Agenda Packet — Redding City Council, July 19, 2022 (part 2 of 5)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Subscribing Agency Agreement
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made and entered into this day of____ , by and between the Redding Police Department, the Anderson Police Department, and the Shasta County Sheriff's Office, collectively known as “IPS” (Integrated Public Safety) and , hereinafter referred to as Subscribing Agency. IPS and Subscribing Agency are herein after referred to as the Parties to this MOU. IPS maintains a centralized computer data system relevant to the needs of law and justice agencies in the Shasta County region hereinafter referred to as the IPSS (Integrated Public Safety Systems). The IPS Directors consist of the Redding and Anderson Police Chiefs and the Shasta County Sheriff. Subscribing Agency wishes to access the IPSS.

1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to establish the terms, conditions, and responsibilities of IPS and Subscribing Agency, thereby authorizing Subscribing Agency to access the IPSS, and if applicable, access the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Additionally, this MOU shall define responsibility for control of information accessed through the IPSS.

2. SHARED INFORMATION
Not all information maintained within IPSS shall be available to all employees of the Parties.

Sensitive information contained within IPSS shall be restricted on a “need to know” basis as determined by the originating agency, to perform assigned duties.

Data stored in IPSS is owned by IPS, subscribing agencies do not have the authority to share said information. Data obtained from IPSS shall only be disseminated by the Agency of Record. All information requests, including but not limited to; total calls for service, case information, copies of records, jail activity, etc. shall be sent directly from the requesting party to the Agency of Record.

The data in the IPSS is under the authority of the authorizing Subscribing Agency. Only the Custodian of Records or the Agency head for that information may authorize its release. No Subscribing Agency shall give out information for another Subscribing Agency without the written consent from that Agency. This includes Public Records Requests or involved and/or associated cases.

Abuse of access of information within the IPSS could result in termination of user access and/or subscribing agency access to IPSS and will be reviewed and decided by a majority vote of the IPS Directors.

3. MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
Subscribing Agency shall assume responsibility of its employees who are granted access to the IPSS.

Each Subscribing Agency shall maintain physical and operational control of any equipment and/or software used to gain access to the IPSS.

Each Subscribing Agency shall ensure that all employees of Subscribing Agency who are granted access to the IPSS continue to meet the requirements of Penal Code sections 11105 and 13300, which identify persons allowed to access criminal history information and the purposes for said access.

Each Subscribing Agency shall maintain information and/or access security such that it is compliant with all security controls required by the most recent version of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy and CLETS Policies, Practices, and Procedures (PP&P) Exhibit A
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (4.9(a)--Approve IPS MOU)

Page 2 of 4 ends

4. SECURITY CLEARANCE
Subscribing Agency agrees to maintain accurate records of those employees who have been granted access to the IPSS. Those records shall include a copy of the Security Clearance notice signed by each employee who is granted access to the IPSS.

Within six months of employment of assignment of any staff accessing the IPSS, the Subscribing Agency shall have staff pass a proficiency test for CLETS/NCIC policies and Regulations by completing the required training and the appropriate CLETS/NCIC Telecommunications Proficiency Examination published by the CA DOJ. Proficiency retesting shall be required biannually thereafter as required by CLETS PP&P. Copies of Signed agreements and/or proficiency tests shall be made available for inspection and review by IPS within three business days of written request to Subscribing Agency.

5. SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
Subscribing Agency authorizing an employee to gain access to the IPSS shall submit a written and signed request from its respective Agency Head or designee. Submission of such a request shall not occur until the employee has executed the Security Clearance notice. Once an employee has been provided access to the IPSS, the Subscribing Agency shall be responsible for enforcing the rules and regulations governing the use of information obtained through the IPSS. Should an employee's status change, either through re-assignment or termination, it shall be the Subscribing Agency's responsibility to immediately notify IPSS in writing to prevent the employee from having further access to the IPSS.

6. COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
Each year IPS shall establish a fee schedule (User Fees) for the access, support, and security of the IPSS. IPS shall prepare and submit to each Subscribing Agency, the Board approved User Fees prior to the start of the fiscal year. In accordance with the established fee schedule, invoicing shall be done bi-annually, based upon actual number of users the Subscribing Agency had accessing the IPSS each month. The total users for each Subscribing Agency will be audited monthly by IPS to be used for billing purposes. The Subscribing Agency can request a copy of that audit at any given time, by submitting a request in writing to IPS. No amendment to this MOU is necessary to update the annual fee schedule.

The Subscribing Agency shall remit to IPS, upon receipt of invoice, applicable fees according to the approved annual fee schedule. The establishment and implementation of a cost-recovery fee schedule does not imply all costs incurred by IPS, on the behalf of Subscribing Agency, are included in the current Fee Schedule calculation. All invoices are payable within 30 days of receipt.

The fee schedule shall establish a ‘per-user’ fee based on specific and identifiable costs incurred by IPS in order to provide and maintain access and security for the system. System Users are defined as individual employees of the Parties, who have been granted access to the IPSS. Identified costs, which directly benefit all System Users shall be divided by the total number of System Users to determine the ‘per-user’ fee. The fee schedule may include a one-time network connection and setup fee for access to IPS and may include an annual fee to maintain ongoing connectivity to the system.

The fee schedule may include hourly rate(s) for any non-standard support services contracted with IPS and performed for the sole benefit of the Subscribing Agency by IPS personnel.

Requests from a Subscribing Agency for programming and/or other non-standard support is subject to a review process and final approval by the IPS Directors.

IPS shall bill Subscribing Agency for network connection, programming and/or non-standard support services within 30 days of connection or service. Subscribing Agency shall remit payment upon receipt of the invoice, not to exceed 30 days.

Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (4.9(a)--Approve IPS MOU)

Page 3 of 4 ends

Shasta Area Safety Communications Agency (SHASCOM), and Shasta Interagency Narcotics Task Force (SINTF) are exempt from the ‘per-user’ fee requirement.

7. VIOLATION OF MOU
In the event a Subscribing Agency fails to exercise Management Controls as outlined in Section 3 of Security Clearance as outlined in Section 4, IPS may deny the Subscribing Agency further access to the IPSS. In the event Subscribing Agency fails to remit the invoiced amount to IPS, IPS may deny the Subscribing Agency further access to the IPSS. This action shall occur only after a meeting of the IPS Directors, and the Subscribing Agency has been conducted and a majority vote by the IPS Directors affirming termination of the Subscribing Agency access.

8. TERM OF MOU
This Memorandum of Understanding shall become effective as of the date of the last signatory and shall remain in full force and effect until it is terminated by written notice. In the event an individual Subscribing Agency no longer desires access to the IPSS, that Subscribing Agency shall provide a written notice to IPS. Upon such notice, employees of the withdrawing agency will no longer be allowed access to the IPSS three (3) business days after written notice is received by the IPS Project Supervisor and the withdrawing agency shall cease to be a part of the IPSS.

In the event the Subscribing Agency signatory authority and/or the IPS Board of Directors signatory Authority changes during the term of this agreement, this MOU shall remain active, and all authority and agreement shall be inherited by the successor.

9. INDEMNIFICATION
It is agreed that each of the Parties shall, for its sole negligence, or sole willful conduct, mutually save and hold each of the other parties and each of the other parties' appointed and elected officials, its agents, representatives, volunteers, and employees harmless from all costs, expenses, losses, and damages, including death or damages to property caused by any act or neglect of such party, its agents, representatives, volunteers, officials, or employees in the performance of this agreement. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (4.9(a)--Approve IPS MOU)

Page 4 of 4 ends

___________________________________ ___________________ (Signatory), (Title) Date
(Agency Name)
IPS BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
______________________________________ ___________________ Bill Schueller, Chief of Police Date
Redding Police Department
______________________________________ ___________________ Jon Poletski, Chief of Police Date
Anderson Police Department
___________________________________ ___________________ Michael L. Johnson, Sheriff-Coroner Date
Shasta County Sheriff’s Office
Approved as to form: Shasta County Risk Management
Rubin E. Cruse, Jr. James Johnson,
County Counsel Risk Management Analyst III

By: ___________________________ By: ___________________________ ___________________ ___________________
Date Date
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (4.9(a)--Approve IPS MOU) IPS Directors
Redding Police Anderson Police Sheriff's Office County ‐ CIO COR ‐ CIO
COR ‐ IT
COR ‐ IT Supervisor
COR ‐ Systems
Administrator
COR ‐ ProgrammerCOR ‐ Programmer
COR ‐ Computer Technician
City of Redding
RPD
RFD
SO ‐ Project Supervisor
App Specialist
½ IPS ‐ ½ SO
Subscribing IPSS
Agencies
Exhibit B
December 2021
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (4.9(a)--Approve IPS MOU)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept Bid Schedule No. 5189 (Job No. 2402), Locust Street Lift Station and Force Main, awarded to RTA Construction, Inc., as satisfactorily complete, with a final cost of $1,301,569.97.

Fiscal Impact
The project was funded by Wastewater Utility funds. The total project cost, including surveying, design, bidding, construction, field engineering, inspection, and contract administration, is $1,301,569.97.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not accept the project as satisfactorily complete, and advise staff on how to proceed.

Background
RTA Construction, Inc., has completed all items of work on the Locust Street Lift Station and Force Main as of March 24, 2022, which was within the contract time frame. The project warranty period expires one year from the completion date of March 24, 2022, and the Public Works Department subsequently filed the notice of completion with the County of Shasta.

At its March 16, 2021, meeting, the Council awarded a construction contract to RTA Construction, Inc., of Redding, California, for $919,160 and approved a $91,900 construction contingency fund. Also authorized was $150,000 for contract administration and construction inspection fees, $191,500 for project development costs, and the City Manager was authorized to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $50,000, for a total authorized amount of $1,402,560. Project MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(a)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule 5189, Job No. 2402, Locust Street Lift Station and Force Main
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 276
Report to Redding City Council July 10, 2022
Re: 4.11(a)--Project Acceptance BS 5189 Locust Street Lift Station and Force Main Page 2 development costs include engineering, environmental, and consultant services. There were ten (10) change orders in the amount of $44,809.97. The final project cost was $1,301,569.97.

The project included an upgrade of the City of Redding’s (City) wastewater lift station located at 207 Locust Street and replacement of its force main. The new force main was re-routed to discharge into an existing sewer manhole on Locust Street on the west side of the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) canal. The project installed over 800 linear feet of new 8- inch diameter force main piping on Locust Street, including attachment to the City owned Locust Street Bridge over the ACID canal. In general, upgrades to the lift station included installation of a new wet well and packaged pump and control facilities, as well as a new flow meter and bypass vault. Other improvements included gravity sewer piping to the new station, rehabilitation of existing manholes, concrete and landscaping in the lift station area, and relocation of an existing business sign. The existing force main, wet well, and below grade dry well were demolished and abandoned in place upon completion and testing of the improvements.

Cost Summary
Awarded Amounts Actual Cost
Project Development Costs $191,500 $191,500
Construction Contract + Contingency $1,011,060
Construction Contract + Contract Change Orders $963,969.97 Contract Administration & Inspection $150,000 $146,100
Additional City Manager Authority $50,000 $0
Total $1,402,560 $1,301,569.97
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.
c: Josh Anthony, Construction Manager
Rebecca Kraft, Assistant Engineer
Attachments
^Location Map
Packet Pg. 277
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(a)--Project Acceptance BS 5189 Locust Street Lift Station and Force Main)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5305 (Job No. 9248-57), City Hall Exterior Painting Project:
(1) Award to Jeff Painting, in the amount of $177,000;
(2) Approve an additional $75,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) Approve $35,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Approve $28,000 for project development including environmental and permits; (5) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $25,000; and (6) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, per Section 15301(a) – Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The City Hall Exterior Painting Project is being funded by Building Maintenance funds available in the current fiscal year.

Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5305 (Job No. 9248-57) City Hall Exterior Painting Project
Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $28,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $212,000
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $75,000
Additional City Manager Authority $25,000
Total Project Costs $340,000
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 279
Report to Redding City Council July 10, 2022
Re: 4.11(b)--City Hall Exterior Painting Project Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to award the bid for the City Hall Exterior Painting Project and direct building maintenance crews to repair, patch, and paint the exterior concrete stucco walls to minimize storm water from entering and damaging the building(s) during inclement weather.

Background
The Redding City Hall and Council Chambers was built in 1998, and the original paint and special coatings has been maintained by City of Redding (City) staff over the years. Exterior painting and special coatings have deteriorated over the past 24 years, and the building(s) now require a complete repaint for weather protection and to reduce the ongoing building maintenance.

The project consists of preparing, sealing, and painting the exterior of the Redding City Hall, Council Chambers, and adjacent accessories.

Attached is the tabulation of bids received and opened on July 5, 2022. The low bid in the amount of $177,000 was received from Jeff Painting, of Los Angeles, California. The engineer’s estimate was $236,000. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $28,000. Project development costs include engineering and environmental with permits.

Staff has determined that the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a). Class 1 exemptions include the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures and facilities. The exterior of existing buildings and accessories will be painted to protect and extend the life of the structures. The project will not result in expansion of use, as the project does not include the construction of new facilities. The action area does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental resources and the project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Bid Tabulation
^Location Map
^Notice of Exemption
Packet Pg. 280
BID TABULATION FOR:

CITY HALL EXTERIOR PAINTING PROJECT
ENGINEER'S EST Jeff Painting Color New Co. JBS Designs, Inc. 7/5/2022 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Water Pollution Control LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 Paint (Exterior Acrylic) LS 1 $270,000.00 $270,000.00 $135,000.00 $135,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 3 Special Coating LS 1 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $331,000.00 $177,000.00 $190,000.00 $200,000.00 Pacific Rim Painting, Inc. Fresh Start Painting Co. Anchor Singh Painting Tony Painting

UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Water Pollution Control LS 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 2 Paint (Exterior Acrylic) LS 1 $158,000.00 $158,000.00 $224,600.00 $224,600.00 $220,000.00 $220,000.00 $185,000.00 $185,000.00 3 Special Coating LS 1 $47,450.00 $47,450.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $92,000.00 $92,000.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $214,450.00 $284,600.00 $290,000.00 $298,000.00 Diamond Painting Co.

UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Water Pollution Control LS 1 $27,000.00 $27,000.00
2 Paint (Exterior Acrylic) LS 1 $295,000.00 $295,000.00 3 Special Coating LS 1 $48,000.00 $48,000.00
TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $370,000.00 $253,006.25

AVERAGE BID
$177,200.00
$59,681.25
Bid Schedule No.: 5305

AVERAGE
UNIT
PRICE
$16,125.00
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(b)--City Hall Exterior Painting Project) Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(b)--City Hall Exterior Painting Project) Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: ^Notice of Exemption (4.11(b)--City Hall Exterior Painting Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5290 (Job No. 2606) Bechelli Lane Improvements Active Transportation Project:
(1) Award to Tullis, Inc. in the amount of $9,463,617.46; (2) Approve an additional $745,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees and $1,095,000 for project development costs;
(3) Approve $950,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $75,000; and (5) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, per Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP) Project (Project) is being funded by multiple sources which consist of a grant in the amount of $6,740,000 from the State of California Active Transportation Program (ATP), $3,341,057 in Local Street and Road funds, $500,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funding dedicated to storm drain improvements, $300,000 in Water funds, $423,770 in Wastewater funds and $1,023,790 in Redding Electric Utility funds.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $1,095,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $10,413,617.46
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $745,000
Additional City Manager Authority $75,000
Total Project Costs $12,328,617.46
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 (Job Order No. 2606) for the Bechelli Lane Improvements Active Transportation Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 284
Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP) Page 2 construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

On January 24, 2022, the City Council (Council) accepted and appropriated ATP grant funds in the amount of $6,740,000 for construction costs related to the project. In addition, the report identified funding sources for the remaining funds that would be budgeted once the bids were opened and project costs fully understood. Additional Streets Division funds are needed to fund the project. All other revenue sources are included in the current fiscal year budget.

Alternative Action
The Council may choose to not award the bid for the Bechelli Lane Improvements ATP Project and provide staff with alternative direction. Without this project, much needed pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety improvements will not be completed, and the project may not be completed. In addition, if this project is not awarded, the City of Redding (City) is at risk of losing nearly $7 million dollars in federal funding due to grant requirements for project delivery.

Background/Analysis
The Bechelli Lane Improvements Project is a planned active transportation improvement to provide continuous sidewalk and bicycle facilities, enhanced pedestrian crossings, and other similar improvements along Bechelli Lane from Cypress Avenue to the new Costco Development, in addition to improvements along Loma Vista Avenue between Bechelli Lane and Churn Creek Road. The improvements include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps, sidewalk gap completion, enhanced pedestrian crossings, buffered bike lanes, functional landscaping, corridor lighting, asphalt concrete cold milling and placement, micro-surfacing, and restriping, as is detailed on the plans. This project is included in the City’s Active Transportation Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan.

Attached is a tabulation of bids received and opened on June 14, 2021, for the Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP) Project. The low bid in the amount of $9,463,617.46 was received from Tullis, Inc., of Redding, California. The engineer's estimate was $8,649,000. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $1,095,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-of-way, environmental, and consultant services. The ARPA funding is dedicated to storm drain improvements and accounts for overage amounts not previously budgeted.

Staff has reviewed the project and determined that the project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, per Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities. Class 1 exemptions include minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use. This includes the addition of bicycle lanes and bicycle facilities, sidewalk and pedestrian crossings, transit improvements, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes. The proposed project will enhance the existing facility for pedestrians and bicyclists, but will not create additional vehicle capacity. The project has been reviewed for sensitive resources and will not have a significant effect on biological or cultural resources such as threatened or endangered species or their habitats, sensitive vegetation communities, tribal lands, or tribal cultural resources. The project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. On March 21, 2019, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) made a determination that the project is Categorically Excluded from Packet Pg. 285
Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP) Page 3 environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117(c)(3) - Construction of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Bid Tabulation
^Location Map

CEQA NOE
NEPA Determination
Packet Pg. 286
BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606 ENGINEER'S EST Tullis, Inc. SnL Group, Inc. 6/14/2022 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Traffic Control LS 1 $99,000.00 $99,000.00 $831,000.00 $831,000.00 $436,000.00 $436,000.00 2 Project Funding Sign EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 3 Construction Area Signs EA 54 $225.00 $12,150.00 $213.00 $11,502.00 $293.00 $15,822.00 4 Surveying (Construction) LS 1 $49,000.00 $49,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $58,000.00 $58,000.00 5 Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 6 Implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $96,000.00 $96,000.00 7 Biologist LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,895.00 $3,895.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 8 Clear and Grub LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 9 (F) Excavation (Unclassified) CY 5100 $75.00 $382,500.00 $90.00 $459,000.00 $100.00 $510,000.00 10 Remove Asphalt Concrete SF 146000 $2.00 $292,000.00 $2.00 $292,000.00 $0.90 $131,400.00 11 Asphalt Concrete Ton 5310 $145.00 $769,950.00 $140.00 $743,400.00 $169.00 $897,390.00 12 Aggregate Base CY 3150 $85.00 $267,750.00 $120.00 $378,000.00 $95.00 $299,250.00 13 Crack Sealing LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $27,945.00 $27,945.00 $109,300.00 $109,300.00 14 Asphalt Concrete (Micro Surfacing) SY 85000 $4.00 $340,000.00 $3.80 $323,000.00 $4.00 $340,000.00 15 Cold Mill AC (2") SY 25760 $7.00 $180,320.00 $4.00 $103,040.00 $5.50 $141,680.00 16 Curb and Gutter (6") LF 14000 $45.00 $630,000.00 $38.00 $532,000.00 $61.00 $854,000.00 17 Curb and Gutter (Roll) LF 60 $61.00 $3,660.00 $38.00 $2,280.00 $96.00 $5,760.00 18 Concrete (4" PCC) SF 1600 $10.00 $16,000.00 $10.50 $16,800.00 $50.00 $80,000.00 19 Sidewalk (4" PCC) SF 73000 $13.00 $949,000.00 $10.50 $766,500.00 $10.00 $730,000.00 20 Concrete (4" Deco) SF 1100 $18.00 $19,800.00 $20.00 $22,000.00 $31.00 $34,100.00 21 Driveway (Residential) SF 23000 $21.00 $483,000.00 $13.00 $299,000.00 $11.00 $253,000.00 22 Driveway (Depressed) SF 7100 $18.00 $127,800.00 $13.00 $92,300.00 $31.00 $220,100.00 23 Concrete Curb Ramp SF 13800 $17.00 $234,600.00 $18.00 $248,400.00 $17.00 $234,600.00 24 Cross Gutter SF 3800 $18.00 $68,400.00 $20.00 $76,000.00 $19.00 $72,200.00 25 Concrete Curb (B1-4) LF 270 $55.00 $14,850.00 $30.00 $8,100.00 $96.00 $25,920.00 26 Concrete Curb (A1-6) LF 550 $45.00 $24,750.00 $30.00 $16,500.00 $93.00 $51,150.00 27 Retaining Curb CY 85 $1,250.00 $106,250.00 $1,250.00 $106,250.00 $1,000.00 $85,000.00 28 Concrete Curb (6") LF 1120 $35.00 $39,200.00 $30.00 $33,600.00 $84.00 $94,080.00 29 Concrete Curb (4" to 12") LF 1050 $75.00 $78,750.00 $35.00 $36,750.00 $45.00 $47,250.00 30 Remove Concrete SF 48000 $5.00 $240,000.00 $5.50 $264,000.00 $1.00 $48,000.00 31 Retaining Wall (Type 3) LF 84 $650.00 $54,600.00 $500.00 $42,000.00 $413.00 $34,692.00 32 Retaining Wall (Type 6B) LF 233 $1,200.00 $279,600.00 $1,100.00 $256,300.00 $970.00 $226,010.00 33 Concrete Guardrail LS 1 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 34 Storm Drain Pipe (6" PVC) LF 26 $125.00 $3,250.00 $200.00 $5,200.00 $65.00 $1,690.00 35 Storm Drain Pipe (12" CSP polymer lined) LF 211 $160.00 $33,760.00 $200.00 $42,200.00 $90.00 $18,990.00 36 Storm Drain Pipe (15" HDPE) LF 504 $200.00 $100,800.00 $195.00 $98,280.00 $137.00 $69,048.00 37 Storm Drain Pipe (18" HDPE) LF 472 $195.00 $92,040.00 $205.00 $96,760.00 $100.00Packet Pg. 287 $47,200.00Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606 ENGINEER'S EST Tullis, Inc. SnL Group, Inc. 6/14/2022 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 38 Storm Drain Pipe (12" RCP) LF 11 $175.00 $1,925.00 $300.00 $3,300.00 $257.00 $2,827.00 39 Storm Drain Pipe (15" RCP) LF 84 $215.00 $18,060.00 $300.00 $25,200.00 $303.00 $25,452.00 40 Storm Drain Pipe (18" RCP) LF 78 $225.00 $17,550.00 $300.00 $23,400.00 $255.00 $19,890.00 41 Storm Drain Pipe (18" RCP Class IV) LF 54 $250.00 $13,500.00 $350.00 $18,900.00 $395.00 $21,330.00 42 Storm Drain Pipe (24" RCP) LF 6 $250.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $224.00 $1,344.00 43 Storm Drain Pipe (30" RCP) LF 9 $350.00 $3,150.00 $750.00 $6,750.00 $249.00 $2,241.00 44 Area Drain (18x18) EA 8 $1,500.00 $12,000.00 $4,000.00 $32,000.00 $1,200.00 $9,600.00 45 Area Drain (COR 210.00) EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 46 Replace Area Drain Grate (210.10) EA 2 $1,800.00 $3,600.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 47 Catch Basin No.3 (230.00) EA 11 $3,350.00 $36,850.00 $6,500.00 $71,500.00 $2,500.00 $27,500.00 48 Catch Basin No.3 (230.00 ALTERED) EA 16 $3,500.00 $56,000.00 $9,000.00 $144,000.00 $2,500.00 $40,000.00 49 Catch Basin No.3 (231.00) EA 4 $4,500.00 $18,000.00 $9,000.00 $36,000.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 50 Catch Basin No.3 (231.50) EA 5 $4,500.00 $22,500.00 $7,500.00 $37,500.00 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 51 Catch Basin No.4 (240.00) EA 4 $4,950.00 $19,800.00 $7,500.00 $30,000.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 52 Replace Catch Basin Top EA 9 $1,800.00 $16,200.00 $3,000.00 $27,000.00 $4,000.00 $36,000.00 53 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1-4') EA 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 54 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1-6') EA 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 55 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 2-4') EA 2 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $16,500.00 $33,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 56 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 2-5') EA 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 57 Headwall (Modified) EA 1 $7,775.00 $7,775.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 58 Trench Drain LF 54 $125.00 $6,750.00 $150.00 $8,100.00 $277.00 $14,958.00 59 Replace Trench Drain System LS 1 $7,250.00 $7,250.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 60 Flared End Section (15" & 18" rcp) EA 3 $2,100.00 $6,300.00 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $6,000.00 $18,000.00 61 Rock Slope Protection Fabric (Class 8) SY 866 $13.00 $11,258.00 $4.00 $3,464.00 $5.00 $4,330.00 62 Rock Slope Protection (Class 2) TON 373 $95.00 $35,435.00 $85.00 $31,705.00 $80.00 $29,840.00 63 Replace Man Frame and Cover (SD) EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 64 Remove Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 4098 $5.00 $20,490.00 $4.00 $16,392.00 $3.00 $12,294.00 65 Remove Traffic Stripe (Thermoplastic) LF 25000 $1.00 $25,000.00 $0.50 $12,500.00 $1.00 $25,000.00 66 Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 7359 $7.00 $51,513.00 $6.50 $47,833.50 $9.00 $66,231.00 67 Pavement Marking (Green Bike Lane) SF 2064 $15.00 $30,960.00 $14.00 $28,896.00 $14.00 $28,896.00 68 Traffic Stripe (4" Thermoplastic) LF 7210 $1.00 $7,210.00 $1.50 $10,815.00 $1.00 $7,210.00 69 Traffic Stripe (6" Thermoplastic) LF 66759 $1.00 $66,759.00 $0.94 $62,753.46 $1.36 $90,792.24 70 Traffic Stripe (8" Thermoplastic) LF 835 $2.00 $1,670.00 $2.25 $1,878.75 $2.00 $1,670.00 71 Pavement Markers EA 2331 $7.00 $16,317.00 $5.25 $12,237.75 $6.00 $13,986.00 72 Install Sign EA 101 $425.00 $42,925.00 $411.00 $41,511.00 $667.00 $67,367.00 73 Remove Sign EA 83 $225.00 $18,675.00 $75.00 $6,225.00 $11.00 $913.00 74 Beacon System (2 Pole RRFB) EA 2 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $11,000.00 $22,000.00 $20,400.00 $40,800.00 75 Beacon System (3 Pole RRFB) EA 4 $25,000.00 $100,000.00 $15,000.00 $60,000.00 $22,500.00 $90,000.00 76 Pedestrian Push Button EA 8 $1,500.00 $12,000.00 $3,000.00 $24,000.00 $2,300.00 $18,400.00 77 Object Marker (Type 1, OM1-3) EA 32 $75.00 $2,400.00 $300.00 $9,600.00 $252.00Packet Pg. 288 $8,064.00Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606 ENGINEER'S EST Tullis, Inc. SnL Group, Inc. 6/14/2022 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 78 Object Marker (Type Q) EA 96 $70.00 $6,720.00 $65.00 $6,240.00 $47.00 $4,512.00 79 Object Marker (Type N1) EA 1 $95.00 $95.00 $300.00 $300.00 $252.00 $252.00 80 Remove Tree EA 48 $775.00 $37,200.00 $1,500.00 $72,000.00 $2,103.00 $100,944.00 81 Relocate Mailbox EA 56 $550.00 $30,800.00 $494.00 $27,664.00 $561.00 $31,416.00 82 Fence (4' Chain Link, Vinyl Coated) LF 343 $110.00 $37,730.00 $96.00 $32,928.00 $108.00 $37,044.00 83 Replace Fence (4' Chain Link) LF 59 $75.00 $4,425.00 $68.00 $4,012.00 $76.00 $4,484.00 84 Replace Fence (Picket) LF 43 $80.00 $3,440.00 $57.00 $2,451.00 $65.00 $2,795.00 85 Replace Fence (Wood) LF 68 $75.00 $5,100.00 $82.00 $5,576.00 $92.00 $6,256.00 86 Adjust Manhole EA 17 $2,000.00 $34,000.00 $1,500.00 $25,500.00 $900.00 $15,300.00 87 Adjust Valve Box EA 10 $600.00 $6,000.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 $900.00 $9,000.00 88 Adjust Water Meter Box EA 62 $600.00 $37,200.00 $500.00 $31,000.00 $170.00 $10,540.00 89 Adjust Sewer Cleanout EA 29 $500.00 $14,500.00 $500.00 $14,500.00 $900.00 $26,100.00 90 Relocate Irrigation System LS 1 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 91 Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $130,000.00 $130,000.00 $133,358.00 $133,358.00 $142,000.00 $142,000.00 92 Conduit (2" PVC) LF 11000 $45.00 $495,000.00 $50.00 $550,000.00 $50.00 $550,000.00 93 Conduit (4" PVC) LF 1400 $55.00 $77,000.00 $45.00 $63,000.00 $75.00 $105,000.00 94 Conductor (#6) LF 16000 $5.00 $80,000.00 $8.00 $128,000.00 $5.00 $80,000.00 95 Conductor (2-1/0 & 1#2) LF 130 $10.00 $1,300.00 $25.00 $3,250.00 $7.00 $910.00 96 Conductor (2-4/0 & 1-2/0) LF 600 $10.00 $6,000.00 $25.00 $15,000.00 $10.00 $6,000.00 97 Conductor (2-350 & 1-4/0) LF 575 $10.00 $5,750.00 $25.00 $14,375.00 $17.00 $9,775.00 98 Conductor (2-500 & 1-350) LF 40 $10.00 $400.00 $50.00 $2,000.00 $28.00 $1,120.00 99 Pullbox (2E) EA 77 $1,000.00 $77,000.00 $1,500.00 $115,500.00 $300.00 $23,100.00 100 Pullbox (3E) EA 11 $1,500.00 $16,500.00 $2,000.00 $22,000.00 $600.00 $6,600.00 101 Street Light (25' Std & LED Luminaire) EA 6 $4,000.00 $24,000.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $6,700.00 $40,200.00 102 Street Light (35' Std & LED Luminaire) EA 84 $5,000.00 $420,000.00 $5,800.00 $487,200.00 $8,200.00 $688,800.00 103
Street Light (35' Std & LED Luminaire Double
Arm) EA 7 $5,500.00 $38,500.00 $7,000.00 $49,000.00 $10,000.00 $70,000.00 104 Retrofit Street Light EA 34 $4,200.00 $142,800.00 $3,500.00 $119,000.00 $5,000.00 $170,000.00 105 Demolish Street Light EA 5 $1,500.00 $7,500.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $300.00 $1,500.00 106 Adjust Electric Pullbox EA 9 $500.00 $4,500.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $300.00 $2,700.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $8,637,562.00 $9,463,617.46 $9,491,715.24 Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the Special Provisions.

Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606
6/14/2022

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
1 Traffic Control LS 1
2 Project Funding Sign EA 1
3 Construction Area Signs EA 54
4 Surveying (Construction) LS 1
5 Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan LS 1
6 Implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan LS 1
7 Biologist LS 1
8 Clear and Grub LS 1
9 (F) Excavation (Unclassified) CY 5100
10 Remove Asphalt Concrete SF 146000
11 Asphalt Concrete Ton 5310
12 Aggregate Base CY 3150
13 Crack Sealing LS 1
14 Asphalt Concrete (Micro Surfacing) SY 85000
15 Cold Mill AC (2") SY 25760
16 Curb and Gutter (6") LF 14000
17 Curb and Gutter (Roll) LF 60
18 Concrete (4" PCC) SF 1600
19 Sidewalk (4" PCC) SF 73000
20 Concrete (4" Deco) SF 1100
21 Driveway (Residential) SF 23000
22 Driveway (Depressed) SF 7100
23 Concrete Curb Ramp SF 13800
24 Cross Gutter SF 3800
25 Concrete Curb (B1-4) LF 270
26 Concrete Curb (A1-6) LF 550
27 Retaining Curb CY 85
28 Concrete Curb (6") LF 1120
29 Concrete Curb (4" to 12") LF 1050
30 Remove Concrete SF 48000
31 Retaining Wall (Type 3) LF 84
32 Retaining Wall (Type 6B) LF 233
33 Concrete Guardrail LS 1
34 Storm Drain Pipe (6" PVC) LF 26
35 Storm Drain Pipe (12" CSP polymer lined) LF 211
36 Storm Drain Pipe (15" HDPE) LF 504
37 Storm Drain Pipe (18" HDPE) LF 472
S.T. Rhoades Const. Site Work Solutions

UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$1,267,000.00 $1,267,000.00 $423,492.81 $423,492.81
$1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,576.56 $2,576.56
$220.00 $11,880.00 $377.90 $20,406.60
$78,000.00 $78,000.00 $133,981.17 $133,981.17
$4,000.00 $4,000.00 $7,944.02 $7,944.02
$40,000.00 $40,000.00 $12,020.07 $12,020.07
$5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,853.93 $2,853.93
$250,000.00 $250,000.00 $22,150.33 $22,150.33
$65.00 $331,500.00 $62.78 $320,178.00
$2.25 $328,500.00 $2.88 $420,480.00
$189.25 $1,004,917.50 $192.60 $1,022,706.00
$115.00 $362,250.00 $73.04 $230,076.00
$27,945.00 $27,945.00 $131,189.16 $131,189.16
$3.53 $300,050.00 $4.88 $414,800.00
$7.50 $193,200.00 $9.91 $255,281.60
$55.00 $770,000.00 $49.13 $687,820.00
$49.00 $2,940.00 $46.95 $2,817.00
$18.00 $28,800.00 $18.79 $30,064.00
$14.00 $1,022,000.00 $15.84 $1,156,320.00
$40.00 $44,000.00 $23.77 $26,147.00
$23.00 $529,000.00 $16.81 $386,630.00
$23.00 $163,300.00 $16.88 $119,848.00
$26.00 $358,800.00 $21.55 $297,390.00
$42.00 $159,600.00 $20.33 $77,254.00
$40.00 $10,800.00 $33.57 $9,063.90
$49.00 $26,950.00 $32.93 $18,111.50
$1,100.00 $93,500.00 $902.70 $76,729.50
$19.00 $21,280.00 $42.11 $47,163.20
$19.00 $19,950.00 $48.04 $50,442.00
$6.50 $312,000.00 $7.41 $355,680.00
$275.00 $23,100.00 $480.50 $40,362.00
$400.00 $93,200.00 $1,117.07 $260,277.31
$13,000.00 $13,000.00 $15,230.94 $15,230.94
$100.00 $2,600.00 $214.41 $5,574.66
$120.00 $25,320.00 $157.34 $33,198.74
$220.00 $110,880.00 $253.90 $127,965.60
$120.00 $56,640.00 $149.57 $70,597.04 Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606
6/14/2022

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
38 Storm Drain Pipe (12" RCP) LF 11
39 Storm Drain Pipe (15" RCP) LF 84
40 Storm Drain Pipe (18" RCP) LF 78
41 Storm Drain Pipe (18" RCP Class IV) LF 54
42 Storm Drain Pipe (24" RCP) LF 6
43 Storm Drain Pipe (30" RCP) LF 9
44 Area Drain (18x18) EA 8
45 Area Drain (COR 210.00) EA 1
46 Replace Area Drain Grate (210.10) EA 2
47 Catch Basin No.3 (230.00) EA 11
48 Catch Basin No.3 (230.00 ALTERED) EA 16
49 Catch Basin No.3 (231.00) EA 4
50 Catch Basin No.3 (231.50) EA 5
51 Catch Basin No.4 (240.00) EA 4
52 Replace Catch Basin Top EA 9
53 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1-4') EA 1
54 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1-6') EA 1
55 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 2-4') EA 2
56 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 2-5') EA 1
57 Headwall (Modified) EA 1
58 Trench Drain LF 54
59 Replace Trench Drain System LS 1
60 Flared End Section (15" & 18" rcp) EA 3
61 Rock Slope Protection Fabric (Class 8) SY 866
62 Rock Slope Protection (Class 2) TON 373
63 Replace Man Frame and Cover (SD) EA 1
64 Remove Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 4098
65 Remove Traffic Stripe (Thermoplastic) LF 25000
66 Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 7359
67 Pavement Marking (Green Bike Lane) SF 2064
68 Traffic Stripe (4" Thermoplastic) LF 7210
69 Traffic Stripe (6" Thermoplastic) LF 66759
70 Traffic Stripe (8" Thermoplastic) LF 835
71 Pavement Markers EA 2331
72 Install Sign EA 101
73 Remove Sign EA 83
74 Beacon System (2 Pole RRFB) EA 2
75 Beacon System (3 Pole RRFB) EA 4
76 Pedestrian Push Button EA 8
77 Object Marker (Type 1, OM1-3) EA 32
S.T. Rhoades Const. Site Work Solutions

UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$300.00 $3,300.00 $512.23 $5,634.53
$285.00 $23,940.00 $298.06 $25,037.04
$220.00 $17,160.00 $286.64 $22,357.92
$260.00 $14,040.00 $317.07 $17,121.78
$370.00 $2,220.00 $807.80 $4,846.80
$270.00 $2,430.00 $808.24 $7,274.16
$2,000.00 $16,000.00 $3,196.59 $25,572.72
$2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,869.02 $3,869.02
$1,000.00 $2,000.00 $444.09 $888.18
$6,000.00 $66,000.00 $4,136.47 $45,501.17
$8,700.00 $139,200.00 $5,571.75 $89,148.00
$7,600.00 $30,400.00 $7,724.91 $30,899.64
$7,400.00 $37,000.00 $7,724.91 $38,624.55
$6,800.00 $27,200.00 $7,724.91 $30,899.64
$2,500.00 $22,500.00 $2,987.98 $26,891.82
$6,500.00 $6,500.00 $9,454.61 $9,454.61
$7,500.00 $7,500.00 $10,797.82 $10,797.82
$8,500.00 $17,000.00 $9,792.53 $19,585.06
$9,000.00 $9,000.00 $10,126.22 $10,126.22
$8,000.00 $8,000.00 $19,071.07 $19,071.07
$250.00 $13,500.00 $299.28 $16,161.12
$15,000.00 $15,000.00 $16,214.77 $16,214.77
$3,000.00 $9,000.00 $4,371.56 $13,114.68
$5.00 $4,330.00 $4.72 $4,087.52
$80.00 $29,840.00 $181.36 $67,647.28
$2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,698.62 $1,698.62
$4.00 $16,392.00 $4.96 $20,326.08
$0.50 $12,500.00 $0.62 $15,500.00
$6.50 $47,833.50 $8.07 $59,387.13
$14.00 $28,896.00 $17.37 $35,851.68
$1.50 $10,815.00 $1.86 $13,410.60
$0.94 $62,753.46 $1.17 $78,108.03
$2.25 $1,878.75 $2.79 $2,329.65
$5.25 $12,237.75 $6.51 $15,174.81
$490.00 $49,490.00 $608.90 $61,498.90
$85.00 $7,055.00 $117.41 $9,745.03
$17,000.00 $34,000.00 $17,992.20 $35,984.40
$20,000.00 $80,000.00 $248,410.62 $993,642.48
$900.00 $7,200.00 $3,102.10 $24,816.80
$415.00 $13,280.00 $514.95 $16,478.40 Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606
6/14/2022

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
78 Object Marker (Type Q) EA 96
79 Object Marker (Type N1) EA 1
80 Remove Tree EA 48
81 Relocate Mailbox EA 56
82 Fence (4' Chain Link, Vinyl Coated) LF 343
83 Replace Fence (4' Chain Link) LF 59
84 Replace Fence (Picket) LF 43
85 Replace Fence (Wood) LF 68
86 Adjust Manhole EA 17
87 Adjust Valve Box EA 10
88 Adjust Water Meter Box EA 62
89 Adjust Sewer Cleanout EA 29
90 Relocate Irrigation System LS 1
91 Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1
92 Conduit (2" PVC) LF 11000
93 Conduit (4" PVC) LF 1400
94 Conductor (#6) LF 16000
95 Conductor (2-1/0 & 1#2) LF 130
96 Conductor (2-4/0 & 1-2/0) LF 600
97 Conductor (2-350 & 1-4/0) LF 575
98 Conductor (2-500 & 1-350) LF 40
99 Pullbox (2E) EA 77
100 Pullbox (3E) EA 11
101 Street Light (25' Std & LED Luminaire) EA 6
102 Street Light (35' Std & LED Luminaire) EA 84
103
Street Light (35' Std & LED Luminaire Double
Arm) EA 7
104 Retrofit Street Light EA 34
105 Demolish Street Light EA 5
106 Adjust Electric Pullbox EA 9

TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS
Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the Special Provisi S.T. Rhoades Const. Site Work Solutions

UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$56.00 $5,376.00 $69.49 $6,671.04
$480.00 $480.00 $595.60 $595.60
$1,000.00 $48,000.00 $2,557.17 $122,744.16
$315.00 $17,640.00 $317.29 $17,768.24
$96.00 $32,928.00 $119.12 $40,858.16
$68.00 $4,012.00 $84.38 $4,978.42
$57.00 $2,451.00 $70.73 $3,041.39
$82.00 $5,576.00 $101.75 $6,919.00
$1,900.00 $32,300.00 $1,870.12 $31,792.04
$1,200.00 $12,000.00 $491.59 $4,915.90
$600.00 $37,200.00 $512.39 $31,768.18
$265.00 $7,685.00 $385.99 $11,193.71
$1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,861.26 $1,861.26
$124,800.00 $124,800.00 $154,856.97 $154,856.97
$30.00 $330,000.00 $92.73 $1,020,030.00
$60.00 $84,000.00 $109.91 $153,874.00
$2.00 $32,000.00 $5.37 $85,920.00
$12.00 $1,560.00 $7.30 $949.00
$24.00 $14,400.00 $11.70 $7,020.00
$24.00 $13,800.00 $18.64 $10,718.00
$50.00 $2,000.00 $31.09 $1,243.60
$1,000.00 $77,000.00 $753.48 $58,017.96
$1,000.00 $11,000.00 $1,096.18 $12,057.98
$5,100.00 $30,600.00 $7,736.99 $46,421.94
$6,000.00 $504,000.00 $9,077.40 $762,501.60
$9,000.00 $63,000.00 $11,335.10 $79,345.70
$3,200.00 $108,800.00 $5,330.87 $181,249.58
$3,000.00 $15,000.00 $1,546.81 $7,734.05
$350.00 $3,150.00 $330.41 $2,973.69
$10,627,051.96 $12,129,623.54
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606
6/14/2022
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY 1 Traffic Control LS 1 2 Project Funding Sign EA 1 3 Construction Area Signs EA 54 4 Surveying (Construction) LS 1 5 Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan LS 1 6 Implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan LS 1 7 Biologist LS 1 8 Clear and Grub LS 1 9 (F) Excavation (Unclassified) CY 5100
10 Remove Asphalt Concrete SF 146000
11 Asphalt Concrete Ton 5310
12 Aggregate Base CY 3150
13 Crack Sealing LS1
14 Asphalt Concrete (Micro Surfacing) SY 85000
15 Cold Mill AC (2") SY 25760
16 Curb and Gutter (6") LF 14000
17 Curb and Gutter (Roll) LF 60
18 Concrete (4" PCC) SF 1600
19 Sidewalk (4" PCC) SF 73000
20 Concrete (4" Deco) SF 1100
21 Driveway (Residential) SF 23000
22 Driveway (Depressed) SF 7100
23 Concrete Curb Ramp SF 13800
24 Cross Gutter SF 3800
25 Concrete Curb (B1-4) LF 270
26 Concrete Curb (A1-6) LF 550
27 Retaining Curb CY 85
28 Concrete Curb (6") LF 1120
29 Concrete Curb (4" to 12") LF 1050
30 Remove Concrete SF 48000
31 Retaining Wall (Type 3) LF 84
32 Retaining Wall (Type 6B) LF 233
33 Concrete Guardrail LS1
34 Storm Drain Pipe (6" PVC) LF 26
35 Storm Drain Pipe (12" CSP polymer lined) LF 211
36 Storm Drain Pipe (15" HDPE) LF 504
37 Storm Drain Pipe (18" HDPE) LF 472
J.F. Shea, Inc.

UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$1,274,000.00 $1,274,000.00
$1,560.00 $1,560.00
$229.00 $12,366.00
$52,728.00 $52,728.00
$3,000.00 $3,000.00
$36,500.00 $36,500.00
$6,500.00 $6,500.00
$92,110.00 $92,110.00
$49.00 $249,900.00
$3.30 $481,800.00
$215.00 $1,141,650.00
$67.00 $211,050.00
$30,000.00 $30,000.00
$3.70 $314,500.00
$11.00 $283,360.00
$59.00 $826,000.00
$84.00 $5,040.00
$26.00 $41,600.00
$20.50 $1,496,500.00
$55.00 $60,500.00
$26.00 $598,000.00
$29.00 $205,900.00
$29.00 $400,200.00
$36.00 $136,800.00
$68.00 $18,360.00
$68.00 $37,400.00
$1,200.00 $102,000.00
$52.00 $58,240.00
$80.00 $84,000.00
$8.70 $417,600.00
$675.00 $56,700.00
$555.00 $129,315.00
$31,200.00 $31,200.00
$338.00 $8,788.00
$312.00 $65,832.00
$291.00 $146,664.00
$291.00 $137,352.00 Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606
6/14/2022

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
38 Storm Drain Pipe (12" RCP) LF 11
39 Storm Drain Pipe (15" RCP) LF 84
40 Storm Drain Pipe (18" RCP) LF 78
41 Storm Drain Pipe (18" RCP Class IV) LF 54
42 Storm Drain Pipe (24" RCP) LF6
43 Storm Drain Pipe (30" RCP) LF9
44 Area Drain (18x18) EA8
45 Area Drain (COR 210.00) EA1
46 Replace Area Drain Grate (210.10) EA2
47 Catch Basin No.3 (230.00) EA 11
48 Catch Basin No.3 (230.00 ALTERED) EA 16
49 Catch Basin No.3 (231.00) EA4
50 Catch Basin No.3 (231.50) EA5
51 Catch Basin No.4 (240.00) EA4
52 Replace Catch Basin Top EA9
53 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1-4') EA1
54 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1-6') EA1
55 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 2-4') EA2
56 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 2-5') EA1
57 Headwall (Modified) EA1
58 Trench Drain LF 54
59 Replace Trench Drain System LS1
60 Flared End Section (15" & 18" rcp) EA3
61 Rock Slope Protection Fabric (Class 8) SY 866
62 Rock Slope Protection (Class 2) TON 373
63 Replace Man Frame and Cover (SD) EA1
64 Remove Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 4098
65 Remove Traffic Stripe (Thermoplastic) LF 25000
66 Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 7359
67 Pavement Marking (Green Bike Lane) SF 2064
68 Traffic Stripe (4" Thermoplastic) LF 7210
69 Traffic Stripe (6" Thermoplastic) LF 66759
70 Traffic Stripe (8" Thermoplastic) LF 835
71 Pavement Markers EA 2331
72 Install Sign EA 101
73 Remove Sign EA 83
74 Beacon System (2 Pole RRFB) EA2
75 Beacon System (3 Pole RRFB) EA4
76 Pedestrian Push Button EA8
77 Object Marker (Type 1, OM1-3) EA 32
J.F. Shea, Inc.

UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$832.00 $9,152.00
$573.00 $48,132.00
$520.00 $40,560.00
$468.00 $25,272.00
$884.00 $5,304.00
$936.00 $8,424.00
$6,552.00 $52,416.00
$13,000.00 $13,000.00
$1,352.00 $2,704.00
$11,960.00 $131,560.00
$14,560.00 $232,960.00
$11,440.00 $45,760.00
$15,600.00 $78,000.00
$15,600.00 $62,400.00
$7,072.00 $63,648.00
$15,600.00 $15,600.00
$16,120.00 $16,120.00
$15,600.00 $31,200.00
$16,224.00 $16,224.00
$17,680.00 $17,680.00
$312.00 $16,848.00
$9,360.00 $9,360.00
$2,080.00 $6,240.00
$5.00 $4,330.00
$109.00 $40,657.00
$780.00 $780.00
$4.00 $16,392.00
$0.50 $12,500.00
$7.00 $51,513.00
$15.00 $30,960.00
$1.50 $10,815.00
$1.00 $66,759.00
$3.00 $2,505.00
$6.00 $13,986.00
$500.00 $50,500.00
$89.00 $7,387.00
$15,080.00 $30,160.00
$20,800.00 $83,200.00
$936.00 $7,488.00
$435.00 $13,920.00 Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) BID TABULATION FOR:

BECHELLI ATP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5290
Job No.: 2606
6/14/2022

TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS
Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the Special Provisi J.F. Shea, Inc.

UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$60.00 $5,760.00
$500.00 $500.00
$2,500.00 $120,000.00
$335.00 $18,760.00
$83.00 $28,469.00
$182.00 $10,738.00
$229.00 $9,847.00
$182.00 $12,376.00
$1,352.00 $22,984.00
$1,144.00 $11,440.00
$936.00 $58,032.00
$936.00 $27,144.00
$15,600.00 $15,600.00
$138,692.00 $138,692.00
$31.00 $341,000.00
$62.00 $86,800.00
$2.00 $32,000.00
$13.00 $1,690.00
$25.00 $15,000.00
$25.00 $14,375.00
$52.00 $2,080.00
$1,040.00 $80,080.00
$1,040.00 $11,440.00
$5,304.00 $31,824.00
$6,240.00 $524,160.00
$9,360.00 $65,520.00
$3,328.00 $113,152.00
$1,050.00 $5,250.00
$1,050.00 $9,450.00
$12,461,594.00
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP))

CAMINO CT

CITY OF REDDING

LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT A

PUBLIC WORKS BECHELLI LN IMPROVEMENTS (ATP)

DEPARTMENT

LOMA VISTA DR BECHELLI LN

BECHELLI LN

CYPRESS AVE

HARTNELL AVE

S BONNYVIEW RD

SACRAMENTO RIVER CHURN CREEK RD
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP))

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION

To: [RI Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Redding 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Public Works Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 777 Cypress A venue
Redding, CA 96001
[RI Shasta County Clerk
County of Shasta
P.O. Box 990880, 1643 Market Street

Redding, CA 96099-0880

Project Title: Bechelli Lane and Loma Vista Active Transportation Improvement Project, JO# 4908-57 Project Location - Specific: Bechelli Lane from South Bonneyview Road to Cypress Avenue, and Loma Vista Drive Project Location - City: Redding Project Location - County: =S=h=as=t=a_________ Description of Project: The City of Redding will construct an active transportation corridor improvement project on Bechelli Lane and Loma Vista drive. The proposed project would include a variety of improvements to sidewalks, streets, and street crossings to encourage non-motorized use and improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. The project includes ADA compliant curb and gutters; sidewalk gap completion; new crosswalks; lighting improvements; functional landscaping; enhanced pedestrian crossings, with raised concrete pedestrian medians and flashing beacons; and buffered bicycle lanes. Construction will consist of earthwork, tree removal, utility relocation, drainage improvements, lighting, irrigation, landscaping, paving, striping, and sign replacement. Utilities will be relocated as needed to implement the ADA compliant improvements. Temporary construction easements will be required, and disposal material will be taken to the City of Redding Landfill.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: -=C_,_,ity:..L---=o=f-=-R=e=d=d=in-=.cg,______________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ~C~o~r=ri~V~an=d=i~v~e=r,~P~r~o~je~c~t~M~a=n=ag=e=r~------------ Exempt Status: (check one)
D Ministerial [Section 21080(b )( 1 ); 15268]
D Declared Emergency [Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)]
D Emergency Project [Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)]
D Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

D Common Sense Exemption (This project does not fall within an exempt class, but it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR 1560l[b][3]).

[RI Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Sec. 15301(c). Existing Facilities

Based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the following statements are true and exceptions do not apply:
• Ifthis project falls within an exempt class 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11, it does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law. • There will not be a significant cumulative effect by this project and successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. • There is not a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. • This project does not damage a scenic resource within an officially designated state scenic highway. • This project is not located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Govt. Code§ 56962.5 ("Cortese List") • This project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Reasons why project is exempt: Class 1 exemptions include minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use. The project will enhance the existing facility for pedestrians and bicyclists, but will not create additional vehicle capacity. The project has been reviewed for sensitive resources and will not have a significant effect on biological or cultural resources such as threatened or endangered species or their habitats, sensitive vegetation communities, tribal lands, or tribal cultural resources. The project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Amber Kelley Telephone: ~53~0~.2_2~5~.4~0_4~6________ IfFiled by Applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? o Yes o No Signature: ~ Date: /0-/;;;J-~/
Title: Environmental Com er
o Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: ______ o Signed by Applicant
X
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: CEQA NOE (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: NEPA Determination (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP)) Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: NEPA Determination (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5290 Bechelli Lane Improvements (ATP))

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve and ratify an increase to the project construction contingency budget for the completion of Bid Schedule No. 5227, Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project in the amount of $35,000 from City of Redding Wastewater Utility funds.

Fiscal Impact
This additional work will cause the project budget to exceed the awarded amounts. An additional $35,000 in Wastewater funds is requested to cover an increase to the construction contingency.

COST SUMMARY
Item Awarded Amount Projected
Amount
Increase
Construction Contingency $35,000 $70,000 $35,000
Total Project Amount $344,134 $379,134 $35,000
Sufficient Wastewater Utility funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget to cover the estimated cost increase.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to reject the project budget increase or provide alternative direction to staff. The additional improvements were necessary in order for the sewer system to properly convey wastewater. If the Council rejects the increase, the contractor will not be paid for the work already completed.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(d)--Approve Increase to the Project Budget for Bid Schedule 5227 (Job Order No. 2671) Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 300
Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project Page 2 Background/Analysis
On September 21, 2021, the Council awarded the Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project to Axner Excavating, Inc. This project includes the replacement of approximately 765 linear feet of sixinch sanitary sewer main with eight-inch high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) along Hilltop Drive near Maraglia Street. In addition, two existing manholes are being rehabilitated, one new manhole installed, and four sewer laterals reconnected.

During the course of construction, it was found that an additional 48-linear feet (LF) of sag repairs was needed in addition to the planned quantity of 65-LF in order to properly convey wastewater through the new sewer main without causing sewer backups. The contractor began sag repairs on the upstream side of the new sewer main and worked its way downstream to the final location of sag repairs. At the final location of sag repairs, the contractor encountered a large concrete encasement beneath an existing 48-inch storm drain pipe that crossed the sewer main. This concrete encasement encapsulated both the sewer main and a small portion of the existing storm drain pipe bottom, which was not known during the design phase. In order to remove the large sag in the sewer main, the contractor is required to remove the concrete encasement without damaging the adjacent utilities. Additionally, the existing storm drain piping joints were also found to be leaking, which allowed storm water to infiltrate the contractor’s trench zone and caused additional dewatering efforts and minor cave-ins during the removal of the concrete encasement. The timing was critical to authorize the work while the contractor was active at the site thereby necessitating the expenditure prior to Council approval.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” • Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Attachments
^Project Site Map
Previous Staff Report 9-21-21
Packet Pg. 301
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: ^Project Site Map (4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5227 (Job No. 2671) Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project:
(1) Award to Axner Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $309,134; (2) Approve an additional $57,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; and $38,000 for project development costs;
(3) Approve $35,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $15,000; and (5) Find that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301(b) - Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project (Project) is being funded by the Wastewater Utility Fund.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $38,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $344,134
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $57,000
Additional City Manager Authority $15,000
Total Project Costs $454,134
Project Budget $600,000
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the MEETING DATE: September 21, 2021
ITEM NO. 4.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(f)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5227 (Job Order No. 2671) Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2021
Re: 4.11(f)--Award BS No. 5227 Hilltop Sewer Improvements Page 2 project within the approved budget.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to award the bid for the Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project and provide staff with alternate direction. If the project is not awarded, the sewer main will have ongoing maintenance and will be in jeopardy of failing.

Background/Analysis
Attached is a tabulation of bids received and opened on September 9, 2021, for the Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project. The low bid in the amount of $309,134 was received from Axner Excavating, Inc., of Redding, California. The engineer's estimate was $299,170. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $38,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-of-way, environmental, consultant services, and permit fees. There is $600,000 budgeted for the total project.

This project includes the replacement of approximately 765 linear feet of 6-inch sanitary sewer main with 8-inch high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) along Hilltop Drive. In addition, two existing manholes will be rehabilitated, one new manhole will be installed, and four sewer laterals will be reconnected.

Staff has determined that the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301. The project area does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental resources, and the project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
Location Map
Bid Tab
Notice of Exemption
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) BID TABULATION FOR:

HILLTOP SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Bid Schedule No.: 5227Job No.: 2671 ENGINEER'S EST Axner Excavating, Inc. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc. AVERAGE9/9/2021 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $908.00 $908.00 $2,625.00 $2,625.00 $1,766.502 Water Pollution Control LS 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,369.00 $2,369.00 $2,090.00 $2,090.00 $2,229.50 3 Trench Sheeting and Shoring LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,290.00 $3,290.00 $6,571.00 $6,571.00 $4,930.504 Bypass Pumping LS 1 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $6,050.00 $6,050.00 $3,838.00 $3,838.00 $4,944.005 Construction Area Signs EA 6 $245.00 $1,470.00 $315.00 $1,890.00 $307.00 $1,842.00 $311.00 6 Traffic Control LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $41,140.00 $41,140.00 $26,250.00 $26,250.00 $33,695.00 7 Project Funding Sign LS 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $908.00 $908.00 $4,053.00 $4,053.00 $2,480.508 Pre-Rehabilitation CCTV Inspection LF 765 $5.00 $3,825.00 $9.00 $6,885.00 $9.00 $6,885.00 $9.00 9 Sanitary Sewer (8" HDPE, Pipe Burst) LF 765 $225.00 $172,125.00 $177.00 $135,405.00 $201.00 $153,765.00 $189.00 10 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Locate EA 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 $3,460.00 $13,840.00 $812.00 $3,248.00 $2,136.00 11 Sanitary Sewer Lateral (Reconnect) LF 200 $195.00 $39,000.00 $137.00 $27,400.00 $185.00 $37,000.00 $161.00 12 Rehabilitate Manhole (Sewer, Type 1 - 4 EA 2 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $15,512.00 $31,024.00 $13,225.00 $26,450.00 $14,368.50 13 Remove Manhole EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,864.00 $6,864.00 $3,370.00 $3,370.00 $5,117.0014 Manhole (Sewer, Type 1-4') EA 1 $6,800.00 $6,800.00 $10,361.00 $10,361.00 $6,854.00 $6,854.00 $8,607.5015 Sag Repair LF 65 $150.00 $9,750.00 $320.00 $20,800.00 $593.00 $38,545.00 $456.50

AVERAGE BID
TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $299,170.00 $309,134.00 $323,386.00 $316,260.00

Page 1 of 1 ends

Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5283 (Job No. 2617), Eureka Way / Buenaventura Boulevard Signal Project:
(1) Award to Crosspoint General Engineering in the amount of $193,872.36; (2) Approve an additional $64,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) Approve $20,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Approve $43,000 for project development including environmental and permits; (5) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $15,000; and (6) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, per Section 15301(c) – Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Eureka Way/Buenaventura Boulevard Signal Project is being funded by Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) and Developer Contribution funds.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(e)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(e)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5283 (Job Order No. 2617) Eureka Way / Buenaventura Boulevard Signal Project
Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $43,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $213,872.36
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $64,000
Additional City Manager Authority $15,000
Total Project Costs $335,872.36
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 308
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to award the bid for the Eureka Way/Buenaventura Boulevard Signal Project and direct staff to default on the Settlement Agreement and Release (C7350) recorded August 15, 2017.

Background/Analysis
This project consists of relocating the northeast signal pole(s) and roadway restriping as part of the Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) recorded August 15, 2017, between the City of Redding (City) and now dissolved Sunset Avenues, LLC (Boyce and Joan Muse). Boyce and Joan Muse will be completing their deferred improvements following the project to fulfill their obligation.

Attached is the tabulation of bids received and opened on June 9, 2022. The low bid in the amount of $193,872.36 was received from Crosspoint General Engineering, of Palo Cedro, California. The engineer’s estimate was $190,000. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $43,000. Project development costs include engineering and environmental with permits.

Following public opening of construction bids, the City received the attached bid protest letter dated June 27, 2022, from the second low bidder, St. Francis Electric. Staff, in coordination with the City Attorney’s office, reviewed the protest letter and determined that Crosspoint General Engineering is the responsive low bidder. It should also be noted that Crosspoint General Engineering has successfully completed a recent traffic signal project, is a subcontractor for JF Shea on the City’s I-5/South Bonnyview Off Ramps project and was recently awarded the Bechelli/Loma Vista Signal project.

In addition, the City received a Bid Advisory regarding Crosspoint General Engineering from the Foundation for Fair Contracting. Staff reviewed the advisory and notes that the City will ensure all required contract obligations are met and enforced including labor compliance with Public Contract Code requirements.

Staff has determined that the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301. Class 1 exemptions include the operation, repair, and minor alteration of existing public facilities and mechanical equipment, involving negligible or no expansion of use. The project will enhance public safety and traffic operations at an existing signalized intersection; however, it will not create additional automobile lanes and will not result in expansion of use. The project has been reviewed for sensitive resources and will not have a significant effect on biological or cultural resources such as threatened or endangered species or their habitats, sensitive vegetation communities, tribal lands, or tribal cultural resources. The project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Packet Pg. 309
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project Page 3 Attachments
^Location Map
^Bid Tabulation
St Francis Electric Bid Protest Letter
City of Redding Response Letter to St. Francis Electric, LLC from the City Attorney Office Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering
Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350)
NOE Eureka-Buena Traffic Signal
Packet Pg. 310
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) BID TABULATION FOR:

EUREKA WAY/BUENAVENTURA BOULEVARD SIGNAL PROJECT
ENGINEER'S EST Crosspoint General Eng. St. Francis Electric, LLC 6/9/2022 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,366.00 $1,366.00 2 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS EA 8 $300.00 $2,400.00 $357.50 $2,860.00 $500.00 $4,000.003 SIGN (PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE) EA 2 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $1,800.00 $3,600.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.005 REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 1590 $2.00 $3,180.00 $3.05 $4,849.50 $3.50 $5,565.006 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKING SF 45 $5.00 $225.00 $13.20 $594.00 $15.00 $675.007 RELOCATE SIGN EA 1 $350.00 $350.00 $825.00 $825.00 $750.00 $750.008 SIGNAL MODIFICATION LS 1 $160,000.00 $160,000.00 $152,742.64 $152,742.64 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 9 TRAFFIC STRIPE (THERMOPLASTIC 6") LF 2136 $2.00 $4,272.00 $3.52 $7,518.72 $4.00 $8,544.00 10 TRAFFIC STRIPE (THERMOPLASTIC 8") LF 300 $5.00 $1,500.00 $4.95 $1,485.00 $6.00 $1,800.0011 PAVEMENT MARKING (THERMOPLASTIC) SF 115 $5.00 $575.00 $16.50 $1,897.50 $20.00 $2,300.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $196,902.00 $193,872.36 $242,000.00 Cal Electro, Inc.

UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL
1 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $850.00 $850.002 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS EA 8 $400.00 $3,200.003 SIGN (PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE) EA 2 $3,200.00 $6,400.00 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $45,000.00 $45,000.005 REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 1590 $2.75 $4,372.506 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKING SF 45 $12.00 $540.007 RELOCATE SIGN EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.008 SIGNAL MODIFICATION LS 1 $207,496.00 $207,496.009 TRAFFIC STRIPE (THERMOPLASTIC 6") LF 2136 $3.20 $6,835.20 10 TRAFFIC STRIPE (THERMOPLASTIC 8") LF 300 $4.50 $1,350.0011 PAVEMENT MARKING (THERMOPLASTIC) SF 115 $15.00 $1,725.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $280,268.70Bid Schedule No.: 5283 Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: St Francis Electric Bid Protest Letter (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: St Francis Electric Bid Protest Letter (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: St Francis Electric Bid Protest Letter (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: St Francis Electric Bid Protest Letter (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: St Francis Electric Bid Protest Letter (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: St Francis Electric Bid Protest Letter (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: City of Redding Response Letter to St. Francis Electric, LLC from the City Attorney Office (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: City of Redding Response Letter to St. Francis Electric, LLC from the City Attorney Office (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: City of Redding Response Letter to St. Francis Electric, LLC from the City Attorney Office (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura RE: BID ADVISORY
Low Bidder: Crosspoint General Engineering
Awarding Agency: City of Redding
Eureka Way / Buenaventura Boulevard Signal Project
FFC Case No.: 1475SAC
Dear Mr. Aukland:

Please enter this formal bid advisory against the above-noted contractor as a matter of public record and circulate to all Councilmembers. We respectfully request that Crosspoint General Engineering (Crosspoint) bid be rejected.

The bid provided to the City by Crosspoint signifies that the contractor would not be able to successfully perform its duties on the above project, while fulfilling its obligations with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Payment of Prevailing Wages, at the bid amount provided due to the following:
• FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BID SPECIFICATIONS/UNFAIR COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE
Crosspoint’ bid is in excess of 22% lower than all other bidders on this project which indicates a failure to account for the proper prevailing wage rate and include all items in the bid packet – including travel and subsistence. If awarded the project, this contractor would need to submit change orders to complete the project in accordance with the specifications and/or compromise prevailing wage laws/standards. This gives Crosspoint an unfair advantage in its bidding practices against its competitors and puts the City of Redding into a precarious legal position. • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND FORMAL

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
Crosspoint has not made a good faith effort to participate and invest in Local Workforce Development, nor have they participated in local hiring of workers in the community through formal and recognized pre-apprenticeship programs and formal apprenticeship programs for Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) specific apprenticeable crafts. They have failed to request, employ, train, and pay the proper prevailing wages to apprentices.
• VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17900 ET. SEQ.

Crosspoint has failed to maintain current and active registration of business in the State of California, pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17900 et. seq. We have attached the detailed supporting documentation for your review.

Please contact our office with questions, comments, or clarifications.

Sincerely,

Jesse Jimenez
Executive Director
Case: 1475SAC
cc: City of Redding – Councilmembers
Kristen Schreder – Email: [email protected]
Michael Dacquisto – Email: [email protected] Mark Mezzano – Email: [email protected]
Erin Resner – Email: [email protected]
Julie Winter– Email: [email protected]
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Jesse Jimenez
Executive Director
Foundation for Fair Contracting
3807 Pasadena Avenue, Suite 150
Sacramento, California 95821
Office (916) 487-7871; Fax (916) 487-0306; Direct (916) 549-6381 One Stop Solutions @ www.ffccalifornia.com
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) From: Members, Council <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:56 PM
To: Kristen Schreder <[email protected]>; Julie Winter <[email protected]>; Erin Resner <[email protected]>; Michael Dacquisto <[email protected]>; Mark Mezzano <[email protected]>
Cc: Tippin, Barry <[email protected]>; DeMaagd, Sheri <[email protected]>; Bade, Steve <[email protected]>; Aukland, Chuck <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering - Eureka Way/Buenaventura Boulevard Signa Project - FFC Case No. 1475SAC
From: Aukland, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:24 PM
To: Jesse Jimenez
Cc: Justin Bochmann; Mario Rodriguez; Eva Cruz-Huerta
Subject: RE: Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering - Eureka Way/Buenaventura Boulevard Signa Project - FFC Case No. 1475SAC
Good morning Mr. Jimenez,
Thank you for bringing this item to our attention. We take pride in our capital delivery program and ensure our contracts comply with all aspects of the Public Contract Code including labor compliance. We also ensure our contractors are properly licensed, bonded and insured and make every effort to determine responsiveness and responsibility prior to award. The City intends to award this project at its regular meeting of the City Council on July 19, 2022.

Again, thanks for bringing your concerns to our attention, Chuck
_____________________
Chuck Aukland, P.E.

Director/City Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Redding
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Phone: (530) 245-7156
Fax: (530) 245-7024
City of Redding Facilities are open to the public without restriction. If you prefer, business can be conducted online at www.cityofredding.org, by using the drop boxes located outside the facilities or by contacting City of Redding departments directly by phone at www.cityofredding.org/contacts. Thank you.

Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Bid Advisory on Crosspoint General Engineering (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and Release (" Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Redding(" City") and Boyce Muse and Joan Muse( collectively and individually referred to as" Muse"). These parties are referred to collectively as" Parties" and individually as a" Party."

RECITALS
A. In April 2003, the City issued Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Map S- 14- 03 pertaining to the development of Sunset Avenues Subdivision(" the Subdivision'). The developer was Sunset Avenues LLC (" Sunset"). Muse was a principal of Sunset.

B. Condition 9 of the Tentative Map required that Sunset obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for construction of improvements within the State right- ofway at the intersection of Buenaventura Boulevard and Eureka Way/ State Route 299 West in Redding, California. Improvements were to include, but were not limited to, the following:
1 Widening of the north side of the intersection to three lanes, including a northbound lane, a dedicated southbound- to- eastbound lane, and a combined southbound through-right turn lane.

2. Relocation of the curb return in the northeast corner of the intersection northeast of its current location.

3. Modifications to the traffic signal hardware at the
northwest and northeast quadrants of the intersection.

4. Construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and tie-in paving along the entire parcel frontage of the Eureka Way.

5. Necessary signing, striping, and installation of streetlights.

C. On December 1, 2004, the City Council approved the final map for the Subdivision and entered into a Subdivision Agreement regarding conditioned work that was not complete. The terms ofthe Subdivision Agreement, including but not limited to the requirement to meet Condition 9 ofthe Tentative Map, have yet to be satisfied.

D. In 2010, Sunset dissolved through a vote of all members, the final tax return was filed, and the certification of cancellation was recorded in late 2010.

E. The City contends that Muse personally is responsible for completing the improvements at his expense. Muse contends he is not personally responsible for completing the improvements because: ( 1) the Subdivision Agreement is with Sunset Avenues LLC and not Boyce Muse personally; ( 2) the Letter of Credit 9-ppV' 3. Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) lapsed on July 1, 2006, and was not extended; ( 3) the four-year statute of limitations against the LLC expired in 2011 without a lawsuit ever being filed; ( 4) Sunset Avenues LLC dissolved in 2010, and any action against it is now barred by the statute of limitations; and( 5) Muse did not issue any personal guaranty and is not responsible for the contractual representations of the LLC even ifthe statute of limitations had not run.

F. The parties now desire to amicably resolve their disputes and any claims, rights, causes of action, cross- claims, counter- claims, and defenses against each other arising from or related to the Project and the construction of the Improvements.

AGREEMENT
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the Parties as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals.

Without admitting to any facts stated above, the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement.

2. Muse' s Obligations.
a) Muse shall remove existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk at the corner; reconstruct curb, gutter, and sidewalk at new location; extend curb, gutter, and sidewalk from the corner east to next property; and provide the earthwork/ base/ paving to tie the new curb/ gutter/ sidewalk to the existing roadway in accordance with City standards and inspections. A diagram depicting and describing the work area is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
b) Muse shall pay Thirty Thousand Dollars ($ 30,000) to the City within thirty ( 30) days of City submitting an invoice.
c) Muse shall satisfy the City' s requirements for insurance for any work performed in City' s right-of-way.
d) Muse shall work cooperatively with City in completing the work described in Sections 2 and 3 of this Agreement.

3. City' s Obligations.
a) City shall obtain an encroachment permit for all work required by Caltrans.
b) City shall be responsible for all design and administrative work including electrical design work, related contract plans preparation, advertisement, and contract award and administration.

Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) c) City shall perform all signal work to make the signal operational including, but not limited to: main signal foundation and standard in the northeastern quadrant; 1B pole foundation and standard in the northeastern quadrant; and related conduit and wiring.
d) City shall provide final striping.
e) City shall work cooperatively with Muse in completing the work described in Sections 2 and 3 of this Agreement.

4. Payment for the Work.

Muse shall perform and complete the work described in Section 2 herein at Muse' s sole cost and expense. Muse shall pay $ 30, 000 toward the City' s work described in Section 3 herein and no more. City shall be responsible for payment and performance of all other work detailed in Section 3 herein.

5. Mutual Release of Claims.

Effective upon the satisfactory completion by Muse of the improvements described in Section 2 herein and the payment by Muse of$ 30, 000 to City pursuant to Sections 2 and 4 of this Agreement, and in consideration thereof, and of other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby fully waive, release, remise, exonerate and forever discharge each other and their shareholders, companies, affiliated companies ( Muse Concrete, Contractor' s, Inc., Muse II Construction, Inc. (" Muse Companies"), and Sunset Avenues LLC, and all oftheir directors, officers, employees, consultants, subcontractors, agents, and representatives, and all of their affiliates and subsidiaries ( collectively the " Released Parties") from any and all suits, debts, claims ( known or unknown), cross- claims, fees, costs, expenses, damages, interest, judgments, demands, losses, liabilities, obligations and causes of action whatsoever in law or in equity heretofore and hereafter arising out of, connected with, or incidental to the Improvement required in the Subdivision Agreement and/ or the Subdivision, including but not limited to (i) all issues addressed in the Subdivision Agreement, ( ii) all claims, actions and causes of action which are, may be, or could have been asserted by City including but not limited to any claim, filing, or proceedings to establish debarment against Muse and/ or Muse Companies( iii) all actions and causes of action which are, may be, or could have been asserted by City, arising out of, connected with, or incidental to the construction of the Improvements ( collectively with( i), (ii) and( iii) above the Released Claims").

Notwithstanding the above language, this release does not release any person or entity who is not a Released Party.

Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) The Parties agree to waive all rights and benefits which they now have or in the future may have against the Released Parties under California Civil Code Section 1542 which provides:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE

CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER

FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE WHICH IF

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR."

6. No Admission of Liability and No Finding of Non- Responsibility.

The Parties each agree that this Agreement is a compromise of the above- described Released Claims and shall never be treated as an admission of liability by any Party hereto for any purpose, and that liability is therefore expressly denied by each of the Parties hereto.

Nothing in this Agreement, the negotiations leading up to this Agreement, or the actions or inaction of Muse or Sunset Avenues LLC occurring prior to the execution ofthis Agreement shall be considered by City in determining whether Muse and/ or Muse Companies is a responsible bidder to any public works project of the City.

7. Attorney' s Fees and Costs.

Each Party agrees to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the dispute regarding the Subdivision and Improvements, the Released Claims, and the negotiation, preparation, and execution of this Agreement.

8. No Reliance Upon Any Statement or Representation.

This Agreement is executed by the Parties without reliance upon any statement or representation by the Parties, or their attorneys or representatives, other than those set forth herein. Each ofthe Parties hereto understands that the facts with respect to which this Agreement is entered may be different from the facts known or believed by them to be true. The Parties hereby respectively accept and assume the risk of the facts being different and agree that this Agreement shall be and remain in all respects effective and not subject to termination, rescission or reformation by virtue of any such difference in facts.

9. Entire Agreement.

The terms ofthis Agreement constitute the entire agreement between and among the Parties, and inure to the benefit of and bind the Parties hereto, and their successors and assigns, and may not be altered, amended, modified or otherwise changed in any manner except by a writing executed by all Parties.

Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project)

10. Number and Gender-Headings.

Whenever used in this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular, and the neuter gender shall include the male and female as well as a trust, firm, company, or corporation, all as the context and meaning of this Agreement may require. The terms of this Agreement are contractual in nature. The headings are for convenience only and do not limit the described sections in any manner.

11. Representation by Counsel.

Each of the Parties affirms and acknowledges that it has read and fully appreciates and understands the words, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, is fully and entirely satisfied with the same, has been represented by legal counsel of its choice in the negotiation, preparation and execution of this Agreement, has conferred with its counsel prior to the execution of this Agreement, and had executed this Agreement voluntarily and of its own free will and act.

Each ofthe Parties, by its due execution of this Agreement, represents that it has reviewed each term of this Agreement with counsel, and that hereafter no Party shall deny the validity of this Agreement on the ground that the Party did not have full and adequate counsel. Each Party has had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice with respect to the meaning, implications and advisability of executing this Agreement, and with respect to the meaning of California Civil Code Section 1542. The Parties hereby acknowledge that they have all participated in the drafting ofthis Agreement and specifically agree that any rule of construction, to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party, shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.

12. Authority to Execute and Bind.

Each of the Parties represents and warrants that each of the persons executing this Agreement on its behalf has full and complete legal authority to do so and thereby bind the party on behalf of which this Agreement is executed by them.

13. Necessary Acts.

The Parties agree to perform any further acts and execute and deliver any further documents that may reasonably be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.

14. No Waiver.

Except as may be provided expressly in writing by each Party to be charged, no action or want of action on the part of any Party hereto at any time to exercise any rights or remedies conferred upon it under this Agreement shall be, or shall be asserted to be, a waiver on the part of any such party of any of its rights or remedies hereunder.

Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project)

15. Severability.

Should any part, term, or provision of this Agreement be decided or declared by the Courts to be, or otherwise found to be illegal or in conflict with any laws of the State of California or the United States, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable, or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, portions, or provisions, shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, providing such remaining parts, terms, portions or provisions can be construed so as to effectuate the substance of the Agreement.

16. Survival of Representations and Warranties.

The Parties agree that all representations and warranties expressly made by them or set forth in this Agreement shall survive the execution of this Agreement.

17. California Law.

This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the law ofthe State of California, notwithstanding the operation of any conflict or choice of law statutes or decisional law to the contrary.

18. Disputes and Attorney' s Fees.

Any action or proceeding brought arising out of, relating to or seeking the interpretation or enforcement ofthe terms of this Agreement shall be filed and litigated through dismissal, settlement or final judgment in the Superior Court of Shasta County, California. The prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney' s fees and costs.

19. Counterparts.

This Agreement shall not be considered fully executed, and shall not be binding on any Party hereto, unless and until it shall have been executed by every Party hereto. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile signature in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

20. Stipulation.

Pursuant to Evidence Code 1123, this Agreement is enforceable, binding and admissible in any court of competent jurisdiction. The Parties also agree that the provisions of Evidence Code Sections 1115 through 1128 notwithstanding, the Parties hereby stipulate that this Agreement may be enforced under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664. 6, or by any other procedure permitted by law in the appropriate Superior Court and that such court retains jurisdiction until all terms of this Agreement have been performed.

Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the days and year set forth below.

BOYCE MUSE
Date: — July 9 2017
7/11//.5

ROYCE MUSE

JOAN MUSE
Date: 3trlg 2017
K s% Ay: JOAN MUSE
J

CITY OF REDDING
Date: 2017
PI* Brent Weaver
Mayor, City of Redding
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BARRY E. DEWALT
City Attorney
ji 5
orCom'
ELA MIZE By: Lynette_ i. ediani
Assistant 1 Attorney
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) hM113e O1 '
I 1::". 61r---:
nu e3u3d iMLL3U' . '—
Q
s• 4 Y14 1 JNl'.

P a I O
S.U3T del 41fem Hlt to
YhK3N C, 1. Up 1J11 1`-
y..01-
M 1•Cih3aYe
Toa 2.11Cvd 11 f4p t
01- Mara Flan f v 3 a
Nhn3CIS 4 ,
4 33 11. 18 6i- as L9+ S Y
V+
c ' 4c iL `
L. ca. I
c s
L......„,
n
y cu teal_.

I I
S Q
a h
R: i, $ WVI
TV157md A,I11LLT F
e S VI
1( rld lrhab. a 2
7fhM3a6 CA1fle
i
39 01 W8 lvia 4
59 1 I
ui

I I W ,
II `:
115111
1 Ex
to
515
f
r
1,
r
g
0 a)
E
C
t
U) I Fj
r
a;.
uCNV 0.1r ' IL• 0-** s< 0
Z"—. .

4. 1 1
4e.YOC6 8'= LI. -
RICO IL ir,(13 14301.1M nrla

4. C
C- F
III 1. 1' 0.1: 11, 01,
rr ,
f--
yY,
Mid lvw515 8hLLi1. 3 E J
q7B Tflg7 01410102 l;
1i0B" WS ahLL5113, I
r ' I
I

10. 161. al IA X1 111 1: 16% d . hl.•.
rim hhlt3` 41 *#
L3 , f , . '{
553 711{ WW2!: 7r4.. O0 IC 4
xae unvt 7
L
a
il 407138 o1 lrLc1,' 1 - i
I
nq Ju' NimV ChU0IO ^ 5
Y1- era D
7NLLRti3 I
3 stfar G• Ccan 9hLLil FCLvn n F r
91h3CW 11h3 ." 1= • rd Sw
a
r3 y
LOA a111 saL;.- 11 ' 1: 141, 0
5` I la I i
t
miaow tire' N. s
Z
313ro. hv •' LL. p31 I\ I 1 g I r_
i
I I
a l
I
1 1
1 1
e`
T
f
14 I F
J
tf 1
eg.

N I f
Y 5 11
S =
WI 03 I
11aII
II
r4 N0)- 8' 1II
I
T I
I Eli c',
r
IZ150 1 1 11 N
OUEr4' 11 0. g 11 ', 1‘:, I i
J
g
j
j
c9n t
I
2 L;
Ie p_
I -.
p
1 Nh, G. l O1 NO5 a . 00 ,
lEg P S
R — It
a
44yy, e i
1f

1. 1,`, Ii I
iti
9i i s Fei4 a3
K AVE 3
W >
p
lia
I
les 1 z
42 i
it_ I
A.114
W$ f 11
y.

S3
3 I 1 iib II N
I I
1y{
tT'''
1 IP- e 1' ' 1,-;Li; o Cr.'s''
r

0....) I. .fig M1 1, ga;
l + tiv f'. ! 1 O8
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Release (C-7350) (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project) Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: NOE Eureka-Buena Traffic Signal (4.11(e)--Eureka Way / Buenaventura Blvd Signal Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution of Intention to form Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) 01-22 (Luke Estates) and approve the following:
(1) Engineer's Report as filed with the City Clerk;
(2) Confirmation of the map of the assessment district contained in the Engineer's Report; (3) Mailing of notices and ballots; and
(4) Setting the Public Hearing and Election for September 6, 2022, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California, regarding the formation of LMD 01–22 (Luke Estates) pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and Government Code 53753(b).

Fiscal Impact
Generally, LMDs are self-supporting, and there are no fiscal impacts to the City of Redding’s (City) General Fund.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to decline to create a new district and direct staff to make changes to the Engineer’s Report. This alternative will require the identification of an alternative funding source to provide the required maintenance so as not to become a General Fund obligation.

Background/Analysis
Like many cities in California, the City utilizes LMDs to fund the maintenance of landscape and other improved areas that directly benefit residential and commercial developments. Use of MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(f)--Resolution of Intention to form Landscape Maintenance District 01-22 (Luke Estates), approving the Engineer's Report, confirming the Map for Landscape Maintenance District 01-22, Approving the mailing of notices and ballots; and setting the Public Hearing and Election for September 6, 2022
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 336
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation Page 2
LMDs ensures that the majority of maintenance responsibilities are borne by new growth and not the General Fund, and they are allowable under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972.

Luke Estates Subdivision (S-01-09), Condition of Approval Requirement No. 36 requires the property owners within said subdivision to consent to the formation of and participation in an LMD. The LMD will fund maintenance and upkeep of irrigation, landscape, and a block wall along the south side of Old Alturas Road along with the upkeep of a vegetated infiltration basin adjacent to Kathleen Way as described in the Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk’s Office.

The proposed formation of LMD 01-22 will affect a total of nine residential parcels.

To provide for this formation, the Council will be required to adopt the attached resolution accomplishing the following:

1. Declaring the Council’s intention to form LMD 01-22 and levy and collect assessments;

2. Approval of the Engineer’s Report for LMD 01-22;

3. Confirmation of the map of the assessment district contained in the Engineer’s Report;

4. Confirmation and approval of the annual assessment of $13,793 for the LMD based on the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, equating to $1532.56 per benefit unit; and

5. Approval of the mailing of notices and ballots to the property owners within the proposed boundaries of the LMD and setting the public hearing and election for September 6, 2022.

Should the Council approve the resolution, staff will proceed with formation procedures to establish LMD 01-22. The Lighting and Landscape Act of 1972 requires ballots be mailed to each property owner and allows the Council to form the district if a simple majority of the ballots that are returned favor the formation of the LMD. If the formation is approved, results will be provided to the Shasta County Assessor's Office. The new levy will be placed on the property owners' property tax bills in December 2023. The owner has agreed to maintain all LMD landscape features until the first assessment is collected by the City.

The assessment, for LMD 01-22, will include a contingency for the Council to annually consider a cost escalation tied to the “20 Cities Construction Cost Index” from the most recent March Engineering News Record effective July 1, 2023, and every July thereafter.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map
Engineer's Report
Packet Pg. 337
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Redding
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City Clerk
City of Redding
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding CA 96001
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING:
(1) DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO FORM LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01-22 AND LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS.
(2) CONFIRMING THE MAP OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND
APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT.
(3) APPROVING THE MAILING OF NOTICES AND BALLOTS.
(4) SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING AND ELECTION DATE OF
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022, REGARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01-22.

WHEREAS:

A. The Engineer has filed his Report with the City Clerk pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq., setting forth a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the proposed assessment district and any zones therein, any bonds or notes to be issued, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the proposed district; and
B. The purpose of the proposed district is to provide maintenance associated with the landscape improvements and vegetation management areas as conditioned by the Luke Estates Subdivision (S-01-09) Conditions of Approval. Condition 36 requires that the property owners consent to the formation of and participation in a landscape maintenance district; and
C. The City Council proposed to levy the proposed special assessment based on a uniform special benefit and assessment methodology over all developable lots within the proposed district; and
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) D. Only costs for landscaping; mulching; vandalism abatement; vegetation management; repairs to the irrigation system; electric and water charges; replacement of vegetation as necessary; removal of trimmings, rubbish, and debris and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti; administrative costs; and such other maintenance and incidental expenses of like character and nature as authorized by Streets and Highways Code Sections 22526 and 22531 will be assessed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53739, the amount of each fiscal year’s assessment shall be adjusted for inflation in an amount not to exceed that provided by the "20 Cities Construction Costs Index" from the most recent March Engineering News Record and shall become effective July 1, 2023, and every July 1 thereafter; and
E. This resolution satisfies those requirements set forth in the Streets and Highways Code Section 22587 and the notice requirements set forth in Government Code 53753(b); NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redding as follows:

1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are adopted herein.

2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to order the formation of Landscape Maintenance District 01-22 and levy and collect assessments.

3. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22586, the City Council hereby approves the Engineer’s Report, as filed with the City Clerk, and thereby confirms and adopts the map of the assessment district contained in the Engineer’s Report.

4. The City Council finds that the Engineer’s Report has fairly and properly apportioned the costs of the improvements to each benefit unit in the district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each benefit unit from the improvements.

5. Notices and ballots will be mailed upon acceptance of this Resolution, and public hearing and election will be held on Tuesday, September 6, 2022, at the hour of 6 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California to address the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

The proposed annual assessment for the entire district is $13,793.00 and the annual assessment per Benefit Unit (each parcel) is $1532.56. The reason for the assessment and the underlying basis for computing the amount of the assessment is set forth in the Engineer’s Report which can be obtained from the City Clerk at the above address. The assessment is subject to annual inflationary increases in accordance with cost of living index known as the “20 Cities Construction Cost Index. The annual assessments shall have an indefinite term and will continue until such time as the district is disestablished, if ever.

6. Pursuant to Government Code section 53753, protests against the formation of the maintenance district may be filed with the City Clerk or presented no later than the Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) conclusion of the public hearing set by this resolution. A ballot must be filled out and returned the same no later than the close of the public hearing referenced above. The assessment will not be imposed if the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment, with ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 19th day of July, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation) Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Engineer's Report (4.11(f)--LMD 01-22 (Luke Estates) Formation)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions regarding Federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funding:
(1) Accept additional grant funds awarded to the City of Redding for the Bidwell/Bonnyview Safe Routes to School project; and
(2) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 49th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2021-78 appropriating $79,450 for the Bidwell/Bonnyview SRTS project.

Fiscal Impact
An additional $79,450 in grant funds has been allocated to the City of Redding (City) during project closeout for the Bidwell/Bonnyview SRTS project. These additional grant funds will allow previously allocated Streets Division (Streets) funds, used to fill the funding gap, to be returned to the Streets budget.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to accept the additional grant funding. In this case, the City would lose $79,450 in grant funding for the Bidwell/Bonnyview SRTS Project and Streets funds would need to be used.

Background/Analysis
On March 5, 2013, the Council accepted SRTS funds in the amount of $485,000 for the Bidwell/Bonnyview SRTS project. On April 21, 2020, the Council accepted an additional $381,000 in SRTS funds. On February 16, 2021, the Council accepted the project.

Following project completion and acceptance, staff was able to secure additional grant funds for the project, therefore reducing the amount of Streets funds needed to complete the project. The attached resolution will appropriate the funding to the project.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(g)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds from State of California Department of Transportation and Adopt Budget Resolution Appropriating Funds.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 352
Report to Redding City Council July 10, 2022
Re: 4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds Page 2 The project included earthwork, asphalt concrete, aggregate base, curb gutter, sidewalk, storm drains, traffic striping and marking, and other miscellaneous items of work required to provide safe facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Resolution
Previous Staff Report 2-16-21
Previous Staff Report 4-21-20
Previous Staff Report 3-5-13
Packet Pg. 353
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 49 th AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078 APPROPRIATING $79,450 IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS

FOR THE BIDWELL/BONNYVIEW SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
128 566

Transportation Grant Projects $79,450
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase (Decrease) Revenue
128-566-6-2650-18 Federal Grant - Capital - Public Works $ 79,450 Increase Expenditures
128-566-4527-06 Bidwell/Bonnyview SRTS $ 79,450
Total $ 79,450 $ 79,450
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $79,450 in State of California Department of Transportation funds for the Bidwell/Bonnyview Safe Routes to School project for fiscal year 2021-22.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 19th day of July, 2022, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept Bid Schedule No. 5113 (Job No. 2437, Federal Aid Project No. SRTSL-5068(048)), Safe Routes To School Bonnyview School, awarded to Muse Concrete Contractors, Inc., as satisfactorily complete, with a final project cost of $1,052,973.22.

Fiscal Impact
Federal grant funds, the City of Redding’s (City) Streets Division funds, and the City’s Water Utility funds in the combined amount of $952,400 were approved for this project. The total project cost, including surveying, design, bidding, construction, field engineering, inspection, and contract administration was $1,052,973.22.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not accept the project as satisfactorily complete, and advise staff on how to proceed.

Background/Analysis
Muse Concrete Contractors, Inc. has completed all items of work on the Safe Routes to School Bonnyview School Project as of September 11, 2020, which was within the time frame of the contract. The project warranty period expires one year from the completion date of September 11, 2020, and the Public Works Department subsequently filed the notice of completion with the County of Shasta.

At its April 21, 2020, meeting, the Council awarded a construction contract to Muse Concrete Contractors, Inc., of Redding, California, for $468,441.62 and approved a $47,000 construction contingency fund. Also authorized was $70,000 for contract administration and construction inspection fees, an additional City Manager funding increase up to $15,000, and $351,000 for MEETING DATE: February 16, 2021
ITEM NO. 4.11(g)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5113, Safe Routes To School Bonnyview School
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 2-16-21 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) Report to Redding City Council February 8, 2021
Re: 4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5113, Safe Routes To School Bonnyview School Page 2
project development and right-of-way costs, for a total authorized amount of $951,441.62.

Project development costs include engineering, environmental, obtaining right-of-way, and consultant services. During construction, there were seven (7) change orders totaling $126,331.60 which exceeded the originally budgeted contingency amount of $47,000. Additional funds, in the amount of $126,500, were requested and approved at the October 20, 2020, Council meeting, increasing the project development, construction management, and construction contingency accounts. After the seven change orders were completed, a balance of $20,668.40 remained in the contingency fund. The final project cost was $1,052,973.22.

This project constructed sidewalk and bicycle improvements on the west side of Bidwell Rd. from Bonnyview School south to North Bonnyview Rd. and on North Bonnyview Rd. from Bidwell Rd. to East Bonnyview Rd. The improvements included curb and gutter, five-foot sidewalk, five-foot bike lane, storm drainage, curb ramps at intersections, and relocation/replacement of a water main.

Cost Summary
Original
Awarded
Amounts
Increased
Awarded
Amounts
Actual Cost
Project Development Costs $351,000 $357,500 $357,500
Construction Contract + Contingency $515,441.62 $615,441.62 Construction Contract + Contract Change Orders $594,773.22 Contract Administration and Inspection $70,000 $90,000 $100,700 City Manager Authorization $15,000 $15,000 $0
TOTAL $951,441.62 $1,077,941.62 $1,052,973.22
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This agenda item is a routine operation item.
c: Ron DeMaagd, Construction Manager
Attachments
Location Map
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 2-16-21 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 2-16-21 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following action relative to Bid Schedule No. 5113 (Job No. 2437), Safe Routes to School Bonnyview School:
(1) Award to Muse Concrete Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $468,441.62; (2) Approve an additional $70,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) Approve $47,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Approve $351,000 for project development and right-of-way costs; (5) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $15,000; and (6) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 31st Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 to appropriate an additional $381,000 in federal grant funds for the project.

Fiscal Impact
The Safe Routes to School Bonnyview School Project is being funded by a combination of Federal, Streets, and Water Utility funds. The adoption of the attached budget resolution of $381,000 will increase the total Federal Funding share for the project to $886,400. Water Utility funds in the amount of $50,000 and Street funds in the amount of $16,000 are estimated and adequate funds are budgeted for the project. The following is a breakdown of the proposed project component by component allocation:

MEETING DATE: April 21, 2020
ITEM NO. 4.11(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5113 (Job Order No. 2437), Safe Routes to School Bonnyview School and Adopt Budget Resolution
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) Report to Redding City Council April 14, 2020
Re: 4.11(c)--Award Bid for Safe Routes Bonnyview School Page 2 Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $138,850
Right of Way $212,150
Construction Contract + Contingency $515,441.62
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $70,000
Additional City Manager Authority $15,000
Total Project Costs $951,441.62
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

Alternate Action
The City Council may choose not to award the bid for the Safe Routes to School Bonnyview School Project and provide staff with other direction. Without this project, sidewalk and street improvements will not be completed near Bonnyview School. Federal funds spent to date may need to be returned.

Background/Analysis
Attached is a tabulation of bids received and opened on March 31, 2020, for the Safe Routes to School Bonnyview School Project. The low bid in the amount of $468,441.62 was received from Muse Concrete Contractors, Inc. of Redding, California. The engineer's estimate is $463,000 and there are adequate funds budgeted for this project. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $351,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-of-way ($212,150), environmental, and consultant services. A construction contingency of $47,000 is proposed.

On March 5, 2013, the Council accepted Safe Routes To School (SRTS) funding for the subject project. Due to the unanticipated complexity of right of way acquisitions of eleven properties, and following grant guidelines for the project, delivery was delayed. The proposed project will construct sidewalk and bicycle improvements on the west side of Bidwell Rd. from Bonnyview School south to North Bonnyview Rd. and on North Bonnyview Rd. from Bidwell Rd. to East Bonnyview Rd. The improvements will include curb and gutter, five foot sidewalk, five foot bike lane, storm drainage, and curb ramps at intersections.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
Resolution
Bid Tabulation
Location Map
Notice of Exemption
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) RESOLUTION NO. 2020-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 31ST AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2019-050
APPROPRIATING $381,000 FOR THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BIDWELL AND NORTH BONNYVIEW PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
128 566 Transportation Grant Projects $381,000
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase Revenue
128-566-6-2650-18 Federal Grant - Capital $ 381,000
Increase Expenditures
128-566-4527-06 Bonnyview SRTS $ 381,000
Total $ 381,000 $ 381,000
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $381,000 for the Safe Routes to School Bidwell and North Bonnyview Project for fiscal year 2019-20.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 21st day of April, 2020, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ADAM McELVAIN, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) BID TABULATION FOR:

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BONNYVIEW SCHOOL
Bid Schedule No.: 5113
Job No.: 2437 ENGINEER'S EST Muse Concrete Contractors, Inc. RTA Construction, Inc. 3/31/2020 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,755.00 $38,755.00 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 2 PROJECT FUNDING SIGN EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,165.00 $1,165.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 3 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNING EA 10 $400.00 $4,000.00 $300.80 $3,008.00 $645.00 $6,450.00 4 WATER POLLUTION CONTROLL LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,105.00 $4,105.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 5 CLEAR & GRUB LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,263.00 $25,263.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.00

ROADWAY ITEMS
6 REMOVE AC SF 4773 $3.00 $14,319.00 $2.71 $12,934.83 $5.00 $23,865.00 7(F) EXCAVATION (UNCLASSIFIED) CY 280 $100.00 $28,000.00 $77.76 $21,772.80 $56.00 $15,680.00 8 ASPHALT CONCRETE TON 102 $150.00 $15,300.00 $223.46 $22,792.92 $265.00 $27,030.00 9(F) AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS 2) CY 205 $50.00 $10,250.00 $100.20 $20,541.00 $110.00 $22,550.00

CONCRETE ITEMS
10 REMOVE CONCRETE SF 1086 $4.00 $4,344.00 $8.75 $9,502.50 $6.00 $6,516.00 11 CURB AND GUTTER (6" VERTICAL) LF 950 $30.00 $28,500.00 $51.33 $48,763.50 $90.00 $85,500.00 12 SIDEWALK (4" PCC) SF 2677 $10.00 $26,770.00 $12.12 $32,445.24 $28.00 $74,956.00 13 DRIVEWAY (DEPRESSED RESIDENTIAL) SF 1545 $15.00 $23,175.00 $12.35 $19,080.75 $31.00 $47,895.00 14 CURB RAMP (TYPE A) SF 947 $15.00 $14,205.00 $10.43 $9,877.21 $32.00 $30,304.00 15 CONCRETE (4") SF 856 $10.00 $8,560.00 $10.24 $8,765.44 $19.00 $16,264.00

DRAINAGE ITEMS
16 REMOVE STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 518 $18.00 $9,324.00 $25.80 $13,364.40 $25.00 $12,950.00 17 PIPE (4" PVC) LF 14 $40.00 $560.00 $84.72 $1,186.08 $280.00 $3,920.00 18 PIPE (8" PVC) LF 76 $50.00 $3,800.00 $48.49 $3,685.24 $33.00 $2,508.00 19 STORM DRAIN PIPE (15" HDPE) LF 461 $100.00 $46,100.00 $67.74 $31,228.14 $40.00 $18,440.00 20 STORM DRAIN PIPE (18" HDPE) LF 536 $110.00 $58,960.00 $41.33 $22,152.88 $40.00 $21,440.00 21 CATCH BASIN NO. 3 EA 9 $3,000.00 $27,000.00 $3,640.78 $32,767.02 $2,800.00 $25,200.00 22 AREA DRAIN (18 x 18) EA 5 $1,370.00 $6,850.00 $582.09 $2,910.45 $1,850.00 $9,250.00 23 MANHOLE (SD, TYPE 1-4') EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,953.00 $5,953.00 $5,200.00 $5,200.00 24 TRENCH DRAIN LF 18 $200.00 $3,600.00 $223.00 $4,014.00 $90.00 $1,620.00 25 FLARED END SECTION (18" RCP) EA 1 $600.00 $600.00 $7,187.00 $7,187.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00

WATER ITEMS
26 WATER SERVICE (1") EA 9 $2,500.00 $22,500.00 $1,666.00 $14,994.00 $1,830.00 $16,470.00 27 RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,309.00 $7,309.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00

SIGN STRIPE & MARKING ITEMS
28 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKINGS SF 515 $6.00 $3,090.00 $8.62 $4,439.30 $14.00 $7,210.00 29 REMOVE STRIPE LF 483 $4.00 $1,932.00 $5.17 $2,497.11 $11.00 $5,313.00 Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating BID TABULATION FOR:

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BONNYVIEW SCHOOL
Bid Schedule No.: 5113
Job No.: 2437 ENGINEER'S EST Muse Concrete Contractors, Inc. RTA Construction, Inc. 3/31/2020 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 30 PAVEMENT MARKINGS
(THERMOPLASTIC) SF 919 $8.00 $7,352.00 $9.77 $8,978.63 $11.00 $10,109.00 31 TRAFFIC STRIPE (6" THERMOLPLASTIC) LF 1990 $6.00 $11,940.00 $2.59 $5,154.10 $3.00 $5,970.00 32 PAVEMENT MARKERS EA 51 $10.00 $510.00 $27.57 $1,406.07 $33.00 $1,683.00 33 SALVAGE SIGN EA 8 $200.00 $1,600.00 $172.38 $1,379.04 $89.00 $712.00 34 RELOCATE SIGN EA 5 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $287.20 $1,436.00 $357.00 $1,785.00

MISCELLANEOUS
35 RELOCATE FENCE LF 190 $50.00 $9,500.00 $47.22 $8,971.80 $22.00 $4,180.00 36 REMOVE FENCE LF 14 $20.00 $280.00 $76.65 $1,073.10 $131.00 $1,834.00 37 RESET MAILBOX EA 11 $500.00 $5,500.00 $689.37 $7,583.07 $300.00 $3,300.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $462,921.00 $468,441.62 $587,804.00 Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the Special Provisions.

Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating BID TABULATION FOR:

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BONNYVIEW SCHOOL
Bid Schedule No.: 5113
Job No.: 2437
3/31/2020

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
1 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1
2 PROJECT FUNDING SIGN EA 1
3 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNING EA 10
4 WATER POLLUTION CONTROLL LS 1
5 CLEAR & GRUB LS 1

ROADWAY ITEMS
6 REMOVE AC SF 4773
7(F) EXCAVATION (UNCLASSIFIED) CY 280
8 ASPHALT CONCRETE TON 102
9(F) AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS 2) CY 205

CONCRETE ITEMS
10 REMOVE CONCRETE SF 1086
11 CURB AND GUTTER (6" VERTICAL) LF 950
12 SIDEWALK (4" PCC) SF 2677
13 DRIVEWAY (DEPRESSED RESIDENTIAL) SF 1545
14 CURB RAMP (TYPE A) SF 947
15 CONCRETE (4") SF 856

DRAINAGE ITEMS
16 REMOVE STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 518
17 PIPE (4" PVC) LF 14
18 PIPE (8" PVC) LF 76
19 STORM DRAIN PIPE (15" HDPE) LF 461
20 STORM DRAIN PIPE (18" HDPE) LF 536
21 CATCH BASIN NO. 3 EA 9
22 AREA DRAIN (18 x 18) EA 5
23 MANHOLE (SD, TYPE 1-4') EA 1
24 TRENCH DRAIN LF 18
25 FLARED END SECTION (18" RCP) EA 1

WATER ITEMS
26 WATER SERVICE (1") EA 9
27 RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT EA 1

SIGN STRIPE & MARKING ITEMS
28 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKINGS SF 515
29 REMOVE STRIPE LF 483
Giles Excavating & Paving Darren Taylor Construction Sunrise Excavating

UNIT UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$22,000.00 $22,000.00 $78,780.00 $78,780.00 $59,000.00 $59,000.00 $750.00 $750.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
$200.00 $2,000.00 $220.00 $2,200.00 $200.00 $2,000.00
$2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $29,500.00 $29,500.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $37,730.00 $37,730.00 $2.20 $10,500.60 $4.00 $19,092.00 $3.00 $14,319.00
$151.00 $42,280.00 $32.00 $8,960.00 $228.00 $63,840.00
$300.00 $30,600.00 $510.00 $52,020.00 $260.00 $26,520.00 $210.00 $43,050.00 $155.00 $31,775.00 $119.00 $24,395.00 $4.00 $4,344.00 $8.75 $9,502.50 $4.00 $4,344.00
$44.00 $41,800.00 $54.00 $51,300.00 $46.00 $43,700.00
$15.00 $40,155.00 $11.00 $29,447.00 $18.00 $48,186.00
$16.00 $24,720.00 $16.50 $25,492.50 $24.00 $37,080.00
$18.00 $17,046.00 $14.80 $14,015.60 $33.00 $31,251.00
$15.00 $12,840.00 $11.00 $9,416.00 $18.00 $15,408.00
$8.00 $4,144.00 $11.00 $5,698.00 $9.00 $4,662.00
$85.00 $1,190.00 $88.00 $1,232.00 $129.00 $1,806.00
$77.00 $5,852.00 $91.00 $6,916.00 $129.00 $9,804.00
$100.00 $46,100.00 $117.00 $53,937.00 $77.00 $35,497.00 $116.00 $62,176.00 $121.00 $64,856.00 $77.00 $41,272.00 $3,565.00 $32,085.00 $4,950.00 $44,550.00 $2,400.00 $21,600.00 $3,700.00 $18,500.00 $2,640.00 $13,200.00 $900.00 $4,500.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $6,600.00 $6,600.00 $5,350.00 $5,350.00 $118.00 $2,124.00 $100.00 $1,800.00 $68.00 $1,224.00
$2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,640.00 $2,640.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $54,000.00 $3,300.00 $29,700.00 $5,000.00 $45,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $7,260.00 $7,260.00 $13,300.00 $13,300.00 $8.50 $4,377.50 $8.25 $4,248.75 $7.50 $3,862.50
$5.00 $2,415.00 $4.95 $2,390.85 $4.50 $2,173.50
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating BID TABULATION FOR:

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BONNYVIEW SCHOOL
Bid Schedule No.: 5113
Job No.: 2437
3/31/2020

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
30 PAVEMENT MARKINGS
(THERMOPLASTIC) SF 919
31 TRAFFIC STRIPE (6" THERMOLPLASTIC) LF 1990
32 PAVEMENT MARKERS EA 51
33 SALVAGE SIGN EA 8
34 RELOCATE SIGN EA 5

MISCELLANEOUS
35 RELOCATE FENCE LF 190
36 REMOVE FENCE LF 14
37 RESET MAILBOX EA 11

TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS
Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the Specia Giles Excavating & Paving Darren Taylor Construction Sunrise Excavating

UNIT UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$9.50 $8,730.50 $9.35 $8,592.65 $8.50 $7,811.50
$2.50 $4,975.00 $2.47 $4,915.30 $2.25 $4,477.50
$27.00 $1,377.00 $26.50 $1,351.50 $24.00 $1,224.00
$150.00 $1,200.00 $175.00 $1,400.00 $50.00 $400.00
$400.00 $2,000.00 $275.00 $1,375.00 $125.00 $625.00
$50.00 $9,500.00 $35.00 $6,650.00 $30.00 $5,700.00
$40.00 $560.00 $100.00 $1,400.00 $25.00 $350.00
$500.00 $5,500.00 $500.00 $5,500.00 $475.00 $5,225.00
$611,891.60 $623,813.65 $627,637.00
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating BID TABULATION FOR:

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BONNYVIEW SCHOOL
Bid Schedule No.: 5113
Job No.: 2437
3/31/2020

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
1 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1
2 PROJECT FUNDING SIGN EA 1
3 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNING EA 10
4 WATER POLLUTION CONTROLL LS 1
5 CLEAR & GRUB LS 1

ROADWAY ITEMS
6 REMOVE AC SF 4773
7(F) EXCAVATION (UNCLASSIFIED) CY 280
8 ASPHALT CONCRETE TON 102
9(F) AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS 2) CY 205

WATER ITEMS
26 WATER SERVICE (1") EA 9
27 RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT EA 1

SIGN STRIPE & MARKING ITEMS
28 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKINGS SF 515
29 REMOVE STRIPE LF 483
Northwest Paving, Inc. Site Works Solutions SnL Group, Inc.

UNIT UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$131,112.00 $131,112.00 $13,510.00 $13,510.00 $66,000.13 $66,000.13 $600.00 $600.00 $727.40 $727.40 $600.00 $600.00
$200.00 $2,000.00 $198.39 $1,983.90 $240.00 $2,400.00
$2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,129.04 $2,129.04 $2,531.00 $2,531.00 $41,000.00 $41,000.00 $81,403.30 $81,403.30 $31,229.00 $31,229.00 $4.00 $19,092.00 $1.19 $5,679.87 $4.54 $21,669.42
$25.00 $7,000.00 $88.24 $24,707.20 $143.64 $40,219.20
$278.00 $28,356.00 $278.68 $28,425.36 $273.88 $27,935.76 $75.00 $15,375.00 $173.13 $35,491.65 $232.69 $47,701.45 $12.00 $13,032.00 $5.45 $5,918.70 $6.65 $7,221.90
$62.00 $58,900.00 $53.32 $50,654.00 $74.00 $70,300.00
$21.00 $56,217.00 $11.29 $30,223.33 $12.26 $32,820.02
$23.00 $35,535.00 $26.56 $41,035.20 $45.13 $69,725.85
$26.00 $24,622.00 $33.77 $31,980.19 $20.56 $19,470.32
$22.00 $18,832.00 $13.89 $11,889.84 $20.15 $17,248.40
$10.00 $5,180.00 $32.32 $16,741.76 $75.15 $38,927.70
$30.00 $420.00 $26.29 $368.06 $140.00 $1,960.00
$50.00 $3,800.00 $173.40 $13,178.40 $114.00 $8,664.00
$60.00 $27,660.00 $143.50 $66,153.50 $96.25 $44,371.25
$65.00 $34,840.00 $158.28 $84,838.08 $108.00 $57,888.00 $5,000.00 $45,000.00 $3,319.03 $29,871.27 $4,962.00 $44,658.00 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 $1,667.39 $8,336.95 $3,533.00 $17,665.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,328.66 $6,328.66 $5,049.00 $5,049.00 $120.00 $2,160.00 $158.85 $2,859.30 $204.00 $3,672.00
$1,800.00 $1,800.00 $2,086.07 $2,086.07 $2,471.00 $2,471.00 $3,500.00 $31,500.00 $4,413.49 $39,721.41 $4,533.00 $40,797.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $11,098.99 $11,098.99 $9,082.00 $9,082.00 $8.00 $4,120.00 $13.31 $6,854.65 $8.25 $4,248.75
$5.00 $2,415.00 $9.56 $4,617.48 $5.00 $2,415.00
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating BID TABULATION FOR:

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BONNYVIEW SCHOOL
Bid Schedule No.: 5113
Job No.: 2437
3/31/2020

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
30 PAVEMENT MARKINGS
(THERMOPLASTIC) SF 919
31 TRAFFIC STRIPE (6" THERMOLPLASTIC) LF 1990
32 PAVEMENT MARKERS EA 51
33 SALVAGE SIGN EA 8
34 RELOCATE SIGN EA 5

MISCELLANEOUS
35 RELOCATE FENCE LF 190
36 REMOVE FENCE LF 14
37 RESET MAILBOX EA 11

TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS
Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the Specia Northwest Paving, Inc. Site Works Solutions SnL Group, Inc.

UNIT UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$9.00 $8,271.00 $11.24 $10,329.56 $9.35 $8,592.65
$3.00 $5,970.00 $2.98 $5,930.20 $2.50 $4,975.00
$25.00 $1,275.00 $31.74 $1,618.74 $27.00 $1,377.00
$200.00 $1,600.00 $176.65 $1,413.20 $165.00 $1,320.00
$300.00 $1,500.00 $395.70 $1,978.50 $275.00 $1,375.00
$45.00 $8,550.00 $53.00 $10,070.00 $32.50 $6,175.00
$40.00 $560.00 $40.38 $565.32 $89.00 $1,246.00
$800.00 $8,800.00 $390.02 $4,290.22 $660.00 $7,260.00
$684,094.00 $695,009.30 $771,261.80
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) Packet Pg. 368
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-21-20 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) ITEM NO. 4.11( c)
March 5, 2013

CITY OF REDDING

MEETING DATE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 15, 2013
G- 100- 070/ B- 130- 070/ S- 070- 100
FROM: Brian Crane, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Accept Federal Safe Routes To
School Program Funding for Pedestrian
Improvements on Bidwell and North
Bonnyview Roads and Adopt the Attached
Budget Resolution
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council (Council) select Alternative No. 1 to accept the Safe Routes To School ( SRTS) federal funds and adopt the attached budget resolution to appropriate $485, 400 for the Pedestrian Improvement Project at Bidwell and North Bonnyview Roads.

Background
In spring 2011, the Council directed staff to apply for federal SRTS funds for pedestrian improvements along Bidwell and North Bonnyview Roads. The total amount requested for the project was $ 485, 400. The project was selected and awarded the grant funding. The SRTS funds have been programmed through the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). The attached budget resolution is necessary to make funds available so that staff can begin working on the project.

The proposed project will construct pedestrian improvements on the west side ofBidwell Road from Bonnyview School south to North Bonnyview Road and on the north side ofNorth Bonnyview Road from Bidwell Road to East Bonnyview Road. The project will include curb, gutter, 5- foot- wide concrete sidewalk, storm drains, a 5- foot- wide bike lane, and curb returns at BidwelllNorth Bonnyview Roads and at North Bonnyview/ East Bonnyview Roads.

The Federal SRTS program does not require a match of funds from the City.

Issue
Does the Council wish to approve the attached budget resolution to appropriate funding for the preliminary design of the proposed project?
Alternatives; Implication ofAlternatives
The Council has the option of selecting one of the following alternatives:

Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 3-5-13 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) Report to City Council February 15, 2013
Re Accept Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution, SR2S - Bonnyview/ Bidwell Roads Page 2 I. Accept Safe Routes To School federal funds and adopt the attached budget resolution to appropriate $485, 400 for the Pedestrian Improvement Project at Bidwell and North Bonnyview Roads. . ( Staff Recommendation)

2. Do not accept the funds nor approve the budget resolution and provide alternate direction to staff. This will delay the project and risk the loss of SRTS funds. Ultimately, if alternative funding is not secured, the project will not be constructed.

Fiscal Impact
The Pedestrian Improvement Project at Bidwell and North Bonnyview Roads is estimated to cost 485, 400, which is the total amount of the SRTS funding. No additional funding or match funds are required at this time.

Conclusion
Approval of the budget resolution will allow staff to begin work on the design of the project, which, when completed, will improve the safety for pedestrians walking along Bidwell and North Bonnyview Roads at this location. Delay of the project may result in increased cost and loss of SRTS funding.

Attachments
A. Location map
B. Typical Section
C. Budget resolution
DL:amf
Engi neering\ StaffReports\Reso- Budget - AcptFunds- SR2S- Bonnyview- Bidwell- D L-CC. wpd c: Chuck Aukland, Assistant Public Works Director
Cathy Bullock, Finance Department
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 3-5-13 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds)

PROJECT LOCATION

NO SCALE
Iz
w
S
oJ : E
u
ic:(

VICINITY MAP

NO SCALE
LEGEND

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF REDDING

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Bonnyview Elementary School
Construct Sidewalk/ Bicycle Lane

LOCATION MAP
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 3-5-13 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) o
E
bl
B
Kl
5 lZ
iF
0 o
U.
c
o
Cl.

Cl.
i CITY OF REDDING
X
B PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMEKr
on
ti
o
vi
z
3 0
t
8I:

U
VI
z
z
o
8 I:

U
VI
11i
E
I:
z
z
g
o
N
VI
M
3l
s!.
i
lZ
2!
0:
29' ROADWAY
5' 5' 24' EXISTING ROADWAY

SIDE BIKE

WALK LANE
M
S---.......

STORM DRAIN / BIDWELL ROAD
35' ROADWAY
5' 5' 30' EXISTING ROADWAY

SIDE BIKE

WALK LANE
M----B_~_-
STORM DRAIN / iTEM Y.. n._ c..

NORTH BONNYVIEW ROAD ATTACH, v1ENT ~
NTS
Bonnyview Elementary School
Construct Sidewalk/ Bicycle Lane

TYPICAL SECTIONS - SITE PLAN
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 3-5-13 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds) Resolution No. 2012
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 49TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 111 APPROPRIATING 485, 400 FOR PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ON BIDWELL AND NORTH BONNYVIEW ROADS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012- 13.

BE IT RESOL VED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2011- 111 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND
128

DIVISION
566

DESCRIPTION
Transportation Grant Projects

INCREASE
485, 400

DECREASE
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE

OF FUNDS
SOURCE

OF FUNDS
Increase Revenue
128- 566- 6- 2650- 18 Federal Grant - Capital Work 485, 400 Increase Expenditures
128- 566- 0- 4527 - 06 Bonnyview SRTS 485,400
485, 400 485, 400
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $ 485, 400 for pedestrian improvements on Bidwell and North Bonnyview Roads for fiscal year 20 12~ 13.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Redding on the 5th day of March 2013 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

RICK BOSETTI, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk RICHARD A. DUVERNAY, City Attorney ITEM LJ. () ( C)
ATTACHMENT ~
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 3-5-13 (4.11(g)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Resolution Allocating Funds)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the following regarding use of the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) Downtown Parking Lot, located at 1346 California Street, 1376 California Street, and 1595 Shasta Street:
(1) Approve the Parking Facility Lease (Lease) with RABA for a two-year term with annual renewals, in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) per month; (2) If the City of Redding, as the Lessee, installs equipment and operates a paid parking system on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, the monthly lease payment will then be in the amount of $35 per stall per month, to be reviewed annually by both the City Manager and RABA’s Executive Officer to ensure that each party is fairly compensated and an undue financial burden is not placed on either party; and (3) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, per Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
Should the City of Redding (City) install user paid parking devices, RABA will initially receive $35 per stall per month in lease revenue. This value is similar to the City’s other lease agreements with private entities in the downtown area. With roughly 125 spaces available for lease, the payment would be approximately $4,375 per month. A provision of the lease stipulates that the rent will be reviewed annually following an analysis of revenue and expenses associated with the paid parking system to ensure equitable and fair compensation for each entity.

This lot, along with the rest of the City’s paid parking system is expected to generate revenue to pay for the equipment, transactions, enforcement, and maintenance of the City’s paid parking system as a whole and not one facility in particular. The intent is to drive rates so that parking facilities realize an approximate 85 percent utilization factor. This will allow parking for businesses to turnover sufficiently to ensure parking is available and push longer term parkers (more than two hours) to areas of lower demand.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(h)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(h)--Authorize the Redding Area Bus Authority Downtown Parking Facility Lease
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 374
Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose any of the following alternatives:

1. Do not approve the Lease and continue with free parking. This alternative will impede the City’s parking program by creating free parking in direct competition with user paid parking.

2. Direct staff to enter into a Revenue Agreement with the RABA rather than a Lease. This alternative would take the form of a simple percentage of gross receipts revenue.

However, it may not be the best option considering long-term maintenance and future capital replacement needs for the parking system as a whole.

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
On April 5, 2022, the Council accepted the Operational Needs Assessment (Assessment) outlining the need for a user paid parking system and the general parameters on how to manage such a parking system. The assessment calls for user paid parking to balance the need for both long-term parking (e.g., parking for students and employees) and short-term parking (e.g., parking for business district shoppers and visitors). As such, and with the recent opening of the new private parking structure, the City is developing new parking rates and will install payment devices.

At its regular meeting on September 16, 2019, the RABA Board of Directors (Board) authorized the use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot for general public parking. At the time, RABA staff informed the Board of the City’s partnership on two significant development projects, as well as the preparation of the City Downtown Parking Strategy to ensure adequate parking during and after development.

The RABA Downtown Parking Lot is situated in the core of the City’s downtown and adjacent to the new private parking structure. As user paid parking is implemented on street and off-street parking facilities (e.g., parking structures and parking lots), free parking, such as the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, will generate significant demand and unequally compete with such user paid parking. The City desires a coordinated and comprehensive parking system that is consistent in its operation, advertising, payment methods, and ability to appropriately balance demand through user rates. As such, the City should consider a lease of the RABA Lot to ensure management consistent with City goals. The proposed lease would allow the City to operate, manage, and maintain user paid parking devices on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot. The initial lease term will be two years with an automatic annual renewal. However, the lease may be terminated by either party with a notice of 90 days. The lease rate is proposed to be $1 per month until such time as the City installs a user paid parking system, at which time the rent will automatically increase to $35 per stall per month, which is similar to the rate paid at other private lots downtown. This rate would require roughly $4,375 per month based on the 125 parking stalls available to the City/public.

The RABA Board of Directors approved the proposed lease at its regular meeting on June 27, 2022.

Packet Pg. 375
Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease Page 3 Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. Class 1 exemptions include the leasing of existing public structures and facilities. The existing parking lot will be leased by the City and the action does not involve expansion of use. The action area does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental resources and the project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.

Attachments
^Notice of Exemption
Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority
Previous Staff Report 4-5-22
Previous Staff Report 9-16-19
Previous Staff Report 6-27-22
Packet Pg. 376
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: ^Notice of Exemption (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

PARKING FACILITY LEASE WITH

REDDING AREA BUS AUTHORITY

PREAMBLE AND RECITALS
This Parking Facility Lease (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”) is entered into by and between Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA), a joint powers transit authority, referred to in this Lease as “Lessor” and the City of Redding, a municipal corporation and general law city, referred to in this Lease as “Lessee.”
WHEREAS, Lessor is the owner of certain real property in the County of Shasta, State of California, commonly referred to as 1346 California Street, 1376 California Street and 1595 Shasta Street in the City of Redding, described and depicted on Exhibits A and B (hereinafter referred to as the “RABA Downtown Parking Lot”) which is attached and made a part of this Lease;
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2019, the City Council of the City of Redding, accepted the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy and authorized staff to negotiate lease agreements with Downtown Redding private property owners for additional parking supply for the public; WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the RABA Board of Directors (Board) authorized the use the RABA Downtown Parking Lot (formerly known as the Bell Rooms Parking Lot) and its approximately one hundred and thirty-five (135) spaces for general public parking use in the north west quadrant of Downtown Redding;
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2022, the City Council of the City of Redding, accepted the Operational Needs Assessment (Needs Assessment) of the Downtown Parking Strategy and approved implementation of the recommendations including management of a user paid parking facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Lessor wishes to lease to Lessee the RABA Downtown Parking Lot (as shown on Exhibits A and B) for the purpose of providing off-street parking available to the public at an hourly rate that is consistent with and meets the goals of the Needs Assessment recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Lessor is willing to allow such parking so long as Lessee agrees to indemnify Lessor and the RABA Downtown Parking Lot against all claims, losses and liabilities that arise during the term that Lessee uses the RABA Downtown Parking Lot; and WHEREAS, the Lessee desires to lease from Lessor the RABA Downtown Parking Lot under the terms and conditions set forth in this Lease as more particularly described herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED found and determined that for the mutual promises contained herein, the Lessor and Lessee, together the “Parties” hereby agree as follows:

Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) ARTICLE 1. LEASE OF 2022 PINE STREET PARKING LOT AND TERM OF LEASE

1.01 Purpose. For and in consideration of the rents to be paid the RABA Downtown Parking Lot is hereby leased for the exclusive purpose of providing parking spaces available to the public. The Lessor and Lessee agree that the use, operation and maintenance of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot shall be consistent with this Lease. Except as expressly otherwise provided in this Lease, the RABA Downtown Parking Lot includes the real property plus any appurtenances and easements described in Exhibits A and B of this Lease, and any improvements now or hereafter located or constructed on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

1.02 Term of Lease and Termination by Lessee. The term of this Lease (the “Term”) shall commence as of the effective date defined in Section 9.14 of this Lease, and shall expire on the date that is two (2) years therefrom. Lessee may terminate this Lease without demonstration of cause being necessary upon ninety (90) calendar days written notice to Lessor at the address set forth in Section 2.02. Lessor may terminate this Lease without demonstration of cause being necessary upon ninety (90) calendar days written notice to Lessee at the address set forth in Section 9.06.

1.03 Renewal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, so long as Lessee is not in default under any provision of this Lease, the Lease will automatically renew annually unless such notice to terminate is provided by either party as in Section 1.02 of this Lease.

ARTICLE 2. LEASE FEE CREDIT AND LEASE FEES

2.01 Rent. Lessee agrees to pay monthly rent to Lessor in the amount of One Dollar and No/100 Dollars. In the event the Lessee installs equipment and operates a paid parking system on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, the Lessee agrees to pay monthly rent to Lessor in the amount of four thousand three hundred and seventy five and No/100 Dollars ($4,375.00) calculated in consideration of one hundred and twenty five (125) parking spaces at Thirty and No/100 Dollars ($35.00) per parking space per month, payable in advance and due by the first day of each month. If the term of this Lease begins on a day other than the first day of the month, the first month’s rent shall be pro-rated based on a 30-day month. If the term of the Lease ends on a day other than the first day of the month, the last month’s rent shall be pro-rated on a 30-day month.

At the commencement of each annual renewal period, the City Manager of the City of Redding and the Executive Officer of RABA will review transaction records and financial information regarding any paid parking operations, if any, and shall mutually agree to modify the monthly rate per stall so as to ensure fair compensation in consideration of operational expenses, enforcement, utilities, improvements and any other liabilities associated with a user paid parking operation. The intent is to ensure each party is fairly compensated and not place an undue financial burden on either party.

Should a mutually acceptable agreement not be reached, either party may terminate as in Section 1.02 of this Lease.

Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

2.02 Manner of Payment. Every 1st day of the calendar month Lessee shall pay the Lessor the monthly Rent as defined in Section 2.01 to the Lessor at the address noted below:

Redding Area Bus Authority
Attention: RABA Management Analyst
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
ARTICLE 3. USE OF RABA DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT

3.01 Use of RABA Downtown Parking Lot. Lessee shall use the RABA Downtown Parking Lot for the sole purpose of operating and maintaining a parking lot available to the public. Lessee shall not use or permit the RABA Downtown Parking Lot to be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the Lessor. Lessor shall retain the right to exclusive use of up to ten (10) parking spaces.

3.02 Prohibited Uses. Lessee shall not permit the RABA Downtown Parking Lot or any portion of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot to be used or occupied in any manner or for any purpose that is in any way in violation of any valid law, ordinance, or regulation of any federal, state, county, or local governmental agency, body, or entity. Furthermore, Lessee shall not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance as now or hereafter defined by any statutory or decisional law applicable to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot or any part of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

3.03 Assignment and Subletting. Lessee shall not assign this Lease or sublet to any portion of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot without prior written consent of the Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any such assignment or subletting without consent shall be void and, at the option of the Lessor, may terminate this Lease.

ARTICLE 4. UTILITIES

4.01 During the term of this Lease, Lessor shall pay or cause to be paid, prior to delinquency any and all utilities furnished to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot including, without limitation, water, electricity and other public utilities. Lessor shall hold the Lessee free and harmless from all charges for the furnishing of utilities to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

ARTICLE 5. IMPROVEMENTS

5.01 Improvements to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot. The Lessee in coordination with Lessor’s facilities management staff may complete improvements that include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Install public parking signage; and
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) b. Apply parking space striping and handicapped parking that meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
c. Operate and maintain a paid parking system at rates consistent with the City of Redding parking system including installation of payment equipment or electric charging stations.

ARTICLE 6. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

6.01 Maintenance by Lessee.
a. During the term of this Lease, Lessee shall, at Lessee's own cost and expense, keep and maintain the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, all improvements and all appurtenances, now or hereafter on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, in good order and repair and in a safe and clean condition. Lessee shall remove all garbage and rubbish from the RABA Downtown Parking Lot on a regular basis. b. Lessee shall do, or cause to be done without delay, all those things which, in the opinion of the City’s Public Work’s Director, are necessary or desirable in the interest of safety or to maintain the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and improvements in good repair and appearance.
c. Except for the improvements set forth in Section 5.01 of this lease, lessee shall not make or cause to be made any alterations or improvements to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot without first securing the written consent of the Lessor’s facilities management staff.

6.02 Surrender of RABA Downtown Parking Lot. All alterations or improvements to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot shall become a part of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and shall remain on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot at the expiration or termination of this Lease. At the expiration or termination of this Lease, the Lessee shall remove all public parking signage or payment equipment from the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

Lessee shall remove said signage and equipment from the RABA Downtown Parking Lot within thirty (30) days at Lessee’s sole cost and expense. Lessee shall leave the RABA Downtown Parking Lot in good condition, normal wear and tear excepted.

ARTICLE 7. INDEMNITY

7.01 Indemnification. Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold Lessor, and its members, managers, officers, agents and employees harmless from and against all liens and encumbrances of any nature whatsoever which may arise in the exercise of Lessee’s rights hereunder, and from any and all claims, causes of action, costs (including actual attorneys’ fees) or damage arising from Lessee’s use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, or any act or failure to act of Lessee’s agents, employees, or invitees, except those arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Lessor, its officers, agents and employees.

Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) ARTICLE 8. DAMAGE

8.01 Damage or Loss. Lessee, as a material part of the consideration to Lessor, hereby assumes all risk of damage to its property or injury to persons in or upon the RABA Downtown Parking Lot. Lessee hereby releases and relieves Lessor, and waives its entire right of recovery against Lessor, for loss or damage arising out of or incident to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, whether due to the negligence of the Lessee or their respective agents, employees and/or contractors.

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS

9.01 Default. In the event of a breach by Lessee of any of the terms of this Lease, all rights of Lessee hereunder shall cease and terminate, and in addition to all other rights it may have at law or in equity Lessor may take possession of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and may remove any and all persons therefrom, and may also cancel and terminate this Lease; and upon any such cancellation, all rights of Lessee in and to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot shall cease and terminate.

9.02 Force Majeure. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Lease, if the performance of any act required by this Lease to be performed by either Lessee or Lessor is prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any other cause (except financial inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused. However, nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the prompt payment of rent by Lessee as required by this Lease or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act.

9.03 Attorney Fees. In any dispute between the Lessee and Lessor, whether or not resulting in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party all reasonable costs, including without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees. “Prevailing party” shall include without limitation, a party who dismisses an action for specific performance or for damages in exchange for sums allegedly due, performance for covenants allegedly breached or consideration substantially equal to the relief sought in the action, or which receives from the other party, in connection with any dispute, performance substantially equivalent to any of these.

9.04 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any claim or lawsuit pertaining to this Lease shall be filed and litigated only in the Superior Court of Shasta County, State of California.

Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

9.05 Lessor’s Covenant Against Further Encumbrance. During the Lease term, Lessor shall not enter into new leases or any other obligations or agreements affecting the Lessee or the Lease without prior written consent of Lessee.

9.06 Notices. Any notices required to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, given or served when personally delivered to the Lessee or Lessor, or in lieu of such personal service, sent by United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:

LESSEE:

City of Redding
Attention: Public Works Director
777 Cypress Avenue
P.O. Box 496071
Redding, California 96049-6071
LESSOR:

Redding Area Bus Authority
Attn: RABA Executive Officer
777 Cypress Avenue
P.O. Box 496071
Redding, California 96049-6071
In the event of personal service, notice shall be deemed given when personally served. In the event of service by mail, notice shall be deemed to have been given seventy-two (72) hours after deposit of same in the United States mail box in the State of California, postage prepaid, addressed as set forth above, or upon the date of the signed return receipt, whichever is sooner. Either party may change its address for the purposes of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this section.

9.07 No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Unless specifically set forth, the parties to this Lease do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.

9.08 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be either invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in full force and effect unimpaired by the holding.

9.09 Entire Lease. This Lease, which includes all exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, contains all the representations and the entire understanding and agreement between the parties pertaining to the use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and any other matters connected therewith. All correspondence, memoranda, or oral or written agreements pertaining to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot or the parties hereto, which originated before the date of this Lease are null, void and no longer in force and with no effect, and are replaced in total with this Lease unless otherwise expressly stated in this Lease.

9.10 Headings, Reference and Joint and Several Liability. The titles and headings of the various Sections of this Lease are intended solely for convenience of reference and are not intended to explain, modify or place any provisions of this Lease. Masculine and feminine, Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) or neutral gender and the singular and the plural number shall each be considered to include the other whenever the context so requires. If either party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable.

9.11 No Party Deemed Drafter. In the event of a dispute between any of the parties hereto over the meaning of this Lease, no party shall be deemed to have been the drafter hereof, and the principle of law set forth in Civil Code §1654 that contracts are construed against the drafter shall not apply.

9.12 Waivers and Amendments. All waivers of the provisions of this Lease must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Lessee or Lessor, and all amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Lessee and the Lessor.

However, amendments which do not result in a substantial or functional change to the original intent of the Lease and do not cause an increase to the amount payable under this Lease shall be deemed “minor amendments” and may be agreed to in writing between the City Manager and Lessor without requiring approval of the Redding City Council or RABA Board of Directors.

9.13 Authority. Each of the undersigned signatories hereby represents and warrants that they are authorized to execute this Lease on behalf of the respective parties to this Lease, that they have full right, power and lawful authority to undertake all obligations as provided in this Lease; and that the execution, performance and delivery of this Lease by said signatories has been fully authorized by all requisite actions on the part of the respective parties to this Lease.

9.14 Date of Lease. The date of this Lease shall be that date that it shall have been signed by Lessee.

Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Parking Facility Lease with Redding Area Bus Authority (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to the City of Redding (City) Downtown Parking Strategy as outlined in the Operational Needs Assessment (Assessment) and summarized below:
(1) Accept the Assessment outlining the status of parking in Downtown Redding and providing recommendations for parking solutions;
(2) Approve the implementation of the Assessment recommendations, including the userpaid parking system in Downtown Redding utilizing multi-space pay stations and rates up to $1.00 per hour depending on location and demand. Staff will return to the City Council for subsequent specific actions to amend parking ordinances and establish increased parking rates as needed to complete implementation of the Assessment; and (3) Adopt a Resolution approving and adopting the 37th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 re-establishing one full-time Parking Enforcement Officer position within the Redding Police Department utilizing capital funds from the Traffic Mitigation fund.

Fiscal Impact
In September 2019, as part of the Block 7 Project’s Purchase and Sale Agreement, $680,000 was collected to assist with parking mitigation efforts that included the following: signage, parking management equipment, offsite parking lot improvements, the cost of off-street lease agreements, and costs associated with marketing efforts. The $680,000 was added to the Public Works Traffic Mitigation Fund which had a beginning balance of $800,000. To date, approximately $250,000 has been expended from the Parking Mitigation Fund to hire Dixon Resources Unlimited (Dixon), the City of Redding’s (City) parking consultant, and to pay for City-leased downtown parking lots.

MEETING DATE: April 5, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.11(b)--Consider the Operational Needs Assessment for the City of Redding's parking needs, and adoption of a Resolution re-establishing the Redding Police Department's parking enforcement personnel in Downtown Redding.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 2 Staff anticipates utilizing the remaining funds to initially implement the proposed parking strategy as recommended in the Operational Needs Assessment. This includes continuing to lease private lots, establishing a modern enforcement program, purchasing new technology and equipment for enforcement, funding a Parking Enforcement Officer, data collection, and completing City-owned parking lot improvements at two locations on Pine Street. The initial one-time costs are projected to be approximately $327,000 to get the system up and running not including personnel costs that are already budgeted or the lot improvements. To fully implement the recommended strategy, approximately $678,500 is needed annually. The costs include funding for enforcement personal and equipment, lot maintenance and signage, adjudication/collection of fines/appeals, capital replacement funds, lease and utility expenses, maintenance of new collection equipment, transaction fees, and administration.

The source of on-going funding is proposed to be generated from user-paid parking fares and fines. Currently, the City annually collects approximately $30,000-$45,000 from meters and an additional $30,000-$40,000 from parking fines that are highly influenced by the amount of enforcement employed throughout the year.

Dixon provided program cost estimates, and collected data from other jurisdictions, and recommends a user-funded system that utilizes modern revenue collection techniques, including mobile applications and pay-stations as well as new enforcement tools and technology. It estimates the rates required to fully fund the recommended system may be up to $1.00 per hour.

This rate would be consistent with the two newly constructed private parking garages downtown.

The current meter rate is $0.20 per hour. Dixon also indicates that the parking fine rates are outof-date and should be updated.

Assuming a 60 percent compliance rate and 75 percent utilization rate, sufficient revenue should be generated by the proposed collection system at the proposed new rate to cover the cost of the technology and equipment as well as the administration and maintenance of the system. Costs to provide the personnel, administration, and adjudication of the enforcement system will derive from the associated fines generated. Rates, demands, and revenues will be evaluated as the program matures and some adjustment will likely be needed.

Alternative Action
The Council may choose not to accept the Operational Needs Assessment and/or the proposed parking strategy. This action would require staff to develop an alternative plan and return to the Council at a later date, as parking in the Downtown Core requires refocusing to manage the redevelopment activities that are underway. The Council should consider the following when considering an alternative action.
• The City partnered with the private sector to obtain an Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program grant to assist with the development of the new Block 7 California Street (Block 7) parking structure. The Block 7 parking structure is a private parking structure available to the public and will be a user-paid parking facility to ensure sustained operations and replacement revenues. The parking strategy recommendations made in the Operational Needs Assessment are designed to be consistent with and support this facility without undermining its use by providing free or reduced parking nearby.

Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 3 • The City of Redding General Fund currently subsidizes the Parking Fund which has been underfunded for many years. Depletion of the parking mitigation funds noted above will necessitate dedicating annual resources once again including sustainment of leased private lots. These lots are critical to support the parking demand. It is estimated that $392,000 in on-going annual costs will be needed to support a sustainable model if a user-paid system is not implemented. In addition, the remaining older parking meters will continue to decline resulting in a loss of approximately $30,000-$45,000 in annual revenue which could further exacerbate the funding deficit.

The Council may also provide alternative direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
The City’s metered parking system was first implemented in 1947. The single space parking meter rate was set at $0.01 per 12-minutes or $0.05 per hour. Off-street parking lots were $0.25 per 10 hours. Over the subsequent 25 plus years, the City added 12 off-street parking lots and by the mid-1970s the system had grown to over 1,300 metered spaces in a combination of on-street and off-street public parking spaces.

The construction of the Downtown Mall in the mid-1970s launched a series of events in the Downtown area that precipitated the eventual decline of the parking system. Over time, in an effort to encourage downtown development and activity, the City removed parking meters in several prime locations, sold City-owned parking lots for redevelopment, reduced maintenance obligations, and provided free parking on the off-street parking lots.

In 1989, the City increased parking rates to $0.20 per hour to curb the growing deficit and deferred maintenance backlog. By 2005, the City’s General Fund was again subsidizing the Parking Fund and funding for enforcement personnel, capital, rolling stock, and maintenance was removed. Staff recommended raising parking rates to $0.75 per hour to cover the minimum costs of operating the system and replace/repair the existing City owned parking lots. However, downtown business owners and organizations requested the City not raise rates citing the lack of activity and redevelopment concerns. The Council took no action. Since that time and prior to the recent revitalization efforts, the City sold the Pine Street Parking Lot #3 leaving 1,002 offstreet public parking spaces (including Lots 4, 11, and the California Street Parking Structure) and 552 on-street parking spaces for a total of 1,554 spaces. Of those, 430 are designated meter locations with just 189 active meters in operation today due to the lack of replacement parts for the aged mechanical meters.

The City is experiencing significant growth with major investments of both private and public funds in the downtown area. To ensure the City is well-positioned to manage the parking needed for the significantly changed landscape in the downtown core, including the demolition of the 640 space California Street parking garage, the City engaged a consultant team to prepare the community-based Downtown Redding Parking Strategy (Parking Strategy). On September 3, 2019, the Council accepted the Parking Strategy and directed staff to: (1) acquire additional parking supply to manage demand during the construction activities; and (2) work with the downtown business/property owners and other stakeholders to develop a sustainable parking system in Downtown including funding sources and implementation needs.

Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 4 In line with that direction, staff increased the parking supply by 628 spaces through private leases, additional on-street angled spaces, construction of the Downtown Streets Circulation and Market Center projects, and partnerships with both the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) and The McConnell Foundation. Prior to the demolition of the former California Street parking structure, the utilization rate of public spaces in the Downtown Core was approximately 65 percent. With the added supply, and demolition of the former parking structure, recent counts indicate parking utilization is still hovering around 65 percent. The new Block 7 parking structure is nearing completion and will add an additional 398 spaces. The parking supply is clearly meeting the demand. However, parking location, turnover rates, enforcement, maintenance, and how the system is funded remain significant challenges.

To develop a sustainable and funded parking system, staff engaged the downtown businesses, property owners, and the general public to develop an implementation plan to meet the long-term recommendations identified in the Parking Strategy. Dixon was retained to work with staff and the stakeholders to develop recommendations for implementation. The resulting Operational Needs Assessment summarizes the stakeholder feedback, assesses the current state of the parking system, and provides a recommended implementation strategy for an efficient and sustainable parking system tailored to the City’s needs.

One of the foundational goals of the Operational Needs Assessment is the generally accepted strategy to manage parking in a method that maintains an 85 percent parking utilization rate throughout the system. This utilization rate maintains a good mix of open parking spaces near businesses and storefronts, with an effective turnover rate, and moves longer term parkers to areas of lower demand. While the overall usage of available public parking spaces in the downtown area seems to remain between 60 and 65 percent, over multiple years of analysis, there are areas in the main Downtown Core and near the courthouse that tend to have a higher than the 85 percent ideal utilization rate with little to no turnover during the day and only a 30 percent meter compliance rate. Expectedly, the outlying public spaces have utilization rates well below 50 percent, with some leased lots seeing little use throughout the day. To effectively manage the parking system and distribute parking to underutilized spaces, the Operational Needs Assessment provides a series of recommendations in order to achieve a balanced 85 percent utilization rate.

Managing the parking system takes resources. Through analysis and stakeholder input, it was determined that the downtown business community is reluctant to fund a parking system, and the General Fund has other obligations and priorities that keep it from being able to absorb the added cost of subsidized parking. Therefore, a user-paid parking system is the City’s best option. The Operational Needs Assessment provides a path to implement a fully self-funded system. It requires purchasing new equipment and implementing a suite of technologies including software for data collection and enforcement as well as collection systems. In addition, costs for administration, maintenance, capital replacement, enforcement/adjudication, lease, and utility expenses are captured – most of which is required with or without the user-paid collection and data management/enforcement systems. Providing a parking system free of user-paid charges will cost the General Fund roughly $392,000 annually and adding the user-paid collection equipment and data management/enforcement systems for an effective system will add an additional $286,500 annually in equipment, software, transaction fees, and administrative costs.

Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 5 The overall recommendations will be implemented in various phases as the system adapts to the demands sparked by development. Should the Council approve the Operational Needs Assessment recommendations for an overall user-paid parking strategy, staff will implement the recommendations in a phased approach by fulfilling near term (next six months) needs to procure equipment and resources to get the program up and running coupled with longer term strategies (next year or two) based on data analysis to adapt to the changing parking demands as the Downtown continues to develop.

Near Term Needs – Recommendations
Enforcement - One of most common complaints of the current parking system is the inconsistent parking enforcement that allows vehicles to remain in parking spaces for longer than the two-hour maximum. The Operational Needs Assessment recommends at least one and possibly two full-time parking enforcement personnel, or ambassadors, to fully cover Downtown during the regulated hours. The City has not funded a parking enforcement position since 2009.

As part of the overall recommendation, a resolution is attached that would amend the Redding Police Department budget to allow the re-establishment of the “Parking Enforcement Officer” position.

Data Management - To effectively manage the system, parking data must be obtained and analyzed. The Operational Needs Assessment recommends procuring an automated Citation and Permit Management System (CPMS) in concert with license plate recognition technology. The CPMS will provide a resource to gather data and would be integrated into City financial systems to automate notifications, citation payment, and other functions. This system would significantly streamline and modernize operations for the new Parking Enforcement Officers by automating tickets and notifications. The system will also provide data on utilization rates to understand where long term parking demands are located versus shorter duration needs and provide necessary information to make informed decisions on rates, enforcement, and resources.

Payment Collection Systems – The existing inventory of mechanical meters are depleted, unable to modify rates, and unsustainable. The Operational Needs Assessment recommends procuring multi-space meters (pay stations) and mobile payment systems. These systems are required to have a robust back end management software, that collects credit card payments, provides data, and can implement parking management tools such as temporary, residential, and employee permits. This software requires annual costs and will require payment of credit card transaction fees. It is recommended to start with 40 pay-stations to provide adequate coverage in the near term.

Rates – To create a sustainable infrastructure cost model, rates paid by users should cover the minimum costs to operate the system. Based upon 40 pay-stations, Dixon recommends rates up to $1.00 per hour are needed depending on utilization and demand. As data is collected, the number of pay-stations necessary to meet the ideal utilization rate of 85 percent will be evaluated. As part of the overall inventory, the two new private parking garages need to be factored into the rates to ensure consistency with the overall system. Consistent rates will level the playing field and distribute parking availability to user demand. In the first year, there will likely be a need to adjust as new facilities open which may require the addition or relocation of metered areas, adjustment of time limited parking zones, or the reduction of rates charged for perimeter spaces to incentivize usage. Monthly employee or residential parking permits issued at reduced rates will also be evaluated in the longer-term that may also incentivize parking in areas of lower demand.

Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 6 Municipal Code Update – In order to allow the use of multi-space meter stations, the use of credit cards or mobile payment tools and CPMS software, the City of Redding Municipal Code will require updates. These updates will modernize the ordinance to allow for alternative payment methods, streamline modifications, and clarify various aspects of the parking management system. A revised ordinance that lists a variety of changes to Chapter 11 of the Redding Municipal Code will require the Council’s approval in a follow-up action.

Longer Term Recommendations
Should the Council authorize the near-term recommendations and user-paid strategy, the first actions noted above will be implemented to get a consistent enforcement program initiated. This process could take three to six months to get up and functioning. As the system matures and adjustments/improvements are identified, staff will begin to address additional programs and/or agreements including:
• Continued interactive communication with the Downtown Community. Initially staff and the consultants will need to work with business owners to address individual concerns and foster relationships to leverage shared parking agreements and/or obtain additional or remove leased lots from the inventory. This may also include the development of a validation program with the business owners.
• Perimeter lot evaluation to be utilized as long-term parking and analyzed for development of an employee parking program. The employee parking permit system may address lowincome workers, students, elderly, and any other group that may need reduced rate permit parking.
• The residential permit system will be re-assessed and may be moved to the automated system consistent with the overall parking strategy.
• A Downtown parking wayfinding sign program will be developed, and may be in conjunction with overall marketing and branding efforts for Downtown. • A concerted effort will be made to develop multi-modal transportation connections with the Shasta Bike Depot, RABA, and other modes of transportation such as the Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH). The program will also address Transportation Network Companies (TNC) which are “ride hailing” or “ridesharing” organizations that use mobile applications, enabling people to secure individual and carpooling rides from drivers who use their own vehicles.

Throughout this process, staff maintained a robust website providing parking maps of available lots, posting materials from the parking outreach and links to the many public workshops and presentations completed by staff and the consultants. Over the last six months, five public workshops on the topic were held both online and in-person. In recent weeks, a parking survey was conducted which gathered over 200 responses that include a range of comments. The most common complaints noted refer to the mix of enforcement levels, non-functioning parking meters, fear of paid parking damaging the economic vitality of downtown, and the inability to find an open parking space. Overall, however, there was strong sentiment that now is the time for action. The proposed implementation plan will provide a flexible and adaptable strategy to manage the parking demands and ensure the most efficient operation and customer service for the community.

Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 7 Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Communication and Transparency - “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
Resolution
Cost Breakdown (available online)
Operational Needs Assessment Outline (available online) Interim Parking Plan Timeline (available online)
Current Parking Map (available online)
Parking Supply and Demand (available online)
Downtown Parking Survey Results (available online)
09-03-19 Staff Report (available online)
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Resolution No. 2022 - ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 37TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078
APPROPRIATING $0 FOR THE CREATION OF ONE FULL TIME PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
122 742 PARKING $0
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase(Decrease) Expenditures
122-742-0111-01 Full Time Regular $ 44,600
122-742-0171-01 Worker's Comp 1,570
122-742-0173-01 Group Insurance 20,100
122-742-0175-01 Retirement Program 15,160
122-742-0177-01 Medicare 650
122-742-1848-01 Parking Systems (82,080)
Total $ - $ -
PERSONNEL FY 2022-23
Parking Enforcement Officer 1 FTE
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $0 for the creation of one full time Parking Enforcement Officer position fiscal year 2022-23.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the _________ day of ___________, 2022 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

ANNUAL ESTIMATED PARKING BUDGET

COMARISONS
*Bold indicates new items or additional expenses
Current ANNUAL Parking Budget
Parking Ambassador Personnel Enforcement Personnel $0
Parking citation adjudication
hearings/review personnel
Additional duty for Engineers and RPD $6,500
Parking Maintenance personnel
Enforce, Collection, Sweeping,
Cleaning

0.8 Full time equivalent $85,000
Utilities, Equipment and
Administration
Utilities, fixed charges, tools and
equipment for maintenance.
$29,500
Rolling Stock annual costs Upkeep and replacement of rolling stock $0 Major repair/replacement costs of Lot
#4 and Lot #11
Periodically Repaving, landscaping and
lighting of City owned facilities
$0
Leasing parking lots The amount is currently funded by the parking mitigation fund.
$72,000
Total On-going Parking Expenses $193,000
Minimum ANNUAL Parking Budget Required
Parking Ambassador Personnel 1.0 Full time equivalent $95,000 Parking citation adjudication
hearings/review personnel
A portion of Public Works staff time for
this duty. Added with increased enforce.
$10,000
Parking Maintenance personnel
Enforce, Collection, Sweeping,
Cleaning

0.8 Full time equivalent $85,000
Utilities, Equipment and
Administration
Add 0.25 Full time equivalent plus
utilities and equipment
$80,000
Rolling Stock annual costs Upkeep and replacement of rolling stock $15,000 Major repair/replacement costs of Lot
#4 and Lot #11
Periodically Repaving, landscaping and
general maintenance costs of City owned
facilities
$35,000
Leasing parking lots Costs to continue leasing the existing private lots
$72,000
Total On-going Parking Expenses $392,000
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) *Bold indicates new items or additional expenses
Estimated Annual Operational Costs of the Proposed Self-funded Parking Strategy
Operations of the Mobile
applications and Pay stations
On-going Annual Costs for Credit card
transactions
$160,000
Operations of the Enforcement
Technology
On-going Annual Costs $41,500
Parking Ambassador Personnel Increase to 1.5 Full time equivalent - Staff redirected or new staff hired
$140,000
Parking citation adjudication
hearings/review personnel
Part Time - A portion of a Public Works
staff members time is allocated to this task
$10,000
Parking Maintenance personnel
Enforce, Collection, Sweeping,
Cleaning

0.8 Full time equivalent $85,000
Utilities, Equipment and
Administration
Increase to 0.5 Full time equivalent plus
Consultant Services
$120,000
Rolling Stock annual costs Upkeep and replacement of rolling stock $15,000 Major repair/replacement costs of Lot
#4 and Lot #11
Periodically Repaving, landscaping and
general maintenance costs of City owned
facilities
$35,000
Leasing parking lots Continue to lease the existing private lots $72,000 Total On-going Estimated Expenses for a Self-funded System $678,500 Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Estimated First Year Expenses to Develop the Parking Strategy Funded with Parking Mitigation Fund
Expense Amount Type Cost
Citation Permit Management
System (CPMS)
1 Purchase software to handle permit and
citations and coordinate with finance.
$30,000
Purchase License Plate
Recognition (LPR)
Technology
1 Purchase equipment for efficient
parking enforcement
$30,000
Parking Ambassador Vehicle
for LPR Installation
1 Reallocate existing electric vehicles to
parking
$0
Pay Stations - Pay by Plate
model
40 Operating and Hardware Costs – in a
lease model
$150,000
Installation of Pay Stations 40 Installation by Vendor $10,000 Sign agreement with Parking
mobile application
1 Fees are paid through the use of the
application
$0
Operations, Data Collection,
Administration Personnel
1 Dixon Resources has provided a
contract amendment to manage for the
first year
$107,000
Total Expenses to Initiate Program $327,000
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 1
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Outline
City of Redding, CA
FINAL
November 2021
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 2
City of Redding
Operational Needs Assessment Outline
Prepared by Dixon Resources Unlimited
on behalf of the City of Redding, CA
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 3
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Assets, Technology, and Policies ............................................................................................................................... 7 Parking Management and Enforcement..................................................................................................................14 Wayfinding and Parking Guidance ..........................................................................................................................17 Alternative Modes of Transportation .......................................................................................................................19 Walkability...................................................................................................................................................................21 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................25 Appendix A. Comparable Cities Analysis................................................................................................................33 Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 4
Introduction
The City of Redding (City) retained Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) in July 2021 to provide an Operational Needs Assessment of the City’s parking program. The assessment also included a review of the City’s Municipal Code to identify opportunities to enhance flexibility and enable the use of optimized parking technology.

The project team defined the following project objectives:
• Evaluate the City’s current parking operation, including on- and off‐street parking, parking meter revenue collection and reconciliation processes, enforcement practices, citation processing, and current parking meter technology.
• Review best practices for both on- and off‐street parking, and asset security of the entire parking program, including meter collection, parking enforcement, and permitting. • Review current parking management policies and strategies. • Gather operational information and feedback during interviews with key City staff and community members.

Evaluation of the above resulted in the development of this Operational Needs Assessment Outline.

Recommendations contained in this outline are intended to serve as the foundation that is needed to establish an effective and efficient parking program in Downtown Redding.

About Redding
Redding is a northern California city located on the
Sacramento River in Shasta County. Downtown
Redding is a developing hot spot with new
residential developments, commercial buildings,
mixed-use complexes, and office space. Downtown
Redding is also home to Shasta County’s new Court
House, County Jail, and other County public offices.

This influx of new and planned development
anticipates an ongoing increase in parking demand.

In preparation, the City is seeking opportunities to
optimize parking management to meet present and
future parking demand.

Guiding Principles
The 2018 Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update identified the following guiding principles that define the vision for Downtown Redding. The parking management recommendations throughout this outline will contribute to these priorities by enhancing the parking experience and streamlining operations. • Identity – Provide Downtown with a distinct identity, personality, and coherent image. • Aesthetics – Create a Downtown with an attractive urban design that appeals to the community and its visitors.
1 Figure 1: Mural in Redding
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 5
• Land Use – Develop a mix of Downtown land uses that attracts visitors and meets the needs of the community.
• Community – Develop Downtown as a gathering place and heart of the community. • Active Transportation – Encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout Downtown and strike a balance with the auto-oriented environment.
• Historic Preservation – Protect and enhance the historic character of the Downtown. • Relationships – Create connections between existing positive features around Downtown. • Natural Environment – Protect and increase the trees lining the streets, Downtown’s sustainability, and connections to natural resources.
• Management – Establish a well-managed, committed Downtown community that attracts, retains, and expands businesses.

Stakeholder Feedback
During an August 2021 site visit, the DIXON team met with City staff and stakeholders, including community organization representatives, business owners, employees, and residents, to identify challenges and areas for improvement related to parking in Downtown Redding.

Feedback from interviews highlighted interest in improving the Downtown core to transform Downtown Redding into a
vibrant and popular destination. Various stakeholder groups identified that there may not be a parking shortage or
availability issue; rather, there may be a “walking and enforcement issue.” Stakeholders expressed that community members have become accustomed to ignoring parking
limitations as a result of rarely receiving parking citations. Of those who were interviewed, most agreed that a common
expectation is that parking should ideally be available within one block of a destination. When asked what a reasonable walking distance was, a common answer was less than three or four blocks.

The following table provides a summary of the feedback
received, organized by topic. Stakeholders were excited overall about upcoming developments and the opportunity for parking management improvements.

Table 1. Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Topic Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Development
• The upcoming development in Downtown is exciting but may impact parking availability.
• Additional underground parking could be considered for future development projects.
• After the demolition of the California Street garage, some stakeholders do not know where to park.
• The new Shasta County courthouse will not provide additional parking and will likely impact surrounding streets.

Figure 2: Downtown Signage on Market St.

Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 6
Topic Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Parking Guidance • The process of finding parking in Downtown should be simplified. Residents and visitors should not have to circle the block to find a parking space.

Enforcement • Parking enforcement coverage is inconsistent.

Parking Supply
• Some stakeholders are of the opinion that there is not enough parking in Downtown Redding.
• Some stakeholders think there are too many off-street parking lots in Downtown Redding.

Paid Parking
• Some stakeholders noted that parking should be free while others believe that charging for parking is necessary.
• The paid parking rate structure should not discourage customers from staying Downtown throughout the day to patronize multiple businesses. • Customers should have the option to validate their parking. • A mobile payment application would be a convenient payment option for paid parking locations.
• On-street paid parking may impact the private parking facilities that do not charge for parking.

Employee Parking
• Sometimes, employees park immediately outside of storefronts, which displaces availability for customers.
• An employee parking permit program would be helpful.
• Business owners should have the option of purchasing permits for their employees in bulk.

Loading Zones • Loading zones in certain alleys may be helpful for deliveries.

Overnight Parking • Parking should be prohibited overnight on Downtown streets.

Electric Vehicles • Additional electric vehicle (EV) charging stations would be helpful.

Walkability
• Some drivers expect that parking should be available immediately outside of their destination and are unwilling to walk to/from parking. • Walking more than one block from a parking space to a destination may be too far for some.
• Making Downtown more pedestrian friendly is a priority for some stakeholders.
• Pedestrian safety and accessibility could be enhanced by increased lighting and mitigating sidewalk closures during construction.

Alternative Modes of
Transportation
• Alternative modes of transportation such as busses or shuttles could be leveraged to enhance access to and from off-street parking locations. • The Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) is infrequent, unreliable, and does not operate late enough into the evening.

Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 7
Assets, Technology, and Policies
This section outlines findings from a review of existing parking program assets, technology, and associated policies. The recommendations consider opportunities to optimize the operation by leveraging existing assets, making strategic investments, and modernizing policies.

A. Parking Supply
Summary:
• In 2018, the City’s Parking Strategy Plan estimated that Downtown Redding had a total of 4,651 spaces with an average demand of 2,506 spaces.
• The parking supply consists of on-street parking spaces, parking lots, and parking garages. • Most parking spaces were in good condition. Some parking lots, however, were missing lane striping and ADA-compliant parking stalls.
• There is a mixture of time limited and metered parking . • Since the 2018 study, parking demand fluxes have been tied to the construction of new developments. • The Parking Strategy Plan estimated that after all planned developments are completed (including two mixed-used developments and the Shasta County Superior Court house) peak demand would rise to 3,001 spaces with a net loss of 260 spaces.
• The underground private parking facility below the Market Center project recently opened and can be accessed from the Yuba Street connection to Pine Street Alley. The 2018 Parking Strategy Plan estimated that there would be a net zero impact on parking supply with the construction of this garage. • The new parking facility provides 83 parking spaces to Downtown with an additional private 18 spaces on the ground floor of Market Center. The parking rate is $1.00 per hour and the facility is open to the public 24/7.

Assessment:
• According to the 2018 data collection, Downtown Redding appears to have sufficient parking to meet demand. However, during stakeholder interviews, the opinion on parking supply varied. It was reported by some that they believe Downtown Redding does not have a parking problem, they have a
“walking” problem as residents and visitors do not wish to walk further than one block to their destination. However, others reported that Downtown Redding does not have
enough parking and some stakeholders believed additional parking supply is needed. The variation in opinion indicates that the City is facing a parking management challenge, not a parking supply shortage. Examples include:
o The perception that parking lots are frequently full
could be due to parking demand clustering in prime
locations.
o Some drivers may be unaware of where to find available parking due to a lack of signage and messaging.
2 Figure 3: 1551 Market St Garage Parking
Rates
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 8
o Inconsistent time limit enforcement may be contributing to low turnover rates, which decreases availability.
o Employees may be parking outside of businesses, potentially displacing the convenient parking from customers.
o There could be an imbalance in short-term and long-term parking supply that is not meeting the demands of the community.
• Development projects could impact parking demand patterns in Downtown Redding. o For example, it was a common concern that the new Shasta County Superior Court building would increase parking demand dramatically without increasing any supply. ▪ It was reported that this new building would triple the number of court rooms without providing any additional parking for employees, visitors, and jurors. ▪ This could cause a strain on the existing on-street parking and parking lots near the County building, potentially causing spillover parking into prime Downtown locations. o The City’s inventory of parking will increase when the Block 7 garage is completed. o The City is encouraged to collect ongoing parking data to evaluate evolving parking impacts, future parking management strategies and whether additional parking supply is needed to meet developing demand (see Section 2-B).
• It is important that parking be easy, convenient, and accessible in Downtown Redding, which is why the City is encouraged to pursue the parking management strategies identified throughout this outline.

B. Time Limits and Paid Parking Policies
Summary:
• Some streets in Downtown Redding are time limited. These are designated through the City’s Traffic Control Map and identified by posted signage.
• Time limit operating hours are from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. except holidays and Sundays. • There are six different types of time limited parking zones:
o 3 Hours
o 2 Hours
o 1 Hour
o 45 Minutes
o 30 Minutes
o 12 Minutes
• No vehicle may be parked on any street or alley for more than 120 consecutive hours. • Downtown Redding has 414 single-space parking meters in various on-street locations. o In 2009, the City removed parking meters from the off street (surface) parking lots providing all day and some time limited locations at no charge.
• The current rate structure is $0.20 per hour with a maximum of 2 hours.

Assessment:
• The City would benefit from a demand-based parking program where policies are adjusted based on the actual occupancy and utilization of the curb space. o The occupancy rate for a location is the percentage of parking spaces utilized (vehicles counted ÷ total supply of spaces). Policy changes should be made with the intent of reaching the 85 percent parking industry-standard target occupancy rate for on-street parking. ▪ Based upon the 85 percent target occupancy rate, there should be enough vacant parking spaces to mitigate congestion from drivers searching for spaces and to Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 9
minimize oversupply concerns, which is an inefficient and costly use of valuable land. ▪ Parking management and policy decisions should be made with the 85 percent occupancy target in mind.
▪ Peak periods resulting from special events or holidays are typically managed by exception.
o Ongoing parking data collection would allow the City to measure the impact of policies and make data-driven decisions.
o Specifically, the consistent collection of parking occupancy and duration data would enable the transition to a demand-based parking program.
o A demand-based program would transform how time limits and paid parking rates are defined. o To support this approach, parking policies must be consistently enforced in order to measure their true impact.
• Modern parking technology provides ongoing data that allows for the evaluation of parking demand.

Many municipalities leverage this data to both increase and decrease paid parking rates as needed to influence parking behavior.
• Typically, the highest demand locations should be priced a premium while underutilized areas are incentivized with a discounted rate.
• As a result, parking demand would be less likely to cluster in high-demand locations, which improves access and eases congestion.
• Time limits are also effective at encouraging turnover, but only when consistently enforced.
• To support a demand-based parking program, the City should consider reintroducing paid parking and incorporating a monthly permit parking program within the off-street parking lots.
o The initial rate structure could be set at market rate incorporating what comparable cities charge in addition to local private operators but then adjusted over time incrementally based on ongoing data. • The City should introduce a no re-parking ordinance in their municipal code.

This ordinance would prohibit a vehicle that has been parked longer than the posted time limit to be moved and re-parked within a designated distance like the same block face, parking lot, or garage after the expiration of the maximum posted time limit.
o A vehicle may not return with a designated distance to the initial block face, parking lot, or parking garage sooner than a designated time, i.e., two hours, following the expiration of the initial time period. o Existing time limits can be strengthened using a no re-parking ordinance, which will ensure that time limited areas are only used for the posted time. Longer parking sessions should ideally be accommodated by off-street parking. • There is also an opportunity to expand paid parking to other areas. o Paid parking is inconsistently located throughout the Downtown. ▪ Introducing paid parking in high demand areas encourages turnover and enhances parking availability. As the community becomes more familiar with the updated program, they will recognize the opportunity to find more affordable options at fringe locations if they are willing to walk.
• The City should consider implementing employee permit parking zones that would help mitigate the issue of employees utilizing high-demand customer parking spaces. o Employee parking zones can be implemented in off-street parking lots or garages that are Figure 4: Two Hour
Parking Limit Sign
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 10
located on the perimeter of the Downtown core area. This will increase the customer parking availability in high demand locations.
o Increasing on-street enforcement will also expand the need and demand for employees to utilize the employee permit parking zones.
• Offering low-cost employee parking permits will incentivize employees to utilize the off-street permit parking locations. To enable data-driven decisions, there are a variety of Municipal Code updates that should be considered to enhance flexibility for policy changes. o For example, rather than defining the specific length of time limits and operating times within the Municipal code, the City has the opportunity to designate these details based upon posted signage alone. This would streamline the process for future policy adjustments and enable the City to transition to a data-driven policy approach.
o Similarly, a range of paid parking rates could be established within the Municipal Code that would allow the City to adjust hourly rates based on data with the intent of reaching a desired occupancy rate.
• The City should also reduce the 120-hour rule to 72-hours in order to align with the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

C. Parking Meters, Collections, and Maintenance
Summary:
• There are approximately 200 Duncan electromechanical single space meters, and the remaining are mechanical.
o These parking meters are outdated, and some of the spare parts are no longer sold by the vendor. As a result, not all meters are functioning, which impacts not only revenue but also the ability to effectively manage parking demand.
o Meter rates and hours of operation are not clearly posted. • Public Works maintains and collects the meters.
o Meter maintenance is primarily compliant driven and addressed when meter monies are collected.
▪ When the Public Works department receives a report that a meter is inoperable, the information is inputted into the Cartograph work order system.
▪ Public Works reported that the majority of work orders are for jammed coin slots.
▪ If a meter cannot be repaired, the meter has been removed from its location and typically not replaced due to limited resources which is the cause for the infrastructure gaps throughout the downtown.
• Meters are typically collected on a weekly basis. Many of the meter poles include a dual meter head.

Both single and dual space meters include an open coin receptacle, the dual meter shares a single coin receptable.

Assessment:
• Mechanical and electromechanical meters are outdated and not adaptable to rate changes, special event rates, or dynamic rate structures. Replacing on-street meters with digital single-space meters or multi-space pay stations would be advantageous. Parking rates would need to be significantly changed in order to create a sustainable infrastructure cost model. • Ideally, the City would replace existing single-space parking meters with multi-space meters (pay Figure 5: Existing Meters
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 11
stations) and mobile payment.
o There are three main operational configurations for multi-space pay stations:
▪ Pay and Display: The driver parks, purchases parking session time at the pay station, and then returns to the vehicle to display the dashboard receipt. ▪ Pay by Space: The driver parks in a numbered space, then pays at the pay station using the parking space number. The driver is not required to return to the vehicle because payment is electronically tied to a space number. Parking enforcement uses a web application to verify payment status by parking space number. ▪ Pay by Plate: This configuration is similar to pay by space, but the driver enters the license plate number at the pay station to record payment. This method does not require drivers to return to their cars. Parking enforcement verifies payment status by license plate using a web application.
• The City should implement a Pay by Plate configuration due to the efficiencies and flexibility that plate-based systems incorporated with mobile payment options. Ideally, the City will leverage license plate recognition (LPR) technology for enforcement purposes (LPR explained in the next section). o If paid parking is reintroduced into the off-street parking lots, the same pay station/mobile payment solution can be utilized.
• Currently the Municipal Codes specifically refer to the use of single-space meters and coins. Municipal Code language will need to be updated and expanded to enable multiple parking payment devices and payment methods.
• Payment methods should be expanded to enhance customer convenience and minimize the frequency of coin collections and counting.
o In addition to coin, pay stations should accept payment via credit card combined with a mobile payment application.
▪ Continuing to accept coins at pay stations will comply with the Coin Act of 1928 and offer an equitable solution for those who may not have a credit card or mobile device. ▪ This would streamline pay station collections, counting, and maintenance processes as well.
• By encouraging payment via credit card or mobile payment application, the frequency of coin collections can likely be reduced.
• The use of bills is discouraged because bill note acceptors tend to require the most maintenance.
▪ The City’s current paid parking rate is much lower than most municipalities in California of similar size, and the ongoing fees associated with credit card transactions cannot be sustained by the current rate. Therefore, in order to update the paid parking infrastructure, the City must consider a rate increase along with the transition to pay stations and mobile payment. This will help make the program sustainable. • Meter maintenance should be established on a reoccurring schedule in order to sufficiently maintain all paid parking equipment.
• With the implementation of pay stations, meter monies will be contained in a secure closed-canister system which provides a level of financial reconciliation that does not currently exist. o Pay stations provide payment transaction data that can be verified against coin counting and bank deposit receipts. Revenue trends should be tracked over time to check for anomalies, and any variances in the collections and counting process should be investigated.

Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 12
D. Parking Permits
Summary:
• There is no employee parking permit option provided by the City for employees that work in Downtown Redding.
• In order to aid residents living Downtown, the City Council may designate a residential parking permit area if it is found that the area is predominantly residential, but parking is limited by streets that are congested by non-residents.
• There is a dated Municipal Code that provides convention attendees courtesy parking privileges throughout Redding (stickers on windshield) issued by the City Clerk and approved by the Police Department.
• Vehicles cannot be parked in an alley for more than 15 minutes without a permit. o Temporary permits for loading and unloading lasting more than 15 minutes can be obtained in writing from the City Clerk.
• These permit programs are outdated and, when applicable, have been managed using physical permits and tracked using manual methods.

Assessment:
• The introduction on LPR (License Plate Recognition) technology, permits by plate (virtual), and a parking permit management system would improve the permit and enforcement processes of the City.
o The City should consider moving towards permits by plate. This type of permit identifies a vehicle’s license plate number as the vehicle permit. With LPR technology, it can be efficiently determined if a vehicle has permission to park within a designated area or parking zone. ▪ The LPR system can automate the permit enforcement process by using the license plate number as the permit number and verifying permit status using a database with real-time information.
o The implementation of an automated permit management system would streamline operations and improve convenience for customers with a self-managed online portal where they can purchase, update, and manage permits.
• The introduction of perimeter lots for long-term parking and potentially an employee permit program would be beneficial to increase turnover rates in high demand areas. o Perimeter lots are located away from business fronts and prime parking locations. These lots are usually on the perimeter of core areas. Perimeter lots can be located on streets such as East Street, South Street, Oregon Street, and Shasta Street near the Downtown core. o Designating these lots for long-term parking, especially for employees, can greatly increase turnover and leave prime parking spaces for customers and short-term parking. Providing transportation to these perimeter lots can encourage their use. • The City should introduce an Employee Parking Permit Program that allows employees of Downtown businesses to obtain parking permits employee permit parking zones. o Some of the perimeter lots can be designated only for employees of Downtown. Creating an employee parking permit program with incentives such as low permit rates, free transportation, or guaranteed parking could encourage the use of the parking lot and open spaces near businesses for customers to park storefront.
o To introduce an employee parking program, the Municipal Code will need to be updated to address permit parking polices and the opportunity for virtual permits. o If an employee parking program is introduced, the City should determine permit rates based upon stakeholder feedback and demand.

Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 13
o To encourage employee participation, it is important to price permits lower than the cost for daily parking to encourage compliance and ensure that permit holders have an affordable and convenient option.
• The Residential Parking Permit Program needs to be updated. Permit policies need to be specific in how residential permits are to be obtained and used. There are currently no policy regulations on how residential parking permits are to be enforced or used. o Determining these regulations will create a more understandable and easily enforceable program.
▪ From discussion with City staff, it was determined that residential parking permits are yellow hangtags. However, it was reported by those who enforce parking that hangtags are rarely seen on vehicles parked in “R” parking spaces. “R” parking spaces were identified to be parking for those who have residential permits only. Through community connections, enforcers know that vehicles parked in “R” spaces belong to residents. This method of enforcement is unreliable and can be inefficient. o The City should consider converting to residential parking permits to virtual parking permits that can be enforced through automated technology like LPR or parking enforcement handhelds. The enforcement process of these permit zones would become simplified and more efficient.
o The City should also change the process of how residential parking permit areas are designated. Currently, a residential permit parking area is designated by City Council.

Adjusting the designation to allow for a petition process would be beneficial in creating policy based on community needs. The petition process would require at least 65% of residents living in the area to agree with the implementation of a residential parking permit area in their neighborhood.
o To prevent to use of on-street resident parking in high-demand commercial areas, the residential parking permit areas should be limited to only residential zones and should not be allowed in any zone with a mixed-use neighborhood overlay. o The City should update the Municipal Code and eliminate outdated permit codes like courtesy parking for convention and alley parking permits If the City retained this policy, transitioning to virtual permits will provide a more efficient enforcement opportunity.

Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 14
Parking Management and Enforcement
This section outlines findings from a review of the City’s parking operation as it relates to the overall management and enforcement. The recommendations consider opportunities to optimize the operation with changes to the organization structure, staffing, and technology.

A. Parking Management Structure
Summary:
• Parking operation duties are distributed amongst multiple departments. o The Public Works Department is responsible for meter maintenance, repairs, collection, and parking enforcement.
o The Police Department is responsible for some parking enforcement, shuttle drivers, and processing parking citation information.
o The Finance Department is responsible for collecting parking citation payments and noticing violators.

Assessment:
• Centralizing parking management support and incorporating automated parking technology systems can be beneficial to the City’s internal processes.
o The current parking management processes are inefficient. The City should leverage an established parking citation and permit management system (CPMS) to automate the existing operation.
▪ A CPMS can provide the hardware and infrastructure required to be efficient in the field which will provide an automated system that can be integrated with the Finance Department to minimize manual processes and automate notifications and fee escalations.
o This update will provide the foundational tools necessary to provide ongoing assessment and data resources to ensure optimized operations and future updates.

B. Enforcement
Summary:
• Within the Public Works department, there is one full-time employee who is responsible for all parking enforcement. However, this employee begins work at 4:00am and ends their shift at 11:30am. o This means that there is no parking enforcement in Downtown past 11:30am. This time frame does not align with their current parking operation times for paid parking or time limited parking spaces.
• LPR technology has been previously utilized for parking by Police Department Cadets. Police Cadets have been assigned to shuttle driver duties and the LPR technology has not been used since the shuttle program support was initiated.
• Hand-written parking citations are issued, and the City does not use an automated citation management system or handheld device.
o The Police Department manually inputs all parking citations including those issued by Public Works personnel.
3 Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 15
o The Finance Department manages parking citation payments and delinquent noticing. ▪ Twenty-one days after arriving at the Finance Department, if citations are not paid, the offender will receive a notice letter and a hold will be placed on their vehicle with the DMV.
▪ The DMV hold restricts the renewal of a vehicle registration until citations are paid. All parking citations are $24.50, and a $20 late fee is applied after fourteen days without payment, but the late fee does not increase with further delay of payment. ▪ Late fees typically increase linearly if a citation is not paid. This fee continues to escalate until the citation is paid.
• The City rarely tows vehicles. After four to five days of a vehicle being parked without moving, a warning notice is typically issued to the vehicle.
• The City is able to enforce parking on behalf of private parking facility owners if they sign a “consent to enforcement” form. The form authorizes the Police Department to enforce parking restrictions at the designated location (Code 11.24.260B).
o This policy is beneficial in support of public-private partnerships; however, consistent enforcement resources are necessary to ensure compliance similar to the need to support City parking locations.

Assessment:
• Designating one employee as the single parking enforcement resource is an ineffective management policy, especially considering the current staffing schedule. The community has become accustomed to the lack of enforcement resources which is prevalently apparent throughout the downtown. Parking enforcement personnel should be consistently available during posted hours of operation to promote occupancy and utilization throughout the downtown by increasing compliance. • Use of paper citations and manual record-keeping of citation information are inefficient processes.

The City should procure an automated citation and permit management system (CPMS). o Automated citation management systems allow for direct input of citation information into the City’s database. The system also allows enforcement officers to upload photos of offenses, and the City can manage and track citations with ease. This citation management system can also be connected to the LPR technology so that information collected will be automatically transcribed into a citation and uploaded to the City’s database. o The City has an opportunity to enhance the parking operation and prepare for downtown growth and expansion by acquiring a CPMS. The hardware/software solution increases the City’s ability to focus on customer service and education, while demonstrating trends and data related to behavioral patterns in parking. This information will help guide the City in making any future changes to the parking program.
• The City’s mobile LPR technology is a valuable resource that needs to be utilized for parking enforcement. The City’s LPR technology is currently underutilized. The City’s LPR technology will greatly improve the ability to enforce time limits and parking meters and mitigate any concerns about the use of tire chalking. The increased efficiency of enforcement will also be beneficial in maintaining high turnover rates and increasing time limit and meter compliance. The increase in compliance will contribute to an increase in paid parking revenue for the City. o LPR technology is a necessary asset for the transition to improved paid parking technology, mobile application payments, and pay by plate (virtual) permits. • Time limits needs to be efficiently managed. This includes an update to the City’s vehicle abatement program. The Municipal Code should be updated to be consistent with the California Vehicle Code.

Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 16
Rather than 120 hours, a vehicle should be parked for longer than 72 consecutive hours on street or within a City facility. LPR technology can aid in tracking these noncompliant vehicles and ensure that vehicles are not stored long term or abandoned on street. • The City should leverage the opportunity to create shared parking agreements with private parking lot owners that will allow the City to enforce parking regulations and increase compliance throughout Downtown. Creating these public-private parking partnerships can help limit the abuse of long-term parking in impacted locations. This will create a cohesive enforcement map throughout the Downtown area.

Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 17
Wayfinding and Parking Guidance
This section outlines findings from a review of existing wayfinding and parking guidance. The recommendations consider opportunities to improve and increase wayfinding signage for the overall improvement of navigation throughout Downtown Redding.

Parking Signage
Summary:
• Static signage is being used to identify public parking, location amenities, attractions, and provide Downtown history. These static signs are distributed sporadically throughout the Downtown area. • City operated parking lots are identified by green “Parking” branding.

The logo has a “P” in a navigation pin and is clean and easy to understand. Some private lot owners have requested to have similar signage placed on their properties.
o Despite the Downtown parking branding, the 1551 Market Street garage does not have prevalent signage that would alert a driver of the location and amenities.
• The 2018 Downtown Specific Plan designates that public signage requires maintenance and upkeep.
o Some wayfinding signage is faded and outdated.
• Two-hour time limit signs are consistent in the core of Downtown. The signage includes the days and hours of operation. In residential parking permit areas, these signs have an exception for R permits. The courthouse area includes “Permit Parking OK” signs with no indication of hours or the type of permits that are allowed.

Assessment:
• The City should update and increase wayfinding signage. Signage systems are important to the success of Downtown revitalization. An effective wayfinding and parking guidance solution is important to:
o Mitigate spillover parking impacts.
o Encourage remote or perimeter parking locations, especially in instances where convenient parking is at or near capacity.
o Reduce congestion and time spent by vehicles searching for parking. o Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from excess driving while looking for parking. o Properly communicate parking options to access various destinations. o Improve the overall experience of parking in Downtown. • An opportunity also exists to enhance “breadcrumbing” in Downtown Redding by increasing wayfinding signage. Breadcrumbing signage will lead drivers and pedestrians to different destinations throughout Downtown. Additional signage will make it easier for motorists, particularly visitors, to find available parking and understand where they are allowed to park. o Enhanced signage will effectively direct visitors to available parking areas and provide 4 Figure 6: Pedestrian Wayfinding
Signage
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 18
information regarding parking restrictions.
o Increase wayfinding signage in locations that have high visitor volumes such as the Amtrack Train Station and RABA Passenger Terminal.
o In addition to static wayfinding signage, the City can deliver real-time parking availability information through digital signage or a vehicle messaging system. o As parking management improves throughout the City, there could be an opportunity to provide real-time parking availability data through digital signage. The first opportunity could be to leverage the new garage and promote occupancy and availability to mitigate congestion and potential circling.
▪ Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the public utilizes parking resources. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion the throughout the city. APGS integrates communication network systems implemented in parking facilities to provide information to the automated signage. Parking availability information can also inform drivers about parking availability before they enter into a parking facility.

Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 19
Alternative Modes of Transportation
Encouraging alternative modes of transportation supports a healthy transportation system that reduces congestion and mitigates parking demand. As it pertains to parking, the goal is to ensure that those who must drive and those who require parking have the availability to do so, even during the busiest of times. Creating alternative modes of transportation for all residents and visitors will be key in developing a sustainable transportation system.

Busses and Shuttles
Summary:
• Currently, the City has two forms of alternative transportation. These are RABA (Redding Area Bus Authority) and the DASH (Downtown Area Shuttle). RABA is funded by the City while the DASH is funded by the McConnell Foundation.
o RABA offers fourteen fixed bus routes and three commuter bus services (including a School Express). There are approximately ten to fourteen bus routes that service the Downtown area.

RABA provides an effective way to get around the City. Offering many routes to the Downtown area will be beneficial when incentivizing alternative modes of transportation. o DASH, a Downtown Area Micro Shuttle, is
run by police cadets throughout the week.

There are two main routes with 11 stops
total. The DASH serves the Downtown area
and maintains an eight-to-ten-minute
frequency. Despite this consistent
schedule, stakeholder feedback
recognizes that the DASH is rarely used.

Subsequently, cadets reported an
inconsistency when it comes to ridership.

Some days the DASH serves eight people,
while on other days there is zero DASH
ridership. The DASH is a great asset to
Downtown, but it should be utilized more. Finding ways to promote and encourage ridership should be a priority.
▪ The DASH runs Monday – Friday
• Mornings (6:45 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.)
• Mid-Day (10:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.)
• Afternoon (3:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.)
• The City has an Amtrack train station near the intersection of Yuba Street and California Street in Downtown. This can be an effective method in bringing in visitors and tourists. Adjacent to the station is the RABA Downtown passenger terminal. Having an alternative mode of transit near the train station is key to moving visitors around the city. Additional wayfinding near the station would also be beneficial.
• The biking community within Downtown Redding is large and bike lane infrastructure has been developing well throughout the past couple of years. Some stakeholders say they prefer biking into the Downtown area compared to driving. Biking can also be an efficient alternative mode of 5 Figure 7: DASH Shuttle
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 20
transportation. (See Section 6)
• The downtown block lengths are walkable. However, it was reported by stakeholders that continuous construction has made walking downtown challenging and dangerous due to closed sidewalks.

Prioritizing pedestrians and their ability to safely navigate downtown should be considered by the City and developers during construction.

Assessment:
• Redding has the backbone of a complete transportation system. Improved mobility throughout Downtown can be achieved through additions to the DASH program, bike network improvements, and increased walkability during construction.
o It was reported through stakeholder feedback that the DASH program, while well known, is not well utilized. Stakeholders claimed they did not know how the DASH program worked or how to use the shuttles. The DASH is currently being promoted through signs and occasionally through social media outlets. Increasing education and information transparency would be beneficial and may increase ridership. Education may include mailing flyers to residents, emailing residents, hosting DASH information sessions, increased signage, and online outreach including social media posts.
▪ The potential of deploying or utilizing a DASH app would be advantageous. App users would be able to see the DASH schedule, locate DASH stops, and know in real time where the DASH is. Although currently not a program aspect of DASH, having the capability to alert or “call” the DASH when one needs service could be a beneficial tool in the app. This functionality could be utilized by those who need an ADA accessible shuttle.
▪ An additional consideration is the DASH should run on a continuous loop which can establish a designated expectation for the DASH and the consistent route would provide a reliable and locatable resource for downtown visitors and employees. • Employee parking permit zones should be added to any potential DASH route to provide a reliable and accessible transportation source from perimeter parking locations.
o The City should continue to improve bikeway connectivity throughout Downtown to ensure the safety of bicyclists. These improvements can encourage the use of biking as an alternative mode of transportation (see section 6).
• The City has the opportunity to incorporate new trends seen in other communities. o The emergence of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) throughout California has changed patterns of behavior for travelers and residents ( e.g., Uber, Lyft). o Increasingly, professionals are choosing to travel by TNC, as opposed to single occupancy vehicles. In many small cities, the TNC base has disrupted well-established franchise regulations and taxis have become obsolete. Whether or not TNC will become popular in Redding, they will become a part of the Downtown ecosystem and will require consideration for standing, loading, and enforcement of active violations.

Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 21
Microbi Mobility
A. Walkability
Summary:
• Opinions revolving around walking within Downtown Redding vary. Some stakeholders expressed they wish to park and walk directly into the business they are patronizing. Others wish to park once and be able to walk around Downtown and patronize multiple businesses in one trip. • Despite opinion, stakeholders have expressed concern over the walkability within Downtown Redding.
o A request among some stakeholders was increased lighting for better visibility in the evenings and night. Stakeholders expressed that there is a lack of lighting in key locations such as the parking facilities near the Cascade Theater.
▪ The City announced a lighting plan that will increase lighting in the Market Street Promenade.
o Walkability concerns regarding construction were brought up during stakeholder meetings as well. Stakeholders noticed that during the on-going construction of many building sites in Downtown Redding, sidewalks were often closed or blocked off. Pedestrians were pushed onto the streets which created a dangerous environment. The City has many construction projects that limit the availability of sidewalks, some without accommodations.

Assessment:
• Parking resources need to be better managed and provide short term parking in front of business to promote turnover and push long-term parking options to parking facilities. This approach would be helpful in addressing the varying needs of walking in Downtown Redding. • In order to address concerns over lighting issues, the City should implement a Downtown lighting plan. Safety is an important factor to consider and a possible deterrent for Downtown visitors and residents if they feel unsafe due to lighting. Ensuring there are safe, lighted paths throughout Downtown with encourage visitors to visit or stay past evening hours. o Those parking a vehicle Downtown will seek well-lit areas where threats feel minimal.

Increasing lighting in all Downtown parking facilities would be advantageous. o Employee parking permit locations should be taken into priority consideration. Employees who arrive in the early mornings and leave in the late evenings must safely travel to and from the employee permit lots. Without safe commuting options or well-lit parking facilities, employees may avoid utilizing the permit lots or purchasing employee permits. o New construction sites and corresponding operational plans should budget for safety related items such as lighting and safe sidewalk passage near these locations. • To increase safety and provide ongoing compliance support, the City could appoint Downtown Ambassadors which will increase visibility and parking enforcement support throughout Downtown Redding. An increased presence would provide the consistent compliance to promote turnover and parking occupancy along with the added benefit of visibility and Downtown safety. • The City should work with developers to ensure the safety of pedestrians during construction. 6 Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 22
Prioritizing pedestrian safety should be a main concern during the construction period. The City can hold developers responsible by requiring a pedestrian safety plan in their construction plan submittals. If a construction site needs to block a portion of the sidewalk, ensuring there is an alternative route that does not reroute pedestrians dramatically is necessary. For example, moving the sidewalk temporarily onto the street could be possible by using concrete blocks to protect pedestrians from vehicles.

B. Bikes
Summary:
• The biking network in Redding is currently in the
developing stage. While there are bike lanes on some
streets in Downtown, including California Street, there are many streets without them. This creates an incomplete and unsafe bike network. Stakeholders expressed concern over bike safety and requested the installation of protected bike lanes throughout Downtown.
o In July 2021, a new two-way protected bike path
named “Diestelhorst to Downtown” was opened
that connects the Downtown Redding to the
Diestelhorst bridge near the Sacramento River trail.

This is one of the first protected bike lanes in
Downtown Redding.
• Bike storage is scattered inconsistently throughout
Downtown Redding with only a few sidewalk bike racks.
o The 1551 Market Street garage has public bike
storage; however, it is not easily accessible. To
access these bike storage facilities, bicyclists must
enter the parking garage from a street level
entrance and take an elevator down to the
underground storage. However, to gain access to
the entrance, a resident keycard or valid parking
ticket is required to enter. This forces bicyclists to
enter through the vehicle ingress/egress ramp.
o The Shasta Living Streets organization is currently constructing a bike depot next to the Redding Transit Center. This bike depot will include bike storage and trail services. The goal is to provide the community with options to travel car-free, educate the community on bike safety and access, implement a bike match program, host community activities, and eventually host bike tours.

Assessment:
• In order to increase safety, mobility, and access for bicyclists in Downtown Redding, the City should consider increasing bike lane infrastructure. Connecting bikeways throughout Downtown will ensure the safety of bicyclists and can also be encouraged as an alternative form of transportation. o Increasing different classifications for all streets Downtown Redding would be beneficial. ▪ Wider and more congested streets can be accompanied by a buffered or delineated Figure 8: Bicycle Storage in 1551 Market St
Garage
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 23
Class II bike lane. A class II bike lane is defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings for one-way bicycle travel on either side of a street or highway. Implementing a buffer or delineators would increase the safety of bicyclist on these congested streets as more distance is created between the vehicles.
▪ Streets with less congestion but still frequently used can be accompanied by Class II bike lanes without delineators or buffers.
▪ Streets that are narrower and the least congested can be accompanied by a Class III bike lane. Class III facilities are to be shared with motorists on roadways and is identified by signage and shared bike lane markings.
o In the City of Redding’s 2010 Bikeway Action Plan, a highlight was the prioritization of route improvements including bicycle infrastructure, bike lane striping, signage, and bicycle parking.

The plan envisioned a bicycle installation program for developers and businesses to monetarily contribute to the safety and needs of bicyclists.
o Expanding the bike system by upgrading to protected bike lanes, prioritizing bicyclists at intersections, and increasing bicycle accommodation will ensure safer and increased bicycle usership. Biking can become a top alternative transportation method with these improvements.
• The City can leverage the new Shasta Bike Depot as a hub for bike routes. The location of the new bike depot can encourage residents and visitors to arrive to Downtown with an alternative transportation method. The webbing of bike routes from the Shasta Bike Depot will allow people to navigate Downtown via bicycle and also provide safe bicycle storage. • The City should work with developers to ensure all public bicycle accommodations on private property are easily accessible in the planning process. o The 1551 Market Street bicycle parking experience is an example of an unsafe and inaccessible bike parking facility. Having bicyclists use the vehicle ingress and egress point to access the public bike parking can cause issues and is extremely unsafe for bicyclists. Before approving construction plans, the City should do an additional review to ensure that developments are accommodating bicyclists and providing safe and accessible bike parking facilities. o Bicycle parking facility standards can be introduced and required within the Municipal code.

These requirements will ensure that developers meet the standards that should be applied to bicycle parking.
▪ Bicycle parking standards can include minimum space widths, accessibility standards, security standards, safety standards, and minimum required parking space standards.

C. Shared Mobility Programs
Summary:
• Shared mobility devices, such as scooters, are currently used within Downtown Redding. In 2019, an entrepreneur donated 100 electric “Wolf” scooters to the City. o Some stakeholders claimed that they knew the City had Wolf scooters, but they did not have much knowledge on the details revolving the scooters.
o During a site visit, the Wolf scooters were rarely seen but were being used by young adults and teenagers.
• The Shasta Bike Depot has planned on accommodating shared mobility devices including storage space for e-bikes and Wolf scooters.

Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 24
Assessment:
• While shared mobility devices such as have not become an issue within Downtown Redding, many cities have experienced congestion, safety, and liability issues due to the lack of regulations revolving shared mobility devices.
• The City should update their municipal codes and implement a shared mobility device program in order to prevent any future problems that may come with an increase in shared mobility devices such as dock-less bikes and scooters.
o The code updates and program regulations can include:
▪ Operators must apply for a shared mobility device permit ▪ Shared mobility device requirements such as geofencing, maximum fleet numbers, signage, and location of deployment.
▪ City impoundment authorization
o The City should also have the right to revoke any permits in the case operator violates rules and regulations.
• The City can encourage the use of shared mobility devices as an alternative mode of transit and offer low-cost monthly permits or vouchers to those who meet income qualifications to receive free or reduced-price trips.
• The shared mobility program and regulations will encourage the use of shared mobility devices as well as enable to City to keep shared mobility devices under control.

Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 25
Conclusion
The City can optimize parking management and improve the Downtown Redding parking experience by using the strategies described in this Operational Needs Assessment Outline. The recommendations were based upon findings during the site visit, stakeholder feedback, and industry best practices. The feasibility and prioritization of the recommendations will ultimately be dependent on the City Council’s priorities, budget, staffing and resources, stakeholder feedback, and ongoing data collection.

Below are three strategies that could be considered by the City. The strategy chosen will fundamentally influence the City’s next steps. The following table provides an overview of the three options along with their analysis. This table is then followed by a list of recommendations associated with the recommended strategy. 7 Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 26
Strategy Analysis Recommendation
Option 1:

Remove all
paid parking
and rely on
time limits.

Option 1 is not recommended at this time. With current
operations, such as a lack of consistent enforcement, eliminating paid parking in Downtown would decrease compliance of
posted time limits.

However, with changes to the City’s operations, such as hiring additional enforcement staff and beginning consistent
enforcement, parking could become a compliance-based
program. Option 1 could be a viable option if current operations were adjusted.

X
Not recommended at
this time.

Option 2:

Introduce a
pay-to-stay
model.

Option 2 is not recommended at this time but should be
considered for future evaluation. A pay-to-stay model is a customer service based paid parking model. Ultimately, the customer pays for time they would like to stay. Some cities offer this program where the first hour is free and every hour after is an escalated rate. This is not recommended at this time as the City’s current rate structure is very low and the increase in pricing and pay structure may discourage people from coming Downtown.

Option 2 should be considered for future evaluation when the City transitions to a demand-based paid parking structure. With data, the City can evaluate the feasibility of introducing a pay-tostay parking model. The transition to Option 2 should only be made when there is sufficient parking occupancy and turnover data to support this change.

X
Not recommended at
this time. Consider
for future evaluation.

Option 3:

Continue
paid parking.

Option 3 is recommended at this time. With the increase of new development and additional paid parking options, it is
recommended that the City continue paid parking in order to ensure a consistent parking system Downtown. The paid parking program would require some operational changes such as
increasing enforcement, transitioning to multi-space meters, and increasing parking rates. However, these changes would
ultimately provide additional revenue to the City as compliance increases. A consistently enforced paid parking program would also ensure high turnover rates at prime on-street locations. Data collected from enforcement also allows the City to make datadriven decisions and transition to a demand-based parking program. Option 3 allows the City to easily regulate parking, increases revenue and compliance, and contributes to an overall unified parking operation Downtown.

Recommended
strategy
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 27
List of Recommendations:
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
1 Adopt municipal code updates to “future-proof” city policies.

Updates include:
- Time limit standards
- No re-parking ordinance
- Vehicle removal period
- Angled parking standards
- Loading zone standards
- Residential permit parking designation and standards
- Paid parking standards
- Employee parking program
- Temporary parking permit program
- Enforcement regulations
- Bicycle parking facility standards
- Shared mobility device standards
2 Designate one or two employees as the City’s parking enforcement resource. 3-B:

Enforcement
3 Ensure parking enforcement personnel is consistently monitoring downtown parking regulations during posted hours of operation.
3-B:

Enforcement
4 Procure an automated citation and permit management system (CPMS) to avoid manual record-keeping of paper citations and permits. A CPMS can provide the hardware and infrastructure required to be efficient in the field which will provide an automated system that can be integrated with the Finance Department to minimize manual processes and automate notifications and fee escalations. The City should introduce LPR (License Plate Recognition) technology for enforcement and data collection when procuring the CPMS. LPR technology is a necessary asset to transition to improved paid parking technology, mobile application payments, and pay by plate (virtual) permits. 2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
2-D: Parking
Permits
3-A: Parking
Management
Structure
3-B:

Enforcement
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 28
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
5 Continue paid parking on-street and replace existing single-space parking meters with multi-space meters (pay stations) and mobile payment. Payment methods should also be expanded to enhance customer convenience and minimize the frequency of coin collections and counting, such as Mobile Payment. 2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
6 Implement a Pay-by-Plate pay station configuration for the efficiencies and flexibility that plate-based systems offer. 2-C: Parking Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
7 The City should consider increasing parking rates. Parking rates would need to be significantly changed in order to create a sustainable infrastructure cost model.

Typically, the highest demand locations should be priced a premium while underutilized areas are incentivized with a discounted rate. 2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
8 Collect on-going, consistent parking occupancy and turnover data to enable the transition to a demand-based parking program.
2-A: Parking
Supply
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
9 Transition to a demand-based parking program where policies are adjusted based on the actual occupancy and utilization of the curb space. 2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
10 Reintroduce paid parking into the off-street parking lots and utilize the same pay station/mobile payment solution as on-street parking.
2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
11 Leverage the opportunity to create shared parking agreements with private parking lot owners that will allow the City to enforce parking regulations and increase compliance throughout Downtown. Creating these public-private parking partnerships can help limit the abuse of long-term parking in impacted locations.
3-B:

Enforcement
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 29
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
12 Introduce perimeter lots for long-term parking and potentially an employee permit program. This is beneficial to increase turnover rates in high demand areas.
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
2-D: Parking
Permits
13 Transition to permits by license plate. This type of permit identifies a vehicle’s license plate number as the vehicle permit. LPR system can automate the permit enforcement process by using the license plate number as the permit number and verifying permit status using a database with real-time information. 2-D: Parking
Permits
14 Designate employee permit parking zones that would help mitigate the issue of employees utilizing high-demand customer parking spaces. Employee parking zones can be implemented in off-street parking lots or garages that are located on the perimeter of the Downtown core area.
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
15 Introduce an Employee Parking Permit Program that allow employees of Downtown businesses to obtain parking permits in employee permit parking zones.
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
16 Determine permit rates based upon stakeholder feedback and demand. 2-D: Parking Permits
17 Offer cost affordable employee parking permits. This will incentivize employees to utilize the off-street permit parking locations.
2-D: Parking
Permits
18 Develop additional incentives such as cost affordable permit rates, alternative transportation options, or guaranteed parking locations. These incentives could encourage the use of the employee permit parking lots and open parking spaces near businesses for customers to park storefront.
2-D: Parking
Permits
19 Prioritize increasing lighting in employee permit parking locations. Employees who arrive in the early mornings and leave late in the evenings must safely travel to and from the employee permit lots. Without safe commuting options or well-lit parking facilities, employees may avoid utilizing the permit lots or purchasing employee permits.
6-A: Walkability
20 Add employee parking permit areas to any potential DASH route to provide a reliable and accessible transportation source from perimeter parking locations. 5: Busses and
Shuttles
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 30
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
21 Transition physical residential parking permits to virtual parking permits that can be enforced through automated technology like LPR or parking enforcement handhelds.
2-D: Parking
Permits
22 Update the process to designate residential parking permit areas. This would be beneficial in creating policy based on community needs. Establish a petition process requiring at least 65% of residents living in the area to agree with the implementation of a residential parking permit area in their neighborhood. 2-D: Parking
Permits
23 Update and increase wayfinding signage. Signage systems are important to the success of Downtown revitalization.
4: Parking
Signage
24 Increase education and information transparency about the DASH program. This would be beneficial in increasing awareness of the DASH and may increase ridership. Education may include mailing flyers to residents and businesses, posting flyers on business windows, emailing residents, hosting DASH information sessions, increased signage, and online outreach including social media posts.
5: Busses and
Shuttles
25 Evaluate establishing the DASH running on a continuous loop. This can establish a designated expectation for the DASH and the consistent route would provide a reliable and locatable resource for downtown visitors and employees. 5: Busses and
Shuttles
26 Implement a Downtown lighting plan to address concerns over lighting issues.

Safety is an important factor to consider and a possible deterrent for Downtown visitors and residents if they feel unsafe due to lighting. Ensuring there are safe, lighted paths throughout Downtown with encourage visitors to visit or stay past evening hours.
6-A: Walkability
27 New construction sites and corresponding operational plans should budget for safety related items such as lighting and safe sidewalk passage. Prioritizing pedestrian safety should be a main concern during the construction period and the City should work with developers to ensure the safety of pedestrians during construction. The City can hold developers responsible by requiring a pedestrian safety plan in their construction plan submittals. If a construction site needs to block a portion of the sidewalk, ensuring there is an alternative route that does not reroute pedestrians dramatically is necessary.
6-A: Walkability
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 31
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
28 , the City could Appoint Downtown Ambassadors to increase safety and provide ongoing compliance support. This can increase visibility and parking enforcement support throughout Downtown Redding. An increased presence would provide the consistent compliance to promote turnover and parking occupancy along with the added benefit of visibility and Downtown safety. 6-A: Walkability
29 Implement real-time parking availability information through digital signage or a vehicle messaging system. Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the public utilizes parking resources. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion the throughout the city. 4: Parking
Signage
30 Deploy a DASH app. App users would be able to see the DASH schedule, locate DASH stops, and know in real time where the DASH is. Although currently not a program aspect of DASH, having the capability to alert or “call” the DASH when one needs service could be a beneficial tool in the app. This functionality could be utilized by those who need an ADA accessible shuttle. 5: Busses and
Shuttles
31 Increase bike lane infrastructure to increase safety, mobility, and access for bicyclists in Downtown Redding. Connecting bikeways throughout Downtown will ensure the safety of bicyclists and can also be encouraged as an alternative form of transportation.
6-B: Bikes
32 Expand the bike system by upgrading to protected bike lanes, prioritizing bicyclists at intersections, and increasing bicycle accommodation. 6-B: Bikes
33 Leverage the new Shasta Bike Depot as a hub for bike routes. The location of the new bike depot can encourage residents and visitors to arrive to Downtown with an alternative transportation method. The webbing of bike routes from the Shasta Bike Depot will allow people to navigate Downtown via bicycle and also provide safe bicycle storage.
6-B: Bikes
34 Evaluate policies for the potential impact of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs). In many small cities, the emergence of TNC base has disrupted wellestablished franchise regulations and taxis have become obsolete. Whether or not TNC will become popular in Redding, they will become a part of the Downtown ecosystem and will require consideration for standing, loading, and enforcement of active violations.
5: Busses and
Shuttles
35 Encourage the use of shared mobility devices as an alternative mode of transit and offer low-cost monthly permits or vouchers to those who meet income qualifications to receive free or reduced-price trips.
6-C: Shared
Mobility
Programs
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 32
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
36 Track revenue trends over time to check for anomalies, and any variances in the collections and counting process.
2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 33
Appendix A. Comparable Cities Analysis
Paid Parking Rates
City On-Street Hourly Off-Street
City of Redding $0.20/hr. n/a
City of Chico $0.50/hr. $78.00 per month
City of Eureka N/A Mostly free / $0.15/hr.

City of Paso Robles 2 hours free, $1.00/hr.
thereafter n/a
City of Santa Rosa* $1.00 - $1.50/hour
Mixed - 1st hour free,
$0.50/hour; & $0.75 -
$1.00/hour
City of Stockton $0.50 - $3.00/hour $1.50 - $3.00/hour / $12 daily
Parking Citation Penalties
City Meter Violation
Red Curb
Violation
Double Parking
Violation
Time Limit
Violation
City of Redding $24.50 $39.50 $24.50 $24.50
City of Chico $29.00 $48.00 $33.00 $24.00
City of Eureka $43 - $38* $53.00 $43.00 $38.00
City of Paso Robles^ $33.00 $33.00 $139.00 $33.00
City of Santa Rosa $35.00 $70.00 $70.00 $40.00
City of Stockton $44.00 $78.00 $66.00 $44.00
*Penalty based on time limit (e.g., 20 min vs 1 hr.)
^Paso Robles penalty increases in process ($50)
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Downtown Parking
Online Parking Survey Results
Presentation Date
Name of Presenter
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Parking Survey Results • 253 Completed Surveys • 3,029 Questions Answered • 85% Completion Rate Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) How would you describe yourself as it relates
to Downtown Redding?
Work Downtown - 35%
Live Downtown – 7%
Own a business – 6.5%
I’m a student - .5%
I’m a visitor – 45%
I rarely go downtown – 6%
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) How often do you visit Downtown?
Daily- 33%
Multiple times a week– 31.5%
Multiple times a month– 23%
Multiple times a year - 7.5%
Rarely – 5%
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) How do you typically access Downtown
Redding?
Car- 75%
Taxi, Lift, Uber, etc.– .5%
Public Transit– .3%
Bike- 10%
Walk– 14%
Other– .2%
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) If you drive, where do you park?
On-street- 46%
Public Parking– 37%
Private Parking– 15%
Other – 2%
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) How long does it take to find a parking space?
Right away - 10%
2 min or less– 22%
5 min or less– 39%
10 min or less- 20%
More than 10 min– 9%
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) What is a reasonable walking distance from a
parking space to a downtown destination?
1 block- 21%
2 blocks– 44%
3 blocks– 20%
4 blocks – 11%
Other – 4%
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Is 2 hour on-street parking generally enough
time for you?
Yes- 27%
Sometimes– 35%
No– 32%
I visit on weekends - 4%
Other– 2%
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) What Parking Priorities
are most important?
#1 Cleanliness, security & lighting
#2 enhanced wayfinding
#3 easier paid parking options
#4 invest in bikeways and shuttles
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Is it important to have 2-hour parking in front
of shops and restaurants?
Yes- 68%
No– 14%
Not sure- 15%
Other– 3%
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Comment Summary:
• Make Downtown more bike and pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian walk signs take too long to turn green and traffic is moving too fast.
• Many had safety concerns about walking long distances downtown, particularly at night.
• Need more modern ways of paying for parking – credit card, app, etc. • 2 hour parking needs to be enforced otherwise cars park all day. • Not enough ADA parking available.
• Downtown business customers complain about the lack of parking. • Many thought downtown parking should be free.
• Employees that work downtown should have more dedicated parking.

Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Thank You
Questions?
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy:
(1) Accept the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy;
(2) Authorize staff to identify potential funding sources, negotiate lease agreements with private owners for additional public parking supply, and return to the City Council (Council) for lease execution; and
(3) Direct staff to engage Downtown businesses/property owners to analyze and determine the viability of a long term funding source (user paid or business/property based improvement district) to provide a sustainable parking system in Downtown.

Fiscal Impact
Consultant costs to prepare the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy (Strategy) are estimated to be $76,000. The City of Redding (City) staff time supporting planning efforts, document review, and public engagement has incurred value estimated at roughly $20,000. Funding for the consultant effort was provided through a combination of grants from the State of California ($12,000) and the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency ($64,000). The remaining funding was provided by the Streets Division.

Short-term funding of the Strategy recommendations are yet to be determined, but will likely come from a combination of one-time revenue generated from the sale of Downtown property associated with the Block 7 Project partnership (California Street Parking Structure redevelopment), parking enforcement revenue, and some General Fund investment. Staff expects the Council will consider the Block 7 Project at its regular meeting on September 17, 2019, including the associated property transaction.

MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
ITEM NO. 9.11(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.11(a)--Consider the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 2
Alternative Action
The Council may choose not to accept the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy and provide alternative direction to staff. The Council could also choose to not authorize staff to negotiate lease agreements with neighboring businesses.

Background/Analysis
For decades, the City and its community partners have invested significant time and resources to encourage development, activity and improvements in the City’s downtown area (Downtown).

These deliberate, formal planning efforts along with persistence and community partnerships have proved successful resulting in the investment of over $250 million in both public grant funding and private funding over the next few years. These planning efforts include the recently updated Downtown Specific Plan, The Downtown Transportation and Circulation Plan, and the Regional Transportation Plan with its associated Sustainable Communities Strategy. In fact, the City is a partner on two significant development projects currently underway – the Market Center (former Dicker’s building) and Block 7 (California Street Parking Structure) projects that will bring more than 160 residential units, 40,000 square-feet of retail and office space, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, re-introduce the downtown street grid through the Promenade and replacement parking projects. Other projects include a new Courthouse, several mixed use developments, and renovation of older motels to name a few.

Along with these new developments will come necessary changes to the availability, location, enforcement, administration, and maintenance of public and private parking facilities to support the needs of Downtown patrons, property owners and businesses. Each one of the planning efforts noted above identified the need to develop a parking strategy to accommodate these needs. As such, the City received grant funding and contracted with the consultant team of Placeworks/Watry Design to prepare the attached Downtown Parking Strategy. The Strategy analyzes the current and proposed demand and supply for parking, opportunities to add supply, management and enforcement considerations and financial options to ensure the most efficient utilization of parking supply that is convenient and available for all user groups.

Current System
The current City-maintained public parking system includes just over 1,200 on-street parking stalls and another 1,002 off-street stalls in five lots with the majority (640) in the California Street Parking Structure. Through various Council-approved actions and community initiatives over the years, the system has become a heavily General Fund subsidized assortment of facilities with insufficient revenue to provide for maintenance, improvements or replacement. The offstreet parking is offered free of charge, and on-street is a mixture of roughly 230 metered parking stallsat $0.20 per hour while the remaining stalls are free of charge with various time limitations.

Due to the lack of revenue, enforcement is inconsistent and insufficient and there is a large backlog of deferred maintenance and replacement costs. The California Street Parking Structure alone is nearing the end of its useful life and in need of major repairs or replacement that would cost millions. The small amount of revenue generated from meters and fines goes to general cleaning of the lots, maintenance of sump pumps, utility costs, and some limited time for meter collection/repair and enforcement. The annual General Fund subsidy is roughly $60,000- $80,000.

Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 3
Parking Supply and Demand
The Strategy reveals that the existing parking system is underutilized with significant surplus capacity. Of the over 4,600 public and private parking spaces available in the Downtown, fewer than 60 percent are currently being utilized on average. Pockets of higher demand areas within the Downtown Core see utilization rates over 80 percent. The consultant modeled future parking demand based on predicted business type and size. The model conservatively assumed much lower vacancy rates than exist today to account for a revitalized and vibrant Downtown.

Following completion of all planned demolition and construction improvements, the model predicts there will be sufficient supply to meet parking demands. However, during construction and following demolition of the California Street Parking Structure, there will be a tight supply of available parking, particularly in the Downtown Core area, as shown in the following chart depicting predicted supply and demand in the Downtown Core. Note the various phases relate to the timing of planned developments over the next several years with Phase III being the longer term (5-10 year) needs.

To alleviate this temporary reduction in supply, several measures have already been taken to increase supply in both the core area and throughout Downtown. Two new parking lots -will soon be available for public use adding approximately 200 spaces to the supply. These new lots include the Bell Rooms Lot (RABA owned) located just west of the Shasta/California and Tehama California intersections and the old Redding Police Building which has been demolished and will be converted into a parking lot.

Recommended Strategy
Additional Supply: To increase supply, the Strategy recommends the City consider leasing underutilized private parking lots at various identified locations Downtown. The recommendation is to add up to 200 spaces in strategic locations at least during the construction period of the next few years and review demand needs once construction is complete. The anticipated parking landscape will adapt from a large centralized lot to smaller lots dispersed throughout Downtown to meet user needs. This strategy limits overinvestment in parking facilities which can reach $30,000-$40,000 or more per stall for structures and provides Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 4
flexibility to meet fluctuating parking demands and locations. To ease the transition and inconvenience during construction, staff suggests the off-street parking supply, both owned and leased, remain free of charge until construction winds down and new parking facilities are completed. This will encourage long-term all-day parking (employees and students) in off-street lots, thereby freeing up convenient on-street spaces for business turnover. It is estimated that an additional 200 spaces can be obtained at an annual cost of $75,000-$125,000 depending on location and condition.

Replenish Broken/Missing On Street Meters: To ensure turnover of on-street spaces, a consistent enforcement strategy must be implemented for both the paid metered spaces and the unmetered timed zones. The City has roughly 230 active meters in Downtown. However, there are hundreds more locations where meters were once active but removed due to vandalism or insufficient revenue for repair/replacement parts. To be consistent throughout the on-street system, it is recommended that the City invest in replacement meters for these locations. The proposed rate will remain $0.20 per hour to be consistent with the existing mechanical meters that cannot be altered. This will also provide some interim revenue to pay back the investment and fund enforcement. An additional 200 meters is estimated to cost roughly $180,000.

Estimated meter revenue is approximately $300 per meter per year at the $0.20 per hour rate.

Marketing/Signage: With significant changes to parking location, availability, and procedures, it is important to provide a convenient forum for communication and ensure simple and clear information. Staff proposes to add wayfinding signage throughout Downtown to all off-street public parking lots (leased and owned). There is also a need to simplify the various enforcement zones for consistency and familiarity. Staff will return to the Council at a future meeting to request reducing the parking zones to two-hour time limits in most locations. Finally, the City will maintain a Downtown website with frequent updates and user friendly diagrams and information to clearly keep the public informed of various parking availability, procedures, and overall progress of Downtown developments.

Longer Term Financing: When construction of the larger projects is complete and the transition to a different parking landscape begins to settle, there will be a need to consider longer term parking sustainability. In order to provide a healthy supply, leased space, enforcement, maintenance, capital replacement reserves, administration and any equipment costs, there is a need for both ongoing and one-time revenue. There are three basic options for consideration to fund these program elements; the City’s General Fund; a user paid system that may include meters, pay stations or mobile applications; business/owner paid system through a Business Improvement District or something similar; or some combination of all three. Staff recommends the City engage the business/owner community to gauge their interest in investing in parking facilities for their customers/patrons and the associated management, maintenance and repair costs. Should the community decline investing in the system, staff will provide options for the Council’s consideration to develop a user paid system that can generate sufficient revenue to pay for the resources needed. As demonstrated in the Strategy, an estimated $400,000-$600,000 per year is needed to provide sufficient revenue for on-going operations, maintenance and repair, regardless of the payment method. User-paid options will require additional investment in collection equipment.

Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 5
Public Engagement
To ensure a comprehensive engagement for this important topic, numerous outlets and opportunities for input in developing this parking strategy were made available to the community; both formal and informal. The various formal planning efforts noted above included community workshops where parking was a topic. Staff met several times with an advisory group of Downtown property and business owners, property managers, government officials, Shasta College officials and community advocates during the preparation of the Strategy to gather input and direction. Staff also met with several individual businesses and stakeholders to seek their concerns and suggestions. In addition, a separate Public Workshop was conducted on August 26, 2019, to provide a forum for the community to consider the Strategy elements and provide feedback.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City Employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
Downtown Redding Parking Strategy (available online)
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) AUGUST 2019

DOWNTOWN

REDDING

PARKING

STRATEGY
for the
City of Redding
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) City of Redding Page 1 of 62
WDI 15061 August, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

Downtown Redding
Parking Strategy
August 2019
Submitted by Watry Design and PlaceWorks
Submitted to City of Redding
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) City of Redding

Page 2 of 62 ends

Redding City CouncilJuly 19, 2022

Redding City Council
July 19, 2022