Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC FOR DESIGN
SERVICES FOR THE HIGHWAY 116/WEST COTATI AVENUE
INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE
PROJECT
Date: September 24, 2024
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the Council of the City of Cotati adopt a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for design services for the Project, authorizing the City Manager to execute said Professional Services Agreement and approve any needed amendments up to the approved budget amount, and approving the appropriation of funds to the Project account
Background
The intersection of West Cotati Avenue and Highway 116 has long been a safety concern as it serves the West side of town and is off a busy two-lane highway. The City continues to pursue grant funds to improve the intersection and is included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program.
The intersection was included in the previous developer funded Caltrans Highway 116 Widening Project, for which plans were completed in 2009. However, due to the financial crash at that time, the developments did not move forward and the Highway 116 improvements were not completed.
Improving the intersection remains a priority for the City, and in 2021, the City included the Project as one of five projects submitted to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority to prioritize for grant funding opportunities. Additionally in 2021, the City completed its Local Road Safety Plan which identified the intersection improvements as a priority safety project, and, in 2024, the City adopted its Active Transportation Plan which also includes the Project as a high priority. The improvements are envisioned to move ahead in tandem with the recently entitled Cotati Villages 1 and 2 development projects which are to add a total of 303 rental units. The private developments are dependent upon the proposed Project improvements being constructed and impact fees for those projects are to be applied to the Project. Additionally, the City has been successful in obtaining Federal and State funds to partially fund Project construction.
On October 25, 2022, City Council approved professional services agreements to complete the environmental review and 35 percent design for the Project. Those efforts are now complete and on September 10, 2024, City Council approved the Environmental Review and, on September 17, 2024, Staff filed the Project’s Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
Analysis/Discussion
The City‘s Engineering Department issued a Request for Qualifications and, in August 2024, received qualifications from several engineering firms. Upon review of the qualifications, Staff determined Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. to be the most qualified to provide the requested services for the Project. The firm has extensive prior experience for similar projects that require navigating the Caltrans approval process and working with resource agencies. Additionally, Mark Thomas was part of the consultant team that developed the 35 percent of design drawings for the Project. Therefore, Staff requested, and Mark Thomas provided a proposal to complete design, obtain Caltrans project approvals including the encroachment permit, and prepare bid documents for the Project. The effort includes obtaining all foreseeable permits and clearances for construction including a property swap needed for the intersection. With the services beginning this month, bidding is projected to occur sometime in early 2026.
The Mark Thomas proposed scope of services is attached and is to take the 35 percent design to 100 percent and obtain all necessary State and Federal project approvals. Design scope items include the typical project management, surveys and mapping, utility coordination, right of way acquisition, drainage and geotechnical studies and, of course preparing the final plans and bid documents. Because the Project is within the Caltrans right-of-way, Caltrans needs to approve the Project and issue an encroachment permit. Caltrans being involved adds significantly to the project scope and is the primary driver increasing costs. Staff and the consultant believe the Project qualifies for the “streamlined” Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER) process to obtain project approval. This is an extensive process requiring many added steps and approvals by a dozen or more Caltrans Divisions. Many tasks identified as “Optional” are included in the proposal fee but are determined at the discretion of Caltrans. Upon completion of the scope of services, the Project would be cleared to be advertised for bidding and Caltrans approvals would have been obtained to allow construction to begin.
On September 10, 2024, Staff had also recommended that City Council approval of the 100 percent Design Agreement. However, due to the total potential cost of the proposed time and materials based agreement, the City Council directed staff to bring the item back with a billable rate cost comparison to other consulting firms with Caltrans experience. Staff has prepared this comparison, contained herein.
A cost comparison was completed based on the range of hourly rates for other design firms with known Caltrans experience. Two other engineering consulting firms were identified as the next best qualified from the August 2024 Request for Qualifications selection process. For the evaluation, the number of hours for each task was held constant and the respective hourly rates were applied to develop a comparison. While this is necessary for comparison purposes, different firms may have different approaches in accomplishing the work. Additionally, the markup on subconsultants, other fees, and increased time and startup costs for other consultants was also evaluated.
To evaluate the impact of hourly rates on the contract cost, City Staff requested hourly rate tables of the two other consulting firms. The Mark Thomas hours per task per team member table is included with their proposal, attached. The tables for all firms had a low and high range for each job classification. Because the job titles varied between consultants, the job roles were matched based on the City’s understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities. If there was no comparable job classification between firms, the City used the Mark Thomas rate as a placeholder number for that job classification to roll up the total projected cost.
All firms had comparable project manager and engineering roles, which constituted the the bulk of the proposed hours, so this was separately broken out in the table below to run a comparison without any placeholder job classifications. The proportion between low and high (placement in the range) for the Mark Thomas proposal was applied to the range for the other companies to determine likely equivalent hourly rates.
Below is a summary of the resulting comparison.
Company Total (Excluding Subconsultants) PM/Engr Only
Mark Thomas $806,343 $493,440
Consultant 1 $844,949 $544,550
Consultant 2 $818,598 $502,861
The subconsultant costs were pulled out of the total with the assumption that they would be roughly comparable but are presented in terms of the markups applied. The Mark Thomas subconsultant markup is 5 percent and the other two were 10 percent and 15 percent, including one that also added a 6% administrative fee on all charges.
Regarding overall project costs, the proposed agreement is time and materials, not to exceed.
Therefore, the actual cost may be different than the not to exceed number. For budgeting purposes, the Mark Thomas proposal used the high end of the rate ranges and assumed a significant amount of landscape design time. Ultimately, if the City is only landscaping the center median, the actual hours used is likely to be less.
Based on this evaluation, Mark Thomas has the lowest projected total fee amount and the lowest markup for subcontractors. This trend is also reflected with the Project Manager and Engineering costs isolated.
Note that this evaluation does not factor in any cost or time implications of going to a different company to complete the design. If any engineering company takes over a partially complete design from another firm, at a minimum, they will resurvey the benchmarks and spot check the survey as well as verify the line work in the design for liability reasons. This work and familiarizing themselves with the project would add cost and time to the project. Rough estimates are an additional 10-25 percent of the cost of the current 35% design and up to 3 months of additional time.
Financial Considerations
Previous expenditures to develop the 35% design plans include $343,042 for design and $96,190 for CEQA ($439,232).
The City’s adopted FY24/25 Budget includes $362,000, to complete the design for the Project.
The proposed design cost is $1,206,756, which leaves a funding shortfall of approximately $844,756. The table below lists the proposed sources of funding for this shortfall:
Project Proposed Action Available Funds
Putnam Park Phase 1 Project Savings Transfer
Unencumbered Funds
$191,756
Trash Implementation Plan – Phase 1 Postpone $231,000
2025 Street Improvements Project –
Construction*
Use/Replenish $412,000
Gateway Signage Postpone $ 10,000
Total $844,756
* Total budget for construction is $604,000 of which $192,000 is funded by RMRA SB1 funds which has already earmarked with the state for the planned RMRA project and cannot be reallocated.
After opening bids for the Putnam Park Phase 1 work, the unexpected availability of excess funds allows the City to keep the budgeted Class 1 Pathway Maintenance Project fully funded, as well as the full design budget for the 2026 Street Improvements Project. Therefore, these projects are no longer part of the proposed funding strategy for the Highway 116 design.
The Trash Project was to make progress on implementing a ten-year program to reduce trash entering creeks within the City. The State’s deadline for full implementation is December 2nd, 2030. Deferring this year’s trash project, will result in the City having to make these program investments in the remaining years to 2030.
The 2025 Street Improvements Project funds are not expected to be spent until construction is ready in the Spring of 2025. Due to the housing construction around Sonoma Mountain Village, Rohnert Park has been collecting mitigation funds to offset impacts to Cotati roadways. However, these funds have not yet been remitted to the City of Cotati. Staff propose borrowing the already budgeted funds from the 2025 Street Improvements Project now and replenishing these funds with the Rohnert Park traffic mitigation funds when they become available. These funds are estimated to exceed the amount “borrowed” from the 2025 Street Improvements Project.
Next the Gateway Signage project budget for fiscal year 2024/25 where $10,000 was an initial work towards the enhancement of City monuments. The majority of this project was pushed within the City’s 5 year CIP to fiscal year 2025/26 for a total of $573,000. As such staff propose moving this design start-up costs to the 2025/26 fiscal year.
Therefore, the recommended action is to authorize the postponement of the Trash Implementation Plan – Phase 1 Project, the Gateway Signage Project, and reappropriate those funds to the Highway 116/ West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements Project design. Additionally, borrowing the 2025 Street Improvements Project construction funds is intended to be replenished once the Rohnert Park traffic mitigation funds are received by the City.
Environmental Issues
On September 10, 2024, the City Council approved the Environmental Review for the Project and determined there would be no additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the project is exempt pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.