis, have no operational impact, and minimize the potential for City liability associated with the provision of fire dispatch services. (Chief of Police/Fire Chic0 Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the Resolutions. 4. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 10.64.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT CHULA VISTA CITY VEHICLES FROM DRIVING ONLY ON TRUCK ROUTES This Ordinance amendment would allow staff driving City maintenance vehicles to travel on any City street while performing their assigned duties and when traveling from one site to another, without violating the Municipal Code by not traveling on a designated truck route. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council place the Ordinance on first reading. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, WAIVING INCONSEQUENTIAL DEVIATION, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (LD-103)" PROJECT TO JIMENEZ INC., DBA MJC CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,841.23 On June 14, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the Telegraph Canyon Road median improvements project. The work consists of landscaping and irrigation within the existing median island on Telegraph Canyon Road from 1-805 to Pasco del Rey. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation and traffic control necessary for the project. (Director of Public Works) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the Resolution. Page 2 - Council Agenda 07/18/2000 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROViNG AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND D-MAX ENGINEERING, INC. FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMiNATION SYSTEM (NPDES) DRY WEATHER DISCHARGE FIELD SCREENiNG AND ILLEGAL DISCHARGE DETECTION SERVICES One requirement of the City's NPDES Permit from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Order No. 90-42) is that all agencies annually conduct dry weather discharge field screening (effluent sampling, chemical analyses, and observation of physical conditions) at major outfalls during the dry weather season (May through October of each year) in order to detect illegal discharges to the storm water conveyance system and to identify, if possible, the sources of the illegal discharges. Due to the expertise and specialized equipment necessary to perform dry weather discharge field screening and illegal discharge detection services, staff considered it necessary to retain an outside consultant and requested proposals from qualified engineering and environmental consulting firms. Staff received eight proposals and has determined that the firm, D-Max Engineering, Inc. was the most qualified of the eight firms responding to the request for proposals. In addition, D-Max Engineering, Inc. submitted the lowest bid of the four top-ranked consultants. Therefore, staff recommends that D-Max Engineering, Inc. be retained to perform dry weather field screening and illegal discharge detection services. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the Resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND APPROViNG AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, TRIMARK PACIFIC-SAN MIGUEL LLC, AND MNA CONSULTiNG FOR ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY IN PREPARATION OF A REQUIRED MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT On April 3, 2000, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission conditionally approved annexation of the San Miguel Ranch project area to the City of Chula Vista, subject to completion of an MSCP annexation agreement. This agreement is required under the County's MSCP when land is to be annexed to another jurisdiction. MNA Consulting is under separate contract with the City for preparation of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, and is best capable of assisting the City with this annexation agreement. Adoption of this Resolution will approve the proposed contract with MNA Consulting for a cost not-to-exceed $37,000, which will be paid by Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC. (Director of Planning and Building) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the Resolution. Page 3 - Council Agenda 07/18/2000 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons speaking during Oral C.,o, mmunications may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 8. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE RELATING TO UPDATES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF) TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA On May 23, 2000, Ordinance 2810 had its first reading and was adopted by Council on its second reading of June 6, 2000, to take effect in 60 days. On June 20, 2000, Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2809-B, the second in a series of three 30-day urgency ordinances necessary for immediate implementation of the changes. The proposed .Urgency Ordinance amends the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Ordinance to ~ncrease development impact fees from $2,150 to $2,618 per equivalent dwelling unit, to pay for various public facilities Citywide, and to make a number of other amendments to the Ordinance detailed n Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities, 1999 Update" i presented to Council at the regular meeting of May 23, 2000. The total fee was last reviewed in 1992-1993. Adoption of the proposed Urgency Ordinance will enable the City to continue to collect the updated fees during the 60-day waiting period before Ordinance 2810 becomes effective. (Assistant City Manager Krempl) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following Ordinance: URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING ORDINANCE 2554 RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussion and deliberation by the Council, staff or members of the public. The items will be considered individually by the Council, and staff recommendations may, in certain cases, be presented in the alternative. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Page 4 - Council Agenda 07/18/2000 9. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSOLDATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 4.0 FUNDS AS PROPOSED BY THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2001 Adoption of the Resolution will approve consolidation of all transit funds (federal, state and local); fund ADA transit services; create a regional transit capital program; and fund local and regional services at a base level. This transit funding process will continue to fund the City's transit operations and administrative costs. The City would maintain control on decisions affecting future service expansion and/or enhancement and capital improvement projects through the Short Range Transit Plan and Capital Improvement Plan process. (Director of Public Works) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY IN THE CONSOLIDATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.0 FUNDS AS PROPOSED BY THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2001 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CORPORATION YARD PROJECT On April 17, 2000, the Department of Public Works issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Manager/Constructor services requesting statements of qualifications fi.om Construction Managers/Constructors that are qualified to provide the City with proper guidance and assistance in value engineering, construction management and construction services coordination for building capital improvement projects. On May 19, 2000 the City received a total of 18 submittals in response to the REQ. A selection committee, appointed by the City Manager, has evaluated and ranked the submittals and conducted interviews with the top six consulting teams. As a result of the interview process, on June 20, 2000, Council adopted a Resolution establishing a construction management services priority list comprised of all six consulting teams to be used for awarding design/construction contracts on future building facilities. Highland Partnership, Inc. was selected unanimously as the highest overall rated respondent for the Corporation Yard project. Adoption of the Resolution will approve an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. for the provision of construction management services required for the construction of the Corporation Yard project. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, 1NC. FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CORPORATION YARD PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Page 5 - Council Agenda 07/18/2000 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. 12. MAYOR'S REPORTS A. Ratification of appointment to the Charter Review Conunission - Mark Croshier, Sr. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of July 25, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 6 - Council Agenda 07/18/2000 CHUIA VI~'I'A July 13, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager~ SUBJECT: Council Meeting of July 18, 2000 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, July 18, 2000. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: lA. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on July 11, 2000, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. iT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED. June 13, 2000 MEMO TO: City Clerk ~ , Lgff FROM: Patty Wes£ SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY- JULY 18, 2000 Commissioner David Malcolm contacted our offices this date and requested to present an Update on Port Matters at the regular City Council meeting of July 18th. To that end, would you please schedule him accordingly. Thank you. cc: Mayor Horton CI'IY OF CHUIA VISI-A OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY Date: July 12, 2000 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Kaheny, City Attorney--~/~ From: John M. Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 7/11/00 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session on 7/11/00 to discuss: · CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a): Agency vs. Shinohara (Case No. GIS002460) The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. JMK: lgk 276 FOURTH AVENUE o CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691~5037 · FAX (619) 409-5823 I ]'~,. Council Agenda Statement ~iYO~ Item '-~ CHUIA VISIA Meeting Date July 18, 2000 ITEM TITLE: Report - Outlining Staff's Response to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's Request for Proposals for the Mobile Source Reduction Program, and Proposing a Grant of $215,000 to Replace a Diesel-bus with an Electric Bus to Serve Route 708 (the Chula Vista Nature Center and Visitors Center). SUBMITTED BY: Michael T. Meacham, Special Operations Manager Willie Gaters, Environmental Resource Manager REVIEWED BY: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager (4/Sths Vote Yes No X ) BACKGROUND: The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) makes funds from the Vehicle Registration Fee, Mobile Source Reduction Program available to local agencies to reduce local air pollution. The process requires agencies to submit "proposals" by June 30, 2000. Staff has submitted a preliminary proposal and will return to Council with a design and full report for Council's review and consideration if the proposal is recommended for funding by the APCD. Grant applications am awarded based on the proposal's ability to demonstrate; the project's cost benefit, total emissions reduction, use of matching funds, and "strategy measure," (a strategy measure implements a part of the local and/or regional air quality plan). The goal of the City of Chula Vista's proposal (Attachment A) is to eliminate the emissions generated by a diesel bus that serves the Chula Vista Nature Center by replacing it with an electric bus. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recon~mends that Council accept staff's report as information and contact the City Environmental Resource Manager if they have any questions or comments regarding the regarding Staff's response to the Request for Proposals. BOARD AND COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: Staff will submit the final proposal and program design to the Resource Conservation Commission prior to submitting the recommendation from the APCD to Council for approval. DISCUSSION: Requests for Vehicle Registration Fee funds are submitted to the APCD in the form of proposals. The City's proposal outlines a request for $215,000 to fund the purchase of an electric bus and charging station to serve route 708. Route 708 currently transports visitors between the Bay Boulevard and E Street Trolley Center, Nature Center Park & Ride parking lot, the and the Nature Center. The bus that currently services this route is one of the City's older diesel buses and would routinely be replaced in approximately one year with a new compressed natural gas bus or a newer diesel bus that could be rotated out of one of the City's other routes. If awarded, the funds would be used to replace the eleven-year-old diesel bus with an electric bus at approximately the same time the City's replacement schedule would allocate the funds for a replacement. APCD Electric Bus Proposal July 18, 2000 Page 2 The use of an electric bus to transport visitors through the refuge to the Nature Center represents a unique opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative fuel vehicles, reduce the diesel emissions and noise impacts to the refuge and use the important educational message provided by the Nature Center to promote the benefits of alternative fuel vehicles and their application to mass transit. The City's proposal creates the opportunity to promote these benefits to more than 44,000 annual Nature Center visitors. The City's proposal compliments the Nature Center's mission to lead by example in conserving natural resources and fostering environmental stewardship. Also, it is consistent with the City's efforts to develop and adopt a CO2 Reduction Plan and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) interest in reducing mobile source air emissions. The City's matching funds would include staff time to manage the grant and the cost of operating and maintaining the electric bus. The performance and operational costs for the proposed electric bus are well documented. The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District has operated a small fleet of the same type of electric bus for approximately ten years. Staff is reviewing the documentation and believes that the costs for operating the electric bus will be comparable to the City's costs for replacing and operating the scheduled replacement. A complete report regarding projected costs and savings from the grant will be made to Council if the proposal is recommend for funding. If the Council has any questions regarding the proposal they should contact the Environmental Resource Manager at extension 407-5918. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the general fund as a result of responding to the APCD Request for Proposals. Should the Proposal be recommended for funding by the APCD staff will provide Council with a detailed budget outlining the costs, benefits and funding sources for any expenses to the City for their review and discretionary approval. Mtm: green-vehicles-elec-bus-app-cas (Attachment A) PROPOSAL TO REPLACE A DIESEL BUS WITH AN ELECTRIC BUS A REQUEST FOR FUNDING UNDER THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION (AB2766) MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM SUBMITTED TO: SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT BY: THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA July 13, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Letter Chula Vista Nature Center Background Objective Project Description Project Cost Emission Reduction Technology Previous Experience Scope of Work and Deliverables Project Implementation Schedule Attachment 1: CO2 Reduction Plan Executive Summary July 13, 2000 Linda Fox, Chief, Vehicle Registration Fee Program San Diego Air Pollution Control District 9150 Chesapeake Dr. San Diego, CA 92123-1096 Subject: Request for a $215,000 Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program Grant to replace a diesel-bus with an electric-bus. I am pleased to submit this grant proposal to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The goal of our proposed project is to eliminate a soume of harmful diesel exhaust emission in the San Diego air basin by replacing a diesel-bus with an electric-bus. We hope to achieve this goal with a $215,000 grant from the Vehicle Registration Fee, Mobile Source Reduction Program. The City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista) will place the electric-bus in service at the Chula Vista Nature Center. This is an ideal venue to promote and demonstrate the air quality benefits of Alternative Fuel Vehicles to the Nature Center's 44,000 average annual visitors. At the same time, we hope to provide a pleasant-pollution free setting for visitors to enjoy the sensitive habitat and endangered species at the Nature Center. Additionally, this project will provide an opportunity for Chula Vista to gain valuable experience in operating and maintaining an electric-bus. This project compliments the APCD's mission, Chula Vista's CO2 Reduction Plan and the Nature Center's mission to lead by example in conserving natural resources and fostering environmental stewardship. I hope you give this proposal serious consideration for funding. If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to call Michael Meacham of my office at (619) 691-5122 or Willie Gaters at (619) 409-5918. Sincerely, Dave Rowlands, Jr City Manager cc: Dan Beintema, Director of Chula Vista Nature Center Andy Trujillo, Transit Coordinator Michael Meacham, Special Operations Manager Willie Gaters, Environmental Resource Manager CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER BACKGROUND The Nature Center uniquely located on history-rich Gunpowder Point and the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, is a living museum that serve the public with educational facilities and programs, provides opportunities for elementary and advanced scientific research and aids in the enhancement and restoration of the Sweetwater Marsh. Of special note is that these local salt marsh plant and animal communities contain eight rare and endangered species! The Nature Center is fully-accredited by the American Association of Museums - a distinction held by fewer than 10% of the museums in the United States and the only Nature Center accredited in California. The Nature Center exhibits interpret the history, geology, ecology and natural history of the Sweetwater Marsh, and describe the biodiversity of surrounding wetlands and San Diego Bay, from inter tidal mudflats to upland areas. The Nature Center's efforts to educate the public on the importance of watershed ecology, habitat preservation and general environmental awareness is absolutely critical to the Nature Center's mission success, the ultimate survival of precious resoumes and maintaining the rather delicate ecosystem balance. As a result of the Nature Center location, in the middle of highly sensitive habitats on the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, the parking lot for its visitors is located approximately one mile to the East. The Nature Center's annual 44,000 visitors ride a diesel powered bus (diesel-bus) from the parking lot and the Bayfront/E Street trolley station to the Nature Center and for the retum trip (Route 708). The diesel-bus makes continuous runs seven hours a day, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., seven days per week. The bus is also used to transport guests to functions at the Center that occur outside of normal bus operating hours (before 10:00 a.m. and for evening events). The bus service is provided by Chula Vista, Public Works Operations, Transit Division. Placing an electric-bus in operation is a good opportunity to educate the public about the relationship between air quality and the environment. The electric-bus will also provide a pleasant-pollution free setting for visitors to enjoy the sensitive habitat and endangered species at the Nature Center. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Objectives of the Project. The goal of this project is to eliminate ~ harmful source of diesel exhaust emission in the San Diego air basin. The objectives of the project are to achieve the goal are to: · Replace the existing diesel-bus that operates at the Nature Center with an electric powered bus (elechSc-bus). · Promote and demonstrate the air quality benefits o£Altemative Fuel Vehicles to thousands of Nature Center visitors. · Determine the feasibility of replacing additional diesel-buses with electric-buses by evaluating operation and maintenance data. · Maintain a tranquil setting for the natural fauna and provide all Nature Center visitors with a pleasant-pollution free setting to enjoy the travel to and from the Nature Center. Reducing Mobile Source Emissions in the San Diego Region. A viable approach to reducing mobile source emissions is by replacing a diesel-bus with proven alternate fuel vehicle (AFV) technology such as the electric-bus which are 90% + less polluting. An electric-bus will cost effectively and significantly reduce mobile source emissions in San Diego air basin over the li£e of the project by eliminating a source of diesel exhanst emissions. Diesel-bus emissions are made up of particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and harmful Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). An example o£where electric-bus operation has reduced emissions is in Santa Barbara. The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transportation District (SBMTD) has managed a fleet of electric-buses since 1991. Between January 1991 and December 1994, over 10 tons of emissions were prevented due to electric bus operations as compared to continued diesel-bus operation. Funding this project will accomplish all the above objectives, most importantly the goal to eliminate a source of harmful diesel exhaust in the San Diego air basin. Battery Electric Transit Operation at the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District; Paul Griffith, May 1995 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Accomplishing the Goals and Objectives. As stated earlier, the goal of the project is to eliminate a source of diesel emissions in the San Diego air basin. Four objectives have been identified to achieve this goal. The first objective is to replace the existing diesel-bus that operates at the Nature Center with an electric-bus. To achieve this objective, Chula Vista will purchase an electric-bus and place it into operation to replace an existing diesel-bus that services Route 708. Route 708 services the Nature Center, Bayfront Trolley Station and the Nature Center Park & Ride parking lot. The second objective is to promote and demonstrate the air quality benefits of Alternative Fuel Vehicles to thousands of Nature Center visitors. To achieve this objective, the electric-bus will have a sign acknowledging the APCD as the funding source for the electric-bus. Nature Center docents will provide information about APCD's role in improving air quality and information on the amount of pollution prevented due to the electric-bus operation in the docent presentations. Nature Center instructors will also include a lesson on the air quality benefits of the electric-bus in curriculum provided to elementary age visitors. The third objective is to determine the feasibility of replacing additional diesel-buses with electric- buses by evaluating operation and maintenance data. To achieve this objective operation and maintenance data will be collected and compiled. A feasibility study will be conducted after three years of operation to determine if replacing additional diesel-buses with electric-buses is a viable option for Chula Vista. Lastly, the operation and maintenance data will also be evaluated to document the amount of emissions prevented due to the electric-bus operation. The fourth objective is to maintain a tranquil setting for the natural fauna and provide all Nature Center visitors with a pleasant-pollution free setting to enjoy the travel to and from the Nature Center. To achieve this objective the electric-bus will be placed into operation to eliminate noise and harmful diesel exhaust emissions at the Nature Center, allowing visitors to fully appreciate the wetlands environment. Project Management and Operation. Michael Meacham, Special Operations Manager at Chula Vista will provide overall project management guidance. Willie Gaters, Environmental Resource Manager at Chula will manage the project. Dan Beintema, Director at the Nature Center will coordinate the promotion of the electric-bus. Andy Trujillo, Transit Coordinator for Chula Vista will direct operation of the electric-bus. SBMTD and Ebus, the electric-bus vendor, will provide driver and maintenance training. Expected Project Life. The expected life of the electric-bus is between seven and ten years. This proposal is presented with an expectation that the electric bus will operate for a period of up to ten years. Operation and maintenance training will be provided to Chula Vista, Transit Division personnel to ensure optimized operation and maintenance of the electric-bus for a period of up to ten years. .... ~' · rT The Project Implements a Regional Air Quality Strategy Measure or is Part of an ~ldopted Regional, Community, or Local Government Plan. Placing an electric-bus in service will support Chula Vista implement a CO2 Emission Reduction Plan adopted in 1998. The plan has a CO2 reduction goal of returning to pre-1990 levels by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, the plan proposes a reduction strategy composed of eight elements and 20 action measures. The action measures are intended to promote clean fuel vehicles; alternatives to driving; transportation-efficient land-use planning; and energy efficient building construction. An executive summary of the plan is provided as attachment 1. PROJECT COST Funding Source for Capital Cost with Percentage of Cost. The San Diego San Diego Air Pollution Control District will fund the cost of the electric-bus equipped with fast-charge Nicad battery at $225,000 for purchase, delivery and installation of a charging unit with public access for private electric vehicles. The requested fimding amounts to 23.8% of the total project cost. Funding Source and Matching Funds for Operation and Maintenance Cost with Percentage of Cost. Chula Vista will provide $688,800 of matching funds to implement the project. This includes personnel training at $1,200, operation and maintenance of the bus for 10 years at $671,600 and a feasibility study a~ter three years of operation at $16,000. The feasibility study will determine if it is viable for Chula Vista to replace additional diesel-buses with electric-buses. This matching funds amounts to 76.2% o£the total project cost. A breakdown and summary of the project costs is provided below. Expenditure Expenditure Funding % Notes Amount Source Funding Ebus Trolley $215,000 San Diego Air 23.8% SBMTD specifications Purchase with Pollution Control will be used. Electric- Signage District (AB bus will be equipped 2766) with fast-charge Nicad battery. ADA compliant Driver and $1,200 Chula Vista 0.14% 2 persons ~ Mechanic Matching Funds $600/person travel Training included. Operating Cost $671,600 Chula Vista 74.3% Operation and Maintenance cost ~ Matching Funds $3.68/mile with estimated annual 18,250 VMT = $67,160/year. 2 Feasibility $16,000 Chula Vista 1.77% To be conducted after Study Matching Funds the third years of operation. CostTotal Project $903,800 100% Project management and promotional costs for the electric-bus are not included in the total project cost because they will be absorbed as part of the city operations. As funding sources become available, they will be pursued to defray project management and promotion costs incurred by Chula Vista. EMISSION REDUCTION How the Project will Produce Emission Reductions. The project will produce significant emission reductions by replacing a diesel-bus, which produces harmful diesel exhaust emissions, with a zero emission electric-bus during the life o£the project. The emission reduction is expected to last for the service life of an electric-bus is between seven and ten 2 This is budgeted cost incurred by the City of Chula Vista for providing diesel-bus service to the Nature Center. Operating cost reflect current budgeted FY 1999 costs to the City of Chula. The cost provided is £or 10 years of service and does not account £or cost of living adjustments. years. The service life will vary based on operation and maintenance practices. Chula Vista expects to operate the electric-bus for the maximum period often years. As stated in the background, the Nature Center's annual 44,000 visitors ride a diesel'-bus to and from the Nature Center every twenty minutes. Due to this operating scenario the diesel-bus maintains an idle during boarding, de-boarding and in- between trips. Current information shows that the average ridership of the bus is 115 visitors/day. The average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the diesel-bus is 50 VMT/day and the average fuel consumption is 5 miles/gallons. This equates to an average of 18,250 VMT/year and diesel fuel consumption of 3,650 gallons/year. Based on Nature Center operations and Route 708 schedule, it is expected that the average VMT/day will be consistent with the electric-bus operation. The following table shows general vehicle specifications for the diesel-bus that currently serve the Nature Center. Specifications for a replacement electric-bus, mid-size natural gas powered bus and mid-size diesel-bus is provided for comparative purposes. General Diesel-Bus Replacement Replacement Replacement Specifications Electric-Bus Diesel-Bus Natural Gas Bus Make Chance Trolley EBus ElDorado ElDorado Transmark RE Transmark RE Diesel CNG 29' w/catalyst Model VS24 22' Electric Mid-size Mid-size Trolley Replica Year 1989 2001 2001 2001 Engine 3208-175 CAT NA NA NA Fuel Diesel Electric Diesel Natural Gas Seats l 8 seats 22 seats 29-32 29-32 Length 26 feet 22 feet 29 feet 29 feet GVWR 24,000 pounds 19,500 pounds 24,000 pounds 24,000 pounds Wheelchair lift Mobile Tech Similar Similar Similar A/C None None None None Activity Indicators. Activity indicators for this project are vehicle miles traveled (VMT), energy consumption/mile and daily ridership. The activity indicators will be used to determine the amount of emissions prevented due to the operation of the electric-bus. Operation and maintenance data will also be collected and evaluated to determine the feasibility of operating additional electric-buses in Chula Vista. TECHNOLOGY The Electric-bus is Technology Proven to Reduce Emissions. SBMTD have operated electric-buses since 1991. New Nicad battery technology currently in production has reduced charge time and increased the travel range of electric-buses. SBMTD has on order additional electric-buses that will be added to their fleet. The City of Anaheim has also ordered 10 electric-buses for their transit fleet. Chula Vista will work with the SBMTD to develop specifications appropriate for use at the Nature Center. Chula Vista will also work with SBMTD to ensure Transit Division personnel are trained to optimize the operation of the electric-bus. As previously mentioned, SBMTD achieved significant diesel exhaust emissions reductions due to use of electric-buses in their transit fleet. -.t/ PREVIOUS PROJECT MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE Experienced Project Management Team. Chula Vista proposes to manage the project with an experienced team of city employees and support from the SBMTD. The project manager will be Willie Gaters, Environmental Resource Manager. Mr. Gaters has over 10 years of experience managing privately and publicly funded environmental projects. Michael Meacham, Special Operations Manager, will support Mr. Gaters. Mr. Meacham has over 15 years of experience managing environmental projects funded by local, state and federal agencies. The electric bus will be operated under the direction of Andy Trnjillo, Transit Coordinator for Chula Vista. Training and the feasibility study to replace additional diesel-buses with electric - buses will be coordinated with the SBMTD. Chula Vista has successfully managed San Diego Air Pollution Control District fimded projects with AB 2766 Vehicle Registration Funds. The projects include: a pilot project to demonstrate the benefits of reducing VMT by establishing pilot Telecenters, a project to reduce VMT by establishing a Van pool for Chula Vista employees, and a project to eliminate gasoline exhaust emissions by replacing gas powered parking enforcement vehicles with electric vehicles. Chula Vista also managed a vehicle retrofit project funded by Calstart. The goal of thc project was to fund retrofit of gas-powered cars to electric or natural gas. The project retrofitted 5 electric vehicles and 2 CNG vehicles to replace gas powered vehicles. This resulted in CO2 reduction of 27 tons/yr. Chnla Vista is also currently managing several projects beneficial to the environment. These projects include: a California Energy Commission (CEC) funded project to demonstrate bus hydrogen fuel cell technology, a CEC funded project to demonstrate small vehicle zinc fuel cell technology and California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) funded projects to increase recycling of solid waste, increase used oil recycling and reduce the impact of hnusehold hazardous waste on landfills. The project management team assembled by Chula Vista has the expertise and experience to ensure that the objectives of the project are successfully achieved. SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES Scope of Work. Pending funding of this project under the Vehicle Registration Fee program, Chula Vista will purchase, operate and maintain an electric-bus for up to its useful life o£ 10 years. Operation and maintenance data will be collected to support a feasibility study to determine viability of additional diesel-bus replacement with electric-buses. The operation and maintenance data will also be evaluated to determine the annual emissions prevented by electric-bus operations. The emissions reduction information will be reported to the APCD annually until the end o£the project The Work Task that will be Perform to Produce the Associated Deliverables. The following task with descriptions will be carried out to perform the scope of work and to produce the associated deliverables: Task #1: Obtain approval to Accept AB 2766 Grant and Purchase Electric-Bus under Santa Barbara specification and RFP. · Task Description: A resolution will be prepared recommending to the to City Council approval to accept the AB 2766 grant and purchase ofa electhc-bus under the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit Board specification and request for proposal (RFP). · Deliverable: The deliverable will be staff authorization to implement the resolution. Task #2: Place a purchase order with Ebus to purchase an electric-bus with signage to acknowledge the APCD as the funding source. · Task Description: A purchase order will be developed and placed with Ebus to purchase an electric-bus. · Deliverable: A purchase order with Ebus to purchase an electric-bus. Task #3: Develop promotional material and elementary aged curriculum to promote the air quality benefits of the electric-bus. · Task Description: Promotional material will be developed for docent presentation for Nature Center visitors. Elementary aged curriculum to promote the air quality benefits of the electric- bus and will also be developed for presentation to all elementary age visitors. Deliverable: Docent presentations for visitors and elementary aged curriculum presented to elementary aged student who visit the Nature Center. Task #4: Train driver and mechanic staff at Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit Board. · Task Description: Transit Division personnel will receive training from Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit Board and the manufacturer to drive and maintain the electric-bus. · Deliverable: Transit Division staff trained to drive and maintain the electric-bus. Task #5: Install charging unit to support electric-bus operations at the Nature Center with access private electric vehicles. · Task Description: A charging unit will be installed by Ebus to charge the electric-bus and also to charge private electric vehicles. · Deliverable: An installed charging unit to support electric-bus operations at the Nature Center. & - 1,5 Task #6: Delivery of Electric-Bus to Chula Vista. · Task Description: An electric-bus that complies with the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit Board specifications will be delivered to Chula Vista by an agreed delivery date. · Deliverable: An electric-bus delivered to Chula Vista. Task #7: Operation of the electric-bus. · Task Description: Chula Vista will operate and maintain the electric-bus at the Nature Center. · Deliverable: Electric-bus operation at the Nature Center for its useful life of 10 years. Task #8: Collect electric-bus operation and maintenance data. · Task Description: Chula Vista will collect operation and maintenance data for the electric- bus. · Deliverable: Electric-bus operation and maintenance data. Task #9: Evaluate Electric Bus Operation and Maintenance Data on to Determine Feasibility of Replacing Additional Diesel Buses. · Task Description: Chula Vista will contract out evaluation of electric-bus operation and maintenance data to Santa Barbara to determine the feasibility of replacing additional diesel- buses with electric-buses. · Deliverable: A feasibility study that will provide a recommendation on the viability of additional electric-bus purchases. Task #10: Document and report annual emission reductions to APCD. · Task Description: Chula Vista will report annual emission reductions to APCD for the duration of the project. · Deliverable: Annual emission reduction report to APCD. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Project Implementation Schedule. The project implementation schedule is outlined below: Task Task Deliverables Responsible Start End No. Party Date Date 1 Obtain approval to Accept AB Staff authorization to Chula Vista, City Mar Apr 2766 Grant and Purchase implement the Council 2001 2001 Electric-Bus under Santa Resolution (60 days Barbara Metropolitan Transit ~ after Board specification and RFP. award) 2 Place Purchase Order with Purchase Order with Chula Vista, Apr Apr Ebus for an electric-bus with Ebus to purchase an Special 2001 2001 signage acknowledging Electric-Bus. Operations APCD. 3 Develop promotional material Docent presentations Chula Vista Apr Oct and elementary aged for visitors and Nature Center 2001 2001 curriculum to promote the air elementary aged quality benefits of the electric- curriculum. bus. 4 Train Driver and Mechanic Transit Division Staff Chula Vista with Sept Sept Staff at Santa Barbara Trained to drive and training provided 2001 200I Metropolitan Transit Board maintain the electric- by Santa Barbara bus. Metropolitan Transit Board 5 Install charging unit to support An Installed EBus Sept Sept electric-bus operations at the Charging Unit at the 2001 2001 Nature Center with access for Nature Center private electric vehicles 6 Delivery of Electric-Bus to An Electric-bus EBus Oct 2001 Oct Chula Vista. Delivered to Chula 2001 Vista 7 Operation of Electric-Bus [ Electric-bus Chula Vista, Oct 2001 Oct Operation at the Public Works 2011 Nature Center Department, Transit Division 8 Collect Electric-Bus Operation Operation and Chula Vista, Oct 2001 Oct and Maintenance Data. Maintenance Data Public Works 2011 Department, Transit Division 9 Evaluate Electric Bus A feasibility study Santa Barbara Oct 2001 Oct Operation and Maintenance that will provide a Metropolitan 2004 Data on to Determine recommendation on Transit Board Feasibility of Replacing the viability of with support Additional Diesel Buses. additional electric- from Chula bus purchases. Vista, Transit Division i 0 Document and Report Annual Annual APCD Chula Vista, Oct 2001 Oct Emission Reductions to Emission Reduction Special 2011 APCD. Report to Operations Attachment 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Problem. The world's population is burning carbon-based fossil fuels faster then the earth's natural systems can absorb the resulting uncombusted CO2 gas. Increased CO2 emissions are being trapped in the atmospheric "greenhouse" that keeps the planet warm, raising concern about elevated temperatures and global warming. Although the scientific evidence of global warming is still inconclusive, there is broad international agreement that reducing CO2 emissions is a sensible precaution until more is known about the greenhouse effect. What is Chula Vista's Contribution? Each person's share of Chula Vista's CO2 emissions is about eight tons per capita every year. About half of this comes from automobile driving and gasoline; another quarter comes from energy use in homes, much of that in electricity; and the remainder comes from energy use in stores, offices, industries, and municipal government. This adds up to a total of about one million tons of emissions annually, or about eight tons per person as shown in the table below. Examples Of Chula Vista CO2 Emissions (1990) CO2 Tons/Yr Single-family home 5 10,000 sq.fi, store 41 20,000 sq.fl, office 109 Auto with 1.1 passengers 5 per passenger Bus with 30 passengers 3 per passenger Total per capita 8 What Can One City Do? One city alone cannot resolve the issue of climate change. However, cities are now recognized internationally for their role in contributing to, and conversely, their potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by addressing how cities are built, what materials are used in building our cities, where cities place roads, and how local decisions effect the way citizens live, where they work, how they play and the interaction between these elements. Half of the world's population will live in urban areas by the year 2000. Further, such areas are major centers of carbon dioxide emissions. Local energy use varies significantly - stemming from differences in urban form, land use, transportation, and utilization of energy, all of which are matters that cities exercise decisions over. Chula Vista's International Link. In 1992, Chula Vista was asked to participate with a select group of cities throughout the world in a model program aimed at developing municipal action plans for the reduction of greenhouse gases. This project recognizes that municipalities are the level of government closest to the people, and that the success of global action depends on the support of people at the community level everywhere. Municipal participation fulfills one part of the International Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by over 159 countries, including the United States. The International Framework on Climate Change is an international agreement to achieve carbon dioxide reduction through global cooperation and collective decision making. Municipalities have been incorporated into this process because of the recognition that all local planning and development have direct consequence to energy consumption, and these decisions, at their source, are made at a local level. Cities are important partners in climate protection because they exemise key powers over urban infrastructure, including neighborhood design; transportation infrastructure such as roads, streets, pedestrian areas, bicycle lanes and public transport; waste management; parks, local building and facilities. These items all relate directly to the contribution of greenhouse emissions and correlated energy use. This project was sponsored by the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the United Nations Environment Programme. ICLEI is an international association of local authorities with over 180 members worldwide. ICLEI's purpose is to improve the capacity of local authorities to prevent environmental problems, to respond effectively to problems when they arise, and to enhance their natural and built environments at the local level. Other local agencies in the program include: Dade County, Florida; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota; Toronto, Canada; Denver, Colorado; Bologna, Italy, Copenhagen, Denmark; Ankara, Turkey; Saarbrukken, Germany; Hannover, Germany; Helsinki, Finland. Each city in the program was asked to develop a local action plan, to be reviewed and approved by the respective legislative body of that municipality. Each participant was to create local policy measures which have multiple benefits to the city involved and at the same time identify a carbon reduction goal through the implementation of those measures. The carbon dioxide reduction goal was to fit within the realm of international climate treaty reduction targets. Each policy measure has multiple benefits to the city, none stand alone. In other words, even without the benefits of carbon dioxide reduction, these policy aim toward a more pedestrian friendly and integrated city. The local action plans are being used as models for cities across the country. Chula Vista, once again, is at the forefront of future planning. Although greenhouse gases are not regulated as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act at this time, federal governments are required to meet CO2 reduction targets; thus it may be in the future. The local action plans provide a bottom-up approach to a complex and vexing problem. As the international climate and science community come closer to a consensus on climate change, as is evolving slowly through the United Nations International Climate Panel, federal governments will turn their attention toward cities. How Much Worse Could it Get? If no municipal action is taken, CO2 emissions are projected to increase as much as 25% by 2010. This increase is being driven by an expected 23% growth in population, and more notably for CO2, by a projected 44% increase in vehicles miles traveled (VMT). Figure 1.6 in (Sec. 1, pg. 25) illustrates a range of emission forecasts which, in the worst case, project 2010 emissions as high as 1.5 million tons/yr. At this rate, each person's share of emissions could reach 10 tons every year. What Can be Done? Chula Vista can lower its CO2 emissions by diversifying its transportation system and using energy more efficiently in all sectors. These strategies not only save energy and CO2, but they also increase personal and business savings, and create jobs. To focus City efforts in this direction, it is proposed that Chula Vista adopt the international CO2 reduction goal of returning to pre- 1990 levels by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, the plan proposes a reduction strategy composed of the following eights elements: To spur action, increase the public's awareness of the problem. Focus in particular on the next generation of Chula Vistans through continuous implementation of the Global Warming Teachers kit and guide, developed by the City, and coordinate with the Chula Vista Elementary School District to make CO2 reduction an everyday practice by 2010. · Reduce the long-term need for travel in the community through efficient land- use/transportation coordination and telecommunications technology. Focus in particular on shaping areas east of Interstate 805 tO be as CO2 friendly as possible. · Of the travel that does occur, provide for multi-modal choices. · Of the automobile driving that remains, work to make it as clean as possible. · Capture cost-effective building efficiency improvements in both new construction and remodeling through a mix of implementation approaches. · Lead the effort with municipal energy programs that can be showcased. Focus on encouraging personal and organizational (business, government, school districts, residential) actions. · Interlock the City's efforts with other regional programs in order to strengthen region-wide progress on climate protection (Air Pollution Control District, SANDAG programs). Examples include: the Telecenter effort, BECA, etc. · Focus initially on a few short-range actions to build visibility and results, and then periodically update and fine tune the strategy over time. This strategy is to be implemented primarily through voluntary efforts with encouragement from a strong public information and advocacy effort. Specifically, 20 action measures are recommended for initial implementation as summarized below. Action Measures 2010 C02 Savings (tons/yr) 1. Municipal clean fuel vehicle purchases. 251 2. Private fleet clean fuel vehicle purchases. 3,471 3. Municipal clean fuel demonstration projects. 2,722 4. Telecommuting and telecenters. 367 5. Municipal building upgrades and employee trip reduction. 799 6. Enhanced pedestrian connections to transit. 6,328 7. Increased housing density near transit. 8,744 8. Site design with transit orientation. 4,372 9. Increased land-use mix. 8,744 10. Reduced commercial parking requirements. 6,328 11. Site design with pedestrian/bicycle orientation. 4,372 12. Bicycle integration with transit and employment. 2,417 13. Bicycle lanes, paths, and routes. 1,447 14. Energy efficient landscaping. 1,279 15. Solar pool heating. 2,462 16. Traffic signal and system upgrades. 1,640 17. Student transit subsidy. 3,878 18. Greenstar building efficiency program. 15,591 19. Municipal life-cycle purchasing standards. 10,151 20. Increased employment density near transit. 13,355 Total Projected COz Reductions 98,379 These action measures are intended to promote clean fuel vehicles; alternatives to driving; transportation-efficient land-use planning; and energy efficient building construction. Several of the action measures are to be implemeoted by municipal government to demonstrate leadership in CO2 reduction, and thereby encourage personal and organizational action throughout the community. When fully implemented in 2021, the action measures will save approximately 100,000 tons/yr of CO2 emissions, which is roughly one quarter of the savings needed to achieve the international reduction goal. The international goal is to reduce CO2 emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. Implementing the 20 action measures will require roughly $25 million in capital costs and about $5 million/yr in operation and maintenance costs over the next 14 years (all costs are expressed in 1995 dollars). The capital and O&M costs represent a total outlay of roughly $95 million, which will be shared by municipal government, businesses, homeowners, and other regional agencies. This outlay, however, is estimated to produce approximately $130 million in savings to the community. These savings include $16 million in reduced energy expenses; $5 million in avoided CO2 damage; and $109 million in reduced auto/truck driving expenses. An additional 70 CO2 reduction measures have been identified by the Task Force as suitable for further implementation as the community strives to achieve the international CO2 reduction goal. An important component of the overall effort will be periodic evaluation of the conm~unity's progress and fine tuning of implementation measures. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~-~ Meeting Date 7/18/00 ITEM TITLE: A. Resolution approving an agreement with the City of Imperial Beach for fire dispatching services. B. Resolution approving an agreement with the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District for fire dispatching services. SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chiefl~r~--re~ Chief of Poli~q.~,~'~-''/ REVEEWED BY: City Manag~a'" (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) Chula Vista currently has agreements with the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District to provide fire dispatch services. The proposed agreements, which are virtually identical, replace the existing dispatch contracts and allocate the costs of providing fire dispatch services to each of the participating agencies. The proposed agreements authorize the City Manager to adjust the related fees on an annual basis, have no operational impact, and minimize the potential for City liability associated with the provision of fire dispatch services. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the agreements with the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District for dispatching services. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None DISCUSSION: Chula Vista provides fire and emergency medical dispatch services for the City of Imperial Beach, and the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District. Chula Vista's fire dispatch center, known as South Bay Fire Dispatch, is an element of the Police Department's Dispatch Center. In 1999, South Bay Fire dispatched 11,664 calls for fire department services, nearly 75% of which were for emergency medical aid. Imperial Beach The proposed agreement with Imperial Beach is attached hereto as attachment "A". Chula Vista has been providing fire dispatch services for the City of Imperial Beach since the late 1970s. These services have been provided under a series of Council approved agreements. The existing agreement with Imperial Beach which was approved by Page 2, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 7/18/00 Council on August 13, 1991, calls for fees based upon a percentage of selected dispatch center staff costs applied to the proportion of calls for service dispatched for each agency. Additionally, the existing contract provides for such fees to be updated by the City Manager annually to reflect increasing employee services expenses. In FY 1999-00, the dispatch agreement with Imperial Beach generated $35,201 in General Fund revenue. The City also has an automatic-aid agreement with Imperial Beach. Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District The proposed agreement with Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District is attached hereto as attachment "B". Chula Vista currently provides fire dispatch services for the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District (District) under an existing agreement with the District which was approved by Council on October 28, 1993. The existing agreement calls for fees based upon a percentage of selected dispatch center staff costs applied to the proportion of calls for service dispatched for each agency. Additionally, the existing contract provides for such fees to be updated by the City Manager annually to reflect increasing employee services expenses. The District includes much of the unincorporated territory bordered by State Route 54 on the north, Chula Vista on the south, and Chula Vista and San Diego on the east. The proposed agreement provides for such payments by the District at rates calculated using the same basis as the City of Imperial Beach for which the City provides fire dispatching services. In FY 1999-00, the dispatch agreement with the District generated $19,088 in General Fund revenue. The City also has an automatic-aid agreement with the District. Proposed Fire Dispatch Agreements The previous agreements with Imperial Beach and the District expired in October of 1997 and October of 1998 respectively. The lapse in agreements went unnoticed by all parties concerned, yet caused no impact or delay in service or payments for services provided. The proposed dates in which the agreements will commence are the actual dates that the contracts were to be re-written. Using these dates allows for justification and clarification of funds received and services provided for those years. The proposed agreements described below do not affect the automatic-aid provisions of the City's existing agreements with the District or either city, and therefore, have no impact upon the operations of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach or the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District. Each of the proposed agreements (attachments "A" and "B") include the following provisions. Term: The agreements are for a term of five (5) years and (9) months. Termination for Convenience: The agreements may be terminated for convenience by either party to the agreement with ninety (90) days written notice. Services Provided by Chula Vista: Chula Vista has agreed to broadcast the facts of the call for service, the type of service requested (i.e., fire or emergency Page 3, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 7/18/00 medical), the location of the call and other relevant information related by the requesting party. Duties of the Other ~lgencies: The other agencies have agreed to own, operate and maintain in good working order the radio equipment necessary to receive dispatch information broadcast by the City. Additionally, the other agencies have agreed to adequately staff, supervise, train, equip, supply and maintain the equipment necessary to respond to calls for service dispatched by the City. Service Coordination: All parties agree to exchange information and meet as necessary to effect the agreed upon services. Payment for Services and Equipment: The other agencies agree to make quarterly payments to the City based upon each jurisdiction's proportion of total calls for service dispatched. The quarterly cost calculation reflects direct labor costs related to providing fire dispatch services proportionally spread to each jurisdiction plus appropriate full cost recovery (FCR) program charges. Using direct salaries plus appropriate full cost recovery program charges as the basis for each jurisdiction's fees, the quarterly cost calculations automatically reflect changing personnel costs and associated non-personnel expenses (see Attachment C). Each agency's costs are contractually adjusted on an annual basis. Conclusion The staff recommendation will standardize and improve the City's fire dispatch relationships with each of the participating agencies. The recommended agreements do not affect existing automatic-aid procedures and result in no operational impact upon Chula Vista, Imperial Beach Fire Department, or the District. The recommended agreements will provide for an equitable distribution of the true costs related to providing fire and emergency medical dispatch services among all agencies dispatched by South Bay Fire. Moreover, the fees associated with these agreements will be updated annually through the City's Full Cost Recovery Program to reflect the actual costs of providing such services. Using this methodology, specific Council action to revise fees will not be required. Finally, the recommended agreements reduce the City's liability exposure through the specific delineation of each party's duties and by employing the most advantageous indemnification mechanism applicable given the types of services to be provided. FISCAL IMPACT: Fire dispatch revenue for FY 2000-01 is projected to be $65,413 for fire dispatching services provided to both contracting jurisdictions in FY 2000-01. Page 4, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 7/18/00 Attachment C: South Bay Dispatch Services Quarterly Cost Calculations 3.0 Communications Operators I $115,674 Fire Dispatch Costs Including FCR Program $296,125 Fire Incidents Dispatched by South Bay Fire in 1999 11,664 Fire Incidents Dispatched for City of Imperial Beach in 1999 1,659 Proportion of Incidents Dispatched 14.2% Annual Cost of Dispatching ServiceS $42,049 Quarterly Billing by City of Chula Vista $10,512 Fire Incidents Dispatched for Bonita FPD in 1999 921 Proportion of Incidents Dispatched 7.89% Annual Cost of Dispatching Services $23,364 Quarterly Billing by City of Chula Vista $5,841 Total FY 2000-0t $65,413 Attachment "A" JOINT DISPATCHING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH TH/S JOINT DISPATCH/NG AGREEMENT is made and entered into on October 1, 1997, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (hereinafter referred to as "Chula Vista") and THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH (hereinafter referred to as "Imperial Beach"), Chula Vista and Imperial Beach may hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Parties." This Agreement is made in reference to the following recitals: RECITALS WHEREAS, the Parties are empowered by Government Code § 6500 et seq, to provide fire control services: and, WHEREAS, radio dispatch services and facilities are necessary to performing such fire control services; and WHEREAS, Imperial Beach desires to contract with Chula Vista for the performance of Imperial Beach's fire dispatching services by Chula Vista's Police and Fire Communications Center. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, the Parties agree as follows: I. Powers. This Agreement is made pursuam to the provisions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California, Sections 6500 et seq. The Parties represent and warrant that they possess the powers referred to herein. II. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to exercise the Parties' powers jointly to provide a single dispatch system to serve Chula Vista and Imperial Beach. III. Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by the Parties and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years and nine (9) months. The services to be provided under this Agreement shall commence on October 1, 1997 to and including lune 30, 2003. 1 A. Termination, Notwithstanding the foregoing term, the Parties may terminate this agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice specifying the effective date thereof and the reason for termination, at least ninety (90) days before the effective date of such termination. The notice must set forth the reason for requesting such termination, and the Parties agree to meet at least once during the ninety (90) day period to attempt to resolve any issues contained in the notice in a manner mutually satisfactory to the Parties. If either Party terminates the Agreement, Chula Vista shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any services rendered prior to the effective date of such termination. IV. Services to be Provided by City, Chula Vista shall cause its Communications Center employees to broadcast on Chula Vista's assigned fire dispatch radio frequencies requests received by telephone, either through the 9-1-1 system or directly on telephone number 691- 5151 and/or 423-8222. Such broadcast shall include the facts of the request, whether the request is for fire protection or emergency medical services, the location at which the service is requested, and other relevant int~ormation related by the requesting party for responses by Imperial Beach to all areas within the service area of Imperial Beach. V. Duties of Imperial Beach. Imperial Beach shall own, operate and maintain in good working order, radio communication equipment necessary to receive dispatch information broadcast by Chula Vista. Said radio communications equipment shall remain properly tuned to Chula Vista's assigned fire dispatch radio frequencies and shall be continuously monitored twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days a week. As a duty owed exclusively to Chula Vista, and not for the benefit of any third party, Imperial Beach shall adequately staff, supervise, train, equip, supply and maintain the equipment necessary to respond to all calls dispatched by Chula Vista. VI. Service Coordination. A. Information. The Parties agree, to the maximum extent reasonably possible, to timely share information affecting the services provided herein. 2 B. Meetines. The Parties agree to meet as needed for the purpose of considering information affecting services provided here'm, including without limitation, procedures, operations, equipment performance and improving service. The Parties further agree to encourage other fire agencies in Zone 5 (National City, Bonita-Suanyside, and Coronado) to attend such meetings. VII. Payment for Services and Equipment. 7.1 Quarterly Charge. For each quarter year during the term of this Agreement, commencing on October 1, 1997, and continuing therea~er each quarter (January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1), Imperial Beach agrees to pay to Chula Vista for the preceding quarter year of dispatch service, according to the following formula: 1. Imperial Beach's Portion o£Current Quarter's Direct Labor. The total salary cost for 3.0 Communication Operator I positions budgeted for dispatching services in City account number 14360-6001 ("Police Coramunication Salaries") for the current fiscal quarter shall be multiplied times a fraction the denominator of which is total dispatch calls for the preceding calendar year, and the numerator of which is the dispatch calls for the preceding calendar year for service to Imperial Beach's territory. The product of that calculation shall be known as "Imperial Beach's Portion of Current Quarter's Direct Labor." 2. Overhead Factor. "Imperial Beach's Proportion of Currem Quarter's Direct Labor" shall then be multiplied by then current applicable Chula Vista Full Cost Recovery Factor, or a proportion thereof, as determined to be appropriate by Chula Vista as same may be set by or under the direction of Chula Vista's Finance Director and amended from time to time. The current City's Citywide Full Cost Recovery Factor is 2.56. It is acknowledged that Chula Vista is anticipating citywide recalculation of full cost recovery factors. Subsequent to these changes, Imperial Beach acknowledges that the full cost recovery factor for dispatch service may change during the period of this contract. 3. Quarterly Compensation. The product of that calculation shall be the "Chula Vista's Quarterly Compensation for Dispatch Services." 7.2 Ouarterlv Billine. Chula Vista shall bill Imperial Beach for "Chula Vista's Quarterly Compensation for Dispatch Services" within 30 days after the end of the fiscal quarter for which compensation is due under the provisions of this agreement, and Imperial Beach shall pay said billing within 30 days after receiving Chula Vista's billing. 3 7.3 Equipment. Imperial Beach shall meet and confer in good faith with Chula Vista prior to PUrchasing any new dispatch equipment to ensure that such equipment is compatible with Chula Vista's dispatch and radio · equipment. In the event Imperial Beach purchases new dispatch, radio or related equipment which makes Chula Vista's dispatch equipment inoperable or ineffective and Chula Vista is required to obtain equipment and incur related expenses necessary to dispatch to Imperial Beach pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement, Imperial Beach shall pay Chula Vista separately for any expenses related to the acquisition, installation or maintenance of said equipment, and the integration of said equipment into Chula Vista's dispatch and radio system. Said payment shall be made to Chula Vista within 30 days of such expenses being incurred. In the event that Chula Vista is required to obtain special equipment and incur related expenses necessary to dispatch to Impedai Beach, Impedai Beach shall pay Chula Vista separately for installing and maintaining said special equipment. Chula Vista shall not make changes to its dispatch equipment without input from Imperial Beach. 7.4 Disputed Charges. In the event Imperial Beach disagrees with a quarterly billing, or any other charge herein authorized it may appeal said dispute to Chula Vista's City Manager, or designee, whose determination, made in good faith, shall be final. 7.5 Late Payments. Regardless of whether lmpedal Beach disputes any charges a failure to make a timely payment will entitle Chula Vista to the payment of interest at a rate of 10% annually plus the cost of collecting such payments and any accrued interest, including without limitation, attorneys' fees. VIII. Hold Harmless. Each party agrees to hold the other, their officers and employees harmless from any and all liability, claims, costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees), damages, expenses and causes of action in any way resulting from or arising out of dispatch services or the response of a party thereto, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of each party, its officers or employees. 4 IX. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by personal delivery or first- class mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be addressed as appears below for the respective Party; provided that, if any Party gives notice of a change of name or address, notices to the provider of that notice shall thereafter be ~iven as demanded in that notice. Notices shall be deemed received seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the United States mall. City: Fire Chief, City of Chula Vista 477 F Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 With copy to: Police Chief, City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Imperial Beach: Fire Chief, Imperial Beach Fire Department 865 Imperial Beach Blvd. Imperial Beach, CA 91932 X. Construction of Agreement. Captions and Headings. The captions and headings in this Agreement are solely for purposes of convenience, is not part of this Agreement, and may not be used to interpret this Agreement. B. Invalidity. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. C. No Strict Construction. This Agreement shall not be strictly construed against any party hereto. D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement and contains the entire agreement of the Parties on the matters covered. No other agreement, statement or promise made by any Party or by any employee, officer or agem of any Party that is not in writing and signed by al/Parties shall be binding. E. Prior Agreements Superseded. This Agreement supersedes any prior understandings,' or written or oral agreements, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement to the extent that any such understandings or agreements conflict with any provision hereof. 5 F. Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended by the written consent of all the Parties at the time of such amendment. G. Authority. Chula Vista and Imperial Beach represent that the individuals signing this Agreement has full right and authority to bind their respective Parties to this Agreement. H. Best Efforts and Cooperation. The Parties promise to use their best efforts to satisfy all conditions to this Agreement and to take all further steps and execute all further documents reasonably necessary to put this Agreement into effect. I. Waiver. The waiver by one Party of the performance of any covenant, condition or promise shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall he or any other covenant, condition or promise consider it a waiver. The waiver by either or both Parties of the time for performing any act shall not constitute a waiver of the time for performing any other act or an identical act required to be performed at a later time. The exercise of any remedy provided in this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any consistent remedy provided by law, and any provision of this Agreement for any remedy shall not exclude other consistent remedies unless they are expressly excluded. XI. Governing Law. This Agreement has been executed in and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. (End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.) 6 -3-// Signature Page To JOINT DISPATCHING AGREEMENT BETWEEN ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CITY OF IMPEIRAL BEACH. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Dated: By: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to form: John Kaheny City Attorney CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Dated:~-O//~//O~)l { By: ~44k-~ ,M~ay° 7 Attachment "B" JOINT DISPATCHING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE BONITA-SUNNYSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT THIS JOINT DISPATCHING AGREEMENT is made and entered into on October 01, 1998, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (hereinafter referred to as "Chula Vista") and THE BONITA-SUNNYSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as "The District"). Chula Vista and The District may hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Parties." This Agreement is made in reference to the following recitals: RECITALS WHEREAS, the Parties are empowered by Government Code § 6500 et seq. to provide fire control services; and, WHEREAS, radio dispatch services and facilities are necessary to performing such fire control services; and, WHEREAS, The District desires to contract with Chula Vista for the performance of The District's fire dispatching services by Chula Vista's Police and Fire Communications Center. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of thei~ mutual promises, the Parties agree as follows: I. Powers. This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California, Sections 6500 ET seq. The Parties represent and warrant that they possess the powers referred to herein. I1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to exercise the Parties' powers jointly to provide a single dispatch system to serve Chula Vista and The District. III. Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by the Parties and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of (5) five years and (9) months. The services to be provided under this Agreement shall commence on October 1, 1998 to and including June 30, 2004. A. Termination for Convenience. Notwithstanding the foregoing term, the Parties may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice and specifying the effective date thereof, at least (90) ninety days before the effective date of such termination. The notice must set forth the reason for requesting such termination, and the Parties agree to meet at least once during the (90) ninety-day period to attempt to resolve any issues contained in the notice in a manner mutually satisfactory to the Parties. If the Agreement is terminated by either Party, Chula Vista shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any services rendered prior to the effective date of such termination. IV. Services to be Provided by City. Chula Vista shall cause its Communications Center employees to broadcast on Chula Vista's assigned fire dispatch radio frequencies requests received by telephone, either through the 9-1-1 system or directly on telephone number 691- 5151. Such broadcast shall include the fact of the request, whether the request is for fire protection or emergency medical services, the location at which the service is requested, and other relevant information related by the requesting party for responses by The District to all areas within the service area of The District. V. Duties of District. The District shall own, operate and maintain in good working order, radio communication equipment necessary to receive dispatch information broadcast by Chula Vista. Said radio communication equipment shall remain properly tuned to Chula Vista's assigned fire dispatch radio frequencies and shall be continuously monitored twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days a week. As a duty owed exclusively to Chula Vista, and not for the benefit of any third party, The District shall adequately staff, supervise, train, equip, supply and maintain the equipment necessary to respond to all calls dispatched by Chula Vista. VI. Service Coordination. A. Information. The Parties agree, to the maximum extent reasonably possible, to timely share information effecting the services provided herein. B. Meetings. The Parties agree to meet as needed for the purpose of considering information effecting services provided herein, including without limitation, procedures, operations, equipment performance and improving service. The Parties further agree to encourage other fire agencies in Zone 5 (National City, Imperial Beach, and Coronado) to attend such meetings. VII. Payment for Services and Equipment. 7.1 Cluarterly Char.qe. For each quarter year during the term of this Agreement, commencing on October 1, 1998, and continuing thereafter of each subsequent quarter year (January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 ), The District agrees to payto Chula Vista for the preceding quarter year of dispatch service, according to the following formula: 1. The District's Portion of Current C~uarter's Direct Labor. The total salary cost for 3.0 Communication Operator I positions budgeted for dispatching services in City account number 14260-6001 ("Police Communications Salaries") for the current fiscal quarter shall be multiplied times a fraction the denominator of which is total dispatch calls for the preceding calendar year, and the numerator of which is the dispatch cells for the preceding calendar year for service to The District's territory. The product of that calculation shall be known as "The District's Portion of Current Quarter's Direct Labor." 2. Overhead Factor. The District's Proportion of Current Quarter's Direct Labor shall then be multiplied by then current applicable Chula Vista Full Cost Recovery Factor, or a proportion thereof, as determined to be appropriate by Chula Vista as same may be set by or under the direction of Chula Vista's Finance Director and amended from time to time. The current City's Citywide Full Cost Recovery Factor is 2.56. It is acknowledged that the Chula Vista is anticipating citywide recalculation of full cost recovery factors. Subsequent to these changes, The District acknowledges that the full cost recovery factor for dispatch service may change during the period of this contract. 3. (;}uarterly Compensation. The product of that calculation shall be "Chula Vista's Quarterly Compensation for Dispatch Services". 7.2 (~uarterly Billin,q. Chula Vista shall bill The District for "Chula Vista's Quarterly Compensation for Dispatch Services" within 30 days after the end of the fiscal quarter for which compensation is due under the provisions of this agreement, and The District shall pay said billing within 30 days after receiving Chula Vista's billing. 7.3 Equipment. The District shall meet and confer in good faith with Chula Vista prior to purchasing any new dispatch equipment to ensure that such equipment is compatible with Chula Vista's dispatch and radio equipment. In the event The District purchases new dispatch, radio or related equipment which makes Chula Vista's dispatch equipment inoperable or ineffective and Chula Vista is required to obtain equipment and incur related expenses necessary to dispatch to The District pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement, The District shall pay Chula Vista separately for any expenses related to the acquisition, installation or maintenance of said equipment, and the integration of said equipment into Chula Vista's dispatch and radio system. Said payment shall be made to Chula Vista within 30 days of such expenses being incurred. In the event that Chula Vista is required to obtain special equipment and incur related expenses necessary to dispatch to The District, The District shall pay Chula Vista separately for installing and maintaining said special equipment. Chula Vista shall not make changes to its dispatch equipment without input from The District. 7.4 Disputed Char,qes. In the event The District disagrees with a quarterly billing, or any other charge herein authorized, it may appeal said dispute to Chula Vista's City Manager, or his designee, whose determination, made in good faith, shall be final. 7.5 Late Payments. Regardless of whether The District disputes any charge, a failure to make a timely payment will entitle Chula Vista to the payment of interest at a rate of 10% annually plus the cost of collecting such payments and any accrued interest, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees. VIII. H01d Harmless. Each party agrees to hold the other, their officers and employees harmless from any and all liability, claims, costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees), damages, expenses and causes of action in any way resulting from or arising out of dispatch services or the response of a party thereto, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of each party, its officers, or employees. IX. Notices, All notices and demands shall be given in writing by personal delivery or first-class mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be addressed as appears below for the respective Party; provided that, if any Party gives notice of a change of name or address, notices to the provider of that notice shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice. Notices shall be deemed received seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the United States mail. City: Fire Chief, City of Chula Vista 477 F Street Chula Vista, CA 9'1910 With copy to: Police Chief, City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 District: Fire Chief, Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District 4900 Bonita Road Bonita, CA 91902 X. Construction of A.qreement. A. Captions and Headin.qs. The captions and headings in this Agreement are solely for purposes of convenience, are not part of this Agreement, and may not be used to interpret this Agreement. B. Invalidity. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. C. No Strict Construction. This Agreement shall not be strictly construed against any party hereto. D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement and contains the entire agreement of the Parties on the matters covered. No other agreement, statement or promise made by any Party or by any employee, officer or agent of any Party that is not in writing and signed by all Parties shall be binding. E. Prior A,qreements Superseded. This Agreement supersedes any prior understandings, or written or oral agreements, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement to the extent that any such understandings or agreements conflict with any provision hereof. F. Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended by the written consent of all of the Parties at the time of such amendment. G. Authority. Chula Vista and The District represent that the individuals signing this Agreement have full right and authority to bind their respective Parties to this Agreement. H. Best Efforts and Cooperation. The Parties promise to use their best efforts to satisfy all conditions to this Agreement and to take all further steps and execute all further documents reasonably necessary to put this Agreement into effect. I. Waiver. The waiver by one Party of the performance of any covenant, condition or promise shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall it be considered a waiver by him of any other covenant, condition or promise. The waiver by either or both Parties of the time for performing any act shall not constitute a waiver of the time for performing any other act or an identical act required to be performed at a later time. The exercise of any remedy provided in this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any consistent remedy provided by law, and any provision of this Agreement for any remedy shall not exclude other consistent remedies unless they are expressly excluded. XI. Governinq Law. This Agreement has been executed in and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. (End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.) Signature Page To JOINT DISPATCHING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE BONITA-SUNNYSlDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Dated: By: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to form: John Kaheny City Attorney BONITA-SUNNYSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Dated: JUNE 13, 2000 By: THOMAS POCKLINGTON , Attest: Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: Attorney Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 7/18/00 Attachment C: South Bay Dispatch Services Quarterly Cost Calculations 3.0 Communications Operators I $115,674 Fire Dispatch Costs Including FCR Program $296,125 Fire Incidents Dispatched by South Bay Fire in 1999 11,664 Fire Incidents Dispatched for City of Imperial Beach in 1999 1,659 Proportion of Incidents Dispatched 14.2% Annual Cost of Dispatching Services $42,049 Quarterly Billing by City of Chula Vista $10,512 Fire Incidents Dispatched for Bonita FPD in 1999 921 Proportion of Incidents Dispatched 7.89% Annual Cost of Dispatching Services $23,364 Quarterly Billing by City of Chula Vista $5,841 Total FY 2000-01 $65,413 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ANAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH FOR FIRE DISPATCHING SERVICES, D~ND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Chula Vista currently has agreements with the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District to provide fire dispatch services; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreements, which are virtually identical, replace the existing dispatch contracts and allocate the costs of providing fire dispatch services to each of the participating agencies; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreements authorize the City Manager to adjust the related fees on an annual basis, have no operational impact, and minimize the potential for City liability associated with the provision of fire dispatch services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the city of Imperial Beach for fire dispatching services, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista be, and is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Fire Chief M:\homekattorney\reso\Imperial Beach Fire Dispatch Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BONITA-SUNNYSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR FIRE DISPATCHING SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Chula Vista currently has agreements with the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District to provide fire dispatch services; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreements, which are virtually identical, replace the existing dispatch contracts and allocate the costs of providing .fire dispatch services to each of the participating agencies; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreements authorize the City Manager to adjust the related fees on an annual basis, have no operational impact, and minimize the potential for City liability associated with the provision of fire dispatch services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an agreement with the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District for fire dispatching services, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by James B. Hardiman J~hff-ff. Ka~n~y - U Fire Chief City Attor~y H:~home\attorney~reso\Bonita Sunnyside Fire Dispatch Agreement COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~Z Meeting Date 7-18-2000 ITEM TiTLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 10.64.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT CITY OF CHULA VISTA VEHICLES FROM DRIVING ONLY ON TRUCK ROUTES SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~,~f~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~I)?' (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ) This ordinance amendment would allow city maintenance vehicles to travel on any city street while perfonning their assigned duties and when traveling from one site to another without violating the Municipal Code by not traveling on a designated truck route. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an amendment of Section 10.64.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to exempt City of Chula Vista vehicles from driving only on truck routes. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: The Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts public utilities such as Sweetwater Authority, Otay Water District, Pacific Telephone, and SDG&E from the requirement to travel on designated truck routes within the City of Chula Vista. It also exempts contractors working for these utilities and Pacific Waste vehicles from the provisions requiring their heavier vehicles to use truck routes within the City of Chula Vista. This amendment will provide City of Chula Vista maintenance vehicles the same exemption. City maintenance vehicles often need to travel on other than designated truck ruutes to reach their assigned work site. Although the current provisions of the ordinance allow for use of other than truck routes to get to a job site, the most direct route to a specific job site might not use a track route. By adding City vehicles to those exempted under section 10.64.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, drivers of City vehicles will not have to be concerned about only using truck routes to conduct City business, FISCAL IMPACT: Reduced cost to operate Class "A" and "B" vehicles as a result of using the most direct route to job sites. H:\SHARED~ubli¢ Works Operations~l 13 TRUCK ROUTE ORD .doc ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 10.64.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT CHULA VISTA CITY VEHICLES FROM DRIVING ONLY ON TRUCK ROUTES The city council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: Section 10.64.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.64.030 Exemptions, C[~::~ ~hul~ Vi~fa, Public utility, solid waste and contractors' vehicles. The provisions of this chapter shall not be applicable to any vehicle owned by ~ ~'~ ~t~a, a public utility or a licensed contractor while necessarily in use in the construction, installation~ ~ repair~ O~?~D~ of any public fae~iO Oi: utility, to any vehicle subject to the provisions of sections 1031 through 1036, inclusive, of the California Public Utilities Code or to any vehicle used for the collection and transportation of garbage and solid waste. Presented by Approved as to form Jo ha P. L i p pitt ~lJ~o~ M~~ Director of Public Works C~ty Attorney I I:\SIIARED\Public Winks OperationsVI RUCK ROUTE OP-DINANCE REV3.d~c IT COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item '~ Meeting Date: 7/18/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids, waiving inconsequential deviation, and awarding contract for "Telegraph Canyon Road Median Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, California (LD-103)" project to Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction in the amount of $214,841.23. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~/f~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~[~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) At 2:00 pm. on June 14, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Telegraph Cm~yon Road Median Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, California" project. The work consists of landscaping and irrigation within the existing median island on Telegraph Canyon Road from 1-805 to Paseo del Rey. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation and traffic control necessary for the project. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids, waive inconsequential bid deviation, and award the contract for the "Telegraph Canyon Road Median Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, California (LD-103)" project to Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction of Chula Vista, California, for $214,841.23. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: General The requirement to landscape the segment of the median between 1-805 and Paseo del Rey falls upon the City. Telegraph Canyon Road is designated as a scenic highway and the proposed landscaping wilt help enhance the appearance of this major roadway. The improvements for thc project will include mobilization, establishment and use of water, demolition, clearing, grubbing, replacement of P.C.C and A.C. paving, base, curb and gutter, sidewalk, fencing, grading, storm drain system installation, erosion control, landscaping, irrigation and traffic control during constructiou. The services of KTUA Landscape Architecture m~d Planning and Rick Engineering Company were retained for the preparation of the project's contract documents and plans. Page 2, Item -~ Meeting Date: 7/18/00 Project Advertisement Engineering staff originally advertised the project in February 2000 and bids were received and opened on March 15, 2000. Due to bid deficiencies discovered by staff at said bid opening and during subsequent reviews of the bid packages, it was determined that the deficiencies compromised the integrity of the bid packages and that they should not be accepted. Based on this decision, the top four (4) bid packages received could not be accepted. All of the bids received from the subject bid opening were rejected by City Council per Resolution No. 2000-146 on May 9, 2000. Engineering staff subsequently re-advertised the project. Staff received and opened bids from the re- advertisement on June 14, 2000. Six (6) contractors submitted bids as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT I. Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction - Chula Vista, California. $214,841.23 2. Shiva Construction, Inc. - San Diego, California $239,558.15 3. 3-D Enterprises, Inc. - San Diego, California $239,726.00 4. Heftier Company - National City, California $249,766.44 5. Wier Construction Corp.- Escondido, California $284,721.06 6. Scheidel Contracting - La Mesa, California $300,535.45 Thc low bid from Jimencz Inc., dba MJC Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of $245,282.00 by $30,440.77 or approximately 12.4%. Engineering staff checked the references provided by the contractor. All references were verified and their ~vork has been satisfactory. Their Contractor's License No. 754128 is clear and current. Staffhas reviewed the Iow bid and is reconunending awarding the contract to Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction of Chula Vista, California. Inconsequential Bid Deviation Subsequent to the bid opening, staffperformed a review of the low bid submitted by Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction and discovered an error involving the calculation of a bid item. Tbe bid item in question was Item 8 of the bid proposal. The contractor had incorrectly calculated the total for the subject bid item as $6,715.00; the total mnount bid for this item should have been $67.15 based on the unit cost per cubic yard of $0.85 provided. The difference between the two figures of $6,647.85 resulted in the base bid for thc contractor being decreased by said amount. Tbe contractor's original low bid for the project was $221,489.08 and now, with the decrease taken into account, is $214,841.23. The contractor will complete the project based on the adjusted bid total. The status of the contractor as low bidder for the project did not change irrespective of the error and, therefore, staff recommends that Council waive the minor inconsequential deviation and award the contract to Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction of Chnla Vista, California. Disclosure Statement Attachment "A" is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Page 3, Item -~' Meeting Date: 7/18/00 Enviromnental Status The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class I (c) of the California Enviromnental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures). Prevailing Wage Statement This project is funded through GASTAX and DIFTRANS Based on the current project funding guidelines, no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of thc bid documents. Financial Statement_ FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount (Iimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction) $2t4,841.23 B. Contingencies (20%) $42,970.00 C. StaffCosts (Design, Inspection) $52,988.77 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $310,800.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. GASTAX $115,800.00 Il B. DIFTRANS $195,000.00 I TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $310,800.00 Thc above action of awarding the contract will authorize a total expenditure of $310,800.00 from the budgeted CIP project. After constmctiou, only routine City maintenance will be required. Attachments: A - Contractor's Disclosure Statement Vicinity Map II:\SHARED\ENGINEEn\LD103Al 13.GET.doc THE CITY OF CHI. JLA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENTi~ -I ..~ ~ · ,.~Okr, n~O~',~ 4'~tx ~ '0u are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, og matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies 13e following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a f'maneial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract. e.g.. owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in die corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving a director of die non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trnstor of the trust. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of thc City staff, Boards, Commissioas Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes __ No .~If yes, please indicate person(s): Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you hav assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in t~ aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the currel or preceding election period? Yes __ No ~,If yes, state which Council members(s): * * * (NOTE: Attached additional pages as necessary) * * * ~..~ignature of Contractor/Applic~t Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant is defined as: Any individual, fmrn, co-partnership, joint venture, asaocialion, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndic any other county, city or country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. 16 OLEANDER ~VE RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, WAIVING INCONSEQUENTIAL DEVIATION, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (LD-103)" PROJECT TO JIMENEZ INC., DBA MJC CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,841.23 WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on June 14, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Telegraph Canyon Road Median Improvements in the City of Chula Vista, California" project: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT 1. Jimenez Inc., dba MJC $214,841.23 Construction - Chula Vista, CA 2. Shiva Construction, Inc. - San $239.558.15 Diego, CA 3. 3-D Enterprises, Inc. - San $239,726.00 Diego, CA 4. Heffler Company - $249,766.44 National City, CA 5. Wier Construction Corp. - $284,721.06 Escondido, CA 6. Scheidel Contracting - La $300, 535 .45 Mesa, CA WHEREAS, the low bid by Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of $245,282.00 by $30,440.77 or approximately 12.4%; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the bid opening, staff performed a review of the low bid submitted by Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction and discovered an error involving the calculation of a bid item; and WHEREAS, the status of the contractor as low bidder for the project did not change irrespective of the error and, therefore, staff recommends that Council waive the minor inconsequential deviation and award the contract to Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction of Chula Vista, California; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures); and WHEREAS, this project is funded through GASTAX and DIFTRANS and based on the current project funding guidelines, no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept bids, waive inconsequential deviation, and award contract for ~Telegraph Canyon Road Median Improvements in the City of Chula Vista, California (LD-103)" project to Jimenez Inc., dba MJC Construction in the amount of $214,841.23. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt John M. Kahe~y Director of Public Works City Attorney H :\H o rn e%a,i~o r ney/Re so\M J C bid COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~'~ Meeting Date 7/18/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and D-Max Engineering, Inc. for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~¢,~--~ ~'~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X) One requirement of the City's NPDES Permit from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Order No. 9042) is that all agencies annually conduct dry weather discharge field screening (effluent sampling, chemical analyses, and observation of physical conditions) at major outfalls during the dry weather season (May through October of each year) in order to detect illegal discharges to the storm water conveyance system and to identify, if possible, the sources of the illegal discharges. Due to the expertise and specialized equipment necessary to perform dry weather discharge field screening and illegal discharge detection services, staff considered it necessary to retain an outside consultant and requested proposals from qualified engineering and environmental consulting firms. Staff received eight (8) proposals and has determined that the firm of D-Max Engineering, Inc. was the most qualified of the eight firms responding to the request for proposals. In addition, D- Max Engineering, Inc. submitted the lowest bid of the four top-ranked consultants. Therefore, staff recommends that D-Max Engineering, Inc. be retained to perform Dry Weather Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve an agreement between the City and D-Max Engineering, Inc. for NPDES Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services and grant the City Manager the authority to approve two one-year extensions. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The City has been performing dry weather discharge field screening to comply with the NPDES Permit (Order No. 9042) since 1994. Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Kinnetic Laboratories, Incorporated performed these services for the City during dry seasons of 1994-96, and 1997-99 respectively, and the three-year agreement with Kinnetic Laboratories, Incorporated expired on June 30, 2000. The eight firms that formally responded to the Request For Proposal (RFP) are listed as follows (in alphabetical order): Page 2, Item Meeting Date 7/18/00 ADS Environmental Services AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. Burns & McDonnell D-Max Engineering, Inc. EnecoTech Southwest, Inc. E.S. Babcock & Sons, Inc. Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. LAW Crandall Standard RFP evaluation procedures were followed. On June 26 and 27, 2000 the selection committee appointed by the City Manager interviewed the top four firms, which had obtained the highest ratings in the proposal evaluation process. At the conclusion of the interviews, the committee ranked the consultant firms as follows: Firm Ranking Total Field Screening Cost* D-Max Engineering, Inc. 1 $25,848 Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. 2 $37,528 Law Crandall 3 $40,400 EnecoTech Southwest, Inc. 4 $36,000 * Total Field Screening Costs include two rounds of field screening, analysis and reporting, and exclude laboratory tests, upstream and on call investigations. The selection of D-Max Engineering, Inc. as the most qualified firm for the job was based upon: 1) overall better knowledge of the scope of the work and NPDES regulations and requirements; 2) excellent references; 3) presentation in the interview; 4) extensive experience in performing illegal discharge detection investigations; and, 5) lowest costs. D-Max Engineering, Inc. ranked highest because they demonstrated a higher level of knowledge and expertise in their responses, and provided excellent letters of recommendation with their proposal. Staff recommends contracting with D-Max Engineering, Inc. based on the criteria discussed above. By approving this resolution, the City will enter into an agreement with D-Max Engineering, Inc. to perform Dry Weather Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services on a time and materials basis on an hourly rate/unit cost basis for a fee not to exceed $50,000 in Fiscal Year 2000-01. The initial contract will be for one year. Provisions were included allowing the contract Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 7/18/00 to be extended, at the City's sole discretion, for two additional one-year terms. Unit rates shall increase 4% per year for each of the additional two one-year terms. Contract extensions would have to be approved by the City Manager. The possible extension of the contract for up to two years was included in the Request for Proposal and in the proposed contract to encourage better hourly rates and unit costs by providing the possibility of a longer contract term,to avoid the time consuming selection process each year, and to maintain continuity in the Illegal Discharge Detection Program. Approval of this item will authorize the City Manager to extend the contract for up to two years depending on the consultant's work and available fimding in future budgets. The primary task D-Max Engineering, Inc. will be performing for the City is field screening 54 storm drain outfalls throughout the City and submitting a written report of the field screening and related activities. This report will then be included in the semi-annual compliance report required by the NPDES permit. The estimated costs for the field screening and associated report is $25,848. The remaining $24,152 of the contract will go towards satisfying two other requirements of the City's NPDES Permit. These requirements are: 1) Provide laboratory testing at sites showing elevated levels of pollutants and 2) Perform additional upstream investigation where deemed necessary by the City. These tasks are directly dependent upon the number and type of sites which are polluted. It has been staffs experience that these two tasks generally make up only a small part of the overall costs. If pollution throughout the City increases it would be necessary to conduct more detailed investigations using city staff or return to Council for a modification to the contract. Staff has been verbally informed by the RWQCB that the new NPDES Municipal Permit will be released for public discussion on September 13, 2000. The new permit is expected to include more stringent requirements for dry weather field screening, including an increase in the number of outfalls to be screened. D-Max Engineering, Inc. is aware of the possible changes in the scope of work for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and 2002-03 and has indicated its ability to cope with this increase. Since the new permit was expected to be issued in June 2000, the budget requested for this project for Fiscal Year 2000-01 was $70,000 to accommodate the increase in the scope of work. Under present conditions, it is expected that the budget required for FY 2000-01 will not exceed $50,000. Failure to comply with any aspect of Order No. 90-42 and/or succeeding Order (tentatively San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] Order No. 99-01) could result in the imposition of up to $25,000 per day fines by the RWQCB and up to $50,000 per day by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Page 4, Item Meeting Date 7/18/00 FISCAL IMPACT: The fee for these services for FY 2000-01 will not exceed $50,000. Funds to cover the cost of ~ weather field screening and illegal discharge detection service costs have been programmed as part of the City's Fiscal Year 2000-01 NPDES Program budget. This program is funded by the storm drain fee and not the general fund. The agreement with D-Max Engineering, inc. may be canceled at any time by the City with thirty days written notice. cc: File # 0780-82-KY181 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\ADVPLAN\NPDES\DRYFIE28.KHA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND D-MAX ENGINEERING, INC. FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) DRY WEATHER DISCHARGE FIELD SCREENING AND ILLEGAL DISCHARGE DETECTION SERVICES WHEREAS, one requirement of the City's NPDES Permit from the San Diego Regional Quality Control Board (Order No. 90-42) is that all agencies annually conduct dry weather discharge field screening (effluent sampling, chemical analyses, and observation of physical conditions) at major outfalls during the dry weather season (May through October of each year) in order to detect illegal discharges to the storm water conveyance system and to identify, if possible, the sources of the illegal discharges; and WHEREAS, due to the expertise and specialized equipment necessary to perform dry weather discharge field screening and illegal discharge detection services, staff considered it necessary to retain an outside consultant and requested proposals from qualified engineering and environmental consulting firms; and WHEREAS, staff received eight (8) proposals and has determined that the firm of D-Max Engineering, Inc., was the most qualified of the eight firms responding to the request for proposals and also submitted the lowest bid of the four top-ranked consultants; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that D-Max Engineering, Inc., be retained to perform Dry Weather Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and D-Max Engineering, Inc. for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Director of Public Works it H: ~Home~At t orney\ Reso\NPDES Agreement between City of Chula Vista and D-Max Engineering, Inc. for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening Services and Illegal Discharge Detection Services This agreement ("Agreement"), dated July 18, for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, the City seeks to comply with all aspects of the 1987 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, 33 USCA Section 1251 et seq.), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code 13020 et seq.) and its implementing regulations, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit Number CA 0108758 and any subsequent amendments thereto; and, Whereas, in order to comply with Federal and State law, it is necessary for the City to annually conduct Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening ("Field Screening") at major outfalls in order to detect illegal discharges to the storm water conveyance system and to identify, if possible, the sources of said illegal discharges; and, Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 1 Whereas, the City has determined that it is necessary to retain the services of Consultant in order to satisfy Field Screening requirements; Whereas, in addition to retaining the services of Consultant in order to satisfy Field Screening requirements, it is necessary and desirable to retain Consultant on an on-call, as-needed retainer basis during the life of the agreement; Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 2 and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Def'med Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverage, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 3 (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be cancelgd without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Security for Performance. (1) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 4 the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 C to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 5 Each party designates the individuals (" Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 6 Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of furore employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 7 promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall in- clude any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Pa~e 8 In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described herein above shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such re- ports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 9 City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 10 Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 12 87/13/2800 14;03 6194555978 D-NAX PAGE 82 Sigmtur~ PaRe Agreement between City of Chula Vista and D-Max Engineering, Inc. for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening Services and Illegal Discharge Detection Services · 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete coil.sent to its terms: Dated: 20__ City of Chula Vista By: Shirley Horton, Mayor At~cst: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Dated: ~ D-Max Engineering, Inc. By: ~ Arsalan Dadldmh, Priac~pal By: Field Screening Agreement: D-Ma~ Engineering. Inc. July 3, 2000 ~age 13 Exhibit List to Agreement ( x ) Exhibit A. Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and D-Max Engineering, Inc. 1. Effective Date of Agreement: July 18, 2000 2. City-Related Entity: (x) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California () Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a () Other: , a [insert business form] 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: D-Max Engineering, Inc. 8380 Miramar Mall, Suite 222 San Diego, CA 92121 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (x) Corporation Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 15 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 8380 Miramar Mall, Suite 222 San Diego, CA 92121 Voice Phone (858) 455-9988 Fax Phone (858) 455-9978 7. General Duties: Consultant shall perform Field Screening at various storm water conveyance system outfalls throughout the City. Consultant shall perform additional sampling and chemical analyses, as authorized by City, as may be necessary to identify pollutant sources. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: Consultant shall: (1) Provide all personnel, equipment, and materials necessary to perform Field Screening in compliance with the requirements of federal N.P.D.E.S. Municipal Stormwater Discharge Regulations (promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit Number CA 0108758, and any subsequent amendments thereto or reissuances thereof. (2) Field Screen for those parameters listed on the "Field Screening Data Sheet" shown in Attachment 2 of this exhibit. At locations where flow is observed, the consultant shall perform instrumental determination of physical conditions and field chemical analyses by colorimetric or other approved method for the constituents identified in the "Field Screening Data Sheet". (3) Perform Field Screening at the sampling locations shown in Attachment 1 of this exhibit. At sampling locations where flow is observed, at least two grab samples must be collected within twenty-four hours of each other and at least four hours apart. Obtain laboratory samples for further testing if information obtained through Field Screening procedures indicates elevated levels of pollutants and/or a possible illegal discharge. Laboratory sample analysis shall include testing for semi-volatile organics, metals (copper, lead, zinc, selenium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and iron), nitrates plus nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), fecal and total coliform, surfactants (MBAS), residual chlorine, total phosphate, total suspended solids (TSS), and/or other tests Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 16 that may be necessary to identify pollutants. Field Screening shall be performed at least twice per dry season at each location, as determined by City. Consultant shall conunence Field Screening within five working days of request by the City (Deliverable Nos. 1 and 2). (4) Provide a description of the field chemical analysis methods used, including the name(s) of the manufacturer(s) of the test methods along with the range and accuracy of each test. (5) Perform upstream storm water conveyance system effluent sampling and analyses, as authorized by City, as may be necessary to identify the upstream source(s) of pollutants detected or observed during Field Screening (Deliverable No.3). (6) Perform additional storm water conveyance system effluent sampling and analyses, as authorized by City, as may be necessary to identify pollutant sources, on an on-call, as-needed basis during the life of the agreement. Consultant shall commence sampling and analysis within one working day of request by City (Deliverable No.4). (7) Perform all sampling, handling, and testing of field samples obtained for laboratory analysis in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136. The Consultant's laboratory shall be certified to perform such analyses by the California Department of Health Services or shall be approved by the Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (8) Perform quality assurance analyses on City-approved chemical standards (quality control specimens of known chemical concentrations) to check the accuracy and reliability of the field test equipment used. Field Screening quality assurance analyses shall be conducted at the beginning of each week in which Field Screening is scheduled. (9) Provide City with original Field Screening Data Sheets within 3 working days of when Field Screening is performed. Provide City with summary report of Field Screening activities within twenty working days of the completion of the final round of Field Screening. Provide City with all other reports within ten working days of the completion of laboratory testing. (10) Provide City with all original data, reports, records, etc. of Field Screening, illegal discharge detection services, and laboratory analyses, as well as certified copies of all calibration, quality assurance, and maintenance records. Further, the Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, inc. July 3, 2000 Page 17 consultant shall maintain copies of all records related to dry weather discharge Field Screening and illegal discharge detection services performed under the contract for a minimum of five years from the date of sampling, measurement, report, etc. This period may be extended due to possible unresolved litigation regarding a discharge or when requested by City or the Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (11) Use billing forms and procedures acceptable to City. (12) Notify City in writing of any discharge which may endanger the public health or safety and/or the environment within 24 hours of the time the consultant becomes aware of said discharge. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: ( ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement (x) Other: Seven working days after the date of Notice to Proceed. C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: Provide City with original Field Screening Data Sheets within three working days of when said Field Screening is performed. Provide City with written reports of laboratory testing performed in conjunction with Field Screening activities within ten working days of the completion of said laboratory testing. Deliverable No. 2: Provide City with two copies of draft written summary report of Field Screening and related activities within twenty working days of the completion of the final round of said Field Screening for each dry season, and five copies of the final report within seven working days of approval of the draft by the City. Deliverable No. 3: Provide City with written reports of laboratory testing performed in conjunction with Field Screening activities upstream of outfalls to identify the upstream source(s) of pollutants detected or observed during Field Screening within fifteen working days of the completion of said laboratory testing. Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 18 Deliverable No. 4: Provide City with written reports of sampling and analyses performed on an on-call, as-needed retainer basis to identify pollutant sources within fifteen working days of the completion of said analyses. D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: Services are to be provided by Consultant on a time-and-materials basis through June 30, 2001. Upon a determination by City staffthat Consultant has satisfactorily performed the required services during Fiscal Year 2000- 01 and upon subsequent approval by the City Manager, this agreement may be extended if City so elects in its sole discretion up through Fiscal Year 2002-03, in one year increments, upon terms and conditions contained herein. 9. Insurance Requirements: (x) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (x) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. ( ) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). (x) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: (1) A reproducible copy of a map of the City showing all field screening sites. (2) Copies of or access to previous years dry weather field screening reports. 11. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows: Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 19 Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee ( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Phase Fee for Said Phase 1. 2. 3. Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 20 $ $ ( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. (x) Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule herein below according to the following terms and conditions: (1) (x) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of $25,848 for completion of Deliverables ! and 2, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant to complete those deliverables for the 54 outfalls listed in Attachment 1, including all Materials and other "reimbursables". Consultant agrees to perform the Defined Services herein required for Deliverables 3 and 4, which are undefined as to quantity or number and within the sole discretion of the City to initiate, up to the limits of compensation shown in the following schedule. When funds authorized for Deliverables 3 and 4 are exhausted, the Consultant and City shall renegotiate Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 21 the funding for Deliverables 3 and 4 before the Consultant proceeds with further work. Subject to stipulations of Section 8 Paragraph D of Exhibit A to the Agreement, Hourly Rates (labor only) for Fiscal Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 will increase by 4% per year. Accordingly, the Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials for Task 1 (Outfall Field Screening (Deliverables 1 & 2)) will be increased to $26,881 and $27,957 for the second and third years respectively. Estimated Task Budget for Each Task* 1. Outfall Field Screening (Deliverables 1 & 2) $25,848 2. Upstream Investigation and Testing During Field Screening Operation (Deliverable 3) $4,152 3. Upstream Investigation and Testing on an On-Call/As-Needed Basis throughout the Term of the Agreement (Deliverable 4) $ 20,000 Maximum Total Compensation - Tasks 1, 2, & 3 $50,000 *Funds remaining from a completed task may be utilized for another task if necessary. (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 22 Rate Schedule CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEE OF CONSULTANT* I HOURLY RATE** 2-Person Field Crew $100.00 3-Person Field Crew (For Confined Space Entry Only) $150.00 Additional Services: Clerk $30.00 Word Processor $40.00 Drafter/CAD Operator $55.00 Staff Engineer $65.00 Project Engineer/Scientist $85.00 Project Manager*** $100.00 * Categories of Employees Anticipated to Perform Work on this Project. ** Rates for Fiscal Years 2001-02, 2002~03; increase 4 % per year. *** Appearance as expert witness at court trials, mediation, arbitration hearings, and depositions will be charged at $200/hour. Time spent preparing for such appearances will be charged at the above hourly rates. ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 20 , if delay in providing services is caused by City. 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate Reports, not to exceed $ Copies, not to exceed $__ Travel, not to exceed $ Printing, not to exceed $ Postage, not to exceed $__ Delivery, not to exceed $__ Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ Field Screening A~reement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 23 (x) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: FIELD SCREENING ITEM UNIT COST Vehicle, Per Day $48.00 Safety Equipment, Per Day $75.00 Chlorine, Per Test $2.00 Copper, Per Test $2.00 Phenol, Per Test $2.00 Surfactants (MBAS), Per Test $4.00 Ammonia, Per Test $2.00 Glycol, Per Test $3.00 Zinc, Per Test $6.00 PH Meter, Per Day Conductivity Meter, Per Day Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 24 LABORA TORY ANAL YSIS TEST UNIT COST Oil and Grease $46.00 8 Metals (Copper, Lead, Zinc, Selenium, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Iron) $110.00 Ammonia $23.00 Nitrates plus Nitrite $28.00 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen $35.00 Total Phosphate $23.00 Surfactants (MBAS) $37.00 Sulfate $14.00 Sodium $12.00 Calcium $12.00 Propylene Glycol $94.00* Ethylene Glycol Fecal and Total Coliform $40.00 pH $8.00 Residual Chlorine $12.00 Total Dissolved Solids(TDS) $14.00 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) $14.00 *Cost of Glycol test ($94) includes one or both of the following tests: Propylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 25 13. Contract Administrators: City: Muna Cuthbert, Civil Engineer Department of Public Works 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 (619) 691-5278. Consultant: Arsalan Dadkhah D-Max Engineering, Inc. 8380 Miramar Mall, Suite 222 San Diego, CA 92121 (858) 455-9988 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) $ per day. ( ) Other: 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (x) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer ( Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. ( Category No. 2. Interests in real property. ( Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. ( Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. ( Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Field Screening Agreement: DoMax Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 26 Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment, ( ) Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No. 7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 17. Permitted Subconsultants: D-TEK Analytical Laboratory 18 Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (x) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month (x) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 30120-6301 19 Security for Performance Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 27 ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: Type: Amount: $ (x) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: (x) Retention Percentage: 10% ( ) Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services (x) Other: Delivery and Acceptance of Reports H:\HOME\KHOSROA\NPDES\D-Max agmt7-00.doc Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 28 EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT 1 DRY WEATHER DISCHARGE FIELD SCREENING LOCATIONS O~F~L I,D. OUTFALL LOCATION co1V~IENTS BAY-01 Across from 1075 Bay Boulevard Double 48" RCP Outfall BAY-02 West of Intersection of Palomar Double 18" CMP Street and Bay Boulevard BAY-03 West of Intersection of Ada Street Wooden Box Culvert and Bay Boulevard BLC-01 Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course Box Culvert North of Intersection of Bonita Road and Acacia Avenue BLC-02 Long Canyon Channel South of Gabion Channel Southwest of the Bonita Road and West of South End Southerly Terminus of Acacia of Acacia Avenue Avenue CEN-01 South of "H" Street and East of Concrete Channel Interstate 5 and Railroad Tracks CEN-03 South of "J" Street and East of Access from "K" Street and Interstate 5 and Railroad Tracks Colorado Avenue CEN-04 Memorial Park - West of Third Sample from Cobble Channel Avenue and North of Park Way Downstream of Box Culverts CEN-05 Second Avenue South of G Street 60" CEN-07 Fifth Avenue between Center Street and Park Way CEN-08 G Street west of 1-5 42" RCP CEN-09 G Street west of Colorado Avenue PCC CEN-10 Hilltop & Whitney JUD-01 South of Intersection of Fresno Box Culvert Avenue and Main Street JUD-02 Southwest Corner of Intersection of 24" Reed Court and Main Street Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 29 7 I · '1 r LD; OUTFALL LOCATION COUNTS JUD-03 Main Street & Mace Street 24" JUD-04 Main Street between Banner & 36" Drain Albany MGC-02 Sweetwater River Channel Upstream of Willow Street Bike/ West End of Chula Vista Municipal Pedestrian Bridge Golf Course OLR-01 Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course North of Intersection of Bonita Road and Villas Drive OLR-02 Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course Box Culvert North of Intersection of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road OVR-04 South of Otay Valley Road and 200' 48" RCP East of Nirvana Avenue OVR-07 South Portion of Property at 1875 Westernmost Pipe/City Easement - Nirvana Avenue Pipe at Base of 30' Slope OVR-09 South Portion of Property at 850 City Easement - Pipe at Base of 35' Energy Way Slope OVR-10 South End of Brandywine Avenue 18" RCP Outfall at Base of Slope South of Otay Valley Road Outfalls to Otay River OVR-11 Southwest of Brandywine Avenue 18" RCP Outfall at Base of Slope South of Otay Valley Road West End of Fuller Ford Outfalls to Otay River OVR-12 Upstream of OVR-07 OVR-13 Upstream of OVR-09 OVR-14 Otay Valley Road & Maxwell 48" RCP OVR-15 Otay Valley Road & Delniso Court 48" RCP POG-01 South of Otay Valley Road and West Sample at Box Culvert from Park of Melrose Avenue Side POG-02 End of Eastlake Parkway on West Eastlake Greens Side of Street at 60" Outfall PRD-01 South of Main Street/Otay Valley At Culvert - Outfall PRD-03 Also at Road and West of Walnut Avenue this Location Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 30 O~ALL I,D. OUTFALL LOCATION COMMENTS PRD-02 West of Aries Court and 500' South 96" RCP Outfall of East Rienstra Street Within SDG&E Easement PRD-03 South of Main Street/Otay Valley 24" CMP Road and West of Walnut Avenue RCC-01 500 Feet South of Bonita Road, East Double 54" RCP of Interstate-805 and West of Lynwood Drive RCC-02 North of Intersection of East "H" 90" Outfall Upstream of Desilting Street and Kernel Court Basin RCC-03 Downstream of Discovery Park 90" CMP Outfall West of Ranch del Rey Parkway Access via Hiking Trail SCR-01 North of Telegraph Canyon Road Sample at Upstream End of Box and East of Hunte Parkway Culvert - Access via Otay Ranch Private Road SCR-02 North of Telegraph Canyon Road Approximately 200 Feet West of and East of Hunte Parkway SCR-01 - Access via Otay Ranch Private Road SUN-02 East "H" Street and SR-125 R.O.W. 48" RCP At Base of Slope SUN-03 Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course Triple 10' x 6' RCB 500' Southwest of Intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue SUN-05 East "H" Street and SR-125 R.O.W. 60" RCP At Base of Slope SVS-01 Rear of Ramada Inn Parking Lot Fence North of Bonita Road and West of Interstate-805 in CalTrans R.O.W. SVS-02 Flower Street west of 1-805 42" RCP SWB-01 Frontage Road, South of Ada Street Double Box Culvert Within Public R.O.W. SWB-02 East of Beyer Boulevard and North Outfall to Otay River of Bridge at Southerly City Limits SWB-03 Main Street west of Jacqua Street 36" Private Storm Drain SWR-03 Along Fourth Avenue, South of "C" Eucalyptus Park Street at Southern Boundary of Park Field Screening Agreement: D Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 31 OUTFALLI I.D. OUTFALL LOCATION COMMENTS SWR-04 Fifth Avenue, North of "C" Street Double 6' x 6.5' RCB Outfall South of WalMart Parking Lot TCC-01 Telegraph Canyon Channel - West Drainage Easement on SDG&E of Bay Boulevard Property/Comact Don Waller 498- 5223 or Kent Miles 498-5247 TCC-02 Telegraph Canyon Channel - West Hilltop Park of Intersection of Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road TCC-03 Telegraph Canyon Channel - West 108" Outfall to Detention Basin of Eastlake Parkway and North of Telegraph Canyon Road TCC-04 Telegraph Canyon Channel - West Double Box Culvert under Mobil of Third Avenue and South of "L" Gas Station Street WIL-01 Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course Along Sweetwater Road, Approx. 750 Feet Northeast of Intersection with Willow Street Field Screening Agreement: D-Max Engineering, Inc. July 3, 2000 Page 32 EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT 2 FIELD SCREENING DATA SHEET Sheet No.: Outfall I.D. No.: Date: Time: Sample No.: General Information Inspection Team Weather: Sunny Cloudy Windy Hot Cold Rain Fog Other Time Since Last Rain: > 72 Hours < 72 Hours Q~antity of Last Rainfall > 0.1 inch < 0.1 inch Field ~%te Description Approximate Location: Conveyance Ty]pe: Open Channel Manhole Outfall Other Concrete Steel Grassed Rock Other Observed Land Use in Vicinity: Industrial Commercial Residential Unknown Other Flow Estimation Flow Observed: Yes NO Approx. Channel Width or Pipe Diameter Bucket Method Area/Velocity Method Gallons Collected__ Average Depth Ift) Time (seconds) Average Width (ft) Flow Rate (g.p.m.} Distance (ft) Time (seconds) Flow Rate (cfs) Visual Observation Photo Taken: Yes No Photo Number Roll Number Odor: None Musty Sewage Rotten Eggs Sour Milk Gasoline Putrescence Earthy Chemical Chlorine Soap Other Color: Clear White Red Yellow Brown Green Gray Other Clarity: Clear Cloudy Opaque Suspended Solids Other Floatables: None Oily Sheen Garbage/Sewage Suds Scum Other Deposits/Stains: None Sediments Oil Other Vegetation Condition: None Normal Excessive Growth Inhibited Growth Structural Condition: Normal Concrete Cracklng/Spalllng Metal Corrosion Other Biological: Mosquito Larvae Bacteria/Algae Dead Animals other Are any unusual pipes or ditches visible from the sample location? Yes No IS there any overland flow visible from the sample location? Yes No Field Analyses Laboratory Sample Collected: Yes No {If yes, attach copy of chain-of-custody record) Initials Initials Water Temp © Total Chlorine (mg/1) pH Total Copper (mg/1) Total Phenol (mg/1) Ammonia (mg/1) Detergents (mg/1} Glycol (mg/1) Zinc (mg/1) Conductivity (mS/cm) Other Comments Data Sheet Filled Out By (Signature) COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No: Meeting Date: 7/18/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Waiving the formal bid process, approving an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC, and MNA Consulting for providing assistance to the City in preparation of a required Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Annexation Agreement for the San Miguel Ranch Project, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building//c.~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~b p' (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X ) On April 3, 2000, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) conditionally approved annexation of the San Miguel Ranch project area to the City of Chula Vista, subject to completion of an MSCP Annexation Agreemem. This Annexation Agreement is required under the County's MSCP when land is to be annexed to another jurisdiction. MNA Consulting is under separate comract with the City for preparation of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, and is best capable of assisting the City with this Annexation Agreement. This report requests City Council approval of the proposed contract with MNA Consulting for a cost not-to-exceed $37,000, which will be paid by Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the formal bid process, approve the Resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute the three-party agreement on behalf of the City. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION Background On April 3, 2000, LAFCO conditionally approved annexation of the 743 acre San Miguel Ranch project site to the City of Chula Vista, subject to completion of an MSCP Annexation Agreement. As previously noted, the Annexation Agreement is a requirement of the County's adopted MSCP when land is to be annexed to another jurisdiction. It is necessary for this Agreement to be completed prior to the City Council's ability to take final action on annexation of the San Miguel Ranch project area to the City. Section 9.19 of the County MSCP Implementing Agreement (IA)--Annexation of Lands--, states that in the event that land within the County's jurisdiction is annexed to another jurisdiction, an 7-/ Page 2, Item No.: Meeting Date:7/18/00 agreement shall be reached between the County, the annexing jurisdiction, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as part of the annexation process. The purpose of the Annexation Agreement is to ensure that development of the subject property proceeds in accordance with the conservation goals of the MSCP, and sets forth the respective responsibilities pursuant to the MSCP for ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the terms of this Annexation Agreement and the MSCP as it relates to the subject property. Essentially, the Annexation Agreement serves as a bridge to ensure that the provisions and requirements that apply to the San Miguel Ranch project area under the current County MSCP will be fully and entirely upheld as the project develops under jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. Such Aimexation Agreements are a product of the onset of the MSCP, and will be required of this, and all future annexations. The City's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan must also, and does, include these same provisions regarding the annexation of land to the City, and references Section 9.19 of the County's IA. It should be noted that the City and County MSCP provisions for the San Miguel Ranch project are identical, and that the biological mitigations and resource management requirements for the project are already set forth through the project's EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Final Subsequent EIR-97-02), which was certified by the City Council in conjunction with approval of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map. Waiver of Bid Process As noted earlier, the proposed contract with MNA Consulting is to provide assistance to the City in the preparation, processing and completion of the required MSCP Annexation Agreement for the San Miguel Ranch project between the City, County, USFWS and CDFG. In addition to staff resources, the Director of Planning and Building has determined that completion of the Annexation Agreement requires the time and expertise of a party familiar with the workings of the County and City MSCPs, and in working with the USFWS and the CDFG. As noted earlier, MNA Consulting has been, and is still, under separate contract with the City for preparation of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. As part of that work, MNA has researched and incorporated specific information and provisions regarding each of the eastern Chula Vista master planned communities, including San Miguel Ranch, and has performed extensive research pertaining to the coordination and integration of the City's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan with the adopted County MSCP. MNA Consulting has also attended and facilitated numerous meetings with the County, USFWS and CDFG. As a result, the Director of Planning and Building has determined that MNA Consulting is uniquely and best qualified to perform the work in a timely and effective manner. Due to their unique qualifications, use of the formal bidding process would be impractical in this instance, and the City's interests are materially better served by contracting Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date:7/18/00 with MNA Consulting. Staff is therefore recommending that the formal bid process be waived. Proposed Contract Under the proposed contract, MNA Consulting will coordinate and participate in all meetings and negotiations between the involved parties, will review Agreement drafts and associated documents, and will coordinate the same with Trimark Pacific, the City, County and USFWS and CDFG. MNA will also provide any other services as deemed necessary by the City to complete the Agreement. MNA is proposing a cost not-to-exceed $37,000 for these services, to be paid on a time and materials basis. Should the efforts not reach this level of work, only those time and materials expended would be paid. Under the City's current purchasing guidelines, professional service contracts under $50,000 are typically approved through the City's Purchasing Agent, and do not require Council approval. However, in accordance with those guidelines, and because the amount of MNA Consulting's current contracts with the City total approximately $340,000, the Purchasing Agent has directed that the proposed contract be authorized by the City Council. Trimark Pacific and MNA Consulting have reviewed and approved the proposed contract, and it has also been reviewed by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: None. MNA Consulting's fees not-to-exceed $37,000 will be paid by the project applicant, Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC, through a deposit account. The City will also receive a standard administrative fee amounting to 10% of the contract. Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC will also reimburse any city staff time associated with preparation of the Annexation Agreement through a separate deposit account already established with the City. Attachments 1. Three-party Agreement (H: [HOME\PLANNING\ED\SAN-MIG\MNA CONTRACT.Al 3.DOC) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, TRIMARK PACIFIC SAN MIGUEL LLC, AND MNA CONSULTING FOR ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY IN PREPARATION OF A REQUIRED MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on April 3, 2000, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) conditionally approved annexation of the 743 acre San Miguel Ranch project area to the City, subject to the completion of an MSCP Annexation Agreement; and, WHEREAS, this Annexation Agreement is required pursuant to Section 9.19 of the County of San Diego's MSCP Implementing Agreement (IA) when land is to be annexed to another jurisdiction; and, WHEREAS, the City Council can thereby not complete its final action on said annexation until the MSCP Annexation Agreement is completed; and, WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building has determined that the time and expertise necessary for the City to prepare, negotiate and complete the Annexation Agreement with the involved parties requires the hiring of a consultant familiar with the MSCP; and, WHEREAS, MNA Consulting is currently under separate contract to the City for preparation of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, and has extensive knowledge and experience with MSCP provisions for numerous eastern Chula Vista master planned projects including San Miguel Ranch, and with the provisions of the adopted County MSCP; and, WHEREAS, as a result of this knowledge and experience, the Director of Planning and Building has determined that MNA Consulting is uniquely and best qualified to complete the work in a timely and effective manner; and, WHEREAS, as a further result it has been determined that competitive bidding requirements would be impractical in this instance, and that the City's interests would be materially better served by contracting with MNA ConsuIting; and, WHEREAS, MNA Consulting warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames, and pursuant to the scope of services herein provided all in accordance with the three-party agreement attached hereto; Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the formal bidding process and approve an Agreement with MNA Consulting ("consultant") and Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC ("project applicant") for professional services to assist the City in preparation of a required MSCP Annexation Agreement the San Miguel Ranch project, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by: Approved as to fom~ by: Robert Leiter ,}~hn ~,3[x4dneny Director of Plmming and Building City Attorney (ll:\shared~attomey\san-mig\mna contract) 1 " · 'I T' Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, MNA Consulting, (Consultant), and Trimark Pacific-San Miguel, LLC, (Applicant-) For Consulting Services to be rendered in coordinating the preparation, negotiation, and execution of a Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Annexation Agreement for the San Miguel Ranch Project 1. Parties. This Agreement is made as of the reference date set forth in Exhibit A, for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties hereto, between the City of Chula Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, the consulting firm of MNA Consulting designated on the attached Exhibit A as "Consultant," whose business form and address is indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and the person desig- nated on the attached Exhibit A as "Applicant," Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC, whose business form and address is indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and is made with reference to the following facts: 2. Recitals, Warranties and Representations. 2.1. Warranty of Ownership. Applicant warrants that Applicant is the owner of land ("Property") commonly known as, or generally located as described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 1, or has an option or other entitlement to devel?p said Property. 2.2. Applicant desires to develop the Property with the Project described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, and in that regard, has made application ("Application") with the City for approval of the plan, map, zone, or other permits ("Entitlements") described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3. 2.3. In order for the City to process the Application of Applicant, work of the general nature and type described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, ("Work") will need to be completed. 2.4. City does not presently have the "in-house" staff or resources to process the application within the time frame requested for review by the Applicant. Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\efi~VlNA 3par~y rev.agm) Page I 2.5. This Agreement proposes an arrangement by which Applicant shall retain, and be liable for the costs of retaining Consultant, who shall perform the services required of Consultant by this Agreement solely to, and under the direction of, the City. 2.6. Additional facts and circumstances regarding the background for this Agreement are set forth on Exhibit B. 3. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED TO AND BETWEEN THE CITY, CONSULTANT AND APPLICANT AS FOLLOWS: 3.1. Employment of Consultant by Applicant. Consultant is hereby engaged by the Applicant, not the City, and at Applicant's sole cost and expense, to perform to, and for the primary benefit of, City, and solely at City's direction, all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, entitled "General Nature of Consulting Services," ("GeneraI Services"), and in the process of performing and delivering said General Services, Consultant shalI also perform to and for the benefit of City all of the services described in Exhibit A, Para~aph 5, entitled "Detailed Scope-of-Work," ("Detailed Services"), and all services reasonably necessary to accomplish said General Services and Detailed Scope- of-Work, and shall deliver such documents required ("Deliverables") herein, all within the time frames herein set forth, and in particular as set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, and if none are set forth, within a reasonable period of time for the diligent execution of Consultant's duties hereunder. Time is of the essence of this covenant. The Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and Detailed Services to and for the primary benefit of the City for the compensation herein fixed to be paid by Applicant. In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder, the Consultant shall do so in a good, professional manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations, at its own cost and expense except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any, herein promised, and shall furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, machinery, equipm6nt, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, calculations, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be famished by the City or Applicant, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the Services required of the Consultant. 3.2. Compensation of Consultant. Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant without regard to the conclusions reached by the Consultant, and according to the terms and conditions Tin'ce Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed~vlNA 3party fey.agra) Page 2 7-7 set forth in Exhibit C adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, by paying said amount to the City, within fifteen (15) days of the Consultant's billing, or in accordance with the security deposit provisions of Paragraph 3.3 and Exhibit C, if checked, and upon receipt of such payment by the City, City shall promptly, not later than fifteen (15) days, or in accordance with the Bill Processing procedure in Exhibit C, if checked, pay said amount to the Consultant. City is merely acting in the capacity as a conduit for payment, and shall not be liable for the compensation unless it receives same from Applicant. Applicant shall not make any payments of compensation or otherwise directly to the Consultant. 3.2.1. Additional Work. If the Applicant, with the concurrence of City, determines that additional services ("Additional Services") are needed from Consultant of the type Consultant is qualified to render or reasonably related to the Services Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to provide such additional services on a time and materials basis paid for by Applicant at the rates set forth in Exhibit C, unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon in ~vriting for said Additional Work between the parties. 3.2.1.1. In the event that the City shall determine that additional work is required to be performed above and beyond the scope of work herein provided, City will consult with Applicant regarding the additional work, and if thereupon the Applicant fails or refuses to arrange and pay for said Additional Services, the City may, at its option, suspend any further processing of Applicant's Application until the Applicant shall deposit the City's estimate of the costs of the additional work which the City determines is or may be required. Applicant shall pay any and all additional costs for the additional work. 3.2.2. Reductions in Scope-of-Work. City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. Upon failure to agree, the Fixed Fee may be unilaterally reduced by the City by the amount of time and materials budgeted by Consultant for the Services deleted. 3.3. Security for Pa~nent of Compensation by Applicant. 3.3.1. Deposit. As security for the payment of Consultant by Applicant, Applicant shall, upon execution of this Agreement, deposit the amount indicated on Exhibit C as "Deposit Amount" with the City, as trustee for Consultant, the conditions of such trust being as indicated on Exhibit C and as herein below set forth: 3.3.1.1 Other Terms of Deposit Trust. Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed~VlNA 3par~ rev.agm) Page 3 ! '1 [ 3.3.1.1.1. City shall also be entitled to retain from said Deposit all costs incurred by City for which it is entitled to compensation by law or under the terms of this Agreement. 3.3.1.1.2. All interest earned on the Deposit Amount, if any, shall accrue to the benefit of, and be used for, Trust purposes. City may, in lieu of deposit into a separate bank account, separately account for said deposit in one or more of its various bank accounts, and upon doing so, shall proportionately distribute to the Deposit Trust, the average interest earned during the period on its general fund. 3.3.1.1.3. Any unused balance of Deposit Amount, including any unused interest earned, shall be returned to Applicant not later than thirty (30) days after the termination of this Agreement and any claims resulting therefrom. 3.3.1.1.4. Applicant shall be notified within thirty (30) days after of the use of the Deposit in any manner. Nothing herein shall invalidate use of the Deposit in the manner herein authorized. 3.3.1.1.5. At such time as City shall reasonably determine that inadequate funds remain on Deposit to secure future compensation likely due Consultant or City, City may make demand of Applicant to supplement said Deposit Amount in such amount as City shall reasonably specify, and upon doing so, Applicant shall, within thirty (30) days pays said amount ("Supplemental Deposit Amount") to City. Said Supplement Deposit Amount or Amounts shall be governed by the same terms of trust governing the original Deposit. 3.3.2. Withholding of Processing. In addition to use of the Deposit as security, in order to secure the duty of Applicant to pay Consultant for Services rendered under this Agreement, City shall be entitled to withhold processing of Applicant's application upon a breach of Applicant's duty to compensate Consultant. 3.3.3. Payment of Administrative Overhead. Pursuant to this agreement, Applicant shall pay an additional fee often percent (10%) o£the Consultant's fee to City as City's administrative overhead incurred in the administration of this agreement. The applicant shall, upon execution of this Agreement, deposit the amount indicated on Exhibit C as "Administrative Fee" with the City. 4. Non-Service Related Duties of Consultant. 4.1. Insurance. Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the lirn/ts specified, policies of Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\edW!NA 3par~ fey.agra) Page 4 which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of AA~, Class AV@ or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: 4.1.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage in the mount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 10. 4.1.2. Commemial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise can-y ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). 4.1.3. Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Para~aph 10, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. 4.2. Proof of Insurance Coverage. 4.2.1. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. 4.2.2. Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall delia,er a policy endorsement to the City, Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC, demonstrating same and naming Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC and the City of Chula Vista as additional insureds. 4.3. Public Statements. All public statements and releases to the news media shall be the responsibility of the City and the Applicant. The Consultant shall not publish or release news items, articles or present lectures on the Project, either during the course of the study or after its completion, except on written concurrence of the City and Applicant. 4.4. Communication to Applicant. Consultant shall not communicate directly to the Applicant except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Consultant may request such meetings with the Applicant to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant. Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\edWiNA 3pa~ty rev.agm) Page 5 5. Non-Compensation Duties of the Applicant. 5.1. Documents Access. The Applicant shall provide to the Consultant, through the City, for the use by the Consultant and City, such documents, or copies of such documents requested by the Consultant, within the possession of Applicant reasonably useful to the Consultant in performing the services herein required of Consultant, including but not limited to those described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7. 5.2. Property. Access. The Applicant hereby grants permission to the City and Consultant to enter and access the Property, provided that the applicant is given forty-eight (48) hours notice prior to the City or consultant entering the property, to take any borings, make any tests, conduct any surveys or reconnaissance necessary to deliver the Services of Consultant, subject to the approval of the Applicant. Consultant shall promptly repair any damage to the subject property occasioned by such entry and shall indemnify, defend, and hold Applicant harmless from all loss, cost, damage, expenses, claims, and liabilities in connection with or arising from any such entry and access. 5.3. Communication to Consultant. Applicant shall not communicate directly to the Consultant except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Applicant may request such meetings as they desire with the Consultant to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant. 6. Administrative Representatives. Each party designates the individuals ("Administrators") indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this Agreement. 7. Conflicts of Interest. 7.1. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report his economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 9 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\edhMNA 3par~ rev.agm) Page 6 -7 7.2. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. 7.3. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties trader this A~eement. 7.4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further ~varrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. 7.5. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. 7.6. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in the property which is the subject matter of the Project, or in any property within I0 radial miles fi:om the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject matter of the Project, or ("Prohibited Interest"). Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates by Applicant or by any other party as a result of Consultant's performance Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\l-lome\planning\edWiNA 3parOy rev.agm) Page 7 of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve (12) months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve (12) months after the expiration of this Agreement. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement. 8. Default of the Consultant for Breach. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for default if the Consultant breaches this Agreement or if the Consultant refuses or fails to pursue the work under this Agreement or any phase of the work with such diligence which would assure its completion within a reasonable period of time. Termination of this Agreement because of a default of the Consultant shall not relieve the Consultant from liability of such default. 9. City's Right to Terminate Payment for Convenience Documents. 9.1. Notwithstanding any other section or provision of this Agreement, the City shall have the absolute right at any time to terminate this Agreement or any work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. 9.2. In the event of termination of this Agreement by the City in the absence of default of the Consultant, the City shall pay the Consultant for the reasonable value of the services actually performed by the Consultant up to the date of such termination, less the aggregate of all sums previously paid to the Consultant for services performed after execution of this Agreement and prior to its termination. 9.3. The Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damage or compensation arising under this Agreement, except as set forth herein, in the event of such termination. 9.4. In the event of termination of this Agreement, and upon demand of the City, the Consultant shall deliver to the City, all field notes, surveys, studies, reports, plans, drawings and all other materials and documents prepared by the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, and all such documents and materials shall be the property of the City; provided however, that the Consultant may retain copies for their own use and the City shall provide a copy, at Applicant's cost, of all such documents to the Applicant, 9.5. Applicant shall have no right to terminate Consultant, and shall not exercise any control or direction over Consultant's work. · Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed~VlNA 3party rev.agm) Page 8 10. Administrative Claims Requirement and Procedures. No suit shall be brought arising out of this Agreement, against the City, unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. 11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. 11.1. Consultant to Indemnify City and Applicant re Iniuries. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees and Applicant from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employees, subcontractors, or others of City or Applicant in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees, or Applicant, Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees or Applicant in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City or Applicant, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees or Applicant. Consultants~ indemnification of City and Applicant shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 11.2. Applicant to Indemnify City re Compensation of Consultant. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless against and from any and all claims, losses, damages, expenses or expenditures of City, including its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or representatives of the City ("City Indemnitees"), in any way resulting from or arising out of the refusal to pay compensation as demanded by Consultant for the performance of services required by this Agreement. 12. Business Licenses. Applicant agrees to obtain a business license fi.om the City and to otherwise comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5. Applicant further agrees to require Consultant to obtain such business license and to comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5. Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed\MNA 3party rev.agm) Page 9 7-/4 13. Miscellaneous. 13.1. Consultant not authorized to Represent City. Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, neither Consultant nor Applicant shall have authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. 13.2. Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified for the parties in Exhibit A. 13.3. Entitlement to Subsequent Notices. No notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event not herein legally required to be given shall in itself create the right in the parties to any other or further notice or demand in the same, similar or other circumstances. 13.4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision.hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. 13.5. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction fi.om its principal to enter into this Agreement; that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13.6. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Horae\planning\edhMNA 3party fey.agra) Page 10 ? -/s° 13.7. Modification. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then shall be valid only in the specific instance and for the purpose for which given. 13.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which, when taken together shall constitute but one instrument. 13.9. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree to such amendments, modifications, or supplements to this Agreement or such other appropriate action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein. 13.10. Headings. The captions and headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not define or limit the provisions hereof. 13.11. Waiver. No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single failure or ,delay, or the partial exercise of any right, power or privilege, on the part of the parties shall operate as a waiver of any rights herein contained. The making or the acceptance of a payment by either party with knowledge of the existence of a breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any such breach. 13.12. Remedies. The rights of the parties under this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the parties might otherwise have unless this Agreement provides to the contrary. Three Party Agreement San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed\MNA 3party rev.agm) Page 11 13.13. No Additional Beneficiaries. Despite the fact that the required performance under this Agreement may have an affect upon persons not parties hereto, the parties specifically intend no benefit therefrom, and agree that no performance hereunder may be enforced by any person not a party to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is a three party agreement and the City is an express third party beneficiary of the promises of Consultant to provide services paid for by Applicant. (End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.) Three Party Agreement - San MigueI Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed~vlNA 3par~ ~v.agm) Page 12 Signature Page NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Dated: City of Chula Vista By: Shirley Horton, Mayor Approved as to Form: Attest: B By: Jo~i'lgl. Kaheny, City Attomey Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Dated: Consultant: MNA Consulting Lau.) Mc qSe or m ner' Dated: Applicant: Tfim~k Pacific-S~ Miguel LLC, a Califomia limited liability comply By: ~ Stephen ~t~, Division~sident Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 06/30/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed\MNA 3pariy fey.agra) Page 13 Exhibit A Reference Date of Agreement: June 28, 2000 Effective Date of Agreement: July ,2000 City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Consultant: MNA Consulting Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Parmership (X) Corporation Address: 427 C Street, Suite 308, San Diego, CA 92101 Applicant: Trimark Pacific-San Miguel, LLC, a California limited liability company Business Form of Applicant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership ( ) Corporation (X) Other: LLC, A California Limited Liability Company Address: 85 Argonaut, Suite 205, Aliso Vie. jo, CA 92656 1. Property (Commonly known ad&ess or General Description): The San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) consists of approximately 746 acres commonly referred to as the South Parcel, and generally located east and north of Proctor Valley Rd., South of Jonel Way and the SDG&E Miguel Substation, and west of Rolling Hills Ranch ("Property"). While not part of the proposed SPA Plan, the 1,852 acre North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch has been set aside as a permanent ecological preserve, which preserve is part of the biological mitigation requirements for development of the South Parcel. Three Party Agreement - San Miguel Ranch 07/07/00 (H:\Home\planning\ed~MNA 3party fey.agra) Page 14 2. Project Description ("Project"): Preparation of a MSCP Annexation Agreement ("Agreement") between the City, County of San Diego, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game (hereinafter referred to as "Wildlife Agencies"), and the Applicant as required by conditions of the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) approval of annexation of the San Miguel Ranch SPA (South Parcel) area to the City, and pursuant to Section 9.19 of the County of San Diego's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Implementing Agreement. The Agreement is intended to ensure that development of the Property proceeds in accordance with the conservation goals of the MSCP, and sets forth the respective responsibilities pursuant to the MSCP for ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the terms of the Agreement and the MSCP as it relates to the Property. 3. Entitlements applied for: Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated documents, including, but not necessarily limited to the following: Planned Community Design Guidelines; Planned Community District Regulations; Air Quality Improvement Plan; Water Conservation Plan; Affordable Housing Program; Public Facilities Financing Plan; Fiscal Impact Analysis; Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; Master Tentative Subdivision Map; and annexation (which may or may not include lands other than the Property). 4. General Nature of Consulting Services ("Services-General"): MNA Consulting ("MNA") will provide assistance to the City of Chula Vista in the development, processing and completion of an MSCP Annexation Agreement for the San Miguel Ranch project between Trimark Pacific, the County of San Diego, the Wildlife Agencies, and the City. MNA will coordinate and participate in all meetings and negotiations between the involved parties. MNA will also provide review of Agreement drafts and associated documents, and will coordinate same with Trimark Pacific, City, County, and Wildlife Agencies. MNA will provide other services as deemed necessary by the City to complete the Agreement. 5. Detailed Scope of Work ("Detailed Services"): The following tasks are intended to represent MNA's scope of services required in the preparation and completion of the Agreement (See Exhibit C and Attachment A): (Note re: Attachment A: should there be any conflict between Attachment A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control) a. Schedule and attend meetings with City, County, and Applicant as directed by City staff. Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:\Home\planning\¢harlineWiNA 3party.agrn) Page 15 b. Coordinate and participate in meetings and negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies. c. On behalf of the City, review and comment on Agreement draft(s) and associated documents and materials. d. Miscellaneous organizational and follow-up tasks as directed by City staff to complete negotiation and execution of the Agreement as assigned by the City. 6. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services: Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Completion of all tasks set forth in paragraph 5 above as directed by City. Dates for completion of all Consultant services: September 29, 2000, or as extended by the Director of Planning in the Director's sole discretion. 7. Documents to be provided by Applicant to Consultant: (X) Approved SPA document and Tentative Map (with. adopting Resolutions and Conditions of Approval). (X) SPA FSEIR and biolo~cal technical studies (X) Phasing plan. (X) Conservation Bank Agreement and Side Letter. 8. Contract Administrators: City: Marilyn Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:\Home\planning\charlineWiNA 3party.agra) Page 16 Applicant:St~hen Hester Division President Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC 85 Argonaut, Suite 205 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Consultant: Laurie McKinley Senior Partner MNA Consulting 427 C Street, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92101 9. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. Category No. 2. Interests in real property. Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two yeaxs, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No. 7. Business positions. Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:\Horne\planning~:harline~l-NA 3party.agrn) Page 17 10. Insurance Requirements: ! (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance ( )Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. (X) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:\Home\planning\¢harline\MNA 3party.agra) Page 18 Exhibit B Additional Recitals WHEREAS, the Applicant has deposited or will deposit an initial sum for the consulting services and all other necessary documents as outlined in Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, it was determined by the Director of Planning and Building that staff has neither the available time or expertise to perform the subject work, and WHEREAS, the subject work is directly related to requirements for project implementation under the MSCP and conditions of the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission's approval of project annexation to the City, and WHEREAS, MNA Consulting is already under contract to the City for preparation of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, and was determined by the Director of Planning and Building to be the most appropriate and able to perform the subject work, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has been duly informed of the intent to enter into the $37,000 consulting service contract, and has consented to such, and WHEREAS, the Contract Administrator has negotiated the details of this Agreement in accordance with applicable procedures set forth in Sections 2.56.220-224 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:\Home\planning\charline\MNA 3party.agm) Page 19 Exhibit C Compensation Schedule and Deposit: Terms and Conditions ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement ( ) Single Fixed Fee Amount: ( X ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the General and Detailed Services herein required of Consultant, and prescribed in Exhibit "A', paragraphs 4 and 5, for a price not-to-exceed $37,000.00 including all time, materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation"). Applicant shall deposit with the City upon execution of this agreement, one-half of the Consultant fee as described under the "Deposit" section of this exhibit. The City shall pay Consultant in increments and at the times or milestones set forth below: Milestone Amount/Percentage of Fixed Fee to be Paid 1. Signing of this agreement by all parties and $7,400.00 (20%) upon request by the Consultant. To be credited toward Consultant's time and materials billings. 2. Monthly invoices from the Consultant Per time and materials billed. (X) City Administrative Fee For compensation of the overhead costs involved in administering this contract, the Applicant shall pay to the City an additional fee of ten percent (10%) of the Consultant's fee, specifically $3,700.00. Applicant shall deposit this amount in conjunction with the deposit of the Consultant fees. City shall withdraw monthly from this amount a sum equal to 10% of the Consultant's monthly billing amount. In such instance that the Consultant's total billings for completing the work under this contract are less than $37,000.00, the City will refund to Applicant that remaining portion of the $3,700.00 Administrative Fee. Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:\Home\planning\charlineWiNA 3party.agm) Page 20 Rate Schedule Category of Employee of Consultant Hourly Rate MNA Consulting: Principal $150.00 Vice President $120.00 Senior Associate $100.00 Associate $90.00 Research Assistant $80.00 Administrative Assistant $65.00 Deposit (X) Deposit Amount: A. At execution of agreement - 50% of Consultant Fees $18,500.00 City Administrative Fee $ 3,700.00 Total: $22,200.00 B. Upon request by City and prior to exhaustion of the above $18,500.00 - $18,500.00 (X) Use of Deposit to Pay Consultant. Notwithstanding the sole duty and liability of Applicant to pay Consultant, if this paragraph is "checked", upon City's receipt of billing by Consultant, and determination by City in good faith that Consultant's billing is proper, a judgment for which Applicant agrees to hold City harmless and waive any claim against City, City shall pay Consultant's billing from the amount of the Deposit. If Applicant shall protest the propriety of a billing to City in advance of payment, City shall consider Applicant's protest and any evidence submitted prior to the due date for the payment of said bill by Applicant in making its good faith determination of propriety. ( X ) Bill Processing: Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:\Home\planning\charline\MNA 3par~.agm) Page 21 A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (X) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: Upon completion of each milestone Three Party Agreement July 27, 1999 (H:~Home\planning\charline~vlNA 3party.agra) Page 22 B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month (X) End of the Month ( ) Other: On the 10th day of each month following completion of each milestone C. City's Account Number: Three Party Agreement 07/07/00 (H:XHome\planning\charline\MNA 3par~.agm) Page 23 ATTACHMEN', PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES CITY OF CHULA VISTA San .~liguel Ranch BACKGROUND San Mi~_cmel Ranch, properLY owned by Trimark Pacific. encompasses approximately 2.590 acres tocaled entirely whh/n an tmincerporated area of San Dieo~o_ Coun~~ ~nd w~thm' ' t!:e Sphere ot~ Intluence~ of the '~,,:r' ... o~*~ Chula Vista. San Mi=~uel Ranch has been designated by the County and the Wildlife Agencies as an area authorized for incidental take of Covered Species Subject to Incidental Take pursuant to the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Pro.am (MSCP) and County. Implementing A~_oreement, provided that certain biological mitigation is provided. Concurrently, the CiD, of Chula Vista is developing its own MSCP Subarea Plan which will authorize the same incidental take of Covered Species ~_nd biological mitigation requirement for San MigueI Ranch as those outIined in :.he County Subarea Plan. A Sectional Pimnnin~ .Area (SPA) plan for San ?xngud Ranch nas recently been approved by the CID', a~d annexation has been approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (L.A~FCO). However, completion of an .~nnexation .Agreement, bern,sen the project proponent, the Ci~,, the Count3.' and th~ \ViIdlife Agencies is a condition of said annexation. The Ci~, and the project proponent are both desirous of completing the Annexation A~eement and completing annexation of San Miguel Ranch to the GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK Iv~A Consulting (';Consultant") will provide assistance to the Ci~ of Chula Vista ("Client") to complete the .4mnexation A~eement referenced above. Consultant will work with Client on development and processing the A~eement. This will involve pm'xicipation in Cin., meetings (in-house, with project proponent and with the Count,), coordination of and participation in negotiating meetings with the Wildlife Agencies, and other project-related tasks as assi~m~ed by Client. ESTIMATED CONSULTANT HOURS Estimated Task Summa~. Consultant Hours Participate in meetings with City staff, City and Trimark, 85 and City and County, as directed by Client Coordination and participation in meetings with Wildlife Agencies 35 Review and comment on A~eement draft(s) and associated 50 documents/materials Miscellaneous organizational and follow-up tasks 40 Subtotal 210 + ]3% administrative hours a~*d conti~zgency Total Estimated Consulting Hours 240 CONSULTA~NT FEES Client will, for services rendered, pay Consultant on a time and materials basis at the following rates: Principal, $150/hour; Vice President, $120/hour; Senior Associate, $100/hour; Associate, $90/hour, Research Assistant, $80/hour and Administrative Assistant, $65/hour; not to exceed a conla-act amount of $37,000, plus usual and reasonable expenses, without the e~ipress written approval of Client. Consultant will invoice Client on a monthly basis. Direct expenses will be billed at cost. Invoices are due and payable within thirty days. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 07118100 ITEM TITLE: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE RELATING TO UPDATES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF) TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2809-C OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2554 RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY. (415ths Vote: Yes ~ No __) SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~"~ ~ BACKGROUND: On May 23, 2000, Ordinance 2810 was approved by Council on its first reading and adopted by Council on its second reading of June 6, 2000 to take effect in 60 days. On June 20, 2000, Council approved Urgency Ordinance No. 2809-B, the second in a sedes of three 30-day urgency ordinances necessary for immediate implementation of the changes. Urgency Ordinance 2809-C amends the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Ordinance to increase development impact fees (PFDIF) from $2,150 to $2,618 per equivalent dwelling unit, to pay for various public facilities Citywide, and to make a number of other amendments to the Ordinance detailed in "Development Impact Fee forPublic Facilities, 1999 Update" presented to Council at the regular meeting on May 23, 2000. The total fee was last reviewed in 1992~93. Adoption of the proposed Urgency Ordinance 2809-C will enable the City to continue to collect the updated fees dudng the 60-day waiting pedod before Ordinance 2810 becomes effective. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt an urgency ordinance amending Ordinance 2554 changing vadous Municipal Code sections to include increasing the total Public Facilities Impact Fees from $2,150 to $2,618, effective for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Presentations were made to the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and to the Chula Vista Economic Development Commission. Portions of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee update have been presented to the Growth Management Oversight Commission, as applicable. Staff answered all questions of these boards and commissions, but did not seek endorsements. Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 07/18100 DISCUSSION: This discussion represents a bdef recap of more detailed information contained in the staff report Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities, 1999 Update, Summary and Main Reports, previously received by Council. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Increase: The original fee structure did not anticipate annexation of the Otay Ranch and did not include finance costs for major PFDIF projects. Overall, projects included in the PFDIF total slightly more than $204 million, 63% of which is the responsibility of the PFDIF program. It is important to emphasize that the impact fee is calculated solely on the PFDIF share. Overall, the PFDIF is proposed to increase from $2,150 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to $2,618 per EDU, an increase of $468. The fee increase, adjusted for financing costs and earned interest, is broken down as follows: Current Proposed Change Component Fee Fee per EDU Police $235 $735 +$500 Library $544 $638 +$ 94 Fire $141 $203 +$ 62 Administration $ 79 $134 +$ 55 Corp Yard /Animal Shelter $515 $386 -$129 Civic Center $527 $480 -$ 47 GIS, Computer Systems, RMS, Telecommunications $109 $ 42 -$ 67 Totals $2,150 $2,618 +$468 These increases represent revisions to the ordinance, Municipal Code section 3.50.090(c). Major component changes are highlighted below. Police Facilities & Equipment: The Police component fee is projected to increase from $235 per EDU to $735 per EDU, representing the largest increase of any component. The increase is attributable to the need for a new (or expanded) police facility and the inclusion of projected financing costs, as detailed in the Summary Report. Police staff are currently preparing an RFP for a space needs analysis and design services. Library: The fee for the Library component is projected to increase from $544 per EDU to $638 per EDU. The increase is principally attributable to higher construction costs detailed in the updated Library Master Plan. The Library Master Plan calls for a 30,000 square foot library to be built in the Rancho del Rey development and a 30,000 square foot library to be built in the Otay Ranch development. Planning and design for the new Rancho del Rey facility will begin in FY2000-01. Fire Station Master Plan: The Fire Station Master Plan principally deals with the major capital-related items needed to serve new development. In order to serve the City through build out, staff recommend that City Council adopt the updated the Fire Station Master Plan which recommends expanding the current 6-station network to 9 stations. In addition to planned relocations of two existing stations, two new stations are Page 3 Item ~' Meeting Date 07/18100 recommended for the Otay Ranch development and one for the Rolling Hills Ranch development. Administration: The fee for the Administrative Component is proposed to increase from $79 per EDU to $134 per EDU. In the past, funds for administering the PFDIF have been allocated as a general percentage of the overall project costs detailed in the other nine components. This percentage has ranged from 4.05% to 6% The current, in-depth review of expenditures has established a more rigorous basis for projecting administrative costs. Corporation Yard: The fee is proposed to decrease from $515 to $386 per EDU. This decline resulted from the purchase and remodeling of the former SD(3&E yard. Previous fees had been based on the cost for all new construction. Civic Center Expansion: Several possible lower cost options for expansion of the Civic Center Complex have been identified and are reflected in the proposed fee. It is important that a full space needs and design analysis be undertaken for the Civic Center as quickly as possible. This will ensure that the fee for this component can be modified at an early date if needed. Staff are considering the possibility of contracting to have such a study completed in conjunction with the police facility study. Other Proposed Ordinance Chan,qes Public Facilities to be Financed by the Fee: An initial outcome of the 1999 Public Facilities DIF update was a re-titling of the general project components, to reflect current and future goals and objectives. This represents a minor change to the ordinance, Municipal Code section 3.50.030 (c). Time to Determine Amount Due: In very limited circumstances the situation may arise in which a Iow/moderate-income housing development has secured funding based on the then current impact fee but that actual permits will not be pulled until a new fee is in place. Staff therefore recommends a substantive modification to the current ordinance (Municipal Code section 3.50.070), allowing that the City Manager be given the discretion to permit such a development to prepay their PFDIF for up to 500 EDUs. This will help to financially protect the public-purpose project. Developer Construction of Facilities: The City's Municipal Code section 3.50.140 states the conditions under which City Council tenders developer credits or reimbursements against a Developer's Fair Share related to the construction of public facilities. The section does not, however, specify how such credits shall be calculated although an unwritten convention for doing so has existed. Staff recommends an addition to the City's Municipal Code which clarifies a process that has been in place since the Public Facilities DIF was enacted. It represents no substantive change to the actual process. Developer Transfer of Credits: To enable city staff to track the transfer of developer credits between developers, to determine who currently has the credits, and to facilitate more accurate projections when conducting various studies related to the PFDIF such as the Cash Flow Analysis, staff recommends adding a new section to the Municipal Code. The new section (3.50.155) would provide the City with timely written notice of such transfers and also specify the limitations associated with the transfer of Iow/moderate- income developer credits. Page 4, Item ~) Meeting Date 07118100 Urgency: It is necessary that the City's development impact fee increases for public facilities remain in effect in order that all developers of properties in the eastern section of the City pay their fair share of the cost of public facilities improvements relating to the impacts caused by their development. The fee increase is necessary due to the current and immediate threat to public safety that will result should there be a shortfall in the amount of money necessary to pay for the vadous needed public facilities, thereby resulting in a decline in police and fire service levels. The prospect of a shortfall, inadequacy of public safety facilities and concerns about an increased charge to remaining property owners constitutes a current immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety justifying the immediate imposition of this fee. Fiscal Impact Overall, staff recommends increasing the total Public Facilities Developer Impact Fee by $468, from $2,150 to $2,618 per EDU. This will be the first increase in the total fee since 1990-91. Projects included in the PFDIF total $204,484,387. Sixty-three percent ($129,118,740) is the responsibility of the PFDIF program. Thirty-seven percent of the total project cost ($75,366,647) is the City's share for correcting pre-existing deficits and for joint projects. Approximately 50% of the City share has already been expended. The largest remaining project with a City share is the new police facility. It is important to recognize that substantial portions of the new development share will have to be financed. Current estimates are that the PFDIF's capital-related debt will be nearly $3,000,000 for an extended number of years. It is important to re-emphasize that the City's General Fund will be the final guarantor of that PFDIF debt. ORDINANCE NO. 2809-C AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2554 RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance 2810 on its second reading which will increase the development impact fee to finance public facilities within the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fees increased by that ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after adoption; and WHEREAS, developments in the City which will impact various public facilities will be applying for building permits during the interim period before the development impact fee increase becomes effective; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66017(b) authorizes the City to adopt an interim fee as an urgency measure upon making a finding describing the current and immediate threat to the public health, welfare, and safety; and WHEREAS, state law requires said urgency ordinance to be adopted by a four-fifths vote; and WHEREAS, the current list of public facilities was established in 1990-91 and is now in need of updating; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the PFDIF is to finance and construct public facilities within the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the current fee does not include financing costs nor does it offset fees for projected interest earnings; and WHEREAS, the single, most costly PFDIF project - a new police facility - had not been previously included in the PFDIF program; and WHEREAS, the last real fee change occurred in 1990-91, pending a complete fee analysis after annexation of the Otay Ranch; and WHEREAS, that complete fee analysis has now been concluded effective April 2000; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: FINDINGS The City Council finds that developers of land within Chula Vista's General Plan area boundary should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the payment of an impact fee for construction of public facilities within the boundaries of the development and for public facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to provide service to the development in accordance with City standards; and The City Council finds that the legislative findings and determinations set forth in Ordinance No. 2554 continue to be true and correct and incorporate those findings herein; and The City Council finds, after consideration of the evidence presented to it including the "Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities 1999 Update", that certain amendments to Ordinance No. 2554 are necessary in order to assure that there are sufficient funds available to finance public facilities including police and fire facilities necessary to maintain public safety service levels; and The City Council finds, based on the evidence presented at the meeting, the City's General Plan, and the various reports and information received by the City Council in the ordinary course of its business, that the imposition of public facilities impact fees on all development in the eastern territories for which building permits have not been issued is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and in order to assure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and The City Council finds that the amount of the amended fees levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public facilities. SECTION 2: Finding of Ur,qency That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that it is necessary that its development impact fee update for public facilities remain in effect on an urgency basis for an additional thirty (30) days until Ordinance 2810 becomes effective sixty (80) days after its second reading and adoption. The City Council finds that an Urgency Ordinance is necessary in order that all developers of properties in the eastern section of the City pay their fair sham of the cost of public facilities improvements relating to the impacts caused by their development. Ongoing implementation of this fee is necessary due to the current and immediate threat to public safety that will result should there be a shortfall in the amount of money necessary to pay for the various public facilities thereby resulting in a decline in police and fire service levels. The City Council finds that the prospect of a shortfall, inadequacy of public safety facilities and concerns about an increased charge to remaining property owners constitutes a current immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety justifying the immediate imposition of this fee. SECTION 3: That Sections 3.50.030(c), 3.50.070, and 3.50.090(c) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: 3.50.030 Public Facilities to be Financed by the Fee. (c) The facilities are as follows: Civic Center Expansion Police Department Facilities and Equipment Corporation Yard Relocation/Expansion Library System Expansion Fire Suppression System Expansion Geographic Information System Computer System Upgrades Telecommunication System Upgrade Records Management System 3.50.070 Time to Determine Amount Due. The Fee for each Development shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final map were granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit, except that a Developer of a Development Project providin,q Iow- and/or moderate-income housin.q in accordance with Section III, Objective 1 of the 1991 Housin.q Element of the General Plan, may request authorization to prepay the Fee for up to 500 EDUs and said request may be approved at the sole discretion of the City Mana.qer. Upon prepayment, the Developer of said Development Proiect shall receive EDU credit based on the then current fee. 3.50.090 Amount of Fee. (c) The Fee shall be the following, depending on land use: Land Use Fee Residential $2,618/dwelling unit Commercial/Office $13,090/acre Industrial $13,090/acre Special Land Use $13,090/acre Olympic Training Center $3,273/acre Public Purpose Exempt Non-profit Community Exempt Purpose Facility Special purposeproject, $7,854/acre including for-profit day care SECTION 4: That Section 3.50.140(b) is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code as follows: 3.50.140 Developer Construction of Facilities. (b) Unless otherwise stated herein, all Developer Credits shall be calculated on a dollar basis and converted into EDUs at the time building permits are pulled, based on the then current Fee. SECTION 5: That Section 3.50.155 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code as follows: Sec. 3.50.155 Developer Transfer of Credits ^ Developer who, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3.50.140 and 3.50.150, receives credits against future payments of the Fee for one or more Fee Components may transfer those credits as provided herein to another Developer. (a) The Developer shall provide the City with written notice of such transfer within thirty (30) days. The notice shall provide the followin,q information; · The name of the Developer to whom the credits were transferred: · The dollar value of transferred credits: · The Fee Component(s) against which the credits will be applied: and · The proiectecl rate, by Fiscal Year, that the credits will be applied, until said credits have been fully redeemed. (b) Credits granted to a Developer of a iow-and/or moderate-income proiect in accordance with Section 3.50.70, can only be transferred to another Iow- and/or moderate-income Development Proiect. SECTION 6: Time limit for protest and iudicial action Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the time period as established by law. In accordance with Government Code Section 66020(d)(1 ), the ninety day approval period in which parties may protest begins upon the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 7: Expiration of this ordinance This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 30 days after its adoption. SECTION 8: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon four-fifths vote. Presented by Approved as to form by George Krempl ///~_./John M. Kaheny Assistant City Manager City Attorney COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 7/18/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Supporting the participation of thc City in the consolidation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds as proposed by thc Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) effective July 1, 2001 / SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X ) On February 24, 2000, the MTD Board of Directors approved MTDB staffrecommendations which changed the way TDA ~unds are processed in the region. This change is connected with the passing of Senate Bill (SB) 664 (Alpert) in the fall of 1999. SB 664 mandated that no more than 50% of a jurisdiction's TDA apportionment should he contributed to the Regional Services Fund. Additionally, SB 664 modified the voting requirements to change the Regional Formula to a simple majority. This legislation was enacted to correct the inequities which existed in the way regional services were being financed, with some jurisdictions paying more than their share and others less. This was based on the number of local jurisdiction's residents riding regional transit services. Under this scenario the City would contribute 48.4%, based on the regional goal formula, of its annual TDA allocation to the Regional Services Fund. This would negatively impact existing service levels (Exhibit 1, MTDB Agenda Item No. 33, page E-l). For FY 01, the City's contribution to the Regional Services Fund has increased from 11.1% to 21.1% of its annual contribution. The City will be able to meet current transit service levels for FY 2000-01 with its TDA allocation, but the increase in the Regional Services Fund contribution has eliminated any annual TDA balances. In order to mitigate any negative impacts on local transit services, the MTD Board on June 22, 2000, approved "in principal" the consolidated transit funding process as described in Exhibit 1, and consistent with the Policy Issues outlined in Attachment C of Exhibit 1, for FY 02 and beyond. In smmnary this process would consolidate all transit funds: Federal, State and Local; fund ADA transit services; create a Transit Capital Program for the region; and, Fund Local and Regional Services at a base level. This transit funding process will continue to fund the City's transit operations and administrative costs. The City will continue to retain control of Chula Vista Tranait's (CVT) operation, thus maintaining its transit identity with the community. Additionally, the City would still maintain control on decisions affecting future service expansion and/or enhancement and capital improvement projects through the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process. Also, any prior year, unallocated TDA funds which currently amounts to approximately $1.2 million will remain under the City's control. The City's MTDB representative, Jerry Rindone, supports this MTDB transit finance process. MTDB staffis present at tonight's meeting to answer any questions Council may have. Page 2, Item [ Meeting Date 7/18/00 RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve resolution supporting Option B which would pool all of the transit funds in the region and allow current system operators to continue to provide transit services. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: Background: As previously mentioned the passing of SB 664 initiated the region's assessment on the way Regional Services were being financed. The MTD Board directed staff to present financing plans that would meet SB 664. Additionally, the MTD Board of Directors formed the Transit Financing Subcommittee, Chaired by Board member and Chula Vista representative Jerry Rindone, to review MTDB staff FY 01 transit financing proposals and to continue to direct MTDB staff to work on a transit financing plan for FY 02 and beyond. The Subcommittee reviewed the following staff recommendations: Option A- 1 Option A-1 was based on the number of riders on regional service from that jurisdiction as a percentage of all the regional riders. Under this five-year formula Chula Vista would contribute up to 50.0% of its TDA annual allocation to the Regional Service Fund. Option A-2 Option A-2 was based on the number of regional trips (including a proportionate share of linked trips) taken by residents of a jurisdiction as a percentage of the total trips taken by the jurisdiction's residents. Under this five-year formula Chula Vista would contribute up to 48.4% of its TDA annual allocation to the Regional Service Fund. Both Options would be prorated over five (5) years: Option A-1 starting at 19.1% in FY 01 with a goal of 50.0% in FY 05; Option A-2 starting at 18.56% in FY 01 and a goal of 48.4% in FY 05. These options would have negatively impacted the provision of local services, for the TDA allocation would not have been sufficient to meet Chula Vista Transit's (CVT) current service levels and future service expansions and/or enhancements beyond FY 01 (Table 1). Option "Interim" A-3 Option A-3 added 10 percentage points to the City's FY 00 Regional Service Fund contribution. Chula Vista's Regional Service Fund FY 00 assessment was 11.1% ($440,895). The City's current FY 01 assessment is 21.1% ($909,325). Option A-3 would only be implemented in FY 01. Under this option CVT would be able to finance its operations at current service levels with its FY 01 TDA allocation. If Option A-3 continues beyond FY 01, the existing level of service could be reduced and/or any service expansions could be curtailed. Page 3, Item / Meeting Date 7/18/00 Option B Option B "pooled" all the transit funds: Federal, State and Local. Costs would be prioritized "off the top" as follows: · ADA services · Local match requirements for federal transit grants · Local and Regional service base. On February 18, 2000, the MTDB Transit Financing Subcommittee opted to recommend to the MTD Board of Directors Option A-3 for FY 01 and to continue to pursue Option B for FY 02 and beyond. MTDB Area Transit Finance Concept (Option B "Pooling"): Attached (Exhibit 1) is MTDB Agenda Item No. 33 which recommends the consolidation of all transit funds; however, all transit system operators, i.e CVT, will continue to provide public transit services. Item No. 33 was adopted "in principal" by the MTD Board on June 22, 2000 and which will be reintroduced on August 10, 2000 for final recommendation. The MTDB Finance Subcommittee, the Regional Transit Services Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Transit System Operator Advisory Committee have had input on this proposed financing concept. The main components of this proposal are as follows: · The consolidation of all transit funds in the Metropolitan area: All Federal, State and Local transit funds would be consolidated under MTDB. · There would be no formulas. MTDB policies would be used to evaluate all new service and capital proposals. · Funding priorities: ADA services; Local match requirements for Federal grants; Local service base. · SRTP and CIP as the basis for new projects. Of importance, under this transit financing concept is that the City is "guaranteed" a local service level. The operational and administrative cost of CVT would be funded as a base from one year to the next. New services and/or enhancements would be programed through the SRTP and evaluated under Policy No.43 (Exhibit 1, page C-11). Policy No. 43 establishes a process for evaluation of existing transit service and proposed new services. In FY 01 MTDB will also evaluate an amendment to Policy No. 43 to link it to Policy No. 40 which addresses transit-land use coordination. This link would benefit the City as CVT expands into Otay Ranch, which is a smart-growth, transit oriented development. Additionally, the City would participate in the expanded C]I~ to fund future capital projects (buses/facilities). The City would benefit by use of Federal Capital funds for its transit related projects. Any Federal grant regulations and requirements would be managed by MTDB. City staff would submit CVT's operational and administrative budget to MTDB and in-turn MTDB would submit a single regional TDA claim to SANDAG. Page 4, Item t~ Meeting Date 7/18/00 The City has the option to "opt out" of this pooling concept, but as mentioned before the City could lose up to 48.4% of its annual TDA allocation as discussed in Options A-1 & A-2. Any future service expansions and/or programed capital expenditures would have to be funded with the available TDA which would not be sufficient. FISCAL IMPACT: No City of Chula Vista General Fund monies involved. Under the consolidation of transit funds Option B the City would lose direct control of its TDA annual allocation of approximately $4.1 million starting in FY 02 and beyond. However, this option would allow the City to maintain control of CVT's operation and provide for future service increases and enhancements. The City would still maintain control of its prior year unallocated funds which currently amount to $1.2 million. File: DS-022 I:\SHARED~Public Works Operations\TDA RESTRUCTURINGal 13.wpd 7/13/00 8:43:17 AM MTOB / Metropolitan Transit Development Board 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 3 3 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 (619)231-1466 Agenda Item No. __ FAX (619) 234-3407 Board of Directors Meeting FIN 310 (PC 30100) June 22, 2000 Subject: MTDB AREA TRANSIT FINANCE INTRODUCTION: In April 1999 the MTD Board of Directors authorized further development work toward implementation of a Metropolitan Area Transit Financing concept that would, as an objective, cure the inequities associated with the regional services funding and make the overall financing of services more efficient and easier to comprehend. As part of that direction, a Board-member Transit Financing Subcommittee was formed, chaired by Board member Rindone. The Subcommittee has been meeting on a near- monthly basis since last April 1999 a total of 13 meetings. In addition, the direction from the April 1999 Joint Boards Budget Workshop also included the formation of an MTDB area Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Operator Advisory Committee (OAC). This Committee, comprising the top managers of each of the MTS operators, has likewise been meeting on a monthly basis since the spring of 1999. Subsequent to the Apd11999 Workshop, the Subcommittee's attention was diverted based upon Senate Bill (SB) 664 (Alpert) that was signed into law in the fall of 1999. This legislation had a significant impact on the Transportation Development Act (TDA) process as it applies to the MTDB area. It limited any one jurisdiction's contribution to the Regional Services Fund to 50 percent of its apportionment of TDA funds. SB 664 also changed the Board's ability to modify the Regional Transit Services formula to a majority vote. Finally, the legislation requires a five-year needs and revenues assessment to be adopted by the Board in 2000 that would significantly deal with the inequities in the TDA funding process. For your background, the current TDA claim process is shown on Attachment A. There are seven claims that are produced and need to be acted on by the Board as part of this current process, and compared to two for the North County Transit District (NCTD) jurisdiction. FY 01 On February 24, 2000, your Board acted on an initial set of recommendations and approved the following for FY 01: Member Agencies: Cily of Chula Vista, City of Coronado, City of El Cajon. City of Imperial ~each, City of La Mesa, City of Lemon Grove, City of National City, City of Poway, City of San Diego, City of Santee, County of San Diego, State of California Metropolitan Transit Development Board is Coordinator of the Met ropolit an Transit System and is Regulator y Authority for ~ Parat ransit Administ ration SubsidiaryCorporations: ~SanOiegoTransitCorporation, ~SanDiegoTrolley,~nc. and ~SanDiego&ArizonaEasternRailwayCompany · Funding for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services and MTS bus replacement was taken "off the top" of the TDA apportionment schedule; and · The Regional Transit Services formula was modified to work toward an equitable formula goal. In addition, your Board directed that work continue on so-called "Option B." This option was related to the April 1999 proposal to consolidate all MTDB area transit resources (i.e., federal, state, local) for purposes of optimum and efficient use under MTDB. FY 02 The focus of today's action is for FY 02 and beyond. However, to be prepared for FY 02, certain process-related steps would need to begin early in FY 01 (i.e., summer of 2000). The recommendations below have been endorsed by your Transit Financing Subcommittee (June 8, 2000; vote: 4-0) and Executive Committee (June 15, 2000; vote: 5-0). RECOMMENDATION: That the MTD Board of Directors: 1. Approve, in principle, the consolidated transit funding process as described in Attachment B and consistent with the Policy Issues outlined in Attachment C for FY 02 and beyond. 2. Direct the General Manager to return at the August 10, 2000, meeting with a final recommendation regarding the transit funding process. 3. Direct the General Manager to begin the proposed Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and Capital Improvement Program (ClP) process in July 2000, consistent with Section D of the Policy Issues (Attachment C), to include representation from the local jurisdictions and the MTS operators. 4. Approve an alternative process for those local jurisdictions that "opt out" from participation in the consolidated funding process that would: maintain consistency with all jurisdictions for purposes of funding ADA complementary services and bus replacement needs. make necessary adjustments to the "Regional Transit Services formula" that would be consistent with the "goals" (shown in Attachment D) for each such jurisdiction and local operating funding needs. include such jurisdictions in the new SRTP and CIP process to the extent that they want to be involved, but limited to the amount of transit funding available to them from their local TD^. -2- 5. direct the General Manager to notify Senator Dede Alpert of today's actions on this subject, and respectfully request no further legislative action this year, with the parallel request to participate with Senator Alpert in the development of the framework for such a bill next year. BudRet Impact None directly; however, the proposed consolidated transit funding process would achieve cost-efficiencies for MTDB, the MTS operators, and the local jurisdictions. DISCUSSION: Description of Proposed Consolidated Transit Fundin.q Process The basis for the proposed consolidated transit funding process would be to focus on service rather than resources. Thus, the proposed method is not formula based, rather, the total funds available for transit operations and capital in the MTDB area would be pooled and a series of cost-based take-downs would be applied in priority fashion. The proposed process is schematically shown on Attachment B and is similar to the concept reviewed with the Board in April 1999. The concept would be akin to how the North County Transit Distdct (NCTD) process works with some restrictions to balance regional and local needs and programs. More specifically, the metropolitan local jurisdictions would be directly involved in the process of determining future transit services and projects. The process would begin with the consolidation, or pooling, of all discretionary transit monies available to MTDB and the MTS operators. As recommended, the costs then would be prioritized "off the top" as follows: · ADA services · Local match requirements for federal transit capital grants (i.e., federal Section 5307 and 5309 grants) · Local and regional sen/ica base Thus, there are three major distinctions between this proposal and the present process: 1, There would be no artificial restrictions on the use of MTDB area resources--they would all be pooled and used to the maximum advantage for the area as a whole. 2. There would be no regional services (percentage) formula--therefore, no policy hassles regarding its components and balances, and no year-to-year changes based upon updated survey data. 3. There would be no need for a separate bus replacement fund--instead all MTS capital needs, bus and rail, would be incorporated within the multi-year MTDB -3- capital program and funded on an ongoing annual basis as part of the capital programming process. The quantitative expression of this proposed process is described in the tables contained in Attachment B. Here are the assumptions that are part of this proposal: · All MTDB area TDA Article 4.0 and 4.5 funds would be consolidated. · Other MTDB-area discretionary transit financial resources would be added to the "pool" to include: State Transit Assistance (STA), TransNet, MTDB miscellaneous, transit advertising revenue, and federal Section 5307 Preventive Maintenance. · The amount of preventive maintenance is assumed to equal that which is assumed in the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for MTDB operations. · All operating costs have been escalated from the base of the FY 01 TDA claims. Costs for FY 02 and beyond have been escalated 3 percent thereafter. ADA costs have been escalated at a constant 6 percent per year. We assumed that the County Transit System (CTS) express service would be part of regional services. It is anticipated that these estimates would be revised as the SRTP process proceeds and new contract costs are known to the operators. · All capital needs would strive to optimize use of federal funds, at the maximum share of 80 percent. The bus replacement plan, along with other MTS capital needs, is assumed to come from these federal capital sources with the required match funded through this option. KEY POLICY CHOICES The Subcommittee has spent a significant amount of time dealing with the specifics of how the proposed process would work. The result is a set of seven policy issues, described in detail in Attachment C, that have evolved over the past year: · ADA Complementary Paratransit Service cost restraints · Balancing of local and regional services · Fare structure adjustments · SRTP and ClP development process · Unified, single TDA claims process · Use of existing bus and light rail transit (LRT) capital replacement reserves · Use of federal capital funds (preventive maintenance) for operations -4- These policy issues cover the significant questions that have arisen regarding how the proposed new process would work. However, there are some others (e.g., administrative costs) that still need some attention. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommended that today's vote be approved "in principle" with a final action scheduled for the August 10, 2000, meeting. Thus, this scheduling would allow additional time for local jurisdictional review and input. LEGISLATION One of the outcomes of the Subcommittee process is to request Senator Alpert to delay any legislative change to a year from now rather than during this year 2000 legislative session. This delay of one year would have several implications: · It would allow us a year to gain additional comfort with the new process (if approved). · It would allow the Board to come up with its own legislative proposal for the year 2001 legislative session that, hopefully, would be accepted by Senator Alpert as an acceptable solution. · It would allow a local jurisdiction to "opt out" for FY 02 as described eadier. IMPACTS OF A LOCAL JURISDICTION "OPTING" OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED PROCESS The table in Attachment E entitled "MTDB Area FY 2002 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Estimated TDA Article 4.0 Apportionments" was developed to aid each local jurisdiction's assessment of the impact of "opting out" of the regional finance plan for FY 02. The first section of the table reflects the actual FY 01 funds made available to the jurisdictions after deduction of ADA services, the bus replacement plan, and Regional Services contributions. The second section estimates the amount of funds that would be available to the jurisdictions for local service after the off-the-top contributions are deducted in FY 02, using the goal formula for contributions toward Regional Services. The final section of the table reflects a minor change to the goal regional formula to assure that local funds are not reduced so much as to not have sufficient funds to operate existing local service for the year. Several cities will not have sufficient funds in FY 02 to afford local service and meeting their regional "goal" (namely, Chula Vista, Lemon Grove, and National City). Following this table are two additional tables that reflect updated estimates of costs associated with ADA paratransit service and a revised bus replacement plan. The ADA service costs rise in FY 02 (over FY 01) due to the carryover available in FY 01. The five-year projection is shown in Attachment B. The third table shows the total resoumes needed for bus replacement in FY 02. Changes for FY 02 are explained on the table and reflect specific operator needs. -5- CONCLUSIONS With regard to FY 02 and beyond, we find the advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation to be: Advantaqes · Funding formulas (with percentages) would be eliminated. The current fund process uses a percentage-based formula that is based upon outdated data and results in inequities among the jurisdictions in MTDB's area. · "Regional" services that cross local jurisdictional boundaries would be fully funded. The current formula does not produce sufficient revenue for funding these services. · All transit resources would be consolidated. The metropolitan area would be able to build on a stronger financial base by pooling monetary resources, formerly segregated by jurisdiction, into one unified fund devoted to transit purposes. · A single claim would be filed. Paperwork for each jurisdiction would be drastically cut with a single, unified claim for TDA funds by MTDB. This process would be identical to what has existed in the North San Diego County area since 1976. · ADA complementary services would be funded "off the top." The present formula for allocating expenses for federally mandated ADA paratransit services would be dispensed with, further reducing local staff time and paperwork. · Buses and facilities would be funded to ensure quality equipment and a timely replacement schedule. Bus and facility purchases would be leveraged with federal and other matching sources, providing more operating money in the region for service. · Capital projects would have priority if they yield operating savings and involve replacement and rehabilitation. After funding ADA services, the proposed method would ensure that the federal capital formula monies available to MTDB would be matched with local funds. · Base local service levels would be protected. Local services would continue to operate at their present levels, which would be "guaranteed" as a base for the next year. If total TDA funding to the area was to be severely reduced, necessitating cutbacks in service, then there would be a systemwide process of examination of local service levels, protecting a "lifeline" system of services. · Local capital projects would be able to leverage federal sources. Use of federal funding would enlarge the pool of resources that would be available to local communities, allowing greater levels of capital needs to be satisfied. -6- · Financial risks to the local jurisdictions would be diminished. With a consolidated funding process, a jurisdiction would no longer be dependent solely on its allocation of TDA funds in the event that costs increase for its present service. · "Rich" and "poor" communities would be balanced. Funds would be earmarked for existing base levels of local service, and communities in jeopardy of not having sufficient revenues would be insulated from potential cutbacks caused by a flawed formula. · A unified and more organized SRTP and ClP process would result. All new service and capital improvement project proposals would be funded on the merit of the proposal, based on a set of equitable criteria. Thus, all jurisdictions would be treated uniformly. · MTDB and the local jurisdictions would reach consensus without the need for legislation forcing an action. As proposed, legislation would be developed by MTDB with the jurisdictions, after working through the process administratively in FY 01. · Existing jurisdiction capital reserves and unallocated balances would not be lost by jurisdictions. These funds could be placed into a variety of projects (planning, capital, or operating) or placed in a discretionary fund for future opportunities. Disadvantaqes · Local reserve funds would not be enlarged~ Individual jurisdictions would no longer be able to build up unallocated reserves to save funds. · Control over local TDA funds would be reduced. For the local TDA funds available to a jurisdiction, the particular local jurisdiction would have less control over funding projects and services that they favor. · Influence over local service and capital project proposals would be reduced. With the unified SRTP and ClP process, local jurisdictions would be more directly subject to evaluation criteria that would be applied areawide. -7- · For capital projects, federal regulations would have to be followed. The use of federal funds for local capital projects wou d add new procurement, project monitoring, and reporting requirements; however, this would be managed by MTDB with little direct impact on a jurisdiction. Thomas F. Larwin General Manager DGunn 33-00JUN22.TLARWl 6/15/00 Attachments: A. Current TDA Claim Process B. Consolidated Transit Funding Process C. Policy Issues Board Only D. Regional Transit Services Formula Goals E. FY 2002 Estimated TDAApportionments -8- ~ ~ A£t. A, ~-- AI No. }~ 6/22/00 a i FIN 310 Att. B, AI No. 33, 6/22/00, FIN 310 Att. C, Al No. 33, 6/22/00, FIN 310 CONSOLIDATED TRANSIT FUNDING POLICY ISSUES DRAFT A. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT SERVICE COST RESTRAINTS The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) (central zone) and County Transit System (suburban zones) have competitively bid the ADA paratransit service to maintain cost control. The operating costs that go into effect on July 1, 2000, are part of a new service contract with a five-year term and allow for very small increases in unit cost rates. Overall, operating costs may vary as a function of fuel costs and passenger demand for the service. Proposed Policies 1. Competitive Contracting: continue the process of competitive bidding of services to keep unit costs from escalating. 2. Mandated ADA Service: maintain the existing policy of providing the service, as legally required by ADA. 3. ADA Operations and Fare Coordination: evaluate in FY 01 ADA operations among the four ADA zones to improve transfer capability and reliability. Evaluate the management and contractual arrangement of ADA services in FY 03-04. Address, as part of a fare structure evaluation, the concept of a seamless ADA fare structure within the entire county. B. BALANCING OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL SERVICES The effectiveness of our overall Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) network of services is and will be dependent upon a system of interconnected routes and services. Some routes serve short trips while others serve longer ones, and then there are some that serve a vadety of trips. The local and regional routes generally can be distinguished from one another as follows: Local Re.qional Trip Length Shorter Longer Trip Purpose Nonwork Work Function Feeder, distributor Line Haul; Express Productivity Lower Higher Speed Slower Faster Stop Spacing Every few blocks Longer; up to every mile In addition, another characteristic has arisen due to the nature of how the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding process works in the metropolitan area, and that relates to the additional characteristic of regional service crossing jurisdictional boundaries. Some balance needs to be retained with regard to investment actions between local and regional services. Similarly, the same is true if a systemwide cutback is required. Separate from this is the need for MTDB to maintain a sound process for evaluating existing services and new service proposals to continuously improve system performance and grow ridership. Thus, Policy No. 43, "New and Existing Service Evaluation," (adopted in January 2000) forms the basis for this balancing (attached for reference). Proposed Policies 1. Local Service "Guarantee," A general policy guideline will be used to ensure that each jurisdiction's local service level will be maintained as a base from one year to the next. However, the procedures in 2. and 6,, below, will be used to evaluate the existing services for continuous improvement. Local service is defined as any public transit service that does not meet the definition of regional service or ADA paratransit services. The current definition of regional service is: Those routes which · cross jurisdictional boundaries [with stops in each jurisdiction]; · provide the trunk line [classified in the SRTP as urban, all-day express, or trolley routes] for local/feeder services; and · serve high-volume inter-community travel corridors [more than 50 Percent on freeways, prime arterials and major arterials]. In addition, regional service must meet two of the following three criteria: · provide major connections to the regional route network [serve four or more stops, each with more than 500 daily ons/offs and served by three or more routes]; · serve trips with a long average trip length [greater than the systemwide average]; and · carry significant levels of annual ridership [higher than the system-wide average]. The primary basis for this analysis of "local" services will be the number of scheduled fixed-route revenue service miles provided and scheduled service hours for non-ADA paratransit, within the local jurisdiction. The relative proportion of regional and local services will be tracked on an annual basis and reported to the Board during the annual budget development process. In addition, included in the definition of local service would be any facilities maintenance activities performed with local TDA funds. In this case, the "guarantee" would be based upon the prior year level with indexing for inflation. 2. Existing Services: Continuous Evaluation. Maintain an ongoing process of evaluating existing services and new service preposals as described in MTDB Policy No. 43, "New and Existing Service Evaluation." · In FY 01, MTDB will evaluate the feasibility of adding a new category of service in Policy No. 43 to address local circulator services and combining commuter and peak-period express. · In FY 01, MTDB will amend Policy No. 43 to incorporate definitions for each service category. 3. New Service Proposals: Evaluation During Plan Development. The Policy No. 43 process will be used to provide an objective basis for determining priorities among new service proposals. All new service proposals will be evaluated during the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) development and factor in measures of population, employment, and activity growth. In addition, in FY 01, MTDB will evaluate an amendment to Policy No. 43 that would incorporate a linkage with the Policy No. 40 transit-land use coordination. 4. High Priority to Major Coaster, Light Rail Transit (LRT), and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Projects. For major capital investment projects, a minimum, practical level of service should be defined by Board action during the environmental process and serve as a funding priority. In addition, the Board's action should include a funding plan for an associated local feeder network. 5. New Service Investments: Process, The Policy No. 43 process contains a method for establishing priorities for new service proposals (Section 43.7) and would be used to guide the Board's actions. As provided for in the Policy No. 43 process, all "year one" service proposals would be prioritized and arranged for Board evaluation during the annual budget development process. 6. Systemwide Cutback: Process. In the event of a funding shortfall requiring a systemwide cutback, the following policy guide will be used: · First, based upon Policy No. 43 procedures, the weak-performing components of all routes (e.g., late hours, weekend hours) will be evaluated for elimination, with the objective of preserving the route. · Second, if the above cuts are insufficient to achieve the necessary savings, then other nonpeak services will be examined for reduction (using the same procedures) with the objective of preserving the peak period (i.e., three morning and three evening hours) service level, and the basic reute structure. · Third, if further savings are required, then nonproductive geographic segments of the routes will be examined using the Policy No. 43 process to rank segments and would be used to guide the Board's actions. Included in this evaluation would be the regional need to preserve a "lifeline" system of services. -3- C-3 7. Development of Lifeline System: MTDB will develop a lifeline system(s) in FY 01-02. Lifeline services are defined as route segments beyond the 1/2-mile distance of other transit service and having lower than twice the average subsidy per passenger (based on all weekday fixed-route services). All new services will be evaluated as to whether they qualify as a lifeline service. C. FARE STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENTS MTDB will be addressing some short-term fine-tuning of fare policies related to family weekends, universal transfers, and college passes for implementation in FY 01. Additional work will begin for analysis of the fare pricing for possible implementation in FY 02. Average fares have not kept pace with increases in operating costs. The analysis will cover possible changes in discount pricing, a look at the fare revenue stream expected over the next few years, ADA fares, and coordination efforts with North County Transit District (NCTD) and the combined Board's Joint Committee on Regional Transit (JCRT) efforts toward an increasingly seamless fare system countywide. Proposed Policies 1. Short-Term Fare Policy Adjustments. Review existing fare policies for possible implementation in FY 01. 2. Long-Term Fare Policy Adjustments. Conduct a comprehensive fare policy review in FY 01 for possible implementation in FY 02-03 including the following: ·fare pricing for all fare categories; · ADA fares; · NCTD fare coordination with MTS services; and · seamless countywide fare structure. D. SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: DEVELOPMENT PROCESS MTDB develops an annual SRTP that lays out transit service proposals for a rolling five-year period. The plan serves four primary purposes: · It forms the basis of services changes and policy actions. · It is designed to meet state grant application requirements. · It is a working tool for MTDB, transit operators, local planning agencies, and other interested parties. · It is the driving force behind two closely related and important elements - the TDA claims approval process and the MTDB budget development process. For the SRTP to effectively drive the annual TDA claims and MTDB budget processes, the development of all three of these elements (SRTP, TDA, and MTDB budget) must be well meshed. The initial checkpoint in the TDA review process is that proposals be consistent with the SRTP - that -4- C-4 any new or improved services being claimed must be for service proposals included in year one or year two of the SRTP Service Adjustment Plan. Currently, operators prepare the TDA claims in March, which are reviewed by MTDB and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in April and May. In April, operators are requested to submit their transit service and capital proposals for inclusion in the SRTP, with MTDB evaluating these proposals in May. These concurrent events place undue time burdens on the operators and MTDB, with SRTP submittals and reviews often being delayed. With April and May being months that MTDB reviews TDA claims and sods out issues, a more realistic schedule would be for the SRTP submittals to be reviewed in July and August, policy options going to the MTD Board in September-October, a draft SRTP issued in October, with adoption in December. The year one and year two service proposals would then be the basis for the TDA claims submitted the following April. Services. The transit service proposals submitted by each jurisdiction through the transit operating agencies that serve it are evaluated according to Policy No. 43 to determine which rank high in cost- effectiveness and productivity. Each service proposal will be placed in one of six categories based upon its geographic location and functions: · Suburban Feeder · Line-Haul · Peak Express · Urban Feeder · Crosstown · Ali-Day Express As noted in Policy issue A., there will also be an effort in FY 01 to evaluate the possibility of a new category being added that would be related to local circulation service. New service proposals are evaluated based on three factors: 1. passengers per revenue hour; 2. passengers per revenue mile; and 3. subsidy per passenger. Policy No. 43 includes a quantitative procedure for ranking the service proposals (using the above-noted factors), with the highest ranking proposal being implemented first, followed by the next highest and so on until available funding is exhausted. In cases where a choice must be made between proposals of equal rank, other policy goals would be considered in selecting a proposal for implementation. MTDB's Director of Planning and Operations then meets with the city manager and transit coordinator of each jurisdiction to review the service proposals and resultant rankings. From these meetings, a list of service improvements is agreed upon for inclusion in the SRTP. This process would remain largely the way it is currently structured today. The major difference would be that local jurisdictions would have their proposals more directly competing with proposals from other jurisdictions. Moreover, if money is scarce in the region for transit improvements, no improvements may be recommended for implementation. Proiects. Included in the SRTP are capital projects proposed for implementation, which are derived from the Capital Improvement Program (ClP). The CIP process examines many potential projects and -5- C-5 recommends those with the greatest merit for inclusion in the SRTP. This process also designates those projects to be implemented in year one of the plan. Currently, MTDB's capital improvements are chosen for implementation in year one through a technical process of nominating, ranking, and selecting CIP projects. The selected, highly ranked projects are next incorporated into MTDB's budget for approval by the MTD Board each spring. To be considered, each project must be described in terms of scope, schedule, cost, and justifications. This process begins when the operating agencies and MTDB submit project proposals. All MTS operators would be included in this process. The Capital Project Coordinators for each operating agency and MTDB meet as a committee to rank these nominated projects. A numerical ranking is assigned to each project based on five criteria. The MTDB General Manager, in consultation with the other operating agency General Managers, develops a program of projects to recommend for funding in priority order. There will be numerous projects not able to be ranked high enough to be funded, and they are then reconsidered in the following fiscal years. In addition to a one-year funding element, the process concludes with a five-year program of funded and nonfunded projects. For programming guidance, five criteria have been established to evaluate the benefit-cost of each candidate project, in general, a high priority will be assigned to a project that is found to save operating costs. 1. SRTP/CIP Threshold Determinations Proposed service changes and capital projects would be handled in one of two ways. Depending on the size (based on cost) of proposed service changes and capital projects, they would either be considered through the SRTP/ClP process thereby undergoing rigorous review and evaluation, or under certain threshold amounts, the proposed service changes or projects could be exempt from detailed review. · Minor Operational Adjustments - It is recognized that there is occasional need to implement minor adjustments to transit services, which could not have been anticipated in the SRTP process. Currently, the MTDB budget provides San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) with the ability to implement such adjustments having a total annual net subsidy not to exceed $50,000. The threshold for adjustments for San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), and MTDB Contract Services is $25,000 each in total annual net subsidy. We propose that suburban fixed-route operators also be provided latitude to make adjustments which do not exceed a cumulative annual net subsidy of $25,000 per each operator. Changes that exceed that amount would be part of the SRTP process. · Capital Projects - Similarly, all three MTDB operators retain miscellaneous capital budget line items, which allow them to make unanticipated small capital purchases. We propose that each suburban operator, that has reserves specifically available, also be allowed to move forward on small capital projects costing $50,000 or less without being required to undergo the ClP process or "federalization" (i.e., where the region can benefit by maximizing leverage of local dollars). For projects larger than $50,000, the intent would be to leverage federal monies for the region. However, the decision to use federal monies would depend upon the schedule implications on a specific project. -6- C-6 2. SRTP Process A. Basis: Policy No. 43 will be used to guide the proposals to be included in the SRTP, as described in Section B ("Balancing of Local and Regional Services"). B. Schedule: · July-August - MTDB meets with local jurisdictions and operators to receive proposed service changes/additions for the following six years excluding the upcoming year. · September-October- STRP development and policy options discussed at Board level. · November-December- Board adoption of SRTP. · January-May (following year) - STRP year one proposals reviewed during annual TDA claim and budget development processes. 3. CIP Process A. Basis: The following five criteria will be used to develop a quantitative guide to evaluate each proposed project's relative merit: 1. safety enhancement; 2. replacement value; 3. operating cost benefit; 4. travel time savings; and 5. customer benefit. B. Schedule: · July-August - MTDB meets with local jurisdictions and operators to receive proposed capital project submittals. · September-October - MTDB General Manager meets with operator general managers to develop recommended program of projects (one year and five year). · November-December - Board of Directors adoption of CIP and federal capital grants request for next fiscal year. E. UNIFIED SINGLE TDA CLAIMS PROCESS A single claim would be prepared by MTDB encompassing the needs of all MTS operators. Any potential issues relating to service expansion/reduction and capital improvements would be addressed during the SRTP and ClP preparation, and subsequent Board action to approve. Subject to any necessary legislative changes and to meet the detailed requirements of the TDA, the basic steps in the new process would include: 1. MTS Operator Submittal of Year One Projections. Operator preparation and submittal to MTDB of prior-year actual, current, and coming-year projected service and revenue information and capital requirements for all routes (in conformance with approved SRTP and CIP) would be required similar to the existing TDA claim process. This would include operator preparation and submittal of budgets for these services, explaining large budget variances from prior years. In addition, all relevant TDA certifications would be required of the operators. The year one submittals will be presented to MTDB by all operators as part of the MTDB budget development process. This process begins in December with Board approval of assumptions. Key dates would be: January - Preliminary five-year financial projections from operators. February - Preliminary next-year budget details from operators. Mamh - Final next-year budget details from operators and any changes to the five-year projections. April - MTDB Finance Workshop and action on five-year financial plan. 2. SRTP and ClP Conformance. The MTDB review process would be similar to today's to insure that the service, project, and revenue information is in conformance with the SRTP and ClP. This review would also check budget information for reasonableness and availability of funding. 3. April I Submittal of Single Claim. MTDB would submit to SANDAG the preliminary claim due April 1 of each year. It will contain the information for all MTS services. 4. June Approvals. Any advisory committee reviews would be finalized between April I and June 1, with action scheduled by the MTD and SANDAG Boards in late June. Implementation of Unified TDA Claims Process Legislation. Public Utilities Code Section 120265, amended in 1999 by Chapter 729 (SB 664, Alpert), provides that the Board may annually adopt and amend an assessment formula for funding regional services. The section requires consideration of transit needs and revenues for the next five-year period, including: · ADA services; funds required to maintain, rehabilitate, and replace capital facilities and equipment including rolling stock and transit centers; · identification of matching funds to avoid loss of state and federal funds; · development of an appropriate balance between local and regional services; · development of efficient and effective use of all local, regional, state, and federal funds; -8- C-8 · recognition of the needs for operation of local services and anticipated changes in revenue sources; and · recognition of the population of each jurisdiction. The section also requires that the formula may not provide for a regional assessment for any city' greater than 50 percent of the city's annual apportionment. The proposed unified TDA claims process addresses each of those required statutory issues. However, under current law the cities are permitted to file individual claims for TDA funds for local services. By approval of the unified TDA claims process, the city would be agreeing that separate claims would not be required. Rather, the cities would be involved at the front end of the process in the development of the Short-Range Transit Plan and Capital Improvement Program through recommendations from the city council to MTDB for local operating and capital needs, We would recommend that a change in state law be sought to specifically eliminate the process for cities filing individual TDA claims after the unified TDA claims process is approved by MTDB. In the event the city wished to continue to file its own claim, the Board should, as part of the adoption of the unified TDA claims process, identify a formula percentage for assessment for regional services for that city consistent with previously adopted interim and target regional formula. Further, the Board may wish to consider what, if any, provisions of the unified process would not be applicable to such cities, such as the provision of federal funding for replacement of capital facilities and equipment. F. USE OF EXISTING BUS AND LRT CAPITAL REPLACEMENT RESERVES In accordance with Board policy, annual deposits into bus and light rail transit (LRT) capital replacement reserves are required. These reserves are used for matching the federal formula funds. As part of the process of balancing the operating budgets, the Board made a policy decision to defer deposits during 1993-1997. A partial deposit of $2 million was made in 1998, a full deposit of $5.5 million in 1999, and a partial deposit of $2.6 million was made in 2000. The current uncommitted balances are $2.4 million in the bus reserve and $9.3 million in the LRT reserve. Proposed Policies 1. Expenditure Plan for Reserves: Work with the SDTI and SDTC Boards of Directors and MTDB Contract Services to develop an expenditure plan which would identify future bus and LRT needs not provided for under the formula program (i.e., discretionary funding). 2. Operator and Local Discretionary Project Reserve: Some portion of existing capital reserves for SDTC, SDTI, and MTDB Contract Services would be retained to use as funds to match state and federal discretionary grants. At the discretion of the jurisdictions, an additional reserve fund would be set up utilizing the local jurisdictions' reserves for which they have chosen not to program in the SRTP. Each jurisdiction's reserve would be separately tracked and would accrue interest. Any use of a jurisdiction's reserve amount would require the prior approval of that jurisdiction's governing board and the MTD Board. G. USE OF FEDERAL CAPITAL FUNDS (PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE) FOR OPERATIONS MTDB receives federal formula funds ($28 million for FY 00) which are primarily used for the bus and LRT capital replacement program. When the federal operating assistance program was eliminated a few years ago, additional flexibility was provided to allow the use of the federal formula funds for -9- C-9 preventive maintenance. Essentially, this allows the use of capital funds for operating purposes. SDTC and SDTI could conceivably use up to $20 million annually in federal funds for preventive maintenance. We have programmed the use of $4.4 million in federal funds for preventive maintenance purposes in FY 00. The critical policy tradeoff here is that with every dollar used for preventive maintenance it means one less for capital improvements and replacement. Proposed Policy 1. Establish Baseline Assumption for Preventive Maintenance. Start each budget development process with the assumption to use not more than 15 percent of total formula funds for preventive maintenance (current use level). 2. Any Use Beyond the Baseline Assumption. Any use above 15 percent would be at the discretion of the Board and should be considered in light of capital tradeoff. The use of additional preventive maintenance to balance the operating budget would be clearly displayed to the Board as a policy choice during the annual budget development process and consider the competing needs for operating versus capital resources. DGunnfTFL-REPORTS TDA OPTION POLICIES 6/15/00 Attachment: Policy No. 43 -10- C.10 MTDB Metropolitan Transit Development Board ~ / Policies and Procedures No. 43 SUBJECT: Board Approval: 1/13/00 NEW AND EXISTING SERVICE EVALUATION PURPOSE: To establish: 1. A process for evaluating existing transit service, as well as identifying service changes to improve performance. 2. A process for evaluating and assigning implementation priority among proposed new and expanded transit services. BACKGROUND: This policy provides an objective set of procedures that can be utilized to evaluate service changes. It allows such changes to be considered on the basis of efficiency and effectiveness without regard to which geographic area is being served. An annual process is described for evaluating existing service and potential service changes for inclusion in the annual Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The review will also provide input into the five-year budget process. This process would be used to identify services or areas that could benefit from service restructuring, route segment analysis, marketing, or enhanced frequencies. Routes would be designated into several separate categories, based on service area characteristics. These categories include: suburban feeder, urban feeder, line-haul, crosstown, all-day express, peak,express,, and commuter express. Four performance factors would be used in the evaluation process: passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, subsidy per passenger, and passenger miles per seat mile. This policy would also be used to prioritize new services. Potential new services would be evaluated based on three factors: passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, and subsidy per passenger. A continuous index, based on the ratio of a given route's performance in these specific measures to the average of all routes in that service category along with the individual measures, is used as the evaluation tools in both the new and existing service evaluation. This policy applies to all Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) bus operators providing service in the MTDB area. Member Agent,es: ? --C~ City of C hula Visla. City Of Coronaclo. City of El Caion. City ol Im~erial Beach+ City of La Mesa. City of Lemotl Grove, City Of Na~iortal City. City of Poway, Ci y o San Diego, City Metropolitan Transit Deve~opmen~ Board is Coordinator of the Metropolitan Transi~ System and is Regulatory Authority for ~ Par at ransit Administ ratiOnc_ ~.1 Subsidiary Corporations: ~ San Diego Transil Corporabon. ~ San Diego T o lay, Inc and ~ San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company POLICY: Existin9 Service Evaluation Methodology This policy details three levels of service evaluation. Each level requires a varying level of analysis and corresponding action (Attachment A). 43.1 Trip-Level Analysis. Trip-level analysis is done as part of the ongoing service evaluation process. This analysis uses passenger complaints, field reports, and operator input to determine where minor adjustments could be made to the existing system. Adjustments are then identified that would remedy trips that are chronically late, overcrowded, or offer poor transfer connections. Service adjustments in this category could be handled at the operator's discretion and are not subject to Board approval. 43.2 Route-Level Analysis. Once a year, an annual route monitoring report is compiled. This report provides detailed route-level analyses that measure service productivity, cost-effectiveness, and subsidy levels. Each route is compared to all others in its service category (e.g., line-haul, crosstown, express, dial-a-ride, etc.) using the category average and a continuous index. The continuous index is based upon the ratio of a route's performance on a given specific measure to the average of all routes in that service category. The index uses four performance measures in compiling the average for a route. The four measures include: passengers per revenue mile, passengers per revenue hour, subsidy per passenger, and passenger miles per seat mile. Routes fall into four tiers of evaluation: · Avera,cje/Above Average (1.0 or above) - Routes that fall within this category are performing generally satisfactory and trigger no additional analysis. However, a route in this tier is not precluded from special analysis if some operating aspect is felt to require improvement. · Ongoing Monitoring (0.99 - 0.75) - Routes that fall within this category are performing slightly below the systemwide average but are generally assumed to meet a marginal performance level. These routes require no action, but ongoing monitoring is needed to ensure that the level of performance doesn't decline. · Evaluate (0.74 - 0.50) - Routes that fall within this category are performing well below the systemwide average. They require some level of evaluation. A route-segment analysis may be required, which evaluates the route by time of day and route segment to determine where service improvements can be made. · Action (0.49 or below) - Routes that fall within this category are performing at half the systemwide average and measurable action is required. Steps that can be taken include major route restructuring, fare restructuring, or route elimination. -2- The existing evaluation process will also provide input into the five-year budget process. MTDB has rarely eliminated entire routes in the past, and route elimination would be a last resort under this policy. Individual routes that are designated for elimination would be subjected to a lifeline services review. This review would evaluate population density thresholds in the route's service area (to determine if there is adequate population to support the route), proximity to other transit services, and level of access in the absence of the route to key destination points within the community, It should be noted that high levels of transit utilization are nearly always observed in transit-dependent neighborhoods. In conjunction with the annual route-level analysis, a three-year rolling average will be completed to determine if the averages within the year being analyzed are reflective of how a category has been performing over time. Both the relative average of the four measures and any anomalies in the results of each of the four measures will be used to trigger further review or action on a particular route. New Service Evaluation 43.3 Regional and Subregional Analysis. Regional and subregional planning studies are conducted on an annual basis to focus on possible improvements in service coverage, efficiency, and connectivity. These improvements can result in major service additions and changes. These changes will be evaluated as part of the new service evaluation. 43.4 New Service Evaluation. The process for evaluation of new transit services will incorporate these elements: · the services must be described in sufficient detail to be able to estimate cost, revenue, revenue miles of operation, and rider~hip; and · those new service proposals not included in the SRTP will not be evaluated. 43.5 New services subjected to this policy include the following: · New bus routes · Extensions of existing routes · Any frequency or span-of-service improvements to existing routes that result in an increase in projected operating cost or mileage · Other new services (demand-responsive, employee shuttles, etc.) 43.6 Evaluation Guidelines. Development of the proposed new services will be guided as follows: -3- 43.6a Cost estimation will rely on existing unit costs for similar types of service. Fully allocated costs will be used for new routes. For existing route extensions and frequency or span-of-service improvements, the marginal cost of service expansion, plus an overhead factor of 15 percent will be used. 43.6b MTDB's ridership estimation model will be used to project patronage. MTDB operations and planning staff will review all ridership estimates to ensure reasonableness. Ridership diversion from existing routes will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Revenue estimation will rely on the average fare for similar existing types of service. The model considers transfer opportunities to other bus routes or to the trolley, thus taking account of transit network factors. 43.6c Marketing efforts will be undertaken for all new services. These efforts are not specified in the policy because different markets of potential riders will require use of a variety of techniques. 43.7 Evaluation Procedure. The procedure for evaluating the new service proposals will use the continuous index as described above for existing services. 43.7a To qualify for implementation, a new route or expanded service must meet or exceed 0.50 to 0.75 of the systemwide average. Within 24 months, the route must increase its performance to within 0.75 to 0.99 of the systemwide average. 43.7b All new routes or extensions would be categorized as trial routes. They would not be considered part of the overall system until they had been in service for two years and/or reached the 0.75 to 0.99 performance levels. Ongoing evaluation would be conducted throughout the first 24 months that the service is in place. Quarterly reports on the status of these routes would be provided to the Board as part of the ongoing quarterly operations reports. Board action will be requi~ed to retain these services. 43.7c Implementation of selected new services will be integrated into the annual budget development process, which is expected to yield a specific funding level for new routes/service enhancements. The highest-ranking proposal will be implemented first, followed by the next highest and so on until available funding is exhausted. In cases where a choice must be made between proposals of equal rank in different service categories, it is appropriate to consider other policy goals in selecting a proposal for implementation. Trial routes that meet the minimum criteria of this policy but cannot be implemented due to funding limitations can be carried over to the next fiscal year for reevaluation and reranking. 43.7d The time frame for evaluation is two years, with interim six-month and one-year targets established by MTDB staff based on analysis of market growth curves for similar types of service. -4- C-14 43.7e At the end of the evaluation time frame, the Board must act to include the service as a permanent part of the transit system. If the Board does not vote to make the service part of the regular system, the service will not be continued. A decision not to continue a trial project would not require a public hearing. MTDB staff can propose early acceptance of a trial project as a permanent part of the transit system if the service's performance meets its targets before the end of the two-year evaluation time frame. MTDB staff can also propose early discontinuation of a trial route if its early performance is well below expected levels. 43.7f Both the relative average of the three factors and any anomalies in any of the three factors can trigger further review or action. 43.8 Funding. Outside funding contributed to the operation of the route will not be considered in revenue calculations. It will be the decision of the Board to determine what role the additional revenue will play in the implementation of a new route. Any new route implemented as a result of outside funding will be considered a trial route as long as outside funding is used to support it. 43.9 Ferry Services. On an annual basis, a peer analysis of similar ferry services will be conducted. This analysis will be used to determine how San Diego's ferry service is performing compared to other similar services. PSmith POLICY43.JWILH 1/7/OO Attachment: A. Summary of Evaluation Procedures and Measures for Transit Service Modifications Original Policy Accepted on 4/08/93 Policy Revised on 12/8/94 Policy Repealed and Readopted on 1/13/00 -5- Att. D, Al No. 33, 6/22/00, FIN 310 REGIONAL TRANSIT SERVICES FORMULA GOALS Jurisdiction FY O0 Formula FY 01 Formula Goal Formula Chula Vista 11.1% 21.10% 48.4% Coronado 90.0% 50.00% 78.8% El Cajon 16.9% 26.90% 41.4% Imperial Beach 69.1% 50.00% 40.2% La Mesa 36.5% 46.50% 69.6% Lemon Grove 5.0% 10.00% 38.1% National City 10.0% 10.00% 33.9% Poway 5.0% 5.00% 3.7% San Diego 43.5% 43.50% 34.4% Santee 10.0% 20.00% 27.8% County of San Diego 7.3% 17.30% 19.2% DGunn/T- T-REGTRSRVSFOR.TLARWl 6/16/00 Att. E, AI No. 33, 6/22/00, FIN 310 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY IN THE CONSOLIDATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.0 FUNDS AS PROPOSED BY THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2001 WHEREAS, on February 24, 2000, the MTD Board of Directors approved MTDB staff recommendations which changed the way TDA funds are processed in the region; and WHEREAS, this change is connected with th~ passing of Senate Bill (SB) 664 (Alpert) in the fall of 1999; and WHEREAS, SB 664 mandated that no more than 50% of a jurisdiction's TDA apportionment should be contributed to the Regional Services Fund; and WHEREAS, additionally, SB 664 modified the voting requirements to change the Regional Formula to a simple majority; and WHEREAS, this legislation was enacted to correct the inequities which existed in the way regional services were being financed, with some jurisdictions paying more than their share the others less; and WHEREAS, this process would consolidate all transit funds: Federal, State and Local; fund ADA transit services; create a Transit Capital Program for the region and fund Local and Regional Services at a base level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby support the participation of the City in the consolidation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds as proposed by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) effective July 1, 2001 and approves supporting Option B which would pool all of the transit funds in the region and allow current system operators to continue to provide transit services. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jo~M. Kaheny ~ Director of Public Works C/~ty Attorney H: ~Home \At t orney\ Re S o~ TDA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ID Meeting Date: 7/18/2000 SUBMITTED BY: Resolution Approving an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. for the provlSlon of Construction Manager/Constructor Services required for the construction of the Corporation Yard Project, authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement and appropriating funds therefor Assistant City Manager Morris~ Director of Pu~Works cytJ City Managerf('-" (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No _) ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: On April 17, 2000 the Department of Public Works issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Manager/Constructor Services requesting statements of qualifications from Construction Managers/Constructors (CMC), that are qualified to provide the City with proper guidance and assistance in value engineering, construction management and construction services coordination for Building Capital Improvement Projects. On May 19, 2000 the City received a total of 18 submittals in response to the RFQ (see Attachment #1 for a complete list of firms). A selection committee, appointed by the City Manager has evaluated and ranked the submittals and conducted interviews with the top six consulting teams. As a result of the interview process, on June 20, 2000 the City Council approved a resolution establishing a Construction Manager/Constructor Services Priority List comprised of all the six consulting teams to be used for awarding design/construction contracts on future building facilities. HigWand Partnership, Inc., was selected unanimously as the highest overall rated respondent for the Corporation Yard project. This resolution approves an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc., for the provision of Construction Manager/Constructor - Fixed Fee services required for the construction of the Corporation Yard project. The Corporation Yard project had $250,000 budgeted for Construction Management services. Additional funds are needed, however, for this agreement, due to the larger role that the firm will be playing as the Construction Manager/Constructor. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve a resolution approving an agreement with HigWand Partnership, Inc. for the provision of Construction Manager/Constructor - Fixed Fee Services required for the construction of the Corporation Yard project and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement, and appropriating $755,400 therefor. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. /(J/! Page 2, Item: I 0 Meeting Date:7/18/2000 DISCUSSION: Project Description: The specific project requiring a proposal under the RFQ involved the renovation and expansion of the existing facility that the City intends to use as its future Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard. The existing facility, which was purchased from San Diego Gas and Electric Company, consists of an administrative office building, warehouse building and vehicle maintenance building located on a 25-acre site. The site also contains a fueling island, employee and visitor parking areas and yard areas for vehicle parking and equipment. The facility would house the Public Works Department/Operations Division Administration, Wastewater Maintenance, Streets, Traffic, Vehicle Maintenance, Building Maintenance, Construction Inspection, Survey, Parks Operations/Open Space, Communications and Central Stores function. Additionally, other City functions will utilize the facility, such as: Engineering, Transit and Planning (Building Inspection and Plan Check). The project will include the following primary facilities: D Administration Building: modification of existing 31,100 SF single story building to accommodate administrative and office needs of Corporation Yard and addition of 11,200 SF of new space. D Renovate existing warehouse: modify existing 14,200 SF single story building by adding a mezzanine level and subdividing the building to serve various divisions. D New addition: add 16,800 SF single story to existing Shops Building. D Warehouse: convert existing 11,400 SF single story garage building into a warehouse for the Central Stores Division of Purchasing by removing designated equipment and making minor renovations. D Maintenance Building: construct new 42,100 SF single story large vehicle repair facility with mezzanine space for storage. D Fueling island: construct 5,670 SF single story building and service canopy for refueling islands. D CNG Fueling Facility: includes compressors and storage. D Vehicle/Bus wash: construct 3,400 SF single story building and service canopy for washing transit buses. D Public CNG fueling area. D Household Hazardous Waste drop-off area. The project also includes landscaping, grading, paving, utility and site improvements to the adjacent property and building additions. The project's construction documents have been submitted and returned from second building permit plan check. Highland Partnership, Inc. has already begun to review the construction documents for breakdown into the appropriate bid packages. Highland anticipates that groundbreaking could occur in September or October 2000. /tJ- ?- Page 3, Item: / 0 Meeting Date:7/18/2000 Scope of Work: The contract with HigWand Partnership, Inc. is not a Design Build contract. It is, however, a fixed fee contract for Construction Manager/Constructor Services. Staff's recommendation is to have Highland Partnership, Inc. bid the specialty contractor work in multiple bid packages, and assume the administration, and implementation of the specialty trade work. All bidding, procurement and purchasing will be done in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the City Charter. The scope of work is described in more detail in the contract and the RFQ. Consultant Selection Process: Ten days after issuing the RFQ, City Staff held a pre-submittal conference that was attended by forty-two consulting firms. A total of eighteen firms responded to the RFQ and made submittals by May 19, 2000. City staff evaluated and ranked the eighteen submittals in accordance with the following evaluation criteria: o Cover Letter Information o Firm identification o Project understanding o Location of firm o Methods and strategic plan o Qualifications and experience of personnel and firm o Other information: o Insurance coverage o Resources o Financial strength o Litigation/Claims o Schedule of rates o Familiarity with local area o Proposal quality and clarity Based on this evaluation criteria the six top ranked firms were: o Bitterlin Development Corporation o Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc., o Gafcon, LLC, and o HigWand Partnership, Inc., o Turner Construction Company, o Vanir Construction Management, Inc., The six firms were invited to participate in the interview process, in order to determine the selection of the Construction Manager/Constructor for the Corporation Yard project. Each /0-3 Page 4, Item: I 0 Meeting Date:7/18/2000 finn was given approximately one hour for a presentation and to respond to questions from the panel. In accordance with section 2.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Manager appointed the following individuals to the Selection Committee: Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager; Rick Emerson, Chief of Police; John Lippitt, Director of Public Works; Dave Byers, Deputy Public Works Director/Operations; Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney; Richard Thompson, Building Projects Supervisor; and Samir Nuhaily, Senior Civil Engineer. The City Manager also participated in the interview and selection process. The interview questions and discussion focused on the following areas: . Understanding of the components of construction management. . Understanding of the scope of work for the corporation yard project. . Understanding of the finn's role, responsibilities and interaction with City officials, subcontractors and consultants. . Experience with similar projects. . Ability to identify milestone events and significant issues that could affect the project's schedule and timely completion. . Proposed project phasing and construction timeline. . Allocation of human and material resources. . Software support system. As a result of the interview process, Highland Partnership, Inc. was selected unanimously as the highest rated consultant for Construction Manager/Constructor on the Corporation Yard project. Highland Partnership, Inc. submitted a detailed presentation that best reflected the time line, relevant experience and support system that staff felt was necessary for the timely completion of the project. Construction Mana~ement Approaches or Delivery Systems: As indicated in the June 20th Agenda Statement, there are multiple types of project delivery systems that can be utilized in the implementation of construction management services. The four most common delivery systems are: D Construction Manager, D Construction Manager/Constructor - No Fixed Fee, D Construction Manager/Constructor-Fixed Fee, and D Design/Build. The contract with Highland Partnership, Inc. is based on the Construction Manager/Constructor - Fixed Fee Delivery System. The advantages of Construction Manager/Constructor include maximizing the efficiency of City's project management; assisting the City in obtaining a project which balances the quality, budget and time constraints of the project, the City having an experienced representative to deal with Specialty Trade Contractors, pennitting, etc. throughout the development, assisting with the procurement and installation of furniture, fixtures and equipment, and controlling relocation and move management. Additionally, all cost savings resulting from changes /C-1- Page 5, Item: J D Meeting Date:7/18/2000 and value engineering revert to the City. Under this approach, Highland Partnership, Inc. will be required to conduct a public bidding process, pursuant to City requirements. After completion of that process, Highland will make a recommendation for the award to the subcontractor(s). The City Council awards the contract to the specialty trade contractor for the performance of the trade work and assigns contract management to Highland. The City is billed through Highland, for the specialty trade contractor's work. This delivery system ensures that Highland represents the City's interests and reduces the typical incentives for a general contractor to process change orders. Additionally, this delivery system gives Highland more control over scheduling subcontractor work and other issues that may arise during construction. Highland's fee to perform the construction management services on the corporation yard project was negotiated as a fixed fee of $914,000.00. The fee will only increase if the City expands the scope of work at which time the City will negotiate an adjustment to the fee with Highland based on the requested additional work. Change orders on work that do not the result in an expansion in the scope of work will not result in the adjustment of the fee. Additionally, if the project is completed ahead of schedule, the cost savings will be split between the City and Highland. The other five firms presented the following fee proposals: o Turner Construction Company, - $866,904.00. Turner's cost estimate did not include any reimbursable costs (approximated to be $48,000.00). o Vanir Construction Management, Inc. - $1,070,300.00. o Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. - $509,655.00 plus 2.5% of the overall construction cost, which brings the overall fee to approximately $1,009,655.00. o Gafcon, LLC - $1,089,667.00. o Bitterlin Development Corporation - their fee proposal ranged between 4-5% of the total managed costs (the range would be $840,000-$1,050,000). The fee proposals submitted by Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc., Vanir Construction Management, Inc., Gafcon, LLC and Bitterlin Development Corporation were based on the construction manager/constructor approach, where the CMC does not guarantee their fee but rather if the project drags on, then the fee increases. The contract outlines in detail the bid, award, and payment methodology. The following is a brief description of the process: Bid and Award: Highland Partnership, Inc. will be required to conduct a public bidding process pursuant to the Chula Vista City Charter and Municipal Code. After completion of that process, Highland will make a recommendation for the award of bides) to a given specialty trade contractor. The City Council then awards the contract to the specialty trade contractor for the performance of the trade work and also assigns the responsibility for contract management and payment processing to Highland. Highland will administer the timely completion of the work and the execution of the contract and will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the construction documents for all work performed by the specialty trade contractor. It) -S Page 6, Item: - Meeting Date:7/18/2000 The City will be billed through Highland Partnership, Inc. for the subcontractor's work. The City will issue a payment to Highland within 30 days of the billing date, for the cost of such work. The payment issued by the City will be based on two verifications: o Highland will verify that the work has been completed. o The City's Project Design and Management (PDM) team will also provide a similar verification. PDM will verify that the work was completed in accordance with the construction documents, the bid documents, and in accordance with all other local and other regulations. Highland's construction management fees will be dispersed in accordance with the following methodology: Highland's compensation structure is based on the total fixed fee of $914,000.00, the terms and conditions outlined in the contract, the RFQ and Highland's submittal, and also on the timely completion of the project. The project delivery date is agreed upon in the contract to be July 24, 2001. Highland will remain on the job if the project extends beyond that date, but will not receive additional compensation unless the scope of work has been expanded by the City causing the delayed completion. Payments will be made on a monthly basis in accordance with the verification provided by the City's PDM team regarding the percentage of work completed and the retention percentage of 10% as indicated in the contract. Contract Obli2ations The following section outlines the significant components of the contract between the City and Highland Partnership, Inc. Highland shall: o Manager the construction of the project in accordance with the plans prepared by RNL with substantial completion no later than July 24, 2001. If the project is completed prior to the proposed completion date, the savings to the City will be split evenly between the City and Highland. If Highland exceeds the proposed completion due to no fault of the City, Highland shall absorb any and all additional construction management costs. o Arrange and coordinate all pre-construction conferences to establish a working understanding between the parties, schedules and discuss the nature of the project work. o Prepare a detailed schedule including the City's occupancy requirements. o Provide appropriate insurance requirements as identified in the contract. o Complete all construction management work in an amount not to exceed the fixed fee proposed in this agenda statement, unless otherwise approved by staff and/or the City Council. /o-/p Page 7, Item: / 0 Meeting Date:7/18/2000 [J Use their best efforts to ensure the project is constructed in such a manner that the budget of the Project, based on actual bids received, shall not be exceeded unless otherwise approved by Staff and/or the City Council. [J Provide pre-construction and construction management services and shall cause all professional services performed under the Agreement to meet the standards of care recognized in the industry. [J Comply with the competitive bidding requirements set forth in the Charter and Municipal Code. [J Prior to award of contracts, analyze all bids submitted in response to the bid solicitation for completeness. [J In conjunction with RNL, provide the City with a Certificate of Completion certifying to the City that the Project has been completed in accordance with the Construction Documents, all applicable building codes and regulations, all permits, licenses and certificates of inspection, use and occupancy, and ordinances related to the Project. [J In conjunction with RNL provide the City final record drawings at the end of construction (As Built Drawings) City ResDonsibilities To insure that the project is processed in an expedited manner the City has certain contractual responsibilities as well. As a result, the City shall: [J Make decisions with reasonable promptness to avoid delay in the progress of the Project. [J Designate an individual who is authorized to act on behalf of the City with respect to the Project. [J Make payments in the amounts and in accordance with the terms set forth in the contract. [J Establish and update an overall budget for the Project, based on consultation with Highland, which shall include contingencies for changes in the work and other costs which are the responsibility of the City. Throughout this process, the City retains the right to terminate this agreement if Highland fails to perform this contract in a timely and proper manner under the terms of this agreement. /v~'l I' Page 8, Item: !) Meeting Date:7118/2000 Conclusion: Considering the current pace of development and growth the City of Chula Vista is experiencing, it has become imperative that all necessary steps are taken to ensure that the level of services that City departments are providing to the public continues and improves. The corporation yard project is only one of many projects that the City will undertake in order to meet all the service delivery goals. The hiring of a construction manager/constructor will help immensely to facilitate the construction of the corporation yard. The City does not have the human or material resources to manage such a project in- house and deal with all the challenges and difficulties involved in its timely completion. The selection committee believes that Highland Partnership, Inc. is the best-qualified firm to provide Construction Manager/Constructor services for the corporation yard project. We believe that the construction management services priority list system that was approved by the City Council on June 20th will act as a serious incentive for Highland to perform at or above our expectations on the corporation yard project. Highland is on the priority list and is aware that future projects will only be awarded if satisfactory results are achieved. FISCAL IMPACT: The approval of this resolution would authorize the expenditure of $1,005,400.00 (includes 10% contingency funds) funds for Construction Manager/Constructor - Fixed Fee services required for the Corporation Yard project. Council had previously approved the appropriation of funds totaling $2,893,745 from the Corporation Yard Development Impact Fee and Transit funds to cover some of the design, construction and associated costs of the corporation yard project. Of this amount, $250,000 in Transit funds were set aside for Construction Management Services. However, a Construction Manager/Constructor provides greatly expanded services over a Construction Manager, which include performing construction oversight, scheduling, value engineering, and project management. Therefore, an additional $755,400 must be appropriated. The Sewer Fund will be paying a portion of the project costs; therefore, staff recommends appropriating the funds from the Sewer Service Revenue fund to the Corporation Yard CIP Project (GGI31). The construction cost is estimated to be $21.4 million. Staff will submit a financing plan to the City Council for approval next month. Attachments: Exhibit A - Request for Qualifications for Construction Manager/Constructor Services Exhibit B - Highland Partnership, Inc.'s Submittal Exhibit C - Agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. to provide constructiou management services for the Corporation Yard Project Exhibit D - Resolution establishing a construction management services priority list comprised of six consulting teams to be used for awarding design and/or construction contracts on furore building facilities. Please note that Exhibits A and B are available for Council viewing in the City Clerk's Office. File # 0735-1O-GGl31 H: \SHARED\ENGINEER\highland-agreementZ .smn.doc 7/14/00 3:16:10 PM /()-g ) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTOR SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CORPORATION YARD PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, on April 17, 2000, the Department of Public Works issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Manager/Constructor Services requesting statements of qualifications from Construction Managers/Constructors (CMC) , that are qualified to provide the City with proper guidance and assistance in value engineering, construction management and construction services coordination for Building Capital Improvement Projects; and submittals appointed submittals teams; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2000 the city received a total of 18 in response to the RFQ and a selection committee, by the City Manager has evaluated and ranked the and conducted interviews with the top six consulting WHEREAS, as a result of the interview process, on June 20, 2000, the City Council approved a resolution establishing a Construction Management Services Priority List comprised of all six consulting teams to be used for awarding construction contracts on future building facilities; and WHEREAS, Highland Partnership, Inc. was selected unanimously as the highest overall rated respondent for the Corporation Yard project and it is now necessary to approve an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. for the provision of construction management/constructor services required for the construction of the Corporation Yard project; and WHEREAS, City Council has previously appropriated $250,000 for construction management services for this project; and I / rJ- 9 WHEREAS, the City has determined the hiring of a Construction Manager/Constructor who plays a more active and involved role in the management of the construction is required for this project; and WHEREAS, the associated with hiring resulted in the need for expanded services and scope of work a Construction Manager/Constructor has an additional appropriation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. for the provision of Construction Management/Constructor Services required for the construction of the Corporation Yard Project, in substantially the form presented with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $755,400.00 is hereby appropriated from Sewer Service Revenue Fund into Corporation Yard CIP Project 88-131 to cover the Construction Manager/Constructor costs of the Corporation Yard Project. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works ~~~r- Clty Attorney [H:\HOME\ATTORNEYIRESO\ Highland Partnership Agreement Corp Yard (July 12, 2000 (2'49pm)] 2 / tJ -/0 em OF CHUlA VISTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM July 18, 2000 File: 0735-IO-GG131 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council John Lippitt, Director of Public Works ~ SUBJECT: Item #10 - Consideration of Approval of an Agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. for the Provision of Construction Management Services Required for the Construction of the Corporation Yard Project FROM: Attached are two revisions for Item #10. The revisions are as follows: 1. Attachment 1 to Agenda Statement (list of firms who submitted RFQs). This attachment was inadvertently omitted from the original agenda statement. 2. Agreement - Section 7.1, Course of Construction Insurance, page 16. This section was inadvertently omitted from the original agreement. KIHOME\ENGINEERIAGENDA\ 7-18-00 #1 O.doc H'\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\7-18-()(J #10.duc /0-11 ATTACHMENT _~_ LIST OF FIRMS THAT SUBMITTED RFQ PROPOSALS FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/CONSTRUCTOR SERVICES FOR CORPORATE YARD AND FUTURE PUBLIC BUILDINGS The first six firms listed (italics) were invited to interview. Chris Bitterlin, President Bitterlin Development Corporation P. O. Box 6746 San Diego, CA 92166 Robert Newberry, President & CEO BENECO ENTERPRISES. INC. 8180 South 700 East Sandy, UT 84070 Yehudi Gaffen, Principal Gafcon, LLC 701 B Street Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 George D. Frauces, Principal-in-Charge Kaiser Engineers 2878 Camino del Rio South Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 Kurt A. Tetzlaff, Director Turner Construction Co 3110 Camino del Rio South Suite A-120 San Diego, CA 92108 John Van Blerck, President JVB Construction Management, Inc. 16015 Big Springs Way San Diego, CA 92127 Mark W. Reinmiller, AlA, Vice President Vanir 701 B Street Suite 1120 San Diego, CA 92101 Hank S. A. Gentile, P.E. Construction Division Manager Simon Wong Engineering 9968 Hibert Street, Ste. 202 San Diego, CA 92131 William R. Sharp Executive Vice President douglas e. barnhart, inc. 17075 Camino San Bernardo San Diego, CA 92127 Stephen D. Hardison, President TriMatrix Corporation 9320 Hazard Way, Ste. D San Diego, CA 92123 J. David Gardner, Principal Highland Partnership, Inc. 285 Bay Boulevard Chula Vista, CA 91910 Steven Stinson, Vice President Holmes & Narver, Inc. 999 Town & Country Road Orange, CA 92868 /0-/;:)- Don Morelli, Construction Manager Larson, Ninyo & Moore 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Bruce R. Winer, Director of Construction Mgmt. NINETEMAN P.O. BOX 80577 San Diego, CA 92138 Gary Schotz, President QUEST CONSTRUCTION 7556 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121-2412 W. Marvin Ferrell, President FERRELL Management, Inc. dba FERRELL Construction Mgmt. 1747 Hancock Street, Ste. C San Diego, CA 92101 Carin Rautenbach, General Manager HANDSCOMB 6640 Lusk Blvd., Ste. A205C San Diego, CA 92121 Leonard Berlin, C.F.O. Ray Wilson Company 4025 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92108 H:IHOMEIENGINEERIDESIGNISHORTLIS. TEM /tJ--/3 Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership, Inc. for Construction Manager/Constructor Service for New Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard This agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 18th day of July, 2000, by and between The City of Chula Vista ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Highland Partnership, Inc., a California Corporation ("Construction Manager/Constructor" or "CMC"). RECITALS WHEREAS, City desires to obtain the services of a CMC to perform construction manager/constructor services for the Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard Improvements pursuant to the construction documents ("Project"); and WHEREAS, City has already engaged RNL Design ("Architect") as an architectural consultant to develop the design and construction documents for the Project; and WHEREAS, the CMC is a construction management firm and has proposed to assist the City with the construction of the Project, in accordance with the Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") issued by City, the construction documents prepared by Architect, and CMC's response to the RFQ dated May 19, 2000 (which documents are incorporated in their entirety into this Agreement by reference) and are prepared to enter into this Agreement. WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this Agreement is commonly known as 1800 Maxwell, and is legally described as set forth in the attached Exhibit 1 ("Property"); and, Whereas, CMC warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of CMC to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein: 1 10 -Ii./- THE PARTIES AGREE: Section 1: General Scope of Work to Be Performed by CMC and Relationship of the Parties 1.1 Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, CMC is to provide to City a completed and fully functional Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard in accordance with all of the terms set forth in this Agreement. 1.2 The services to be provided by CMC are generally to be performed in three "Phases"; the services to be provided in each Phase are specified in the Project Schedule (Exhibit 2). 1.3 The CMC shall: 1.3.1 Perform those services which are generally described in the scope of work set forth in the Request for Qualifications dated April 17, 2000 and CMC's response submitted May 19, 2000, and more specifically described in Section 5 of this Agreement. 1.3.2 Construct the Project in accordance with the plans .and specifications prepared by Architect and provided to CMC. 1.3.3 Achieve "Substantial Completion" (as defined in 9 13.1) no later than July 24,2001, and "Final Completion" no later than October 31, 2001, provided however, that CMC receives a Notice to Proceed by July 19, 2000. 1.4 The CMC accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established with the City by this Agreement, and covenants with the City to furnish the CMC 's reasonable skill and judgment and to cooperate with the Architect in furthering the interests of the City. CMC shall furnish construction administration and management services and use the CMC's best efforts to perform the Project in an expeditious and economical manner consistent with the interests of the City and to the highest standard of professional performance in construction and project management. Section 2: General Obligations of City 2.1 City shall be obligated as follows: 2.1.1 Designate a City Representative who is authorized to act on behalf of City with respect to the Project, except as to those decisions that require authorization by the Chula Vista City Council; 2 /j -(5 v 2.1.2 Make decisions with reasonable promptness to avoid delay in the orderly progress of CMC's service pursuant to the Project Schedule (Exhibit 2); 2.1.3 Cause to be completed all necessary environmental studies and obtain requisite environmental approvals and/or permits; 2.1.4 At the request of CMC, City will use its best efforts to provide CMC with any available information about the existing facilities and Project Site, including a legal description and survey of the Project Site, and will provide CMC with the best information available to City pertaining to such things as rights-of-ways, easements, existing utilities, and soil conditions, grades and lines of streets, adjacent drainage, encroachments, zoning, and deed restrictions. CMC shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of such information except to the extent that CMC knows of any and all inaccuracies. It will be the responsibility of CMC to verify all such information as it deems necessary to perform its services under this Agreement. Prior to entering this Agreement, CMC has reviewed the existing conditions and has completed its initial investigation and is familiar with all existing conditions. However, the City agrees to bear all costs, losses, and expenses, including the cost of CMC's additional service arising from the discovery of concealed or unknown conditions that could not reasonably be expected to be discovered. Inasmuch as the remodeling and/or rehabilitation of an existing structure requires that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions, and, some of these assumptions may not be verifiable without expending additional sums of money or destroying otherwise adequate or serviceable portions of the structure, the City agrees to bear all costs, losses and expenses, including the cost of CMC's additional service arising from the discovery of concealed or unknown conditions in the existing structure that could not reasonably be expected to be discovered. 2.1.5 Cooperate with CMC in identifying, processing and securing required permits, licenses and inspections in a timely fashion; however, this duty to cooperate does not relieve CMC of its obligations to identify, apply for and secure all necessary permits, licenses and inspections in a timely manner; 2.1.6 Make payments to CMC in accordance with the terms set forth below and the Cost Worksheet (Exhibit 3); 3 /(}~/Io 2.1.7 Issue Certificate of Substantial Completion (Exhibit 4) when City reasonably determines the Project has achieved Substantial Completion as defined below in Section 12.1; and 2.1.8 Issue a Notice of Acceptance (Exhibit 5) when City reasonably determines the Project has achieved Final Completion as defined in Section 13.2. 2.1.9 The City has established a construction budget for the Project of $21.4 million, based on consultation with Architect, which shall include contingencies for changes in the Work and other costs which are the responsibility of the City. 2.1.10 The City shall retain the Architect to provide Basic Services, including normal structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services, other than cost estimating services. 2.1.11 City shall use its best efforts to promote cooperation between the Architect, CMC and other consultants during the Project. Section 3: General Obligations of CMC 3.1 CMC shall be obligated as follows: 3.1.1 At all times in performing its services under this Agreement to use its best efforts to deliver the best possible Project that satisfies the City's time, monetary, quality and design parameters set forth in this Agreement; 3.1.2 CMC shall cause the Project to be constructed on time and, use its best efforts to cause the construction in such a manner that the budget of the Project shall not be exceeded, and if CMC reasonably believes that any action, decision or direction being made by City will likely result in the budget being exceeded or the Project being completed late, CMC will notify City in writing within five (5) calendar days; 3.1.3 Ensure all construction Work on the Project utilizing Specialty Trade Contractors appropriately licensed by the California Contractors State License Board; 3.1.4 Perform all services as expeditiously as is consistent with reasonable skill and care and shall complete the services within each and all of the time periods set forth in this Agreement and the Project Schedule (Exhibit 2); 4 1/ - 17 u i 3.1.5 Be responsible for all errors, omissions or acts arising from the services CMC provides under this Agreement, including any such errors, omissions or acts of CMC's agents, employees, consultants and subconsultants; 3.1.6 Comply with the Califomia Fair Employment and Housing Act and all other State, Federal and local laws including, but not limited to, those prohibiting discrimination, on account of race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex or handicap; 3.1.7 CMC shall ensure that while performing any and all obligations pursuant to this Agreement, CMC shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations, and statutes affecting the Project, including but not limited to, zoning, environmental, building, fire and safety codes and coverage, density and density ratios and lien laws. CMC shall ensure that CMC's work on the Project conforms to all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders or other legal requirements. 3.1.8 Use reasonable care to avoid damaging existing buildings, equipment and vegetation within and adjacent to the Project Site. If CMC's failure to use reasonable care causes damage to any of this property, CMC shall replace or repair said property at no expense to City. 3.1.9 Except as expressly provided herein, be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits, including but not limited to those required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which shall be a Reimbursable Cost, for which the CMC will be reimbursed by the City pursuant to Section 9.2. 3.1.10 Assist Architect and City to ensure the facility is constructed in compliance with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 3.2 CMC, is employed to render pre-construction and construction manager/constructor services only. CMC shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. CMC shall cause all professional services performed under this Agreement to meet the standards of care recognized in the industry by those providing similar services 5 jD -'r 3.3 CMC shall cooperate with City in obtaining requisite environmental approvals and/or permits. 3.4 CMC shall cause to be performed any related site mitigation and/or remediation, in accordance with the construction documents and all applicable laws, codes, and regulations. 3.5 If requested by City and at additional cost to City, CMC team is to provide videotape and photographic documentation ("Video") of Project Site prior to, during and upon completion of construction. Videotape is to be a time-lapsed videotape, located at a strategic location or locations with an overview of the Project Site, showing Work in progress. Video is to show at least a one minute period of Work each day, even if no Work is in progress during that working day, or is to be run at several intervals during that day if differing construction operations are being performed. Video is to be of professional quality and done with a wide-angle lens to capture the entire operation. Dates and times are to be documented on the Video. Copies of Videos are to be transmitted to City on a monthly basis or as requested. CMC shall provide to City still photographs taken periodically during the course of construction documenting the progress being made on Project for use by either CMC or City. 3.6 CMC shall attend any public meetings or hearings requested by City including but not limited to Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings. Section 4: Work Restriction and Competitive Bidding Requirement 4.1 CMC, its subsidiaries, related entities, and professional consultants shall not perform any actual construction work of any type with their own forces on the Project, unless specific written authorization is received from the City. All trade related portions of this Project are to be performed utilizing separate Specialty Trade Contractors. CMC's work shall consist of construction management services as defined and contemplated in California Government Code ~~ 4525(e) and 4529.5. 4.2 City requires that this Project satisfy the competitive bidding requirements set forth in the Charter and Municipal Code of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, CMC is hereby authorized to act as the agent of City. In all other capacities it is understood that CMC shall be an independent contractor under this Agreement. CMC shall be responsible for competitively bidding all construction work to others and for making recommendations to City staff and City Council regarding the appropriate contracts to enter into with the lowest responsible bidder and, provided that CMC has fully complied in good faith with the competitive bidding required, shall be held harmless from any expense or delays resulting from bid protests or challenges resulting therefrom. 6 It . /1 /. 7 4.3 All other aspects of City's competitive bid law shall apply, including but not limited to the following: 4.3.1 City shall have the right to reject all bids and re-advertise; 4.3.2 City shall award to the lowest responsible bidder. 4.4 CMC shall furnish City with a list of all Specialty Trade Contractors with their bid. 4.5 City shall utilize existing bid protest procedures and shall hear and decide bid protests. 4.6 CMC shall, as required by the City Charter and Municipal Code, require all Specialty Trade Contractors to provide appropriate bid, payment and performance bonds for the Work on bond forms furnished by the City. Such bonds shall name the City as obligee. Section 5: Scope of Work In addition to the Scope of Work outlined below, the CMC shall cause the project to be constructed consistent with the RFO, Construction Documents, and CMC's response to the RFO. Any conflict between those documents shall be resolved by the City Manager or his designee based upon the following hierarchy of documents (1) this Agreement, (2) Construction Documents, (3) RFO, (4) CMC's response to the RFO. 5.1 Commencement of Service 5.1.1 Preconstruction (Bid and Award) phase shall commence upon the issuance of a Notice to Proceed or July 19, 2000, which ever shall occu r fi rst. 5.1.2 Construction Phase shall commence upon the City's first authorization to the CMC to process the first group of specialty contracts, or to issue a purchase order for materials or equipment required for the Work, which ever shall occur first. 5.2 Bid and Award Phase: 5.2.1 CMC duties during this phase shall include the following: . Prepare and place notice advertisements . Expedite delivery of bid documents. . Conduct pre-bid conference. 7 If) . dXJ . Communicate pre-bid construction schedule to bidders. . Review and coordinate addenda. . Estimate costs of addenda. . Conduct public bid opening and evaluation. . Conduct post-bid conference. . Assemble, deliver and execute contract documents. . Update master schedule monthly. . Analyze bids and recommend award. . Prepare schedule reports on a monthly basis and alert within two days. . Update project cost reports monthly. . Finalize Phase Funding plan(s). 5.2.2 All specialty trade contr<icting shall be competitively bid under a "public" competitive bidding process in accordance with the City's purchasing policies. Prior to awarding any contract, the CMC shall analyze all bids submitted in response to the bid solicitation for completeness and responsiveness as defined in the Instruction to Bidders. The bids, once reviewed, shall then be compiled into a package listing the apparent low bidder for each specialty trade and the bid amount, and submitted to the City for approval. Once approved, the City shall enter into an agreement with the successful bidder. CMC shall be assigned the financial responsibility and contract monitoring and compliance for each subcontract. Specialty Trade Contractors shall submit payment demands to CMC. CMC will, upon verification of work and approval of invoice from Specialty Trade Contractor submit a request for payment to the City. Upon receipt of payment from the City, CMC will ensure payment of Specialty Trade Contractors pursuant to the contract between the City and the Specialty Trade Contractor and the approved request for payment. The CMC shall ensure all Specialty Trade Contractors are properly insured and licensed and shall not recommend for employment by the City any Specialty Trade Contractors that are not properly licensed. The CMC shall not recommend and City shall not be required to contract with any Specialty Trade Contractor who has submitted a non-responsive bid as defined in the Instructions to Bidders. 5.2.3 CMC shall prepare a compilation of the bids received and estimate 8 J 0 - ;;./ the cost to complete the total project, review said bid compilation and estimate with City and modify as necessary to meet City's goals and objectives for the Project. 5.2.4 CMC shall, in concert with the City and Architect, identify value engineering opportunities and estimate the value of potential savings. CMC shall include value engineering options within the bid documents 5.2.5 CMC shall assist City in obtaining the services of a Specialty Trade Contractor to provide for the long term maintenance of the CNG Facilities. Bid Receipt shall be completed by August 15, 2000. Bid and Award Phase shall be completed by December 12, 2000. 5.3 Construction Phase CMC duties during this phase shall include the following: . Control move-on activities including, but not limited to, union/nonunion access, storage, parking, temporary electrical, water and dust control/erosion activities. . Verify permits, bonds and insurance. . Provide continuous on-site management personnel; establish construction phase communication procedures. . Establish construction administration procedures. . Log, coordinate and review requests for information, shop drawings, samples and other submittals. . Coordinate independent consultants and CITY forces (e.g., testing and inspection). . Establish and implement change order control system. . Document changes due to unforeseen circumstances and recommend appropriate action. . Establish and implement quality control program. Specifically, insure that work conforms to requirements of contract documents. . Render decisions concerning disputes between contractors and CITY. . Collect and transmit operation and rnaintenance rnanuals, warranties and guarantees frorn contractors/suppliers. . Determine substantial completion for monthly payment. . Prepare punch list. . Determine final completion and payment. 9 I ). );)- . Review contractor construction schedules. . Update master schedule. . Review progress of construction; prepare monthly construction schedule reports. . Prepare/recommend change orders. . Determine effect of change orders on schedule. . Require contractors to prepare recovery schedule, as needed. . With each contractor, determine schedule of values. . Allocate cost to construction schedule of values. . Estimate cost of change orders and recommend action by City. . Maintain cost records for construction change authorizations. . Prepare trade-off studies. . Review and coordinate payment applications. . Prepare scheduled maintenance reports. . Update project cost reports monthly. . Revise project and construction budgets. . Prepare cash flow reports monthly. . Prepare progress payment reports. . Prepare change order reports. . Coordinate as-built drawings and surveys of construction site (by other consultants). . Coordinate procurement, storage, maintenance and installation of furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E), materials and supplies. 5.3.1 At a time mutually agreeable, the CMC shall arrange for a preconstruction conference to be attended by the CMC's staff, the City, the Architect, major Specialty Trade Contractors and others whose input may be desired. The purpose of this conference shall be to establish a working understanding between the parties, schedules, phasing and to discuss the nature of the project work. 5.3.2 The CMC shall schedule and conduct meetings at which the City, Architect, CMC and appropriate Specialty Trade Contractors can discuss the status of the Work. The CMC shall prepare and promptly distribute meeting minutes. 5.3.3 CMC shall prepare a detailed schedule, including the City's occupancy requirements and phasing. 5.3.4 The CMC shall maintain a daily log containing a record of weather, Specialty Contractors working on the site, number of workers, Work 10 / (J - ('/3 accomplished, problems encountered and other similar relevant data as the City may reasonably require. The log shall be available to the City and Architect. 5.3.5 If any Specialty Contractor should, in the opinion of the CMC, neglect to prosecute the work properly or should neglect or refuse at his own cost to take up and replace work as shall have been rejected by the CMC, then the CMC shall notify the Specialty Trade Contractor's Surety of the condition, and after ten (10) days written notice to the Specialty Contractor and the Surety, or without notice if an emergency or danger to the work or public exists, and without prejudice to any other right which the CMC of City may have under the Contract, take over that portion of the work which has been improperly executed and make good the deficiencies and deduct the cost thereof from the payments then or thereafter due the Specialty Trade Contractor. 5.3.6 If the CMC or Specialty Contractors are delayed in the progress of the work by any act or neglect of the City or by any separate Contractor employed by the City, or by strikes, lockouts, fire, unusual weather conditions, or unavoidable casualties, the CMC shall, within 48 hours of the start of the occurrence, give notice to the City of the cause of the potential delay and estimate the possible time extension involved. Within seven days after the cause of delay has been remedied, the CMC shall give notice to the City of any actual time extension requested as a result of the aforementioned occurrence in accordance 'with the provisions of this Agreement. 5.3.7 CMC shall review construction documents for constructability and work with City and Architect to make agreed upon changes. Construction Phase 1, as identified in Exhibit 2, shall be completed by 1/2001. Construction Phase 2, as identified in Exhibit 2, shall be completed by 4/2001. Construction Phase 3, as identified in Exhibit 2, shall be completed by 7/2001. 5.4 Post Construction Phase CMC duties during this phase shall include the following . Coordinate and expedite record drawings and specifications. . Compile operations and maintenance manuals, warranties/ guarantees, and certificates. . Obtain occupancy permit; coordinate final testing, documentation, and governmental inspections. . Coordinate change orders. 11 ! (). ,;)1 . Prepare final accounting and close out reports. . Prepare occupancy plan reports. 5.4.1 CMC shall cause each Specialty Trade Contractor to prepare and submit to CMC representative construction documents of the work as completed ("Working Set of As-Builts") appropriate As-Built Drawings. CMC shall review said Working Set of As-Builts to confirm the drawings accurately reflect the work required by the Construction Documents and the work completed by said Specialty Trade Contractor. CMC shall provide Working Set of As-Builts to Architect for preparation of record drawings. Post Construction Phase shall be completed by October 31, 2001. 5.5 ADMINISTRATION 5.5.1 The CMC shall keep on the Project at all times, during its progress, competent supervisory personnel. The CMC shall designate, in writing, before starting work, an authorized representative who shall have complete authority to represent and to act for the CMC. The CMC shall give efficient supervision to the work, using his best skill and attention. The CMC shall be required to coordinate all Specialty Trade Contractors in the construction progress, and for providing adequate safety precautions and coordinating all portions of the work under the Agreement. 5.5.2 The Project Manager, or other duly authorized representatives of the CMC, shall represent the CMC in all directions given to him by the City. 5.5.3 The CMC shall employ only competent, skillful workers to do the work, and whenever any person shall appear to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, such person shall be removed from the work. CMC shall ensure the Specialty Trade Contractors perform work to the quality level called for in the Construction Documents. 5.5.4 The CMC shall cause to be developed and maintained for the duration of this Contract, a safety program that will effectively incorporate and implement all required safety provisions. The CMC shall appoint an employee who is qualified and authorized to supervise and enforce compliance with the safety program. CMC may propose to City any additional or expanded safety program CMC, based on its skill and experience, believes is 12 /0. :;6 necessary due to the complex nature of the Project. City understands and acknowledges that there will be additional cost to be borne by the City associated with an expanded safety program. 5.6 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The CMC shall not be required to provide professional services, which constitute the practice of architecture or engineering, unless such services are specifically agreed to in writing. In such event, the CMC shall cause such services to be performed by appropriately licensed professionals. 5.7 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS CMC shall provide the City with the capability to check the status of all aspects of the project in an on-line and real-time manner. The City must be able to review the status of the project, check on the budget and expenditures to date, the status of any Requests for Information and other such documents the CMC may have issued or received on the City's behalf. Ideally, this mechanism should be available through the Internet in a secure manner such that authorized City personnel can use an Internet browser on their computer to access information provided by the CMC. CMC shall keep the data on this site in an up-to-date manner such that all relevant data is posted as expeditiously as possible, but such data shall be posted no later than within five business day of the receipt of such data by the CMC. Section 6: Additional Services 6.1 City will have the right to direct CMC to perform Additional Services beyond those specified in this Agreement. CMC may provide Additional Services only if authorized in writing, in advance, by City and after complying with Section 6.3. The City may propose changes to the Work of a Contractor after the bid has been awarded. In the event of a change of this nature, CMC will estimate the cost of the Change Order, assist City in developing drawings and specifications as necessary, solicit a revised bid, negotiate with the Contractor, present a recommendation for a Change Order to City, and implement construction as approved by City. 6.2 For Additional Services which increase the construction costs or other reasonably necessary costs of the Project, City may pay CMC additional fees if additional staff is required or if said change results in an extension of time. Should City determine additional fees are to be paid to CMC as a result of the Additional Services, said fees will be paid on an hourly basis pursuant to the Schedule of Rates, as set forth in Exhibit 5. 6.3 If at any time CMC contends that it is being asked to perform Additional Services, it shall immediately give City written notice prior to performing said services 13 /o-/)P indicating that CMC intends to seek additional compensation beyond the CMC Fixed Fee. Furnishing advance written notice shall be a condition precedent to being able to seek additional compensation from City. 7. Insurance 7.1 The insurance provIsions herein shall not be construed to limit CMC's indemnity obligations contained in this Agreement. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. The maintenance of proper coverage is a material element of the contract and that failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 0001) 2. Insurance Services Office Form (G0009 11 88 Owners and Contractors Protective Liability Coverage Form-Coverage for Operations of Designated Contractor). 3. Insurance Services Officer Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). 4. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability (Including operations, products and completed operations): $5,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project! location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 14 10 - ()1 3. Employer's Liability: disease. $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductible or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the CMC shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the contractor; and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CMC including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the CMC's insurance, or as a separate owner's policy. 2. For any claims related to this project the CMC's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the CMC's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 4. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Sections 2782 of the Civil Code. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. ]5 'I ,.0 it;," ,jf; Verification of Coverage CMC shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City's forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require 'complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time. Specialty Trade Contractors CMC shall include all specialty trade contractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for specialty trade contractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 7.1 Course of Construction Insurance. The City shall provide at City's cost Property Insurance which includes Course of Construction coverage. Policy exclusions include: making good faults or defects, bust damage resulting is not excluded; non- compliance or delay in completion of contract; non-compliance with contract conditions; and contractors equipment or tools. The City will pay up to one time the $5,000 deductible during the course of this contract. CMC shall be responsible for any deductibles thereafter. 7.2 Cooperation. The CMC shall cooperate fully with and provide any information or records reasonably requested by the City or the City's designee regarding all aspects of the Project, including but not limited to claims, audit, payroll, insurance records and safety. Delays in reporting information to the City or its designee may result in delays in progress payments to the CMC. 7.3 Increasinq Insurance Limits - At any time during the course of this contract the City may request a proposal from CMC for increasing insurance limits. 7.4 The expense of broker(s), Insurance Consultant, insurance administration, deductibles subject to the following limits: Commercial General Liability $5,000, Automobile Liability: $0; Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability $0, and one time $5,000 Property Course of Construction deductible; net premiums for the insurance required of CMC by this Section will constitute a Reimbursable Cost for which City will reimburse CMC pursuant to Section 9.2 below. The insurance provisions herein shall not be construed to limit CMC's indemnity obligations contained in this agreement. Section 8: Inspection 8.1 City shall be responsible for City's inspection and special inspections. The City shall either perform said inspection services with its own forces or contract with 16 I" ., :,9 third parties. It shall be the responsibility of CMC, however, to call for, coordinate and schedule all inspections. 8.2 City, its consultants, Subcontractors, independent testing laboratories and governmental agencies with jurisdictional interests will have access at reasonable times for this observation, inspecting and testing. CMC shall provide them proper and safe conditions for such access and advise them of CMC's safety procedures and programs so that they may comply. 8.3 City will make, or have made, such inspections and tests as the City deems necessary to see that the Work is being accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Documents. Unless otherwise specified, the cost of such inspection and testing will be borne by the City. CMC shall cause all specialty trade contracts to include provision that in the event such inspections or tests reveal non-compliance with the requirements of the Construction Documents, Specialty Trade Contractors shall bear the cost of corrective measures deemed necessary by City, as well as the cost of subsequent re-inspection and re-testing. Neither observations by the City nor inspections, tests, or approvals by others shall relieve CMC from CMC's obligations to cause the Work to be performed in accordance with the Construction Documents. CMC shall give City timely notice of readiness of the Work for all required on and off-site inspections, tests, or approvals and shall cooperate with inspection and testing personnel to facilitate required inspections or tests. CMC shall give at least 24 hours notice for on-site inspection and five (5) days notice for off-site inspection. Section 9: CMC Fixed Fee for Services and Reimbursements 9.1 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, as full and complete compensation for performance of all services and obligations under this Agreement, CMC shall be compensated ("CMC Fixed Fee") at a fixed sum equal to $914,000. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, CMC Fixed Fee shall include full compensation for all costs of any type incurred by CMC in performing all services and obligations under this Agreement, including but not limited to the following: 9.1.1 Estimating, value engineering and construction management; 9.1.2 Construction supervision and Project management personnel, including but not limited to superintendents, Project managers, Project secretaries, Project engineers, Project accountants, and all other CMC personnel wherever located; 9.1.3 All on-site and off-site equipment, supplies and facilities, including but not limited to, computers, estimating, dictating, communication and accounting equipment, office space, trailers and storage 17 / () - '30 facilities; 9.1.4 All home-office and field overhead costs of any type including document control and rete.ption; 9.1.5 All business license costs; 9.1.6 All profit CMC intends to earn under this Agreement. 9.2 CMC shall provide to City an estimate of "Reimbursable Costs" and after approval by City, CMC shall be reimbursed, only as specified the applicable Sections of this Agreement for the following Reimbursable Costs: 9.2.1 Reimbursable Insurance Premiums, deductibles and Broker Fees (limited to Project specific policies) at the rate of one and two tenths percent (1 .2%) of the Cost of the Work; 9.2.2 Reimbursable Permit Costs. Section 10: CHANGES IN THE WORK 10.1 The City may, without invalidating the Contract, order changes in the Work within the general scope of the Contract consisting of additions, deletions or other revisions. 10.2. The cost for the CMC's Construction Management Services shall not be adjusted unless the changes in the work become excessive or the City and CMC mutually agree to a change in the scope of Construction Management services or the services extend beyond July 24,2001 as a result of an increase in scope or a delay caused solely by City or due to City's willful and negligent action or inaction. 10.3. If the Construction Manager I Constructor receives any drawings, specifications, interpretations or instructions from the City or Architect which are inconsistent with the Contract Documents, or encounters unanticipated conditions, any of which will result in a significant change in the cost, scope or estimated date of Substantial Completion in comparison with the Budget, the CMC shall promptly notify the City and Architect in writing and shall not proceed with the affected Work until further written instructions are received from the City and Architect. 10.4 The hourly rate included in Cost Worksheet (Exhibit 3) will be retained throughout Calendar year 2001 and may not thereafter be increased by more than the Consumer Price Index for San Diego Region. Section 11: Payment Terms 18 " ), 2/ , 11.1 CMC shall submit an invoice for payment for CMC Services to City on a monthly basis. CMC's monthly fee shall be as delineated in the Construction Manager/Constructor Fixed Fee Cost Worksheet (Exhibit 3). The monthly fees set out in the Cost Worksheet are based upon a weighted distribution of the CMC Fixed Fee over the Contract Time. If the invoiced amount is not disputed by City, City shall pay CMC ninety percent (90%) of said amount within thirty (30) days after receipt of the fully documented invoice. City will withhold the remaining 10% as security for CMC's full performance. 11.2 CMC shall develop and maintain an accurate system for tracking all Reimbursable Costs. Utilizing this system, CMC will submit for payment monthly invoices for such Reimbursable Costs actually incurred by CMC. If the invoiced amount is not disputed by City, it shall pay CMC the full amount within thirty (30) days after receipt of the fully documented invoice. 11.3 CMC shall develop and maintain an accurate system for tracking all Hard Construction Costs on a percent complete basis. The monthly percent complete by trade shall be reviewed with the City, Architect, and CMC. City may request copies of all invoices and time and material tickets from subcontractors. Utilizing this system, CMC will submit to City for payment monthly certificates and application for payment for such Hard Construction Costs actually incurred by CMC. If the invoiced amount is not disputed by City, it shall pay CMC ninety percent (90%) of the invoiced amount within thirty (30) days after receipt of the fully documented invoice. City will withhold the remaining 10% as security for Specialty Trade Contractor's full performance. 11.4 Subject to Sections 11.5 and 11.6, City shall pay CMC any retention amount being withheld as part of the "Final Payment" to CMC. Final Payment will be made thirty-five (35) days after Final Completion. 11.5 At the point that the construction of the Project is at least fifty percent (50%) completed, upon consideration and authorization by the City Manager or his designee, the ten percent (10%) retention being withheld from the CMC's Fixed Fee may be reduced to five percent (5%) for all past and future payments if, in the sole judgment of City, it is satisfied with the CMC's level of service and the progress on the Project. 11.6 The City Manager or his designee will consider the release of the entire retention for Specialty Trade Contractors upon completion of the Specialty Trade Contractors' task and execution of a disclaimer and release by the Specialty Trade Contractor. Section 12: Proiect Completion 12.1 Substantial Completion shall be that stage in the progress of the construction when all Work on the Project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the 19 ) -.3;)-, Construction Documents so that City can occupy and utilize the entire site for its intend use; Substantial Completion shall further mean that all goods and services to be provided under the terms and conditions of the Construction Documents are in place and have been initially tested, and are operationally functional, subject to final testing, balancing and adjustments and normal Final Completion punchlist Work. 12.2 Final Completion shall be deemed to occur on the last to occur of the following events: (1) recordation of a Notice of Completion for the Project; (2) acceptance of the Project by the City; (3) issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project; (4) submission of all documents required to be supplied by CMC to City under this Agreement, including but not limited to Working Set of As-Built drawings, warranties, and operating manuals; (5) and delivery to City of a Certificate of Completion duly verified by CMC. City agrees to file all documents within City's control in a timely manner. 12.3 CMC shall provide City with a Certificate of Completion, in the form of Exhibit 7 hereto, certifying to City under penalty of perjury that the Project has been completed in accordance with the Construction Documents and all applicable permits. 12.4 CMC is to provide City and Architect at the end of construction with a set of reproducible record drawings showing significant changes in the work made during construction based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by Specialty Trade Contactors to CMC. Reproducible Record Drawings are to be accurate and legible records showing exact location by dimensions, and the exact depth by elevation of underground lines, valves, plugged tees, wiring and utilities. Architect shall provide to City, based on this information, the Record Drawings for the Project. 12.5 CMC shall provide a copy of, or make available before destruction, all records (which includes all writings as defined in Evidence Code Section 250) to the City upon receipt or generation, which shall include a copy of CMC's filing protocol. Section 13: Contract Time 13.1 CMC acknowledges and agrees that the date of Substantial Completion set forth in Section 1.3.3 above is critical to City. CMC agrees that the entire Project will be ready for occupancy by the date of Substantial Completion, July 24, 2001, and that all Work under this Agreement will be completed by the Final Completion Date, October 31,2001. 13.2 With regard to Contract Time and all Milestones and all time limits stated and/or established under this Agreement, "time is of the essence." 13.3 The Contract Time may only be changed by a Change Order. Any request by CMC for an extension of the Contract Time (or Milestones) shall be based on written notice delivered by CMC to City promptly (but in no event later than ten (10) 20 . , /' ,.J ')3 ""'; " working days) after the occurrence and discovery of the event giving rise to the request and stating the general nature of the request, unless otherwise noted. Notice of the estimated extent of the request with supporting data shall be delivered within fifteen (15) days after such notice (unless City allows an additional period of time to ascertain more accurate data in support of the request) and shall be accompanied by CMC's written statement that the adjustment requested is the entire time adjustment to which CMC has reason to believe it is entitled as a result of the occurrence of said event. An increase in Contract Time does not necessarily mean that CMC is due an increase in Fee. 13.4 An extension in Contract Time will not be granted unless CMC can demonstrate through an analysis of the Critical Path Method Progress Schedule that the increases in the time to perform or complete the Project, or specified part of the Project, beyond the corresponding Contract Time arise from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of either CMC and CMC's subconsultants or Specialty Trade Contractors, and that such causes in fact lead to performance or completion of the Project, or specified part in question, beyond the corresponding Contract Time, despite CMC's reasonable and diligent actions to guard against those effects. 13.5 CMC shall proceed with the work generally in accordance with the schedule in Exhibit 2. 13.6 Should CMC complete project prior to the Substantial Completion Date the remaining fee contemplated under this Agreement shall be evenly split between CMC and City. Section 14: Work By Others 14.1 City may perform other Work related to the Project at the Project Site by City's own forces, have other Work performed by utility owners, or let other direct contracts. If the fact that such other Work is to be performed was not noted in this Agreement, written notice thereof will be given to CMC two weeks prior to starting any such other Work. If the CMC determines that the Work being performed by City or others may interfere with, or cause damages to, Work being performed under the CMC's supervision, the CMC shall so notify the City in writing. If, after such notice, damage or delay to the Work of CMC results, CMC may file a claim for compensation. 14.2 If the proper execution or results of any part of CMC's Work depends upon the work of any such other contractor or utility owner (or City), CMC shall promptly inspect and report to City in writing any apparent delays, defects, or deficiencies in such other work that render it unavailable or unsuitable for such proper execution and results. CMC's failure to report such delays, defects, or deficiencies in writing before commencement of the affected work, will constitute an acceptance of the other work as 21 . "'if "J"" - , ; -' fit and proper for integration with CMC's Work except for latent defects and deficiencies in the other work. 14.3 If CMC directly causes damage to the work, property, or person of any other contractor employed by City, or if any claim arising out of CMC's performance of the Project by any other contractor is made against CMC, by City, any other contractor, or any other person, CMC shall be responsible to settle and shall promptly attempt to settle and resolve the dispute. Section 15: Use and Possession Prior to Completion 15.1 City shall have the right to take possession of or use any completed or partially completed part of the Work. Before taking possession of or using any Work, City shall furnish CMC a list of items of Work remaining to be performed or corrected on those portions of the Work that City intends to take possession of or use. However, failure of City to list any item of Work shall not relieve CMC of responsibility for complying with the terms of this Agreement. City's possession or use shall not be deemed an acceptance of any Work under this Agreement, nor relieve the CMC of any of its obligations under this Agreement. 15.2 While City has such possession or use, CMC shall be relieved of the responsibility for the loss of or damage to the Work resulting from City's possession or use. If prior possession or use by City delays the progress of the Work or causes additional expense to CMC, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the Contract Time or CMC Fee, and the Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly. Section 16: Personal Services and Non-Assignabilitv 16.1 This is a personal services Agreement and, therefore, CMC shall not assign or transfer, voluntarily or involuntarily, any of its rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement except upon the prior written consent of City Council. Any such change, assignment or transfer without the prior written consent of the City Council shall be deemed null and void and constitute a material Default under this Agreement. 16.2 Essential personnel that CMC will use to perform the services herein will include: J. David Gardner, Principal in Charge John E. Bradel, Operations Manager David H. Cecil, Senior Project Manager Gary D. Rhoads, Project Manager Steve P. DeFrates, Construction Manager Kelly Wise, Construction Manager Michelle Reiner, Project Coordinator 22 /0' :;6 CMC agrees that it will not transfer or remove these individuals from the Project without the prior written permission or direction of City which will not be unreasonably withheld. Section 17: Indemnification 17.1 CMC shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the sole negligent or willful misconduct of the CMC, or any agent or employee, subconsultants, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. CMC's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, CMC at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. CMC's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the CMC. City agrees to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend and hold CMC harmless from any damage, liability or cost (including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of defense) arising from any claims, disputes or lawsuits related to the performance of services under this Agreement or CMC representation of the City in the specialty contractor bidding and negotiating process (provided CMC complied with City's bidding rules and guidelines), or related to the performance of any such contract resulting from said bidding process, except where said damage, liability or cost results from CMC negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnity provision is not intended to relieve CMC from providing Construction Manager/Constructor services fully in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and with the remainder of this Agreement. Rather, its purpose is to recognize the CMC is not a general contractor under this Agreement. Section 18: Right to Terminate and Suspend Work 18.1 City, may, at any time and without cause, suspend the Project or any portion thereof for a period of not more than ninety (90) days by written notice to CMC. CMC shall resume the Project on receipt from City of a Notice of Resumption of Work. CMC may submit a request for a change in the Fee or of the Contract Time, or both, directly attributable to the suspension as provided in Sections 9 and 10. 18.2 Archaeological and Paleontological Discoveries - If a discovery is made of an archaeological or paleontological interest, CMC shall immediately cease operations 23 )a."j!p in the area of the discovery and shall not continue until ordered by City. When resumed, operations within the area of the discovery shall be as directed by City. 18.2.1 Discoveries which may be encountered may include, but are not be limited to, dwelling sites, stone implements or other artifacts, animal bones, human bones, fossils or any item with cultural significance. 18.2.2 CMC shall be entitled to an extension of time and compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 18.3 Termination of Aqreement by City for Cause - If, through any cause, CMC shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner CMC's obligations under this Agreement, or if CMC shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to CMC of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by CMC shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and CMC shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by CMC's breach. 18.4 Termination for Convenience by City - City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to CMC of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, CMC shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. CMC hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. Section 19: Independent Contractor 19.1 CMC and any Subconsultant, agent or employee of CMC, shall act as an independent contractor and not as an officer or employee of City. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, City assumes no liability for CMC's actions and performance; in particular, but without limitation, City assumes no responsibility for paying any taxes, bonds, payments or other commitments, implied or explicit, by or for CMC. CMC acknowledges that it is aware that because it is an independent contractor, City is making no deductions from the fees for services being paid to CMC and that City 24 I ~ . '21 is not contributing to any fund on the behalf of CMC. CMC disclaims the right to any type of additional fee or benefits City may offer to City employees. Section 20: Independent JudQment 20.1 Unless otherwise directed in writing by City, CMC shall, in providing the professional services required by this Agreement, subject to the general direction of City staff, arrive at conclusions with respect to the rendition of information, advice and recommendations, independent of the control and direction of City, other than normal contract monitoring; CMC, however, shall possess no authority with respect to any City decision beyond rendition of such information, advice and recommendations. CMC shall not have the authority to act as an agent on behalf of City unless specifically authorized to do so by City in writing. CMC shall be under control of the City as to the result to be accomplished and not the means but shall consult with City as provided for in the scope of work. Section 21: Maintenance of Records and Accounting 21.1 CMC shall maintain, during the Project and for a period of five (5) years after completion of the Project, accurate and organized records of all costs of any type and all services performed under this Agreement. City will have the right at any time to audit and copy all such records. Section 22: Ownership of Documents 22.1 All reports studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by CMC in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. CMC shall deliver such materials and documents to City whenever requested to do so by City. CMC shall provide all materials and documents to the City in both a hard copy and electronic copy. Said electronic copy shall be in a format specified by the City. Section 23: Hazardous Materials 23.1 It is acknowledged by both Parties that the CMC's scope of services does not include any services related to asbestos or hazardous or toxic materials other than as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. In the event the CMC or any other party encounters asbestos or hazardous or toxic materials at the Project Site, or should it 25 I')'. ~. (/ .' ~,o become known in any way that such materials may be present at the Project Site or any adjacent areas that may affect the performance of the CMC's services, the CMC may, at his or her option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of services on the Project until the City retains appropriate specialist consultant(s) or contractor(s) to identify, abate and/or remove the asbestos or hazardous or toxic materials, and warrant that the Project Site is in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 23.2 The City agrees, notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CMC, his or her officers, partners, employees, agents and consultants from and against any and all claims, suits, demands, liabilities, losses, or costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and defense costs, resulting or accruing to any and all persons, firms, and any other legal entity, caused by, arising out of or in any way connected with the detection, presence, handling, removal, abatement, capping, subsequent migration of, or disposal of any asbestos or hazardous or toxic substances, products or materials that exist on, about or adjacent to the jobsite, whether liability arises under breach of contract or warranty, tort, including negligence, strict liability or statutory liability or any other cause of action. Section 24: Warranties and Guarantees 24.1 CMC shall require all Specialty Trade Contractors to warrant and guarantee to City that materials and equipment incorporated into the Project will be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work will be in accordance with the Construction Documents and will not be defective. Prompt notice of defects known to City shall be given to CMC. Defective Work may be rejected even if approved by prior inspection. 24.2 The warranty period shall commence when the Certificate of Substantial Completion is issued (irrespective of beneficial use by City prior to Substantial Completion) and extend one (1) year after that date or whatever longer period may be prescribed by laws or regulations or by the terms of any applicable special guarantee or specific provision of the Construction Documents. 24.2.1 CMC is to cause Specialty Trade Contractors to provide any extra material for maintenance at the completion of the Project, inventoried for items such as carpeting, base, floor tile, ceiling tile, paint, filters. 24.2.2 CMC is to provide City two (2) sets of operating and maintenance data manuals, fully bound and indexed, warranties, guarantees, and bonds. 24.3 Correction of Defective Work - If within the designated warranty period, or such longer period as may be required by laws or regulations, the Project or any part of 26 , '"',0 /()~:"7 the Project, is discovered to contain Defective Work, CMC shall, if requested by City and at an additional fee to be negotiated, promptly assist the City to either have it corrected, or if it has been rejected by City, to have it removed from the Project and to have it replaced with Work which is not defective. Where Defective Work (and damage to other Work resulting therefrom) has been corrected, removed or replaced during the warranty period, the one year warranty period with respect to such Work will be extended for an_additional period of one (1) year after such correction or removal and replacement has been satisfactorily completed. 24.4 The one (1) year warranty period will not begin until the Certificate of Substantial Completion is issued. If CMC completes the Project or portions thereof prior to this time, it shall preserve the equipment by developing and implementing a preventive maintenance program in compliance with manufacturer's recommendations to maintain the equipment. 24.5 With respect to all warranties, express or implied, from Specialty Trade Contractors, manufacturers, or suppliers for Work performed and materials furnished under this contract, the CMC shall: 24.5.1 Obtain all warranties that would be given in normal commercial practice and as required by the City; 24.5.2 Require all warranties to be executed, in writing, for the benefit of City, if directed by City; and 24.5.3 Enforce all warranties for the benefit of City, if directed by City. 24.5.4 CMC shall assign all Specialty Trade Contractor, supplier and manufacturer warranties including maintenance contracts from the installer for specialized equipment, such as elevators, escalators, movable partitions, equipment etc., to cover the limited warranty period to City at the expiration of the one year warranty. Section 25: Disputes 25.1 Disputes between CMC and City shall be resolved by the City Manager or his designee. 25.2 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the 27 /0' LfO Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, CMC shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 25.3 Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. Section 26: Notices 26.1 All notices, demands or other communications hereunder shall be given or made in writing and shall be delivered personally or sent by courier or registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the Party to whom they are directed at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as may be designated by notice from such Party: 26.1.1 To CITY: Project Design Management Attn: Samir Nuhaily 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 26.1.2 To CMC: J. David Gardner, Sr. Highland Partnership, Inc. 285 Bay Blvd. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Any notice, demand or other communication given or made solely by mail in the manner prescribed in this Section shall be deemed to have been given and to be effective three (3) days after the date of such mailing; provided, however, that any notice, demand or other communication which would otherwise be deemed to have been given on a day which is not a working day shall be deemed to have been given on the next subsequent working day. 28 /v' , 4 ( Section 27: Miscellaneous Terms 27.1 Representations: Each Party hereto declares and represents that in entering into this Agreement it has relied and is relying solely upon its own judgment, belief and knowledge of the nature, extent, effect and consequence relating thereto. Each Party further declares and represents that this Agreement is being made without reliance upon any statement or representation of any other Party not contained herein, or any representative, agent or attorney of any other Party. 27.2 Severability: If any term or condition of this Agreement is held to any extent to be invalid or unenforceable, all the remaining terms and conditions shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 27.3 Entire Aqreement: This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. 27.4 Draftinq Ambiquities: The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and that the decision of whether or not to seek the advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each of the Parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the Agreement. 27.5 Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 27.6 Waiver: Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, no delay or omission by the Parties hereto in exercising any right or remedy provided for herein shall constitute a waiver of such right or remedy, nor shall it be construed as a bar to or a waiver of any such right or remedy on any future occasion. 27.7 Effect of Headinqs: Headings appearing in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only, and shall in no way be construed to be interpretations of the provisions hereof. 29 j(}- Lfl-' . 27.8 Amendments: This Agreement may be modified, amended or supplemented only by the mutual written agreement of the Parties hereto. 27.9 Authorization and Compliance: Each Party represents that it is duly authorized to execute and carry out the provisions of this Agreement. 27.10 Further Assurances: The Parties agree to do such further acts and things and execute and deliver such additional agreements and instruments as the other may reasonably require to consummate, evidence or confirm the agreements contained herein in the manner contemplated hereby. 27.11 Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The facsimile signatures of the Parties shall be deemed to constitute original signatures, and facsimile copies hereof shall be deemed to constitute duplicate original counterparts. 27.12 Exhibits and Glossary of Terms All exhibits and Glossary of Terms are incorporated herein by reference. H: \HOME\A TTORNEY\EHull\Highland4.sd.doc 30 / ) . '15 Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership, Inc. for Construction Manager/Constructor Service for New Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Highland Partnership, Inc. have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: ,2000 City of Chula Vista by: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: Dated: Highland Partnership, Inc By: J flu ,~-.. Ct. Exhibit List to Agreement 31 J 0 - ilLf GLOSSARY OF TERMS The following Glossary of Terms is designed to provide in a single location the defined terms used in the Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the following and the definitions set forth in the Agreement, those in the Agreement shall take preference. Additional Services. Services which the City has authorized the CMC to perform and which are beyond the scope of the Project as set forth in the RFP, RFQ and Agreement. Agreement. The Construction Manager/Constructor Agreement including and Glossary of Terms between City and CMC. Certification of Completion. The document, in the form of Exhibit 5, by which CMC certifies that the Project has been fully completed in accordance with the Construction Documents, all applicable building codes and regulations, all permits, licenses, and certificates of inspection, use and occupancy, and ordinances relating to the Project. Certificate of Occupancy. The document issued by City authorizing occupancy of the entire Project. Certificate of Substantial Completion. The document issued by City after it reasonably determines the Project has achieved Substantial Completion as defined in Section 12 of the Agreement. Change Order. A written amendment to the Agreement executed by City and CMC modifying the terms of the Agreement pursuant to the terms of Sections City Representative. Samir Nuhaily shall be the initial City Representative. The City Manager will notify CMC in writing of the name of any successor City Representative and CMC shall be entitled to rely upon the directions of the current City Representative until receipt of said written notice. The City Representative shall act on behalf of the City with respect to this Agreement unless the Agreement provides otherwise. Construction Documents. CMC's architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing plans and details as well as the plans showing installation of major systems, equipment, fixed furnishings and graphics, the technical specifications and all other technical drawings, schedules, diagrams and specifications, necessary to set forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Project. 1 /1).'15 Contractor. Any person or entity with whom the City contracts or subcontracts for construction of the Project. Contract Amount. The dollar amount authorized by the San Diego City Council to be paid to the CMC as consideration for full performance under the terms of this Agreement which includes the Fixed Fee and Reimbursable Costs. Contract Time. The time within which CMC has to complete all Work and services under the Agreement, which commences with the execution of the Agreement and ends with the Final Completion Date. Cost of Work. The construction costs for Work on the Project. Day. Is a working day, unless specified otherwise. Defective Work. Work on the Project which is not in compliance with the Construction Documents unless otherwise approved by City. Construction Manager/Constructor. The Construction Manager/Constructor (herein "CMC") is Highland Partnership, Inc. CMC Fixed Fee. The fixed sum which CMC shall receive as full compensation for performance of all services and obligations under this Agreement, including all costs of any type incurred by CMC. Extra Work. Any Work on the Project which is outside the scope of Work contained in the Construction Documents and this Agreement. Final Completion. The date on which the last of the following events occurs: (1) recordation of a Notice of Completion for the Project; (2) acceptance of the Project by the City; (3) issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project; (4) submission of all documents required to be supplied by CMC to City under this Agreement, including but not limited to working set of as-built drawings, warranties, and operating manuals: (5) and delivery to City of a Certification of Completion duly verified by CMC. Final Payment. Payment to CMC 35 days after date of Final Completion as set forth in Section 11.4. Insurance Consultant. The insurance agent, broker or professional contracting with the City or CMC to advise on and assist with the administration and implementation of the CCIP insurance program on the Project. 2 /0 - 'lip Notice of Completion. City document issued after City of Chula Vista formally accepts the Project. Onsite/Offsite. Refers to Project Site, unless otherwise indicated. Party. The Parties to this Agreement, The City of Chula Vista ("City") and Highland Partnership, Inc. (CMC). Project. CMC Services to provide City a completed and fully functional Public Works Facility and Corporate Yard Improvements. Project Budget. The amount of money authorized by the Chula Vista City Council to be expended on this Project, including the CMC Fixed Fee, Reimbursable Costs, Hard and all other City costs. Project Site. All areas where Work is to be performed pursuant to this Agreement as shown in the Construction Documents. Safety Program. CMC safety plan for the Project as required in Section 5 of this Agreement. Substantial Completion. The date on which (1) the progress of construction when all Work on the Project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Construction Documents so that City can occupy and utilize the entire facility and (2) all goods and services to be provided under the terms and conditions of the Construction Documents are in place and have been initially tested, and are operationally functional, subject to final testing, balancing and adjustments and a Final Completion punch list Work. Work. All services, labor, materials, supplies, and equipment necessary for CMC to complete the Project. H :IHomelAttorn eylEH ulllG LSCL. wpd 3 I:) - L/7 f LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Legal Description Exhibit 2 Master Schedule Exhibit 3 Fixed Fee Cost Worksheet Exhibit 4 Notice of Completion Exhibit 5 Acceptance of Improvements H:\Home\Attorney\Agree\Exhibits.HPI /0 ' if'( EXHIBIT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TO BE PROVIDED AT A LATER DATE) / () - 'ICJ c:: . '" , 'in ~ , II> " Q ..J j Z [ a: " , ~ < ~ "0 ~ ~ ~ i l ~ 0 . ...... :r: 8~ ~ 'l! " . . a , " ~. ~ 8 e 0 " 1- [ . ~ , 8 ! ~ . . " ., 0 o~ III , - "C UI ~ :> III " 0 > .!i III ~ . ~ C := j 0 ~ ..c .. , > € (,) III j 0': ~ ~ - 0 ~ = [ . 0 c. :~" :2 8~ ~ >- ~ :t - 0 (,) (,) . ~ , ! . . , 8'::' . . ;< ~ " " ~ I ~ " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ " ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " !i ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ " ~ ~ a ~ ~ " <S ;; ;; . , ~ :; ~ ;; ~ ~ ;; ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ " . . , ^ . ~ ~ ~ g " " , , . , ~ ! ;: " , , . ~ " , ~ " ~ . , , , , , , , , , , " , , ]j . ~ ~ " " 0 ~ 0 S ~ 0 " " ~ " " " " " 8 8 ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ " " ~ " " " " g 8 8 i g " ~ , " ~ ~ . " ~ . . " " ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ 0 . " " " ~ ~ ~ ~ g . ,. ~ ;; ~ g ~ ~ ^ , :; :; :; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ~ ;; ;; ;; ;; . . ~ ^ , . . " . " usg , , , , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , . > , , . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . i iF > " i . . . " f i . . i " . . i l ! ~ i i i I g " " 0 . . . 0 ~ 0 0 . 0 . 0 " . . 0 ~ c ~ ~ " ~ ~ . 0 . - ~ 0 ! . " ! , . ~ . ! ~ , 0 10 , ~ , ! , 0 ;; "" 0 - v 0 j ! Q , ;; e ~ i' ~ " 5 . . CO , . , . . ~ ~ " ~ ~ , u ~ ~ 1 ! u .: , . " C ~ 0 . ! ~ . Q ~ . , ~ w . " ~ ~ . 0 . ~ 1ii ~ . , J , < . t M . , . :i I v , g . '" ~ ~ . . ~ ~ V Q , U U " . ! ~ ~ . ffi 1 . . :J: ! 0 , ! ~ v , , ~ = , , z " , 1 , ~ . , e .. j . :; 0> . ~ ~ . Q , [ t , < ~ . ~ ~ OJ, " J' = , <.> ! , . z , , :; . ! ~ " g t> < , .~ , J 1 0 . , ~ . ~ , ~ . ~ , I . . . " " t= ~ 0 . I i . , 0 1:J . i , " 0 ~ i v ~ ~ 0 . ! ~ 0 ! ~ I 0> z 0 , < 3 , " . , , ! 0 ~ , ~ \ ,! .c: Q 0 " ~ w ~ " z ~ i , , ! ::> w G . " " Ji " > ;; > " ~ I . , " . . Q . e a: <n . 0 ! w < <.> , v v C Ii; " " en ~ , v ~ j j ~ ~ ~ . f v ~ ~ ~ , . , w , . ~ " :I: ~ <.> v v . 0 Q " " J' < u " z .. 0> ~ ~ 0 . w ~ - <.> . . 0 '" CO :; 10- 5'() " '" " ~ 'iij '" , " C ..J ~ Z II: " , 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ . ~ J 0 " ~o " 5 , 0 ~ ~ . . . --~; 5 41 z [ " , 8 1 ~ ~ . . 5~ III . - 'C 1/1 ... > III " " > , oS III . C; c: :a :;, 0 , 0 " . I ..c: :;::; , , , , t U III " 0: ... ~ - 0 g , [ . 0 Q, ~~.. :a B~ ~ >- ... :;: - 0 U U . ~ , i . . ~~ N ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ . ~ 8 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ . ~ , 0 , . . . ~ . " . ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ . ~ . " ~ " . ~ ~ ~ - E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ '" . . 0 " " , . " . ~ . " . ~ ~ ~ oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ " . . . . g ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . ~ ! . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . ~ . . ~ c" " . " . ~ ,oo . 0 - - . . 0 0 . . 0 . - . . . . ~ . ! ~ ~ ~ ~ . & . ~ ~ ! ! . ~ & 0 " t . ~ . 00 " . ~ - . - " m I 0 ~ ;:: " E z ~ ! [ ~ . . , . . . :I " . I . ~ ~ . , ! 1 , , , c ~ . , , " a z . 0 , 0 ~ . c . ~ $ - . u ~ 1i , , ~ . , . i ~ ~ . '" . [ . f '" 6 [ ! . . , J 0 , , ~ . ~ , - . . . "' 0 . , " , , ~ ~ 0 . i1 i ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ < ~ , , ~ ~ < 0 c 5 a . ~ " i c , . . , 0 CI> ! , . . ~ ~ . i l . ~ i1 . , ~ I :; 0 . ! .Ii 0 0 . , j x 0 z & . , !i , ; i " . . , , z ~ ~ z , ~ , ~ , , . ~ ~ 0 c , 0 ~ ~ " . ~ , . ~ i , , , 2 c c , ~ ~ " 8 "C i . , 0 ~ . , ~ , 0 . ! ~ , 0 . , . , . ~ ~ , ~ ! ~ , . . . , ~ I , ~ ! , '" ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ l 0 , ~ < & ~ ~ J' & g 0 .<= ~ 0 D c . . 0 . . c 0 ~ " ~ " , . , . . 0 . I' " > 0 rJ) . x . ~ '" - '" " ::;: , " f O . ' ,t <' - '":J ! ; -" j c: CI " .iij " , C ..J Z ] 0: 0 ,....... " ~ , ....... ::r:: > If:' ~O N a . , " ~.& " e , 0 0 , . 2 ~ .; a~ ~ . ~ . ~ " o ~ , ~ i " o [ . S-c .!!! (;j . >> ;; 111 C "So - .-- " - ~ ()~ -OL o c. 0." >.'" 5~ _0 U () . , , ~ :J , .. ~, .. ~ ~ ~ ~ , . . ~ ~ , ~ ~ . " , " ~ ~ 8 8 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ^ 0 ^ ~ ~ s ~ . ~ ~ .. . . ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ N " " ~ .; w ~ ~ ~ " ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ~ . . " ~ i ~ . . . . " . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. > ~ .. .. 8 u .s . ~ ;a r , . , E " 0: ~ = [ = :2 ~ iii , ! , 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , ~ ~ ~ , , , , ~ " " ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ 0 0 0 ~ .; ~ .; . ~ .; . ~ .; ~ . 0 0 .. ~ . . . ;; . ~ . ~ ~ .. ~ " S . . :; . . . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . . . . " ~ ~ ~ " " " " " ~ " ~ " . " . ! " . . . ~ . ~ " " > 0 > . g " . .. .. . ! I . " . ~ .. 0 IC . u . 0 0 ~ , . , IC w 0 :t: . ~ ~ . E i ~ 0 '" 1 . ! ! . . . ~ ;; . . " . " u ~ "- " . , 0 " C 0 , . " , of . , , " i t , . = . " ! i , . ~ u :!. 0 u .. ! ~ ~ ! - . , , ! ~ " . . " ! ~ I . 0 UI ~ , Ii , r ! " i , Ii 0 " ! I ~ . Ii ~ . u , ~ . , . , , ~ . . . , ! ~ , . . , E " ~ . ~ , , . . = ~ , ffi ~ = ~ . " . , . . 0 0 " . " " 0 . , ! u ! ~ j , . . ~ " , , . ! , ~ 8 , ~ t . ! ! ~ ; t ~ , ! , ~ '3 Ii ~ " , . .. ~ f . . -~ 6 ! " . I: , , " ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ J w [ ~ . . 1:J . ! } < . , ~ , i . ~ ~ ~ i " ~ , ~ ~ u " = 0 " . , " . ~ , 0 " ~ ~ ~ " . , w ~ ~ 8 , 5 ~ . ~ - u ~ . , ~ w , ~ , 8 , , .<:: w E u . > " u 0 < w . 0 " < w 0 u > , > 0 " " > " UI ~ UI . (J) " " > :J: :J: ~ .. .. " - UI '" :; /0-5')- " '" . "iij '" ~ " c * ..J ~ Z " 0:: " 0 ~ > ~ . > ~ i " 0 . < ~~ .< a > " ~~ 15 e , 0 " [ . " ~ 8 > ~ \ 00 . " a~ III . - "'C UI ... :> III . > ~ III C ~ 0 ..c ; ~ () III ... - OL 0 Q. ","" >- .... a ~ - 0 () () . ~ . ~~ , ~ 8 . $ ~ " , ~ . ~ 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 . ~ ~ . ~ " . ii . ;;; ~ " . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ;:; ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ M , g " " . . . ~ 8 ~ - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ 8 . > . > . " ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ i " E , ! " ~ " - " " " , ! . - - - 0 0 - . . . 0 . . - " . 0 0 '~ 0 ~ m . . ~ i . .. 0 0 w , 0 ~ " " , . ~ ~ == " , i 0 co . i " 0 ~ .- , . . ~ u C 0 [ , ~ , " " ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 - t " , ~ . ! ! ~ <II ~ > , > - - E . , ! ~ , I . ^ , i , " ~ 8 ~ 0 j 00 " 00 < I ! . . '" 0 00 < ! 0 ~ , > ~ , . . '3 . , , , " 0 . ,; , , . [ ~ ." ! I , j ! j , 0 . " . i i m " m 1 0 ! I . . . I ~ ~ ., ! '" [ ~ ^ > ~ " " ! " " .t: 0 " " 0 > > > > > > 0 . 0 . ~ " ~ . II) 0 u ~ ! <II co ::;; 0 oS . ,;; :a i E > ~ ! 0: .. 0 [ . :E ~ ii: , ! ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ , " " N . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! ! " " " E E ! - . . . - . . . . - . . . 0 ! t , " , ! s 0 . > I ~ . > . ~ ~ ]1 ~ , 00 0 . I , , ~ f . . , . ~ > ~ 0 1 8 ~ 0 , > > . . . 00 . . . ~ ! ~ 0 j ~ , . ~ , I , i ~ , , 0 0 ~ , t ~ 0 , ! , J " ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ , ! , I ~ i , 0 00 I 0 . J ~ . . . I , . ~ " ~ ~ . , , < " " " > ~ > > $ " 0 8 " ~ . . ~ , . " /()-5J; (V) 1 . I I i ! I ! ! . .' , , I E , .' .' ~ ,. , ~ j ~ ~ 8 ~ m 0 ~ . ~ " ~ ,; ~ ~ ~ . l . " 0 . " . ~ " ~ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g , ~ m " . - . - ~ 0 0 0 0 " M " 0 . . " 0 0 0 0 " . . N . N , N , - . - ~ N :t " .,; , :t ;; " " . ~ m " " - . ~ U M Z . . ~ g ;:: 0 0 " 0 " ~ 0 " ~ . . 0 . 0 . 0 " 0 0 0 ~ . 8 " . " , " , " , . " " " 0 " ~ . 0 . " I~ ~ . ~ N 0 ,; ~ ,; . ~ :Ji M .,; " . ~ ~ " " , ~ - m ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ . m . . - - m ~ ~ ~ " 8 m 0 0 " 0 " ~ 0 " ~ " " ~ . 0 " g " 0 0 0 8 . ~ M . " " " , " " , " . ~ " . " 0 m " " ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ .,; " ~ . 0 , " " , - ~ ~ ~ . m . . . - - m t i ~ 8 0 0 " ~ ~ " . " ~ " . 0 g M 0 " 0 , 0 ~ 0 . ~ ~ " . " 8 . . , " , . 0 . 0 " . 0 m I . .,; m ~ ~ " ~ " ~ ,; ~ " , , 0 . ~ 0 " ~ - . m ~ m " ~ , 0 . - - m " ~ I ~ 8 ~ ~ 0 m " " " ~ " " . . . ~ 0 , 0 " ~ '--0 ~ 0 g . ~ " " , . , " , " . , . " 0 " ! s 0 m . .~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M . " " ~ 0 . ~ " , " ~ " , " " ~ . , 0 " - N m ~ m i ;; " 0 . 0 g ~ " " " " " " . " ~ . 0 , 0 ~I M 0 ~ 0 . ~ 3 M 0 ~ " , " . , " . , . " ~ 0 . . 0 m " . . ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ .,; ~ ~ ~ , " , a: . " m , " , " , ~ " - - m ~ ,; . i ~ 11 I~ " 0 . 0 g ~ " " . " " ~ . " ~ ~ 0 , g " " 0 ~ 0 . . ~ :i M 0 ~ " . , . . , . , " " " ~ 0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ " ~ " , ~ , " " - - ~ ~ ~ ~ 'OJ i " 0 m 0 g . " " " . " " . . ~ ~ 0 , 0 ~ M 0 ~ 0 . ~ ~ M 0 " " , . , " . , . , " ~ 0 m " 0 ~ . .,; 0 ~ ~ , ~ ~ g . ,; ~ ~ " ..; ~ , " Ia 0 ~ " , ~ , ~ ~ , . " - - m ~ ! ... 0 fn 1! : ~ :> ~ ~ I " 0 . ~ 0 " " " " " " . " ~ ~ 0 , 8 ~ M 0 ~ 0 . ~ ~ I M 0 ~ " , . , " . , " . , " ~ . " 0 ~ .., . ~ ~ ~ , g ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " "5 i " , ~ " , 0 " - - m " of ,! M J: u.. , I 0 ~ ~ f! !!> " ~ 8 ~ ~ g ~ " -~ " " ~ " ~ . ~ ~ 0 , 8 " M 0 ~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ B . ~ " , " " " m ~ 0 m 1) m ~ ~ " N ~ ~ ~ M . " " " 0 ~ ~ " , i .., E " m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " , 0 . . - - .,; " ..; 8 ~ " g 0 . 8 " 0 m ~ ~ -~ -~ '~ . " , " 0 " . ~ 0 , g " M 0 ~ ~ . 0 M ! M 0 " . . " " , , . ~ m ~ ~ 8 ~ . ~ 0 ~ g " ~ . 2 ~ .,; ~ ~ . ! . " * ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ " . - - .,; ~ " ~ 8 0 . 0 i " 8 m 0 0 m " ~ " " " , " 0 " . ~ g ~ 0 ~'~ 0 g 0 g . " " ! M ~ " " , . " . , " " , , 0 0 g m ~ M ~ . ~ ~ ~ , g ~ ~ . 2 ~ " ~ ~ ~ . , m If " , ~ " ~ ~ . - ,; - - ,; m 15 .. ,; " . ~ 0 " ,; I ~ u " 0 M ~ g ~ 0 " 0 0 " [; 8 " m ~ 0 " g " ~ 0 0 0 . ~ 8 . 0 ffi M , ;; M , , ~ " 0 " 0 0 8, m , . ~ .,; ~ ~ ~ ~ ,; ~ " ~ " " " . ~ 0, 0 , , 'OJ I~ ~ . " M . M " ~ . " - '" - '" i '" ~ M , " II 8 .~_. . c " " " " " " ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ 15 15 ~ . 3 . ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ " 0 . . . " 0 " 0 . ~ ~ r " 00 r " . r " 00 r " 00 r " 00 r " 00 I , . I , g I I 0 I * $ w ~ ~ c 0 . ~ "ii . ~ E i ! i3 0 0 ~ . c { . c l' g 0 . w l' % E t " . ~ -g ~ 15 0 C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ u ~ , -t g g D _ t t ~ I . . ~ ~ u > i ~ . = 0 . . ~ < u 0 < j " . ~ . ~ 5 ~ 0 0 . , ~ . . . g . > ~ . ~ 0 D . 15 ~ c " c ~ c .~ . 0 E 0 U c 0 . 0 g . 0 . - i ;; "i;j 0 " . 5 .,; . . . < a ~ f w . ~ . . 15 < 6 e u .~ ~ j .. ~ .. ; -~ c - . ~ . . . ~ . . . . 0 E 0 ;; ~ e . g 'i6 e e D 0 15 ~ ~ . 0 i;; . u u . u . . . 5 . 0 ~ . u 0 " u E-t ~ I .. ~ :x: riI / () - sf o c <i j " . o c . ~ < RESO # PROJECT f EXHIBIT 4 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Chula Vista City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 = SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS H:::R:::BY GIV:::N THAT: The unoecslgned IS OWNER Dr agent of the OWNER of the interest Dr estate stated below in the property hereinafter described. 2 The FULLNAM::: of the OWNER is The City of Chula Vi.sta 3 The FULL ADDRESS ofthe OWNER is 276 Fourth Avenue, Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910 4. The NATURE: OF THE: INT:::R:::ST or ESTATE ot the undersigned is: In fee. (If otne~ tnan tee. strike 'In tee~ and insert, for example, 'Durchaser under contract of purchase.~ or "lessee.") " Tne F:J~~ "AIII:::S and FU~ADDR:::SSE:S of ALL P:::RSONS, if any, WHO HOLD SUCH INTEREST or :::STAT::: witn the undersigned as JOINT I=NANTS or as T:::NANTS IN COMMON are: NAMES ADDRESSES NONE 6. The full names and full addresses of the predecessors in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvement herein referred to: NAMES NONE ADDR"SSES 7 8. A work of Improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED The work of improvement completed is described as follows: 9. The NAI0E OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is 10. The street address of said property is 11. The properJ)! on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of CHULA VISTA County of SAN DIE GO , State of California, and is described as follows: /tJ-s'5 (continued on reverse side) rorm ~~~ i' ~42 EXHIBIT 5 MEMORANDUM [DATE] File: TO: David D. Rowlands, City Manager VIA: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director Public Works/CityEngineer FROM: Kirk P. Ammerman, Civil Engineer Shauna Stokes, Principal Management Assistant SUBJECT: Acceptance ofImprovements - On for the , 199 _ , the City Council by Resolution No. awarded the contract amount of the contract was $ is now completed. plus $ . The for contingencies. The work In accordance with City Council Resolution No. 16034 adopted on January 22,1991, your office is now authorized to acknowledge the completion of Public Works projects and to make minor finalizing budget appropriations (not to exceed 10% of the contract price to a maximum of$20,000). We therefore, request that you: A) Acknowledge completion of the project by authorizing the Director of Public Works to file the Notice of Completion for this project, (return to our office signed authorization memo, attached). B) Notify the City Council of the completion ofthe project (forward attached memo). The construction contract costs for the project amounted to $ , of which $_ was for the original contract, $ was for change orders, $ _ was for cost overruns, $ was for soil testing, $ was for staff time (as of ). It should be noted that $ was appropriated for this project. Attachments cc: Dolly Hicks / /0-50 (II \SHAREDlA TTOI{NEY\ACrPIClP mJI) MEMORANDUM [DATE] File: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: David D. Rowlands, City Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance ofImprovements - This is to inform you that in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 16034 adopted on January 22,1991, this office has acknowledged completion of the Project. This project was awarded on to 199 _ by Council Resolution No. . The project was to construction cost for the project amounted to $ for the original contract, $ overruns, $ for soil testing, and $ . The final The City spent $ for change orders, $ for staff time (as of for cost ). Attached IS a complete Financial Statement for the project. It should be noted that $ was appropriated for this project. cc: Dolly Hicks (H:\SHARED\Attorney\ACCP2CIP; mji) /{)"'.5"/ ,. ( [DATE] File: TO: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works FROM: David D. Rowlands, City Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvements - This is to inform you that this office has acknowledged completion of subject project on the date shown below. You may now acknowledge acceptance of this project. David D. Rowlands, City Manager City Manager Date cc: Roberto Saucedo Dolly Hicks IH:\SHARED\Attorney\ACCP3CIP , rn)l) /0- 5[; FINANCIAL STATEMENT File # (Project Title) 1. Appropriated Funds Total I $ II Contract Amount as Awarded on Council Agenda Statement a) Award Amount $ b) Contingencies $ Total II $ III Actual Expenditures Construction: a) Contract work ( ) Contractor's Company Name 1) Original Contract $ 2) Change Orders $ 3) Other Expenses $ 4) Water Relocation Expense $ 5) Testing Expense (Soils) $ Construction Cost Subtotal $ b) Staff Costs Inception to $ (latest available report) Total III $ /{)~59 . (11.\,SI-lARFD\Attomey\AC'('P4rJP. mii) rrt July 12, 2000 SUBJECT: City Clerk and City ,A:,cyney patty wesp (i IP"6 APPOINTMENT RATIFICATION. CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEMO TO: FROM: At the request of Mayor Horton, please place the following under Mayor's Report for the next City council meeting: Ratification of APpointment to the CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Mark William croshier, sr. Mark is a former City emplOyee and to my knowledge has never served on any Board/commission. Thank you. Encls. cc: Mayor Horton ~\(b IJ-I July 12, 2000 MEMO TO: City Clerk and City,~~o;ney patty Wesp (l ~ APPOINTMENT RATIFICATION - CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FROM: SUBJECT: At the request of Mayor Horton, please place the following under Mayor's Report for the next City Council meeting: RatiFication of Appointment to the CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Mark William Croshie,., Sr. Mark is a former City employee and to my knowledge has never served on any Board/Commission. Thank you. Encls. cc: Mayor Horton /;}~I