The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.2 Engineering Services Contract Review CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 2, 1987 SUBJECT Engineering Services Contract Evaluation (Santina & Thompson and TJKM) EXHIBITS ATTACHED A) Fiscal Year Comparison Engineering Costs B) 1985-86 Santina & Thompson Contract Cost/Hours C) Contract Evaluation Form D) Santina & Thompson Self-Evaluation & 1987-88 Rates E) TJKM Self-Evaluation & 1987-88 Rates F) Capital Improvement Projects Financial History G) Santina & Thompson Current Contract H) TJKM Current Contract I) Santina & Thompson Amended Agreement J) TJKM Amended Agreement K) Projects in Dublin during Calendar Year 1986 RECOMMENDATION 1) Review Contract Evaluation 2) Approve Proposed Santina & Thompson Amended Agreement 3) Approve Proposed TJKM Amended Agreement 4) Approve in Concept the Proposed Public Works Organization FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Below DESCRIPTION This report serves the following purposes: 1) To evaluate the services provided by Santina & Thompson and TJKM and in doing such, discuss the need for organizational changes related to the provision of Engineering Services 2) To review proposed rate increases for Fiscal Year 1987-88 The City Manager requested each contractor to prepare a self-evaluation (see Exhibits D & E) in accordance with the contract evaluation criteria identified in the Contract Evaluation Form (see Exhibit C) , as well as a proposal for services for the upcoming year. Contract Evaluation Rather than commenting on each area of the contract criteria for each contractor, Staff has provided evaluation comments on those areas that deserve particular attention. SANTINA & .THOMPSON 1. Contract Compliance a. Administrative Duties - As indicated in Mr. Thompson' s evaluation, the Administrative duties performed by Santina & Thompson cover a wide range of activities . As the City has grown and continues to grow, the ability of Mr. Thompson to effectively administer a variety of programs and direct the engineering work of the City has become strained. Unless additional professional and administrative assistance is provided in the area of Public Works Administration, the City will be unable to effectively manage growth related infrastructure issues as well as manage a growing maintenance . operation. The City will be facing major infrastructure issues related to developments to the east and west, BART, and the North Pleasanton Improvement District. Santina & Thompson should be commended for improving coordination of maintenance and engineering activities with the development of the Traffic Safety Committee and Engineering and Maintenance Committee during the last year. COPIES TO: Lee S. Thompson � Chris Kinzel ITEM NO. is b. Traffic Engineering (see TJKM Evaluation) c. Development Review - Santina & Thompson have done a good job in keeping pace with development review and their plan check responsibilities. However, as noted above, greater time will be required in this area in the future, as requests for General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Development come to the City for future developments within the City' s Sphere of Influence. It is unlikely that the City Engineer will be able to adequately address these issues with all the other demands on his time. d. Capital Projects - On the whole, Santina & Thompson has performed well in the development of capital projects. Those areas that the City Manager has identified for improvement include: 1) ' Construction Administration - More thorough follow-up should be exercised with other agencies and in-house departments regarding administration of construction to assure that projects proceed in a timely manner and that no conflicts develop between other programs and the project under construction. 2) Construction Contract Documents - Consideration should be given to developing tighter, but realistic 'timeframes for contractors on construction projects. 2. Availability The City Manager believes that the contractor has been available within the limits of the personnel assigned to the contract. The City Engineer has been typically in the City 3 to 3 1/2 days per week. However, the City' s growth has reached a point that more public works administration office hours are necessary to handle the workload and provide greater continuity for all Public Works Services . • 3. Responsiveness The contractor has been extremely conscientious in responding to issues, problems and requests for information. However, the ability to continue to respond in a timely manner will diminish as the workload increases. 4 . Cost Effectiveness a. Project Cost Control - The City Manager believes that good cost control has been exercised on most projects with the exception of the Pavement Management Program in which the cost more than exceeded the budget, which was developed for the project. b. Grant Funding - As indicated in the contractor' s self-evaluation, the contractor has been aggressive and successful in applying and obtaining grant funding for capital projects. c. Can services be provided at a lower cost - As indicated in Exhibit A, the cost of the services provided by Santina & Thompson have nearly doubled between 1984-85 ($534, 872) and 1985-86 ( $1, 013,181) . Land Development fees have offset those engineering and inspection costs incurred by the City which are associated with land development activity. Total fees collected for engineering plan check and inspection were $151, 593 and $517, 235 for 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. Increased engineeing and inspection costs are primarily due to the development of a larger number of capital improvement projects and more land development activity. Capital projects and land development represented 92% of the total 'Santina & Thompson contract costs during 1985-86. These areas fluctuate with the amount of funding available for capital projects and level of construction activity. Since the amount of engineering time required can vary substantially, no changes are recommended with those staff- engineering services provided by Santina & Thomppon.. Page 2 The City Manager is recommending changes in the following areas : 1) Public Works Inspection During the Fiscal Year 1984-85 Contract Evaluation, the City Manager recommended hiring one Public Works Inspector as a cost savings measure. Once again, it is recommended that the City Council consider assuming a portion of the Public Works Inspection function with a city employed Public Works Inspector. This will result in significant cost savings to the City as shown below. During 1985-86, the City paid $202, 674 for 4, 037 hours of Public Works Inspection Services . This resulted in an average hourly cost of $50. 20 per hour. This cost included the provision of an equipped vehicle. This is equivalent to 2 . 3 work years, and $88,119 per Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Inspector. For Fiscal Year 1986-86, the annual contract cost per inspector is estimated at $98, 693 per FTE Inspector, assuming the same distribution of inspection activity. If a City employee were hired to perform the same function, the cost would be as follows : City Public Works Inspector Salary & Benefits $48, 000 Auto 1, 800 Total $49, 800 Hours Worked - 1, 760 Estimated Savings Contract $98, 693 (1986-87 Rates) City Employee 49, 800 Total $48, 893 Per Inspector It is the City Manager ' s belief that there will always be the need for at least one Public Works Inspector position. This position can be supplemented with contract inspection under the City' s contract with Santina & Thompson as the level of activity fluctuates . 2) City Engineer The City Manager recommends that the City Council consider the hiring of an employee to serve as a full-time Public Works Director/City Engineer. This individual would not replace the City Engineer, but rather supplement and provide additional Public Works Administrative and Engineering expertise to the City. This proposal has been discussed with the City' s current City Engineer. The City Engineer has indicated that his time could be reduced by one day per week and the Senior Engineer ' s time by one day per week. Based on the present hourly rates the City is charged for these two positions, the contract savings would be approximately as follows : City Engineer $ 77. 63/hr x 8 hrs x 52 wks = $ 32, 294 Senior Engineer $ 54. 34/hr x 8 hrs x 52 wks = 22, 605 Savings $ 54, 899 The cost of hiring an employee as Public Works Director is estimated as follows : Salary & Benefits $ 68, 400 Auto 2, 100 Total $ 70, 500 Based on the above cost information, the City would incur an additional expense of approximately $15, 601. For that additional expense, the City would have a Public Works professional for 3 additional days per week. Page 3 . l This change is recommended to provide better continuity, more administrative control of the Public Works functions and more available staff time to deal with complex public works issues. If the Council concurs with the addition of a Public Works Director, the City Manager would initially propose the development of a Public Works Department which would be organized as follows : 1 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS SECRETARY ' 4 TRAFFIC ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 7ASYCCITYENGIMIR MAINPENANCE SUPT TJKM Contract _ E ployee/Santina & Engineering Streets/Parks Thompson Contract Santina & Thomson M E Contract • Contract Street Sweeping A-1 Enterprises Contract Although the City Manager is recommending the hiring of a Public Works Director, the Council should be aware that finding a qualified person to serve in this position has become increasingly difficult due to the competition for private sector engineers . Several cities who have recently conducted such recruitments, indicated that it took nearly a year to find a qualified candidate. 5. Program Development & Implementation a. Does contractor implement projects in a timely manner? (See comment under 4.d.l. above. ) b. Does contractor identify and develop projects that adequately address the City' s needs? The contractor has performed well in - addressing future projects . The development of the Traffic Safety Committee has proven to be a pro-active problem solving approach for traffic projects and problems. c. Is the engineering information provided by the contractor accurate • and reliable? Although one can point to an individual project where the Engineer' s estimate varied greatly from the actual bid accepted by the City, the Engineer' s estimating of capital project costs has been very good over the last four (4) years . As shown in Exhibit F, the Engineer ' s estimate was actually approximately 3. 3% more than the bid amounts when all projects are viewed collectively. . TJKM 1 . Contract Compliance a. Traffic Engineering - TJKM has provided all aspects of traffic • engineering services to the City in professional and competent manner. . 2. Availability - The City Manager concurs with Mr. Kinzel ' s comments (see Exhibit E) . 3 . Responsiveness - The City Manager concurs with Mr. Kinzel ' s comments (see Exhibit E) . 4. Cost Effectiveness - The development of the Traffic Safety Committee should reduce traffic engineering costs by identifying• issues before they are brought to the attention of the City by the public. • Page 4 • 1 ' As shown in Exhibit A, the total 1985-86 Traffic Engineering Costs for the City were $77, 027 . Although this exceeded 1984-85 Traffic Engineering Costs, the General Traffic Engineering costs were approximately the same as the previous year. Most of the cost increase was attributable to the design of traffic signal systems . There is no question that the City could not perform this function for a lower cost with City employees . The range of traffic engineering personnel and their expertise could not be provided by one or even two individual employees . 5. Program Development & Implementation - TJKM is uniquely suited to assist in dealing with future traffic related issues because of the large data base and level of knowledge they have regarding all aspects of local and regional traffic issues . Because TJKM works for so many governmental and private clients' in the Valley, there is the potential for conflict between the interests of TJKM' s various clients . The addition of an in-house Public Works Professional (Public Works Director/City Engineer) , will help to filter such potential conflicts by reviewing TJKM' s proposals. 1987-88 Proposed Contract Rates Attached for Council consideration are proposed rate adjustments for Fiscal Year .1987-88 for Santina & Thomspon and TJKM (see Exhibits I and J) . Santina & Thompson is recommending an average of 4% increase in their rates far Fiscal Year 1987-88. Since the contractor' s current rates are good until July 31, 1987, Staff is recommending that the 1987-88 rates for Santina & Thompson commence on August 1, 1987 and end on June 30, 1988. TJKM has proposed an average 13 . 4% increase over their current rates. As indicated in TJKM' s letter of January 21, 1987, the TJKM rates that the City adopted in October of 1985 were in effect for TJKM in March of 1985. Therefore, the rate increase that TJKM is proposing is really a 2 year rate increase which works out to about 5. 8% increase per year. Staff has reviewed these rate increases with each of the contractors and concurs that they are reasonable for Fiscal Year 1987-88.. It is therefore recommended that the City Council adopt the amended agreements for both TJKM and Santina & Thompson for the Fiscal Year 1987-88 rates . Conclusion There is no question that the services provided by both engineering contractors cover a wide span of activities and deal with complicated issues which will affect the future of the. City in the long term. It is Staff ' s position that both contractors have performed well in terms of what the City has requested of them, and within the organization that they have been requested to work with. The change in organization which the City Manager is proposing should assist the contractors in focusing on those things that each contractor does best. The organizational change should also help provide more local control and better administrative controls over the entire public works function. It is recommended that the City Council review the contract evaluations, identify any other comments on the contract evaluation form that they feel needs to be communicated to the contractors, approve the proposed amended agreements for both contractors, and lastly, approve the concept of the proposed Public Works organization. Page 5 EXHIBIT A .. FiscalYear Comparison Engineering Costs " Cost/Hours ; Santina & Thompson 1984-85 1985-86 " General Engineering $ 78, 088/1373. 5 $ 63, 671/1070 Assessment District -Engr 5, 255/71.5 ' 7, 687/132.5 : Engineering Paid for by Outside Fees 93, 524/1599. 5 226, 353/3348 Inspection Paid for by Outside Fees 50, 058/1147. 5 .164, 658/3122. 6 Capital Projects 292, 255/5772. 5 415, 392/7762. 5 Sub-Total $ 519,180/9964. 5 $ 877, 761/15435.5. . Materials & Other Contract Costs 15, 692 135,420 (1) Total Cost $ 534, 872 $1, 013,181 (1) Includes $45, 967 in survey work . TJKM General Traffic Engineering $ ` 18,112/420.5 $ 19, 359/353. 5 Major Studies ' - 6, 707/151 - Traffic Engineering Paid for By Outside Fees - 6, 415/124 . 5 10, 551/182 Capital Projects 21, 532/385.42 - 40, 557/788. 5 - Sub-Total - $ 52, 766/10.81.42 $ '70, 467/1324 Materials &, Other Contract Costs ` 3, 385 6, 560 Total Cost, - $ 56,151 • . ' $ 77, 027 EXHIBIT B 1985-86 Santina & Thompson Contract Costs/Hours LAND ASSESSMENT CAPITAL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROJECTS TOTAL Principal $ 33, 230/479hrs $ 80, 682/950hrs $ 3,.197/43. 5hrs $ 31, 756/381. 5hrs $ 148, 865/1854x, Sr. Engr. 19, 838/347. 5hrs 102, 442/1.505hrs 2,509/40hrs 163, 495/2584. 5hrs 288, 284/4477hrs Assoc. Engr. 1, 647/30. 5hrs 31, 848/605. 5hrs - 95, 898/1797hrs 129, 393/2433hrs Jr. Engr. - - 6, 402/168. 5hrs - 1,556/38. 5hrs 7, 958/207hrs Draftsman 3,168/75. 5hrs 4, 979/119hrs 214/5. 5hrs. 83, 882/2071. 5hrs 92, 243/2271. 5hrs Inspector 5, 722/136. 5hrs 164, 658/3122. 5hrs 1, 767/43. 5hrs 30, 527/734. 5hrs 202, 674/4037hrs Planner 66/lhr`' - - 8, 278/155hrs 8, 344/156hrs Clerical 563/23. 5hrs. 388/15. 5hrs 25/lhr 11, 284/448hrs 12, 260/936hrs Survey 822 11, 591 1, 463;: . 32, 091 45, 967 & Services. 1,226 16, 036 473 36,097 53, 832 Insurance 1, 441 ` . 10, 615 38 10, 952 23, 046 Pavement Mgmt 315 - 315 Total $ 68, 038 $429, 641 $ 9, 686 $505, 816 $1, 013,181 �" EXHIBIT C r ! ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT EVALUATION FORM 1. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE (Has 'Contractor complied with the conditions set` forth in the Contract agreement in the following areas?) • a. Administrative YES NO b. Traffic Engineering YES NO. c . Development Review . YES . NO d. Capital Projects YES NO Comments 2. AVAILABILITY (Has Contractor been available to answer questions, handle complaints and problems and meet .those requiring engineering services?) : All of Most of Not Enough. the Time • the Time Time City Council Public Comments 3 . RESPONSIVENESS (Has contractor responded quickly to providing solutions to problems and to requests for information, and been willing to undertake special projects and presentations upon requests?) Most of Yes the Time No City Council Public Comments " .4 . COST EFFECTIVENESS " a. . :Does Contractor exercise adequate control over project costs during construction? YES NO , Comments b. Has Contractor demonstrated the ability to obtain grant funding for the City? YES / NO Comments c . Are the services provided by the. Contractor cost effective or could they be provided at a lesser cost? Cost Effective Lesser Cost Comments 5. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT -& IMPLEMENTATION a. Does Contractor implement projects in a timely manner? YES NO Comments b. Does Contractor identify and develop projects that adequately address the City' s needs? YES NO Comments ' c.. .Is the engineering information prbvided by the Contractor. ' accurate and reliable? YES N0 . Comments . • OVERALL EVALUATION COMMENTS • • • EXHIBIT ].._ ENGINEERING SANTI NA & SURVEYING THOMPSONING. CONSULTANTS 1040 Oak Grove Road, Concord, California 94518 (415) 827-3200 Telex 338563 Santina January 21, 1987 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Contract Review and 1987-88 Proposal for Service Dear Rich: In response to your request for contract, review and proposal I am attaching anarrative of these.. items for both Santina & Thompson, Inc. and for TJKM. We have now been serving Dublin for four years and have enjoyed., contributing to the rapid orderly growth of Dublin and to aiding 'the City in responding to public improvement needs. You have asked me to make an evaluation of TJKM's, services and I have, in turn, asked Chris Kinzel to do a self evaluation of TJKM. The firm of TJKM has provided traffic engineering services to Dublin in a very professional manner and we have been able to benefit from their knowledge of our regional transportation systems and studies because of their other neighboring clients. . We have had some minor problems with studies being delayed and falling through the crack, however, our recent establishment of the Traffic .Safety Committee has seemed to cure this together with TJKM assigning one person to direct Dublin's work. . As to Santina & Thompson, Int.'s work, we believe that we have kept pace with the duties as listed in our contract and with staffing necessary for the rapidly growing City. Further, that we are very cost effective in as much as a large portion of our,: work is paid for directly by developers and that we have been successful in obtaining almost one and one half million dollars in outside funding. Thank you again for the opportunity to serve Dublin. ' Very truly yo s, Lee S. Thompson Offices in Concord and Los Angeles Self evaluation .of Santina & -Thompson's Services I. Contract Compliance The following . is- a ' listing of Santina & Thompson, Inc.'s contract duties together with comments as to our compliance. A. Administrative Duties 1. Perform the statutory responsibilities of City Engineer. We do this on a .routine basis through the review and signing of such documents and reports as Final - Subdivision Maps, improvement plans, grading plans and Capital 'Improvement Projects. 2. Analyze the City's traffic engineering needs and recommend programs to 'the City Manager consistent with the economic capabilities of the City. Many of these needed major programs have been recom- mended, some having been implemented through the 5 year Capital Improvement Program. The initial recommendations were for 'studies on the arterial street system. Later ones have.°"included the extension of Dublin-Blvd., circulation network studies for the east and, west expanded planning areas and minor connection, studies such as the Golden Gate/Regional Street connection. 3. Attend meetings with City Staff, public officials,. community leaders, developers, contractors and the general public as required by the. City. We have been doing this on routine : daily basis. Recently, we have begun attending meetings on the NPID freeway interchange coordination committee, have set .up semi-monthly meetings with MCE to, coordinate engineering and maintenance work and have established semi-monthly Traffic Safety Com- mittee meetings. 4 . At the discretion of the City, ' review and comment on planning programs and land development projects which are not only located within the City, but also located outside the City and which may have a traffic impact on the City. The bulk of this work has been to. review and comment on developments within the City.• On major, projects , we have identified offsite impacts and have recommended reasonable. off-site improvements of these major projects thus reducing the need for City funded . projects. 5. When directed, suPervise the accounting of State Highway 'user' funds' frOm the standpoint of meeting State requirements for the expenditure of such ' funds. We have been asked to, and have provided, data for the annual State road report for Dublin. We further have kept records for the FAU projects and have aided the federal auditor on our Federally funded projects. 6 . Advise the City Manager as to engineering and con- struction financing available from other govern- mental agencies and when so directed, prepare and initiate application for such fundings. We have been successful in applying for , competing for, and obtaining the following grants for the City of Dublin: a) $264,000 of FAU funding for San Ramon Road Phase II b) $153 ,000 of FAU funding from Madera for San Ramon Road Phase II c) $182 ,000 of FAU funding for Amador Valley Blvd. improvements d) $150 ,000 of FAU funding from Foster City for Amador Valley Blvd. improvements e) $500 ,000 of FAU funding for San Ramon Road Phase III f) $30,000 Office of Traffic Safety Grant for the traffic safety sign and marking inventory g) . Approximately $115,000 (recently) of MTC bike/ ped monies for a bike path on Dougherty Road and for additional miscellaneous handicap ramps • h) $10 ,400 FETSIM Grant for timing of traffic signals on the interconnected Dublin Blvd. system Further, we have developed projects and processed fundings for the FAU monies left over from pre- incorporation, all available Block Grant funds including an advance on next year, and underground utility Rule 20 funds including an advance for the next 8 years. We will also be incorporating the SB 300 funds into this years overlay project.. 7 . Recommend ordinances and regulations pertaining to engineering matters. Most of the ordinances that we have recommended have related to traffic change matters. • 8 . Establish working relationships and coordination with public agencies and private utilities involy- ing engineering matters affecting the City. We established- the Underground Utility Committee four years ago and have continued these meetings. We . . also attend ACTAC and ACTAC Audit Committee 'meetings as well as NPID freeway interchange meetings. 9. Provide special engineering reports as to such related matters as minor traffic studies, assess- ment district formations annexations etc. , when so requested. We do minor /traffic studies in-house and refer larger ,studies on to TJKM. We have processed one construction assessment district and three maintenance assessment districts. We have also provided documentation for five annexations-. . 10 : Administer and review issuance of encroachment and - grading permits. We established permit forms and processes and have administered this program throughout our contract life." B. Traffic Engineering Duties , " 1. Give direction to and assist City staff in per- forming minor traffic studies as necessary and/or" required. Santina &. Thompson, Inc. does review minor traffic problems and refers on to TJKM any full studies necessary to be undertaken. ." The establishment of the Traffic Safety Committee, now that : we have a full time traffic officer, is cutting down on referrals, and many of the . traffic requests can 'be 'handled on an informal basis. - 2. At the request of the City,, recommend solutions to street design problems. These problems were mostly addressed under our and TJKM's arterial street' plan line studies and are being implemented . through- the City's Capital Improvement Pr-ogram.-- 3. Provide general engineering consultation in con- nection with traffic circulation, street signs, . noise impact, etc: These are split again with minor problems being- addressed -by "Santina & Thompson, Inc. and- major ones such as the downtown , study being performed " by TJKM. . C. Development Review Duties • Review proposed private developments, • perform statu- tory functions as City Engineer in these reviews, provide field inspection, and recommend acceptance of public improvements (condensed duties) .Santina & Thompson, Inc. has been performing these duties on a ' • routine basis. Our plan checks have been timely and our inspection aimed at trying to reduce "future City maintenance costs and to try to minimize the construction . 'impacts on the existing adjacent ` neighborhoods. In general ,' we feel that we have met all our contract compliance duties as enumerated above and have striven to perform these duties in a professional, timely manner with the thought in mind of making improvements as opportuni- ties arise. We see private development as it relates to public' -improvements reducing in scope over the, next year until new demands in the 'extended planning areas proceed through the planning process. This will require a reduced staff level in our inspection services. " D. Capital Projects Aid in development of a capital improvement program, preparation of construction documents and provide con- struction _ inspection and contract administration (condensed duties). Santina & Thompson, Inca has aided • in the development of 'a five-yea.r capital improvement program and has been. active in each year's update of this program. This has included assessing City needs , especially in the area of transportation, identifying projects, estimating costs of these projects and, in conjunction with the City Manager and revenue projec- tions, prioritize these projects into a five-year time. frame. We have further carried out the, implementation of these projects through preparation of 'bid documents, bidding and construction administration. _ Now under construction are. the two largest projects undertaken to date' 'by ' th'e -City. These being the improvements to Amador Valley :Blvd. and the San Ramon Road Phase II project. The Capital Improvement Program is one in which we , have been very active and successful in seeking outside funding to stretch the Dublin improvement dollar. These outside funds have amounted to almost 'one and one half million. dollars. In the past, due primarily to demands for checking private development plans, we have lagged behind schedule in designing these capital improvement - projects. " This year, we are, nearly complete with this year's design work and we are only ' 6 months into the fiscal year. ■ E. General Conditions and Designation as City Engineer Provide toll free telephone number, regular office hours, no services to any client within Dublin bound- aries and Lee Thompson as City Engineer. (duties con- densed) . Santina "& Thompson, Inc. has met all these conditions throughout our contract with Dublin. Lee. Thompson has. . set Monday, Wednesday and Friday as regular office hours and has attended• meetings and been available at other times as the needs required. - We have met all other general conditions in our contract including insurance requirements. Although we will not know for sure if our errors and omissions insurance rates will significantly increase until May of this year, our agent does not foresee a large change. For this reason we are assuming a modest increase in our hourly fee rates and are assuming that -- we can obtain the same coverage as last year. Should there be a problem, we will notify the City in May, two months prior to this new contract taking effect. II . Availability . Again, Lee Thompson has maintained the same office hours and has been available by phone or in person 'as other needs arise. Santina . & Thompson, Inc. has responded to the manpower needs as the. City's demands, have changed. III . Responsiveness We have striven to meet the requests and demands of the City adminitration, the general public and the developers in a timely,, efficient, and sensitive manner. IV. Cost Effectiveness A. Control of Project Costs. Our inspectors and project engineers. have continuously analyzed projects, especially during, construction, Looking for cost savings so as to keep the projects within budget. Where the City had received particularly low bids and the needs of projects could benefit, we have extended certain items of work to take 'advantage of these low bids and still stay within budget. B. Ability to Obtain Grants Our success in obtaining grants for studies and capital improvement projects together with private - development fees paying directly for much of our services has rendered Santina &. 'Thompson, Inc.'s services very inexpensive to Dublin. We have prided ourselves in being extremely cost effective in this contract. V. Capital Improvement Program Development and Implementation A. Santina & Thompson, Inc. has had a major role in the establishment, updating and implementation of the five year capital improvement program. B. The City has, in general received good competitive bids on projects which' translates to complete, clear bid documents. The exceptions to this were: 1) San Ramon Road Phase I., where it was a small job bid at a time when the contractors were extremely busy (only one high bid received) and 2) the Village Parkway .Wall where the two contractors who normally bid on this type of wall joint ventured the wall and we only received one bid. C. Final project costs have stayed close to the bid amounts except where the City took advantage of low bid prices to have more work done. This is a tribute to our inspection staff. It should be noted that we have not received a single claim from any of our contractors against our projects. • . Special new projects performed under contract by Santina & Thompson, Inc. over calendar year 1986. 1) City Hall property survey - boundary and topographic survey extended to the Valley High School site. 2) City Hall site land swap with DSRSD and the Federal Government 3) Arroyo Vista boundary survey and the splitting of the site into developed and underdeveloped areas for HUD purposes. 4) Annexations both to the west (K and B and Hatfield) and to the east (Camp Parks, etc. ) 5) Right of way dealings with Camp Parks for the future widening of Dougherty Road 6) Pavement Management program (MTC) now nearly complete 7) Storm water problem response due to major flooding conditions including aid in processing Federal disaster claims 8) Dougherty Road closure 9) Dougherty Road/Hopyard interchange detouring 10) Sports Grounds traffic control for tournaments 11) Negotiations with property owners for right-of-way on the northwest corner of Dublin Blvd. and Sierra Court 12) Liaison with Cal Trans and Pleasanton on NPID interchanges I Proposal for Services - 1987 -88 Santina & Thompson, Inc.'s proposal for the upcoming 1987-88 fiscal year is as follows (see attachment for TJKM' s proposal) : a. Contract term we would propose to establish our term of contract to coincide with the City's fiscal year, that being July 1, 1987 to June 30 , 1988 . b. Attached is our proposed hourly rate. The new rate reflects a 4% rate increase over this fiscal year's rate. c. We would propose to keep our percentage charge rates the same as this year for the various types of work performed. d. Based on discussions with our errors and omissions insurance agent, we don't see a rise in this coverage dramatic enough to request an insurance subsidy, however we will be having our rates set in May of this year and if it becomes a problem, we will immediately let you know which will give a minimum of 2 months of notice before this contract would go into effect. e. Our insurance limits will stay the same as last year , which includes $500 ,000 errors and omissions ; $1,000,000 general liability insurance. f. Staffing - Based on Santina & Thompson, Inc. providing all the engineering staff , we see the need for additional time for a Senior Engineer to increase from one day per week to two days per week. This is based on the increased numbers of resident calls that we have been having this year. We also see the need for a reduction of one half of an inspector, down from 2 to 1-1/2 due to the expected reduction in subdivision inspection work. The City Engineer position would remain at 3 days per week. The following are alternates, as we see them for staffing per your request. Alternate 1 - Santina & Thompson, Inca provides all engineering staff at the Dublin offices. City Engineer 3/5 man year Senior Engineer 2/5 man year Public Works Inspection 1 1/2 man year 1 Alternate 2 - City adds one full time inspector. This would reduce our public works inspector staffing from 1 1/2 man year to 1/2 man year. We would prefer not to operate in this manner as the chain of command becomes difficult where we have responsibility for an operational function but not direct supervising responsibility. It would also be difficult when we have to add in and out another inspector as needed in responsibility of work between a City employee and a contract employee. Alternate 3 - City adds a full time Public Works Director, with direct control over Engineering and Maintenance (and Building Inspection?). Assuming that this person would handle some of the engineering calls and responses, I believe that we could reduce the City Engineer time by one day per week and the senior engineer time by one day per . week. This may be optimistic in that sometimes adding personnel creates its own scope of work through more coordination meetings and 'reporting procedures. Alternate 4 - (Not requested, but as a possibility) Santina & Thompson, Inc. adds direct control over maintenance responsibilities. - This would add one day per week for the City Engineer/ Public Works Director and one day per week for senior engineer to relieve the City Engineer from some of his duties. It should be noted that we have recently set up an Engineering/Maintenance staff meeting on a semi-monthly basis to coordinate Capital Improvement projects and traffic studies with maintenance work. G. Improvements to engineering and maintenance services. This regular engineering/maintenance staff meeting has been valuable for coordination purposes and having MCE staff attending the traffic safety meeting has been helpful from a signing and striping standpoint. I hope this covers all the items requested of us for you review of our upcoming contract. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. - 2 EXHIBIT A SANTINA & THOMPSON PROPOSED HOURLY CHARGE RATES * CITY OF DUBLIN 1986. Rates Proposed Rates Difference PRINCIPAL $103.50 $107.65 $4.15 ENGINEERING Project Engineer 80.73 84.00 3.27 Sr. Engineer 72.45 -75.35 2.90 Assoc. Engineer 61.07 63.50 2.43 Jr. Engineer 46.58 48.45 1.87 Public Works Inspector 61.80 64.25 2.45 (includes vehicle) Pavement Management 31.00 32.25 1.25 • Resident Engineer 96.60 100.45 3.85 (includes vehicle) PLANNING Director of Planning 74.52 77.50 2.98 Sr. Planner 69.35 72.15 2.80 Assoc. Planner 53.82 56.00 2.18 Jr. Planner 42.44 44.15 1.71 DRAFTING/GRAPHICS Sr. Draftsman 53.82 56.00 2.18 Assoc. Draftsman 47.61 49.50 1.89 Jr. Draftsman 41.40 43.05 1.65 Graphic Artist 36.23 37.70 1.47 CLERICAL 27. 95 29.05 1.10 SURVEY Survey Manager 74.52 77.50 • 2.98 Survey Supervisor 67.28 70.00 2.72 Office Surveyor 63.14 65.65 2.51 Assoc. Of c. Surveyor 49.68 51.65 1.97 Jr. Of c. Surveyor 35.19 36.60 1.41 2-Man Party 124.20 129.15 4.95 . 1-Man Party 67.28 70.00 2.72 * Effective July 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988 Fees are reduced by 25% for work done in the City offices, with the exception of work reimbursed by private development. 1 • ` 4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214 Pleasanton Ca. 94566 EXHIBIT E (415)463-0611 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED • DATE: January 21, 1987 JAN 97 TO: Lee Thompson, Santina & Thompson PUBLIC WORKS FROM Chris D. Kinzel SUBJECT: City of Dublin Contract Review and Proposal At your request, I am responding to Richard Ambrose's December 30, 1986 letter concerning City of Dublin'services. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you information regarding the TJKM portion of the City engineering services. As requested, the first section of this memo deals with our self-assessment of TJKM performance since the execution of our October 14, 1985 contract. We are using the same procedures established by the City in its October 11, 1985 review. 1. Contract Compliance The administrative duties, development review duties and capital projects for which TJKM has been involved range from the review of routine citizen requests, requests from the City council for traffic control changes, new traffic signal designs, traffic impact analyses for proposed new 'development, review of site plans for proposed development, street closure studies, participation in the downtown improvement study and investigation of school related traffic safety issues. See attachment for a list of specific projects. • We believe we have provided these services in a "prompt, professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the standards of the engineering profession." However, there have been two recent improvements which we feel are significant in our ability to perform traffic engineering services. First, the establishment of the City Traffic Committee which meets twice monthly and is attended by representatives of the City Engineer's Office, TJKM, and the Police Department allows a high level of coordination of traffic engineering and traffic safety issues among the affected departments. In addition to providing improved technical responses, the formation of this committee should also result in improved coordination of the staff position of the various City departments, particularly those items that appear on the agenda of the City Council. At this meeting, many routine items can be resolved and other more complex issues are designated for further study with the knowledge of all parties. The second area of improvement involves the internal organization of TJKM to provide the City of Dublin services. We have recently made the following general assignment of three TJKM personnel relating to Dublin: Senior Engineer Michelle DeRobertis will attend the City Traffic Committee meetings and handle and coordinate all traffic investigations assigned by the committee, the City Engineer or the City Manager. Michelle will also conduct most of the PLEASANTON•SACRAMENTO*FRESNO•CONCORD 1 , Lee Thompson -2- January 21, 1987 • traffic impact evaluations for proposed development within the City of Dublin. She will be supervised by Principal Associate Ty Tekawa who will provide general review and will also coordinate all traffic engineering design functions including traffic signals and signing and striping design or review. Chris Kinzel will attend Council meetings, and provide overall direction to other TJBM staff members. Other TJKM members will be assigned as needed to assist these three, particularly in the area of design and in gathering of field data. Much of the design work will be accomplished at the Assistant Traffic Engineer or Traffic Engineer level. Our goal in this organization is to provide traffic engineering services to the City of Dublin at the lowest possible classification level, while providing appropriate review and supervision. 2. Availability TJKM maintains its offices in northern Pleasanton, not far from Dublin City Hall. Generally, we feel we have been available as needed to provide traffic engineering services. There were two or three instances during the past year where Chris Kinzel was not available to attend the City Council meeting due to schedule conflicts. We anticipate such conflicts can be avoided in the future. 3. Responsiveness 0 Generally, traffic engineering matters do not require immediate response. In the past, some items referred to TJKM have been unnecessarily delayed due to lack of coordination within the TJKM organization or with other City officials. With improved TJKM organization and the establishment of the new City Traffic Committee, this should not occur in the future. 4. Cost Effectiveness During the 1985-86 fiscal year TJKM composite hourly rates were $52.48, an increase of approximately $6.00 per hour from the 1984-85 engineering breakdown. The total TJKM services for the year increased from a 1984-85 total of $56,151 to $77,026. The total hours of activity increased from 1,203 to 1,410. Slightly over $14,100 of TJKM's fees were paid by private developers. 5. Program Development and Implementation ' This item deals with timeliness and accuracy and would best be addressed by the City Engineer and the City staff. Proposal l TJKM proposes to continue offering services to the City of Dublin. If appropriate, the contract term would be from July 1, 1987, to June 30, 1988. The proposed hourly rates for 1987-88 are included on the attachment. The attachment indicates the current rates as well as the proposed rates for the City of Dublin along with the reduced rates. The proposed rates would apply to any capital improvement project or project funded by private developers. The reduced rates would apply to all other traffic engineering services provided by TJKM. Reduced rates are 80 percent of the proposed rates, rounded to the nearest dollar. The proposed rates average a 13.4 percent increase over current rates. Since the current rates reflect ' Lee Thompson -3- January 21, 1987 the TJKM rates in effect as of March 1, 1985, they will be well over two years old at the beginning of the term of the proposed contract. The average 13.4 percent increase works out to be a 5.8 percent increase per year. TJKM requires no insurance subsidy from the City of Dublin. Our errors and omission insurance limits are $500,000. The City Manager's letter requested alternative proposal to deal with the eventuality of a full-time Public Works director and full-time Public Works Inspectors. It is my assumption that TJKM services would not be changed as a result of this administrative restructuring. One possible exception would be more work could be done in-house if any of the new . personnel have a traffic engineering background or orientation. As to ways that traffic engineering services can be improved in the City of Dublin, I believe the greatest improvement will be that which results from the fine tuning of the Traffic Committee concept. In addition to fully coordinating various City functions that handle traffic safety matters, our work should be able to be completed on a more scheduled and timely basis and there should be an ability to avoid the one or two instances where TJKM conducted more comprehensive traffic engineering investigations than may have been necessary. We feel some additional improvements to traffic safety and traffic circulation could result if TJKM had the opportunity to review some of the routine private development proposals with particular emphasis on driveways and parking lot review. We also feel improvements could be made in coordination of capital projects in which a traffic engineering review of final plans from the standpoint of signing, striping, geometry, construction signing and staging, and electrical details should occur. We do not believe that the increased review of either the private development or capital improvement projects would be either..expensive or time consuming but, could improve the final product. Please contact me if there are questions on any of these matters. - rhm Attachments 157-4P.1 CK - • TM HOURLY RATE SCHEE .E Proposed Reduced 85-86a 86-87b . 87-88 87-88 Principal $98 $100 $105 $84 Principal Associate 82 86 90 72 Senior Associate 76 80 84 67 Associate . 72 76 80 64 Senior Traffic Engineer 68 72 77 62 Senior Transportation Engineer 68 72 77 62 Traffic Engineer 60 • 66 ' 69 55 Transportation Engineer 60 66 69 55 Transportation Planner -- 60 63 50 Assistant Traffic Engineer 49 55 58 46 Traffic Engineering Assistant 42 45 47 38 Technician II 34 37 41 33 Technician I .22 23 26 21 Graphics Supervisor. 42 45 50 .40 Draftsman. 34 37 40 32 Project Coordinator -- 42 44 35 Secretarial . 35 37 40 32 Computer 30 30 30 . 30 . The above rates include standard overhead items. Travel costs are billed at thirty cents per mile. Each project may be subject to initial set up and coordination fees. All outside services are billed at cost, plus ten percent for handling. Invoices are due and payable within thirty days. Invoices paid after thirty days will be subject to separate billings of one and one-half percent per month of unpaid balance. Late charges are not included in any agreement for maximum charges. Expert witness charges available on request. a Current TJKM rates in the City of Dublin, established March 1, 1985. . b Current TJKM rates, not in use in Dublin, established March 1, 1986. • TJKM CIT'; F DUBLIN TRAFFIC ENGINEERI_ : PROJECTS October 1985 to January 1987 Traffic Signal Design: San Ramon Road at Alcosta Boulev r 0.41 Amador Valley Boulevard and ;• ail Plaza Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court Silvergate Highlands traffic study Downtown Improvement Study Dougherty Road closure investigation San Ramon Road specific plan (Amador Valley Boulevard extension) Dublin Boulevard interconnect system Hansen Ranch studies Dublin Boulevard signal timing grant and study Shell Station driveway study Stagecoach speed limits study and striping, San Ramon Road improvements design Truck Route study Alamo Creek traffic study Silvergate Drive traffic study Peppertree Road traffic study Vomac Road traffic study Automation Electronics traffic impact study Amarillo Road investigation BART park-n-ride review Nielson School study Carl's Jr. study Donahue Drive traffic study Modify Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard Various STOP sign studies (5) Miscellaneous traffic studies (12) :b 14J i y EXHIBIT F CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS '' FINANCIAL HISTORY CONTRACT APPROVED BUDGET ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AMT. UNDER FINAL FINAL NO. PROJECT NAME PRIOR TO BID PRIOR TO BID LOW BID ENGR'S EST. CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING COST 83-1 Dublin/Silvergate and $ 53,800 $ 48,858 $ 53,775.94 $ (4,917.94) $ 59,671.53 $ N/A 1.? Village Pkwy Median Imp. ''' 83-2 Dublin/Amador Piz Signal 100,000 100,000 72,837.00 27,163.00 74,545.00 15,000.00 , 1;3; 83-3 Street Name Signs 25,000 25,000 24,465.00 535.00 22,923.00 2,945.10 ' if 84-1 Dougherty Rd. Imps. 40,100 40,017 44,589.50 (4,572.50) 73,158.76 15,000.00 'A (Additional work was authorized after award of bid) , 84-2 Sidewalk Repair 100,000 100,000 66,288.50 33,711.50 91,628.12 14,000.00 : (Additional work was authorized after award of bid) 84-3 Dougherty Storm Drain 60,000 62,502 50,340.16 12,161.84 57,315.35 N/A 84-4 Overlay 110,000 110,000 96,418.50 33,581.50 100,520.50 15,000.00 Preparatory Maint. 20,000 20,000 20,000.00 (Additional work was authorized after award of bid) ;T:i '" 84-5 Slurry Seal 54,500 54,500 31,037.25 23,462.75 29,299.43 4,500.00 84-7 Village Pkwy. Wall 200,000 200,000 .250,258.00 (50,258.00) `<i 84-8 Dublin Bl./Amador Valley/ 511,000 511,000 487,116.00 23,884.00 469,029.00 60,380.00 Village Pkwy. Rehab. a. 84-9 Village Pkwy. Imps. 105,500 111,001 103,945.22 7,055.78 103,945.22 N/A , :-.1 rj� • 1,Ji'! e —1— a CONTRACT APPROVED BUDGET ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AMT. UNDER FINAL FINAL NO. PROJECT NAME PRIOR TO BID PRIOR TO BID LOW BID ENGR'S EST. CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING COST 84-11 3 Traffic Signals (C) 654,750 650,100 441,234.09 - 208,865.91 507,440.04 92,733.89 to _ (E) 92,250 85-1 Sidewalks/HCP/Silv. Med. (C) 67,000 67,000 43,653.00 23,347.00 67,000.00 15,000.00 (E) 15,000 85-2 Landscaping-VPW, AVB, 460,000 431,496 370,736.46 60,759.54 373,769.16 54,787.29 i " Dublin Blvd. 85-3 San Ramon Rd. Spec. Plan 179,811 171,743.00 8,068.00 182,914.46 40,000.00 ? 85-4 Overlay (C) 265,000 264,987 182,811.41 82,175.59 N/A N/A r: (E) 20,000 st 85-5A Corp Yd Site Work . (ttl A&B) 90,500* 55,005 54,900.00 105.00 56,846.00 13,200.00 s y 1 85-5B Corp Yd;Building *see 85-5A N/A 42,574.00 N/C 42,574.00 N/A w . 85-6 Slurry Seal 50,000 39,000 56,365.00 (17,365.00). Contract not awarded. 85-7 San Ramon/Alcosta Signal (C) 279,500 280,031 338,657.70 (58,626.70) 331,096.70 54,261.80 (E) 45,000 1' 86-1I Village Pkwy. Ldscp. (C) 525,000 567,000 505,124.90 61,875.10 515,557.50 83,000.00 1 (E) 90,000 86-2 Amador Valley Blvd. (C) 951,000 935,257 878,848.00 56,409.00 Incomplete Rehabilitation (E) 116,000 1! 86-3 Sidewalk Repair (C) 33,000 39,951 33,558.89 6,392.11 56,071.00 Engr. incl. !i. (E) 7,000 in const. cost - Additional work authorized after award of bid. -2- j , CONTRACT APPROVED BUDGET ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AMT. UNDER FINAL FINAL ? NO. PROJECT NAME PRIOR TO BID PRIOR TO BID LOW BID ENGR'S EST. CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING COST 86-4 Sierra Court Signal (C) 205,000 230,000 197,529.66 32,470.34 Incomplete (E) 30,000 86-5 Slurry Seal 44,000 37,000 48,394.44 (.11,394.44) 48,833.67 7,654.00 86-6 San Ramon Road (C) 1,260,000 1,424,771 1,837,181.89 (412,410.89), Incomplete (E) 172,000 86-7 Sierra Ct. Extension (C) 525,000 524,983 480,495.00 44,488.00 Incomplete , (E) 63,000 1 87-1 Dub. Bl. Interconnect 150,000 149,600 98,800.00 50,800.00 >I $7,258,870 $7,021,104.51 $237,765.49 (3.3%) v li il ' , v i Y t1 1 y =1 1 f -3- 5 EXHIBIT G AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. BETWEEN CITY OF DUBLIN AND SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC. , FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Dublin : (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") , and Santina & Thompson, Inc. , Consulting Civil Engineers (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT") , first entered into an agreement on .February_l, 1983 to provide engineering services to the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS,. the City has subsequently amended the agreement on an annual basis and adopted a revised agreement on• July 1, 1985;. and WHEREAS, the fees established in Exhibit A of the agreement. dated July 1, 1985 were effective from October 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue contracting for services from Consultant; and WHEREAS, an adjustment of fees for services rendered is desired by both the City and the Consultant. _ NOW, THEREFORE, the parties. hereto agree as follows: SECTION I. ADJUSTMENT OF RATES The Santina & Thompson hourly rate- schedule (Exhibit A) , shall . replace the rate schedule which. was adopted by the City Council on October 14, 1985. The change in rates shall be effective September 1, 1986 and • • shall continue in effect until July 31, 1987 or until rescinded or amended by the City Council, according to the provisions of the agreement.' City of Dublin, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Peter. F. Santina, President . Santina & Thompson, Inc. Consulting Civil Engineers • EXHIBIT A SANTINA & THOMPSON . . - . PROPOSED HOURLY CHARGE RATES 1985 Rates Proposed Rates Difference PRINCIPAL 92.90 103.50'. 10.60 ENGINEERING . Project Engineer 75. 90. 80.73 4.83 Sr. Engineer 66.90 72.45 5.55 Assoc. Engineer 56.90 61. 07 4.17 Jr. Engineer 43. 90 46.58 2.68 . ' Public Works Inspector; 58.90 61.80 . 2. 90 (includes vehicle) Pavement Management 0.00 31.00 0.00 Resident Engineer 0.00 96.60 0.00 (includes vehicle) PLANNING Director of Planning . 68.90 74.52 :5.62 Sr. Planner 64.90 69.35 4.45 Assoc. Planner 50.90 53.82 2. 92 Jr. Planner • 40.90 42.44 . '1.54 r - DRAFTING/GRAPHICS Sr. Draftsman 50.90 53.82 2. 92 Assoc. Draftsman 44.90 47.61 2.71 Jr Draftsman 39. 90 41.40 - . 1.50 Graphic Artist 34.90 36.23 1.33 CLERICAL 27.90 27. 95 . 05 SURVEY . Survey Manager 68.90 74.52- : 5. 62 Survey Supervisor . _ 62.90 67.28 : _ 4.38 Office Surveyor 58.90 63.14 " 4.24 Assoc. Ofc. Surveyor 46. 90 49.68 2.78 Jr Ofc. Surveyor 33.90 . 35.19"- 1.29 2-Man Party 114.90 . ' 124.20 9.30 1-Man Party 64. 90 . - 67.28 2.38 , . * Effective :.September 1, 1986 July 31, 1987 **Includes $2. 90 for insurance surcharge. ***Includes 3.5% for insurance surcharge. Fees are reduced by 25% for work done in the City offices, with the exception of work reimbursed by private development. AGREEMENT ikt n ntered into thi This Agreement is made a d e s day of _ , 19.85, by and between the City-:_of Dublin (hereinafter referred -toy as City") , and _ Santina and Thompson, Consulting . Civil Engineers, Inc. , (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant") .. WHEREAS, City is desirous of the services of a City Engineer and related engineering; and WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to render said necessary services and desires to serve as City Engineer to City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. DUTIES OF CONSULTANT Consultant agrees to provide those engineering services that may - be required by the City of Dublin during the term of this agreement in a - prompt, professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the standards of the engineering profession. -All work shall be completed to. the satisfaction of the City Manager. The City may, at its discretion, request performance by consultant of any of the following duties: A. Administrative Duties 1. . Perform the statuatory responsibilities of City Engineer. rr • 2. Analyze the City' s traffic engineering needs and recommend programs to the City Manager consistent with the economic capabilities of the City. 3. Attend meetings with City Staff, public officials, community leaders, developers, contractors; and the general public, as required by the City. 4- At the discretion of the City, review and comment on planning programs and land development projects which are not only locatd within the City, but also located outside the City and which may have a traffic impact on the City. 5. When directed, supervise the accounting of State Highway User Funds from the standpoint of meeting State requirements for the expenditure of such funds. 6. Advise the City Manager as to engineering and construction financing available from other governmental agencies and when so directed, prepare and initiate application for such fundings. 7. Recommend ordinances and regulations -pertaining to engineering matters Page 1 8. Establish working relationships and coordination with other public agencies and private utilities involving engineering matters affecting the City. 9. Provide special engineering reports as to such related matters as minor traffic studies, assessment district formation, annexation, etc. , when so requested. 10.-_ Administer and review- issuance of encroachment and grading permits. B. Traffic Engineering Duties =. 1. Give direction to and assist City Staff in performing minor traffic studies as necessary and/or required. 2. At the request of the City, recommend solutions to street design problems. 3: Provide general engineering consultation in connection with traffic circulation, street signs, noise impact, etc. C. Development Review Dutie-s 1. Review proposed developments and make recommendations pertaining to engineering considerations.. 2. Perform the statutory functions of . City Engineer- pertainingrrto the review and checking o€. subdivision maps. This includes, but is not limited to the following: • a. Examine each tract map of each subdivision within the City, .with respect to its conformity with the tentative map or maps, any approved alterations, and applicable City records and ordinances. The City Engineer would be required to certify the map. - - b. Examine each parcel map of each division of land within the City with respect to its conformity with the tentative map or maps, any approved alterations, and applicable City records and ordinances. The City Engineer would be required to certify the map. c. Provide detailed plan checking of tract and parcel maps. 3. Check -improvement plans for facilities under the jurisdiction of the City that are prepared by private developers. 4. Establish performance and labor and material bond amounts when required and require the posting of such securities and other development fees within the proper time sequence of such development review. . - Page.. 2 5. Provide field inspection during the construction of such improvements by private developers and at the proper time recommend notices of completion and acceptance of the work. 6. Provide such necessary and related functions that are the normal practice of the City in the City Engineering review of private developments. 7. Review- engineering aspects of planning applications. 8. Recommend 'acceptance for ,maintenance -of public, improvements to the City Council. D. Capital Projects 1. Assist City Manager in development of a capital improvement program. • 2. Provide assistance in preparation of contract documents for capital improvement projects. 3. Upon specific and separate authorization by the City, prepare plans and specifications for capital improvement projects. It is understood that Consultant will provide design services for most, capital improvement projects. However, the City reserves the right to bid any project or bring in specialists when deemed necessary by the City or the _ Consultant. A capital improvement is defined as -any project in - which the construction is performed by someone other than the City forces or the City' s designated street maintenance contractor... 4. Provide plan checking of and construction observation during the course of construction of City undertaken projects. II. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. Consultant agrees to provide a toll free telephone number at consultant' s office to,be used by City of Dublin. B. Consultant agrees to establish regular office hours in the Dublin City Offices to the satisfaction of the City Manager. C. City will provide office space and clerical support for • Contractor' s- representative designated. as City Engineer. D. Consultant shall provide no services for any client other than the City within the corporate boundaries or sphere of influence of the City during the term of the agreement. Page 3 III. - DESIGNATION AS CITY ENGINEER For the term of this agreement, the following, employee .of consultant is to be designated as City Engineer: - Lee S. Thompson Registered Civil Engineer #19348 IV. COMPENSATION Consultant shall be compensated for work as follows: A. The following work shall be charged at 75 percent of the rates shown. in Exhibit A: 1. Work which is performed in or from the Dublin City office for work not chargable to private developments. This includes work performed by the City Engineer and Public Works Inspector, and attendance at Commission and .City Council meetings. . 2. General Engineering work which is not related' to a specific- capital improvement project or private development and is performed in or from the Dublin City Office. This includes attendance at Commission and City Council meetings. 3. , Services related to the review, issuance and. inspection.. of permits which are based on an established fee and the applicant is not charged the actual cost. B'. The following work shall be charged at the rates shown in Exhibit A: 1. Capital improvement design work, which is billed on a time and material basis. Prior to proceeding with the work, a maximum estimated budget shall be established by -City and shall not be exceeded without approval of the City Manager. 2. Engineering survey work. 3. Plan checking and other activities which are paid for by the private developer and are designated as actual cost on the fee schedule. This would not include work on projects where the application involved review, issuance or inspection based on an established fee. C. The City shall not pay for the cost of commuting from the Consultant ' s office to Dublin City Office._ . V. COLLECTION OF FEES All fees to be collected from any private developer, engineer, or architect in connection with the carrying out of the functions set forth above, if collected by engineer shall be collected in the name of the City. "" Engineer shall employ record keeping measures acceptable to the City. If fees are collected by the- City, engineer shall review the appropriate Page 4 , • • ordinances and fee schedules in effect by City and shall provide to the persons- designated by the City for collection of fees, the amount of such , fees to be collected. VI. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. - • In the performance of the work undertaken pursuant to this agreement, consultant is deemed to be an independent contractor. Consultant's employees- are-not to be considered employees of the City of Dublin for any purpose. VII. ASSIGNABILITY This agreement shall not be assignable or transferable by the Consultant without the expressed written consent of the City Manager. VIII. OWNERSHIP OF WORK All documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps and reports . furnished to the Consultant by the -City, as well as reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this contract shall be considered the property of the City of Dublin and upon request at the completion of the services to be performed, they will be turned over to the City of Dublin. IX. PERFORMANCE OF WORK Consultant agrees to perform work as stated in this agreement to the satisfaction of the City. r X. LIABILITY "COVERAGE A. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation to any person • employed by the Consultant performing services for the City. B. Consultant firm shall hold harmless the City from damages, costs or expenses that may arise because of damage to property or injury to persons received or suffered by reason of the operation of engineering firm" which may be occasioned by any negligent actor omission to act which amounts to negligence on the part of the Consultant or any of its agents, officers and employees and subcontractors. C. Consultant agrees to provide at its own expense general liability insurance in an amount not less than $1, 000, 000 - and further name. the City as an additional insured. D. Consultant shall provide the City with evidence that it has . Worker ' s Compensation Insurance covering all its employees and professional liability insurance in the amount of $500,000. E. Consultant shall assume liability for the wrongful or , »- negligent acts, errors and omissions of its officers, agents and employees and subcontractors in regard to any functions or activity carried out by them on behalf of the City. Page 5 XI. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this agreement shall be from July 1, 1985 until terminated; The City may terminate the services of the engineering firm by. providing the firm 30 days written notice. In the event of such - termination, the engineering firm shall be compensated for such services up . to the point of termination. Such compensation for work in progress would be prorated as to the percentage of progress- completed at the date of termination. If the engineering firm terminates its services to the City, it must provide the City with written notice at least 90 days in advance of such termination. . All notices to the City shall be addressed to: . City Manager City of Dublin 6500 Dublin. Boulevard, Suite 101 Dublin, CA 94568 - All notices to Consultant shall be addressed to: - Santina and Thompson, Inc. Consulting Civil Engineers 1040. Oak Grove Road Concord, CA 94518 Notices, as referred to above, -shall be sent via Registered. Mail. - 1f CITY•OF D By May.r ATTEST: . .A` City Clerk Santin3 nd Thompson, Inch Consiti .• Civi ginee - By( `Peter F. "Sanina, -President . . APPROVE AS T,O FORM: Le, City Attorney Page 6 EXHIBIT- A • - SANTINA & THOMPSON • - PROPOSED HOURLY CHARGE RATES * ** . . 1984 Rates Proposed Rates Difference PRINCIPAL - - $ 84 $ 90 + $ 6 ENGINEERING Project Manager $ 72 . $ 81 _ + $ 9 Project Engineer . N C 73 N C -- Senior Engineer 60 64 . + $ 4 Associate Engineer 48 54- + $ 6 Junior Engineer . . 38 -. 41 . . + $ 3 Public Works Inspector .50 56 + $ 6 (includes vehicle) • - PLANNING Director of Planning $. 62 . $ 66 + $ 4 Senior Planner 57 - . 62 + $ 5 Associate Planner 45 . - . 48 + $ 3 Junior Planner 38 38 0 DRAFTING/GRAPHICS Senior Draftsman $ 45 . $ 48 + $ 3 Associate _Draftsman 40 - . _ 42 + $ 2 • J12nior Draftsman - 35 ---. • 37 + $. 2 Graphic Artist 30 . 32 + $ 2 CLERICAL $ 25 $ 25 0 • SURVEY Survey Manager $ 62 $ 66 + $ 4 Survey Supervisor •. ' 60 60 . • 0 Office Surveyor • 56 . - • . 56 . 0 . (Research & Calcs. ) Associate Office Surveyor 44 44 0 Junior Office Surveyor 29 31 + $ 2 3-Man Party 150 • 154 •• +. $ 4 2-Man Party 109 112 + $ 3- 1-Man Party 62 62 .0 * Effective October 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 . An additional surcharge of $2.90/hour up to $23,524 would be added to the above hourly rates. ** Fees are reduced by 25% for work done in the City offices, with the exception of work reimbursed by private development. • C*3 SAN'1 1 NA & _- ENGINEERING SURVEYING THOMPSON INC: CONS s 1040 Oak Grove Road, Concord, California 94518 (415) 827-3200. Telex 338563 Santina er 17, 1986 Rich Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Annual Contract Review - Santina & Thompson, Inc. Dear Rich: As part of our a'nnual ' contract review, we request the City's acceptance of our attached new hourly rate schedule. The average hourly rate increase represents approximately 6 1/2% over last years rate. This 6 1/2% breaks down into a 3 1/2% increase to cover our , large jump in professional . liability insurance last year and a 3 %. increase for inflationary costs of labor and materials. . We do have and continue to carry $500,000 coverage of errors and omission insurance. rIt should be noted that all our costs in reviewing, plan checking and inspection of private developments .are paid by private developers and that much of our costs for designing and inspecting capital improvement projects are off set by the outside grants that we have been- successful in obtaining. I would appreciate your review of our request and to make this fee increase effective September -first. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours Lee . Thompson Vice President LST/lm , Enc. Offices in Concord and Los Angeles 4 4 •t _ , ••',•' •' • , . • • EXHIBIT H AGREEMENT into • l iti&L This Agreement is made and entered this - day of a(g,„1",) , 1985, by and between the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "City") , and TJKM Transportation Consultants, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant") . WHEREAS, City is desirous of the services of ,a City Traffic Engineer and • related engineering; and WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to render said necessary services and • desires to serve as City Traffic Engineer to City. - NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: DUTIES OF CONSULTANT . , Consultant agrees to provide those engineering, services that may be required by the City of Dublin during the term of this agreement in a prompt, professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the standards of the engineering profession. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Manager. The City may, at its discretion, request performance by consultant of any of the following duties: A. Administrative Duties 1. Perform the statutory responsibilities of City Traffic Engineer. 2. Analyze the City' s traffic engineering needs and recommend programs to the City Manager consistent with the economic capabilities of the City. 3. Attend meetings with City Staff, public officials, community leaders, developers, contractors, and the general public, as required by the City. 4. At the discretion' of the City, review and comment on planning programs and land development projects which-are-not only located within the City, but also located outside the Cityand which may have a traffic impact on the City. • 5. Advise the City Manager-as to' engineering and construction financing available from other governmental agencies and when so directed, prepare and initiate application for such fundings. 6. Recommend ordinances and regulations pertaining to • traffic engineering matters. 7. Establish working relationships and coordination with other public agencies and private utilities involving traffic engineering matters affecting the City. 8. Provide special engineering reports as to such related traffic studies. 9. • Give direction to and assist City Staff in performing traffic studies as necessary and/or required. 10. At the request of the City, recommend solutions to street design problems. 11. Provide general engineering consultation in connection' with traffic circulation, street signs, noise impact, etc. Page 1 C. Development Review Duties 1. Review proposed developments and make recommendations pertaining to traffic engineering considerations. 2. Review traffic engineering aspects of planning applications. D. Capital . Projects 1. Assist City Manager in development of a capital . improvement program that relates to traffic matters. 2. Upon specific and separate authorization by the City, -prepare plans and specifications for traffic related capital improvement projects. It is understood that Consultant will provide design services for most traffic related capital improvement projects. However, the City reserves the right to bid any project or bring in specialists when deemed necessary by the City or the Consultant. A capital improvement is defined as any project in which the construction is performed by someone other than the City forces or the City' s designated street maintenance contractor. II. DESIGNATION AS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER For the term of this agreement, the, following employee of Consultant is to be designated as City Traffic Engineer: Chris Kinzel Registered Traffic Engineer III. COMPENSATION Consultant shall be compensated for work as follows: A. The following work shall be charged at 80 percent of .the rates shown in Exhibit A: 1. . General Traffic Engineering services and studies excluding capital improvement project . design. B. The following work shall be charged at the rates shown in Exhibit A: 1. Capital improvement design work, which is billed on a time and material basis. Prior to proceeding with the work, a maximum estimated budget shall be established by City and shall not be exceeded" without approval of the City Manager. C. The City shall not pay for the cost of commuting from the Consultant' s office to Dublin City Office. Page 2 IV. COLLECTION OF FEES All fees to be collected from any private developer, engineer, or architect in connection with the carrying out of the functions set forth above, if collected by engineer shall be collected in the name of the City. Engineer shall employ record keeping measures acceptable to the City. If fees are collected by the City, engineer shall review the appropriate ordinances and fee schedules in effect by City and shall provide to the persons designated by the City for collection of fees, the amount of such fees to be collected. V. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS In the performance of the work undertaken pursuant to this agreement, consultant is deemed to be an independent contractor. Consultant' s employees are not to be considered employees of the City of Dublin for any purpose. VI. ASSIGNABILITY This agreement shall not be assignable or transferable by the Consultant without the expressed written consent of the City Manager. VII. OWNERSHIP OF WORK All documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps and reports furnished to the Consultant by the City, as well as reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this contract shall be considered the property of the City of Dublin and upon request at the completion of the services to be performed, they will be turned over to the City of Dublin. VIII. PERFORMANCE OF WORK Consultant agrees to perform work as stated in this agreement to the satisfaction of the City. IX. LIABILITY COVERAGE - A. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation to any person employed by the Consultant performing services for the City. . B. Consultant firm shall hold harmless the City from damages, costs or expenses that may arise because of damage to property or injury to persons received or suffered by reason of the operation of engineering firm which may be occasioned by any negligent act or omission to act which amounts to negligence on the part of the Consultant or any of its agents, officers and employees and subcontractors. - C. Consultant agrees to provide at its own expense general liability insurance in an amount not less than $1, 000, 000 and further name the City as an additional insured. Page 3 D. Consultant shall provide the City with evidence that it has Worker' s Compensation Insurance covering all its employees and professional liability insurance in the amount of $500,000. E. Consultant shall assume liability for the wrongful or negligent acts, errors and omissions of its officers, agents and employees and subcontractors in regard to any functions •or activity carried out by . them on behalf of the City. X. TERM OF-AGREEMENT The term of this agreement shall be from the date first written above until terminated. The City may terminate the services of the engineering firm by providing the firm 30 days written notice. :. In the . event of such termination, the engineering firm shall be compensated for such services up to the point of termination. Such compensation for work in progress would be prorated as to the percentage of progress completed at the date of termination. If the engineering firm terminates , its services to the City, it must provide the City with written notice at least 90 days in advance of such. termination. All notices to the City shall be addressed to: City Manager City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 101 Dublin, CA 94568 All notices to Consultant shall be addressed to: TJKM 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214 Pleasanton, CA 94568 Notices, as referred to above, shall be sent via ' steredMail. CITY OF D ■ By. Mayo AT City Cl'e TJKM B Y Chris Kinzel • APPROy,ED AS 0_ FORM: . �a A-- / & City Attorney Page 4 • EXHIBIT A TJKM PROPOSED HOURLY CHARGE RATES • 1984 Rates Proposed Rates" Difference Principal $ 90 $" 98 + $ 8 Principal Associate 78 82 • + $ 4 Senior Associate 74 76 + $ 2 Associate 69 72 -_ - + $ 3 Senior Traffic Engineer 65 68 + $ 3 Senior Transportation Engr 65 68 + $ 3 Traffic Engineer 55 ; ' 60 + $ 5 Transportation Engineer NP 60 NC ' Assistant Traffic Engineer 44 . 49 + $ 5 Traffic Engineering Assistant39 42 + $ 3 Technician II 34 34 . 0 Technician I 22 22 0 Graphics Supervisor . NP . 42 '. : NC' Draftsman 29 34 + $ 5 Secretarial 32 35 + $ 3 Computer . 30 30 0 .. Above rates include standard overhead items. ' Travel costs are billed at 30 cents/mile. Outside services are billed. at cost plus 10 percent for handling. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days. Invoices paid after 30 days will be subject to separate billings of 1 1/2 percent per month of unpaid balance. Late charges are not included in any agreement for maximum charges. Expert witness charges available on request. * Fees are reduced by 20% for General Traffic Engineering services and studies excluding capital improvement project design. • Effective March 1, 1985 • - •.l«::s,:.c,...y.: :_..,:.cc .i...t:_t_,.�:,...`�_._:...!:.., ...:�r�.,...�../.',.-.t��.r_:.>y_-Fw_w'a:,�:�....:'r,..... .??_.t�::....a.w.�.._.. ...��....� .{1`.<_....., >�..,..r..._ �`�' _ • EXHIBIT 2 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, BETWEEN CITY OF DUBLIN AND SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC. , FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred toas' "CITY" ) , and Santina & Thompson, Inc. , Consulting Civil Engineers (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT" ) , first entered into an - agreement on February 1, 1983 to provide Engineering Services to the City of Dublin; and _ WHEREAS, the City has subsequently amended the agreement on an annual basis and adopted a revised agreement on September 22, 1986; and WHEREAS, the fees established in Exhibit A of the most recent amendment to the agreement were effective from September 1, 1986 to July 31, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue contracting for services from Consultant; and WHEREAS, an adjustment of fees for services rendered is desirable by both the City and the Consultant. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, agree as follows: , Section 1: Adjustment of. Rates The Santina & Thompson, Inc. , hourly rate schedule (Exhibit A) , shall replace the rate schedule which was adopted by the City Council on September 22, 1986.. The change in rates shall be effective from August 1, 1987 and shall continue in effect until June 30, 1988, or until rescinded or amended by the City Council, according to the provisions of the agreement. CITY OF DUBLIN Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC. Peter F. Santina, President Date of. Adoption EXHIBIT A . SANTINA & -THOMPSON PROPOSED HOURLY CHARGE RATES CITY OF DUBLIN 1986. Rates Proposed Rates Difference PRINCIPAL $103.50 $107.65 $4.15 ENGINEERING Project Engineer 80.73 84.00 3.27 Sr. Engineer 72.45 75.35 2.90 Assoc. Engineer 61.07 63.50 '. 2.43 Jr. Engineer 46.58 48.45 1.87 Public Works Inspector 61.80 6 4.25 2.45 (includes vehicle) Pavement Management 31.00 32.25 1.25 Resident Engineer 96.60 100.45 3.85 (includes vehicle) PLANNING Director of Planning 74.52 ' 77.50 2.98 Sr. Planner " 69.35 72.15 2.80 Assoc. Planner 53.82 56.00 2.18 Jr. Planner 42.44 44.15 .1.71 DRAFTING/GRAPHICS - Sr. Draftsman 53.82 56.00 2.18 Assoc. Draftsman . . 47.61 49.50 1.89 . Jr. Draftsman 41.40 43.05 1.65 Graphic Artist. ' 36.23 37.70 - 1.47 CLERICAL . 27.95 . 29.05 1.10 SURVEY Survey Manager 74.52 . - 77.50 2.98 Survey Supervisor 67.28 70.00 2.72 Office Surveyor 63.14 , 65.65 2.51 Assoc. Of c. Surveyor 49.68 51.65 1.97 Jr. Of c. Surveyor " 35.19 36.60 1.41 2-Man Party 124.20 129.15 4.95 1-Man Party 67.28 70.00 2.72 . * Effective. August 1, -1987 - June 30, 1988 - Fees are reduced by 25% for work done in the City offices, with the exception of work reimbursed by private development. EXHIBIT J, AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DUBLIN AND TJKM FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "CITY" ) , and TJKM Transportation Consultants (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT" ) , entered into an agreement on October 14., 1985 to provide Traffic Engineering. Services to the City. of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the fees established in Exhibit A of that agreement have been in effect continuously since October 14, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue contracting for services from Consultant; and WHEREAS, an adjustment of fees for services rendered is desired by both the City and the Consultant. 'NOW, THEREFORE the parties hereto agree as follows': . - Section 1: ' Adjustment of Rates , The TJKM hourly rate schedule . (Exhibit A) , shall replace the' rate' schedule which was adopted by the City Council on October 14, 1985. The change in rates shall be effective July 1, -1987 and shall continue in effect until June 30, 1988, or until rescinded or amended by the City Council, according to the provisions of the agreement. CITY ,OF- DUBLIN Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk TJKM Chris Kinzel Date of Adoption • L1 .A n .1. D1 l ti • T M HOURLY RATE SCHEE_ ,E Proposed c Reduced d 85-86a 86-87b .. 87-88 87-88 Principal $98 - $100 $105 $84 Principal Associate • 82 86 - 90 72 Senior Associate 76 80 84 67 Associate 72 76 80 64 Senior Traffic Engineer 68 72 77 62 Senior Transportation Engineer 68 72 77 62 Traffic Engineer 60 • 66 - 69 55 Transportation Engineer 60 66 69 55 Transportation Planner -- 60 - . . 63 50 Assistant Traffic Engineer 49 - 55 58 46 Traffic Engineering,Assistant 42 45 47 38 - Technician II 34 37 41 33 Technician I 22 23 26 . 21 Graphics Supervisor • 42 45 50 40 Draftsman - - 34 37 - 40 • 32 Project Coordinator . . -- 42 - 44 35 Secretarial 35 37 40 32 Computer 30 •'. - . 30 30 30 • The above rates include standard overhead items. Travel costs are billed at thirty cents per mile. Each project may be subject to initial set up and coordination fees. All outside services are billed at cost,-plus ten percent for handling. - Invoices are due and payable within thirty days. Invoices paid after thirty days will be subject to separate billings of one and one-half percent per month of unpaid balance. Late charges are not included in any agreement for maximum charges. Expert witness charges available on request. a Current TJKM rates in the City of Dublin, established March 1, 1985.. . b Current TJKM rates, not in use in Dublin, established March 1, 1986. c. These rates shall provide for capital improvement design work and shall be applied as indicated in Paragraph III.B.1. • of the master agreement dated October 14, , 19.85. . d. These rates are 80°% . of TJKM standard rates, and shall_ apply to General Traffic Engineering Services and Studies, excluding capital improvement design. • . . • EXHIBIT K PROJECTS IN DUBLIN DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1986 The year 1986 was a banner year for development in Dublin. There will probably never be another year in which so many construction projects were started, were under construction, or were finished. In the private subdivision sector, the following tracts were in operation: 1) Tract 4930: Estate Homes experienced many difficulties resultant from winter rains, the roads being rebuilt twice, and underground utilities being installed twice because of erosion damage. Also, during the week of February 19, mudslides were a great concern. 2) Tracts 4991, 4943, 5003, and 4859: Kaufman and Broad had roads and houses • with open space erosion control areas under construction. 3) Tracts 5072, 5073, and 5074-: Hatfield'Development experienced problems • with underground rock, erosion control, sulfide springs, and general construction. 4) Tract 5402: Far West- created an extremely serious summer problem with • dustr control and slow underground construction. 5) Tract 4719: Beck Homes built out three phases of their single home roads and landscaping. ' 6) Tract 5131: JMH completed Arbor Creek, a condominium, subdivision, in late winter, with continuing punch list problem. 7) Tract 4415: Coral Gate installed sidewalk, curb, gutter, street, and frontage improvements, along with general grading. 8) Tract 5511: Rafanelli and Nahas moved millions of yards of dirt on this 1100+ mixed unit development, which also included: a) The closure, demolition, and rebuilding of Dougherty Road; b) The laying of.a 26-foot-deep sewer line down Amador Valley Blvd. , • which was repaired four times; and c) The building of a box culvert bridge and all interior, roads. 9) Tract 5410: Kaufman and Broad began their high density townhouse development (129 units) flanking either side of Silvergate Drive. • * * * * -1- o A" H In private development exclusive of subdivisions, the following projects were, - "on the front burner." 1) Lew Doty Cadillac dealership on Scarlett Court. 2) The U-Haul curb, gutter, and street improvements on Scarlett Court. 3) Town and Country Shopping Center on San Ramon Road. 4) Great Western building and sitework on Dublin Blvd. at Golden Gate Drive. 5) Grand Auto shopping center on the site next to Great Western on Dublin Blvd. 6) Houston Place and the Admiral building site. 7) Dublin Security Storage site. Each of the above sites involved plan-checking and inspection of underground utilities, drainage, grading, frontage improvements, and concrete and asphalt work. * * * * During 1986,. . the City of Dublin experienced a burst of activity from the private sector, which combined with its own Capital Improvement Projects, made for an active construction year. An interesting bellwether of this activity is the fact:. that the City Engineer's department processed, issued, and inspected over 100 encroachment permits for work in the public right-of-way. This work, while including several driveways for R.V. 's, primarily involved repair and upgrading of facilities by utility companies: . DSRSD, Pacific Bell, . P.G.&E. , and Sprint being the main permit holders. * * * * Santina and Thompson designed, inspected, and administered the following ' Capital Improvement Projects in 1986: 1) Amador Valley Blvd. Rehabilitation: This project, funded with Federal Aid Urban monies, is a complete rebuilding and beautification of the street from Dougherty Road to Village Parkway. 2) San Ramon Road, Phase II: This project involves widening and beautification from Dublin Blvd. to Silvergate .Drive, including new signal systems at • Amador Valley Blvd. and Silvergate. 3) Sierra Court Extension: This project included construction of the entry street for the new Civic Center site, landscaping, and two baseball fields. • 4) Sierra Court Signal: Four median islands were construction, along with landscaping and a signal system at Dublin Blvd. and Sierra Court.. ' -2- • 5) Alcosta Blvd./San Ramon Road: This project included widening of San Ramon Road to Bellina Street and installation of a signal system. 6) Village Parkway Improvements: Major landscaping, beautification, and lighting was installed in median islands and on the east side sidewalk from Amador Valley Blvd. to Kimball Ave. . 7) Annual Sidewalk Repair and Arroyo Vista: This project included repair of hazardous sidewalk throughout the City and additional work at the Arroyo Vista development to correct deficiencies for pedestrian access to Dougherty Road and add some parking improvements. 8) Annual. Slurry Seal Program: This project included repair and protective sealing of over 800,000 square feet of Dublin residential streets. * * * * Other projects conducted by public agencies which were reviewed and inspected by Santina and Thompson were: 1) The undergrounding of all overhead utilities on Dublin Blvd. between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. 2) Rebuilding of the Hopyard/Dougherty/I-580 interchange. . These projects were critical to the visual and traffic continuity-of the City and required specific attention regarding the businesses affected by construction activity. * * * A final note on the activity of 1986: During the heavy rains of the winter, the Santina and Thompson staff took charge of both emergency measures and preventive procedures, insuring that numerous possible claims never reached the City offices. The Santina and Thompson staff was in place and present during every hour of the winter crisis. -3-