Agenda packet — Morgan Hill City Council, August 19, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

2 Updated May 2026
were interrupted or provided for only part of the month). For services billed on an hourly rate, the minimum unit of billed time shall not exceed one tenth of one hour. CITY shall pay for services and expenses (if so provided in Exhibit B) up to the limit of compensation set forth above, that in the CITY’S judgment were necessary and reasonable. Services for work performed and expenses incurred in excess of the total compensation set forth in paragraph 4.1 above shall be at no cost to CITY.

5. Termination. CITY or CONSULTANT shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice or less under urgent circumstances. Upon such termination, CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an itemized statement of services performed for which compensation has not been paid. CITY may require CONSULTANT to complete certain work product or documents and CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY all documents in its possession without additional compensation to CONSULTANT. The City Manager of CITY is authorized to terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, on behalf of CITY.

5.1. Non-Appropriations. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, if insufficient funds are appropriated, or funds are otherwise unavailable in the budget for CITY for any reason whatsoever in any fiscal year, for payments due under this Agreement, CITY will immediately notify CONSULTANT of such occurrence, and this Agreement shall terminate after the last day during the fiscal year for which appropriations shall have been budgeted for CITY or are otherwise available for payments.

6. Performance of Work. CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified by virtue of experience, training, education, and expertise to accomplish these services. Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT in accordance with professional practices in a manner consistent with a level of care, competence and skill exercised by qualified members of the CONSULTANT’S profession. By delivery of completed work, CONSULTANT certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. CONSULTANT shall perform all work and services under this Agreement in conformance with the time schedule set forth on Exhibit C, "Schedule of Performance," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY'S City Manager is authorized on behalf of CITY to modify the timeframes set forth on the Schedule of Performance within the term of this Agreement. If CONSULTANT desires to leave or store any of CONSULTANT’S equipment at a CITY site while CONSULTANT is performing work or service pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT will first obtain the consent of CITY'S City Manager, or his/her delegate, to do so, and any such storage shall occur only in the manner and location allowed by such CITY official and entirely at CONSULTANT’S sole risk.

7. Insurance Requirements. CONSULTANT shall procure and provide proof of the insurance coverage required by this section in the form of certificates and endorsements. The required insurance must cover the activities of CONSULTANT, including its subcontractors, employees, and agents, relating to, or arising from, the performance of any work or service under this Agreement, and must remain in full force and effect at all times during the period covered by this Agreement. The coverages may be arranged under a single policy for the full limits required or by a combination of underlying policies with the balance provided by excess or “umbrella” policies, provided each such policy complies with the requirements set forth herein. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. CONSULTANT further understands that the CITY reserves the right to modify the insurance requirements set forth herein, with thirty (30) days’ notice provided to CONSULTANT, at any time as deemed necessary to protect the interests of the CITY.

7.1. Insurance Types and Amounts.

Page 128 of 503 ends

3 Updated May 2026

7.1.1. Commercial General Liability (CGL). CONSULTANT shall maintain CGL against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage providing protection in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT’S combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.2. Automobile Liability. CONSULTANT shall maintain Automobile Liability covering all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles (if CONSULTANT does not own automobiles, then CONSULTANT shall maintain Hired/Non-owned Automobile Liability) against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage providing protection in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT’S combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.3. Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability. CONSULTANT shall maintain Workers Compensation coverage, as required by law, in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT’S combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater. If CONSULTANT is selfinsured, CONSULTANT shall provide its Certificate of Permission to Self-Insure, duly authorized by the Department of Industrial Relations.

7.1.4. Pollution (Environmental) Liability. If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves hazardous materials, contaminated soil disposal, and/or a risk of accidental release of fuel oil, chemicals or other toxic gases or hazardous materials, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain Pollution Liability covering the CONSULTANT’S liability for bodily injury, property damage and environmental damage resulting from pollution and related cleanup costs arising out of the work or services to be performed under this Agreement.

Coverage shall be provided for both work performed on site, as well as during the transport of hazardous materials. Such coverage shall be in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT’S combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.5. Professional Liability.

7.1.5.1. If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves professional and/or technical services (examples include, but are not limited to, architects, engineers, land surveyors, and appraisers), CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain either a claims made or occurrence Errors and Omission liability insurance in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT’S combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is

Page 129 of 503 ends

4 Updated May 2026
greater. Further, if CONSULTANT maintains a claims-made policy, CONSULTANT shall provide written evidence of such insurance to the CITY for at least five (5) years after the completion of work performed under this Agreement.

7.1.5.2. If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement relates to Information Technology or related services (examples include, but are not limited to computer programmers, software designers, hardware engineers, or other systems consultants), CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain a claims made Errors and Omission liability insurance, including Cyber Liability and Data Breach, in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT’S combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.6. Sexual Abuse/Molestation Liability (SML): If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves contact with minors, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain Sexual Abuse and Molestation insurance in the minimum amount of: (i) two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT’S combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.2. Endorsements. CONSULTANT shall provide proof of the following endorsements, listed for each policy for which endorsements are required, as outlined below:

7.2.1. General Liability and pollution liability (when pollution liability applies).

7.2.1.1. “Additionally Insured” - The City of Morgan Hill, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are named as additional insureds.

7.2.1.2. “Waiver of Rights of Subrogation” - The insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City of Morgan Hill and CITY’S elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers; and

7.2.1.3. “Primary and Non-Contributing” - Insurance shall be endorsed to be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self-insurance.

7.2.2. Workers Compensation.

If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves access to or activity on any property or premises owned or occupied by the CITY, including, but not limited to, CONSULTANT’S presence during site visits and meetings, then insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City of Morgan Hill and the CITY’S elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

7.3. Qualification of Insurers. All insurance required pursuant to this Agreement must be issued by a company licensed and admitted, or otherwise legally authorized to carry out

Page 130 of 503 ends

5 Updated May 2026
insurance business in the State of California, and each insurer must have a current A.M.

Best's financial strength rating of “A” or better and a financial size rating of “VII” or better.

7.4. Certificates. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY of Morgan Hill with copies of all certificates as outlined herein, whether new or modified, promptly upon receipt. In the event of a claim or legal action, CONSULTANT shall promptly furnish CITY of Morgan Hill with copies of all policies outlined herein. No policy subject to the CONSULTANT’S agreement with the CITY shall be canceled or materially changed except after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to CITY. A "material change" is a change that results in noncompliance with any insurance requirements in this section 7. Certificates, including renewal certificates, may be mailed electronically to [email protected] or delivered to the Certificate Holder address provided herein.

Certificate Holder address:

City of Morgan Hill
Attn: Risk Management
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

8. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Agreement.

9. Compliance with Law.

9.1. CONSULTANT and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, administrative regulations, and permitting requirements in carrying out their obligations under this Agreement. CONSULTANT and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors covenant there shall be no discrimination based upon any basis prohibited by State or Federal law, including but not limited to, race, color, creed, religion, gender, marital status, age, sexual orientation, national origin, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, or ancestry, in any activity pursuant to this Agreement.

9.2. Compliance with Wage and Hour Laws: Consultant, and any subcontractor it employs to complete work under this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local wage and hour laws. Applicable laws may include, but are not limited to, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Final Judgments, Decisions, and Orders: For purposes of this Section, a “final judgment, decision, or order” refers to one for which all appeals have been exhausted or the time to appeal has expired. Relevant investigatory government agencies include: the federal Department of Labor, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or any other governmental entity or division tasked with the investigation and enforcement of wage and hour laws.

Prior Judgments against CONSULTANT and/or its Subcontractors: BY SIGNING THIS

AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT HAS DISCLOSED ANY FINAL

JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS FROM A COURT OR INVESTIGATORY GOVERNMENT AGENCY FINDING – IN THE FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT – THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS

Page 131 of 503 ends

6 Updated May 2026
VIOLATED ANY APPLICABLE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. CONSULTANT FURTHER

AFFIRMS THAT IT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH – OR HAS REACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WILL SATISFY – ANY SUCH JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS.

Judgments or Decisions During Term of Contract: If at any time during the term of this Agreement, a court or investigatory government agency issues a final judgment, decision or order finding that CONSULTANT or an subcontractor it employs to perform work under this Agreement has violated any applicable wage and hour law, or CONSULTANT learns of such a judgment, decision, or order that was not previously disclosed, CONSULTANT shall inform the City Attorney, no more than fifteen (15) days after the judgment, decision or order becomes final or of learning of the final judgment, decision, or order.

CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall promptly satisfy and comply with any such judgment, decision, or order, and shall provide the City Attorney with documentary evidence of compliance with the final judgment, decision, or order within five (5) days of satisfying the final judgment, decision, or order. The City reserves the right to require CONSULTANT to enter into an agreement with the City regarding the manner in which any such final judgment, decision, or order will be satisfied.

City’s Right to Withhold Payment: Where CONSULTANT or any subcontractor it employs to perform work under this Agreement has been found in violation of any applicable wage and hour law by a final judgment, decision or order of a court or government agency, the City reserves the right to withhold payment to CONSULTANT until such judgment, decision or order has been satisfied in full.

Material Breach: Failure to comply with any part of this Section constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Such breach may serve as a basis for immediate termination of this Agreement and/or any other remedies available under this Agreement and/or law.

Notice to City Related to Wage Theft Prevention: Notice provided to the City Attorney as required under this Section shall be addressed to: City Attorney, City of Morgan Hill, 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037. The Notice provisions of this Section are separate from any other notice provisions in this Agreement and, accordingly, only notice provided to the above address satisfies the notice requirements in this Section.

10. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.

11. Confidentiality. All data, documents, or other information received by CONSULTANT from CITY or prepared in connection with CONSULTANT’S services under this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party by CONSULTANT without prior written consent by CITY.

12. Conflict of Interest and Reporting. CONSULTANT shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this Agreement including, without limitation, complying with California Government Code section 1090 et seq., the California Political Reform Act (California Government Code section 87100 et seq.) and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning disclosure and disqualification (2 California Code of Regulations section 18700 et seq.). CONSULTANT will further comply, and will ensure that its agents and its subcontractors comply, with California Government Code section 84308 (“Levine Act”) and the applicable regulations

Page 132 of 503 ends

7 Updated May 2026
of the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning campaign disclosure (2 California Code of Regulations sections 18438.1 – 18438.8).

13. Notices. All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed, via first class mail to the below listed address. These addresses shall be used for delivery of service of process. Notices shall be effective five (5) days after date of mailing, or upon date of personal delivery.

Address of CONSULTANT is as follows:

TL ENGINEERING CORP
Attn: Leo Trujillo
314 Colville Dr.

San Jose, CA 95123
Address of CITY is as follows:

Yat Cho,
Senior Project Manager
and
Maria Angeles,
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Ave.

Morgan Hill, CA 95037
with a copy to:

City Clerk
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

14. Licenses, Permits and Fees. CONSULTANT shall obtain a City of Morgan Hill Business License, all permits and licenses to the extent required by ordinances, codes, and regulations of the federal, state, and local government.

15. Consultant's Proposal. If applicable, this Agreement shall include CONSULTANT'S proposal or bid which is incorporated herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the proposal and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.

16. Maintenance of Records.

16.1. Maintenance. CONSULTANT shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, and CITY rules and ordinances related to services provided under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain records for a period of at least 3 years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating to this Agreement is pending at the end of the 3-year period, then CONSULTANT shall retain said records until such action is resolved.

16.2. Access to and Audit of Records. The CITY shall have the right to examine, monitor and audit all records, documents, conditions, and activities of the CONSULTANT and its subcontractors related to services under this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, if this Agreement involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of $10,000, the Parties to this Agreement may be subject, at the request of the CITY or as part of any audit of the CITY, to the examination and audit of the State Auditor pertaining to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement for a period of three years after final payment under the Agreement.

Page 133 of 503 ends

8 Updated May 2026

16.3. Ownership of Work Product. All documents or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT for work performed under this Agreement shall be the property of CITY. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with copies of these items upon demand or upon termination of this Agreement.

17. Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that: (1) it has investigated the work to be performed; (2) it has investigated the site of the work and is aware of all conditions there; and (3) it understands the difficulties and restrictions of the work under this Agreement.

Should CONSULTANT discover any conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by CITY, it shall immediately inform CITY and shall not proceed, except at CONSULTANT'S risk, until written instructions are received from CITY.

18. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

19. No Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any portion shall be assigned by CONSULTANT, without prior written consent of CITY. Any attempted assignment not first approved by CITY shall be void and, at CITY'S option, shall terminate this Agreement effective as of the date of such attempted assignment.

20. Attorney Fees. In any legal action, dispute or arbitration arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred.

21. Defense and Indemnification.

21.1. Defense and Indemnification for Design Professional Services. Consistent with California Civil Code Section 2782.8, for design professional services to be performed under this agreement by a design professional, as that term is defined under said Section 2782.8, CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (“INDEMNITEES”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, liens, or damages of any nature, including liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, and including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, and/or its agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors in performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement (“CLAIM”) to the extent of CONSULTANT’S proportionate percentage of fault.

21.2. Defense and Indemnification for Non-Design Professional Services. For all services performed under this agreement not covered by Section 21.1 above, CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (“INDEMNITEES”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, liens, or damages of any nature, including liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, and including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the performance of this Agreement or the failure to comply with any obligations contained in this Agreement by CONSULTANT, and/or its agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors (“CLAIM”).

Page 134 of 503 ends

9 Updated May 2026

21.3. Exceptions. CONSULTANT is not required to indemnify INDEMNITEES against liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, or any other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of the CITY.

21.4. Not limited by insurance. The indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions of this Agreement apply to all CLAIMS alleged against an INDEMNITEE, regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. Policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification or defense to be provided by CONSULTANT.

21.5. Right to Offset. CITY shall have the right to offset against any compensation due CONSULTANT under this Agreement any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT as a result of CONSULTANT’S failure to pay CITY promptly any indemnification arising under this Section (21) and any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT arising from CONSULTANT’S failure either to (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers' compensation laws.

21.6. Interpretation. This Section shall constitute an agreement or contract of indemnity, incorporating the interpretations under California Civil Code Section 2778. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligation of the CONSULTANT to indemnify the INDEMNITEE shall be as broad and inclusive as permitted by the laws of the State of California and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

22. Entire Agreement; Modification; Conflicting Provisions. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and supersedes any previous agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may be modified, or provisions waived, only by a subsequent mutual written agreement executed by CITY and CONSULTANT. If the provisions contained in the main body of this Agreement conflict with any provision contained in an exhibit to this Agreement, the provisions of the main body of this Agreement shall govern and control over any provision contained in an exhibit to this Agreement.

23. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement was entered into and is to be performed in the County of Santa Clara. Any action or dispute arising out of this Agreement shall only be brought in Santa Clara County.

24. Interpretation. This Agreement is a negotiated document and shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by the Parties, and no rule of construction or interpretation shall apply against any particular Party based on a contention that the Agreement was drafted by one of the Parties including, but not limited to, California Civil Code § 1654, the provisions of which are hereby waived. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in a neutral manner.

25. Notice of Security and/or Privacy Incident. If CONSULTANT, or its subconsultant, suspect, discover or are notified of a data security incident or potential breach of security and/or privacy relating to CITY PII, PHI and/or PCI, CONSULTANT shall immediately, but in no event later than forty-eight (48) hours from suspicion, discovery or notification of the incident or potential breach, notify CITY of such incident or potential breach. CONSULTANT shall, upon CITY’s request, investigate such incident or potential breach, inform the CITY of the results of any such investigation, and assist the CITY in maintaining the confidentiality of such information. In addition to the foregoing, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with any assistance necessary to comply with any state and/or federal laws requiring the provision of notice of any privacy incident or security breach with respect to any CITY PII, PHI and/or PCI to the affected or impacted individuals and/or organizations, in addition to any notification to applicable state and federal agencies. CONSULTANT agrees that it shall reimburse CITY for all

Page 135 of 503 ends

10 Updated May 2026
expenses, costs, attorneys’ fees, and resulting fines, penalties, and damages associated with such incident, breach, investigation and/or notification.

26. Preservation of Agreement. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected or invalidated.

27. Binding Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 19 above, this Agreement shall bind any and all successors in interest, legal representatives and/or other permitted assignees or transferees of CONSULTANT in the same manner as if those successors in interest, legal representatives or other permitted assignees or transferees had entered into this Agreement originally.

28. ☒ Data Sharing. This Agreement requires access by CONSULTANT to CITY’S Geographic Information System (GIS) DATA for CONSULTANT to perform the work. CITY agrees to provide the GIS DATA to CONSULTANT solely for the purpose of performance of contracted work with the CITY upon the terms and conditions specified in Exhibit D, incorporated herein by this reference.

29. Electronic Signatures. Unless otherwise prohibited by law or CITY policy, the Parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a transmission by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means of a copy of an original signed contract in a portable document format. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the CITY.

30. Counterpart Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. ///
///
[Signatures on Next Page]

Page 136 of 503 ends

11 Updated May 2026

31. Authority to Execute. Those individuals who are signing this Agreement on behalf of entities represent and warrant that they are, respectively, duly authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, these Parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year shown below.

AS SET FORTH IN CA. CORP. CODE § 313, TWO SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED FOR CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS:
(1) CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT, OR VICE PRESIDENT; AND (2) SECRETARY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR ASSISTANT TREASURER.

ATTEST: CITY OF MORGAN HILL
City Clerk City Manager
Michelle Bigelow Christina J. Turner
Print Name Print Name
Date: Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM: TL ENGINEERING CORP
City Attorney By:

Elisa Tolentino
Print Name
Date:

Print Name and Title of Signer.

If Corporate: Chairman, President or
Vice President
Date:

By:

Date:

Print Name and Title of Signer.

If Corporate: Secretary, Assistant
Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or
Assistant Treasurer
Leopoldo Trujillo, President
Celina Lee, Secretary
7/23/2026
7/23/2026

Page 137 of 503 ends

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICE
Under the direct supervision of the Capital Improvement and Land Development Engineering staff, the selected firms will provide services for one or both service categories within a three-year period (Fiscal Years 2026-27, 27-28, 28-29).

Contracts may be extended. The following are the service categories and the types of tasks that may be asked of the successful firms:

On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services Related to CIP Projects

1. Design and Review of Capital Improvement Project Plans and Specifications for consistency with City's transportation policies and programs, traffic impact study guidelines, and with transportation best practices. This involves the review of roadway design, traffic signals, roadside safety features, signage and striping, and related features and activities.

2. Perform other miscellaneous traffic engineering services as needed.

On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services Related to Land Development .Projects

1. Review of development proposals for consistency with City's transportation policies and programs, traffic impact study guidelines, and with transportation best practices. This involves the review of roadway design, traffic signals, roadside safety features, signage and striping, and related features and activities.

2. Train City staff in specific transportation planning areas as requested.

3. Perform other miscellaneous traffic engineering services as needed.

Consultant services will be on an as-needed, on-call basis. Due to the as-needed nature of the work, no work is guaranteed on a contract, even if awarded. The scope of work will vary and will be requested on a task order basis as the need arises. Task orders may be in the form of a written or verbal request. The Consultant is responsible for acknowledging receipt of requests within two (2) working days. Task orders may vary significantly in size and scope and will be determined in greater detail as each task order is assigned. The City will assign a Project Engineer who will coordinate and work with each Consultant and will issue the task orders. The City's Project Engineer will discuss the scope of services with each selected Consultant prior to issuing a task order. The Consultant will be responsible for preparing a detailed scope and fee estimate for each task order. The City may accept the Consultant's scope and fee or negotiate with the Consultant, as appropriate. The City reserves the right to not accept the Consultant's scope and fee. 12

Page 138 of 503 ends

314 Colville Dr
San Jose, CA 95123
T 209-829-1553

Page 1 of 1 ends

TLE Billing Structure 2026.docx

TL ENGINEERING BILLING STRUCTURE

CITY OF MORGAN HILL ON-CALL TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICE (Effective through December 31, 2026. An approximate rate increase of 4% will be applied at the beginning of every year thereafter)

HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Classification Rate
Principal Engineer .................................................................................................................................... $260 Senior Engineer ........................................................................................................................................ $230 Associate Engineer ................................................................................................................................... $210

EXPENSE SCHEDULE
Subconsultants ........................................................................................................................... Fee plus 15% Client-Requested Overtime........................................................................................... Hourly Rate plus 25% All other expenses, including: ...........................................................................Actual Cost plus 15% Delivery Service
Outside Printing & Reproduction (including hard-copy plans) Mileage - Auto
Outside Consultants
Filing or Permit Fees
Travel & Expenses

EXHIBIT B

Page 139 of 503 ends

Northern California Pricing 2026
Intersection Turning Movements
Region 2 Hour
1 Person
2 Hour
2 Person
4 Hour
1 Person
4 Hour
2 Person
6 Hour
1 Person
6 Hour
2 Person
Outer Area $210 $325 $325 $520 $475 $770
Machine / Hose Counts
Region
Volume Class OR Speed Class & Speed
1 st Day Additional
Days
1 st Day Additional
Days
1 st Day Additional
Days
Outer Area $120 $60 $175 $80 $190 $90
24 Hour Cameras
Region 1
st Day Additional
Days
Review of
Video
Outer Area $250 $105 $35 / Hour
Wavetronix
Region
Wavetronix Only + Backup Camera
1 st Day Additional
Days 1
st Day Additional
Days
Outer Area $450 $200 $750 $375
*Price reflects a 1-unit installation. Most project sites require 2-units for installation Camera installation is for any 4 hours of review to correct Wavetronix detection during heavy periods of Additional Services
Region Bike / Ped
Counts
Parking
Survey
Travel
Time
Radar
(High vol)
Radar
(Average)
Radar
(Low vol)
Outer Area $90 / Hour $90 / Hour $175 / Hour $90 $125 $175

Page 140 of 503 ends

IDAX Data Solutions Price List 2026
1 IDAX Price List 2026—Morgan Hill On-Call
− Prices are for individual or small orders. Larger volumes will result in unit-price decrease − All data is guaranteed and will be recollected immediately if there are any issues − Standard turnaround is (3) business days after collection, unless otherwise communicated prior to deployment − All video footage is retained for 60 days and is available upon request at no extra cost. IDAX does not guarantee video retention beyond 60 days, unless otherwise communicated.

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS (Including Peds, Bicycles, and Heavy Vehicles):
• NOTE: Minimum fee per job: FLAT $600
Standard TMC:

Roundabouts:

Lane Geometry
Driveway In/Outs:

ADT COUNTS:
• NOTE: Minimum fee per job: FLAT $600

PNEUMATIC TUBE COUNTS

VIDEO SCREENLINE COUNTS
24-HR 72-HR 7-DAY
$275 $375 $500
$300 $400 $525
$325 $425 $550
Tube Volume Only:

Tube Volume/Speed/Class:

Tube Vehicle Gap Analysis:

Video Volume/Lights & Heavies:

Video Volume/3+ Class:

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYLE COUNTS:
• Method of Collection: Video
• NOTE: Minimum fee per job: FLAT $600
GENERAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE:

Segment Count:

Intersection Crosswalk Count:

Video Only:

Reduction Only:

Drone:

CURBSIDE LOADING ACTIVITY:
• Method of Collection: Video
$80/Hour
$130/Hour
$50/Intersection
$55/Hour
$55/Hour
$60/Hour
$200/Camera/Day
Bid On Individual Basis
Bid On Individual Basis
Bid on Individual Basis
TRAVEL TIME & ORIGIN/DESTINATION SURVEYS:

Bid on Individual Basis
Bid on Individual Basis
$150/Hour/Tech
$1200/Unit/Week
INRIX Roadway Analytics:

INRIX Trips Data:

Floating Car:

Bluetooth/WiFi:

License Plate Collection: $150/Camera/Hour
HAND-HELD RADAR SURVEYS: Certified Collector: $175/Hour MUTCD Guidelines: $325/Site
Bid on Individual Basis

Page 141 of 503 ends

IDAX Data Solutions Price List 2026
2 IDAX Price List 2026—Morgan Hill On-Call
QUEUING SURVEYS:

Video:

Manual:

Bid on Individual Basis
$90/Hour/Technician
ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Parking Collection: Bid on Individual Basis Asset Collection: Bid on Individual Basis
$90/Hour
$90/Hour
Tech “In the Field” Data Collection:

Travel Outside Local Area:

Tech Overtime Rate:

Delivery of Project Video: Free
If you have any questions/concerns, please email [email protected] and one of our Project Managers will get back to you shortly.

Garrett Strang | Operations Manager
[email protected]
(415) 444-6376
*At IDAX we believe employees should be paid a living wage and receive a robust benefits package. All full-time IDAX staff are paid at or above prevailing wages, provided health insurance, dental insurance, 401k matching, and a health savings account. − Prices are for individual or small orders. Larger volumes will result in unit-price decrease − All data is guaranteed and will be recollected immediately if there are any issues − Standard turnaround is (3) business days after collection, unless otherwise communicated prior to deployment − All video footage is retained for 60 days and is available upon request at no extra cost. IDAX does not guarantee video retention beyond 60 days, unless otherwise communicated. $135/Hour

Page 142 of 503 ends

14 Updated May 2026

EXHIBIT C

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT’S services will be performed on an as needed, on call basis for the 2 type of services:
a) On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services related to Capital Improvement Program (CIP); b) On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services Related to Land Development Projects as further described in Exhibit A. CONSULTANT’S work will be coordinated and performed under the direction of the CITY.

Page 143 of 503 ends

EXHIBIT D
Third Party Data Use Agreement

1. CONSUL TANT agrees that it shall not use any information provided by CITY for any purpose other than for work performed pursuant to this Agreement without the prior express written consent of CITY. CONSUL TANT also hereby acknowledges that the data delivered by CITY is for use by CONSUL TANT only, and is not to be released to any other party by any means whatsoever, including the Internet, without prior written consent of CITY. CONSUL TANT shall provide written notice to CITY of any subcontractor with whom Geographic Information System data (GIS DATA) is shared for purposes of performing work under this Agreement.

2. All data and files are intended for the use within the ordinary course of users' business and may not be sold, placed on the internet or otherwise provided to other parties. All data shall comply with all statutes such as California State Law, Government Code section 7928.205 which prohibits any state or local agency from posting the home address or telephone number of any "elected or appointed official," residing spouse, or child on the internet, and Revenue and Taxation Code sections 408,408.1, 408.3, and 409 permitting the County Assessor to collect fees for certain information.

3. CITY, as rightful owners, shall retain all rights, title, interest, and copyright of the data. Any products using the GIS DATA must give credit to CITY as the source of the information. Any and all derivative products of the GIS DATA are owned by CITY and may not be used for any purpose other than performing work pursuant to this Agreement without prior written permission of CITY.

All derivative products and resulting data shall be provided to CITY Project Manager and CITY GIS Manager at the completion of the work.

4. CONSUL TANT and CITY understand and agree that the information provided pursuant to this Agreement is the product of professional services paid for by CITY and shall remain property of CITY. CONSUL TANT may retain copies, including copies stored on magnetic media, only for information and reference, in connection with CONSULTANT'S use for work performed for CITY.

5. All of the above terms and conditions apply to any subcontractor retained by CONSULTANT.

6. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Third Party Data Use Agreement and the terms and provisions of the CONSUL TANT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, the terms of the CONSUL TANT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS shall govern and control.
1 Updated June 2020

Page 144 of 503 ends

1 Updated May 2026

CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into and becomes effective on _______________ (Effective Date), by and between the CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation, ("CITY"), and HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. a California corporation ("CONSULTANT") hereinafter referred to collectively as “Parties.” In consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

1. City Authority. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the action of the Morgan Hill City Council taken on August 19, 2026.

2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall cover services rendered from the Effective Date of this Agreement until June 30, 2029, at which time CONSULTANT’S services shall be completed. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement for a maximum period of one year. .Any such extension shall be in writing and signed by both Parties to this Agreement.

3. Scope of Service. The services to be performed by CONSULTANT shall be development of a Transportation Master Plan as further described in Exhibit A.

4. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall be compensated as follows:

4.1. A. Amount. $264,000.00. Total compensation to CONSULTANT under this Agreement during its initial term set forth in Section 2 above shall not exceed Two Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars or Eighty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($88,000.00) per annum, for the On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services related to Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and shall be billed based on the rate and basis set forth in Exhibit B. and;
B. Amount. $36,000.00. Total compensation to CONSULTANT under this Agreement during its initial term set forth in Section 2 above shall not exceed Thirty-Six Thousand Dollars, or Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) per annum, for the On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services Related to Land Development Projects, and shall be billed based on the rate and basis set forth in Exhibit B. If the City Manager extends the term of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 above, the City Manager shall have the authority to increase the maximum compensation allowed to be paid to CONSULTANT, so long as City Council has appropriated sufficient funds therefor, the Parties mutually agree to such amount in a writing signed by both Parties to this Agreement and provided further that in no event shall such maximum compensation allowed for the extended term exceed 105% of maximum compensation for one year of service during the immediately preceding prior year of service.

Page 145 of 503 ends

2 Updated May 2026
rate, the minimum unit of billed time shall not exceed one tenth of one hour. CITY shall pay for services and expenses (if so provided in Exhibit B) up to the limit of compensation set forth above, that in the CITY’S judgment were necessary and reasonable. Services for work performed and expenses incurred in excess of the total compensation set forth in paragraph 4.1 above shall be at no cost to CITY.

5. Termination. CITY or CONSULTANT shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice or less under urgent circumstances. Upon such termination, CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an itemized statement of services performed for which compensation has not been paid. CITY may require CONSULTANT to complete certain work product or documents, and CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY all documents in its possession without additional compensation to CONSULTANT. The City Manager of CITY is authorized to terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, on behalf of CITY.

7.1. Insurance Types and Amounts.

Page 146 of 503 ends

3 Updated May 2026

7.1.5. Professional Liability.

Page 147 of 503 ends

7.2. Endorsements. CONSULTANT shall provide proof of the following endorsements, listed for each policy for which endorsements are required, as outlined below:

7.2.1. General Liability and pollution liability (when pollution liability applies).

7.2.1.1. “Additionally Insured” - The City of Morgan Hill, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are named as additional insureds.

7.2.1.3. “Primary and Non-Contributing” - Insurance shall be endorsed to be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self-insurance.

7.2.2. Workers Compensation.

7.3. Qualification of Insurers. All insurance required pursuant to this Agreement must be issued by a company licensed and admitted, or otherwise legally authorized to carry out

Page 148 of 503 ends

5 Updated May 2026
insurance business in the State of California, and each insurer must have a current A.M.

Best's financial strength rating of “A” or better and a financial size rating of “VII” or better.

Certificate Holder address:

City of Morgan Hill
Attn: Risk Management
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

8. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Agreement.

9. Compliance with Law.

Prior Judgments against CONSULTANT and/or its Subcontractors: BY SIGNING THIS

AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT HAS DISCLOSED ANY FINAL

JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS FROM A COURT OR INVESTIGATORY GOVERNMENT AGENCY FINDING – IN THE FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT – THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS

Page 149 of 503 ends

6 Updated May 2026
VIOLATED ANY APPLICABLE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. CONSULTANT FURTHER

10. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.

Page 150 of 503 ends

7 Updated May 2026
of the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning campaign disclosure (2 California Code of Regulations sections 18438.1 – 18438.8).

Address of CONSULTANT is as follows:

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Address of CITY is as follows:

Yat Cho,
Senior Project Manager
and
Maria Angeles,
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Ave.

Morgan Hill, CA 95037
with a copy to:

City Clerk
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

16. Maintenance of Records.

Page 151 of 503 ends

8 Updated May 2026

18. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

21. Defense and Indemnification.

21.2. Defense and Indemnification for Non-Design Professional Services. For all services performed under this agreement not covered by Section 21.1 above, CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (“INDEMNITEES”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, liens, or damages of any nature, including liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, and including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct,

Page 152 of 503 ends

9 Updated May 2026
of CONSULTANT, and/or its agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors in performance of work hereunder (“CLAIM”) to the extent of CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault.

Page 153 of 503 ends

10 Updated May 2026
provide CITY with any assistance necessary to comply with any state and/or federal laws requiring the provision of notice of any privacy incident or security breach with respect to any CITY PII, PHI and/or PCI to the affected or impacted individuals and/or organizations, in addition to any notification to applicable state and federal agencies. CONSULTANT agrees that it shall reimburse CITY for all expenses, costs, attorneys’ fees, and resulting fines, penalties, and damages associated with such incident, breach, investigation and/or notification.

Page 154 of 503 ends

11 Updated May 2026

IN WITNESS THEREOF, these Parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year shown below.

ATTEST: CITY OF MORGAN HILL
City Clerk City Manager
Michelle Bigelow Christina J. Turner
Print Name Print Name
Date: Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM: HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.

City Attorney By:

Elisa Tolentino
Print Name
Date:

Print Name and Title of Signer.

If Corporate: Chairman, President or
Vice President
Date:

By:

Date:

Print Name and Title of Signer.

If Corporate: Secretary, Assistant
Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or
Assistant Treasurer
Jeff Elia, Vice President 8/3/26 Brett Walinski, CFO 8/3/26 Page 155 of 503

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Under the direct supervision of the Capital Improvement and Land Development Engineering staff, the selected firms will provide services for one or both service categories within a three-year period (Fiscal Years 2026-27, 2027-28, 2028-29).

Contracts may be extended. The following are the service categories and the types of tasks that may be asked of the successful firms:

On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services Related to CIP Projects

1. Design and Review of Capital Improvement Project Plans and Specifications for consistency with City’s transportation policies and programs, traffic impact study guidelines, and with transportation best practices. This involves the review of roadway design, traffic signals, roadside safety features, signage and striping, and related features and activities.

2. Perform other miscellaneous traffic engineering services as needed.

On-Call Transportation/Traffic Engineering Services Related to Land Development Projects

1. Review of development proposals for consistency with City’s transportation policies and programs, traffic impact study guidelines, and with transportation best practices. This involves the review of roadway design, traffic signals, roadside safety features, signage and striping, and related features and activities.

2. Train City staff in specific transportation planning areas as requested.

3. Perform other miscellaneous traffic engineering services as needed.

Consultant services will be on an as-needed, on-call basis. Due to the as-needed nature of the work, no work is guaranteed on a contract, even if awarded. The scope of work will vary and will be requested on a task order basis as the need arises. Task orders may be in the form of a written or verbal request. The Consultant is responsible for acknowledging receipt of requests within two (2) working days. Task orders may vary significantly in size and scope and will be determined in greater detail as each task order is assigned. The City will assign a Project Engineer who will coordinate and work with each Consultant and will issue the task orders. The City’s Project Engineer will discuss the scope of services with each selected Consultant prior to issuing a task order. The Consultant will be responsible for preparing a detailed scope and fee estimate for each task order. The City may accept the Consultant’s scope and fee or negotiate with the Consultant, as appropriate. The City reserves the right to not accept the Consultant’s scope and fee.

Page 156 of 503 ends

Page | 12
Section 2:

Key Team Members
Section 3:

Scope Approach
Section 4:

References
Section 5:

Certification
Section 6:

Exhibits
Section 1:

Company/Firm
Tab 3. Approach to Scope of Work
Overall Capabilities and Expertise
Hexagon provides every service identified in the Category A scope of services in-house.

Hexagon Capabilities
and Expertise
Traffic Signal Design
• Signal installation and modification plans
• Enhanced Crosswalk Design (RRFBs, PHBs)
• Fiber optic signal interconnect system
design
• Bike signals
Signing, Striping & Traffic Control
• Signing, striping, and pavement
delineation plans
• Traffic control and construction staging
plans
Complete Streets Design
• ADA-compliant intersection and curb ramp
design
• Bikeway and bicycle facility design, including
Class IV separated bikeways and two-stage
turn boxes
• Protected intersection corner treatments
Traffic Operations & Analysis
• Traffic operations analysis and signal
warrant studies
• Intersection level of service
evaluations
• Safety studies and collision analysis
• Engineering and Traffic Surveys for
speed zones
• Traffic simulation (Synchro, VISSIM,
SIDRA)
Plan Review & CIP Support
• Peer review of PS&E packages prepared by
other consultants
• CIP plan and specification review for City
standards compliance
• Review for Caltrans, CA MUTCD, and ADA
compliance
• Engineer’s cost estimate preparation and
review
Standards: Caltrans Standard Plans | CA MUTCD | Highway Design Manual | Local Agency Requirements Software: AutoCAD | Synchro/SimTraffic | VISSIM | Vistro | SIDRA |Agi32 |AutoTURN Knowledge of Morgan Hill
Hexagon's greatest strength for this assignment is our deep familiarity with Morgan Hill.

Through the Transportation Master Plan, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the City's transportation network, including its operational characteristics, safety challenges, multimodal gaps, and planned improvements. We conducted Engineering and Traffic Surveys for 98 street segments citywide, reviewed intersection operations throughout the city, and worked closely with City staff to develop the CIP improvement list and are currently working with the City on the Traffic Impact Fee program update that will guide capital investment over the coming years.

Page 157 of 503 ends

Page | 13
Section 2:

Key Team Members
Section 3:

Scope Approach
Section 4:

References
Section 5:

Certification
Section 6:

Exhibits
Section 1:

Company/Firm
This knowledge directly benefits on-call task orders. When the City assigns a plan review, a signal modification, or a signing and striping project, our team will already understand the surrounding network context, planned improvements in the area, and the City's broader transportation priorities. We do not need a learning curve; we are ready to contribute from day one. For peer review assignments, this local knowledge is particularly valuable. We can evaluate whether a consultant's design
accounts for known traffic patterns,
planned improvements in the area,
and field conditions that may not be
apparent from CAD basemaps and
design plans alone.

Our 25-plus development traffic
studies in Morgan Hill, completed
over just the past six to seven years,
have given us additional familiarity
with the City's traffic impact study
guidelines, review procedures, and
the expectations of City staff. Our
signal design and TCP projects have
given us hands-on experience with
Morgan Hill's construction
environment, utility conditions, and
field constraints.

Work Plan or Proposal
Described below are the procedures
and project management approach
Hexagon would employ to deliver a
successful project for the City.

Developing a Project
Understanding
For many potential assignments in
Morgan Hill, Hexagon already has
project background and familiarity
with traffic conditions, operational
issues, and planned improvements in
various areas of the City. This existing
knowledge base allows us to develop
a more informed project
understanding from the outset and
helps streamline the scoping process

Page 158 of 503 ends

Page | 14
Section 2:

Key Team Members
Section 3:

Scope Approach
Section 4:

References
Section 5:

Certification
Section 6:

Exhibits
Section 1:

Company/Firm
and ensure that our scope addresses not only the immediate project needs but also aligns with the City's broader transportation goals.

Project Scoping
A key aspect of Hexagon’s project management approach, which helps keep our projects on budget, is a thorough and complete project scoping process.

Project Staffing
Our flexible staffing approach allows us to quickly and efficiently allocate resources to on-call assignments as they come in.

Jeff Elia, Vice President and Principal Associate, will serve as Principal-in-Charge and would be responsible for Hexagon team management. Jeff would also be the principal-level day-to-day Project Manager. Jeff works in Hexagon’s Gilroy office, just a short drive from Morgan Hill, which allows for field reviews, construction site visits, and in-person meetings on relatively short notice.

Quality Assurance
We take every step necessary to ensure that our work meets or exceeds our clients’ expectations. To ensure the highest level of quality, we follow a quality assurance process that minimizes the impact of errors and ensures that our clients receive the best possible service.

Our quality assurance process is described in more detail below.

Responsiveness
Our proven track record of success in completing projects of varying sizes and complexity is a testament to our ability to handle any project, large or small, at any time. We believe one of the things our clients appreciate most about working with Hexagon is how quickly we mobilize on new assignments and how responsive we are throughout the project. We treat every assignment with urgency, and our team structure allows us to begin work on most task orders within days of authorization. For standard task orders, we will provide the City with a scope and fee proposal within 5 business days of receiving the City’s request.

Project Management Plan
At Hexagon, we are confident in our ability to handle projects of any size at any time. Our project workload typically consists of a mix of mostly small and medium size projects with a limited number of larger projects happening at any given time. We are constantly completing smaller projects or major milestones on larger projects, which frees up staff to work on the next project. This means that we always have the resources and expertise necessary to handle oncall assignments, no matter how urgent or complex they may be.

Page 159 of 503 ends

Page | 15
Section 2:

Key Team Members
Section 3:

Scope Approach
Section 4:

References
Section 5:

Certification
Section 6:

Exhibits
Section 1:

Company/Firm
Peer Review Approach for PS&E Packages
When the City assigns a peer review of a PS&E package prepared by another consultant, Hexagon will follow a structured review process to ensure the City receives a thorough and well-documented evaluation.
• Caltrans
Standard
Plans and
Specifications
• CA MUTCD
and HDM
• ADA
requirements
• City Specific
Standards
• Conditions of
approval
• Signal phasing
and timing
• Intersection
geometry
• Detection and
signal heads
• Pole/foundation
locations
• Signal/striping
compliance
• Constructability
review
• Utility conflict
check
• Specification
accuracy
• Pay item
verification
• Cost estimate
review
• Current
construction
cost
benchmarking
• Organized by
sheet
• Clear and
actionable
descriptions
• Format per
City
preferences
• Review
resubmittal
• Verify
comments
addressed
• Advise City
on approval
readiness
Proposed Plan for Quality and Cost Control
Throughout the course of a project, Hexagon typically conducts periodic meetings and phone conferences with the project team to ensure that we are maintaining the project schedule and that the various project elements are coordinated properly.

Design projects can often be somewhat dynamic in nature, so maintaining frequent communication with City staff throughout the design process is an important aspect of our project approach. Once the design is complete, Hexagon remains involved in the project, on an as-needed basis, to answer questions and provide clarifications during the bidding process and to answer technical questions and resolve conflicts during construction.

Page 160 of 503 ends

Page | 16
Section 2:

Key Team Members
Section 3:

Scope Approach
Section 4:

References
Section 5:

Certification
Section 6:

Exhibits
Section 1:

Company/Firm
Added Value for the City
Hexagon brings several value-added benefits to this assignment that we believe will directly benefit the City on projects completed under this contract.

Existing Morgan Hill Data and Resources. Through the Transportation Master Plan, Hexagon developed and maintains a travel demand forecasting model for Morgan Hill, conducted Engineering and Traffic Surveys for 98 street segments, and compiled intersection operations data citywide. These resources are available to support CIP task orders at no additional data collection cost to the City. When a new project arises, we can often pull relevant baseline data from our existing files to quickly gain an understanding of the traffic conditions in the area, saving the City time and ensuring the scoping process is thorough and in line with the local context.

CIP and Traffic Impact Fee Program Familiarity. Hexagon helped the City develop the CIP improvement list and we are currently working with the City on the Traffic Impact Fee program update as part of the Transportation Master Plan. This gives our team a direct understanding of the City's planned improvements, transportation challenges, and project priorities, which helps us scope and design projects that are consistent with the City's needs.

Gilroy Office Proximity. Our Gilroy office is approximately 15 minutes from City Hall, allowing our staff to conduct site visits, attend meetings, and perform field reviews on short notice without the travel time and costs associated with firms based further away in the Bay Area. This proximity also allows us to make quick follow-up site visits during design to verify field conditions, check utility locations, or coordinate with contractors during construction.

Page 161 of 503 ends

Page | 17
Section 2:

Key Team Members
Section 3:

Scope Approach
Section 4:

References
Section 5:

Certification
Section 6:

Exhibits
Section 1:

Company/Firm
Modern Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Experience. Hexagon has significant recent, hands-on experience designing Class IV separated bikeways, bicycle signals, protected intersection treatments, two-stage bicycle turn boxes, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and RRFBs.

As Morgan Hill continues to implement its active transportation network, our team can bring tested design solutions from projects in Dublin, San Jose, Palo Alto, and other Bay Area cities to help the City implement facilities that are safe, compliant with current standards, and that balance traffic operations with bicycle safety and convenience.

Page 162 of 503 ends

!"#$$#%"&%"'%()*+'%",$"+*++%-.*)$,&.)/)/.+%(0-*11*++.2(3$()&.114$4*+$,%(%!" /%!"154.11.(2"*)$+*))/$).3$)/*)&%"'-%33$(-$+%($*-/)*+'%",$"6 !"-!""$()*(,#!)!"$ -/*"2$"*)$+*"$7"$+$()$,4$1%&6 89:;<:= >
;?==;:@:==?
:; ABAC<: D
8;

ABAE<: D
8;

ABAF<: D
8;

GHIJKLKM KN

HJOHPQ K

K KL
RJH
SGG
OHTTK
U
K
N KVU RJH
SGG
OHT K
L K
WM K
UV SGG
OHTTK
N
K
L
K
N SGG
OHT K
VL K

L K
QJJXYJHJTTKVMLKVUN K

QJJXYJHJT KV
KVM KVW Z[O

IHJ
KVLKVNV KVNM SI\HJX]P HOG KVL KVNV KVNM SGGHGJQJJXYJHJKVLKVNV KVNM ^O JHOHJ KUL KUU KV

_9

=;= `/$#%11%&.(2$a-1!+.%(+*"$.()$(,$,)%-1*".#5*++!37).%(+3*,$,!$)%!(,$)$"3.($, bcdefgfcdhiggjfhgfklmngohfdgldelegcplqhleihirqfelsfdltcugjltfdisvucwlbgbcdguibgide #%"-1*".#.-*).%(7".%")%-%()"*-)*77"%x*16y#)$""$x.$&&.)/)/$z.)5{+%3$$a-1!+.%(+3*54$ $1.3.(*)$,7$"*2"$$3$()%"-1*".#.-*).%(45z.)5+)*##6 > |D;|:
}?=~
= ".().(2-%+)+*(,,$1.x$"5#$$+#%")/$/*",-%75+!43.))*1+4$4.11$,*)-%+)71!+{+/%!1, )/$54$($-$++*"56

;=
:

= y(5+!4-%(+!1)*()+$"x.-$+($$,$,#%")*+'%",$"+!(,$")/.+%(0-*11*++.2(3$()&.114$4.11$,*) -%+)71!+6 :??
::@;
; `"*##.-,*)*-%11$-).%({.(-1!,.(2)!"(.(23%x$3$()-%!()+{)!4$-%!()+{*(,+7$$,+!"x$5+{&.11 4$4.11$,*)-%+)71!+&/$(+!4-%()"*-)$,)%*,*)*-%11$-).%(x$(,%"{%"*))/$*771.-*41$ +)*##4.11.(2"*)$&/$(-%11$-)$,45$a*2%(+)*##6

EXHIBIT B

Page 163 of 503 ends

!" #$%&'()$$*+$,-%./-0&$,(1$%&'()$$*+/,2/3$,-4%$5'$6)$$*1/'2(.(0'%21/%('$*.,7$0/8).) (0$9'(4/%$,.(',-8:2$2',(0$7'88',3%/($*/,26.:827$7'88$2/*/%$'&7:%*/78$/(-.*(+.%1/'2 2'%$-(8474(0$9'(4;

Page 164 of 503 ends

14 Updated May 2026

EXHIBIT C

Page 165 of 503 ends

EXHIBIT D
Third Party Data Use Agreement

All derivative products and resulting data shall be provided to CITY Project Manager and CITY GIS Manager at the completion of the work.

5. All of the above terms and conditions apply to any subcontractor retained by CONSULTANT.

Page 166 of 503 ends

9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Inga Alonzo, Management Analyst
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH HYDROSCIENCE
ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $671,147

FOR CONDIT AND LLAGAS BOOSTER STATION DESIGN AND

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a Consultant Agreement for Design Professionals with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for the not to exceed amount of $671,147 for Condit and Llagas booster station design and professional services.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety and Quality of Life
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Strategic Priorities 2026-2027
Fiscal Sustainability
Guiding Documents
Water System Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The City’s Water System Master Plan has identified numerous improvements across the system to increase redundancy, reliability and to meet demands of future users. The Master Plan has identified that the City's existing water distribution system requires supplemental boosting capacity to maintain consistent water pressure across the network, particularly during peak demand periods, areas with elevated topography or during droughts. This consulting agreement will provide professional engineering services for design, planning, bidding support, and construction support for the following:
• A new Condit booster station which will feed water from the Llagas subbasin to the Boys Ranch area and improve system reliability, facilitate operational flexibility, and support future growth
• The demolition of the existing motorized valve and controls at Condit Rd and Main Ave

Page 167 of 503 ends

9 • An upgrade to the Llagas booster station to increase boosting capacity City staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in March 2026 to solicit qualified engineering firms for this project. The RFP was advertised in the Morgan Hill Times and posted to the City’s website. Staff conducted a mandatory pre-bid meeting in April. Staff requested two separate submittals per firm via email: the first for consultant qualifications and the second for the project cost and any sub-consultant billing rates. A four-person evaluation panel rated each engineering firm’s qualifications submittal based on demonstrated competence and professional qualifications per California Government Code mandates for professional services selection. The results of the evaluation are shown in the first attachment. Based on this evaluation, staff recommends contracting HydroScience Engineers.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Not Applicable
This project involves the installation of small utility equipment and minor alterations to existing infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City could elect not to move forward with the design and provide staff with alternate direction. This is not recommended as the Water Master Plan recommends the construction of these water pump station improvements to mitigate existing boosting capacity deficiencies between zones.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

No prior City Council actions have been taken on this project.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Funding for the design is budgeted in the FY26 and FY27 Capital Budget from CIP WA6006 – Pump Station Capacity, utilizing the Water Impact Fund 651 and the Water CIP Fund 653.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption
The proposed booster pump station qualifies for CEQA Categorical Exemptions under Class 1 Existing Facilities and Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because it involves the installation of small utility equipment and minor alterations to existing municipal infrastructure strictly to improve system redundancy and distribution between pressure zones, with no expansion of water capacity or consumption.

Page 168 of 503 ends

Booster Station Professional Services Schaaf & Wheeler WaterWorks HydroScience

1. Experience and Qualifications - Relevant technical
experience of company and project team with water booster station professional services.

POINTS 30 26.50 28.25 28.75

2. Capability - Quality, feasibility, and methodology of project approach.

POINTS 30 23.75 24.75 27.75

3. Project Management and Schedule - Proposed schedule
and ability to make project deadline with a clear means of communication, coordination, and quality control.

POINTS 25 21.50 21.00 24.50

4. References - Client references and proven track record for similar completed projects.

POINTS 15 9.50 8.50 12.25

81.3 82.5 93.3
Weighted Average Score

Page 169 of 503 ends

1 Updated May 2026

CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS, INC.

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into and becomes effective on _______________ (Effective Date), by and between the CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation, ("CITY"), and HydroScience Engineers, Inc. a California corporation ("CONSULTANT") hereinafter referred to collectively as “Parties.” In consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

1. City Authority. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the action of the Morgan Hill City Council taken on _____________, ____, 20___.

2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall cover services rendered from the Effective Date of this Agreement until June 30, 2028 at which time CONSULTANT’S services shall be completed. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement provided the compensation does not exceed the City Manager's authority pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Any such extension shall be in writing and signed by both Parties to this Agreement.

3. Scope of Service. The services to be performed by CONSULTANT shall be Booster Station Professional Services for Condit and Llagas as further described in Exhibit A.

4. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall be compensated as follows:

4.1. Amount. $671,147.00. Total compensation to CONSULTANT under this Agreement during its initial term set forth in Section 2 above shall not exceed Six Hundred SeventyOne Thousand, One Hundred Forty-Seven dollars and shall be billed based on the rate and basis set forth in Exhibit B. If the City Manager extends the term of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 above, the City Manager shall have the authority to increase the maximum compensation allowed to be paid to CONSULTANT, so long as City Council has appropriated sufficient funds therefor, the Parties mutually agree to such amount in a writing signed by both Parties to this Agreement, and provided further that in no event shall such maximum compensation allowed for the term exceed the City Manager's authority pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, unless otherwise authorized by City Council.

4.2. Billing. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with an invoice containing the dated, detailed, and itemized descriptions of all services performed and expenses incurred (if such expenses are reimbursable pursuant to Exhibit B) by CONSULTANT on a monthly basis unless otherwise specified in Exhibit B. All invoices shall be sent to the CITY addressed to the department head or project manager identified below in Section 13 Notices. Any rate charged shall be prorated where services are interrupted or not provided for any rate period (for example, any monthly rate charge should be prorated when services were interrupted or provided for only part of the month). For services billed on an hourly rate, the minimum unit of billed time shall not exceed one tenth of one hour. CITY shall pay for services and expenses (if so provided in Exhibit B) up to the limit of compensation set forth above, that in the CITY’S judgment were necessary and reasonable. Services for work performed and expenses incurred in excess of the total compensation set forth in paragraph 4.1 above shall be at no cost to CITY.

Page 170 of 503 ends

2 Updated May 2026

7.1. Insurance Types and Amounts.

Page 171 of 503 ends

3 Updated May 2026
combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.5. Professional Liability.

Page 172 of 503 ends

4 Updated May 2026

7.2. Endorsements. CONSULTANT shall provide proof of the following endorsements, listed for each policy for which endorsements are required, as outlined below:

7.2.1. General Liability and pollution liability (when pollution liability applies).

7.2.1.1. “Additionally Insured” - The City of Morgan Hill, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are named as additional insureds.

7.2.1.3. “Primary and Non-Contributing” - Insurance shall be endorsed to be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self-insurance.

7.2.2. Workers Compensation.

7.3. Qualification of Insurers. All insurance required pursuant to this Agreement must be issued by a company licensed and admitted, or otherwise legally authorized to carry out insurance business in the State of California, and each insurer must have a current A.M.

Best's financial strength rating of “A” or better and a financial size rating of “VII” or better.

Page 173 of 503 ends

5 Updated May 2026
Hill with copies of all policies outlined herein. No policy subject to the CONSULTANT’S agreement with the CITY shall be canceled or materially changed except after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to CITY. A "material change" is a change that results in noncompliance with any insurance requirements in this section 7. Certificates, including renewal certificates, may be mailed electronically to [email protected] or delivered to the Certificate Holder address provided herein.

Certificate Holder address:

City of Morgan Hill
Attn: Risk Management
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

8. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Agreement.

9. Compliance with Law.

Prior Judgments against CONSULTANT and/or its Subcontractors: BY SIGNING THIS

AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT HAS DISCLOSED ANY FINAL

JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS FROM A COURT OR INVESTIGATORY GOVERNMENT AGENCY FINDING – IN THE FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT – THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS VIOLATED ANY APPLICABLE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. CONSULTANT FURTHER

Page 174 of 503 ends

6 Updated May 2026
Judgments or Decisions During Term of Contract: If at any time during the term of this Agreement, a court or investigatory government agency issues a final judgment, decision or order finding that CONSULTANT or an subcontractor it employs to perform work under this Agreement has violated any applicable wage and hour law, or CONSULTANT learns of such a judgment, decision, or order that was not previously disclosed, CONSULTANT shall inform the City Attorney, no more than fifteen (15) days after the judgment, decision or order becomes final or of learning of the final judgment, decision, or order.

10. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.

Page 175 of 503 ends

7 Updated May 2026
Address of CONSULTANT is as follows:

HydroScience Engineers, Inc.
10569 Old Placerville Road
Sacramento, CA 95827
Address of CITY is as follows:

Utilities Division
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
with a copy to:

City Clerk
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

16. Maintenance of Records.

Page 176 of 503 ends

8 Updated May 2026

18. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

21. Defense and Indemnification.

Page 177 of 503 ends

9 Updated May 2026
this Section (21) and any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT arising from CONSULTANT’S failure either to (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers' compensation laws.

Page 178 of 503 ends

10 Updated May 2026

28. ☐ Data Sharing. This Agreement requires access by CONSULTANT to CITY’S Geographic Information System (GIS) DATA for CONSULTANT to perform the work. CITY agrees to provide the GIS DATA to CONSULTANT solely for the purpose of performance of contracted work with the CITY upon the terms and conditions specified in Exhibit D, incorporated herein by this reference.

Page 179 of 503 ends

Page 180 of 503 ends

12 Updated May 2026

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
General Scope

Consultant, HydroScience, shall design a new booster station within an easement located at the intersection of Condit Road and Half Road and shall include the following items: a secured fenced area to contain and protect, the new booster pump equipment, new single vertical turbine electrical motor, a variable frequency drive system, a new motor control center, new SCADA equipment and enclosure equipped with a backup generator connection, and design new vertical pumps and appurtenances to meet user capacity and fire protection requirements. A minimum capacity of 1,500 gpm. Booster station shall be completely enclosed within the existing PSE boundries.

HydroScience shall design the abandonment of the existing CLA valve on Condit Road and Main Avenue including existing SCADA and any electrical components. This will take place after commissioning of the new booster station.

HydroScience shall design the upgrade of the existing Llagas Road water booster station to increase capacity to 450 gpm as specified in the City’s Master Plan. The upgrade shall include a VFD system. The SCADA system shall be upgraded to current Ctiy Standards.

Task 1 Project Management and Coordination
HydroScience shall update the Proposed Project Schedule that was submitted with their proposal and email it to the City Project Manager five calendar days prior to the kickoff meeting.

HydroScience shall provide project management services to direct the internal project team and subconsultants, coordinate with City Staff and other project stakeholders, manage project accounting, and monitor project schedule. This task will be carried out through all project phases (Preliminary Design, Detailed Design, and Construction Support.) Bi-weekly progess schedules shall be emaiiled to the City project manager.

HydroScience shall prepare monthly invoices and progress reports. Invoices will be summarized by task number and will show the total task budget, amount billed each month, and task budget balance. The progress reports shall describe the current project status, issues and solutions, and estimated work remaining to complete the project.

HydroScience shall begin the project with an in-person kickoff meeting to establish a collaborative approach and will serve as a springboard to ensure good coordination and communication throughout the project. The goals for this meeting include establishing an understanding of the City’s project objectives, the City’s expectations, and reviewing the project schedule and the various roles and responsibilities for the entire project team.

Virtual Project Review Meetings (PRMs) will commence following the kickoff meeting at every deliverable (30%, 60% and 90%). HydroScience shall prepare agenda/handouts prior to meetings and follow with action items and minutes to document meetings. A minimum of three PRMs shall be arranged virtually using the City’s preferred platform, such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom. Additional coordination and communication with the City’s Project Manager and

Page 181 of 503 ends

13 Updated May 2026
stakeholders will be arranged as required during the project. Agenda/handouts shall be emailed to the City project manager at least 48 hours prior to meetings.

HydroScience shall conduct a formal design review at each project milestone, during which calculations, drawings, and specifications are checked, and consistency is verified among specifications, details, and manuals. Internal QA/QC will be performed for all design submittals. Principal-in-Charge Bill Slenter, PE, will personally oversee this process.

Documentation of comments and responses will be kept and made available at the City’s request.

Deliverables for Task 1
• Meeting agenda and notes in PDF.

Task 2 Preliminary Design
The HydroScience team will work collaboratively with City staff, vetting proposed approaches and any alternatives to optimize the design to best fit near-term scope and cost objectives while providing for efficient and reliable operations and maintenance in the long term.

Review Available Data. HydroScience will develop an information needs list for the City, and it will review and analyze the information and background data from the City. Requested data will include available studies, as-built drawings, water system parameters, hydraulic model, plat maps, and other requested data that is pertinent to the project.

A topographic survey shall be peformed by the Contractor or Subcontractor including all hardscape and softscape in the project area; prepare a conceptual property boundary/road Right-of-Way (ROW) base map using available public records to plot property lines, lot lines and public utility service easements; survey of all fences, trees, utilities, and landscaping.

Westwood will prepare a topographic map in AutoCAD Civil 3D 2023 format using NAVD88 datum with visible surface features, record right-of-way, one-foot contours, and spot elevations at a scale of 1”=20’.

Contractor or Subcontractor shall review available geologic and geotechnical reports and maps pertinent to the site; site reconnaissance; traffic control plan; subsurface exploration by drilling one (1) boring at the Condit Road BPS site; backfill in accordance with Valley Water and City of Morgan Hill guidelines and distribution of cuttings on site; laboratory testing program; geotechnical engineering analysis; and development of geotechnical investigation report that addresses: grading, access road, and foundation. H&A will also review the design plans related to BPS foundation to confirm adherence to geotechnical recommendations.

HydroScience shall coordinate with City’s Building Department to obtain a building permit, approve structural calculations and comply with California Building Code. HydroScience shall coordinate with the City's Engineering Department to obtain an encroachment permit.

HydroScience will assist in amending the City’s current water system operating permit to include the new Booster Pump Station.

Contractor or Subcontractor shall evaluate environmental conditions of the project site to be in compliance with the CEQA requirements. The proposed booster pump station qualifies for CEQA Categorical Exemption status.

Page 182 of 503 ends

14 Updated May 2026
HydroScience shall collect, review and evaluate all available data and subcontractor work for the Preliminary Design and site layout. HydroScience shall prepare a Preliminary Design Memorandum (PDM) that will summarize the design parameters, project constraints, engineer’s estimate, and schedule for the project. A sample table of contents for the PDM will be as follows:

Preliminary Design Memorandum
•Project Goals and Objectives
•Existing Water Distribution System & Water Master Plan Summary •Condit Road BPS
•Hydraulic Model update and calculations
•Site Layout options with utilities, easements, ROW, landscaping and accessibility •Design Parameters
•Pump selection
•Electrical and Instrumentation Design
•Llagas BPS Pump Replacement
•Hydraulic Model update and calculations
• Pump selection
• Electrical and Instrumentation Design
•Condit Valve Abandonment
•Demolition and Abandonment Plan
•Cost Estimates
•Recommendation & Conclusion
Deliverables for Task 2
• Topography in AutoCAD
• Environmental permitting and compliance documentation (PDF) • Geotechnical Report (PDF)
• Preliminary Design Memorandum (PDF)
Task 3 Final Design
The final design of the project will include four submittals, 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% Final. One consolidated set of bid documents is assumed for all project components. For each submittal, HydroScience shall prepare / update the plans, technical specifications, and the engineer’s opinion of probable cost commensurate with the appropriate design level. Internal QA/QC (see Task 1) will be conducted prior to submittal to the City. All specifications will be developed in CSI format. Technical specifications will be prepared to address Divisions 2 through 17 covering all disciplines. The City shall provide standard Divisions 0 (Contract) and 1 (General Conditions) to HydroScience for integration into the bid documents.

Contractor or Subcontractor shall prepare landscape drawings and specifications for the Condit Road BPS to match the existing landscape in the area. These drawings will be incorporated at the 90% design submittal.

Deliverables for Task 3
• 30%, 60% and 90% design drawings, specifications and engineer’s estimates • New PG&E utility service
• Final 100% Contract Documents

Page 183 of 503 ends

15 Updated May 2026
Task 4 Bidding Support Services
This task shall include attendance at pre-bid meeting, responding to bidders’ requests for information (RFI), supporting City’s coordination efforts, and preparing addenda as necessary.

Deliverables for Task 4
• Responding to bidder’s RFIs and coordination
• Addenda technical content (up to 3)
Task 5 Construction Support Services
HydroScience shall coordinate activities with the City’s construction manager. HydroScience shall provide the following:
• Attend pre-construction meeting (in person)
• Attend bi-weekly construction meetings (20 by Teams, 2 in person) • Review and timely response to RFIs
• Review and timely submittal/resubmittal review/proposed substitution review • Conduct site visits (up to 3)
• Revisions to contract plans, as appropriate, in response to RFIs/ change orders (design change memos)
• Perform engineering reviews of potential contract change orders • Final inspection and punch list preparation
• Prepare record drawings based on red-lines provided by the Contractor Deliverables for Task 5
• Respond to Submittals (up to 50) and RFIs (up to 15)
• Assist preparing Contract Change Orders (up to 3)
• Punchlist
• Record Drawings
A Building Permit will be required by the Building Department; however, no fees will be charged to the Consultant. Consultant shall meet and coordinate permit requirements with the Building Department during the design process. An encroachment permit may be required from the Engineering Department; however, no fees will be charged to the Consultant.

City will pay for the PG&E power and meter cost. HydroScience will coordinate with PG&E for service and application.

City will coordinate with the private property and provide access where new Condit Road BPS is constructed.

Page 184 of 503 ends

16 Updated May 2026

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION RATES
See atttached fee schedule per task. A 15% Contingency has been added to the project and is reflected in Section 4. Compensation in this agreement.

Page 185 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
City of Morgan Hill - Booster Station ProjectFINAL Fee for Professional Engineering Services May 5, 2026 Task Description
Bill Slenter

PIC/QAQC
Jigar Shah
Project Manager
Austin Poulson
Project Engineer
Thinh Le
QA/QC Electrical
Electrical Design
Support
Angela Singer
Hydraulic Model
Civil Design
Support
CAD
Manager
Labor Hours
Fee
Westwood PS
Surveying
Westwood PS
Landscaping
VE Solutions
Structural
Haley & Aldrich
Geotechnical
ECORP
Environmental
Direct Costs
Expense Subtotal
with Markup
Total Fee
Phase Totals
Rate Classification Princ E-VI E-IV E-IX E-III E-V E-II CAD-M Hourly billing rate $330 $280 $258 $319 $240 $269 $228 $179 1 Project Management & Coordination $46,794

1.1 Project Management 6 32 38 $10,940 $0 $10,9401.2 Project Meetings Kickoff Meeting 8 8 16 $4,304 $500 $550 $4,854Project Review (3) and Additional Meetings (5) 16 12 12 40 $10,456 $0 $10,456

1.3 Project Schedule 8 8 $2,240 $0 $2,2401.4 QAQC 40 16 56 $18,304 $0 $18,304 2 Preliminary Design $122,770

2.1 Field Visits and Investigation 8 12 8 28 $7,256 $0 $7,2562.2 Research and Review Data 8 20 8 36 $9,224 $0 $9,2242.3 Topography Mapping 2 4 6 $1,592 $17,200 $18,920 $20,5122.4 Geotechnical Investigation Report 2 4 6 $1,592 $31,500 $34,650 $36,2422.5 Permitting & Environmental Compliance (Cat Ex) 2 2 $560 $3,000 $3,300 $3,8602.6 Preliminary Design Memorandum 24 40 8 32 20 32 32 188 $45,676 $0 $45,676 3 Final Design $267,080

3.1 30% PS&E 16 40 48 80 184 $40,064 $0 $40,0643.2 60% PS&E 24 60 8 32 8 80 100 312 $70,724 $0 $70,7243.3 90% PS&E 24 80 16 60 4 60 80 324 $75,940 $14,000 $15,400 $91,340 Landscape Design 4 4 4 12 $2,660 $19,600 $21,560 $24,220

3.4 100% Contract Documents 8 40 8 24 40 60 180 $40,732 $0 $40,732 4 Bidding Support $14,034

4.1 Pre-Bid Meeting 1 8 2 11 $2,824 $0 $0 $2,8244.2 Addenda (3), RFIs, and Responses 2 10 4 10 4 30 $7,532 $0 $0 $7,5324.3 Conformed Documents 2 3 3 6 14 $3,128 $500 $550 $3,678 5 Construction Support $132,928

5.1 Pre-Construction Meeting 8 4 4 16 $4,184 $0 $0 $4,1845.2 Field Inspections (3) 8 16 8 32 $8,288 $0 $0 $8,2885.3 Construction Coordination meetings (2/mo) 24 24 8 56 $14,832 $500 $550 $15,3825.4 Review Submittals (50) 8 100 40 148 $37,640 $4,000 $0 $4,400 $42,0405.5 Review RFIs (15) 6 16 30 4 16 72 $19,316 $2,000 $0 $2,200 $21,5165.6 General Coordination 16 30 4 16 66 $17,336 $0 $0 $17,3365.7 Assist on CCOs (3) 2 15 4 8 29 $7,626 $0 $0 $7,6265.8 Punchlist walkthrough 4 8 8 20 $5,104 $500 $550 $5,6545.9 Prepare Record Drawings 2 12 2 8 8 16 48 $10,902 $0 $0 $10,902 TOTAL - Base Services Tasks 52 275 584 74 295 32 284 382 1978 $ 480,976 $ 17,200 $ 19,600 $ 20,000 $ 31,500 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 102,630 $583,606Notes

1. Environmental scope assumed Categorical Exemption for the Condit Road BPS project2. Structural scope assumed an Architecture design is not required by the City.

3. ESDC is optional services and it is based on Time & Material

4. Submittal count includes resubmittals.

Page 186 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
HydroScience proposes to perform the work on a time-and-materials basis for a fee not to exceed the amount shown in the fee estimate.

LABOR CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE
Principal $330
Engineer IX $319
Engineer VIII $308
Engineer VII $293
Engineer VI $280
Engineer V $269
Engineer IV $258
Engineer III $240
Engineer II $228
Engineer I $208
Engineering Aide $120
Construction Professional VI $220
Construction Professional V $210
Construction Professional IV $200
Construction Professional III $190
Construction Professional II $170
Construction Professional I $160
Cross Connection Control Specialist $145
CAD Manager $179
CAD Designer I $155
Marketing Professional $130
Administrative II $120
Administrative $105
HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS, INC.
2026 Standard Schedule of Billing Rates
Rates are subject to increase annually on January 1
of each calendar year.

Hourly billing rates include postage and telephone charges that are normal to the work authorized. Other direct costs for travel, reproduction, mail service, outside services, etc. will be invoiced at 110 percent of the actual cost. Rates for expert witness services shall be billed at the quoted rates plus $50/hour.

Page 187 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
TBPLS Firm No. 10074302

FEE SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
2026 – California - PW
The following is the fee schedule for all work performed under an hourly agreement.

Rates subject to annual escalation.

Classification Hourly Rate
Admin I................................................................................................................................$126.00 Admin II............................................................................................................................... $137.00 Admin III ............................................................................................................................. $147.00 Admin IV..............................................................................................................................$168.00 Admin V...............................................................................................................................$184.00 Intern I ................................................................................................................................$100.00 Intern II ................................................................................................................................$121.00 Intern III.............................................................................................................................. $137.00 Field Intern I.......................................................................................................................... $95.00 Field Intern II ....................................................................................................................... $111.00 Field Intern III...................................................................................................................... $121.00 Remote Sensing Tech I .........................................................................................................$14200 Remote Sensing Tech II.......................................................................................................$158.00 Remote Sensing Tech III .....................................................................................................$184.00 Remote Sensing Tech IV...................................................................................................... $195.00 Remote Sensing Tech V ....................................................................................................... $210.00 Remote Sensing Tech VI......................................................................................................$242.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech I............................................................................................... $100.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech II..............................................................................................$132.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech III ............................................................................................$142.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech IV.............................................................................................$168.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech V ..............................................................................................$184.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech VI............................................................................................ $200.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech VII ........................................................................................... $210.00 Remote Sensing Field Tech VIII..........................................................................................$226.00 1 Person Geospatial Crew (w/Truck) ..................................................................................$184.00 Dust Monitor..........................................................................................................................$84.00 Construction Observer I ......................................................................................................$126.00 Construction Observer II..................................................................................................... $132.00 Construction Observer III.................................................................................................... $147.00 Construction Observer IV.................................................................................................... $174.00 Construction Observer V ..................................................................................................... $189.00 Engineering Tech I................................................................................................................$116.00 Engineering Tech II............................................................................................................. $137.00 Engineering Tech III............................................................................................................ $153.00 Engineering Tech IV ............................................................................................................ $174.00 Engineering Tech V..............................................................................................................$184.00

Page 188 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
TBPLS Firm No. 10074302
Engineering Tech VI........................................................................................................... $200.00 Engineering Tech VII........................................................................................................... $221.00 Graduate Engineer I ............................................................................................................$168.00 Graduate Engineer II........................................................................................................... $179.00 Graduate Engineer III..........................................................................................................$189.00 Graduate Engineer IV......................................................................................................... $200.00 Engineer I ............................................................................................................................ $205.00 Engineer II........................................................................................................................... $216.00 Engineer III..........................................................................................................................$231.00 Engineer IV..........................................................................................................................$252.00 Engineer V .......................................................................................................................... $289.00 Engineer VI.......................................................................................................................... $305.00 Engineer VII......................................................................................................................... $321.00 Environmental Field I...........................................................................................................$116.00 Environmental Field II........................................................................................................$126.00 Environmental Field III....................................................................................................... $137.00 Environmental Scientist I....................................................................................................$132.00 Environmental Scientist II................................................................................................... $147.00 Environmental Scientist III................................................................................................. $168.00 Environmental Scientist IV..................................................................................................$184.00 Environmental Scientist V................................................................................................... $205.00 Environmental Scientist VI..................................................................................................$221.00 Environmental Scientist VII................................................................................................$247.00 Environmental Scientist VIII.............................................................................................. $268.00 GIS I ...................................................................................................................................$111.00 GIS II ..................................................................................................................................$126.00 GIS III..................................................................................................................................$142.00 GIS IV ..................................................................................................................................$158.00 GIS V ..................................................................................................................................$189.00 GIS VI .................................................................................................................................. $205.00 GIS VII................................................................................................................................. $216.00 GIS VIII................................................................................................................................$226.00 Graduate Landscape Designer I........................................................................................... $158.00 Graduate Landscape Designer II......................................................................................... $174.00 Graduate Landscape Designer III........................................................................................$184.00 Landscape Architect I.......................................................................................................... $179.00 Landscape Architect II.........................................................................................................$189.00 Landscape Architect III ...................................................................................................... $200.00 Landscape Architect IV........................................................................................................$221.00 Landscape Architect V .........................................................................................................$242.00 Landscape Architect VI........................................................................................................$263.00 Assistant Project Manager I ................................................................................................ $210.00 Assistant Project Manager II ...............................................................................................$226.00 Assistant Project Manager III..............................................................................................$237.00 Project Manager I ................................................................................................................$221.00 Project Manager II...............................................................................................................$247.00 Project Manager III............................................................................................................. $268.00 Project Manager IV.............................................................................................................. $294.00

Page 189 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
TBPLS Firm No. 10074302
Project Manager V ............................................................................................................... $315.00 Project Manager VI..............................................................................................................$331.00 Project Manager VII.............................................................................................................$347.00 Survey Field I....................................................................................................................... $210.00 Survey Field II...................................................................................................................... $231.00 Survey Field III....................................................................................................................$252.00 Survey Field IV.....................................................................................................................$279.00 Survey Field V......................................................................................................................$189.00 Survey Field VI..................................................................................................................... $252.00 Survey Field VII...................................................................................................................$263.00 Survey Tech I ........................................................................................................................$121.00 Survey Tech II...................................................................................................................... $137.00 Survey Tech III..................................................................................................................... $153.00 Survey Tech IV..................................................................................................................... $179.00 Survey Tech V ..................................................................................................................... $200.00 Survey Tech VI..................................................................................................................... $216.00 Graduate Surveyor I............................................................................................................. $158.00 Graduate Surveyor II........................................................................................................... $174.00 Graduate Surveyor III..........................................................................................................$184.00 Surveyor I ............................................................................................................................. $179.00 Surveyor II.......................................................................................................................... $200.00 Surveyor III..........................................................................................................................$226.00 Surveyor IV ..........................................................................................................................$247.00 Surveyor V............................................................................................................................ $263.00 Surveyor VI......................................................................................................................... $284.00 Project Processor I.................................................................................................................$95.00 Project Processor II...............................................................................................................$116.00 Project Coordinator I........................................................................................................... $147.00 Project Coordinator II..........................................................................................................$158.00 Project Coordinator III........................................................................................................$168.00 Senior Project Coordinator I................................................................................................ $179.00 Senior Project Coordinator II.............................................................................................. $195.00 GMS Tech I ........................................................................................................................... $90.00 GMS Tech II......................................................................................................................... $100.00 GMS Tech III.........................................................................................................................$112.00 GMS Tech IV........................................................................................................................ $126.00 GMS Engineer I ................................................................................................................... $147.00 GMS Engineer II.................................................................................................................. $163.00 GMS Engineer III.................................................................................................................$184.00 GMS Engineer IV................................................................................................................ $200.00 Field Engineer I ....................................................................................................................$121.00 Field Engineer II.................................................................................................................. $137.00 Field Engineer II.................................................................................................................. $158.00 Field Engineer IV................................................................................................................. $168.00 Researcher I ..........................................................................................................................$95.00 Researcher II........................................................................................................................$105.00 Researcher III......................................................................................................................$126.00 Researcher IV....................................................................................................................... $147.00 Expert Witness – Court Appearance/Deposition................................................................. 2 x rate Westwood Current™ (Geospatial Project Management Tool) Setup and Licensing ....... $700.00+ Specialized Geospatial Equipment – Per Day Use ........................................$200.00 – $3,000.00 Charges for Other Direct Costs, Outside Services, and facilities furnished by Westwood are computed on the basis of actual cost-plus 15 percent.

Page 190 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
Standard Fee Schedule
2026 RS2

FEES FOR SERVICES
Fees for services will be based on the time worked on the project by staff personnel plus reimbursable expenses. The fee will be computed as follows.

1. Labor-related fees will be computed based on personnel billing rates in effect at the time the services are performed. Personnel billing rates are subject to revision on, or about, 1 January and 1 July of each year. The hourly rates are fully inclusive of fringe benefits, burden, and fee. Current rates are provided in the table below.

Classification Hourly Rate
Project Support $125
Technician $125
Project Technician $135
Senior Technician $150
Project Controls $150
Staff Professional 1 $160
Staff Professional 2 $180
Project Professional $200
Technical Specialist $215
Project Manager / Senior Technical Specialist $230
Senior Project Manager / Technical Expert $270
Program Manager / Senior Technical Expert $345
Principal $365
Senior Principal $395

2. Pre-trial conferences, depositions, and expert testimony will be billed at one and one-half (1.5) times the rates quoted above.

3. Second and Third Shift, Weekend, and Holiday hours will be billed at $40/hour premium. Second and Third Shifts are those starting between 4 PM and 4 AM.

4. Field visits will be billed at 4-hour minimum; night shifts will be billed at 8-hour minimum. Cancellation of scheduled night shift within 24 hours will be charged the full 8 hours.

5. Direct non-salary expenses will be billed at our cost plus fifteen (15) percent, except for employee vehicle use which will be billed at IRS allowed mileage rates.

6. General project-related expenses such as mobile phone expenses (including mobile app fees); in-house reproduction; printing costs for reports, drawings, and other project records; mail and overnight document delivery; and long-term electronic and paper document storage will be billed as a general communication fee at a rate of four (4) percent of the labor charges.

7. Subcontractors will be billed at our cost plus fifteen (15) percent.

8. Equipment and laboratory testing will be billed at rates listed in the attached Equipment and Laboratory Rate Schedules, as applicable.

Page 191 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
Equipment Rate Schedule
2026 RS2

Page 1 of 2 ends

EQUIPMENT RATE SCHEDULE
AIR MONITORING EQUIPMENT Daily Weekly Monthly
Dust Monitor $170 $475 $1,350
Photoionization Detector - 10.6 or 11.7 eV $125 $360 $1,100 FIELD TESTING Daily Weekly Monthly
Double Ring Infiltrometer $500
Field Supplies $30 $120 $480
Guelph Permeameter $200
Inclinometer Readings $275 --- ---
Sand Cone Field Density Kit $85 $255 $765
pH Meter $38 $80 $250
Pile Load Testing (per test) $1,750
Plate Load Tester (per day) $500
Pit Box Test (per day) $500
Slug Test Kit (per day) $375
Wood Pile Load Testing (per test) $500
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT Daily Weekly Monthly
Groundwater Sampling Bundle with Pump $350 $1,100 $3,100 Rotohammer Drill $100 $400
Soil Sampling or Tank Pull Equipment Bundle $150 $350 $1,050 Soil Vapor Sampling Bundle $400 $1,400 $2,600
WATER LEVEL METERS AND INTERFACE PROBES Daily Weekly Monthly Barologger $60 $177 $533
Levelogger $60 $177 $533
Oil/Water Interface Probe $80 $220 $650
Water Level Indicator $55 $145 $295
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION Daily Weekly Monthly
Cone Penetrometer $20 $80 $240
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer $175
Electronic Readout Box or Datalogger $50 $150 $350
In-Place Inclinometer Rental --- --- $1,250
Modem --- --- $250
Nuclear Density Gauge $125 $400 $1,200
Power System - Battery --- $25 $75
Power System - Solar ---- $60 $180
Seismograph - Manual $80 $245 $775
Seismograph - Remote Units $100 $295 $875
Vibration and Sound Monitoring Station $125 $345 $975

Page 192 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
Equipment Rate Schedule
2026 RS2

Page 2 of 2 ends

EQUIPMENT RATE SCHEDULE (continued)
UAS DATA ACQUISITION & PROCESSING Daily Weekly Monthly
UAS Digital Imagery Equipment $200 $800 ---
UAS Digital Imagery w/Ground Control Package
(UAS + GNSS) $300 $1,200 ---
UAS Hyperspectral Equipment $300 $1,200 ---
UAS Hyperspectral w/Ground Control Package
(UAS w/HS + GNSS) $400 $1,600 ---
LiDAR SCANNING & PROCESSING Daily Weekly Monthly
LiDAR Scanning Equipment (Terrestrial & Aerial) $800 $3,200 --- LiDAR Equipment w/Ground Control Package
(LiDAR + GNSS) $1,000 $4,000 ---
MISCELLANEOUS Daily Weekly Monthly
Decontamination Kit (each) $50 --- ---
Field Truck (including fuel) $158 $630 $2,200
Generator $90 $220 $690
GeoTech Sample Jars 16 oz. (per box) $25 --- ---
GPS Unit $200 $800 $2,400
Harness with Restraint Lanyard $50 $175 $500
Motorola CP200d Radio (pair) --- $35 $140
Personal Protective Equipment - Level C (per person) $50 --- --- Saximeter II $40 $160 $480
Sound Level Meter $60 $240 $720

Page 193 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
Laboratory Rate Schedule
2026 RS2

Page 1 of 1 ends

LABORATORY RATE SCHEDULE
SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TESTS Unit Price
Atterberg Limits - 1 Point $300
Atterberg Limits - 3 Point $435
Grain Size - Hydrometer and Sieve Analysis $300
Grain Size - 200 Wash $150
Grain Size- Sieve Analysis (Standard Sample) $175
Grain Size - Sieve Analysis (Bulk Sample) $225
Grain Size - Hydrometer $250
Water Content $45
Organic Content $200
Specific Gravity $150
Visual Classification $15
SOIL MOISTURE-DENSITY TESTS Unit Price
Bulk Density $150
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) $1,000
Proctor - 1 Point $400
Proctor - 4 Point $550
Proctor - 4 Point (Cohesive Soil) $600
SOIL CONSOLIDATION AND STRENGTH TESTS Unit Price
Consolidation - Constant Rate of Strain (CRS) $1,000
Consolidation - Incremental $750
Unconfined Compression $150
Direct Simple Shear (DSS) $1,000
Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (CDSS) $2,100
Triaxial Compression - Isotropic Consolidation $750
Triaxial Compression - Ko/anisotropic Consolidation $1,200 Triaxial Compression - Unconsolidated $450
SURCHARGE RATES Unit Price
Atterberg Limits Dry Prep $20
Atterberg Limits Organic Classification $55
Sample Preparation $200
Triaxial High Pressure (over 100 psi) $165
Tube Cut (per cut) $40
Tube Extrusion $165
Additional H&A Laboratory analyses, pricing, and rush rates available upon request.

Page 194 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
PO Box 2592, Carmichael, CA 95609• (916) 505.0519 • [email protected] Where Value and Engineering Come Together
2026-2028 RATE SCHEDULE
Structural Engineer $210 per hour
Drafter $140 per hour

Page 195 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Fee Proposal
Booster Station Professional Services
2525 Warren Drive ● Rocklin, CA 95677 ● Tel: (916) 782-9100 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com

FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ECORP Consulting, Inc. – 2026 Rates*
Principal V ............................................................................................................................................... $450 Principal IV .............................................................................................................................................. $370 Principal III............................................................................................................................................... $315 Principal II................................................................................................................................................ $270 Principal I................................................................................................................................................. $250 Professional XI......................................................................................................................................... $270 Professional X.......................................................................................................................................... $245 Professional IX......................................................................................................................................... $225 Professional VIII ...................................................................................................................................... $210 Professional VII ....................................................................................................................................... $195 Professional VI ........................................................................................................................................ $185 Professional V ......................................................................................................................................... $175 Professional IV ........................................................................................................................................ $160 Professional III......................................................................................................................................... $145 Professional II.......................................................................................................................................... $135 Professional I........................................................................................................................................... $125 Technician IV........................................................................................................................................... $120 Technician III ........................................................................................................................................... $115 Technician II ............................................................................................................................................ $105 Technician I ............................................................................................................................................... $95 Project Admin III...................................................................................................................................... $135 Project Admin II....................................................................................................................................... $115 Project Admin I........................................................................................................................................ $105 *Technical and Professional classifications include biologists, regulatory permitting specialists, archaeologists, architectural historians, paleontologists, air quality/greenhouse gas specialists, noise specialists, planners, CEQA/NEPA specialists, UAS pilots, and other technical professionals.

Expense Reimbursement/Other:

1. Computers, facsimile, and telephone are included in the billing rates, and there is no additional charge.

2. Reproduction, equipment and other direct expenses are reimbursed at cost plus a 14% administrative handling charge (excluding mileage).

3. The hourly rates for Subconsultants will be billed at the hourly rate indicated, plus a 12% administrative handling charge.

4. Mileage will be billed at the current IRS rate, adjusted annually.

5. Per Diem, depending upon location, may be charged where overnight stays are required.

6. Expert Witness Testimony, including Depositions, is billed at time and a half.

7. Non-standard invoicing will be billed at the hourly rates for support personnel.

8. Hourly rates will escalate at a rate of 3% per annum.

Page 196 of 503 ends

17 Updated May 2026

EXHIBIT C

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
See the attached Propsed Project Schedule which will be updated before the Kickoff Meeting.

Page 197 of 503 ends

HydroScience Engineers Page 12
Booster Station Professional Services
Proposed Project Schedule
Task Name Duration Start Finish
Notice to Proceed 0 days 7/6/26 7/6/26Task 1: Project Management & Coordination 294 days 7/6/26 4/30/27

1.1 Project Management 0 days 7/6/26 7/6/261.2 Project Meetings 285 days 7/14/26 4/30/27 Kickoff Meeting 0 days 7/14/26 7/14/26Project Review Meetings& Additional Meeting 285 days 7/15/26 4/30/27

1.3 Project Schedule 294 days 7/6/26 4/30/271.4 QA/QC 294 days 7/6/26 4/30/27 Task 2: Preliminary Design 116 days 7/6/26 10/30/26

2.1 Field Visits and Investigation 17 days 7/15/26 7/31/262.2 Research and Review Data 61 days 7/6/26 9/4/262.3 Topography Mapping 33 days 8/3/26 9/4/262.4 Geotechnical Investigation Report 33 days 8/3/26 9/4/262.5 Permitting & Environmental Compliance (Ca 93 days 7/15/26 10/16/262.6 Preliminary Design Memorandum 46 days 8/31/26 10/16/26City Review 12 days 10/19/26 10/30/26 Task 3: Final Design 177 days 11/1/26 4/30/27

3.1 30% PS&E 28 days 11/1/26 11/30/26City Review 12 days 11/30/26 12/11/263.2 60% PS&E 44 days 12/1/26 1/15/27City Review 12 days 1/18/27 1/29/273.3 90% PS&E 40 days 2/1/27 3/12/27 Landscape Design 40 days 2/1/27 3/12/27
City Review 12 days 3/15/27 3/26/273.4 100% Contract Documents 33 days 3/29/27 4/30/27 Task 4: Bidding Support 32 days 5/3/27 6/4/27

4.1 Pre-Bid Meeting 32 days 5/3/27 6/4/274.2 Addenda (5), RFIs, and Responses 32 days 5/3/27 6/4/274.3 Conformed Documents 32 days 5/3/27 6/4/27 Task 5: Construction Support 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/27

5.1 Pre-Construction Meeting 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/275.2 Field Inspections (3) 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/275.3 Construction Coordination meetings (twice per month) 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/27

5.4 Review Submittals (50) 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/275.5 Review RFIs (15) 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/275.6 Assist on CCOs (3) 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/275.7 Punchlist walkthrough 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/275.8 Prepare Record Drawings 196 days 6/14/27 12/31/27 7/6
7/6
7/14
10/16
11/30
1/15
3/12
4/30
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2026 2027
HydroScience Task City Task Task Summary Project Milestone

Page 198 of 503 ends

10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Maria Angeles, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPROVE FINAL MAP FOR SPRING VIEW – TRACT NO. 10589 AND RELATED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT (335 SPRING

AVENUE)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Approve the Final Map;

2. Approve a Subdivision Improvements Agreement with 335 Spring LLC, a California limited liability company;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvements Agreement; and

4. Authorize the recordation of the Final Map and Subdivision Improvements Agreement.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Guiding Documents
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

Spring View – Tract No. 10589 is a 23-unit residential development consisting of 18 single-family attached units and five single-family detached units with associated improvements. The project site is located on the north side of Spring Avenue with a current address of 335 Spring Avenue, Morgan Hill, as shown on the attached Site Map (Attachment 1).

Subdivision Improvements Agreement
The project's Subdivision Improvements Agreement (Attachment 2) requires the development to construct public improvements along Spring Avenue, including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street trees, a streetlight, and approximately 490 linear feet of public water line along the project site’s private driveway.

Page 199 of 503 ends

10 Final Map
The Developer, 335 Spring LLC, has completed all the conditions specified in the project's Tentative Map (Planning Commission Resolution 21-11), and the conditions in the Design Permit (Approval Certificate No. 21-008) which was administratively approved by the Development Services Director.

The City Council is required to approve the Final Map (Attachment 3) if it conforms to all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and any conditions of approval for the Tentative Map.

The Developer has furnished the City with the necessary documents to complete the processing of the Final Map and has made provisions to provide the City with the required fees, security, and insurance before the Final Map is recorded. The Final Map conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, and the conditions of approval have been met.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Final Map and authorize the City Manager to sign the Subdivision Improvements Agreement pending review and approval by the City Attorney.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
The Planning Commission approved the project's Tentative Map (SD2020-0010) at its October 12, 2021 meeting. The project's Design Permit (SR2020-0028) was separately approved administratively by the Development Services Director on November 1, 2021.

The project was publicly noticed including a mailing to property owners within 600 feet of the project. A subsequent time extension of the Design Permit was approved by the Development Services Director on November 5, 2024.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

There is no feasible alternative action as the Developer has met the requirements of the Tentative Map conditions approved by the Planning Commission to file for a Final Map approval and has furnished the necessary documents to complete the processing of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

October 12, 2021 - Planning Commission adopted Resolution 21-11 approving the project's Tentative Map.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Development review costs for this project are paid for from development processing fees.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption

Page 200 of 503 ends

10 The project was found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 – Infill Development.

Page 201 of 503 ends

Page 202 of 503 ends

Page 203 of 503 ends

Page 204 of 503 ends

Page 205 of 503 ends

Page 206 of 503 ends

Page 207 of 503 ends

Page 208 of 503 ends

Page 209 of 503 ends

Page 210 of 503 ends

Page 211 of 503 ends

Page 212 of 503 ends

Page 213 of 503 ends

Page 214 of 503 ends

Page 215 of 503 ends

Page 216 of 503 ends

Page 217 of 503 ends

Page 218 of 503 ends

Page 219 of 503 ends

Page 220 of 503 ends

Page 221 of 503 ends

Page 222 of 503 ends

Page 223 of 503 ends

Page 224 of 503 ends

Page 225 of 503 ends

Page 226 of 503 ends

Page 227 of 503 ends

Page 228 of 503 ends

Page 229 of 503 ends

Page 230 of 503 ends

Page 231 of 503 ends

Page 232 of 503 ends

Page 233 of 503 ends

11 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Inga Alonzo, Management Analyst
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT PUMPS FOR LIFT
STATIONS C AND H FROM SHAPE INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,135

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order to Shape Inc. in the amount of $105,135 for Lift Station C and H replacement pumps.

The City’s wastewater system consists of 14 lift stations for servicing the community’s varied topography. The Utilities Division maintains an ongoing, annual, submersible pump replacement schedule of one or two lift stations per year for this primary mechanism used for moving waste. As a redundant feature in the event of failure, each lift station has two submersible pumps. The pumps operate on an alternating daily basis, and both are replaced at the same time.

Wastewater staff install, maintain, and repair these pumps. Therefore, the City has standardized these pumps with a specific brand of pump, Flygt. Standardizing these pumps has these advantages:
• Staff do not need to learn how to install and troubleshoot multiple systems. They are experts on one system.
• Flygt pumps are an industry standard. Parts are interchangeable among units.

Old units are utilized for spare parts, but if new parts are needed, they are easy to obtain.
• Cost savings on training and parts.

Page 234 of 503 ends

11 • Electrical control panels and hook-ups at every lift station are specifically configured and set up for Flygt pumps. (Changing to any other pump would mean the lift station would need to be electrically reconfigured.) Shape Inc. is a sole-source authorized distributor of Flygt pumps (letter attached).

Although this sole-source procurement is recommended, City staff ensure pricing is appropriate and not inflated by reviewing the frequency and percentage of cost increases, pricing comparisons with other agencies, and ongoing individual evaluations of price quotes. Staff obtained a quote (attached) for the replacement of pumps at Lift Stations C and H, which are budgeted and scheduled for this fiscal year. Staff recommends approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchase order for these four pumps.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Not Applicable
Ongoing maintenance of the City’s infrastructure is an expected service provided by the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The Council could elect to instruct staff to prepare a request for proposals for the pumps. This is not recommended because of the forementioned standardization reasons. The pumps are on a replacement schedule that incorporates the life cycle of the pumps. It is not recommended to surpass the life cycle to prevent pump failure.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

None.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are programed in the Wastewater Operations Fund (Fund 640) for this purchase.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption
This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines, Class 1 Existing Facilities, because the work to be performed is implementation and upgrade of existing infrastructure involving no expansion of existing use.

Page 235 of 503 ends

Grant Stayberg
Territory Manager
Xylem Water Utilities
Flygt Products
4109 NE 107th St.

Vancouver, WA 98686
(503)706-0601
[email protected]
August 3, 2026
Subject: Flygt Sole-Source Authorized Distributor
To: City of Morgan Hill
100 Edes Ct, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
This letter is to inform you that SHAPE Inc. is your exclusive factory authorized distributor for Flygt Equipment and Service. SHAPE’s address is 3825 Hopyard Rd. Ste 195, Pleasanton, CA 94588 and phone number (925) 485-9720. In addition, SHAPE’s service department located at 119 Val Dervin Pkwy Suite 2, Stockton CA 95206 phone number (209) 234-5909, is a Flygt Authorized Service & Repair Facility. SHAPE is authorized to handle all Flygt repairs, service, warranty claims, pump preventative maintenance, and sale of Flygt Factory OEM Parts and replacement pumps.

SHAPE Inc is the exclusive factory authorized distributor of Flygt pumps, accessories, service, and OEM Flygt parts for the municipal markets in the Northern California region for the following counties: North of and including Inyo, Mono, Tulare, King, Monterey, Santa Clara, San Mateo and South of and including Alpine, Amador, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco. Also included are the counties of Sonoma, Marin and the cities of Benicia and Vallejo in Solano County.

I am confident SHAPE Inc. will provide expert advice in a professional manner for all of your pumping needs. Thank you for your interest in Flygt Products and Services. Please call if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Grant Stayberg
Grant Stayberg
Territory Manager

Page 236 of 503 ends

SANITATION • HYDRAULIC • AND PROCESSING EQUIPMENT

PLEASANTON SACRAMENTO STOCKTON
3825 Hopyard Road #195
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone (925) 485-9720
2356 Gold Meadow Way #270
Gold River, CA 95670
Phone (916) 309-4132
119 Val Dervin Parkway # 2
Stockton, CA 95206
Phone (209) 234-5909
QUOTATION Page 1 of 3
TO: City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
DATE: 07-28-2026
QUOTE #: 144214
DESC: 3153 Replacments
JOB: City of Morgan Hill Replacement 3153
LOCATION:

ATTN: Johnny Gonzalez PHONE:

EMAIL:

WE ARE PLEASED TO QUOTE ON THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

PRINTED ON LAST PAGE HEREOF, THESE CONDITIONS MAY BE CHANGED ONLY BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT SIGNED BY AN OFFICER OF SHAPE, INCORPORATED.
☐ F.O.B. FACTORY
☒ F.F.A. TO FIRST DESTINATION
Line
#
Qty Item Unit Price Price
01 2 0031530955789 - NP3153.095 - 273 Impeller, 23hp/230v/3ph, 4" Discharge, FM Rated, FLS Leakage Sensor, 100' Shielded Cable $35,831.08 $71,662.16
02 2 0031020700546 - NP3102.070 - 462 Impeller, 5hp/460v/3ph, 4"Discharge, FM Rated, FLS Leakage Sensor, 50' Cable
$12,066.46 $24,132.92
Total for Above Equipment: $95,795.08
Notes and Clarifications:

Replacement pumps requested for:
3153.095-5789 (SN 1480082/1480083)
3102.095-0064 (SN 1420018)
(Tax Rate 9.750%) Total Tax: $9,340.02
Grand Total: $105,135.10
Notes:

1. QUOTE IS VALID FOR 45 DAYS, See attached TOCs for details

2. Price DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY APPLICABLE TAXES

3. Price INCLUDES Freight: F.F.A.

4. Price does not include: installation, equipment unloading, pipe, conduit, anchor bolts, guide bars/rails or any other items not listed.

5. ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT LEAD TIME: A) Pumps 12-14 WEEKS B) ACCESSORIES 10-12 WEEKS SHAPE, INC.

Danielle Peterson - [email protected]
QUOTATION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SALES OR USE TAX PAYABLE UNDER ANY STATE OR FEDERAL STATURE. THIS QUOTATION PRICE IS FOR MATERIAL LISTED ABOVE. ANY

ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS THAT BECOME NECESSARY FOR APPROVED SUBMITTALS, UPON AWARDING OF THIS CONTRACT, MAY RESULT IN NECESSARY PRICE CHANGES.

NOTE: ITEMS NOT SPECIFIED ON THIS QUOTATION ARE NOT INCLUDED IN OUR PRICE AND ARE TO BE SUPPLIED BY OTHERS. PRICES ARE FOR IMMEDIATE ACCEPTANCE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. SALE SUBJECT TO MANUFACTURERS STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 30% RESTOCKING FEE.

Page 237 of 503 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

SHAPE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1

ACCEPTANCE
The following Terms and Conditions are an integral part of the offer to sell the equipment and/or services offered in this proposal. When the BUYER signifies acceptance of this quotation by submission of a Purchase Order or signed SELLER Quotation, it shall become a binding contract when accepted and signed by an authorized signer of the SELLER. Any changes or amendments to this proposal made by the BUYER must have SELLER’s approval in writing to become a part of this contract. These Terms and Conditions and the accompanying Purchase Order or signed SELLER Quotation shall comprise the entire agreement between the parties and no course of prior dealings between the parties and no usage of the trade shall be relevant to supplement or explain any terms used in this contract. Unless stated otherwise, the terms and conditions of the manufacturers listed herein will apply to this quotation Any attachments or listed documents are considered a part of this quotation and are made part of the agreement. Quote is firm for thirty (30) days unless otherwise stated on the face of the attached quotation.

APPROVAL DRAWINGS
All items listed are based on SELLER’S interpretation of the requirements in accordance with the plans and specifications. Any preliminary drawings or literature attached to our quotation are for illustration purposes only to show approximate arrangements. Specific drawings and submittal data will be furnished for approval as required after receipt and acceptance of the BUYER’S order. Any submittal or manuals when provided by SELLER will be in the form of a PDF electronic file only. Any form of media beyond the electronic file would be the responsibility of BUYER. Fabrication of products or equipment ordered will not begin until approval and direction to proceed is received in writing. No warranty is made regarding quantities, materials of construction or type of materials quoted. Operation, installation, and maintenance of materials quoted are the responsibility of the OWNER or CONTRACTOR.

DELIVERY
Any shipment or delivery date recited represents our best estimate, but no liability, direct or indirect, is assumed by SELLER for failure to ship or deliver on such dates.

Unless otherwise directed, SELLER shall have the right to make early or partial shipments and invoices covering the same to BUYER shall be due and payable in accordance with payment terms hereof. FOB shall be origin unless stated otherwise on the front of these Terms and Conditions.

Delivery schedule(s) will be contingent on supply-chain availability and variability for material components, therefore, lead-times are subject to change without notice.

Published weights are careful estimates but are not guaranteed. SELLER will endeavor, insofar, as it is possible, to comply with shipping instructions specified by the Purchaser. However, SELLER reserves the right to ship merchandise by such means of transportation as it may select. The manufacturer will ship the equipment via best way. Demurrage shall be billed to the account of the Purchaser. DAMAGE CLAIMS: Care is taken in packaging all shipments. After BUYER has been given the receipt by the transportation company, all claims for breakage or shortages, whether concealed or obvious, must be made in writing by the BUYER to the carrier and SELLER within seven (7) days after receipt of shipment. When damage or shortages are obvious, written comments on the bill of lading are required before the driver is released.. RETURNED PRODUCTS: In no instance is equipment to be returned without first obtaining SELLERS written approval and returned materials authorization.

If shipment is postponed at the request of the purchaser after manufacturing has been commenced, payment will be due on notice from us that the equipment is ready for shipment. Pro rata payments shall be made for partial shipments.

STORAGE
Any item of the product on which shipment is delayed by BUYER may be placed in storage by SELLER at BUYER’S expense and risk. If a delay in shipment is requested by BUYER after an order has been entered and accepted:
a. No charge will be made if the request for delay is made more than six (6) weeks before acknowledged shipping date and the requested delay is for a period not in excess of thirty (30) days.
b. A charge will be made if the requested delay exceeds a period of thirty (30) days or if the request is made within six (6) weeks of the acknowledged shipping date. SELLER will advise BUYER of the charge within ten (10) days of receiving BUYER’S request for delay. c. If the product is within six (6) weeks of the acknowledged shipping date, then SELLER has the option of completing, invoicing and storing the product and charging one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month, or the maximum percentage permitted by law, whichever is lesser, of the established price for such product, plus storage cost.

PAYMENT
Payment terms, upon credit approval, are of net thirty (30) days from the date of each invoice for material shipped (or when ready for shipment if shipment is deferred by BUYER) unless stated otherwise on the face of the attached quotation. Flow down provisions are not accepted and shall not be enforceable against SELLER.

Retention is not allowed. In the event any payment becomes past due, a charge of one-half percent (1.5%) will be assessed monthly. These terms are completely independent from, and not contingent upon, when BUYER receives payment from the OWNER. A processing fee of up to four percent (4%) will be added for credit card payments. All merchandise sold is subject to lien laws. Partial or final payment shall constitute acceptance of delivered materials, products, or equipment.

FORCE MAJEURE
Neither Party will be liable for any failure or delay in performing an obligation under these Terms and Conditions that is due to any of the following causes, to the extent beyond its reasonable control: acts of God, accident, riots, war, terrorist act, epidemic, pandemic, quarantine, civil commotion, breakdown of communication facilities, breakdown of web host, breakdown of internet service provider, natural catastrophes, governmental acts or omissions, changes in laws or regulations, national strikes, fire, explosion, generalized lack of availability of raw materials or energy. For the avoidance of doubt, Force Majeure shall not include (a) financial distress nor the inability of either party to make a profit or avoid a financial loss, (b) changes in market prices or conditions, or (c) a party’s financial inability to perform its obligations hereunder.

TAXES AND BONDS
Taxes and bonds are NOT included in our pricing. Any applicable taxes or bonds will be added to the price and shown separately on each invoice. All prices exclude sales, use, duties, excise, and other taxes in respect to manufacture, sale, or delivery, all of which are to be paid by the buyer unless a proper exemption certificate is furnished. BUYER agrees to reimburse our company for taxes SELLER must pay on BUYER’S behalf.

PRICE ESCALATION and/or MATERIAL DEPOSITS
If between the proposal date and actual procurement and through no fault of the SELLER, the relevant cost of labor, material, freight, brokerage fees, tariffs, and other SELLER costs combined relating to the contract increase, then the contract price shall be subject to escalation and increased accordingly. If required by the BUYER, increase shall be verified by documentation and the amount of contract price escalation shall be calculated as either the actual increased cost to the Seller or, if agreed by the Parties, the equivalent increase of a relevant industry recognized third-party index. SELLER shall undertake good faith efforts to obtain savings in its procurement of materials to avoid escalation costs. BUYER shall cooperate with SELLER in such efforts to obtain such cost savings. SELLER shall contemporaneously track any escalation costs.

CLAIMS AND BACKCHARGES
BUYER agrees to examine all materials immediately upon delivery and report to SELLER in writing any defects or shortages noted no later than ten (10) days following the date of receipt. The parties agree that if no such claim is made within said time, it shall be considered acceptable and in good order with respect to any defect or shortage which would have been revealed by such an inspection. In no event will SELLER be responsible for any charge for modification, servicing, adjustment or for any other expense without written authorization from SELLER prior to the performance of any such work. IN NO EVENT SHALL SELLER BE LIABLE TO BUYER OR

Page 238 of 503 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

SHAPE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2

ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY LOSS OF USE, REVENUE OR PROFIT, OR FOR CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR

PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FOR ANY REASON, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF A DELAY IN OR FAILURE OF DELIVERY, DEFECTS

IN MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP AND/OR FAILURE OF GOODS TO PERFORM TO APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS, BLUEPRINTS OR SAMPLES AS SET FORTH OR DESCRIBED HEREIN, IF ANY, OF A BREACH BY SELLER OF ANY OTHER TERM OR OBLIGATION OF SELLER UNDER THE CONTRACT. No penalty clauses of any description will be effective unless approved in writing over the signature of a principal of SELLER. Under no circumstances shall SELLER be liable for any consequential, special or incidental damages, including liquidated damages, arising from any breach by it in this transaction, AND ALL SUCH

CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL AND INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, ARE EXCLUDED FROM ANY REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE BUYER.

SECURITY INTEREST & TITLE
Until all amounts due SELLER have been paid in full, SELLER shall retain a security interest in the product and have all rights of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code and applicable law, including the right to repossess the product or equipment without legal process and the right to require the BUYER to assemble the equipment and make it available to SELLER at a place reasonably convenient to both parties.

WARRANTY
Equipment and parts not manufactured by the SELLER carry only the warranty of the manufacturer of said parts. SELLER does not make any express or implied warranty for equipment and/or parts it did not manufacture. Credits for defective material and workmanship in said equipment and/or parts are only in accordance with the underlying company policy of the manufacturer. SELLER makes no warranty whatsoever with respect to any equipment and/or parts as to their merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is further agreed that the SELLER assumes no liability whatsoever for failure of equipment due to normal usage and wear.

INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent permitted by the law in which the project is located, BUYER and SELLER shall indemnify and hold one another and their respective employees and agents harmless from and against all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, actions, causes of action, demands, fines, penalties, judgments, costs, and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert fees and costs, arising out of or resulting from BUYER’s or SELLER’s own negligent acts, omissions or misconduct, to the extent such negligence is covered by BUYER’s and SELLER’s respective insurance policies. In the event any third party asserts against SELLER a claim for patent infringement, royalties or licensing fees with respect to BUYER’s use of the products, materials, or equipment provided hereunder, BUYER agrees to indemnity SELLER for all liability damages, costs and expenses in connection therewith.

CANCELLATION
Buyer may cancel this contract only in writing signed by BUYER’s duly authorized agent and acknowledged in writing by SELLER’s duly authorized agent. Should this order be cancelled, BUYER shall be obligated to pay for the level of work performed and products shipped. Work performed includes any engineering, calculations, preparation of submittals, drawings, and/or travel to job site in relation to this order. In addition to any other remedies provided under these Terms and Conditions, SELLER may terminate this contract with immediate effect by providing signed, written notice to BUYER, if BUYER: (i) fails to pay any amount when due under the contract and such failure continues for 30 days after BUYER’s receipt of written notice of nonpayment; (ii) has not otherwise performed or complied with any of these Terms and Conditions; or (iii) becomes insolvent, files a petition for bankruptcy or commences or has commenced against it proceedings in bankruptcy, receivership, reorganization or assignment for the benefit of creditors.

FIELD WORK
Unless specifically stated on our quotation, installation, start-up service, field testing, supervision, operation, and training are not included in our pricing of product. In the event that SELLER or any of its employees or agents do perform work or services on-site at the project’s location, BUYER agrees to hold SELLER and its employees or agents harmless for any injuries or damage to property caused by their acts or omission, except to the extent said injuries or property damage arise from gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

MODIFICATIONS
This contract can be modified only in writing which specifically states that it amends these Terms and Conditions and is signed by both parties and their duly authorized agents. It is further agreed that this contract shall not be modified in any respect except in writing signed by the party and their duly authorized agent against whom the modification is sought to be enforced.

AUTHORITY OF SELLER’S AGENTS
No agent, employee or representative of the SELLER has any authority to bind the SELLER to any affirmation, representation or warranty concerning the goods sold under this Contract, and unless an affirmation, representation or warranty made by an agent, employee, or representative is specifically included within this written contract, it shall not be enforceable by the BUYER.

NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
This contract is for the sole benefit of BUYER and SELLER and their respective successors and permitted assigns and nothing herein, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any other person or entity any legal or equitable right, benefit, or remedy of any nature whatsoever under or by reason of these Terms and Conditions.

GOVERNING LAW
All matters arising of or relating to the contract or the Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the project is located.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of any dispute between BUYER and SELLER arising out of the terms of the contract and these Terms and Conditions, such dispute shall be decided by arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with the then-prevailing Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association. BUYER and SELLER mutually agree that any dispute involving claims valued at or above $1,000,000.00 shall be heard by a panel of three (3) arbitrators. The venue for all arbitration proceedings shall be the State of California. The foregoing agreement to arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction. The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court of competent jurisdiction.

SEVERABILITY
The partial or complete invalidity of any one or more provisions of these Terms and Conditions shall not affect the validity or continuing force and effect of any other provision. If any provision is invalid, in whole or in part, the provision shall be considered reformed to reflect the intent thereof to the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable law.

ASSIGNMENT – DELEGATION
No right or interest in this Contract shall be assigned by the BUYER without the written permission of the SELLER, and no delegation of any obligation owed, or of the performance of any obligation by the BUYER shall be made without the written permission of the SELLER. Any attempted assignment or delegation shall be wholly void and totally ineffective for all purposes unless made in conformity with this paragraph.

Page 239 of 503 ends

Page 240 of 503 ends

12 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Hilary Holeman, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPROVE RESPONSES TO 2025-26 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORTS,
"POTHOLE DAMAGE: IMPROVING CLAIMS PROCESSES WITHIN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY," AND "VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND
OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II”

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Approve response to 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County,";

2. Approve response to 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II,"; and

3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the responses.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Strategic Priorities 2026-2027
Transportation
REPORT NARRATIVE:

On June 12, 2026 the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County." A copy of the report is included in this report as Attachment 1.

On June 17, 2026 the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” A copy of the report is included in this report as Attachment 2.

Under California Penal Code section 933(c) and 933.05, the City is required to respond to the following findings and recommendations in the reports:

Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County

Page 241 of 503 ends

12 Finding 1: Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.

Recommendation 1: No recommendation.

Finding 2: Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.

Recommendation 2a: All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Recommendation 2b: All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Finding 3: Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.

Recommendation 3a: Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Recommendation 3b: Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II Finding 6: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.”
Recommendation 6: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2- 14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive

Page 242 of 503 ends

12 terms. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 7: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.

Recommendation 7: The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Under Penal Code section 933.05, the City is required to respond to each finding by stating whether the City agrees with the finding, or whether the City disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. If the City disagrees with the finding, the response must include an explanation of the disagreement. With regard to the recommendations, the City is required to state 1) the recommendation has been implemented, 2) the recommendation will be implemented in the future, 3) the recommendation requires further analysis, or 4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.

Draft responses to the Grand Jury are included as Attachments 3 and 4.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The Grand Jury's reports were released for public review on the following dates:
"Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County" - June 12, 2026
"VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" - June 17, 2026 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Council could modify the draft responses.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

None.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The submittal of the Grand Jury responses will have no fiscal impact.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a project
Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Page 243 of 503 ends

SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795

G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 12, 2026
City of Morgan Hill
c/o Ms. Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, California 95037
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Bigelow,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.

California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1, 2, and 3. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.

2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b.

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Thursday, September 10, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara Christina Turner, City Manager

Page 244 of 503 ends

State of California

PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a)  For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1)  The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2)  The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b)  For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1)  The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2)  The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3)  The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4)  The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c)  However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d)  A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e)  During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.

Page 245 of 503 ends

(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)

Page 246 of 503 ends

2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026

Page 247 of 503 ends

Page 1 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage................................................................................ 3 Why So Many Claims Are Rejected........................................................................................ 3 The California Government Claims Act................................................................................. 4 Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation .................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6 How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims..................................................................................... 6 Two Common Reasons for Rejection...................................................................................... 7 Rejection Notices are Often Vague.......................................................................................... 8 Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible .......................................... 9 Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form.................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole ......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 18

Page 248 of 503 ends

Page 2 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

SUMMARY
If you hit a pothole within Santa Clara County and damage your vehicle, chances are that your local government will decline to reimburse you for repairs. According to data analyzed by the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury), 92% of pothole claims filed with the County of Santa Clara (County) and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County from 2020 to 2025 were rejected.

People who file claims may find this high rejection rate disappointing. They may also be frustrated by the state law that establishes the claims process, which can often be complex and opaque.

For example, in some jurisdictions, it’s not easy to figure out how to file a claim. Also, while the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) and the City of Saratoga (Saratoga) offer e-filing options, claims filed in other jurisdictions must be mailed in or returned in person. And when a claim is denied, the rejection notice often provides little or no explanation.

The County, cities, and towns can and should do better. Specifically, they should:
• Make online claim forms available or easier to find, and include clearer instructions and timelines;
• Provide forms in multiple languages that reflect their specific demographics; • Make it easier for claimants to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a given roadway;
• Update their rejection letters to specify why claims were denied.

Implementing these changes would make the claims process simpler and more accessible. It would also minimize at least one source of frustration for residents who are already burdened by unexpected repair costs.

Page 249 of 503 ends

Page 3 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this report, a pothole is defined as a depression or hole in the road that forms when pavement breaks apart due to traffic stress and weather conditions.

Potholes can cause severe damage to tires and the underside of vehicles, with a particular risk to two-wheeled vehicles. If drivers believe the local government is responsible for their damage, they can file a claim seeking reimbursement.

According to local media reports, Bay Area drivers in 2022 filed more than 1,000 claims for potholes and other road damages. According to data that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided to CBS News, it rejected more than 95% of Bay Area claims (Feingold and Manthey, 2024; Manthey and Watts, 2024).

Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage
Claims for road-related damage must be filed with the state, county, or city agency that has jurisdiction over the road where the damage occurred.

For example:
• Caltrans is generally responsible for major freeways and highways, such as US-101, I-280, and State Route 87.
• The County is responsible for expressways and county roads, such as Capitol and Lawrence Expressways.
• Cities and towns are generally responsible for local streets within their boundaries, including residential neighborhoods.

Why So Many Claims Are Rejected
The Civil Grand Jury requested and received claims data from the County and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County covering the period from 2020 to 2025. The Civil Grand Jury’s analysis of that data revealed that only 9% of pothole claims across Santa Clara County were settled.

Under the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), local agencies have wide discretion to reject a pothole claim for reasons including but not limited to:
• The claim form was incomplete or not filed by the required deadline;

Page 250 of 503 ends

Page 4 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• It was filed in the wrong jurisdiction;
• The responsible county, city, or town either was not aware of the pothole or was aware but had not had sufficient time to repair it.

These laws make it difficult for a claimant to dispute a denial. For example, if an agency rejects a claim on the grounds that it was not aware of the pothole, the law does not require it to provide evidence to back up its assertion.

In addition, because different agencies can have jurisdiction over different sections of the same road, it can be difficult for a claimant to determine which agency is responsible for the specific location where the damage occurred. If the person files with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency can reject the claim with no obligation to specify the reason or redirect the claimant to the correct jurisdiction.

If a claim is rejected, the claimant can pursue legal action according to the California Government Claims Act.

The California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) establishes timelines and procedures for filing lawsuits seeking money or damages from a public entity.

In general, the Government Claims Act specifies that a claim must be filed no later than six months from the date of the incident. The claim must include what happened, what harm occurred, and the amount of compensation requested.

Once the public entity receives the claim, it has 45 days to review, investigate, and decide whether to settle or reject it. If a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit.

Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury believes that claims processes should be consistent, accessible, and transparent. It also believes the public interest is served by highlighting when processes fall short of that standard.

The Civil Grand Jury conducted this investigation to:
• Examine how local government agencies manage pothole claims; • Understand why so many claims are denied;

Page 251 of 503 ends

Page 5 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Recommend how jurisdictions can make it easier for potential claimants to engage in the process.

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury requested data from all 16 jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance within Santa Clara County. The data excluded state routes and interstate highways because Caltrans, a state agency, is not subject to Civil Grand Jury review. Jurisdictions provided data about all claims filed against them for road-related damages between 2020 and 2025. Information provided included the number of pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution, and the reason for rejection. Three jurisdictions provided response letters sent to claimants.

The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the following 16 agencies to analyze what content was included and how clearly it was presented:
• County of Santa Clara (County)
• City of Campbell (Campbell)
• City of Cupertino (Cupertino)
• City of Gilroy (Gilroy)
• City of Los Altos (Los Altos)
• Town of Los Altos Hills (Los Altos Hills)
• Town of Los Gatos (Los Gatos)
• City of Milpitas (Milpitas)
• City of Monte Sereno (Monte Sereno)
• City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill)
• City of Mountain View (Mountain View)
• City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)
• City of San José (San José)
• City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
• City of Saratoga (Saratoga)
• City of Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale)
The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions that together account for about two-thirds of the roads in Santa Clara County. These interviews provided further insight into the agencies’ processes and decision‑making practices.

Page 252 of 503 ends

Page 6 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

INVESTIGATION
There are over 10,000 miles of locally maintained lanes in Santa Clara County (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026). Between 2020 and 2025, the agencies received exactly 400 claims specifically due to potholes.

Of the pothole claims, the Civil Grand Jury determined that the jurisdictions collectively settled 34 claims, or 8.5%. The percentage of settlements for damages varied among the individual entities. The data showed that during that five-year period:
• Gilroy and Saratoga each settled 50% of claims filed (however, they each averaged 1-2 claims per year, among the smallest sample sizes in Santa Clara County). • Four jurisdictions paid at least 10% of claims: Morgan Hill (17%), the County (11%), Santa Clara (11%), and Milpitas (10%).
• The remaining jurisdictions paid 9% of claims or fewer.

The Civil Grand Jury acknowledges that the significance of this data is limited; if an entity received a high volume of claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction, it will not settle those claims.

How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County generally follow a similar process for receiving and evaluating a claim.

First, the claim gets submitted to a city clerk, city manager, or equivalent official, who logs it along with any accompanying documents. Next, the official notifies the local public works department so it can investigate the incident site as needed.

In the meantime, the official assigns the claim to an investigator, usually in the city attorney’s or county counsel’s office. The investigator verifies whether the agency has jurisdiction, ensures the form was filled out correctly, and reviews any photographs and receipts that were submitted.

If the jurisdiction agrees to pay out the claim, it will often mail a check. But if the claim involves injuries or death, or the claimant is seeking tens of thousands of dollars, the settlement may need approval from the respective city council or the County Board of Supervisors.

If the jurisdiction rejects the claim, it will inform the claimant via a form letter or email. The California Government Claims Act does not require jurisdictions to specify the reason for denial.

Page 253 of 503 ends

Page 7 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Two Common Reasons for Rejection
According to the data provided to the Civil Grand Jury, claims are frequently denied for one of two reasons: The claim was out of the entity’s jurisdiction, or the County, city, or town had no prior notice of the pothole.

Out of Jurisdiction
A claim must be filed with the agency that has jurisdiction over the specific location where the incident occurred. According to interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury, claims that are filed with the wrong jurisdiction will almost certainly be rejected as outside of jurisdiction.

A road’s location within an agency’s boundaries does not necessarily mean that agency is responsible for receiving or resolving related claims. Jurisdiction over road maintenance can shift multiple times as roads cross between state, county, and municipal boundaries. This patchwork of responsibility can be confusing, making it hard for claimants to figure out which agency has jurisdiction over the specific location of their incident.

Agencies typically verify their jurisdiction by consulting their local public works, utilities, or roads departments.

No Prior Notice
The Government Claims Act also establishes limits to the public entities’ liability for the condition of its roadways. One of those limitations is the issue of notice to the public entity. The Civil Grand Jury found this was one of the two most common reasons pothole claims are rejected.

Notice typically requires evidence that at least one of four circumstances exists:

1. The public entity created the condition;

2. The pothole had been reported prior to an incident in which a vehicle was damaged;

3. An agency’s employee observed the pothole and reported it;

4. The pothole existed long enough that the jurisdiction should have known about it through regular inspections.

If none of these circumstances applies, the agency can declare it had no prior notice and deny the claim.

When an agency receives notice of a pothole, state law allows for a reasonable period to address the hazard. It does not specify what constitutes a reasonable timeframe.

Page 254 of 503 ends

Page 8 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Drivers can help ensure that a jurisdiction receives prior notice by promptly reporting any potholes.

All jurisdictions have a mechanism for reporting potholes and other issues (see Appendix A).

Rejection Notices are Often Vague
As noted above, it is not unusual for an agency to withhold its reason for rejecting a claim. A rejection notice would contain this language, in part, which is required by the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 913):

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM
Dear Claimant,
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to (insert title of board or officer) on (date) was rejected on (date).

WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.

See Government Code Section 945.6.

You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.

Agencies may provide further information, such as the reason for rejection. A notice of denial can be aggravating enough, but when it is written in minimal legalistic terms, claimants may feel even more frustrated. The Civil Grand Jury learned about rejection letters from the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José and found that some but not all rejection letters provide a reason for rejection. Rejection letters from other jurisdictions may follow this same approach.

In Civil Grand Jury interviews, one agency official suggested that people who receive a letter like this contact the agency and see if it will share the reason for rejection. Although the reason for rejection is recorded by the agency, there is no legal obligation to provide this information, and agencies may limit this information.

Page 255 of 503 ends

Page 9 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.

When a local road crosses or overlaps a state route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.

County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airports Department.

Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway

Page 256 of 503 ends

Page 10 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Montague Expressway
• Oregon Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• Southwest Expressway
Complicated Exceptions
Further complicating efforts to determine which agency has jurisdiction over a particular area, cities, Caltrans, the County, and even the federal government (such as near Moffett Federal Airfield) have maintenance agreements that specify which agency is responsible for certain roadway segments – such as onramps, offramps, and other defined areas (City of Mountain View, 2019). It is not always easy to determine which agency is responsible for which segments.

Complicated Maps
Some jurisdictions have no public maps indicating which roads they are responsible for. The County and some cities, including San José, Campbell, and Mountain View, do post searchable maps online that can help the public narrow down which jurisdiction is responsible for a particular road. However, the maps often use complicated interfaces rather than a simple image or printout, and many maps are not specific to just the roads maintained by the jurisdictions.

San José, which maintains more than 4,000 miles of locally maintained lanes within its borders, has its own mapping website (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026; City of San José, 2020). It shows whether a particular street within its boundaries is maintained by San José, the County, a private entity, or another agency. The website provides a large amount of information, although it is complicated for the average user to navigate.

An alternative source of information is pavement management plans that some agencies make available. These plans may list all roads maintained by the jurisdiction and can be used as a reference. As an example, Morgan Hill has a link to its latest 2024 Pavement Management Report with a list of streets at the end. However, there is no direct link from the claim forms webpage, so claimants would not be aware of this reference (AMS Consulting, 2025).

Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form
Once a person has found the proper jurisdiction, the next step is to download the claim form from the local agency’s website.

Of the 16 jurisdictions, the Civil Grand Jury found that only Gilroy, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale provide adequate claims process information on their webpages or on the claim form itself.

Page 257 of 503 ends

Page 11 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Most jurisdictions provide forms only in English. This is an omission that could potentially disenfranchise community members who have limited proficiency in English.

The Civil Grand Jury identified three cities that took the helpful step of providing additional language options:
• Morgan Hill provides a PDF of its claim form in English and Spanish. • Sunnyvale has a translation feature that allows claimants to translate the form into one of 200+ languages. Users can either fill out the translated form online and print a copy or print out a blank translated form and fill it out by hand.
• Saratoga’s website uses a third-party widget to translate its website in addition to an online form to many other languages.

The Civil Grand Jury also investigated how easy it is to find claim forms on each jurisdiction’s website by searching for the term “claim form.”
The Civil Grand Jury could not find any information about submitting a pothole claim in four entities: Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno.

Cupertino provides a claim form, but users must use the website’s search function to find it.

Gilroy does not link directly to a claim form, although it does provide instructions on how to request a form by email or in person.

Page 258 of 503 ends

Page 12 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Table 1: Access to online claim process instructions and link to claim form (See References for links)
Jurisdiction Online Claims Process
Instructions
Link to
Claim Form
Caltrans Yes Yes
County of Santa Clara No Yes
Campbell No No
Cupertino No Yes
Gilroy Yes No
Los Altos No No
Los Altos Hills No No
Los Gatos Yes Yes
Milpitas No Yes
Monte Sereno No No
Morgan Hill No Yes
Mountain View No Yes
Palo Alto Yes Yes
San José No Yes
Santa Clara Yes Yes
Saratoga No Yes
Sunnyvale Yes Yes
Many jurisdictions recommend that claimants deliver the claim form in person, including all relevant information, such as photos, receipts, and witness statements. The claimant should retain a signed copy.

Some agencies allow for email submission, but this is the exception. Alternatively, a claimant could submit the claim by mail to the city or town clerk (or, for the County, the Clerk of the Board).

According to the California Government Claims Act, the agency has 45 days from the date the claim form was mailed or delivered in person to respond to the claimant.

Page 259 of 503 ends

Page 13 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

CONCLUSION
Even though state law sets strict rules for filing and reviewing claims, local government agencies retain significant discretion over their processes. By offering clearer online information, improving access to claim forms, expanding language options, and providing more detailed explanations when claims are denied, jurisdictions can significantly improve public trust, reduce frustration, and increase fairness.

Implementing the recommended updates is not only feasible, but it also aligns with the spirit of responsive and transparent public service. The Civil Grand Jury urges all jurisdictions to adopt these improvements by the recommended deadlines to ensure that the claims process is fairer, more consistent, and easier for the public to navigate.

Page 260 of 503 ends

Page 14 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.

Recommendation 1
No recommendation.

Finding 2
Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.

Recommendation 2a
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Recommendation 2b
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Finding 3
Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.

Recommendation 3a
Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Page 261 of 503 ends

Page 15 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Recommendation 3b
Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Finding 4
When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.

Recommendation 4
The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Page 262 of 503 ends

Page 16 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Campbell 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Gilroy 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Los Altos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
Town of Los Altos Hills 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
Town of Los Gatos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of Milpitas 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Monte Sereno 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Morgan Hill 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Mountain View 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Palo Alto 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of San José 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Saratoga 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a
City of Sunnyvale 1, 2 2a, 2b

Page 263 of 503 ends

Page 17 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole
Residents who see a pothole can report it so the jurisdiction can repair it in a timely manner.

Based on a Civil Grand Jury review, here is a list of contacts (as of April 15, 2026) where potholes or other needed street repairs can be reported:

Jurisdiction Website to report a pothole
Caltrans https://csr.dot.ca.gov/index.php/Msrsubmit
County of Santa Clara https://roads.santaclaracounty.gov/services/service-requests Campbell https://www.campbellca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Cupertino https://cupertinoca.citysourced.com/servicerequests/create Gilroy https://seeclickfix.com/gilroy
Los Altos https://www.losaltosca.gov/FormCenter/Public-Works-6/ Maintenance-Service-Request-46
Los Altos Hills https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Los Gatos https://www.losgatosca.gov/FormCenter/PPW-15/Report-aParks-Public-Works-Concern-87 Milpitas https://seeclickfix.com/web_portal/
chZ2d7WdKoe4V2BriJxUCFqd/report/category
Monte Sereno https://www.montesereno.org/forms.aspx?FID=80 Morgan Hill https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/509/Maintenance Mountain View https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/publicworks/roads-and-transportation/street-maintenance Palo Alto https://www.paloalto.gov/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue San José https://311.sanjoseca.gov/
Santa Clara https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/mayor-andcouncil/contact-city-council Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern6/Fix-It-Form-45 Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhoodcomplaints/

Page 264 of 503 ends

Page 18 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

REFERENCES
Bibliography
AMS Consulting. “Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 25, 2024/2025 Pavement Management Report.” March 21, 2025.
(https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53950/Updated-Morgan-HillPTAP-25-Rev01-for-Web). Accessed April 16, 2026.

Cal. Gov. Code § 810 et seq.

Cal. Gov. Code § 913 et seq.

California Department of Transportation. “California Road Data 2024.” November 2025. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/hpms/hpms-2024-prd-a11y.pdf). Accessed April 28, 2026.

California Department of Transportation. “Submit Damage Claim.” n.d. (https://dot.ca.gov/ online-services/submit-damage-claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Cupertino. “Claim Form.” September 2022.
(https://cupertinoca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/yourcity/documents/claim-form-rev-102523.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.

City of Gilroy. “How to File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.cityofgilroy.org/966/How-to-File-aClaim). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Milpitas. “Helpful Links.” n.d. (https://www.milpitas.gov/188/Helpful-Links). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill. “Claim for Damages Form.” n.d. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/1411/ Claim-for-Damages-Form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Mountain View. “Claim Form.” n.d. (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/ departments/city-attorneys-office/claim-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Mountain View. “GIS/Mapping Portal, Map Road Centerline” July 18, 2019. (https://data-mountainview.opendata.arcgis.com/search?q=roads). Accessed April 28, 2026.

Page 265 of 503 ends

Page 19 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
City of Palo Alto. “Submit a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.paloalto.gov/ Departments/City-Attorney/Submit-a-Claim-Against-the-City). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of San José. “File Claim Against City Form.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdatacsj.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CSJ::streets/about). Accessed April 16, 2026.

City of Santa Clara. “Frequently Asked Questions.” July 23, 2015. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-s-office/frequentlyasked-questions). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Saratoga. “Claims Against Saratoga.” n.d. (https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/ Claims-Form-37/Claims-Against-Saratoga-102). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Sunnyvale. “File a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/yourgovernment/city-clerk/file-a-claim-against-the-city). Accessed April 15, 2026.

County of Santa Clara. “File a claim of loss against the County.” n.d. (https://cob.santaclaracounty.gov/services/file-claim-loss-against-county). Accessed April 15, 2026.

Feingold, Lindsey and Manthey, Grace. “Less than 4% of Bay Area Caltrans pothole, other damage claims approved in recent years: data.” KGO-TV. January 25, 2024. (https:// abc7news.com/post/bay-area-potholes-caltrans-claims-car-damages/14359988/).

Accessed April 14, 2026.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Pavement Conditions of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2024.” January 5, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5099739-pavement-conditionbay-area-jurisdictions-2024). Accessed April 15, 2026.

Town of Los Gatos. “File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2422/File-a-Claim).

Accessed April 15, 2026.

Watts, Julie and Manthey, Grace. “California freeways with the most potholes and car damage claims.” CBS News California. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-freeways-most-potholes-damage-claims/).

Accessed April 14, 2026.

Page 266 of 503 ends

Page 20 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson

Page 267 of 503 ends

SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795

G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 17, 2026
City of Morgan Hill
c/o Ms. Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, California 95037
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Bigelow,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 6 and 7. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.

2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 6 and 7.

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Tuesday, September 15, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Christina Turner, City Manager
Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara

Page 268 of 503 ends

State of California

Page 269 of 503 ends

Page 270 of 503 ends

2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
VTA’s Management and
Oversight of BART
Silicon Valley Phase II
June 17, 2026

Page 271 of 503 ends

Page 1 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 8 Financial Risks .......................................................................................................................... 8 Oversight Concerns ................................................................................................................ 13 Coordination with BART ....................................................................................................... 21 Board Experience and Continuity......................................................................................... 22 Public Communication ........................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 27 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter ............................................................................. 32 CONFLICTS ............................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 34

Page 272 of 503 ends

Page 2 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

SUMMARY
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) project to extend rapid transit rail service through downtown San José is controversial and the most costly and complex project it has ever undertaken. Known as BART Silicon Valley Phase II (BSVII), the $12.7 billion project extends rail service six miles and includes a large, single-bore underground tunnel and will take 10 years or more from 2026 to complete (VTA, March 2024).

Despite significantly reduced ridership projections and uncertainty about funding sources for both capital and operating costs, VTA has awarded major construction contracts, including for the construction of a launch structure to stage a specialized one-of-a-kind Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), which will be owned by VTA. Over the next few years, VTA anticipates awarding further construction contracts worth billions of dollars. To reduce uncertainty, the spokesperson for an independent peer review of the project urged VTA to move quickly to “build as much as you can, as fast as you can” (VTA Special Board Meeting, 2025). Such an approach assumes that there will be political will and taxpayer support to finish an incomplete project regardless of cost increases, delays, or reduced ridership.

The VTA’s Board of Directors (Board) has recognized the need for additional oversight and guidance, but the Board has failed to exercise its obligation to provide the strategic direction needed for a successful project. The Oversight Committee it created has been left to define its own role. It was not required to, and does not, provide reports that share available independent analyses of critical issues. The Oversight Committee does not routinely make policy recommendations to the Board and does not hold VTA staff accountable for providing the timely analysis it has requested.

The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) investigated the role of the VTA Board, its Oversight Committee, its staff, and officials in the management and oversight of the BSVII project.

This report identifies financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues that VTA must address to earn the public’s trust in delivering the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon Valley and to secure support for future sales tax measures.

Page 273 of 503 ends

Page 3 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

BACKGROUND
The Valley Transportation Authority is a transportation agency established by state law. It is responsible for operating public transit services, including buses, light rail, and paratransit within Santa Clara County. In addition to public transit, VTA is a planning and funding agency for transportation infrastructure projects throughout Santa Clara County. As established by the California Public Utilities Code Sections 100060-100070, the VTA is governed by a 12-person Board of Directors composed of elected officials appointed by the County of Santa Clara (County) and the cities in Santa Clara County, who each serve two-year terms. The Board has many responsibilities and its monthly meeting agendas are lengthy.

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District provides regional commuter rail service and is governed by a nine-person Board of Directors elected to four-year terms from districts representing San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. As part of its larger regional system, BART operates the commuter rail service within Santa Clara County.

By contract with BART, VTA is solely responsible for paying the capital and net operating costs of extending commuter rail service into Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). Although the County was not included in the legislation establishing BART, voters of Santa Clara County supported three sales tax measures which provided funds to plan, build, and operate the extension of BART to Santa Clara County. Today, 1.625% of sales tax collected in Santa Clara County supports VTA and other local jurisdictions (see Table 1). If a currently proposed measure qualifies for the ballot, in November 2026, voters will decide whether to approve an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund local transit, which would increase the County’s base sales tax rate from the current 9.75% to 10.25%.

Page 274 of 503 ends

Page 4 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 1: Countywide Sales Tax in Santa Clara County, Effective April 2026 Description Sales Tax % Expiration Funding Purpose
California Base 7.250% No Expiration
State General Fund
Local Revenue Fund
Local Public Safety
Health & Social Services
1976 Measure A 0.500% No Expiration Transit: VTA
2000 Measure A 0.500% 2036 Transit: VTA, BART Silicon
Valley
2008 Measure B 0.125% 2042 Transit: BART Silicon Valley 2016 Measure B 0.500% 2047
Transit: VTA +
County/City/Caltrain/Caltrans
Infrastructure
2012 Measure A 0.125% No Expiration County General Fund 2020 Measure RR 0.125% 2050 Transit: Caltrain
2026 Measure A 0.625% 2031 General incl. Healthcare
Total Base Sales Tax
Rate 9.750%
Data extracted from: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2026. (https://cdtfa.ca.gov/formspubs/cdtfa105.pdf); VTA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Page 3 ends

Note: Some cities have higher voter-approved rates in addition to the County base rate; Highlighted section of the table refers to sales tax measures that fund VTA.

The first phase of BART to Silicon Valley extended service to Milpitas and then to the Berryessa Transit Center (Berryessa). Construction started in 2012 and was completed in 2020. Ridership for Phase I has not met forecasts, and due to operational, maintenance, and depreciation expenses, VTA has experienced significant financial losses. According to data reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, BART to Silicon Valley Phase I has lost an average of $69 million annually during the first five years of operation.

The second phase consists of a six-mile, four-station extension from Berryessa through downtown San José to the City of Santa Clara. For this phase, VTA is targeting completion by 2037. As a condition of federal funding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has appointed a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC). The PMOC uses a more conservative schedule and forecasts completion in 2039 (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026).

Page 275 of 503 ends

Page 5 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II At an early planning stage in 2014, the BSVII project cost was estimated at $4.7 billion. By 2020, the cost estimate increased to $6.9 billion. In 2022, based on the PMOC’s projected cost analysis, VTA submitted an estimate of $9.1 billion to the federal government for an Early Start Grant. In October 2023, VTA estimated the construction cost at $12.2 billion with operations to begin in 2036. The most recent estimate is $12.7 billion, and operations are pushed back to 2037 (VTA Auditor General Report, January 2024).

The project's funding sources include federal and state grants, as well as local revenues from voterapproved sales tax measures. All the funding sources are subject to risks, which are identified in this report. Figure 1 shows the funding sources with $700 million to be determined (TBD) and $375 million from a potential ballot measure in November 2026.

Figure 1: Components of $12.7 Billion in BSVII Funding Sources as of April 2026 Source: vtabart.org website (accessed April 9, 2026)
Although two years earlier, VTA had asked for a federal commitment of $6.3 billion, in August 2024, the FTA announced that its share of funding would be capped at $5.1 billion (Geha, 2024).

VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summer 2025). To reduce project costs, VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024):
• Simplifying station configurations;

Page 276 of 503 ends

Page 6 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • Modifying the Santa Clara Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility; • Modifying the tunnel and station ventilation systems; • Substituting a surface parking lot for a parking structure; • Reconfiguring the tunnel to use less concrete and steel.

In addition, the funding strategy assumes $375 million from the yet-to-be-approved regional sales tax measure for a total outstanding gap of $1.075 billion.

Due in part to the significant increase in estimated cost and a perceived lack of communication about the project’s cost, risks, and schedule, the Board conducted a workshop in October 2023 to review the project’s status. At this workshop, individual Board members expressed a lack of confidence in the VTA staff’s management of the project and requested a new system of oversight and project management.

In response, the Board chair established an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II oversight committee (Oversight Committee) responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project, focusing on a full, independent, and transparent review of costs, funding, risks, and completion schedule.

The Oversight Committee’s bylaws later stated that its purpose was to provide “guidance and oversight” of the project (VTA, April 4, 2024).

The VTA independent auditor general was tasked with providing staff support to the Oversight Committee and was authorized to contract with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to independently review and comment on VTA staff recommendations regarding costs, risks, and schedule. In turn, the Oversight Committee authorized the SME firm, Gall Zeidler (GZ), to independently assess the risks and viability of cost-saving alternatives.

In a 2001 Agreement, VTA and BART agreed to cooperate in the project’s planning, design, and construction. They established a series of interagency committees, the latest of which is the Joint VTA/BART Working Committee, which depending on the availability of its members, is scheduled to meet quarterly. BART staff members have been assigned to co-locate with VTA engineers to participate in the preparation and review of BSVII designs in accordance with the agreed Project Design Criteria Manual. According to the BART Inspector General, VTA has reimbursed BART $19.2 million through 2025 for the cost of the assigned employees (BART, December 19, 2025). In August 2025, the BART assistant general manager, operations, rejected some of VTA’s proposed design changes and scope reductions and complained about inadequate coordination (see Appendix A). The BART inspector general issued a report in December 2025 that also raised concerns about inadequate coordination and criticized VTA’s communication with BART officials (Id.).

Page 277 of 503 ends

Page 7 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed every meeting of the BSVII Oversight Committee, as well as select VTA Board meetings. This included reviewing agendas, minutes, agenda item reports, public comment submittals, and associated discussions.

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury conducted 17 interviews of officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section, as well as documents requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.

Page 278 of 503 ends

Page 8 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

INVESTIGATION
The Civil Grand Jury investigation of the BSVII project covered critical aspects of VTA’s management and oversight, including:
• VTA’s funding strategy and its reliance on voter-approved sales tax measures, some of which expire before completion of the project, and some of which have yet to be approved; • The establishment of a separate Oversight Committee which provides guidance on the BSVII project and how it evaluates independent analyses provided by the VTA auditor general, contracted SMEs, and the federally mandated PMOC; • The contractual and practical requirement to closely coordinate with BART, which will serve as the system operator;
• The impact of the VTA Board’s governance structure on the effectiveness of strategic direction, management, and oversight of the project;
• VTA’s approach for keeping the public informed of costs, risks, and schedule.

Financial Risks
The 10-year project completion timeline of BSVII exposes VTA to financial risks that require careful, ongoing assessment of capital and operating costs, including that:
• Rising labor and material costs, combined with aggressive construction methods and schedules, may increase total project costs and strain the budget’s contingency for unforeseen risks and unexpected expenses;
• Delays or reductions in state and federal funding will create greater pressure to rely on local funding sources or scale back the scope of the project; • Lower ridership levels will increase VTA’s ongoing obligation to pay net operating costs, which would necessitate service level reductions or voter approval of new or extended sales tax measures;
• Failure to maintain a cash-flow model exclusive to BSVII, means that contracting options for accelerating work may not be able to be financed with available resources.

Risk of Increased Costs of Labor and Materials
The FTA fiscal year 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment report for BSVII stated the VTA inflation estimate was optimistic. If labor and material costs were to rise above those estimated in VTA’s budget, it could lead to funding shortfalls (FTA, 2024).

Page 279 of 503 ends

Page 9 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The VTA auditor general’s May 1, 2025, report to the Board also identified BSVII financial risks associated with project construction costs. The report found that the assumptions and historical data underlying VTA’s financial plan could be more robust to enable the Board and the public to evaluate the financial risk associated with the potential cost increases (VTA, 2025).

Another factor that increases the difficulty in predicting materials and labor costs is the possible extension of the 2037 project completion date. The longer timeline for BSVII increases the likelihood that future costs will differ from current estimates, thereby increasing financial risk.

Local, State, and Federal Funding Risks
The capital cost of construction and the net operating costs are to be paid by VTA from specific revenue sources, some of which are grants with fixed amounts.

The financial risks identified by the Civil Grand Jury have been experienced by other major transit agencies. For example, the various rail projects of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) faced escalating cost estimates, reductions in federal funding, cuts into smaller construction segments to match available funding, and shifting agency priorities (Shalby, 2026).

Local Funding Risks
VTA’s capital financing plan calls for the 2016 Measure B to pay $2.5 billion and for the 2000 Measure A to pay $2.0 billion of the estimated $12.7 billion BSVII project. Measure A expires in 2036, before BSVII is expected to be completed. Measure B expires in 2047 (VTA, About 2016 Measure B, n.d.). As the project’s cost estimates have evolved, so have the planned funding sources. Measure B has become a much more significant source of proposed funding.

Because Measure B also funds bus transit, local streets, and highway projects, there are built-in limitations on the amount available to close a BSVII financing gap. Measure B limits spending on BSVII to 23.8% of net sales tax revenue over its 30-year life (FTA, 2024). Net sales tax revenue (defined as Program Tax Revenue in the measure) is calculated as the amount remaining after deducting administrative costs and any debt service.

To close current and potential future funding gaps, VTA could issue bonds to be repaid from Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voterapproved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on

Page 280 of 503 ends

Page 10 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the other transportation projects approved by the voters. Because of bond issuance and interest costs, the total project costs would exceed the current estimate of $12.7 billion.

Another risky approach to filling funding gaps would allow the Board to change the rules and permit a greater percentage of Measure B net sales tax revenue to be used for BSVII. One VTA official acknowledged to the Civil Grand Jury that this would be a “heavy lift” because VTA would first have to notify all the local agencies of the proposed increase in the percentage limit and then approve it by a ¾ vote of the Board (9 of 12 Board members). The County and the cities that have planned other transportation measures are likely to object to reduced funding for their projects.

Of course, more Measure B funds could become available to support the capital costs of BSVII if the expected sales tax revenue exceeds previously anticipated levels. While early projections were based on 2016 economic conditions, it is important for the strategic funding plan that the sales tax forecast be updated regularly. The Civil Grand Jury was informed that VTA has ordered an updated forecast.

Because two key sales tax measures are set to expire, several VTA officials stated in interviews that they would simply place a measure on a future ballot for voter consideration if an extension were needed. Given the current sales tax rates applicable within Santa Clara County and the need for management and oversight reforms identified in this report, there is a risk that voters may not approve such a measure.

State Funding Risk
As of April 2026, the capital construction funding strategy required $1.5 billion from two State of California grants. The VTA has received commitments for nearly $200 million of that total. The sources of funding are the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and transportation funds administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), both of which may be affected by a recent state decision to provide a bridge loan to Bay Area transit agencies (MTC, 2026).

In February 2026, the California legislature appropriated $590 million from the same TIRCP account to provide a 12-year loan to MTC. These loan proceeds will be made available to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, AC Transit, BART, and Caltrain to help address a greater need for public transit subsidies. The agencies are required to repay the loan over 12 years (MTC, 2026).

Page 281 of 503 ends

Page 11 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The state justified the loan on the basis that the transit agencies would be able to stabilize their financial situations and avoid service reductions pending the anticipated approval in November of a regional sales tax measure. If the regional measure does not pass, or if for any other reason the agencies do not repay the loans on time, the timing of the receipt of funding to VTA might create some cash flow risk for the project.

Further, the TIRCP account itself is funded by payments from private parties who agree to purchase pollution credits in the state’s Cap and Invest program. The program’s future is uncertain in light of federal changes to environmental regulations and pending legal challenges from the State of California (California State Transportation Agency, n.d.).

Federal Funding Risk
In August 2024, the FTA advised VTA that the federal government’s total contribution to the project would be limited to $5.1 billion. To receive these funds, VTA plans to apply for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) by the end of 2026.

Federal support for large-scale rail projects is uncertain. In 2025, the FTA canceled a $4.2 billion commitment to the California High-Speed Rail Project (Shalby, 2025). VTA’s lobbyists have suggested delaying the FFGA application until similar requests from other states are resolved.

Considering the political, economic, and budgetary conditions of the United States, approval of VTA’s request for an FFGA is highly uncertain. It may be delayed, reduced, or denied.

Low Levels of Ridership Could Increase VTA’s Future Costs BART ridership on the current regional system has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

Ridership in January 2026 remains only 48% of the levels in January 2019 (BART, January 2026; BART, 2019). Recovering ridership may prove difficult due to the growth of hybrid work patterns.

The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed the forecasts for the first phase of the project, which included the new Milpitas and Berryessa stations. For January 2026, ridership was 86% below estimates (see Table 2).

Page 282 of 503 ends

Page 12 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 2: BART Ridership at Milpitas and Berryessa Stations Forecast for Average Daily
Weekday Ridership for
June 2021 at launch
Actual Ridership,
January 2026
Ridership/Day 20,110 2,789
Source: Joint VTA/BART Working Committee Meeting, December 4, 2020; BART February 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot.

Note: VTA created forecasts in 2020, expressed as rides per day. BART actuals are based on recorded station entries and exits. To normalize BART actuals to the VTA forecast, entries and exits were averaged to produce a daily ridership figure.

An overall decrease in ridership has led BART to project a $376 million budget deficit for FY2026-

27. To seek additional revenue, BART is relying on a 0.5% additional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot that would begin in 2027 and remain in place for 14 years. If the ballot measure does not pass, BART has proposed closing up to 15 stations and reducing service hours and train frequency (BART, February 26, 2026). Ironically, the proposed station closures would not affect Santa Clara County because VTA is solely responsible for the net operating costs.

According to VTA records reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, for the first three years of operation, VTA forecasts annual average costs of $274 million for operations, maintenance, and capital costs.

Average fare revenue is forecast at $60 million, offsetting VTA's financial obligation to BART, resulting in an average annual financial loss of $214 million. Any drop in ridership will lead to further financial losses.

The Need for a BSVII Cash Flow Model
With a price tag of $12.7 billion, BSVII is the largest public infrastructure project in Santa Clara County (Aragon, 2025). Nearly 60% of the planned funding sources include revenue from grants that will not be distributed in advance but will be reimbursed in accordance with each grant’s draw schedule (See Figure 1). The timing of those cash inflows must be carefully matched with the timing of payment schedules for construction contracts worth billions of dollars.

VTA staff is evaluating different approaches to contracting the construction work. Alternatives are being evaluated for the following reasons: 1) to identify segments of work that could be bid out separately to accelerate the overall schedule; and 2) to identify segments for which there is a greater likelihood of strong competitive bids. For each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows.

Page 283 of 503 ends

Page 13 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II A cash flow model that matches receipts and expenditures for BSVII would enable VTA decisionmakers to fully evaluate the alternative approaches being studied. However, VTA officials have advised the Civil Grand Jury that such a model has not yet been developed. A cash flow model is necessary to avoid unplanned delays from cash shortfalls.

Oversight Concerns
VTA Board Recognizes That Oversight Must be Improved
Independent reports and audits have identified problems with project management and VTA Board oversight, including those identified by a prior Civil Grand Jury, the California State Auditor, and the PMOC (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). VTA’s cost-estimation practices, along with its lack of transparency around changes to project scope and cost, were identified as significant deficiencies. VTA’s oversight and management of the BSVII project have also been heavily criticized by the media, in public comments presented at Board meetings, and in letters to the editor of multiple local publications.

VTA Board Outsources Guidance and Oversight of the BSVII Project Following a workshop on the project’s direction in October 2023, the VTA Board Chairman announced the creation of an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee (VTA, 2023).

However, only the Board can make binding decisions on the project’s scope, funding, risks, schedule, and contracting approach. While ultimately accountable itself, the Board nonetheless effectively delegated oversight to a committee without providing clear direction. By abdicating its responsibility to set its expectations of how the Oversight Committee can best support the Board, the committee has been left to set its own course. That course does not keep the Board fully informed of issues raised by independent experts or the PMOC, hampering its ability to make the best decisions about the project's funding and schedule.

At its meeting on January 15, 2026, the Oversight Committee adopted what it called a revised charter intended to clarify the lines of communication and relationships among the auditor general, SME, VTA staff, and Oversight Committee (VTA, January 15, 2026). Members of the Oversight Committee had expressed concern about a perceived lack of coordination between VTA staff and the SME. Nonetheless, the question remains: Is the role of an SME to provide the Board with an independent review of VTA staff recommendations as originally intended, or is it to help VTA staff improve their recommendations? Notably, in the following excerpt, the Charter requires the

Page 284 of 503 ends

Morgan Hill City CouncilAugust 19, 2026

Morgan Hill City Council
August 19, 2026