Telstar Instruments Instrumentation Maintenance and Repair Services Water Treatment Plant A. City may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice of termination to Consultant. If such notice is given, Consultant shall cease immediately all work in progress.
B. If either Consultant or City fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either Consultant, or City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice.
C. Upon termination of this Agreement by either Consultant or City, all property belonging to City which is in Consultant’s possession shall be delivered to City. Consultant shall furnish to City a final invoice for work performed and expenses incurred by Consultant, prepared as set forth in this Agreement.
SECTION 22 – ATTORNEYS’ FEES
If litigation or other proceeding is required to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation or other proceeding shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. In addition, any legal fees, costs and expenses incurred to enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be reimbursed to the prevailing party.
SECTION 23 – ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, including the attached Exhibits, is the entire, complete, final and exclusive expression of the parties with respect to the matters addressed therein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, or entered into between Consultant and City prior to the execution of this Agreement. No statements, representations or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by any party which are not embodied herein shall be valid and binding unless in writing duly executed by the parties or their authorized representatives.
SECTION 24 – SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. However, this Agreement shall not be assigned by Consultant without written consent of the City.
SECTION 25 – CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff assigned to perform the Services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff assigned to perform the Services required under this Agreement, prior to any such performance.
SECTION 26 – DEFAULT
Agenda Item #12.4.
Telstar Instruments Instrumentation Maintenance and Repair Services Water Treatment Plant In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and may terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to Consultant.
SECTION 27 – WAIVER
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision, or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or Services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 – LAW TO GOVERN; VENUE
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the parties, venue in state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Napa. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Northern District of California, in San Francisco.
SECTION 29 – SEVERABILITY
If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is declared or determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and the Agreement shall be read and construed without the invalid, void or unenforceable provision(s).
SECTION 30 – THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Consultant’s subconsultants shall agree to be bound to the terms of the Agreement to the extent of their scope of Services, including but not limited to, terms regarding indemnity and dispute resolution, and shall agree that City is deemed an express third party beneficiary of their subconsultant agreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement, however, shall operate to confer such or similar rights or benefits on persons or entities not party to this Agreement.
SECTION 31 – STATUTES OF LIMITATION
As between the parties to this Agreement, any applicable statute of limitations for action arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to any act or failure to act in connection with this Agreement shall commence to run on the date of City’s issuance of the final Certificate for Payment, or termination of this Agreement, whichever is earlier, except for latent defects and/or deficiencies, for which the applicable statute of limitation shall begin to run upon discovery of the defect and/or deficiency and its cause.
SECTION 32 – SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Agenda Item #12.4.
Telstar Instruments Instrumentation Maintenance and Repair Services Water Treatment Plant This Agreement is subject to the following special provisions: none.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made, and executed this Agreement upon the terms, conditions, and provisions above stated, the day and year first above written.
Consultant: City:
By: ________________________________ By: ________________________ Name: ______________________________ Name: Anil Comelo
Title:________________________________ Title: City Manager Approved as to Form:
By: _________________________________
Name: Ethan Walsh
Title: City Attorney
Agenda Item #12.4.
Contractor License #422364
Contractor DIR #1000000899
CONTROL SYSTEM INTEGRATION • INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES
SCADA/AUTOMATION • PLC/HMI • ELECTRICAL • CALIBRATION • MAINTENANCE 1717 Solano Way, Unit 34, Concord, CA 94520 Phone 925-671-2888, Fax 925-671-9507 4017 Vista Park Court, Sacramento, CA 95834 Phone 916-646-1999, Fax 916-646-1096 202 South Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230 Phone 559-584-7116, Fax 559-584-8028
October 13, 2023
City of St. Helena | Public Works Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Sent via Email: [email protected]
Attn: Mike Cory
Subject: Filter Valve (Electrical work) and Programming Reference: 30-42008
Dear Mike,
Telstar Instruments (“Telstar”) is pleased to provide a quote for the referenced project to the above identified purchaser (“Customer”).
By accepting this proposal from Telstar, you agree to treat this as confidential information.
SCOPE OF SUPPLY / SERVICES –
1. Telstar will Procure and install (1) one 8 channel analog input card and install (1) one 8 channel analog output card at the Filter PLC.
2. Telstar will perform Electrical wiring for (12) valves, for 4-20mA control (AO) and 4-20mA signal feedback (AI).
3. Telstar assumes that Valves are installed by the City and Telstar will install new conduits and wire IO to the Filter PLC.
4. Telstar will re-use the existing 480V breakers for the valve power which are currently used as heaters. Heaters are not in use and close to valve location. Telstar assumes the existing breakers are compatible with the valves.
5. Telstar will perform PLC, SCADA control programming for the (12) Valves and filter backwash control.
Total lumpsum Price for this Scope......................................................................................$89,217.00 Shipping and Handling for Telstar Supplied Materials IS INCLUDED Sales Tax IS INCLUDED
Agenda Item #12.4.
Contractor License #422364
Contractor DIR #1000000899
CONTROL SYSTEM INTEGRATION • INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES
SCADA/AUTOMATION • PLC/HMI • ELECTRICAL • CALIBRATION • MAINTENANCE
CLARIFICATIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS
a. Material price is valid for seven (7) days from date referenced on this quote (Refer to COVID clause RE: MATERIAL PRICING AND DELIVERY under Terms and Conditions) b. This quotation is based on the inclusion of Telstar’s standard Terms and Conditions as part of any purchase order, contract or other agreement.
c. Telstar’s quotation includes only those items listed above. Requests for additions/deletions from our scope will require a change in the quoted price. d. Telstar assumes no responsibility for performance, applicability, compatibility, start-up, testing, or acceptance of any equipment not furnished by Telstar under this proposal. e. Telstar is supplying only equipment specified and noted above. f. Please reference the above stated quote number in all correspondence and purchase orders.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Base Terms: Quotation is valid for 30 days from the date of Telstar’s quotation. Payment is due and payable 30 days from date of invoice. If payment is not received by the 30th day, a .05% daily service charge (18-3/4% per annum) will be charged on all accounts past due. In the event of a dispute concerning payment, attorney's fees, court costs and costs of collection will be paid to the prevailing party. The cost for permits and bonding are excluded unless expressly referenced in Telstar’s quotation. Our standard insurance applies unless agreed to in writing by Telstar.
Telstar’s standard one year parts only warranty applies to this quotation. All other warranties, express or implied, or referenced elsewhere in contract documents are excluded, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for purpose. Unless expressly stated in Telstar’s estimate, this quote is based on standard straight time hours and does not include any prevailing wage rates. The price quoted herein is for the labor and materials specifically listed within the body of this quote. Service calls are charged at a 4-hour minimum per person, excluding travel time. Unless expressly stated in the quotation, training, operation and maintenance manuals, and preparation of as built drawings are excluded from Telstar’s scope of work.
Limitation of Liability: (a) In no event shall Telstar, its suppliers or subcontractors be liable for special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages, whether in contract, warranty, tort, negligence, strict liability or otherwise, including, but not limited to, loss of profits or revenue, loss of use of the Equipment or any associated equipment, cost of capital, cost of substitute equipment, facilities or services, downtime costs, delays, and claims of customers of Customer, its officers, directors, members employees or any third parties for any damages. Telstar’s liability for any claim whether in contract, warranty, tort, negligence, strict liability, or otherwise for any loss or damage arising out of, connected with, or resulting from this Agreement or the performance or breach thereof, or from the design, manufacture, sale, delivery, resale, repair, replacement, installation, technical direction of installation, inspection, operation or use of any equipment covered by or furnished under this Agreement, or from any services rendered in connection therewith, shall in no case exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the purchase price allocable to the Equipment, part or Services that is the subject of the claim. (b) All causes of action against Telstar Instruments arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the performance or breach hereof shall are deemed barred unless brought within one year from the date of discovery or other accrual. (c) In no event, regardless of cause, shall Telstar Instruments be liable for liquidated damages, offsets or penalties of any kind or to indemnify, defend or hold harmless Customer, its officers, directors, members, employees or any third party, arising from or related to the Equipment and/or Services provided by Telstar.
Force Majeure: Telstar shall neither be liable for loss, damage, detention or delay nor be deemed to be in default for failure to perform when prevented from doing so by causes beyond its reasonable control including but not limited to acts of war (declared or undeclared), Acts of God, fire, strike, labor difficulties, acts or omissions of any Agenda Item #12.4.
Contractor License #422364
Contractor DIR #1000000899
CONTROL SYSTEM INTEGRATION • INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES
SCADA/AUTOMATION • PLC/HMI • ELECTRICAL • CALIBRATION • MAINTENANCE
governmental authority or of Customer, compliance with government regulations, insurrection or riot, embargo, delays or shortages in transportation or inability to obtain necessary labor, materials, or manufacturing facilities from usual sources or from defects or delays in the performance of its suppliers or subcontractors due to any of the foregoing enumerated causes. In the event of delay due to any such cause, the date of delivery will be extended by period equal to the delay plus a reasonable time to resume production, and the price will be adjusted to compensate Telstar Instruments for such delay.
Cancellation: In the event of cancellation by Customer, Customer agrees to fully reimburse and compensate Telstar for all costs associated with this Quotation or subsequent order, including but not limited to engineering, labor, materials, quote and estimating time, and product return fees, plus a ten percent (10%) markup to compensate for disruption in scheduling, planned production, indirect costs and profit. Payment for cancellation shall be due within ten (10) days from the date of submission of charges by Telstar.
Entire Agreement: This Quotation constitutes the entire agreement between Telstar and Customer. There are no agreements, understandings, restrictions, warranties, or representations between Telstar and Customer other than those set forth herein or herein provided. This Quotation may only be amended, changed or revised by a written amendment signed by an authorized representative of Telstar. No oral or implied agreements shall be of any force or affect.
Precedence: In the event Telstar is issued an authorization for work, Purchase Order, Contract or similar Agreement with conflicting Terms and Conditions than those set forth herein, these Terms and Conditions will take precedence and will supersede any and all other conflicting Terms and Conditions.
Submittals: In the event Telstar receives a Notice to Proceed or a written statement to proceed with submittals, Telstar will be entitled to compensation based on percent of completion of submittal cost to Customer. Telstar will prepare only one set of submittals, and any resubmittals shall be subject to an additional charge for engineering time and other costs in preparing re-submittals.
Prevailing Wages: Telstar relies upon Customer’s representations as to whether this Project requires payment of prevailing wages. Customer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Telstar harmless from and against any and all claims, actions and demands, including but not limited to payment of legal fees, fines, back pay, and any penalties or interest, associated with Customer’s inaccurate representation of whether prevailing wages are required to be paid.
TELSTAR’S COVID AND INDUSTRY CLAUSE RE: MATERIAL PRICING AND DELIVERY: Telstar is unable to hold prices on materials for more than 7 days. Prices for plastic, copper, steel, and other commodities fluctuate daily. Our vendors and manufacturers are experiencing unprecedented delays due to COVID-19 staffing, a shortage of containers, port congestion, and raw material shortages that have extended lead times significantly. Telstar reserves the right to amend the delivery date and the price of materials set forth in this quotation. Telstar considers any of the above related changes imposed by our vendors and manufacturers as outside its reasonable control and subject to Force Majeure provisions.
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at the phone number below.
Sincerely,
Suresh Patil
SCADA Manager
Telstar Instruments
(916)-275-3331.
Agenda Item #12.4.
QUOTE NO. :
DATE :
CUSTOMER ID :
LEAD TIME :
TO:
SHIPPING
TERMS
FREIGHT
TERMS
PAYMENT
TERMS Expires
FOB: Factory Pre Pay & Add Net 30 30 days
ITEM # QTY SIZE UNIT PRICE LINE TOTAL
01 3 10.00 $5,360.00 $16,080.00
02 2 14.00 $5,519.00 $11,038.00
03 3 16.00 $5,663.00 $16,989.00
04 3 20.00 $6,514.00 $19,542.00
05 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Raymond Rodriguez TOTAL = $65,149.00
Manufacturers Representatives QUOTE
14081 Yorba Street #109
Southwest Valve
20-22wks ARO
R03-0923-3
Tustin, Ca. 92675 March 9, 2023
[email protected]
Ph. 714-832-1090 F 714-832-1091
City of St. Helena
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
This is a quotation on the goods named, subject to the conditions noted below:
Quotation prepared by:
***PO to Southwest Valve & Equipment***
Adaption components for valves noted above
Butterfly Valve; Op Time 61 seconds; Modulating
DESCRIPTION
Op Time: 50 seconds; Modulating
AUMA EMO with worm gear actuator for existing Pratt 150B Butterfly Valve; Op Time 59 seconds; Modulating
Butterfly Valve; Op Time 58 seconds; Modulating
AUMA EMO with worm gear actuator for existing Pratt 150B AUMA EMO with worm gear actuator for existing Pratt 150B JOB
EMO's for Various Butterfly Valves
AUMA EMO for existing Pratt 150B Butterfly Valve
Agenda Item #12.4.
1. Unless stated otherwise, the terms and conditions of the manufacturers listed herein will apply to this quotation
2. All items listed are based on Southwest Valve's interpretation of the requirements in accordance with the plans and specifications. No warranty is made regarding quantities, materials of construction or type of materials quoted.
3. Shipping dates are approximate and are based on dates provided by the manufacturers at time of bid
4. Any materials not specifically quoted are to be supplied by others.
5. Operation, Installation and Maintenance of materials quoted are the responsibility of the owner or contractor Unless specified otherwise, all actuators will be mounted in the manufacturers facility. Orientation of the actuators in the responsibility of the owner, contractor or client prior to release of material for fabrication.
6. Unless stated otherwise, start-up and training are not included.
7. Unless stated otherwise, sales tax, freight, fees or duties are not included
8. Any attachments or listed documents are considered a part of this quotation
9. We retain the right to modify this quote if any changes are made to the plans and/or specifications. Where materials listed in this quotation differ from the specifications we retain the right to offer a revised quotation.
Southwest Valve Terms and Conditions of Quotation
Agenda Item #12.4.
AUMA Actuators, Inc. • Suite B •15012 Red Hill Ave. • Tustin, CA 92780 USA Phone: +1 714-247-1250 • Fax: +1 714-247-1255 • www.auma-usa.com Lido Flores
Southwestern Regional
Manager
15012 Red Hill Ave Suite B
Tustin, CA 92780
Phone: (714) 247-1250
FAX: (714) 247-1255
Cell: 714-318-8596
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 10/31/2023
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to confirm that Southwest Valve LLC, located in Fresno CA is the exclusive representative of AUMA Actuators in CA and Western NV for the Municipal Markets. Southwest Valve is authorized to sell AUMA products within their specific territory. There are no other representatives authorized by AUMA to sell AUMA actuators directly into Northern CA and Western NV for the above-mentioned markets. All correspondence, including purchase orders should be sent to:
Southwest Valve, LLC
402 W. Bedford, #111
Fresno, CA 93711
Phone: 559.261.2703
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should additional information be required.
Best Regards,
Lido Flores
AUMA Southwest Regional Manager
Agenda Item #12.4.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: November 28, 2023
FROM: Lesley Milton, Asst. to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: FY 2019- 017 in the amount of $532,466 with HydroScience Engineers for services to fulfill CIP Project No. S-52 Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant Project for a total not-toexceed amount of $2,020,396 and approve updated budget for CIP Project S-52 reallocating funds from budgeted
Contingency funds into Design and Construction
Management accounts and not increasing the total cost of the project.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Approval of Amendment #3 and updated CIP Budget.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
On April 9, 2019, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement STH
Contract: FY 2019-017 in the amount of $440,000 with
HydroScience Engineers to perform select engineering
services, facilitate the procurement of a design-build team, and ensure that the design of the WWTRP Project
improvements are constructed in a manner and cost that
meets the City of St. Helena's needs and budget in response to San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R2-2016-004.
The following amendments have been authorized for this
project:
Amendment #1 - March 23, 2020 in the amount of
$255,380 for a total not-to-exceed amount of
$695,380
Amendment #2 - March 23, 2021 in the amount of
$792,550 for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,487,930
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
Approval of Amendment #3 to continue work on the CIP
Project S-52 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The adopted FY 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Program
budget for CIP S-52 has a total project cost of $18,815,827 Agenda Item #12.6.
(Attachment B).
Contract approvals are as listed below:
Contract
Number
Approval
Date
Contract
Value
Total NotTo-Exceed
$
ST 2019-77 4/9/2019 $440,000 $440,000
ST 2019-77
A1 3/23/2020 $255,380 $695,380
ST 2019-77
A2 3/23/2021 $792,550 $1,487,930
Proposed Amendment #3:
Contract
Number
Approval
Date
Contract
Value
Total Not-ToExceed $
ST 2019-77
A3 11/28/23 $532,466 $2,020,396
The above includes the following breakdown:
Task 1: Engineering services During
Construction $124,800
Task 2: Construction Management/Inspection $359,260
Contingency (10%) $48,408
Amendment Number 3 Total: $532,466
*This amendment includes expenditures that have been
incurred from July to November 2023 exceeding the
Amendment #2 not-to-exceed contract amount. Staff
authorized the continuation of work to keep the project on schedule until an amendment could be approved. The above amendment includes the incurred, but unpaid costs incurred to date.
The requested action would not increase the project budget, instead staff is requesting modification of the CIP budget to transfer the above requested amounts from the project
budgeted Contingency account 3170 into Design account
3110 and Construction Management account 3150.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Helena (City) owns and operates a Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant (WWTRP) located at 1 Chaix Lane. The WWTRP and its discharge Agenda Item #12.6.
are permitted through the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB)
The City has a Water Reclamation Requirements (WRR) Order No. 87-090 to regulate effluent Discharge Pollutant updated recently National and land to discharge a Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R2-2016-0003 to regulate discharge to the Napa River. The 2016 NPDES permit contains more stringent effluent limits for biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), which the WWTRP anticipates it will have difficulty meeting based on historical testing.
As a result, the SFBRWQCB issued a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. R2- 20160004 to the City, which mandated the WWTRP to comply with the specified interim BOD and TSS effluent limits, and to perform a Feasibility Study to evaluate and/or identify modifications to the WWTRP that would meet the new effluent limits. The SFBRWQCB issued 2018, schedule a outlining 11, for on Schedule Compliance a January compliance with the CDO.
The City entered into a Contract to have GHD prepare the Feasibility Study on May 9, 2016. The Feasibility Study was prepared by GHD and a Final Draft Feasibility Study was delivered to the SFBRWQCB on June 1, 2018, as required by the Compliance Schedule. The SFBRWQCB accepted the Feasibility Study in a letter dated July 31, 2018, and agrees with the City’s approach to the Phase I WWTRP Improvements Project. (CIP S-52)
On April 9, 2019, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: FY 2019-017 in the amount of $440,000 with HydroScienceEngineers to performselect engineering services, facilitate the procurement of a design-build team, and ensure that the design of the WWTRP Project improvements are constructed in a manner and cost that meets the City of St. Helena's needs and budget in response to San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R2-2016-004.
On March 23, 2020, City Council authorized Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $255,380 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $695,380. The amended scope of work covered the additional work associated with the detailed design of the WWTRP improvements recommended in the Conceptual Design Report as well as reductions to the original scope that were no longer necessary with the revised approach.
On March 23, 2021 City Council authorized Amendment Number 2 in the amount of $792.550 for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,487,930 adding both engineering services during the bidding and construction phases and providing construction management and inspection services for CIP S-52.
DISCUSSION:
Project Delays
Agenda Item #12.6.
Unanticipated schedule impacts have made it necessary to request additional time to construct the Package MBR. Delays in procuring electrical equipment, delays associated with wet weather, and delay associated with pouring the MBR pad, a critical path item all have contributed to the schedule amendment. To carry out the project through the current anticipated demonstration, testing, and completion date of approximately April 2024, it is expected that engineering and construction management/inspection services will need to be provided for an additional ten months past the original construction schedule.
Amendment #3
The proposed tasks for Amendment No. 3 are detailed in Exhibit G but are split between the following two tasks:
Task 1: Engineering Services During Construction - HydroScience will support the city during the construction phases of the project to include attending construction meetings, up to eight site visits, review and comment on submittals, review of Requests for Information and review of any requested change orders.
Task 2: Construction Management and Inspection Services - Provide one on-site construction manager/inspector (CMI) to operate as the central coordination role with all parties; CMI will document all transmittals, submittals, change orders, inspection reports and clarifications; prepare contract change orders; log and track progress payment requests and review for payment recommendations; evaluate critical path items and impacts to schedule; provide progress reports, and verify compliance with water quality permits.
HydroScience has demonstrated they have the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience and have been working with the City to plan, design, and support the permitting and funding of the project. In order to keep the WWTRP project moving forward to construction completion and permit compliance, this amendment is necessary due to the lack of internal staff capacity to provide these services to the level required for such a large scale and critically important community project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not a CEQA project.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Draft Resolution Hydroscience Amendment #3 Attachment B Capital Improvement Project S-52
Attachment C STH FY2019-077 HydroScience Engineers Contract Attachment D STH FY2019-077-01A Hydroscience Engineers Contract Amendment #1 Attachment E STH FY2019-077-02A Hydroscience Engineers Contract Amendment #2 Attachment F Draft Amendment 3 Hyrdoscience Engineers Contract Agenda Item #12.6.
Attachment G Draft Amendment 3 Hydroscience Engineers - Exhibit A Agenda Item #12.6.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.
HELENA AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT STH CONTRACT:
FY 2019-017 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $532,466 WITH
HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS
FOR SERVICES TO FULFILL
CIP PROJECT NO. S-52
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
AND RECLAMATION PLANT
PROJECT FOR A TOTAL NOTTO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF
$2,020,396 2) AUTHORIZE THE
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM
WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE
ACCOUNT FUND TO 773-5059-
3150 AND 3) AND APPROVE
UPDATED BUDGET FOR CIP
PROJECT S-52
RECITALS
1. On April 9, 2019 the City and Consultant
entered into the Agreement for Consultant
to provide professional design services in
connection with the project described as
CIP Project No. S-52 Phase I Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation Plant
Upgrades; and
2. The Agreement's Scope of Services did not
include the funds or the additional work
needed to allow HydroScience Engineers to
complete final design plans and bid
Agenda Item #12.6.
documents in order to advertise and bid the
project; and
3. On March 23, 2020, City Council authorized
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services
Agreement STH Contract: FY 2019-017 in
the amount of $255,380 for a total not-toexceed amount of $695,380; and
4. On February 23, 2021, City Council
adopted the IS/MND and the MMRP, and
approved the plans and specifications
authorizing the Public Works Director/City
Engineer to advertise the Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation Plant Phase I
Upgrades, CIP Project No. S-52; and The
current Scope of Services does not include
the funds or the additional work for
HydroScience to provide engineering
services during the bidding and
construction phases as well as construction
management and inspection services; and
5. On March 23, 2021 City Council authorized
Amendment Number 2 in the amount of
$792.550 for a not-to-exceed amount of
$1,487,930 adding both engineering
services during the bidding and
construction phases and providing
construction management and inspection
services for CIP S-52.
6. Unanticipated schedule impacts have made
it necessary to request additional time to
construct the Package MBR. Delays in
procuring electrical equipment, delays
associated with wet weather, and delay
associated with pouring the MBR pad, a
critical path item all have contributed to the
schedule amendment.
7. To carry out the project through the current
anticipated demonstration, testing, and
completion date of approximately April
2024, engineering and construction
Agenda Item #12.6.
management/inspection services will need
to be provided for an additional ten months
past the original construction schedule.
8. The additional funding is necessary to allow
HydroScience Engineers to provide
continued consulting services to the City.
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the
City of St. Helena resolves as follows:
1. Authorization to execute an amendment
#3 to Contract STH 2019-17 for
$532,466 and a not to exceed amount of
$2,020,396 and
2. Authorize a transfer of $124,800 from
the Contingency Account 773-5059-
3170 to 773-5059-3110 Design account;
and
3. Authorize a transfer of $359,260 from
the Contingency Account 773-5059-
3170 to 773-5059-3150 Construction
Management; and
4. Update CIP Project Budget S-52 WWTP
Phase 1 Upgrades to include the
reallocation of funds from Contingency
to Design and Construction
Management.
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St.
Helena City Council on November 28, 2023, by
the following vote:
Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Lester Hardy: _____
Agenda Item #12.6.
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________
________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy
Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #12.6.
WWTP Phase 1 Upgrades
Category:
Project 1 Chaix Ln
Wastewater
Project No: S-52
Location:
Responsible
Department:
2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2027-28
PROJECT
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
(Thousands of Dollars)
2026-27
Total YTD
05/16/23
3110 - Design 1,902,087 1,902,087
3120 - Environmental/Planning 111,850 111,850
3140 - Legal Services 85,000 85,000
3150 - Construction Management 538,254 354,011 892,265
3160 - Construction Contract 2,188,138
14,335,766
12,147,628
3170 - Contingency 1,488,859 1,488,859
EXPENDITURE TOTALS 14,784,819 4,031,008 18,815,827
FUNDING SOURCES
101-General Fund Interfund Loan 0
571-Wastewater Cash Operations Fund
Balance
2,684,114 2,684,114
740-Traffic Impact Fees Fund Loan 873,610 873,610
773-Wastewater Capital Improvement 3,630,905 1,540,196 5,171,101 773-Wastewater Capital Improvement -
Debt
8,022,725 1,340,200 9,362,925
774-Wastewater Impact Fees 724,077 724,077
FUNDING TOTALS 15,061,821 3,754,006 18,815,827
PROJECT PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION: Per the State Cease and Desist Order, upgrade the plant to meet compliance requirements by 2021. In addition, to compliance requirements, levee repairs and sludge removal will be incorporated into construction of this project.
Merged into S-52: S-53, S-62, S-66, S18-79.
NOTES: Resolution 2019-40 - PSA with HydroScience for $440,000 for Owner`s Representative of the WWTRP project
Resolution 2020-28 - Amendment #1 with HydroScience for $255,380 for a not-to-exceed amount of $695,380 Additional costs for Legal Services includes Private Placement Debt Issuance FY24 - includes projected balance for project completion in late'23/early'24.
EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS:
Fund: 773 Dept: 5059
58 Agenda Item #12.6.
B. Co
ns
ult
ant
shall furnish invoice City all original for antowork performe and expenses incurredthe month. The invoice shall preceding detail the charges byfollowing categories if ap
pli
ca
bl
e:
labor (by sub-category), travel, equipment, materials, supplies, subconsultant co
ntr
act
s,
and miscellaneo Each original invoice furnished expenses. shall us include the expen
ses
inc the during preceding cumulative month, Agreement amount, urr
of2l Page 1ed
Cons
ultant
shall befor sevices compensated rendered not any connection ints with performance thiat addition Agreem outside are inof those or toforth this set in ent s Agreement Exof unless such “Scope additional A, Services”, services and hib
it compensatio
n
authnddvance the byawriting inCouncil City ofr Manager
rorize
ed
the City.
AGRE PROFESSIONAL FOR SERVICES
EMEN
T THIS qA9)? Iinto made and etered ,onad 2019 byetween the City of St. H
el
en
a,
the locat of State inCounty Napa, Clifornia and (City), HydroScience ed Engineers (
Co
ns
ult
ant
).
A. limitations this Sub forth toinset Agreement, any City toagrees pay ject consultant Exhibit speci?ed amo inttached hereto and made “Compensation” B, apart unt hereof. To
tal
shall exceed unless coadditional not $440,000, iscompensation mp
ens
atio
n
approve i awith Section 2.
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
A. Cit
y
dConsultant employ furnish toprofessional services connection with inthe e
s
ir
e
s
project Phase and Wastewater Treatment IReclamation Plant asUpggade Conceptual Desigr_
1 OwRepresentati
ner’ v.
s
B. has that Consultant the represented expertise, and necessary experience, quali
?cati
ons
the duties. required perform to
mutual consideration the of inTHEREF Npremises, and conditions covenants, ORE, herei
n
the follows: parties ascgree
o
n
ta
i
n
e
d
,
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—4COMPENSA IVIETHOD OF AND PAYMENT
TION
the Cforth sevices Exhibit toperfonn inagrees set of Services” A, “Scope o
ns
ul
ta
nt
and this of Agreement. part
Thtime for ofsevices becompletion shall identi?ed asinExhibit of A, “Scope e Serv
ices
”. S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—3FOR TIME COMPLETION S
E
C
TI
O
N
—ADDITIONA 2SERVICES
L
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—1BASIC SERVICES
S
T
H
C2019-O77 FY
O
N
T
R
A
C
T:
H
yd
Io
Sc
ienc
e
Phase 1Design WWTRP Conceptual
R
E
C
I
T Agenda Item #12.6.
and the amount remaining on tAgre shall City independently review each invoice eme
nt.
submitted to determine wheth
er
thWork and performed incurred expenses are compliance in e with the provisions of this Ag
ree
me
nt.
Ifcharges noor expenses are the disputed, invoice shall be approved, and City will us
e
best iefforts tocause Consultant bepaid toWthin 30days of t
s
receipt of invoice. If the City charges any or theriginal City expenses, will the return invoice to Consultant for corr
ecti
on
and the resubmissi IfCity reasonably ints determines,
on. sole judgment, that the inv
oice
d
charg and the exceedpnses value ofservices
es performed to date and that it i
s
thate Agreement bewill completed not saisfactorily
Within the contract price, City retain all ofr aportion the invoiced charges and expenses.
Within thirty (30) days of sa
ti
sf
ac
to
ry
of the completio project, shall City retained pay
n amount, if any, to Consultant.
City may insp
ect
and or reject of accept Consultant’s any work under this Agreement, either during perform
ance
when or completed. City shall reject ?nally orConsultant’s accept Work within sixty (60
)
dafter submitted City, unless tohe parties muually extend agre to a
y
s
such deadline. City sreje work byatimely written explanation, otherwise Consultant’s ct work shall be deeme
d
hav been taccepted. City’s shall beconclusive acceptance such asto oe work except with resp
ect
latent defects toand fraud. Acceptance of any Consu1tant’s work by City shall not constit
ute
of Wai aof the any provisions this Agreement including, but not ver limited to, the section
s
indemni?catio toand insurance.
n
Consultant and that has the itWarrants quali?cations, experience and facilities necessary to prop
erly
the perf services required under this Agreement inthorough, a orm competent and pro
fess
ion
al
shall manner. Consultant allt times faithfully, competently and to the best of its abili
ty,
and exll perform talent, services described herein. Inmeeting its pe
rie
nc
e
obligations under tAgr Consultant shall employ, atminimum, generally accepted ee
me
nt,
standards and pra
ctic
es
utilize byengaged inpersons providing services similar thoseo d required of Consult
ant
unthis Agreement.
der
Co
nsu
lta
nt
shall and maintain the for procure duration of the insurance contract against claims for todamages or which persons arise poperty from may inor connection with the perfor
mance
the of work hereunder byitsConsultant, agents, representatives, or employees
, ind a
sicat
ed:
A. Minimum Sco
pe
of Insur shall Coverage beleast at broad as:
ance. 1. Insurance Of?ce Commercial General Liability (occurrence coverage form CG 0
0 0
1 )
.
2. Insurance Of?ce form number CA0001 (Ed. 1/87) Automobile covering Liability, (any 1auto).
of21 Page 2
the Payment Consultant tofor work performed thisoAgreement shall pursuant not b
e
dWaive todefects Work inany performed byConsultant.
e
e S
E
C
TI
O
N
—6INSPECTIO AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE
N
S
E
C
TI
O
N
—5STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE S
E
C
TI
O
N
—7INSURANC REQUIRED
E
H
y
d
1: oS
ci en
ce
Phase 1WWTRP Design Conceptual
Agenda Item #12.6.
G. Other Insurance Provisions. cogeneral liability andutomobile mm
erci
al
policies are to contain, or be endorsed tothe following provisions:
1. The City, its agent, of?ce
rs,
employees, and of volunteers becovered are to
?ci
als
,
as additional insured asliability arising rofut work orperations e
s
p
e
c
t
s
:
performed by the Con
sult
ant
orConsultant’ automobile subconsultants;
s owned, leased, hired or b
o
r
r
o
bythe Consultant.
2. For any claims related toconduct while performing the work of this project, the Consultant
’s
inshall becoverage primary insurance as
su
ra
nc
e
respects the City, its ag
en
ts,
of?ce employees and of?cials, volunteers. Any
rs, insurance or selfinsurance
ma the byits City, agents, of?cers, of?cials,
int
ain
ed
employees or volunteerssbeof excess the Consu1tant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Each insurance policy bythis clause shall beendorsed thatostate coverage shall not be ca
nc
ell
ed
byeither afer party, thirty (30) except days prior
B. Minimum Limits of Insu
ranc
e.
Consu shall maintain limitsess than: no
ltant 1.
3. General Liability
:
$for occurrence bodily per injury, personal injury
3 ,0
0 0
,0
0 0
and property damag
e
ioperations, and products completed operations, as
applicable. If Com
merc
ial
General Liability Insurance other form or with a
General Liability In
su
ra
nc
e
otherr form with general alimit isaggregate used,
either the general ag
gr
eg
at
e
limit shall apply separately this proj toect/location or the general aggregate shall lbetwicehe required occurrence limit. i
' Automobile Lia
bilit
y:
accident $3, for bodily per and injury property
000,
000 damage.
Employer’s Liab
ility
:
accident for $3, bodily per injury disease. or
000,
000
C. Liability Insurance. When Consultant under this Agreement isduly licensed u
n
d
er
Cali and Business Professions Code asnlandscape architect, forni
a
environme
ntal
eng otherr pofessional engineer, land orsurveyor (“design professional”), ine er
Consultant maint lest at of professional liability $2,000,000 insurance. ain
E. Pr
i
m
a
g
Cover For claims related any thisoe contract Consultants insurance age. coverage sha
ll
bprim insurance asits City, torespects employees of?cers, and of?cials, eary volunteers. insur self-insurance ormaintained bythe City, its of?cers, of?cials, ance employees, o
r
shall beof excess Conultants insurance and shall contribute not with it.
D. Limits. IfConsultant maintains higher limits thane minimums shown above, Cit
y
and shall bereentitled for tohe coverage higher limits maintained by q
ui
re
s
Consultant
. Aavailabl insurance proceeds inof the excess speci?ed minimum limits of ne
y
insurance shall beavailable the cov City. to
era
ge
Dedu and F. Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles self-insured or ctible
s
reten
tions
of bedclared or $25,000 must and greater toapproved bythe City.
3. insurance Compen asthe byrequired of State California and sation Liability Insurance.
H
yd
roSc
ienc
e
Phase 1Design WWTRP Conceptual
P
ag
e
3of21
Agenda Item #12.6.
A. To the fullest exten
t
al bylawwithout (including limitation California Civil
lo
w
ed
Code Sections 2782 and 278
2.8),
beasConsultant applicable, shall may and hold indemnify harmless City, its agents, of?c
ers,
employees, and of? volunteers from allny caims,
cial
s,
demands, suits, loss, damages,and/or iliability (including andlly costs expenses in connection therewith) (
coll
ecti
vely
,
“incurred byof reason negligent any or
Liabilitie
s”),
otherwise wrongful act or of itsConsultant, and employees officers, agents, subcontractors, or any of the
m,
uninconnection this or wth Agreement; and Consultant
de
r
agrees at its own cost, expense risk defend allnd toay other claims, actions, legal suits, or proceedings brought or instit
uted
again City, its and of?cers, agents, employees of?cials, st Volunteers, or any of them, ar
isi
ng
such of negligent outtherwise or wrongful act omission, and to pay and satisfy any resu
ltin
g
judg
ment
s.
J. Veri?cat
ion
ofshall Consultant Covera furnish the with Cy certi?cates original ge. and amendatory e
n
d
o
r
s
e
effecting this byrequired clause. The coverage endorsements should be on form
s
the pbyat City forms ornconform City torequirements. All r
o
v
i
d
e
d
certi?cates and e
n
d
o
rs
e
bereceived andre tobyhe approved before City work
commences. The the righteser tocerti?ed require complete, all of copies required ves insurance policie
s,
inendorsements affecting these byrequired coverage
cl
ud
in
g
speci?cations at an
y
ti
H. Waiv
er
of Subrog Consu1tant’s commercial general liability, automobile ation. liability, worker
s’
and coliability employer’s shall bepolicies endorsed with a m
pe
ns
ati
on
,
waiver of subro
gation
. The insurance itsncompany, waive all rights endorsement, toof agrees subrogation aga
inst
the its City, of?cers, andgents, employees volunteers for of?cials, losses paid under the t
e
r
this of which policy arises from the work byperfonned named insured for the City.
B. W
he
n
under Con this Agreement isduly licensed under California Business sult
ant
and Professio
ns
Casnlandscape architect, architect, professional land engineer, orsurveyor od
e
(“design prof
essi
onal
”),
the of provisions this section regarding Consu1tant’s dutyefend and to indemnify ap
pl
y
claims tht onl arise of relate tohe orut negligence, torecklessness, or y willful misco
nduct
of the design professional.
C. If an
y
acisproceeding brought or against Indemnitees the byof reason any ti
o
n
matters against Consult has agreed indmnify toIndemnitees asprovided above, ant Consultant, upo
n
from nCity, shall defend Indemnitees Consu1tant’s at counsel byexpense ot
ic
e
acceptable to C
it
y,
suc benot unreasonably withheld. toacceptan Indemnitees need have not ceh
of21 Page 4
Written n
ot
ic
e
certi?ed byreturn has receipt been mail, requested, given theo City.
Coverage extend not indemnity for tohe activeny negligence of coverage the additi
onal
insu Where case any the indemnify toadditional agreement red insured beinvalid under Subsection (b) of Section the 2782 Civilode.
The of Acceptabi Insurers. beI.nsurance iswith toplaced insurers acurrent lity A.M.of less than rating nounless othrwise A: VII, the acceptable City. to S
E
C
TI
O
N
—8INDEMNIFI
CATION
H
y
dr osci en
ce
Phase Design 1WWTRP Conceptual
Agenda Item #12.6.
A. Consult
ant
that neiher of?cer has of its nor ?rm, it, principal or cov any ena
nts
shall acquire any i con?ict whichould the directly indirectly, with or inmanner any interests of City or hinder would Cnsultant’s under ofservices inany performance way this Agreement. C
o
n
s
ul
ta
nt
thate furher of this incovenants Agreement, performance no person having any beemployed shall byinteres itasnemployee, orfficer, agent, t subcontractor with
out
of the written Cityonsultant consent Manager. toatgrees exprs all times avoid con?
icts
the interests theis wth of inCity performance Agreement.
B. The per
son
nel
the under this services of perfor bhalf Consultant Agreement on ming shall at all times b
e
direction exclusive uand control. Neither Consulta any City, nor nt’s
d
e
r
elected or appointe
d
shall employees of have control orf?cers, of?cials, City, bagents o
a
r
d
s,
over the conduct o
f
Consultant’s of any?cers, employees or asgents, except
set forth in this A
gr
ee
m
en
t.
shall time Consultant that not anyt inor manner represent Consultant or any employees Co inof?cers, or ae manner officials, agentsny nsu
lta
nt’
s
of?cers, employee
s
of City. age
nts
A. C
on
su
lta
nt
andll shall times remain isand Wholly independent ant contractor not of?cer, empl
oyee
have shall of bind Consultant authority City. inor nomanner toanygent or to incur a
n
debt of kind behalf oliability whether onagainst byCity, or any b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
contract or o
t
h
e
r
unless such isconferred under this authority expressly isAgreement or otherwise ex
pre
ssl
y
byconfer writing City. in
red
?rst paid for Indemnitees the which enttled Indemni?cation orderf are intomatters to be so indem
ni?ed.
The berequired maintained insurance byshall Consultant toensure Consultant’s this but the under limits suchhall ofsection, insurance the limit not liability of C
o
ns
ul
ta
nt
The hereunde this of the section shallurvive provisions expiration or r. earlier termin
ation
this of Agreement.
E. shall Each the other immediately notify inof writing toCoopera party te. any claim related activities services under this The daor Agreement. toperformed ma
ge
parties sh
all
the each other and ofll with Liabilities investigation indisposition co op
era
te
arising out under thise activiti services Agreement. or es
B. that and u Consultant of the execution acknowledges date asis, erst
and
s
this Agree
ment,
involved the non-related otherfservices for inde perfonnance pend
ently government
al
isand Consultant ofstated agCityware position private parties. any en
5of Page 21ci
es
C. of Consultant’s shall officers, employees nor orConsulta anygents, nt, obtain any other health bne?ts which oterwise care any orccrue toretiremen tomay t, City’s em
plo
yee
s.
waives claim have such Consulta Consultant expressly any tomay nt rights. SEC
TIO
N
—OF INTEREST ANTI-FRAUD 10CONFLICT ANDTIS COR
RUP
TIO
N
POLICIES
doThe of this section claims the apply occurring result astoDnot extent provisions . of th
e
active willful sole negligence, misconduct. negligence, or acts S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—CONTRACTOR 9STATUS INDEPEND
ENT
H
yd
ro
sc
ienc
e
Phase Design Conceptual 1WWTRP
Agenda Item #12.6.
C. Consultant understan
ds
anCityckno maintains andti-fraud antidwledge
s
corruption policy to protect the C
it
y,
its and employees operat from ?nancial against
ions, risks, operational breaches, and u
n
e
t
h
i
c
a
l,
and fraudule activities. Consultant corrupt represents
nt and Warrants that Consultant, sub /consultant(s) and their respective con
trac
tor
(s)
employees providing services pu
rsu
ant
the (1) Agreement toare ingood have (2) standing; not
been previously investigated, co
nvi
cte
d,
debarred forraudulent or (3) will activities; corrupt
not participate in fraudulent or and (4) take activitie will that its ensure tosteps s, employees and subcontractor(s) / doemployees fraudulent not participate inany or corrupt activities. Consultant and further that has and itgrees duty atowill report to City any information about inc possible fraudulent activities or corrupt ide
nt
(s)
Consultant may discover, and wi
ll
?aud inor corruption investigation any conducted,
o
o
p
er
at
e
with respect to Consultant’s serv
ice
this pr Agreement. topursuant
ov
id
ed
B. All copyrights, pate
nts,
trade other intellectual or rights associated secrets, property with any ideas, concepts, tech
niqu
es,
inventi developments, improvements, processes, Works
ons, of authorship, or other prod
ucts
created deve byorConsultant the during of course
lope
d
providing services (
collectively
t“shall Product”) belong exclusively The City. Work to
Wor h
ke
Product shall be considered a for hie” made within the Title of meaning the United 17 States Code. Without reservati
on,
Consultant limor hereby condition, the assigns, time at itat
ion
, of creation of the Work Prod
ucts,
wit of further requirement any exclusively consideration, hou
t
and perpetually, any and all r
i
g
h
t,
and interest Consultant have theitle, Work inProduct may throughout the world, includin
g
limitation copyrights, trade any otherr patents, secrets, intellectual property rights, al
l
of all rightseproducti derivative toand create works,
ion, the right to secure registrations
, and extensions thereof. reissues,
e
n
e
A. All orig
inal
designs, drawings, photographs, models, map studies, surveys, reports, s, data, notes, compu
ter
?les and other documents ?le prepared, discovered developed byor s, Consultant in the c
o
u
r
s
e
of providin services this any Agreement toshall become the pursuant g sole property of C
it
y
anbereused otherwise of may used, or disposed bywithout the City d permission of the When butylater than City, requested three noafter project years completion, Consu
ltant
shall deliver all such City original todesigns, drawings, models, maps, photographs, studi
es,
?les and other sudata,ocuments. ?les, reports, notes, cmputer rv
ey
s,
A. Al
l
iwork product gained produced orConsultant byof inperformance n
f
o
r
this Agreeme
nt
shbeconsidered unless such information the con?dential, ispublic indomain al
l
or already kn
ow
n
Consultant shall release todisclose or not such information any tant. work roduct than entities othe trCity without Written authorization priorer the from son
s
City Manager
, law. bemayyasrequired e
x
c
e
p
t
SEC
TIO
N
—12CONFIDE RELEASE OF INFORIVIATION;
NTIAL INF
OR
MA
TIO
N
relati
ve
future sch projects. ofsuch Any toposition onCity projects shall considered benot a con?i
ct
for of intere this ofsection. purposes
st
SE
C
TI
O
N
-OWNERSHIP 11OF DOCUIVIENTS
H
y
dr osci en
ce
Phase Design 1Conceptual WWTRP
P
a
g
e
of21 6 Agenda Item #12.6.
D. Consultant s
h
al
l
its pro shuld notify City employees, of?cers, Consultant, mpt
ly
agents or subcontracto
rs
beserved with noice ofsubpoena, complaint, any summons, deposition, request for for admissions other interrogator discovery or request ies, request, court order or this from and the Agreement regarding work any party performed thereunder. but ret the has right, obligation, Consultant betonoor represent ain
s
present at any depositio
n,
similar Consultant proceeding. hfully or toagrees cooperate e
ar
in
g
with City and to providethe with review opportunity discovery any toresponse requests provided by Consultant. this such review does right imply toany or mean not response the right by City to contr
ol,
rewrite such dir or response.
ect
,
A. Egua
l
the connection execution this wth of Opportunity. InAgreement, Consultant shall disc employee because against of for anypplicant employment or rimi
nate
race, religion, sexual gender, and gender identity gender orientation, age,ncest ry, expression as and speci?cally that categorie expressively inphysical category, s handicap, medic
al
marital national Such shall actions origin. cinclude, sex,tatus, o
n
di
ti
o
n,
but not be limit
ed
the following promotion, upgrading, employment, or demotion, transfer; to, :
Consulta
nt
shitselfnformed of andll comply with and keep applicable federal, state al
l
local laws, statu
tes,
rules and effect regulations thise of during inordinances, term cod es, Agreement. Co
nsu
lta
nt
shall obtain allnduthorizations permits toany licenses, necessary perform the ser
vic
es
forth this Neither elected inAgreement. City, appointed nor set or any boards, of?cers, shall beof lawemployee City, or equity, at inor asliable, agents s result of any fail
ure
this of Consu with section. comply to
ltant
B. Cons
ultan
t,
shall without its employees, or pior of?cers, subcontractors, agents not, written authoriz
ation
the unless byfrom of Manager Attorney City or requested City, voluntarily pro
vid
e
letters of testimony at depositions, decl toresponse support, arati
ons,
interrogatories the work under this ot informat concerning Agreement. perfonned heion
r
Response to a s
u
b
p
o
e
n
a
order shall beconsidered “voluntary” consultant or povided not curt gives City notic
e
order sucbpoena. court or
h
C. ofsubcontractor employee, any orCof?cer, Consultant, agent ns
ult
ant
,
provides a
n
y
then Work Violation this shall inf of have Agreement, City inor product or
m
ati
on
the right t and fromor reindemnity Consultant and damages, costs any fees, i
m
b
u
rs
e
m
e
nt
including caused incurred result of Consu1tant’s conduct. asbyfees, aor City written notice bydays further (10) byany time, at ten suspend performance Consultant.shall theime extend schedule for suspe performance mutually ina nsion
s
satisfactor
y
and befor sevices paid Consultant shall and reimbursable performed expenses i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
the date. toprior suspension
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—15COMPLIANC CIVIL RGHTS WITH
E
S
E
C
TI
O
N
—COMPLIANC WITH 14LAW
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—13SUSPENSION OF WORK D
ur
in
g
theis of Consultant follows: perform asgrees contract,
ance
H
yd
ro
sc
ienc
e
Design Phase 1Conceptual WWTRP
P
a
g
e
of21 7 Agenda Item #12.6.
C. S
ol
ici
tat
io
ns
for Subcontractors including of and Procurement Materials Eguipment.
In all solicita
tions,
eithe bycompetitive bidding mae negotiations, byorConsultant for work to r be performedaof including materials leases subcontr or pocurement equipment, act, each potentia
l
lessor shallupplier, benoti?ed sorConsultant byofConsultant’s u
b
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r,
obligations u
n
d
er
this and the Agreem relative regulations nondiscrimination. to ent
Alland inform data, existing records, asre reports, available maps to ation, City as pu
bl
ic
and which for reco are the carrying Work necessary oututlined the asin rds, Exhibit A,ofshall beSrvices”, furnished Consultant toinreasonable every toway facilitate, undue delay, the work beunder this performed toAgreement. recruitment readvertising; layoff oftherr forms rate termination; of pay cr
ui
t
m
en
t
compensatio
n;
aselect for training including apprenticeship.
nion
d B. N
o
n
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
io
n
Civil Rghts Act 1964. of Consultant willth all comply federal regulations r
e
l
a
ti
v
e
nondiscr tofederally-assisted toprograms.
iminatio
n
A. of Consu1tant’s direct labor and payroll reimbursable costs, expenses pertaining this project covered this byAgreement beWill kpt generally aonrecognized accountin
g
and made available when and City iffor torequired of period a3toyears up from the d
a
t
e
?nal of Consu invoice.
ltant’s
notic required Abeor given under this permitted toshall beAgreement and inwriting esll shall pefacsimile byor class ?rst delivered, sent addressed follows: mail, as rs
on
all
y
beshall deemed Neffective the date onpersonally delivered transmitted byor ot
ic
e
facsi
mile,
three days if(3) after the mailed, deposit inof custody or, U.S. Postal Service.
Consu records and calculations design Bbeavailable will for examination and 1tant’ .s
audit anThe required. ofshall asbereproductions cost paid byany City. d
S
E
C
TI
O
N
—COOPERATI 17CITY BY
ON
Curtis La
m HydroScie
nce
En
gin
eer
s
741 Allsto
n Berkeley, 94
71 0
City M
an
ag
er
1480 M
ai
n
Str
eet St. Hel
ena,
Cal 94574
ifor
nia
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—16RECORDS S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—18NOTICES
H
y
dr oS
ci en
ce
Phase Design WWTRP 1Conceptual
T
o
C
o
n
s
u
lt
P
a
g
e
of21 8
T
o Agenda Item #12.6.
This Agree
ment,
the isattached the ?nal includ and complete, entire, Exhibits, ing exclusive expressi
on
therein of addressed and with parties matters tosupersedes respect all other agreemen
ts
oral whether underst entered into between orwritten,
anding
s,
Consultant and Cit
y
thise of execution No Agreement. prepresentations toorstatements, r
i
o
r
other agreements, made oral which byembodied herein written, any ore not party shall be valid and duly executed their unless authorized writing byinor parties representatives.
If liti
gati
on
other enfoce isof this proceeding required or any povision interpret to Agreement, tsuch litigation other beshall entitled proceeding pr o inantoparty ev
ail
in
g
award of reas
ona
ble
anddition other relif which infees, itcosts anyttorne toexpenses, ys’ may be entitl
ed.
and the incurred legal enforce fees, costs Inany provisions addit toexpenses ion, of this Agree
ment
the bereimbursed shall prevailing toparty.
Co
nsu
lta
nt
make resonable the and effort maintain shalltability continuity of toevery Consu1tan
t’s
the under assigne services this stConsultant toAgreement. required perform afd
f
shall notif
y
the services staff assigned of Consu1tant’s changes inperform required toany under this such toperformance. prior any
C. of this either all bytermin Agreement Consultant City, or poperty ation belonging iswhich shall bedlivered Consultant’s shall possession City.onsultant inCi to ty fumish to and invoice ?nal Work for incurred byperformed aprepared Consultant, expenses as set fort
h
thi Agree i
sment.
fail under eith Consultant material City this obligation toany perfonn Ifor r Agreem
ent,
addition other either thiserminate any City intoConsultant, or remedies, the may n, Agreem
ent
imnotice. written upon
m
ed
iat
el
y
thiserminate time without with byAgreement, giving orCit ten atmayny cause, y (LO)da
ys
ofsuch notice termination Consultant. notice Consultant shall wtoIfisgiven, rit
te
n
cease i
m
m
e
di
at
el
y
all work inprogress.
shall the beinding and Agr onsuccessors heirs, administrators, executors, eem
ent assigns this shall beConsultant the without assigned byAgreement parties not However, . written the of City. S E
C
T
I
O
N
—23CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL S
E
C
TI
O
N
—SUCCESSOR ASSIGNS 22AND
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—AGREEMENT ENTIRE 21 S
E
C
TI
O
N
—FEES 20ATTORNEYS’
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—TERMINATIO 19
N
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
—DEFAULT 24
H
y
dr o
sc
ien
c
e
esign hase WWTRP Conceptual 1
P
ag
e
of21 9 Agenda Item #12.6.
Waiver this of covenant orf condition, any this Agreement toerm, anparty y Agreement shallWaiver byor covenant. other condition, waiver of cons any term, titut
e
any party of any of waiver constitute any shall not this of Agreement the provisions of other provision, of this of any violation provision breach osubsequent of any waive a r Agreement. Acc
ept
anc
e
constitute shall aConsultant not byservices Work ofr any City by waiver of any ofthis of Agreement. pro
visi
ons
Thi
s
of the laws according toand governed construed interpreted, beshall State of C
ali
fo
rn
ia.
shall tri courts instate venue parties, between litigation of the evnt In lie exclusi
vely
venue District U.S. Court, alitigation inthe evnt Inof the Napa. County in shall lie ex
cl
us
iv
el
y
Francisco. San of inCalifornia, District Northern the in If bydetermined any declared isor this of Agreement condition covenant or ter m, court of co
m
pe
te
nt
of provisions the remaining void unenforceable, beor invalid, tojurisdict ion this Agree
ment
construed read and beshall the and Agreement thereby affected beshall not without th
e
provision(s). unenforceable void or i
In tshall the City this Agreement, the of under default terms isnConsultant that eve nt not have awork for performed Consultant any compensating continue duty tooblr iga
tio
n
after the notice written bytoimmediately Agreement terminate this and default may of Consultan
t.
this executed and made, haveereto accepted, the parties WHEREOF, WI T
N
ES
S
Agreem
ent
above ?rst and day the above year and stated, provisions conditions, theerms, upo n written. :/
X
/
//
III
onsultant:
By:__C
&_
__
__
__
Name: Lav-*
\ Title:
'3
?
v
€
S
A
e
v
S
E
C
TI
O
N
—VENUE TO26LAW GOVERN; S
E
C
TI
O
N
—PROVISIONS SPECIAL 28 T
hi
s
none. provisions: following the special istosubject A
gr
ee
m
en
t
S
E
C
TI
O
N
—SEVERABILI 27
TY
By:
Name: Prestwi T.
ch Title: Ma
nag
er
S
E
C
TI
O
N
-25WAIVER
By:
Name: .Bro
Title: C
it
y
Att
or
ne
y
H
y
dr osci en
ce
Design Conceptual WWTRP Phase 1
P
ag
e
10of21
asF0t Agenda Item #12.6.
Following complet
ion
Feasibility looking evaluate and City isStudy, animplement theo2017 of alternate method ofrobust future effluent meeting would bethat more intreatment limitations, and wo
uld
ability design the City cost-effectively that would have itstobemodul inso ar expand the system ?ows. pursuing the isof City aThus, implementation buildout anticip m eeated
t
treatment process t
o
discharge 0.5 capacity and of MGD new limitations, NPDES permitted current with the ?exibility existing 0.65 buildout MGD. capacity of The the pond cexpand to st-ef
fe
ct
iv
el
y
systems could cont
inue
and infor emergency utilized, beequalization storage. topart, The City compl
eted
included and recommended Feasibi review whch options 2017 toStudy athe in lity upgrade the exis
ting
study That recommended for plant improvements athetWWTRP. pon system d proprietary PET
RO
settling tertiary trickling ?ltration, ?lters, tank, combines awhich ponds,ro ces
s,
electrical upgra
des,
existing City The upgrades the chlorine disinfection and system. in? pond, to ltra
tio
n
estimates that th
e
and that would beapproximately project of this $14.1M, tconstrst ouction
t
a
l
procurement wo
uld
through method. Design-Bid-Build handl abeprocurement
ed
The San Francis
co
issued NPDES CAontrol (RWQCB) Permit No. Bard Qulity Water Region B ayl 00038016 (
Order
Order R2-2016-0004 the (CDO) No. and Cease Desist toR2- 2016
-2016
-0003
)
City in 2016. In
cl
ud
ed
ef?uent Discharge limitations and (WDRS) Requirements are the Waste new in time schedule o
r
d
e
r
for including completing the apermit, requirements (for with compliance TS
O)
feasibility study
, thate modi?ed with treatment complies construction of newr and system new ef?uent li
mi
tat
io
ns.
To date, th
e
is2017 and considering requesting due ?res, th TSO of toextension reque one sted another TS
O
TheSO for (DB) potential Design-Build implementation. allow mto o
di
?c
at
io
n
modi?cati
on
the delay and with the construction of compliance intended treatment toissystem not new ef?uen
t
dates TSO the modify interim would but toli
m
it
at
io
ns
,
Scope Treatment of Helena Phase Wastewater St. Ithe for City S e
r
v
i
c
e
s
an
d
and Plant OWner’s Design Upgrade Conceptual
Representative
A
“Scop
e
of Servi
ces”
Pr
oj
ec
t
Under
standi
ng
H
y
dr osci en
ce
Design Phase Conceptual 1WWTRP
P
ag
e
of21 11 Agenda Item #12.6.
K0 0 Task 1 — De
vel
op
Design Itthat Development isexpected anew Report. Conceptual WW TRP tertiary treat
ment
(SBR) batch membrane either sequencing ofr comprised areactor proc ess bioreactor ( include the upgrades considered and headworks, bewill toprocess treatm ent disinfection besized the connectivity the The existing plant tomeet plant. new will and to current ?owsGeneral accommodate Plan buildout conditions. and betolads expandable current a n
d
Cost estimat
es
re?ect project the requirements. new bdvelope towi
dll
The City is seek
ing
the select facilitate engineering services, Owner perform toRepresentative an ’s procurement of constructed inthate project arend improvements WWTRP ensure team, manner and cost This ?rst City the with and will provide needs budget. the proposal City’s meet s
two phases of O
w
n
er
’s
de?ne the consultants toservices with toacquire help project; help Repre sentati
ve
funding and per
mit
tin
g;
managing the and of DBdocuments; prepari procurement
ng contractor.
0 Task 5 — ROWD the isof required toPermit Areplacement Application. and support existing p
e
r
and information includes modi?ed that onnew facilities; permit with anew updated ?The Owner’s ROWD conditions. will and Representative disposal prepare stora ge, and perm
it
obtaining the and the for CD0 complying the of awith permit for apurpose p
p
li
c
a
ti
o
n
operationfacility. thnew
e
Once the project, for the work the second planing WWTRP new oncon?rm their capital has ed phase can additional permitting the ongoing of include inform The second phase will support support fo
r
and number additional of CD0 apreparation new the ROWD, with TSO, tasks to fa
cil
ita
te
including the following. selecti of contractor DBateam, on
0 Tas
k
—beand toOversight. 6Procurement compliance will necessary Compliance CEQA QA faci
litat
e
the Owner’s The facilitate of contractor. Representative will selection the DBaprocurement and Project de?ned andgreed bythe isCity. consultant oncef upon aCEQA 0 Tas
k
—the need dtermine the City the Based tocost estimates, will Fund onSpport. 2capital ing amo
unt
agencies United (e. external States of fundin befrom Department required that g. will of g Agr
icul
ture
would the loan of impact and how rates. [USDA] wastewater repayment ),
0 Tas
k
—Coordination. Owner’s the As and Project Management wille Phase Representative, 41 kee
p
and other and stakeholders with meet first staff, Council, asthis informed phase tCity on h
e
app
rop
riat
e
reporting, andpprovals. communications, facilitate to
0 Tas
k
—the permitting include This task for Perm 3will process, Support. support RWQCB itting incl
udi
ng
Discharge Preparation of Report TSO. of Waste the CD0 awith for compliance suppo rt (
RO
W
D)
until future phas. deferred awoul be
d
0 Tas
k
—Bridging Owner’s The Documents. the of Management Representative Direc and 7 tion willproject the and for the DBbridging documents team of DBathe manage procurement cont
ract
or
services. these provide to
facil
itate
design- method lieu of and inDBalternate treatment of cons processes procurement ider
atio
n
bidbuil
d.
T
h
e
tasks:he following include istonexpected phase
iti
al
H
y
dr osci en
ce
Design Phase Conceptual 1WWTRP
Pa
ge
of21 12
Agenda Item #12.6.
The purpose of this ta
sk
The alternative for the and WWTRP. anew evalua develop two iso te alternatives to be eval
uate
d
bytertiary either SBR ?ltration followed with headworks, or ainclu new de MBR, then disinfectio
n
(UV) The bechlorine. treatment ultraviolet or new will either process’ capable of treating 0.5ef?uent quality the MGD), 0.65 comply withaer to( expand
able
requirements in the ex
ist
in
g
NPDES and permit future and requirements, NPD anticipated permit ES utilize existing plant f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
reliability, isItassumed and increase plant asppropriate. reduce costs to that all ef?uent produ
ced
seasonally discharged besuitable quality bywater toawill the WTRP new to a surface water, us
ed
land for construction water ?eld disposal, or purposes. fospray r
A Draft Conc
eptua
l
that evaluated describes the alternatives beDesig Rport will prepared Development n and the detail
s
Design the Report Comments Development onrecom project. Conceptual the mende
d
from the City Design the The ?nal version of final Conceptual into abeincorp reprt. orated Development (DB RFP) the and/ for referenced Proposals with DBRequest included beor will updated to in
co
rp
or
at
e
identi?ed tasks above. noted changes insubsequent the project toany HydroSciencepreviously Design the City staff discuss with Workshop Conceptual tocondu a ct developed de
sig
n
layouts and the confirm the for review conceptual site, and new criteria, deci sion
s
treatment opt
ion
s
the changes City beintended other meeting toevaluated This will any becapture to . would like to changes design the addition documents intoaforementioned revised the into to the treatment
It is expec
ted
quantify include the location of each unit fooprint, design the will conceptual process at building h
ei
g
h
ts
,
address how the with and interface identif WWTRP new will utity connections, y existing pl
a
nt
.
including also beidenti?ed items acopliance will or permits permit An required y schedule o
f
entity obaining lead the permits. inanddenti?cation of c o
Based upo
n
noted shall Design HydroScience Workshop the above, Conceptual made intdecis hions
e
prepare a through discharge, the headworks with evaluation from alternative tplantrocess particular analysis include The alternatives both and will the SBR capital compari costs. MBR on ng cost and n
o
n
-e
c
o
n
o
factors.
The secon
d
written from the City. would beexecuted authorization services engineeri of upon ng The third the executed authorization from of wuld beaenginee asservices of part separate ring City. This and second engineering of first services associated phase with the contains work of the project
, detailed below. further is
0 Tas
k
—Coordination. the Owner’s and As weill Project Management Representative, 8Phas 2 e kee
p
other stakeholders and this wth Council, asstaff,econd phase meet tinformed onCity app
rop
riat
e
and reporting, approvals. communications, facilitate to T
as
k
—Designvelopment Report W'I'RP Conceptual WDevelo 1
p
T
he
detailed below. project isdivided into four tasks, asthe of first phase of work for sc o
p
e
H
yd
ro
sc
ienc
e
Design Phase Conceptual 1WWTRP
S
co
pe
of Work
P
a
g
e
13of21
Agenda Item #12.6.
It is expected th
at
Design the beReport City Development Conc presented Council tofor will heptua
el
concurrence. Hy
dr
oS
cie
nc
e
and bevailable questions, atowill presentation speak respond toor pepare as directed by th
e
C
it
y.
HydroScience s
h
a
ll
schedule preliminary showing the majorilestones from design avalidation dev elo
p
through selectio
n
entity, Guaranteed the oMaximum of DBdevelopment construction, Price, f commissioning, schedule The Project. activities. beconstruct inMicrosoft will developed post ion
Based on the and HydroScience loan interest project schedule, workith the will terms, rates, City to analy
ze
the beHydroScience of project projected himple will impact sewer rates. to omentat
wion
will either w
or
k
the services City the consultant wit perform experienced toor anpocure complte h this on the C
it
y’
s
isthate consultant becontracted under assumed Itbeh will aseparate alf. authorization
.
HydroScie
nce
as-needed assistance the City wh ?nancing toprovide ensure compliance towil l requireme
nts
byidding the monthly adServices include reporting, USDA. may requirements, mi
nis
ter
ed
assisting t
h
e
documents USDA addressin producing and staff and Crespond toinrequests itg
y
comments, byUSDA coor staff. document reviews
dinat
ing
Compli
ance
R2-2016-0004: HydroScience No. CD0 the for City will provide toinsupport ort order to existing TSO the and revised dated January 2018. ItCD0 iswith our 11, underst
anding
the included theis intial remaining for CD0 taskshat follows: inphase ares There a
r
e
the permitting isfirst CD0 provide eleme of for tosupport: support RWQCB wnts
o compli
ance,
ROWD and the second ispreparation of permit This initial andpplication. phase of Workin
cl
u
d
es
only. CD0 for compliance suppor
t
Deliverabl
es: 0 Conce
ptual
—andgenda, all informat Desi minutes PDF materials, Workshop gn 0 Conce
ptual
—-and ?al draft format. Desi PDF Report
gn 0 Prelim
inary
—Schedule format ProjeDF
ct
0 Discharge Final Management and Plan Draft Interim Wastewater a 0 and Final for of the alternative Draft implementation preferred Workplan a F
ut
ur
e
State: include the following submittals toProj will phases ect
A
n
established task. of has been for this a$75,000
ll
o
A
n
has been established thisask. for aof $14,000
ll
o
Ta
sk
—3Permitt Support
ing
T
as
k
—Fundin 2Support
g
H
yd
roSc
ienc
e
hase Design WT 1Conceptual
P
a
g
e
of21 14
Agenda Item #12.6.
It is expected th
e
Final Design Task and Report the 2developed inConceptual serve will as Workplan for th
e
CD0 the whether Itof isunknown compliance. will require pRWQCB u
r
p
o
s
e
resubmittal of th
e
Study the does Feaibility dand final evaluate SBR the and current not as r
a
ft
MBR treatment assuming that initial effort the coordinate We bullets are will phase identified above
. communication the requesting City toinprovide wille support modifications to inte needed. TSO deadlines, as
rnal
Once the Citytheir project, con associated planning for WTRP new capital next steps ?rm
ed
with Phase 2
'permitting include additional the Phase inform ongoing 2of pro will support cee
d. support for c
o
m
pl
ia
n
ce
of and CD0 the number of additional with preparation TSO, ROWD, new tasks to facili
tate
follows HydroScience sel of below. DBaswith contractor proceed may tem, ecti
on
these tasks up
on
authorizati the wr from City.
itte on
n
HydroScienc
e
project anddministrative taskshe required implement perfo asmanagement to rm project. Thes
e
and kick-off then Project meeting, with through scontinue will ath in- start e
r
v
i
c
e
s
person mont
hly
bi-Weekly the City and conference calls Meetings mProject Manager. with bell ee
tin
gs
used to keep budget HydroScience's changes, informe of and Cit performance, toscopetatus, yd resolve issue
s
the arise.
sy
As necessa
ry,
meetings attend shall byHydroScience other City, directed the with stakeholders, or as including (Legal Council Manager) City Hall limite when the project City meetings or not to d is on the a
g
e
n
d
a.
City shall work staff presentation materials Hydro whenith toprepare Scienc
e
necessary, and/or limited PowerPoint mounted slides, printed but to: materials, graphics. not 0 Submitthe Final alternative and Design preferred Dfor ra
ft
0 Submi
t
the confirming the of Final and implementation operation the of Workplan treatme
nt
sys
te
m
0 Submi
t
evaluatin the effectiveness of treatment discharge tomeet limits new system re pog
rt
HydroS
cience's
monthly andttend the kickoff Project meetings Manager Additional inwill team person. membe
rs
bi-Weekly meetings the All attend the inconference calls bephone. via ornwill person m a
y
telecon
ference
.
Assumptio
ns.‘ 0 Kickof
f
meeting, (1) 4-hour duration One
0 Month
ly
m(4)eetings, duration 1-hour Four
ee
ti
n
gs
:
0 Biweekl
y
30(4) minute duration conalls: conference Four calls,
fere
nce
An a
ll
o
task. isthisat Ithas established assumed these of been for sevices bewill $6,000 provi
ded
forur months. toup
Delivera
jales:
0 Me
etin
g
(PDF format) agennd minutes
da 0 Pre
sent
atio
n
format) (PPT material PDF or
s
T
as
k
—Project Coordination and Management 41PhaseA
n
thisask. for has established been aof $25,000
l
l
o
H
y
dr os ci en
ce
Phase Design 1WWTRP Conceptual
P
h
a
s
e
Work 2
P
ag
e
of21 15 Agenda Item #12.6.
Per the draft EIR, determine whether level betorequired the may review project atCEQA signi?cant environ
mental
distribution ?om the construction of lines, result waterould effects Wastewater collect
ion
and drainage onsiter pipes, storage storm conveyance any sys component tems, pumping facilities Once are speci?c projects other uilities improvements. sites, or de ve
lo
p
m
en
t
proposed, projectlevel
when development plans are prepared.” review proposed envi will occur ron
men lbe
tal
Once the deta
ils
ect-level environmental review Wil project arevised known, are the of WWTRP required. If th
e
the signi?cant impacts, result does ptentially inWork not i City could ex
pe
ct
Declaration. Negative Mitigated Declaration or a?ndin Negative of a g HydroScienc
e
the consultant of tonecessary complete and facili the management procurement tate CEQAdocu
menta
tion.
contracted under authorization. beathatessumed consultant will isItseparate The City rele
ased
accompanying Environmental Impact General Plan and the draft of update new a Report (EIR) has the City Once 2019. January closed perio on2,018. The Ocomment public ct
o
be
r
collected the the ?nal besubmitted General Plan and EIR tohe will and them,oresponded Planning Co
mm
issi
on
Council’s decision istentatively The final hearings. City for Council and public scheduled for early 2019. wint spring
er/
HydroScienceexisting renewing of the for application ROWD and purpose permit aprep are WDRS. The that existing the with of anew prmit replacement complete awill support contains upda
ted
re?ecting balance modi?ed facilities updated and water the new inf on or
ma
tio
n
proposed ?o
w,
conditions. and disposal st
o
ra
g
e,
Meetings
Assumptions
0 The City ?ow monitoring and historical quality operations data, and coll water provide ect data, and ROWD of development. data inrequ support
ested 0 Any wate
r byothers. analysis) beprformed lab required will (sampling and c h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
0 An antidegra
datio
n
beanalysis required not will
For this ta
sk
,
documents. and the DBshall necessary Proposal directevelop Hprocurement yd
ro
Sc
ie
nc
e
It is expec
ted
for of Request comprised beathe Procureme will process thwo-step Quali?cations nt a (RFQ) andconsidered thisask include the of beActivities asDocumen part to ts/RFP. following:
0 City with onsite meeing pr
ep
ara
tio
n
0 Board issued the byWater the Tentative Draft WDR discuss Board tohe Water me at eti
ng
Ta
sk
—Documents Bridging the of and Management Directi 7
on
Deliver
ables 0 Int
ern
al
ROWD Draf
t 0 Fin
al
Board Water the issued toR
O
T
as
k
—Oversight and Procurement Compliance 6CEQ
A
A
n
task.his for established has been of $25,000 a
ll
o
A
n
task.his for established has been of $55,000 a
ll
o
c
a
ti
o
n
T
as
k
-Permit Application and ROW 5
D
H
yd
ro
sc
ienc
e
Design Phase 1Conceptual WWTRP
Pa
ge
of21 16
Agenda Item #12.6.
Sign in sheet
Agenda
Introductions
Review of the Project
Review of the Quali?c
ation
criteria and Paprequali?cation schedule including
ck
ag
e
HydroScience will lead and elements features, design asProject site and the point out to appropriate.
HydroScience shall draftaddenda that and from prospective proposers prepare questions to provide supplementary d
e
t
a
i
l
s
,
needed and drawings asnd/or the speci?cations, revise clari? cation
s,
and directed by the City. issued. addenda bewill two ass toup um
ed
HydroScience shal
l
Institute of America Design-Build based Agreement adraft onaDBprepa rel
s
agreement or an E
n
gi
n
ee
rs
include This Agreement Committee will Joint Coract Dcument agreement. details speci?c to tdraft ofstaff. City legal Awith consultation copy Pr beinand developed will oj
ect
,
the Agreement wil
l
for City The isand responsible review the for City comment. pre to sent
ed
obtaining any nece
ssar
y
itdeems advice that necessary. tax insurance, legal, or the draft RFto
0 Terms and c
o
n
di
ti
o
n
s
the into betranslated ultimately risk that will evauate review procurement to document
Form of draf
t
and discussed developed language beand risk tostrategy
Review of dr
af
t
included bedocuments toec
hn
ica
l
Identi?cationand other requirements leg affidavits forms, al Finalize eval
uati
on
for quali?cations process determination scoring and
RFQ Proc
urem
ent:
and the City distribute, advertise, toshall workith Hydroscience thisask, Under serve as th
e
City shall The of DBteams.he prospective prequali?cation for Represent ative distribute lead the advertise project services, HydroScience onhelp wil and website, their tonR F
Q
builders’ e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
,
elsewhere appropriate. asor
Prepare Hydroscience the shall inassist development of this As tak, for part Quali?catio ns: of the n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
industry standard documents beased onThe will documents. procurement RFQ and bes
t
such include criteria as:nd
HydroS
cience
City review comments toconduct workshop for and shall prepare Q packagebyethe also led City the draft Agreement of will asReview Agreement. draft DB perform
ed
include: the meting discussed inbetoworkshop. Topics the du rin
g
Contractor/
Engineer
delivery method the DBwith exp
erie
nce
History of meeti
ng
schedule and co
sts Client references
Proposed key pe
rs
on
ne
l
members and team
Financial and bo
nd
in
g
infor
matio
n
Quality and safe
ty Claims and litig
atio
n
The beItems bidders the for tomeeting with include prospective awill Proc pcess RFQ. ure
men
t
prep
ared
following: include the and presented or
/
Fro
m
suitable make them for ?nalized toand shall beupdated documents the wor tRFQ ksho
p,
distr
ibuti
on.
H
y
dr osci en
ce
Design Phase Conceptual WWTRP 1
P
ag
e
0f21 17
Agenda Item #12.6.
Deliverables:
0 RFQPackage (PDF)
0 Meeting agenda, presentati
on
PDF) (PPT, meeting minutes and m
at
eri
als
,
0 Sign-in-Sheet (PDF)
0 RFQAddenda (up to two — Prepare Bridging Documents/
Request
of combination aHydroScience will prepare Proposals: for performance and design speci?
cation
s.
legal other togther with and speci?cations drawings The documents make up the bridgi
ng
The the of RFP. DBthe form which alsosserve documents co nt ,ra
ct
DB RFP will be used to select the Information inTeams. pre-quali?ed the prviously from Team DB DB RFP will include:
At the conclu
sion
from (SOQS) prospective of quali?cation statements the process, prequali?c of ation bidders will including reviewing documents the assist inCity shall HydroScie rSOQ nce e
c
ei
v
e
d.
quali?cations
, written shall aHydroScience provide certi?cates. insurance bonds and g u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
s,
summary on three quali?ed finalize meeting the City towth review top conduct and fin din
gs
Teams.
Background and objectiv
es Procurement process an
d
ofservices
Process for innovative o
pt
io
n
s
the byoffere proposers
d Draft contract including bonding and
Requirements for solesourci
ng,
pre-qualifying suppliers or peselectio
n
Evaluation criteria
Technical performance
the draft RFP. City's the comments to'ew
Topics cience Team.
Form of draft cont
ract
discussed alanguage betorisk and
Review of draft te
c
h
ni
c
al
included bedocum to
ents Identi?cation of l
e
g
a
l
and other requirements affidavits for
ms, Finalize evaluatio
n
pricing and technical both for process quali?cations determinatio scori a ng
d
components
?nalized. The and City rate comments
edTeams. DB
From the worksho
p
incorpo updated toshall bedoc
ume
nts Bridging Documen
ts/RF
the prequali? distributed betoPwill
anddvertise, the City distribute, with to
shall Hydroscience ective Teams. DB
and for shall HydroScience dders. prepare
following: the include d/ presented or
Proposal shall work HydroScience task,his Under
serve as th
e
selection the of for prosp Represen
tative distribute t bi the prequali?ed toPDocuments/ Br idRF
gi
ng
attend the beanMeeting. Items toprepared PrePro
pos
al
Sign in Sheet
Agenda
Introductions
Review of the
Review of the criteria including and schedule prequali?cation package Docume nts/RFP
of21 18Page
HydroS
cience
toworkshop conduct rev1 and for shall prepare
This m
eet
in
g
the of HydroS bymembers key attended with be
to be di
sc
us
se
d
include: meeting the in
0 Ter
ms
the ultimately into translated berisk that evaluate procurement will review toconditi an ons d doc
ume
nt
nddeveloped strategy
H
y
dr osci en
ce
[RP Design Phase Conceptual 1W
Agenda Item #12.6.
HydroScienceanddministrative tasks project Tasks implement asrequired tomanagement perfo rm 5 thin 7. Thes
e
?om the City. auhorization of Phase writtn HydroScience 2swilltart will upon e
r
v
ic
e
s
hold inperson
bi-weekly conference calls the Project City Meetings and with meetings Manager. will be used t
o
budget HydroScience's performance, changes, of and informed the City kscopetatus, e
e
p
to resolve iss
ues
they arise.s
As necessary, shall attend byother the HydroScience meetings City, with direct stakeholders, as ed including but Hall regulatory agencies, Council (Legal City limi Manager) or to ted meetings wh
en
HydroScience shall work staff City the agenda. with thisoproje onprepare ct e presentation limited but including PowerPoint when slides, printed materials, to: notecessary, and/or mount
ed
gr
ap
hi
cs.
HydroScienc
e
including the reviewing documents changes proposal the sassist intoCity any terms and co
ndi
tio
ns,
and pricing, other written We legal affidavits, requirements. awill provide forms, summary on the review the meting City finalize conduct with This and finDBTeam. atop din
gs
review will a
ls
o
regarding bychanges the Team the proposed DBindiscussion proposal any to cl
ud
e
agreement.
I HydroSci
ence
Project and point design the site out elements lead visit asfeatures, towill a appropria
te. 0 HydroSci
ence
from prospective anddenda that shall dr? toquestions proposers prepare responses provide s
u
p
p
l
e
the revise drawings and needed and/or clari?cations, speci?cations, asdetails, and direc
ted
addenda beyassumed issued. the ismay Cit. Ituptowo
HydroS
cience's
monthly meetings attend the inAdditional members Project team Manager will person. may att
en
d
bi-weekly conference the calls bevia phone. All the metin will orninperson gs telecon
ference
.
Deliverables:
0 Bridging (PDF) Package
0 Meeting Materials (PDF) and Presentatio
n 0 Sign in S
h
ee
t
(
PD
F)
0 RFP Add
enda
—(up PDF) twoo
Assump
tions.‘ 0 Mo
nthl
y
meetings, 1-hour duration Eight (8)
ings: 0 Biwee
kly
30minute duration Eight calls:onference confer (8) calls, ence
An a
ll
o
thisask. Itassumed that for these isservices established been has will of $15,000 provi
ded
eight for months. upto
Deliver
ables: 0 Me
etin
g
format) agen (PDF and minutes
da 0 Pre
sent
atio
n
format) (PPT material PDF or
s
Ta
sk
—Coordination and Project Management 8Phase 2 A
n
task. established this been for has aof $150,000
ll
o
c
a
ti
o
n
H
y
dr os ci en
ce
esign Phase 1Conceptual WWTRP
P
a
g
e
of21 19
Agenda Item #12.6.
Following selectio n
engineering of third services DBbethat aphase will required are contractor , expected to includethe of construction continued DBpermitting management, contractor, support, and other tfully needed. work This of beasdveloped will asscopeubsquent part authorization. We timinghat te coincide of this authorization of the selection withll DBTeam and at the time a co
nt ra
ct
Council selection the brought isfor of that DBTeam toacompanion contract will also be brough t
Co additional services. for Owner’s intent Th beRepresentative will toounc il
match the project require
the and the Team. of contract DBwith terms
We expect that t of work mnths approximately firour phase will the require toand second complete st phase will requi
re
eight The Design months acomplete. toConceptual Report Dvelopment pproxi will be prepared eight weeks sub of issuance notice wihin that We proceed. toaexpect mitt
ed meeting with Ci
ty
approximately three aftr submittal stweeks of the Draft occur Report. will aff HydroScience thas-needed for project coordination subsequent work other provid with support en City staff and/orthe City. direction the at ofspeci?c Our proposed inc‘1ude Project Curtis and Rhodora Biagtan Lam Manager will asProject your as Engineer. Th
ey
HydroScience the Conceptual efforts Design tooverse wReport, Development prepare eill support and analyze fundin and the CD0 coordinate with and options, Curtis compliance RWQCB. g and Rhodora primary that day-to-day beand they continue weill your tocntacts, serve asexpect your primary project through the subsequent phases.
Pr op
osed
and Budget Schedule, Team, H
yd
ro
sc
ience
hase Design 1Conceptual WWTRP Phase —3Future Work Page
of 201
Agenda Item #12.6.
A contingency was the and provide torequired, that bework may unanticipated for toaccount City with the ?exib
ility
Similar the ef?cient toasks inmanner. anrequired additional with procee to d Phase 2 effort, no without speci?c Contingency allocated budget inthe beonwou performed ld City approval.
the and City beween services agreement the professional with billing standard accordance with inmaterials basis and time an Task 1 — Dev
elop
Report $75,000 Development Design Conceptual WTRP
Task 2 - Fun
ding
$14,000 Sup
port Task 3 — Per
mitti
ng
$25,000 Suppo
rt Task 4 — Phas
e
Coordination and $6,000 Manageme Pro 1
nt ject Phase 1 Subt
otal:
$120,
000
Phase 2 Effort — Service
s
$55,000 Applicati er
mit on$25,000 and Procurement Oversight lia
ncBrid Documents $150,000 f
eging $15,000 and Coordination Mana ct
geme 5, nt 00
0 All wor
k
accordance inbeprforme
d HydroS
cience.
invoiced obeSrvice will
s rate sc
he
dul
e
rendered. services are when effect in
Task 5 — RO
WD
and P
Task 6 —— CE
Q
A
Co
mp Task 7 — Pre
par
atio
n
0 Task 8 — Pha
se
Proj 2
e Phase 2 Sub
total
:
$24
A follows: byistask budget asexpected ofur
B
“Com
pens
ation
”
P
h
as
e
Total 2and 1$440,000 P
h
a
s
e
—Services Base Effort 1 C
on
ti
ng
en
cy
:
$75,000
H
y
dr osci en
ce
Design Conceptual Phase WWTRP 1
P
ag
e
of21 21
Agenda Item #12.6.
' E3351;
P.OLIC EY FEE.. M’ LIMITS M1
DD
IY
Y)
\{’
Y
II
1 j - -urrence Ea PREMISES Y Y «
‘T 12l18I2
018
1 ‘
1_
1 .
‘ GENERALAGGRE
GATE . _
—AGG PRODUCTS COM!’/"OP
I CLAIMS-MADE CUP-4536T31A-18-47 12/18/
2018
1'2/
1312
019 I_%I —
. I Y Y BAA(20)56353680 219/
2019
Bow INJURY 11-eraccld-an
s0011 1100
3/1/
2020
$s,oooooo
-$5,_ooo,1ooo
Professional
uabimy AEH288365407 12/13/
2018
1211
8120
19 O A,COR CERTIF CATE OF LIABILITYINSURANCE °’“_,,f
,;’§j’§
§j';“’
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A ATTER OF INFORMATIO ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UFO THE CERTIFICATEHOLDE . CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIR ATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLI CIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHOR IZE REPRESENTAT VE OR PRODUCER,ANDTHE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
IMPORTANT: Ifthe certi?cate hoider is an ADDITIONALINSURED,the poIicy(ies) must have ADDITIONALINSUREDprovisions or be endo rsed. II SUBROGATION IS AIVED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorseme t. A stat men t on
this certificate does not confer ri hts to the certi?cate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER S E’-‘° Seth Riddeli
KRAFTINSU NCE B OKERAGE
P”°”E
. 530 605-4780
2095 Hilltop Drive, Suite A ECMEE s: Seth kraftib.com
Redding, CA 96002 INSURERs AFFORDING COVERAGE NA
IC
II
I License#:OF42592 msuggp A ; Travelers Property Casualty Company of America '“3”RE° H d
Iusuaen 9; American Fire 8-Casualty Compan 24
06 6
y rosdence Engineers’ Inc‘
INSURERC: Continental Casual Com an 10569 Did Placerviiie Road INSURERD : The Har?ord Casualty Insuranc Company 14 39 7
INSURERE : Sacramento CA 95827 INSURERF: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NU BER: REVISION NUMBER:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCELISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY P E
R
I
O
D
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDINGANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITIONOF ANYCONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENTWITHRESPECT TO WHIC
H CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCEAFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE T E
R
EXCLUSIONS NDCONDITIONSOF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITSSHOWN MAYHAVEBEEN REDUCED BYPAID CLAIMS. TYPEOF INSURANCE POLICYNUMBER ITICIITISIYWT X COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR MEDEXP Any one person) 680-5H558974-18-47 12/18/2019 PERSONAL3.ADVINJURY $ 1 00 0 0
0 0
GEN‘LAGGREGATE LIMITAPPLIES PER: s 2 00
0 0
0 0
, PRO- POI-Ic‘ I3 JECT I IL06 S 2 00
0 0
0 0
OTHER. Au-rQMQ3"_E LIABILITY COMBINEDSINGLELIMIT
Ea accident ANYAUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOSONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY
LIAB W5 S 4 0
0 0
0 0
0 019
EL DISEASE- EA EMPLOYE 5 1 0
0 0
00 0 E.L DISEASE - POLICYLIMIT 3 1 0
0 0
00 0 Per Claim:
Annual Aggregate:
Deductible: had if more space is required)
Ill I9! It 00
I81
:0
5 1000000
s 4 000000
UMBRELLA
E CESS L WORKERSCOMPENSATION
ANDE PLOYER3'UABlLlTY ANYPROPRIETORIPARTNER/EXECUTIVEY ' N D OFFICERIME BERexcwoeo? 57wEC 3/1/2 A
(;8RVL
_
( andatory in NH)
ll yes, describe under DESCRIPTIONOF OPERATIONSbelow
DESCRIPTIONOF OPERATIONSI LOCATIONSI VEHICLES ( Schedule, Additional Remarks may beattac 101.
Project: Owners Representative
TheCity of Helena and their offici ls, of
fic
ers,
andgents are employees asincluded for insureds additional general autond liability for the coverages afforded herei n. primary Co isnon-contributory subrogation. ndof and waiver includes ver ag e
CANCELL
ATION
SHOULD OF POLICIES CANCELLED BEFORE ABOVE DESCRIBED BETHE
THE EXP
IRA
TIO
N
BEDATE THEREOF, WILL INNOTICE DELIVRED
ACCORDA
NCE
POLICY THE PROVISIONS. WIT
H
/All 5ORD reserved. ©1988-20 CORPORATSON. rights
The A
C
O
R
D
logo reistered name andre marks of ACORD
FA
X N
o:
25674
204
City of
1480 M
ai n Str
eet St. Hele
na,
94574 Ca
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
HOLDER A
C
O
R
D
25(2016103
)
A
U
TH
O
R
IZ
ED
REPRESENT ATI
Agenda Item #12.6.
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COM ERCIALGENERALLIABILITYCO EHAGEPART
A. The following is added to WHO IS AN INSURED
(Section II):
Any person or organization that you agree in a
"contract or agreement requiring insurance" to include as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but only with respect to liabilityfor "bodilyinjury", "property damage" or "personal injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on yourbeha?z
a. In the performance of your ongoing operations;
b. In connection with premises owned by or
ren ed to you; or
c. In connection with "your work" and included
within the "products-completed operations
hazard".
Such person or organization does not qualify as
an additional insured for "bodilyinjury", "property
damage" or "personal injury" for which that person or organization has assumed liabilityin a contract or agreement.
The insurance provided to such additionalinsured
is limitedas follows:
d. This insurance does not apply on any basis to
any person or organization for which coverage as an additional insured specifically is added by another endorsement to this Coverage Part. e. This insurance does not apply to the rendering of or failure to render any "professional services".
f. The limits of insurance afforded to the additional insured shall be the limits which you agreed in that "contract or agreement requiring insurance" to provide for that additional insured, or the limits shown
less. This endorsementdoes not increasethe limits of insurance stated in the LI ITS OF INSURANCE(Section III) for this Coverage
Part.
B. The followingis added to Paragraph a. of 4.
Other Insurance in COMMERCIALGENERAL
LIABILITYCONDITIONS(Section IV):
However, if you specifically agree in a "co tract or
agreement requiring i surance" that the insurance
provided to an additional insured under this Coverage Part must apply on a pri ary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance
is primary to other insurance that is available to
such additional insured which covers such additional insured as a named insured, and we willnot share with the other insurance, provided that:
(1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for
which coverage is sought occurs; and
(2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is
sought arises out of an offense committed;
after you have entered into that "contract or
agreement requiring insurance". But this insurance stillis excess over valid and collectibleother insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or
on any other basis, that is available to the insured
when the insured is an additional insured under
any other insurance. . The followingis added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us
in COMMERCIALGENERAL LIABILITYCONDITIONS(Section IV):
We waive any rights of recovery we may have
against any person or organization because of
payments we make for "bodily injury“, "property
damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your
work" performed by you, or on your behalf, under
a "contractor agreement requiringinsurance" with
that person or organization. We waive these
rights only where you have agreed to do so as
ance" with such person or organization into by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily
BADDITIONA INSURED
L
A
N
K
E
T
(
ARC
HIT
ECT
S,
ENGINEE AND SURVEYORS)
RS
T
H
IS
NDCHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ ITCAREFULLY.
OR
SE
ME
NT
Theravelers 2007 ©Inc. Companies,
Incfu
des
copyrig the of Insurance material Services Office, with its permission Inc.. hted
C
O
ol
ic
y
GENERAL ABILITY
8-47 H5 58974-1 680-5 N
u
m
be
r:
C
G
81D097
3 P
ag
e
of 21 Agenda Item #12.6.
injury” or “propertyor the "per- occurs.
sonal injury"offens
e
isco
mm
itte
d.
D. The followingde?n
ition
isadded toDEFINITIONS
(Section V):
“Contract or agr eem
ent
requiring insurance"
meansthat part of cont or agreement unract der which you are toinclude person aor organization as an insured onthis Coverage Part, provided tthe "bodily injury" and "property damage" oc
cu
rs,
and the "personal injury" is caused by an o
ff
e
n
s
e
comm
itted: a. After you have en
ter
ed
into that or contract
agreement;
b. Whilethat part of t
h
e
coor agreement is
ntr ac
t
in effect; and
c. Before the end of t poeriod.
lic
y
PolicyNu
mbe
r:
680- 8-47
SH5
589
74-1
Insurance Traveler Property Casua ty
sof America Company
2007 Companies, Theravelers Inc.
Inclu
des
the copyrig material of Insurance lnc., permission its Services with Office. hted
C
O
GENERAL LIABILITY
In
su
re
d:
Hyd oscience Engineers, Inc. E
x
pi
ra
ti
o
n
12/92019 Date:
C
G
DO7 819
3 P
ag
e
of 2 Agenda Item #12.6.
(c) That is insura ce purchased by ou
to co er your liabilityas a tenant for
"property damage" to premises
rented to you or temporarily occupied y you with permission of the owner; or
(d) If the loss arises out of the maintenance or use of aircraft, "autos" or watercraft to the extent not subject to Exclusion g. of Section I — Coverage A -— Bodily injury And Property Damage Liability. (2) Any other primary insurance available to
you covering liabilityfor damages arising
out of the premises or operations for
which you have been added as an additional insured by attachment of an endorsement. no duty under Coverages A or B to defend the insured against any "suit" if any other in- surer has a duty to defend the insured against tha "sui ". If no other insurer defends, we ill undertake to do so, but we will be entitled to the insured's rights against all those other in- surers. When this insurance is excess over other in- surance, we will pay only our share of the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the sumof: (1) The total amount that all such other in- surance would pay for the loss in the ab- sence of this insurance; and (2) The total of all deductible and self-insured amounts under all that other insurance. We willshare the remaining loss, if any, with any other insurance that is not described in this Excess insurance provision and was not bought speci?cally to apply in excess of the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations of this Coverage Part. Method Of Sharing if all of the other insurance permits contribu- tion by equal shares, we will follow this method also. Under this approach each in- surer contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limitof insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. if any of the other insurance does no permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribor organization which may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to
which this insurance may also apply.
d. No insured will.except at that insured's own
cost, voluntarily make a payment. assume
any obligation, or incur any expense, other
than for first aid, withoutour consent.
3. Legal Action Against Us
No person or organization has a right under this
Coverage Part:
a. To join us as a party or otherwise bring us
into a "suit" asking for damages from an insured; or
b. To sue us on this Coverage Part unless all of
its terms have been fully complied with. A person or organization may sue us to recover on an agreed settlement or on a final judgment
against an insured; but we will not be liable for
applicable limit of insurance. An agreed settle- ment means a settlement and release of liability signed by us, the insured and the claimant or the claimant's legal representative. 4. Other Insurance Ifother valid and collectibleinsurance is available to the insured for a loss we cover under Cover- ages A or B of this Coverage Part, our obligations are limitedas follows: a. Primary Insurance This insurance is primary except when b. be- low applies. if this insurance is primary, our obligations are not affected unless any of the other insurance is also primary. Then, we will share with all that 0 her insurance by the method described in c. below. b. Excess Insurance This insurance is excess over: (1) Any of the other insurance, whether pri- mary, excess, contingent or on any other (a) basis:That is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, installation Risk or similar coverage for "your work"; (b) That is Fire insurance for pre ises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; CO P ol
icyN
GENERAL LIABILITY
mber: 680-51-I558 74-18-47 © Inc., Prop 2000
ertie s CG
0110O1 0 Page
16of1 Agenda Item #12.6.
I .
V
‘ I’.
I I
I
' m-V
I'_ _ :3 ‘
‘
,, . L .. .
I
. ‘j
4 ’
V
We have the right to recover our pay men
ts
covered this poiicy. We will enforce our for aninjury not from byliable anyone right against the person or organiza
tion
theat you toSchedule. (This only extent agrement applies nam the in ed perform work under a written contract you this requi obtan agreement tofrom us.) tres You must maintainpayrollrecords a c
c
u
ra
te
ly
your employees engaged the work segregati inof the while remuneration ng described in the Schedule.
The additionalpremiumfor this endo
rsem
ent
premium compensation %otherwise due of workers‘ California shall be2the on such remuneration.
SCHEDULE
Description Job
rights of waiver thisoobtain eemet
Policy Nu
mbe
r:
Endorsement Number: 57ECACBRVL
Effective D
at
e:
policy. Page the ofnassametated Information hour isEffective 03/ 01/
19 Named Ins
ure
d
Engineers, Hydroscience Inc. and Address:
PLACERVILLE OLD 10569 RD
95827 CASACRAMENTO
WAI
VER
FROM TORIGHT OFUR RECOVER
-ENDO CALIFORNIA
RSEME
NT
T
H
I
S
CAREFULLY. PLEASE ITPOLICY. CHANGES READ THE EN
DO
RS
EM
EN
T
Person Or
ga
ni
za
tio
n
Any per son
byagr required contract or written are you from whom organi zation from us
C
°”"terSigned
by
Representative Authorized
For m
in(1) U.S.A. Printed 0436
Proc
ess
02/19/19 Dat
e:
P
ol
ic
y
Expir 03/01/20 Date:
ation
Agenda Item #12.6.
SS n ab
Profe io alL'abiIi a d Pollufon nci ent Li ilitylnsurance CN r is Insurer with information on the time, place and nature of the claim;
3. immediately forward to the Insurer all documents that the Insured receives in connection with the claim;
4. fully cooperate with the Insurer or the Insurer's designee in the defense of a claim.including but not limited to assisting the Insurer in: the conduct of suits or other proceedings, settlement negotiations, and the enforcement of any right of contribution or indemnity against another who may be liable to the Insured. The insured shall attend hearings and trials and assist in securing evidence and obtaining the attendance of witnesses;
5. refuse, except solely at the Insured’s own cost, to voluntarily make any payment, admit liability, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, without the Insurer's prior written approval; and
6. pay the Deductible amount when due.
After the Insured reports a circumstance or a claim is made and the Insured has the right under any contract to either reject or demand arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution process, the Insured shall only do so with the Insurer's prior written consent.
0. The Insured’s Rights and Duties in the Event of a Circumstance Ifthe Insured reports a circumstance for which there may be coverage under this Policy, and the Insured gives the Insurer written notice containing as much detail as the Insurer can reasonably provide regarding:
‘I. what happened and the professional services or activities the Insured performed;
2. the nature of any possible injury or damages; and
3. how and when the Insured first became aware of such circumstance; then any claim or related claims that subsequently may be made against the Insured arising out of such circumstance shall be deemed to have been made on the date the Insurer received written notice of the circumstance.
The Insured willcooperate with the Insurer in addressing the circumstance, and refuse, except solely at the Insured’s own cost, to voluntarily make any payment, admit liability, assume any obligation, or incur any expense without the Insurer's prior written approval. 2}’ D. Subrogation
If any Insured has rights to recover amounts from another, those rights are transferred to the Insurer to the extent of the Insurer's payment. The Insured must do everything necessary to secure these rights and must do nothing after a claim is made to jeopardize them. The Insurer hereby waives subrogation rights against the Insured’s client to the extent that the Insured had a written agreement to waive such rights prior to a claim or circumstance.
All premium charges under this Policy will be computed according to the rules, rates and rating plans that apply at the effective date of the current policy term. F. Examination and Audit The Insured agrees to allow the Insurer to examine and audit the Insured’s financial books and records that relate to this insurance. The Insurer may do this at any time during the policy term or any extensions, and up to three years after the end of the policy term. G. Legal Action Limitation 1. The Insured agrees not to bring any legal action against the Insurer concerning this Policy unless the Insured has fully complied with all the provisions of this Policy.
FormNo:CNA79
034XX
(O9- Policy No: AEH288365407
2014) Po?cy Page of 162Policy Effetiv Date: 12/18/2017
UnderwrltinCo
mpa
ny:
P0550)! Casualty Conti 20Of Company 24P8962
nental 338 S. Wabash Ave., Chicago IL60604
Agenda Item #12.6.
Descrition Of Covered Auto Desination S mbols
Only those "autos" you own (and for Liability Coverage any " trai
lers "
you don't own while attached to po er units you own.) This inc lud
es
th se "autos" ou acuire ownershi of after the olic be‘
Owned Only the private passenger "autos" you own. This includes thos e pr iv
at e Private passenger "autos" you acquire ownership of after the policy be gin
s. Passenger
"Autos" Onl
Owned Only those "autos" you own that are not of the private passenge r ty
pe "Autos" Other (and for Liability Coverage any "trailers" you don’t own while a ttached
Than Private to power units you own). This includes those "autos" not of the Passenger private passenger type you acquire ownership of after the policybegin s.
"Autos" Onl
Owned Only those "autos" you own that are required to have No-Fault "Autos" in the state where they are licensed or principally garaged. This Subject includes those "autos" you acquire ownership of after the polic y begins To No-Fault provided they are required to have No-Fault benefits in the stat e wthey he
re
are licensed or rinciall araed.
Owned Only those "autos" you own that because of the law in the stat e "Autos" they are .licensed or principally garaged are required to have and Subject cannot reject Uninsured Motorists Coverage. This includes those To A "autos" you acquire ownership of after t e policy begins provid ed Compulsory they are subject to the same state uninsured motorists requirem ent. Uninsured ' Motorists Law
Speci?cally Only those "autos" described in item Three of Declarations for Described a premium ch rge is shown (and for Liability Coverage any " trail
ers"
"Autos" ou don't own while attached to an ower unit described in item Thr ee. Hired "Autos" Only those "autos" you lease, hire, rent or borrow. This does not in
cl
ude
Only any "auto" you lease, hire, rent, or borrow from any of your partners (if you are a partnership), members (if you are a liliability or members of their households.
00C13O6
BUSIN
ESS
AUT COVERAGE FORM O
Various provisions in this policy rest
rict
cove
rage . Read the entire policy carefully dete
rmi
ne
rights, duties and what is and is not
Throughout this policy the words"and
yo
u"
"your" refer to the Named Insured inthe
Declarations. The words "we", "us "
and "our"
refer to the Company providing this
Other words and phrases that appea r
quot in
ation marks have special meaning. Refer -VSe
cti
on
De?nitions. -SECTION ICOVERED AUTOS
ITEM TWO of the Dclarations shows the "autos"
that are covered for "autos" of your each coverages. The following symbols numerical describe the "autos" may tht becovered "autos".
The symbols entered coverage anext toonhe
Declarations designate the only "autos" that are
covered "autos".
Description A. Of Auto Covered Designation
Symbols P
ol
icy
BAA(20) Nu
5635368O mb
er:
@
180
Pro lnc., 2005
pert
ies,
.. . . . ... . ... 4 I .u.. .. .,. .., .. . 5
.‘ . . ... .. V :5 , I . . . ..,...‘ . A . . . , 4 . . . .... . . V w n . , 3, ,. . I ~ ..s z . ,. . . ... .. n 9 . . .. .» x ., u . . . . . . .. . . .. .... . .... . . . . u .... . I . . . ‘. . ..s . . ..... . . .. . A . 1 .. . . .. . _. H. . .. v a . “ pa... . .. 3.. . a ... . . o 1‘ . X. . . . . .. _ .... . . 4 . . . .. ..x 4 . . H . . . C I .. » 1 .1... . \ 1 . ‘ . e , A . ...
... ._ .,.a v mu ... ‘ r a . . ..C . —. ..4
,. .. n . x . , » .a ... . .
_. . .... . . , .. .. . . ...... .. u ...» ..— v . . . . . I .. . . q s . s s . . , .‘ ., I . 3» . :u 4 , .
a. . . .. . , . u. ‘ A . . . , . ‘ .. ... . . , ‘ .. . . , . v . .. . . , . ... . I .. H.“ . , _ . r , .. . .> . ,. . s y ..1.. . . . . . ., . A . ‘ ,h. ‘ ,.
CA 0136 P
age 13of
,x. ‘wa.. .\
.4_u.,_,\.‘‘.;.
-.
‘..‘I._2
‘I.
\.
..-.~.
Agenda Item #12.6.
WWW 270 of 31 CA 00 01 03 06
PolicyNumber: BAA(20)56353680
Descrition Of Cvered Auto De ination S mbl
Non-Owned
"Autos"
Only
Only those "autos"
by your "employees", are limited
you do not own, lease, hire, rent or borrow that are used in connection with your business. This includes "autos" partners (if you are a partnership),
liability company), or members
owned
members (if you
f their households but only
while used in our business or our ersonal affairs.
Mobile Equipment Subject
To Compulsory Or
Financial
Responsibility
Or Other Motor
Vehicle insurance
Law Onl
B. Owned Autos You Acquire After The Policy
Begins
' 1. If symbols 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 19 are
entered next to a coverage in ITEMTWO
of the Declarations, then you have coverage for "autos" that you acquire of the type described for the remainder of the
policy period.
2. But, if symbol 7 is entered next to a
coverage in lTEM TWO of the Declarations, an "auto" you acquire ill be a covered "auto" for that coverage only if: a. We already cover all "autos" that you own for that coverage or it replaces an "auto" you previously owned that had that coverage; and
b. You tell us within 30 days after you
acquire it that you want us to cover
it for that coverage.
CertainTrailers, Mobile Equipment And Temporary Substitute Autos If Liability Coverage is provided by this Coverage Form, the following types of vehicles are also covered "a tos“ for Li bility Coverage:
pounds or less designed primarily for travel on public roads. 2. "Mobile equipment" while being carried or towed by a covered "auto." 3. Any "auto" you do not own while used with the permission of its owner as a temporary substitute for a covered "auto“ you own that is out of service because of its: a. Breakdown; b. Repair; c. Servicing; Only those "autos" that are land vehicles and that would qu lify under the definition of "mobile equipment"
subject to a compulsory or ?nancial responsibility law or -other motor vehicle insurance law where they are licensed or principally garaged. under this policy if they were not
d. "Loss"; or e. Destruction
SECTION ll - LIABILITYCOVERAGE
A.
©lSO Properties, lnc., 2005
Coverage
We will pay all sums an "insured" legally
must pay as damages because of "bodily
injury" or "property damage" to which this
insurance applies, caused by an "accident"
and resulting from the ownership, mainten- ance or use of a covered "auto." We will also pay all sums an "insured" legally must pay as a "covered pollution cost or expense" to which this insurance applies, caused by an "accident" and resulting from
the ownership, maintenance or use of cov- ered "autos." However, we will only pay for the "covered pollution cost or expense" if
there is either "bodily injury" or "property
damage" to which this insurance applies that
is caused by the same "accident."
We have the right and duty to defend any
"insured" against a "suit" asking for such
damages or a "covered pollution cost or ex- pense". However, we have no duty to defend any "insured" against a "suit" seeking damexpense" to which this insurance does not apply. We may investigate and settle any claim or "suit" as we consider appropriate. Our duty to defend or settle ends when the Liability Coverage Limit of insurance has been exhausted by payment of judgments or 1. settlements. Who is An insured The following are "insureds": a. You for any covered "auto." b. Anyone else while using with your permission a covered "auto" you own, hire or borrow except:Page 2 of 13 _4A.
';- -’ .-
r,«
' ---
. _ .
\ . .,,. .
4'. . __ ,._-., ',
*
’-.;
'.3. ..1l.
P nu-u—_.—r. .
K Agenda Item #12.6.
er (if you are a partner- r a member (if you are a
liability company), for a
"auto" owned by him or a member of his or her
Id.
le for the conduct of an
ascribed above but only
t of that liability.
sions
ary Payments.
We will pay for the "insured":
(1)
(2)
(4)35 CA 00 01 03 06
All expenses we incur.
Up to $2,000 for cost of bail
bonds (including bonds for re- we cover. We do not have to furnish these bonds. The cost of bonds to release at- tachments in any "suit" against the "insured" we defend, but ' only for bond amounts within our Limit of Insurance. All reasonable expenses incurred by the "insured" at our request, including actual loss of earnings up to $250 a day because of time off from work. All costs taxed against the "in- sured" in any "suit" against the "insured" we defend. ©lSO Properties, Inc., 2005 (6) All interest on the full amount of
any judg ent that accrues after
entry of the judgment in any
"suit" against the "insured" we
defend, but our duty to pay interest ends when we ha e paid, offered to pa or deposited in
court the part of the judgment
t at is within our Limit of Insurance.
These payments will not reduce the
Limit of Insurance.
out of S ta Coverage Extensions.
While a covered "auto" is away from
the state where it is licensed we will:
(1) Increase the Limit of Insurance
for Liability Coverage to meet
the limits speci?ed by a compulsory or financial responsibility law of the jurisdiction where the
covered "auto" is being used.
This extension does not apply to
the limit or limits speci?ed by
any law governing motor carriers
of passengers or property.
(2) Provide the minimum amounts
and types of other coverages,
such as no-fault, required of outof-state vehicles by the jurisdiction where the covered "auto" is being used.
We will not pay anyone more than
once for the same elements of loss
because of these extensions.
Exclusions
This insurance does not apply to any of the
following:
1. Expected Or Intended Injury
of the "insured". Contractual Liability assumed under any contract or agree ent. But this exclusion does not apply to li- ability for damages: Assumed in a contract or agreement that is an "insured contract" pro- vided the "bodily injury" or "prop- erty damage" occurs subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreemen Q 0!’ Page 3 of 13 (1) The owner or anyone else from
whom you hire or borrow a covered "auto". This exception does not apply if the covered "auto"
is a "trailer" connected to a cov- ered "auto" you own. (2) Your "employee" if the covered
"auto" is owned by that "employee" or a member of his or her household.
(3) Someone usi g a covered
"auto" while he or she is working in a business of selling, servicing, repairing, parking or storing "autos" unless that business is yours.
(4) Anyone other than your "em- are a limited liability company), or a lessee or borrower or any of their "employees", while moving property to or from a covered "auto". (5) A partn ship), 0 limited covered her orouseho c. Anyone liab "insured" d to the exten 2. Coverage Exten a. Supplement olic
y
BAA(20)
563S3680
‘ W .. .w
. . . . . . . , . . A . . .‘
4 . . . .
. . ..... _ .
. .. ., .. . m:
. .
. .‘ ‘ a .
, c.
‘ .
. . .... .
. . _.
. .. .., .
. M
. ..
p, . s . . . . 4. .
.
. . 4
.1: .
. ,_
‘ .
- .. .. . .
, . .
. . .
. s . .
. . ..
. . . . .... . u . .
I. .
, . . . . \. . . .
. . . . ‘ .
. ..
. . w. . . 9 .
», . . .
.
. . . . . .
. . . ., . ,. .
. .. . .. .\ ...
: . . .. . H . .. . . . ..
. nu I .
.n.
. u .
U . . . \ . .
. 3 . ‘ 9
,. .. . «
.. .
.
. . . h.. .
. .. . , ..
. . — . \ H . , . . J o co
.,
I 4 .
u‘ ‘. J .
.) . . . ... .
.
.y I» . . 0.
n
u
.
1. ,.
o
‘ x...... .. . . .
. ..
‘ x _ .
.
L. . 5. .
q ..
;.
‘\a Agenda Item #12.6.
b. If this policy is issued for more than
one year, the premium for this Coverage Form will be comp ted annu- ' ally based on our rates or premiums
in effect at the beginning of each
year of the policy.
Policy Period, Coverage Territory
Under this Coverage Form, we cover "accidents" and "losses" occurring: a. During the policy period shown in ' the Declarations; and
b. Within the coverage territory.
The coverage territory is: a. The United States of America; b. The territories and possessions of
the United States of America;
d. Canada; and e. Anywhere in the world if: (1) A covered "auto" of the private passenger type is leased, hired. rented or borrowed without a driver for a period of 30 days or less; and (2) The "insured’s" responsibility to pay damages is determined in a "suit" on t e merits, in the Unit- ed States of America, the ter- ritories and possessions of the United States of America. Puerto Rico, or Canada or in a settle- ment we agree to. We also cover "loss" to. or "accidents" involving, a covered "auto" while being transported between any of these places. Two Or More Coverage Forms Or Poli- cies Issued By Us if this Coverage Form and any other Cov- erage Form or policy issued to you by us or any company affiliated with us apply to the same "accident", the aggregate maximum Limit of Insurance under all the Coverage Forms or policies shall not exceed the highest applicable Limit of insurance under any one Coverage Form or policy. This condition does not apply to any Coverage Form or policy issued by us or an affiliated company speci?- cally to apply as excess insurance over this Coverage Form.
5. Other Insurance
For any covered "auto" you own,
this Coverage Form provides primary
insurance. For any covered "auto"
you don't own, the insurance provided by this Coverage Form is excess over any other collectible i surance. However, while a covered
"auto" which is a "trailer" is connected to another vehicle, the Liability Coverage this Coverage Form provides for the "trailer" is:
(1) Excess while it is connected to a
motor vehicle you do not own. (2) Primary while it is connected to a covered "auto" you own.
lease, hire, rent or borrow .is deemed to be a covered "auto" you own. However, any "auto" that is leased, hired, rented or borrowed with a driver is not a covered "auto". Regardless of the provisions of Para- graph a. above, this Coverage Form‘s Liability Coverage is primary for any liability assumed under an "insured contract". When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy cov- ers on the same basis, either excess or primary. we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our Coverage Form bears to the total of f all the Coverage Forms covering on the same the limits 0
and policies
basis.
Premium Audit
The estimated premium for this Coverage Form is based on the exposures you told us you would have when this policy began. We will
compute the ?nal premium due
when we determine your actual ex- posures. The estimated total premi- um will be credited against the final premium due and the first Named
Insured will be billed for the balance,
if any. If the estlm ted total premium
exceeds the ?nal premium due, the
?rst Named insured will get a re-
___§___
8838 838 P
ol
ic
y
Nu BAA(20)
mb 56353680
er:
©|
SO
Pro lnc., 2005
pert
ies,
C
A
0136
0 P
ag
e
103of
.~;
.1
«V . ; ..'I..
‘ .
. . . I -\ ‘->‘.
\: . .
,
,..
.. .. ,-
‘
' - ' .
'‘.
rt) .
, .
_
~I — u
‘ . --v- '.J4- _ , » ._.
. K. ‘
I
' . ‘.-Vs.
.o
~~.
\- Agenda Item #12.6.
”° llllllllolililalllll
lll
lllllllllllll i!
84 0!
PolicyNumber:BAA(20)S6353680
COMMERCIALAUTO
C 88 10 01 13
THIS ENDORSE ENT CHANGESTHEPOLICY.PLEASEREADITCAREFULLY.
BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE ENHANCEMENT ENDORSEMENT
This endorsement modi?es insurance provided under the following:
BUSINESSAUTO COVERAGEFORM
With respect to coverage afforded by this endorsement, the provisions of the policy apply unless modified by the endorsement.
COVERAGEINDEX
SUBJECT
ADDITIONALINSUREDBYCONTRACT,AGREEMENTOR PERMIT
PROVISION NUMBER
3 ACCIDENTALAIRBAG DEPLOYMENT 12 AMENDEDDUTIESIN THE EVENTOF ACCIDENT,CLAIM,SUIT OR LOSS 19 AMENDEDFELLOWEMPLOYEEEXCLUSION 5 AUDIO, VISUALAND DA A ELECTRONICEQUIPMENT COVERAGE 13 BROAD FORMINSURED 1 BODILYINJURYREDEFINED 22 MPLOYEESAS INSUREDS (including employee hired auto) 2 EXTENDEDCANCELLATIONCONDITION 23 EXTRAEXPENSE- BROADENEDCOVERAGE 1 GLASSREPAIR- WAIVEROF DEDUCTIBLE 15 HIREDAUTO PHYSICALDAMAGE(including employee hired auto and loss of use) 6 HIREDAUTO COVERAGETERRITORY 20 LOANI LEASEGAP 14 PARKEDAUTO COLLISIONCOVERAGE(WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE) 16 PERSONALEFFECTSCOVERAGE 11 PHYSICALDAMAGE-ADDITIONALTRANSPORTATIONEXPENSE COVERAGE 8 RENTALREIMBURSEMENT 9 SUPPLEMENTARYPAYMENTS 4 TOWINGAND LABOR 7 TWO OR MOREDEDUCTIBLES 17 UNINTENTIONALFAILURETO DISCLOSEHAZARDS 18 WAIVEROF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERYAGAINSTOTHERS TO US 20 SECTIONII- LIABILITY COVERAGEis amended as follows:
1. BROAD FORM INSURED
SECTION II- LIABILITYCOVERAGE, - d. Any legally incorporated entity of which you own more than 50 percent of the voting stock during the policy period. However, "insured" does not include any organization that: (1) Isapartnership or joint venture; or (2) Is an insured under any other automobile policy; or (3) Has exhausted its.Limit of Insurance under any other automobile policy. Paragraph d. (2) of this provision does not apply to a policy written to apply speci?cally in excess of this policy. e. Any organization you newly acquire or form.other than a partnership or joint venture, of which you ow more than 50 percent of the voting stock. T is automatic coverage is afforded only for 180 days from the date of acquisition or formation. However, coverage under this provision does not apply: (1) Ifthere is similar insurance oraself-insured retention plan available to that organization; © 20 3LibertyMutualInsurance CA88 ‘I0 01 13 Includescop righted material of InsuranceServicesOf?ce, Inc.,with its permission. Page 1 of 7 Agenda Item #12.6.
. .
. r
‘ » .
_ .
'
I
W _ . x . .
. .' 4 .1
‘
(2) Ifthe Limits of Insurance of any other insurance policy have been exhausted; or (3) To "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred before you acquired or formed the organization.
2. EMPLOYEES AS INSUREDS
SECTION II - LIABILITYCOVERAGE, paragraph A.1.
- WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include
the following as an insured:
f. Any "employee" of yours while using a covered "auto" you do not own, hire or borrow, but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you. Insurance provided by this endorsement is excess over any other insurance available to any "employee". g. An "employee" of yours while operating an "auto" hired or borrowed under a written contract or agreement in that "employee's" na a, with your permission. while performing duties related to the conduct of your business and within the scope of their employment. Insurance provided by this endorsement is excess over any other insurance available to the "employee".
3. ADDITIONAL INSURED BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT
SECTION II- LIABILITYCOVERAGE, paragraph A.1.
- HO IS AN INSURED is amended to include
the following as an insured:
h. Any person or organization with respect to the operation, maintenance or use of a covered "auto", provided that you and such person or organization have agreed in a written contract, agreement, or permit issued to you by governmental or public authority, to add such person, or organization, or governmental or public authority to this policy as an "insured".
However, such perso or organization is an "insured":
(1) Only with respect to the operation, maintenance or use of a covered "auto"; (2) Only for "bodily injury" or "prope damage" caused by an "accident" which takes place after you executed the written contract or agreement. or the permit has been issued to you; and
(3) Only for the duration of that contract, agreement or permit
4. SUPPLEMENTARYPAYMENTS
SECTION II ~ LIABILITYCOVERAGE, Coverage Extensions, 2.a. Supplementary Payments, paragraphs (2) and (4) are replaced by the following:
(2) Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (including bonds for related traffic violations ) required because of an "accident" we cover. We do not have to furnish these bonds. (4) All reasonableexpenses incurred by the insured at our request, including actual loss of earnings up to $500 a day because of time off from work.
5. AMENDEDFELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION
In those jurisdictions where, by law, fellow employees are not entitled to the protection afforded to the employer by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, or similar protection, the following
SECTION II
- LIABILITY, exclusion B.5. FELLOW EMPLOYEE does not apply if the "bodily injury" results from the use of a covered "auto" you own or hire. SECTION III - PHYSICALDAMAGE COVERAGE is amended as follows: 6. HIREDAUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE Paragraph A.4. Coverage Extensions of SECTION III - PHYSICALDAMAGE COVERAGE, is amended by adding the following: If hired "autos" are covered"autos" for Liability Covera e, and if Comprehensive. Speci?ed Causes of Loss or Collision coverage are provided under the Business Auto Coverage Form for any "auto" you own, then the Physical Damage coverages provided are extended to "autos": a. You hire, ent_ or borrow; or ©Insurance Liberty Mutual 2013
Inclu
des
permission. its with Services Insurance Inc:.. of Office. cop materiai yri
ght
ed
P
ol
ic
y
BAA(20) Nu
56353680 mb
er:
C00113
Pa
ge
7of 2
. -, -~ _
'~-.-,'.-'_'.. ..' »_. _._
I . a
'
''.-_\ ’.- .$- . ., ..,~,-
'..A_.._:.»._V,-:-. w. .n- >\v .
.
.\-‘A4 . . .»_
‘_‘
, .. . .. ._. __.,~. 4' ;,_~.._~..2_.
'‘I.
.
' '‘“.s Agenda Item #12.6.
llllllllllllllll lllllllllllll Illlllllll IIIII
270
To the extent possible, notice to us should include:
(1) How, when and where the "accident" or "loss" took place; (2) The "insureds" name and address; and
(3) The names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses.
20. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS.paragraph A.5.. Transfer Rigecovery of hts Against Others to Us, is amended by the additio of the following:
if the person or organization has waived those rights before an "accident" waived also.
‘I. HIREDAUTO COVERAGE TERRITORY
SECTION IV- BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS, paragraph B.7., Policy Period , CTerrit ry, iso ve
rage
amended by the addition of the following:
rights our are "
lo
ss
",
f. For "autos" hired 30 days or less, the coverage territory is anywhere in provided wor that ld, the insured's responsibility to pay for damages is determined in a " suit
",
the oninmerits.
United States, the territories and possessions of the United States of Puerto Rico or Canada or in a settlement we agree to.
This extension of coverage does not apply to an "auto" hired, leased, or borrowed with a driver.
SECTION V - DEFINITIONS Is amended as follows:
22. BODILYINJURY .REDEFINED
Under SECTIONV- DEFINTIONS, definition C. is replaced by the following:
"Bodily injury" means physical injury, sickness or disease sustained by a includin mental g anguish, mental injury, shock, fright or death resulting from any of these at time . COMMMON POLICYCONDITIONS
23. EXTENDEDCANCELLATION CONDITION
COMMON POLICYCONDITIONS,paragraph A. - CANCELLATIONconditio n apsfol- except
pli
es
lows:
If we cancel for any reason other than nonpayment of premium, we will tohe Named first Insured written notice of cancellation at least 60 days before the effective of This cancell ation. provision does not apply in those states which require more than 60 days notice of cancellation. ©Insurance Mutual Liberty 2013 Inclu
des
permissidn. Office, Inc., with its Services coof material Insurance pyr
igh
ted P
ol
icy
Nu BAA(20) 53680
mb 563
er: CA
01138810 Page
of 7 4 ,,.
,.
.1.
,,. ''..-
,l..V-.2;'.,.V‘‘',..
-s» .: _ _
-1... ...
--~—.-.. _.,_. Agenda Item #12.6.
isj.
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITHHYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS; STH CONTRACT NO: 2019-077 FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: S-52 PHASE I WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND RECLAMATIONPLANT
UPGRADES
This Amendment No. 1 to Professional Servic s A reement STH Con ract: 2019-077 dated April9, 2019 ("Agreement") is made as of this ay of , 2020 by and between the City of St. Helena, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Hydroscience Engineers ("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. On April 9. 2019 the City and Consultant entered into the Agreement for Consultant to provide professional design services in connection with the project described as CIP Project No. S-52 Phase Wastewater I Treatment and Reclamation Plant Upgrades; and B. The Agreement's current Scope of Services does not include the funds or the additional work needed to allow Hydroscience Engineers to complete ?nal design plans and bid documents in order to advertise and bid the project; and C. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement with Consultant for the purpose of ?nalizing bid documents in order to meet the City's Cease and Desist Order requirements and deadines.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE.in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged. the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Section 1. Basic Services
Parties agree to amend Exhibit A “Scope of Services" of the Agreement to provide additional services.as outlined in Exhibit A-1.“Scope of Services" attached hereto.
2. Section 4.A Compensation, is amended to read as follows:
Amendment No. 1 $255,380 Total Compensation Not to Exceed $695,380 ExhibitB-1. Compensation” detailing the compensation modi?cation is attached hereto. Allother terms of the Agreement shall remain in fullforce and effect. Page 1 of 10 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 Consultant: Hydroscience Engineers SI
H
0077- 0/A
ll
Agenda Item #12.6.
CITYOF ST. HELENA a Municipal Corporation
By:
Print Name: Mark T. Pres
twic h Title: City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FOR
M:
Amend
ment
Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 toProfessional Services 1No.
Consult
ant:
Hydr Engineers
oscie
nce
CONSULTANT:
Signature
f Authorized
By:
Print Name:
Title:
Attachme
nts:
Exhibit A1:
“of Services” Scope
ExhibitB1: "Compe
ns
at
ion
Kara K. Ueda, Att
orn
ey
A EST:
City Clerk
E
nt
ered
stated. year the day and of ?rst aboves
-1/.".
.g
L. I-'\Lvo‘
.9u
C/ U
’\d
~|j
ondos T14
uw
Agenda Item #12.6.
CONSULTANT: C
I
T
Y
OF ST. HELENA
aorzt
atio
n
Signatures ?thorized
Persons:
K
By: P
ri
n
t
Mark Na Prestwich T.
me:
Print Name: ML T
n
l
e
:
City Manage
r
Title:_ AS TOFRM:
City Ueda, Attorney K.
Cl
erk
Amen
dment
No. 1toServices Agreement Professional STH Contract: 2019-077 Consul
tant:
Hydr Engineers
oscie
nce
Attachme
nts:
ExhibitA1:
‘of Services"
S
c
o
p
e
ExhibitB1:"C
o
E
nt
er
ed
of day the asnd year ?rs! above stated.
Agenda Item #12.6.
ExhibitA-1
"Scope of Services"
Scope of Services for the City of St. Helena Phase 1 Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant Upgrade Detailed Design Project Understanding
The City WWTRP is owned and operated by the City of St. Helena and was originally established in 1967. The WWTRP utilizes an advanced integrated treatment pond system (AIPS). which includes a system of hydraulically connected treatment ponds of which, largely operate as originally constructed. The pond system provides a secondary level of wastewater treatment followed by either direct discharge to the Napa River or land discharge to spray ?elds adjacent to the WWTRP.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued NPDES Permit No. CA 00038016 (Order No. R2-2016-2016-0003) and Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. R2-2016-0004 to the City in 2016. The new NPDES permit contained ef?uent limitations the City could not reliably obtain with their existing AIPS process. This resulted in the RWQCB issuing the City with a Time Schedule Order requiring the City to complete a number of steps with the overall intent of upgrading the VV\NTRPprocess to a level that would result in the VV\NTRPreliably meeting its ef?uent discharge limitations.
InApril 2019, the City commissioned Hydroscience Engineers to develop a Conceptual Design Report (Report) to further analyze treatment alternatives that would result in compliance with the new NPDES ef?uent discharge limitations, while also modernizing the facility's treatment process and eventual decommissioning of the VV\NTRPpond system. The Report re-examined City provided ?ow and loading data as well as current operations at the City's WWTRP in order to characterize the existing plant’s conditions and identify treatment plant design criteria. HydroScience evaluated two wastewater treatment processes: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)and Sequencing Batch Reactor The recommendations in the Report identi?ed that the preferred WWTRP upgrade alternative is a packaged MBRtreatment system due to its ability to reliably produce high quality ef?uent that is capable of both meeting ef?uent discharge limitations and being used as a future recycled water supply source. The WWTRP willmaintain its permitted capacity of 0.5 MGDwith the ?exibility to operate the plant at a peak day hydraulic capacity of 1.33 MGD. There willbe associated WWTRP improvements to incorporate existing plant processes into the new treatment plant to improve Page reliability. 3 of 10 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 Consultant: Hydroscience Engineers Agenda Item #12.6.
These improvements include repurposing Ponds 1A through 3 to be used for ?ow equalization and emergency storage, constructing facilities to return equalized ?ow to the new MBRprocess, adding a bar screen, modifying the method for disinfection, and continuing to utilize the chlorination system solely for land discharge. The new treatment plant improvement would be modular in its design so that the City could costeffectively expand the new system to meet anticipated buildout ?ows, if necessary.
On January 14. 2020, the City received the Report and directed staff to proceed with implementation of the next steps in implementation of the project. One of those steps was to prepare the procurement for design-build implementation of the project. Staff also determined that funding the project through a USDA loans was the preferred ?nancing method. USDA informed the City that design-build implementation of a project is something that, while allowed, would have the potential to result in delays in funding approval. They expressed a desire to the City to have the project procurement follow a traditional design-bid-build method. As a result, HydroScience has prepared this proposal to provide design services for the WWTRP project.
Project management, CEQA management services.USDA funding, and other services covered under the existing agreement willcontinue to be provided as part of that agreement. This scope of work covers only the additional scope of work associated with the detailed design of the W\N'l'RP improvements recommended in the Conceptual Design Report.
Modi?cations to the original Exhibit A, “Scope of Services" includes eliminating further work from Task 7: Preparation of Bridging Documents, Task 8: Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination, and Contingency.
Scope of Work
This scope of work summarizes the level of effort required to develop contract documents for the Phase 1 WWTRP Improvements. This project is expected to include the following components:
0 Packaged coarse screening unit designed to treat WWTRP peak hour in?uent ?ow prior to discharge to Ponds 1A and 1B
Duplex submersible secondary pump station and force main sized for up to 1.33 MGD for distribution to new packaged WWTRP. Submersible pumps willbe (duty + standby) designed to meet 1.5 MGD each. Structure willbe precast or cast-in-place concrete with rail retrieval system and instrumentation. - UVdisinfection system to disinfect MBRpenneate - Packaged, pre-fabricated MBRwastewater treatment plant designed in accordance with the design criteria established as part of the Report, which are summarized Page 4 of 10 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 Consultant: Hydroscience Engineers Agenda Item #12.6.
below.
o 2mm ?ne screening primary treatment (Duty and Standby) at ADWF Dual anoxic treatment trains including submersible mixing and instrumentation, o Dual aerobic treatment trains which include ?ne bubble diffusers, 400 cfrn blowers, and instrumentation
o Waste activated sludge positive displacement pumps
Return activated distribution system
Membrane ultra?ltration units (8 total) and associated penneate equipment and monitoring instrumentation
Membrane cleaning chemical equipment and storage
Vessel type UVdisinfection reactors (Duty and Standby)
Stainless steel ef?uent storage tank for ef?uent equalization (20,000 gallons) Skid mounted ef?uent pump station (Duty and Standby) rated at 450 gpm each Packaged sludge dewatering treatment facility including volute dewatering press, chemicals, blowers, and controls.
Type 304 stainless steel basins designed to the volumetric requirements of the biological treatment process
0 Factory assembled electrical and mechanical systems ready for ?eld assembly and ?nished connections
o Comprehensive SCADA integration for remote monitoring o Sound attenuation and safety features
Ef?uent force main piping for distribution effluent storage tank to either the outfall or Pond 4.
Yard piping and site work within new WWTRPfootprint
New 480 Volt, 3-Phase PG&E service connection.
New 480 Volt, 3-Phase standby generator sized to meet the demands of all new and existing electrical loads.
Structural concrete slab for new MBR, dewatering press, transformer, and other appurtenant facilities.
New domestic water service connection and distribution throughout plant.
Improvements to existing sodium hypochlorite distribution and storage system, where required.
sanitary service connections. 3" thick asphaltic concrete looped driveway and paving around the new VV\NTRP treatment area. Storm water improvements and various civilimprovements. 0 O O 0 00000 HydroScience willprepare contract documents, which includes engineering plans, speci?cations, and a cost estimate (PS&E) and submit them to the City at the 90% and Page 5 of 10 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 Consultant: Hydroscience Engineers Agenda Item #12.6.
bid set levels of completion. A draft sheet list is attached. 90% PS&E: The 90% PS&E willcontain complete drawings, including plans, sections, and details for all disciplines, developed to a level of detail that make them suitable for City of St. Helena review. Division 1 through 16 willbe prepared by Hydroscience. The front end speci?cations (Division 0) willbe developed using the City standard front-end contract documents. The 90% PS&E willcontain the following elements:
General sheets
Demolitionsheets
Process ?ow diagram
Hydraulic pro?le
Yard piping and underground utilitydrawings
Site plan drawings
Structural plans and sections
Mechanical plans and sections, including equipment and piping Power distribution site plan
P&lDdrawings
Standard copies of technical speci?cations
Engineer's opinion of probable costs.
Topographic Survey: The topographic survey work willbe performed by HydroScience’s subconsultant, O’De|| Engineering. O’De|| willestablish survey control based on the NAD 83 horizontal datum and NAVD 88 vertical datum. The coordinate reference system used willbe California State Plan Coordinates — Zone 3, US Survey Feet.
O’Dellwillprovide aerial topographic mapping and black and white orthography within the project mapping limits. Aerial topographic mapping willbe prepared at a horizontal scale of 1" = 20' and a minor contour interval of 0.5’.
The topographic survey willclearly locate and identify the following within the project footprint:
Surface utilities High points, low points, break lines, and spot elevations in ?at areas Trees over 6-inches in diameter Parking lot and lane striping Lot boundaries Water valve lids and water valve top of nut for all water valves Page 6 of 10 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 Consultant: Hydroscience Engineers Agenda Item #12.6.
- Survey rim and invert elevations and pipeline diameters for all storm and sanitary sewer manholes
O’Dellwillalso determine the record location rights of way as de?ned by and analysis of record maps and physical evidence. The limits of this work will not include a boundary detennination and no monuments willbe set.
O’Dellwillsend a utilityresearch/as-built plans request letter to local utilitycompanies that may have facilities within the project limits.A map of the approximate utilitylocations (including underground utilities) willbe created based on data provided by the utility companies and surface utility features as identi?ed during the topographic survey. When the existing data allows.the drawing willindicate utilitytype, diameter, material, approximate cover, and the horizontal location of the utility.
Geotechnical Investigation: A geotechnical investigation willbe completed as part of the following subsurface exploration program:
Proposed Improvement Number of Borings Boring Depth (ft.) Return Pump Station 1 20
Packaged Tertiary Treatment Plant 2 15
Exploratory borings willbe drilled using a truck-mounted drillrig using auger drilling methods. Soil samples will be collected at 3-foot to 5-foot intervals with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and/or Califomia Modi?ed samplers. Bulk soil samples willbe collected from selected borings, logged, and delivered to a laboratory for testing. The borings willbe back?lled with cement grout.
The following laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings:
Moisture content and dry density for soil consistency evaluation.
Plasticity index for soil classi?cation and expansive soil evaluation.
Sieve analysis for soil classi?cation.
Direct Shear, Uncon?ned Compression and/or Triaxial Compression - R-value for pavement design at the treatment facility site. 0 Soil corrosion (pH, resistivity, sulfates, chlorides). Engineering analysis and a Geotechnical Report willbe prepared that contains the following: Page 7 of 10 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 Consultant: Hydroscience Engineers Agenda Item #12.6.
Project description.
Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions.
Laboratory test results.
Soil corrosion potential.
Soil expansion potential.
California Building Code seismic design parameters.
Grading and trench back?ll recommendations, including excavation shoring and dewatering considerations.
Foundation and lateral earth pressure recommendations for design of the tank, pump station, and tertiary treatment plant structure, including estimated settlements.
Hot mix asphalt pavement design recommendations for the treatment facility site.
Site plan displaying proposed improvements and boring locations.
Boring logs.
100% PS&E: The 100% bid set submittal willincorporate all comments from the 90% and be suitable for advertisement. The engineer's opinion of probable cost willbe revised based upon City comments and eventual scope adjustments.
The Bid Set PS&E contract documents willinclude the following:
Wet stamped and signed ?nal drawings in fullsize fonnat. We anticipate submitting bound hard copies of the project drawings (Full and Half size) and speci?cations as well as PDF/DWG formats,
Special provisions, bid schedule, and technical speci?cations with stamped title page suitable for advertisement, in PDF format,
Updated Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost,
Reference electronic ?les for the project, including utilityinformation, geotechnical information, and other associated project information.
Deliverables:
90% PS&E: PDF electronic versions of half size (11x17) drawings, technical speci?cations, and engineer's opinion of probable cost. Hard copies of plans and specifications provided to the Owner upon request.
speci?cations shall include: (3) copies of half size (11x17) drawings, (1) copy of full size (22x34) drawings, and (3) copies of bound technical speci?cations. AutoCAD drawings and Microsoft Word documents of the technical speci?cations willbe provided to the Owner.
Amend
ment
2019-077 STH Contract: Agreement No. toProfessional Services 1 Consult
ant:
Hyd Engineers
rosc
ienc
e
Agenda Item #12.6.
Exhibit B-1
“Compensation"
The estimated budget by task for Amendment No. 1 is as follows:
Design Services
90% PS&E
$
36 4,
100
100% Bid Set PS&E
Design Services Total:
$45
5, 380
Compensation modi?cation from the original Exhibit
B are as follow
s:
Task 7: Preparation of Bridging Documents: ($
135 ,000 )
Task 8: Phase
2 Project Management and Coordination: ($
10,00
0)
Contin enc : 000 Total Reduced Budget from original contract: ($ 200 ,000 )
Total Amendment No. 1 $25
5, 380
Allwork willbe performed in accordance with the professional servi ces
agre
eme
nt
between the City and Hydroscience. Services willbe invoiced on amaterials tand i basis in accordance with standard billingrate schedule in effect wh en
are se
rvi
ces
rendered.
A copy of the HydroScience 2020 standard billing rate
schedule
attached. is
Amend
ment
Contract: 2019-O77 Agreement STHervices No. toProfessional 1 Consult
ant:
Engineers Hyd
rosc
ienc e
Agenda Item #12.6.
Amend
ment
2019-077 Agreement STH Contract: No. toProfessional Services 1 Consult
ant:
Hyd Engineers
rosci
ence
Agenda Item #12.6.
Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: HydroScience Engineers
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS; STH CONTRACT NO: 2019-077 FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:
S-52 PHASE I WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND RECLAMATION PLANT UPGRADES FOR AN ADDITIONAL $792,550 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,487,930.
This Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 dated April 9, 2019 ("Agreement") is made as of this day of , 2021 by and between the City of St. Helena, a municipal corporation ("City"), and HydroScience Engineers ("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. On April 9, 2019 the City and Consultant entered into the Agreement for Consultant to provide professional design services in connection with the project described as CIP Project No. S-52 Phase I Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant Upgrades; and B. The Agreement's Scope of Services did not include the funds or the additional work needed to allow HydroScience Engineers to complete final design plans and bid documents in order to advertise and bid the project; and
C. On March 24, 2020, City Council authorized Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: FY 2019-017 in the amount of $255,380 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $695,380; and
D. On February 23, 2021, City Council adopted the IS/MND and the MMRP, and approved the plans and specifications authorizing the Public Works Director/City Engineer to advertise the Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant Phase I Upgrades, CIP Project No. S-52; and E. The current Scope of Services does not include the funds or the additional work for HydroScience to provide engineering services during the bidding and construction phases as well as construction management and inspection services; and F. The additional funding is necessary to allow HydroScience Engineers to provide additional consulting services to the City.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Section 1. Basic Services
2. Section 4.A Compensation and Method of Payment, is amended to read as follows:
$1,487,930.
Agenda Item #12.6.
Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: HydroScience Engineers
All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Entered as of the day and year first above stated.
CONSULTANT:
Signatures of Authorized Persons:
By:
Print Name:
Title:
CITY OF ST. HELENA
a Municipal Corporation
By:
Print Name: Mark T. Prestwich
Title: City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A-1:
Exhibit B-1:
Agenda Item #12.6.
Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: HydroScience Engineers
Exhibit A-1
HydroScience has been working with the City to plan, design, and support the permitting and funding of the Project. The design was stamped and submitted to the City and is going to be advertised following City Council concurrence. A draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was issued to the City based on the design of the improvements, and it is expected that this permit will replace the current NPDES permit. Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is expected to occur during the February 23, 2021 City Council meeting. Following adoption of the IS/MND and approval to advertise, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding will need to be finalized prior to contract award.
Scope of Work
HydroScien
and construction phases of the project. HydroScience will also provide a full-time Construction Manager/Inspector to oversee construction of the Project by the Contractor. Additionally, HydroScience would support efforts to startup the new treatment plant and prepare record drawings based on redlines prepared by the Contractor.
Task 1: Bid Services and Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) HydroScience will support the City during the bid and construction phases. It is assumed the City will lead the effort to advertise the job, distribute plans, and field inquiries from Contractors. HydroScience has estimated a total of 1,000 hours of effort for this task, which equates to approximately 12 hours per week for the duration of the project. It is expected that certain weeks will require more effort than others, but that this average burn rate will be adequate to provide the required level of ESDC.
HydroScience will provide the following types of bid period services to the City:
HydroScience will attend the pre-bid meeting and provide any technical support required to respond to technical questions from prospective bidders submitted during the bidding phase.
Bidding services will include responding to questions posed by the bidders and preparing clarifications and up to two addenda. All communications with potential bidders will be coordinated through proper channels.
HydroScience will provide support with receiving bids, analyzing bids, determining responsive responsible bidders, and presenting a recommendation to the City.
Following receipt of bids, HydroScience will make a recommendation on how to proceed and h
Assisting the City in contracting with the selected bidder.
HydroScience will provide ESDC to the City as needed and requested up to the level of effort identified in this scope. The types of services HydroScience expects to provide as part of this task is summarized below.
Attending construction meetings. HydroScience expects that the ESDC staff will attend up to six construction meetings. The timing of these meetings would be set as directed by the City and the Contractor.
Site visits: ESDC staff shall conduct up to eight site visits during construction. These construction site visits are in addition to the construction meetings. Site visits may occur in conjunction with a construction meeting.
Submittal reviews: HydroScience will review submittals and resubmittals and provide comments Agenda Item #12.6.
Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: HydroScience Engineers
back to the Contractor. Submittal reviews will be transmitted in the cloud-based software format preferred by the Contractor. HydroScience is estimating up to 100 submittals or resubmittals.
RFI reviews: HydroScience expects that the City may require assistance from HydroScience for RFI reviews. RFIs may address changed conditions, corrective actions, or items requested by the City or Contractor. Completed RFI reviews will be returned to the CM and/or the City in the same format as submittals. HydroScience has assumed up to 20 RFIs.
Change Order Reviews: Any change orders will be reviewed against field conditions and the contract documents to determine the validity of the change order request. HydroScience will review change orders and provide a response/recommendation to the City. HydroScience is estimating approximately 10 potential change orders.
Deliverables
Responses to bidder inquiries
Up to two addenda
Documentation of pre-bid meeting agenda and notes
Review of project bids
Meeting agenda/minutes for HydroScience led meetings
Submittal responses
RFI responses
Responses to Change Order requests
Task 2: Construction Management and Inspection
HydroScience will provide one combined Construction Manager (CM)/Inspector to be present at the site during the major periods of construction activity. It is expected that the construction duration will be approximately 14 months, plus approximately 2-3 months for startup and commissioning. HydroScience has budgeted approximately 2,500 hours for our CM/Inspector and support staff as required for this task.
HydroScience will use the electronic, cloud-based construction document and communication system for tracking of all Project construction documents and transmittals. All documents and transmittals will be tracked, filed, and routed using this system, including RFIs, submittals, change order requests, design clarifications, and inspection reports. A cloud-based document management system will catalogue all electronic communication and record keeping for efficiency and the ease of access and data back-up.
HydroScience will address potential change orders (PCOs) received during the project. PCOs will be reviewed against field conditions and the contract documents to determine validity. HydroScience will independently evaluate PCO costs and make a recommendation to the City. HydroScience will lead the negotiation process and will, as appropriate, prepare a contract change order (CCO) for issuance to the Contractor.
HydroScience will receive, log, and track contractor progress payment requests; perform a job walk to review construction progress and verify requests are consistent with work performed; and will make a recommendation to the City for payment.
project float. HydroScience will evaluate any changes to the original schedule affected by weather solutions to prevent a delay claim.
Agenda Item #12.6.
Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: HydroScience Engineers
HydroScience will serve in a central coordination role with all parties. Communication will consist of verbal communications, progress meetings, monthly progress reports, and written correspondence.
HydroScience will log and track all correspondence and communication as described above.
HydroScience will prepare a punch list and facilitate a final job walk with the City and Contractor.
Recommendation will be made to the City on acceptance of the facilities and posting the notice of completion.
Following substantial completion, HydroScience will work collaboratively with the City to refine operations and verify that the Project is operating as expected. Crucial to this will be documenting that the new Project can meet the water quality requirements in the new NPDES permit. HydroScience will analyze the data and prepare a technical report summarizing process performance of the Project once it is put into operation.
Once construction is complete, HydroScience will prepare record drawings to reflect the as-built condition. Red-line drawings from the Contractor will be used as the basis for HydroScience to prepare the record drawings.
Proposed Team
HydroScience s proposed team will include Curtis Lam and Thinh Le as the Engineers-of-Record, Jason Crowley as the lead for bid support services and ESDC, and Ed Francisco as the CM/inspector. Curtis and Jason designed the Project and will continue in similar roles to make sure that the design intent is carried through into construction. Ed has worked with HydroScience for nearly 20 years and has spent the past 10+ years performing construction management services for many types of public projects.
These individuals will be committed to the successful implementation of your Project and will continue to be your primary day-to-day contacts.
Project Schedule
We expect that the construction contract will be awarded during May 2021. Bidding is expected to begin during March 2021, assuming USDA funding is secured. It is expected that the construction contract will require approximately 14 months, plus 2-3 months of performance testing. It is expected that full compliance with the new NPDES permit requirements could be achieved by December 2022.
Agenda Item #12.6.
Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: HydroScience Engineers
Exhibit B-1
Compensation
A summary of the estimated budget by task for Amendment No. 2 is as follows:
Design Services
Task 1: Engineering Services During Bidding/Construction $208,000 Task 2: Construction Management and Inspection Services $512,500 Overall Subtotal: $720,500
10% Contingency $72,050
Amendment No. 2 Total: $792,550
Original Contract $440,000
Amendment #1 $255,380
Amendment #2 $792,550
_______________________________
Total $1,487,930
All work will be performed in accordance with the professional services agreement between the City and HydroScience. Services will be invoiced on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with standard billing rate schedule in effect when services are rendered.
Agenda Item #12.6.
AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS; STH CONTRACT NO: 2019-077 FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:
S-52 PHASE I WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND RECLAMATION PLANT UPGRADES FOR AN ADDITIONAL $532,466 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $2,020,396 This Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2019-077 dated April 9, 2019 ("Agreement") is made as of this day of , 2021 by and between the City of St. Helena, a municipal corporation ("City"), and HydroScience Engineers ("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. On April 9, 2019 the City and Consultant entered into the Agreement for Consultant to provide professional design services in connection with the project described as CIP Project No. S-52 Phase I Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant Upgrades; and B. The Agreement's Scope of Services did not include the funds or the additional work needed to allow HydroScience Engineers to complete final design plans and bid documents in order to advertise and bid the project; and
C. On March 23, 2020, City Council authorized Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: FY 2019-017 in the amount of $255,380 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $695,380; and
D. On February 23, 2021, City Council adopted the IS/MND and the MMRP, and approved the plans and specifications authorizing the Public Works Director/City Engineer to advertise the Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant Phase I Upgrades, CIP Project No. S-52; and The current Scope of Services does not include the funds or the additional work for HydroScience to provide engineering services during the bidding and construction phases as well as construction management and inspection services; and
E. On March 23, 2021 City Council authorized Amendment Number 2 in the amount of $792.550 for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,487,930 adding both engineering services during the bidding and construction phases and providing construction management and inspection services for CIP S-52.
F. Unanticipated schedule impacts have made it necessary to request additional time to construct the Package MBR. Delays in procuring electrical equipment, delays associated with wet weather, and delay associated with pouring the MBR pad, a critical path item all have contributed to the schedule amendment.
G. To carry out the project through the current anticipated demonstration, testing, and completion date of approximately April 2024, engineering and construction management/inspection services will need to be provided for an additional ten months past the original construction schedule.
H. The additional funding is necessary to allow HydroScience Engineers to provide continued consulting services to the City.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Section 1. Basic Services
Agenda Item #12.6.
2. Parties agree to amend Section 1 “Basic Services” to the agreement to provide additional services as outlined in Exhibit A, “Scope of Work” Attached hereto.
3. Section 4.A Compensation and Method of Payment, is amended to read as follows:
“Total Compensation shall not exceed $2,020,396...”
All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Entered as of the say and year first above stated.
Consultant: City of St. Helena
By: ________________________________ By: ________________________ Name: ______________________________ Name: Anil Comelo
Title:________________________________ Title: City Manager Approved as to Form:
By: _________________________________
Name: Ethan Walsh
Title: City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A-1 Scope of Services
Exhibit A-2: Compensation
Agenda Item #12.6.
Exhibit A-1
SCOPE OF SERVICES
HydroScience has been working with the City to plan, design, permit, and manage the construction of the Project. Notice to Proceed was issued to the Contractor during February 2022, and the Contractor has been diligently working to construct the Project.
Amendment No. 2 to STH Contract FY2019-077-02A included services for HydroScience to provide engineering services in support of the City’s efforts to manage the bidding and construction phases of the project. Since the Project bidding and construction began, HydroScience has been providing a full-time Construction Manager/Inspector to oversee construction of the Project by the Contractor, as well as providing engineering services during construction.
There were two primary tasks associated with Amendment No. 2. A summary of the assumptions relating to the level of effort associated with the Engineering Services During Construction and Construction Management/Inspection tasks are presented in the table below.
Task Item Scope Basis Current Status
Engineering
Services
During
Construction
Submittals/
Resubmittals
100 (total) 73 submittals +
40 resubmittals
RFIs 20 47
Change Orders 10 5
Schedule 16-17 months 26-27 months
Construction
Management/
Inspection
Schedule 16-17 months 26-27 months
Hours 2,500 2,353 hours
At current monthly burn rates, and to carry out the project through the current anticipated demonstration testing completion date of approximately April 2024, it is expected that engineering and construction management/inspection services will need to be provided for an additional ten months past the original construction schedule. The reasons for the schedule extensions include providing additional construction time to construct the Package MBR, delays in procuring electrical equipment, delays associated with wet weather, and delay associated with pouring the MBR pad, a critical path item.
The proposed tasks for Amendment No. 3 associated with Exhibit A-1 are as follows:
Task 1: Engineering Services During Construction
HydroScience will continue to support the City during the bid and construction phases. It is assumed that this effort will require approximately 12 hours per week for the duration of the additional phase of the project. Over a 10 month period, this equates to It is expected that certain weeks will require more effort than others, but that this average burn rate will be adequate to provide the required level of ESDC.
Agenda Item #12.6.
HydroScience will provide ESDC to the City as needed and requested up to the level of effort identified in this scope. The types of services HydroScience expects to provide as part of this task is summarized below.
Attending construction meetings. HydroScience will lead weekly construction meetings with the project team for the duration of the project.
Site visits: ESDC staff shall conduct up to eight site visits during construction. These construction site visits are in addition to the construction meetings. Site visits may occur in conjunction with a construction meeting.
Submittal reviews: HydroScience will review submittals and resubmittals and provide comments back to the Contractor. Submittal reviews will be transmitted in the cloud-based software format preferred by the Contractor.
RFI reviews: HydroScience expects that the City may require assistance from HydroScience for RFI reviews. RFIs may address changed conditions, corrective actions, or items requested by the City or Contractor. Completed RFI reviews will be returned to the CM and/or the City in the same format as submittals.
Change Order Reviews: Any change orders will be reviewed against field conditions and the contract documents to determine the validity of the change order request. HydroScience will review change orders and provide a response/recommendation to the City. HydroScience is estimating approximately 10 potential change orders.
Deliverables
• Meeting agenda/minutes for HydroScience led meetings
• Submittal responses
• RFI responses
• Responses to Change Order requests
Task 2: Construction Management and Inspection
HydroScience will provide one combined Construction Manager (CM)/Inspector to be present at the site regularly when the Contractor is on-site. We have assumed that approximately 1,800 hours of time by our CM/Inspector and support task is required for this task.
HydroScience will use the electronic, cloud-based construction document and communication system for tracking of all Project construction documents and transmittals. All documents and transmittals will be tracked, filed, and routed using this system, including RFIs, submittals, change order requests, design clarifications, and inspection reports. A cloud-based document management system will catalogue all electronic communication and record keeping for efficiency and the ease of access and data back-up.
HydroScience will address potential change orders (PCOs) received during the project. PCOs will be reviewed against field conditions and the contract documents to determine validity.
HydroScience will independently evaluate PCO costs and make a recommendation to the City.
HydroScience will lead the negotiation process and will, as appropriate, prepare a contract change order (CCO) for issuance to the Contractor.
Agenda Item #12.6.
HydroScience will receive, log, and track contractor progress payment requests; perform a job walk to review construction progress and verify requests are consistent with work performed; and will make a recommendation to the City for payment.
HydroScience will receive and evaluate the Contractor’s schedule and review critical path items and project float. HydroScience will evaluate any changes to the original schedule affected by weather and/or other factors. HydroScience’s goal will be to identify potential sources of delay and facilitate solutions to prevent a delay claim.
HydroScience will serve in a central coordination role with all parties. Communication will consist of verbal communications, progress meetings, monthly progress reports, and written correspondence. HydroScience will log and track all correspondence and communication as described above.
HydroScience will prepare a punch list and facilitate a final job walk with the City and Contractor.
Recommendation will be made to the City on acceptance of the facilities and posting the notice of completion.
Following substantial completion, HydroScience will work collaboratively with the City to refine operations and verify that the Project is operating as expected. Crucial to this will be documenting that the new Project can meet the water quality requirements in the new NPDES permit. HydroScience will analyze the data and prepare a technical report summarizing process performance of the Project once it is put into operation.
Once construction is complete, HydroScience will prepare record drawings to reflect the as-built condition. Red-line drawings from the Contractor will be used as the basis for HydroScience to prepare the record drawings.
Project Team
HydroScience s proposed team will include Curtis Lam and Thinh Le as the Engineers-ofRecord, Jason Crowley as the lead for ESDC, and Ed Francisco as the CM/inspector. Curtis and Jason designed the Project and will continue in similar roles to make sure that the design intent is carried through into construction. Ed has worked with HydroScience for over 20 years and has spent the past decade performing construction management services for many types of public projects. These individuals will be committed to the successful implementation of your Project and will continue to be your primary day-to-day contacts.
Agenda Item #12.6.
Exhibit A-2
COMPENSATION
A summary of the estimated budget by task for Amendment No. 2 is as follows:
Task 1: Engineering Services During Construction $124,800 Task 2: Construction Management/Inspection $359,260
Contingency (10%) $48,406
Amendment No. 3 Total: $532,466
All work will be performed in accordance with the professional services agreement between the City and HydroScience. Services will be invoiced on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with HydroScience’s 2023 Standard Billing Rate Schedule.
Agenda Item #12.6.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Finance
DATE: November 28, 2023
FROM: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Second reading and proposed adoption of an Ordinance updating Chapter 3.32 related to development impact
Fees.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Conduct the second reading by title only of an ordinance (Attachment B) amending Title 3 Revenue and Finance,
Chapter 3.32 Development Impact Fees related to such
fees.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
November 24, 2015 - Approval of Professional Services
Agreement with Willdan Financial Services.
November 14, 2017 - Approval of Amendment #1 for
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees.
October 9, 2018 - Approval of Amendment #2 to Update
Cost Allocation Plan.
August 24, 2021 - Approval of Amendment #3 to Add
Commercial Linkage Fee Analysis.
July 25, 2023 - Approval of Amendment #4 for Additional Funding to Complete User Fee Study.
August 8, 2023 - Approval of Amendment #5 for Additional Funding to Complete the Development Impact Fee Study.
November 14, 2023 - Approval of First Reading of an
Ordinance updating Chapter 3.32 related to development
impact Fees
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
The purpose is to adopt Development Impact Fee updating Chapter 3.32 related to development impact Fees and
implement the newly adopted fees by February 1, 2024.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of the development impact fee study do not have a financial impact, but the implementation of the new fees on February 1, 2024 will have an impact on future
revenues based on activity associated with those fees,
which is estimated to be an annual decrease in revenues of $162,000 based on an average of the last three fiscal years of activities.
BACKGROUND:
Cities must regularly update Development Impact fees and User Fees in order to recover costs that are attributable to certain services and for which benefits accrue to specific limited number of individuals or businesses. At the current time, the City has Agenda Item #12.7.
been experiencing a gap in the revenue collected, relative to expenditures and expectations for services. There are several underfunded city operational functions, and the infrastructure, parks, roads, and other facilities are visibly displaying the impact of underinvestment. As a result, the City is exploring several stable revenue generating alternatives including a real estate transfer tax ballot measure in November 2024. It is also important that the City update its fees to allow for more accurate recovery of its costs.
Development impact fees are charged to new development and support upgrades to the City’s infrastructure necessitated by such development and are generally paid as a requirement to obtain a building permit. The last development impact fee study was completed in April 2013 and an updated development impact fee schedule was adopted by the City Council on November 12, 2013 through Ordinance 2013-2.
In September 2015, staff issued a Request for Proposals for a Full Cost Services and Development Impact Fee Study to include a cost allocation plan, user fee study, and a development impact fee study. On October 9, 2015 the City received four proposal which were reviewed by City staff and an outside consultant. In November 2015, the City selected Willdan Financial Services to conduct a Full Cost Services and Development Impact Fee Study and entered into a professional services agreement on November 24, 2015 by Resolution 2015-146.
On November 14, 2023 the City Council approved the first reading of an Ordinance updating Chapter 3.32 related to development impact Fees.
DISCUSSION:
Development Impact Fee Study
The City imposes development impact fees on development projects to mitigate the impacts caused by new development on public services, infrastructure, and facilities.
Development impact fees are subject to Government Code §§66000-66025 known as "the Mitigation Fee Act" and commonly referred to as "AB 1600 Requirements".
Adoption of a development impact fee requires compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act and prior to any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, a local agency must:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the specific uses of the fee;
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and
5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
Agenda Item #12.7.
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy LU1.1 of the General Plan states: “Require new development to occur within well-defined boundaries and be consistent with the ability to provide urban services. New development should mitigate infrastructure impacts by using sustainable, best management practices in green building and stormwater management and paying its share of development impact fees, while minimizing impacts on sewer, water, energy, and natural resources.” Willdan utilized the City's most current available facility plans and growth projections to calculate the maximum justified fees, which will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands.
Study Methodology
The six steps followed in the development impact fee study were as follows:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.
One of the key public policy issues in development impact fee studies is to identify the facility standards to document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. There are three approaches used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements in this study.
Agenda Item #12.7.
Existing Inventory - This approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services and is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Planned Facilities - This approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development and is utilized when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified.
System Plan - This approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development and is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development.
The study identified facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identified the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
Public Safety Facilities
Civic Facilities
Transportation
Park and Recreation Facilities
Storm Drainage Facilities
Water Facilities
Wastewater Facilities
The below chart shows the maximum fee justified that was calculated based on the current study for each category as it compares to the existing rate:
Category Current
Impact Fee
New Maximum
Justified Impact
Fee
% Difference
Public Safety Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 2.41 1.30 (46.1%)
Multifamily Unit 2.41 1.30 (46.1%)
Commercial 2.41 1.30 (46.1%)
Office 2.41 2.00 (17.0%)
Industrial 2.41 0.71 (70.5%)
Hotel Room 2.41 1.37 (43.2%)
Civic Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 3.61 1.60 (55.7%)
Multifamily Unit 3.61 1.60 (55.7%)
Commercial 3.61 1.60 (55.7%)
Office 3.61 2.46 (31.9%)
Agenda Item #12.7.
Industrial 3.61 0.87 (75.8%)
Hotel Room 3.61 1.69 (53.2%)
Transportation (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 3.59 0.81 (77.4%)
Multifamily Unit 4.14 0.81 (81.6%)
Commercial 28.49 5.10 (82.1%)
Office 8.08 4.06 (49.8%)
Industrial 5.51 2.43 (56.0%)
Hotel Room 11.53 5.46 (52.7%)
Parks and Recreation Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 10.46 3.77 (64.0%)
Multifamily Unit 10.46 3.77 (64.0%)
Storm Drainage Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 2.01 0.61 (69.7%)
Multifamily Unit 1.95 0.61 (69.7%)
Commercial 3.21 1.90 (40.7%)
Office 3.21 1.58 (50.7%)
Industrial 3.21 1.90 (40.7%)
Hotel Room 2.72 2.64 (2.8%)
Water Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 3.14 1.41 (55.1%)
Multifamily Unit 3.14 1.41 (55.1%)
Commercial 5.19 0.86 (83.4%)
Office 3.19 0.86 (73.0%)
Industrial 3.89 0.73 (81.2%)
Hotel Room 5.23 2.40 (54.0%)
Wastewater Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 3.14 1.57 (50.0%)
Multifamily Unit 3.14 1.57 (50.0%)
Commercial 5.19 1.87 (64.0%)
Office 3.19 1.87 (41.4%)
Industrial 3.89 1.65 (57.6%)
Hotel Room 5.23 5.50 5.2%
As shown in the chart above, the majority of the impact fees will be reduced with the adoption of the Development Impact Fee Study Report. Generally speaking, the reason for the reduction is that there were several improvements in the old study that have either been completed or are no longer being pursued during the 17-year planning horizon in the study. Another factor is that as development occurs the amount needed to offset impacts from new development shrinks and therefore the allocation of the facilities costs to new development shrinks as well. Therefore, the updated study allocates a lower percentage of the total project cost to new development.
Agenda Item #12.7.
Since impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in St. Helena and may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development, the City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. The below chart shows the additional funding that will be required by fee category.
Fee Category Net Project Cost Projected Impact
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding Required
Public Safety 3,730,662 3,730,662 -
Civic Facilities 4,589,658 4,589,658 -
Transportation
Facilities 18,799,000 4,060,584 14,738,416
Parks 7,771,000 7,771,000 -
Storm Drainage 19,273,000 2,356,359 16,916,641
Water 18,539,000 1,757,577 16,781,423
Wastewater 26,683,341 2,854,058 23,829,283
Totals 99,385,661 27,119,898 72,265,763
Public Notice
A public notice was published on September 21, 2023 in the Napa Valley Register. The proposed impact fee schedule and methodology for the fee calculations was made available for public review, electronically on the City's website by clicking the following link: Development Impact Fee Update Study Report or by appointment in the City Clerk’s office.
The City is also undergoing an Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Impact Fee Study. The results and recommendations of this study will be presented at the December 12, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting.
Ordinance and Resolution
Staff proposed an ordinance that will amend Chapter 3.32 of the City's Municipal Code to provide that, instead of including the development impact fees in the Municipal Code, the City Council will enact the fees by resolution. This is a more common approach across the State, and easier to implement for City staff and the Council. Along with the ordinance, staff is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution that adopts the updated development impact fees. On November 14, 2023 the City Council approved the first reading of an Ordinance updating Chapter 3.32 related to development impact Fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.
Agenda Item #12.7.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - St. Helena - Impact Fee Update Report - Final - 10-17-23 Attachment B - ST HELENA_ Ordinance Updated Chapter 3.32 Development Impact Fees redline
St. Helena Impact Fee Study Presentation 11-14-23
Agenda Item #12.7.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
STUDY
FINAL
OCTOBER 17, 2023
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item #12.7.
This page intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #12.7.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Facility Standards and Costs 1
Use of Fee Revenues 2
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 2
Other Funding Needed 4
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 6
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8
2. GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................. 9 Land Use Types 9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 9
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 11
3. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ........................................................ 13 Service Population 13
Existing Facility Inventory 13
Cost Allocation 14
Fee Revenue Projection 15
Fee Schedule 15
4. CIVIC FACILITIES....................................................................... 17 Service Population 17
Existing Facilities Inventory 17
Cost Allocation 18
Fee Revenue Projection 19
Fee Schedule 19
5. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES..................................................... 21 Trip Demand 21
Trip Demand Growth 22
Planned Facilities 23
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 23
Fee Schedule 24
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
ii
6. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES........................................... 25 Service Population 25
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 25
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 26
Park Facility Standards 27
Quimby Act Standard 27
City of St. Helena Park Facilities Standards 27
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 28
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 29
Use of Fee Revenue 30
Fee Schedule 30
7. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .......................................................... 32 Storm Drain Demand 32
EDU Generation by New Development 32
Planned Facilities 33
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 34
Fee Schedule 35
8. WATER FACILITIES.................................................................... 36 Water Demand 36
EDU Generation by New Development 36
Facility Needs and Costs 37
Cost per EDU 38
Fee Schedule 38
9. WASTEWATER FACILITIES .......................................................... 40 Wastewater Demand 40
EDU Generation by New Development 40
Facility Needs and Costs 41
Cost per EDU 42
Fee Schedule 43
10. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 44 Compliance with AB 602 44
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 44
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 44 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 45
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 45
11. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 46 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 46
Inflation Adjustment 46
Reporting Requirements 46
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 48
12. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 49 Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
iii
Purpose of Fee 49
Use of Fee Revenues 49
Benefit Relationship 49
Burden Relationship 50
Proportionality 50
Agenda Item #12.7.
1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of St. Helena through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
▪ Public Safety Facilities
▪ Civic Facilities
▪ Transportation
▪ Park and Recreation Facilities
▪ Storm Drainage Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
▪ Wastewater Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.
The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements in this study.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the public safety facilities, civic facilities and park and recreation facilities fees in this report.
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
2 a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the transportation, storm drain water and wastewater facilities fees in this report.
The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. This approach is not used in this report.
Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.
In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur during the 17-year planning horizon assumed in this study, the City may need to update and revise the project lists funded by the fees documented in this study. Any substitute projects should be funded within the same facility category, and the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to new development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates the CIP. The impact fees could also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
3 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
Public
Safety
Civic
Facilities
Transportation
Facilities Parks
Storm
Drainage Water Wastewater
Total -
Maximum
Justified
Residential - per Sq. Ft, $ 1.30 $ 1.60 $ 0.81 $ 3.77 $ 0.61 $ 1.41 $ 1.57 $ 11.07 Nonresidential - Fee per Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 1.30 $ 1.60 $ 5.10 $ - $ 1.90 $ 0.86 $ 1.87 $ 12.63 Office 2.00 2.46 4.06 - 1.58 0.86 1.87 12.83
Industrial 0.71 0.87 2.43 - 1.90 0.73 1.65 8.29
Hotel Room 1.37 1.69 5.46 - 2.64 2.40 5.50 19.07
Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.6, 5.5, 6.7, 7.5, 8.5 and 9.5.
Table E.2: Current Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Public
Safety
Civic
Facilities
Transportation
Facilities Parks
Storm
Drainage Water Wastewater Total
Residential - per Sq. Ft,
Single Family Unit $ 2.41 $ 3.61 $ 3.59 $ 10.46 $ 2.01 $ 3.14 $ 1.64 $ 26.86 Multifamily Unit 2.41 3.61 4.14 17.05 1.95 2.72 1.91 33.79 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial $ 2.41 $ 3.61 $ 28.49 $ - $ 3.21 $ 5.19 $ 2.20 $ 45.11 Office 2.41 3.61 8.08 - 3.21 3.19 1.62 22.12
Industrial 2.41 3.61 5.51 - 3.21 3.89 1.82 20.45
Hotel Room 2.41 3.61 11.53 - 2.72 5.23 2.19 27.69
Source: City of St. Helena.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
4 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in St. Helena.
They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.3, approximately $72.3 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop if fees are adopted at the maximum justified fee level. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development. To the extent that the City adopts fees that are lower than the maximum justified amount, the non-fee funding requirements may increase, depending on the fee category and methodology.
The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Fee Category
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Public Safety $ 3,730,662 $ 3,730,662 $ -
Civic Facilities 4,589,658 4,589,658 -
Transportation Facilities 18,799,000 4,060,584 14,738,416 Parks 7,771,000 7,771,000 -
Storm Drainage 19,273,000 2,356,359 16,916,641
Water 18,539,000 1,757,577 16,781,423
Wastewater 26,683,341 2,854,058 23,829,283
Total $ 99,385,661 $ 27,119,898 $ 72,265,763
Sources: Tables 3.4, 4.5, 5.3, 6.5, 7.3, 8.3 and 9.3.
Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Agenda Item #12.7.
5 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of St. Helena. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
▪ Public Facilities Financing in California;
▪ Study Objectives;
▪ Fee Program Maintenance;
▪ Study Methodology; and
▪ Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
▪ The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ▪ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
▪ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy LU1.1 of the General Plan states: “Require new development to occur within well-defined boundaries and be consistent with the ability to provide urban services. New development should mitigate infrastructure impacts by using sustainable, best management practices in green building and stormwater management and paying its share of development impact fees, while minimizing impacts on sewer, water, energy, and natural resources.”
The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The maximum justified fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policies stated above.
The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
6 St. Helena is forecast to see moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, St. Helena has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 11.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 11.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
7 ▪ Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ▪ Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
▪ Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs in this study: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. The existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the public safety facilities, civic facilities and park and recreation facilities fees in this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the = cost per unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
8 former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well.
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the transportation, storm drain water and wastewater facilities fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in Comprehensive Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
This approach is not used in this report.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 9 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ Public Safety Facilities
▪ Civic Facilities
▪ Transportation
▪ Park and Recreation Facilities
▪ Storm Drainage Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
▪ Wastewater Facilities
Chapter 10 describes how this nexus studies complies with the requirements of AB 602.
Chapter 11 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 12. = cost per unit of demand
Agenda Item #12.7.
9 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ▪ The estimate of total development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. ▪ Estimates of growth from 2023 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Residential Dwelling Units: All residential dwelling units, including detached and attached one-unit dwellings and all multifamily dwellings including apartments, duplexes and condominiums.
▪ Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and service development ▪ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development ▪ Industrial: All warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, and other industrial development.
▪ Hotel: All commercial lodging development.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. If a project results in the intensification of use, at its discretion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legislature recently amended requirements on local agencies for the imposition of development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU) with Assembly Bill AB 68 in 2021. The amendment to California Government Code §65852.2(f)(2) stipulates that local agencies may not impose any impact fees on ADU less than 750 square feet. ADU greater than 750 square feet can be charged impact fees in proportion to the size of the primary dwelling unit.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
10 Calculating Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units For ADUs greater than 750 square feet, impact fees can be charged as a percentage of the single family impact fee. The formula is:
𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
× 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒 = 𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒
In the case of an 800 square foot ADU and a 1,600 square foot primary residence, the impact fees would be 50 percent (800 square feet / 1,600 square feet = 50%) of the single family dwelling unit fee.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in St. Helena, both in 2023 and in 2040. The base year estimates of household residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. The 2040 projection of residents was identified in Table ES-1 from the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR.
The projection of total dwelling units in 2040 is based on data from Table ES-1 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR, allocated to single family and multifamily based on current proportions.
Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude 88 local government (public administration) employees. Total projected workers in 2040 are identified in Table ES-2 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR dated June 8, 2016. The proportion of workers by land use is held consistent with current estimates.
The estimates of nonresidential building square feet were estimated by dividing employee counts by the occupancy density factors presented in the following table.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
11 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2023 2040 Increase
Residents1
5,212 6,600 1,388
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 2,018 2,190 172
Multifamily 838 910 72
Total 2,856 3,100 244
Building Square Feet (000s)3
Commercial 782 1,108 326
Office 222 315 93
Industrial 1,536 2,177 641
Total 2,540 3,599 1,059
Employment4
Commercial 1,657 2,348 691
Office 725 1,027 302
Industrial 1,782 2,525 743
Total 4,164 5,900 1,736
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance (DOF). 2040 estimate based on Table ES-1 from the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR.
3 Estimates of square footage estimated by dividing employees by occupancy density factors.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2023; Draft Environmental Impact Report for the St. Helena General Plan Update (2018); U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
4 Total, less local government (public administration) w orkers identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov for 2020, the latest data available. Total projected w orkers in 2040 identified in Table ES-2 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR. Proportion of w orkers by land use held consistent w ith current estimates.
2 Current values from DOF. Projection total for 2040 based on Table ES-1 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR, allocated to single family and multifamily based on current proportions.
Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The occupancy factors are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for St. Helena from the 2021 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
12 available. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density Assumptions
Residential Dwelling Unit 1.85 Residents per Dwelling Unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Hotel 0.56 Employees per Room
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
Agenda Item #12.7.
13 3. Public Safety Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of public safety facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing inventory facilities standard of public safety facilities in the City of St. Helena to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for public safety facilities.
While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for public safety facilities.
Table 3.1: Public Safety Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 5,212 4,164 6,503
New Development (2023-2040) 1,388 1,736 1,926
Total (2040) 6,600 5,900 8,429
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s public safety facilities inventory is comprised of a fire station, various vehicles and apparatus, and the police facility tenant improvements at Napa Valley College. The City built out space for police functions and general government uses at Napa Valley College. A share of the cost of those tenant improvements is listed here based on the proportion of the space used for police functions versus general government functions. The value of these facilities was identified in recent appraisals of the specific facilities commissioned by the City. The value of the fire apparatus was provided by the fire department. The total cost of tenant improvements at Napa Valley College was provided by the City. In total the City owns over $12.6 million worth of public safety facilities. Table 3.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of public safety facilities.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
14 Table 3.2: Existing Public Safety Facilities Inventory Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Value
Fire Station Building
Fire Station Building115,420 Sq. ft. $ 7,888,600
Land2 1.7 Acres $ 6,803,300 1,094,000
Subtotal $ 8,982,600
Vehicles and Apparatus
Aerial Ladder Truck $ 1,500,000
Type I Engine 800,000
Type I Engine 800,000
Subtotal $ 3,100,000
Napa Valley College
Tenant Improvements 2,280 Sq. Ft. $ 226 $ 514,731
Total - Public Safety Facilities $12,597,331
Source: A Restricted Appraisal Report of Fire Station, Ward Levy Appraisal Group, Inc., 2017.; City of St. Helena; ENR, 2023; BLS CPI-U, 2023; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Land value from appriasal adjusted for inflation from 2017 to August 2023 using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
1 Building values from appriasal adjusted from 2017 to August 2023 using the Engineering New s record's Building Cost Index
4 Approximately 22.8% of cost of tenant improvements allocated to public safety facilities impact fee based on square footage for police uses vs. general government uses.
Cost Allocation
Table 3.3 shows the calculation of the existing facilities standard per capita for public safety facilities. This cost is calculated by dividing the total existing value of all public safety facilities by the existing service population. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of
0.31 to determine the cost per worker.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
15 Table 3.3: Public Safety Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 12,597,331
Existing Service Population 6,503
Cost per Capita $ 1,937
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,937
Facility Standard per Worker1 600
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use public safety facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of public safety facilities to serve new development. Table 3.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 3.1. The City should program public safety facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.
Table 3.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita $ 1,937
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 1,926
Fee Revenue $ 3,730,662
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.5 shows the maximum justified public safety facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
16 charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Table 3.5: Maximum Justified Public Safety Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per Admin Fee per Current Percent
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Fee Difference Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,937 1.85 $ 3,583 $ 72 $ 3,655 $ 1.30 $ 2.41 (46.1%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 600 2.12 $ 1,272 $ 25 $ 1,297 $ 1.30 $ 2.41 (46.1%) Office 600 3.26 1,956 39 1,995 2.00 2.41 (17.0%)
Industrial 600 1.16 696 14 710 0.71 2.41 (70.5%)
Hotel 600 0.56 336 7 343 1.37 2.41 (43.1%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.3.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Agenda Item #12.7.
17 4. Civic Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of civic facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the system standard of civic facilities in the City of St. Helena to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both residents, visitors, and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents, visitors, and workers.
Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for civic facilities. Residents and visitors are assumed to create an equal amount of demand for civic facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for civic facilities.
Table 4.1: Civic Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 5,212 4,164 6,503
New Development (2023-2040) 1,388 1,736 1,926
Total (2040) 6,600 5,900 8,429
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Facilities Inventory
The City’s civic facilities inventory is comprised of the public works corporation yard, the City library and tenant improvements at Napa Valley College. The City built out space for police functions and general government uses at Napa Valley College. A share of the cost of those tenant improvements is listed here based on the proportion of the space used for general government functions versus police functions. The value of these facilities was identified in recent appraisals of the specific facilities commissioned by the City. Note that City Hall is excluded from this table, since that facility is not being used for government purposes. In total the City owns $15.5 million worth of civic facilities. Table 4.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of civic facilities.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
18 Table 4.2: Existing Civic Facilities Inventory
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Value
Public Works Corporation Yard
Building15,700 Sq. ft. $ 212 $ 1,208,400
Land2 3.98 Acres 426,229 1,696,392
Subtotal $ 2,904,792
Library
Building115,930 Sq. ft. $ 424 $ 6,754,320
Land3 0.92 Acres - -
Subtotal $ 6,754,320
Carnegie Building
Building15,267 Sq. ft. $ 777 $ 4,092,459
Land3 0.13 Acres - -
Napa Valley College
Tenant Improvements47,736 Sq. ft. $ 226 $ 1,746,473
Total Value - Existing Civic Facilities $ 15,498,044
3 Per appriasal, land value included in the building value.
Source: A Restricted Appraisal Report of the St. Helena Public Library, A Restricted Appraisal Report of the Public Works Corporation Yard, A Restricted Appraisal Reportof the Carnegie Building, Ward Levy Appraisal Group, Inc., 2017; ENR, 2023; BLS CPI-U, 2023; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Building values from appriasal adjusted from 2017 to August 2023 using the Engineering New s record's Building Cost Index
2 Land value from appriasal adjusted for inflation from 2017 to August 2023 using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
4 Approximately 77.2% of cost of tenant improvements allocated to civic center impact fee based on square footage for general government uses vs. police uses.
Cost Allocation
Table 4.4 shows the calculation of the existing facilities standard per capita for civic facilities. This cost is calculated by dividing the total existing value of all civic facilities by the existing service population. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the cost per worker.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
19 Table 4.3: Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 15,498,044
Existing Service Population 6,503
Cost per Capita $ 2,383
Facility Standard per Resident $ 2,383
Facility Standard per Worker1
739
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use civic facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of civic facilities to serve new development. Table
4.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 4.1. The City should program civic center fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.
Table 4.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita $ 2,383
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 1,926
Fee Revenue $ 4,589,658
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.5 shows the maximum justified civic facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
20 Table 4.5: Maximum Justified Civic Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per Admin Fee per Current Percent
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Fee Difference Residential Dwelling Unit $ 2,383 1.85 $ 4,409 $ 88 $ 4,497 $ 1.60 $ 3.61 (55.7%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 739 2.12 $ 1,567 $ 31 $ 1,598 $ 1.60 $ 3.61 (55.7%) Office 739 3.26 2,409 48 2,457 2.46 3.61 (31.9%)
Industrial 739 1.16 857 17 874 0.87 3.61 (75.8%)
Hotel 739 0.56 414 8 422 1.69 3.61 (53.2%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Agenda Item #12.7.
21 5. Transportation Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for transportation facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.
Trip Demand
The need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.
The two types of trips adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
▪ Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work.
▪ The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system.
These adjustments allow for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose and length into account for fee calculation purposes.
Table 5.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The trip rates come from ITE. The trip length assumptions come from MTC. And the pass-by assumptions come from SANDAG. The surveys provide some of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
22 Table 5.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors
Primary
Trips1
Diverted
Trips1
Total
Excluding
Pass-by1
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjustment
Factor3ITE Category
Average
Daily
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B C = A + B D E = C x D F G = E x F
Residential
Single Family 86% 11% 97% 6.79 0.95 Single Family Housing (210) 9.43 8.96 Multifamily 86% 11% 97% 6.79 0.95 Apartment (220) 6.74 6.40 Nonresidential
Commercial 47% 31% 78% 4.43 0.50 Shopping Center (820) 37.01 18.51 Office 77% 19% 96% 9.81 1.36 General Office Building (710) 10.84 14.74 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 12.71 1.81 General Light Industrial (110) 4.87 8.81 Hotel (per Room) 58% 38% 96% 4.43 0.62 Hotel (310) 7.99 4.95 3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemw ide average trip length of 4 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the average daily trips.
Sources: Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area 1990 - 2030, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2005; San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips w ith no midw ay stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips w hose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. 2 In miles. Residential based on "Total personal travel," Commercial based on "Home-Based Shop/Other," Office based on "Home-Based Work, Income Quartile 1" and Industrial based on "Home-Based Work, Income Quartile 4" trip lengths from Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area 1990 - 2030, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2005.
Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 5.2 lists the 2023 and 2040 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new development.
Table 5.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Demand
Trip
Land Use
Demand
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential
Single Family 8.96 2,018 18,081 2,190 19,622 172 1,541
Multifamily 6.4 838 5,363 910 5,824 72 461
Subtotal 2,856 23,444 3,100 25,446 244 2,002
Nonresidential
Commercial 18.51 782 14,467 1,108 20,501 326 6,034
Office 14.74 222 3,278 315 4,644 93 1,366
Industrial 8.81 1,536 13,534 2,177 19,177 641 5,643
Subtotal 2,540 31,279 3,599 44,322 1,059 13,043
Total 54,723 69,768 15,045
78% 100% 22%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1.
2023 2040 Growth 2023 to 2040
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
23 Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 lists the transportation projects included in this analysis. Each of the projects was identified in the City’s prior impact fee study or in the City’s most recent CIP. Projects from the prior impact fee study were completed have been removed from this project list.
The table also allocates a share of each project to new development. Since the projects will benefit both existing development and new development, new development’s proportional share of trip generation at the planning horizon (identified in Table 5.2) is used as new development’s cost allocation. In total, $4.1 million of transportation project costs are allocated to new development through this impact fee.
Table 5.3: Planned Transportation Facilities and Cost Allocation Project Name
Total Project
Cost (2023)1
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Spring Street Bike Lane Striping $ 31,000 21.6% $ 6,696 Charter Oak/Main Street (Hwy 29) Intersection Improvements 652,200 21.6% 108,000 Mills Lane Safety Improvements 1,956,600 21.6% 324,000
Pope Street/Napa River/Silverado Trail - New Bridge and Striping 4,174,100 21.6% 691,200 Pratt Avenue/Napa River/Silverado Trail - New Bridge and Striping 3,000,100 21.6% 496,800 Oak Avenue Extension - Charter Oak to Mitchell 2,347,900 21.6% 388,800 Starr Avenue Extension - Hunt Ave to Adams St 804,800 21.6% 133,272 Adams Street Extension - end to Starr Ave 1,110,100 21.6% 183,816 Fulton Lane Safety Improvements - widening with bike lanes and pedestrian access 2,869,700 21.6% 475,200
New North-South Collector (Extend College Ave, Starr Ave, or Allison Ave from Mills Ln to Pope St 2,478,400 21.6% 410,400 New East-West Collector (Extend Adams St or Mills Ln to Silverado Tr) 3,782,800 21.6% 626,400
Pratt Avenue/Main Street (Hwy 29) Intersection Improvements 652,200 21.6% 108,000 Deer Park/Main Street (Hwy 29) Intersection Improvements 652,200 21.6% 108,000 Total $24,512,100 $ 4,060,584
1 2016 costs adjusted to 2023 dollars using the Engineering New s Record's Construction Cost Index.
Source: City of St. Helena; City of St. Helena 5-Year Capital Improvements Program FY 2021-22 to FY 2025-26; Table 5.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a replacement cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet or room) fees by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.
Table 5.4 displays the calculation of the cost the cost per trip demand unit. The net costs allocated to new development are divided by the growth in trip demand from Table 5.2 to determine the cost per trip attributable to new development. This figure drives the fee calculation.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
24 Table 5.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs $ 4,060,584 Growth in Daily Trips 15,045
Cost per Trip $ 270
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.5 shows the maximum justified transportation facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to these amounts. The maximum justified fees are based on the cost per trip identified in. Table 5.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 5.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Table 5.5: Maximum Justified Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per Sq.
Ft.3
Current
Fee4
Percent
Difference
Residential Dwelling Unit 5 $ 270 8.20 $ 2,214 $ 44 $ 2,258 $ 0.81 $ 3.59 (77.4%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 270 18.51 $ 4,998 $ 100 $ 5,098 $ 5.10 $28.49 (82.1%) Office 270 14.74 3,980 80 4,060 4.06 8.08 (49.8%)
Industrial 270 8.81 2,379 48 2,427 2.43 5.51 (56.0%)
Hotel 270 4.95 1,337 27 1,364 5.46 11.53 (52.7%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. 4 Current fee show n is the single family fee per square foot. 5 Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.4, Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Agenda Item #12.7.
25 6. Parks and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the parks and recreation facilities impact fee is to fund the parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of parks and recreation facilities per capita.
Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in St. Helena primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities.
Table 6.1: Park and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 5,212
New Development (2023-2040) 1,388
Total (2040) 6,600
Source: Table 2.1.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of St. Helena maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table
6.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2020. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 27.43 acres of improved parkland, and 15 acres of unimproved open space.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
26 Table 6.2: Parkland Inventory (acres)
Park Land
Mini Parks
Baldwin Park 0.76
Lewis Station 0.13
Lyman Park 0.89
Mary Fryer Park 0.84
Mennen Park 0.17
St. Helena Skate Park 0.41
Stephen C. McCullagh Park 0.14
Stonebridge Park 0.75
Subtotal 4.09
Neighborhood Parks
Jacob Meilly Park 5.42
Wappo Park 6.65
Subtotal 12.07
Community Parks
Crane Park 11.27
Open Space
Lower Reservoir 15.00
Total 42.43
Sources: City of St. Helena Draft General Plan
Update 2040, Table 12.1 and the City of St. Helena
Public Works Department.
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 6.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in St. Helena. The land cost assumption was based on an analysis of land sales comparison since September 2018 of parcels 20 acres or less in size within the City of St. Helena using data from CoStar. An estimate of $423,700 per acre for standard parkland improvements is based on the City’s prior impact fee study and has been adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars. In total, it costs approximately $837,700 to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in St. Helena.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
27 Table 6.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Land Acquisition $ 414,000 49%
Improvements 423,700 51%
Total Cost per Acre $ 837,700 100%
Sources: Costar.com; Willdan Financial Services.
Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on a jurisdiction’s existing inventory of park facilities, or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.
1 Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.
The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.
The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities. The Quimby Act generally requires that fees be used for neighborhood and community park acreage to serve the subdivision, except in limited circumstances.
City of St. Helena Park Facilities Standards
Table 6.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. In total the City has an existing parkland standard of 5.26 acres per 1,000 residents, which is greater than the maximum Quimby standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
The City’s General Plan Policy PR1.1 states, “Retain the park standard from the 1993 General 1 California Government Code §66477.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
28 Plan of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, while striving for the nationally recommended standard of 10.5 acres per 1,000 residents.”
Fees for subdivisions are calculated at the maximum Quimby standard of 5.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Fees for infill development charged under the Mitigation Fee Act will also be charged at the 5.26 acre per 1,000 resident standard in order to comply with the General Plan policy stated above. As such Quimby Act fee in-lieu of land dedication and the Mitigation Fee Act fee for land acquisition will be charged at different amounts per square foot.
The City must track the fee revenue separately and ensure that the fees are used for the purpose for which they were collected.
Table 6.4 also shows the City’s existing open space standard. This is calculated separately from the parkland standard. The current open space standard is 2.88 acres per 1,000 residents.
Table 6.4: Parkland Standards
Parkland
Total Park Acreage 27.43
Service Population (2023) 5,212
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 5.26
Open Space
Total Acreage 15.00
Service Population (2023) 5,212
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.88
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 6.5 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the purchase and improvement of between 6.94 and 7.30 parkland acres.
The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are lower because development will be charged to provide 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 5.26 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide
5.26 acres of both parkland and improvements per 1,000 residents. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 6.5 presents the range of total facility costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act. Also included in Table 6.5 is an estimate of the amount of open space needed to maintain the City’s existing open space standard.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
29 Table 6.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total
Parkland (Mitigation Fee Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 1 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 5.26 5.26
Service Population Growth (2023 to 2040) B 1,388 1,388
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 7.30 7.30
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 414,000 $ 423,700
Subtotal E = C x D $3,022,000 $ 3,093,000 $ 6,115,000
Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 1 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 5.00 5.26
Service Population Growth (2023 to 2040) B 1,388 1,388
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 6.94 7.30
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 414,000 $ 423,700
Subtotal E = C x D $2,873,000 $ 3,093,000 $ 5,966,000
Open Space
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.88
Service Population Growth (2023 to 2040) B 1,388
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 4.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 414,000
Subtotal E = C x D $1,656,000 $ 1,656,000
Total - All Infill Development $ 7,771,000
Total - All Subdivision Development $ 7,622,000
Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands.
1 Quimby Act fees in lieu of land dedication only apply to subdivisions. Infill development charged under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 6.6 shows the cost per capita of providing new park facilities at the Quimby standard, and the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.
The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of four fees. Fee revenue from each fee should be placed into a segregated account so that it can only be spent for the purpose that it was collected:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of parkland dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions. Quimby fee revenue can also be used for rehabilitation of neighborhood and community parks serving the subdivision that paid the fee.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland acquisition. This fee is payable by residential development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
30 • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for open space acquisition. This fee is payable by all residential development.
A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act Fees for park improvements and open space acquisition.
Table 6.6: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Impact Fee AND Impact Fee
Parks
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 414,000 $ 414,000 $ 423,700 Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 5.00 5.26 5.26 Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B $ 2,070,000 $2,177,600 $ 2,228,700 Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 2,070 $ 2,178 $ 2,229 Open Space
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 414,000
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 2.88
Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B $1,192,300
Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 1,192
Sources: Tables 6.3 and 6.4.
Land
Use of Fee Revenue
As noted above this chapter identifies four fees related to parks. Revenue must be deposited into four separate accounts. Revenue collected under the Quimby Act can be used to acquire neighborhood and community parkland serving the subdivision that paid the fees. It can also be used to rehabilitate existing neighborhood and community parkland serving the subdivision that paid the fees.
Revenue collected under the Mitigation Fee Act for land acquisition, park improvements or open space must be collected in separate accounts and can only be used for the purpose it was collected.
The City plans to use this fee revenue to acquire parkland and open space and construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue collected under the Mitigation Fee Act to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. The City should program fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.
Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for parkland acquisition, open space acquisition and parkland improvements.
These investment factors (shown in Table 6.6) are based on the unit cost estimates and the City’s existing facility standards.
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified park and recreation facilities fee based on the existing standard per capita under the Quimby Act and under the existing park standard under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
31 using the occupancy density factor from Table 2.2. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Table 6.7: Maximum Justified Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Current Percent
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Fee4 Difference Infill Development
Parkland5 $ 2,178 1.85 $ 4,029 $ 81 $ 4,110 $ 1.47
Improvements 2,229 1.85 4,124 82 4,206 1.50
Open Space 1,192 1.85 2,205 44 2,249 0.80
Total $ 5,599 $ 10,358 $ 207 $ 10,565 $ 3.77 $10.46 (64.0%) Subdivisions
Land Dedication5 $ 2,070 1.85 $ 3,830 $ 77 $ 3,907 $ 1.39 Improvements 2,229 1.85 4,124 82 4,206 1.50
Open Space 1,192 1.85 2,205 44 2,249 0.80
Total $ 5,491 $ 10,159 $ 203 $ 10,362 $ 3.69 $10.46 (64.7%) 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit dw elling unit.
3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. 4 Current fee show n is the single family fee per square foot.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.6.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 5 This component is charged under the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions at a 5.0 acre standard, or under the Mitigation Fee Act for infill development at a 5.26 acre standard.
Agenda Item #12.7.
32 7. Storm Drain Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of St. Helena. This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan, 2021. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development.
Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on from the City’s prior impact fee study. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.
Table 7.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent
Dwelling Units
Impervious
Surface Area
per DU or KSF1
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)2
Residential
Single Family 3,800 1.00
Multifamily 1,950 0.51
Nonresidential
Commercial 3,600 0.95
Office 3,000 0.79
Industrial 3,600 0.95
Hotel 1,250 0.33
Sources: City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Report (2013); Willdan Financial Services.
2 EDUs per dw elling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development.
1 Based on estimates in the City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Report (2013). Storm drain assumption based on Willdan experience w ith other local clients.
EDU Generation by New Development
Table 7.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. New development will generate 1,200 new EDUs, representing 19.9 percent of total storm drain demand in 2040.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
33 Table 7.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Total
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Existing City
Residential
Single Family 1.00 2,018 172 2,190 2,018 172 2,190
Multifamily 0.51 838 72 910 427 37 464
Subtotal 2,856 244 3,100 2,445 209 2,654
Nonresidential
Commercial 0.95 782 326 1,108 743 310 1,053
Office 0.79 222 93 315 176 73 249
Industrial 0.95 1,536 641 2,177 1,459 608 2,068
Subtotal 2,540 1,059 3,599 2,378 991 3,369
Total 4,823 1,200 6,023
80.1% 19.9% 100.0%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Table 2.1 and 7.1; Willdan Financial Services
Planned Facilities
Table 7.3 identifies the planned storm drain facilities to be funded by the fee. The new storm drain facilities were all identified in the City’s Draft Integrated Master Plan. Since drainage projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of storm drain demand at the planning horizon (See Table 7.2). Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
34 Table 7.3: Storm Drain Capital Improvements
Project
No. Project Name
Existing
Size/Type
Proposed
Size/Type
Proposed
Amount
Total Project
Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
SD-1A Oak Ave SD 17-24 30 1,880 $ 1,154,000 19.9% $ 229,646 SD-1B Oak Ave SD 24 36 980 756,000 19.9% 150,444
SD-1C Tainter St SD 10 15 330 109,000 19.9% 21,691
SD-1D Kearney St SD 0 12 430 133,000 19.9% 26,467
SD-1E Adams St SD 12 18 390 139,000 19.9% 27,661
SD-2A Main St SD 12 18 590 211,000 19.9% 41,989
SD-2B Main St SD 12-15 24 960 469,000 19.9% 93,331
SD-2C Spring St SD 6 12 130 40,000 19.9% 7,960
SD-2D Hunt Ave SD 6 15 170 56,000 19.9% 11,144
SD-2E Money Way SD 4 12 140 43,000 19.9% 8,557
SD-3A Pope St SD 12 18 340 121,000 19.9% 24,079
SD-3B Pope St SD 18 24 470 230,000 19.9% 45,770
SD-4 Spring Mountain SD 0 12 320 98,000 19.9% 19,502
SD-5A Mills Ln SD 0 30 1,710 1,049,000 19.9% 208,751
SD-5B Mills Ln SD 0 36 1,860 1,434,000 19.9% 285,366
SD-5C Mills Ln SD 0 42 1,960 1,787,000 19.9% 355,613
SD-5D Mills Ln Lateral SD 0 12 670 206,000 19.9% 40,994 SD-5E Mills Ln Lateral SD 0 12 680 209,000 19.9% 41,591 SD-5F Mills Ln/Main SD 18 30 160 98,000 19.9% 19,502
SD-6A Crane/Sulphur Springs SD 0 18 4,770 1,701,000 19.9% 338,499 SD-6B Main St/Vintage SD 0 24 1,610 787,000 19.9% 156,613 SD-7A Church SD 0 24 320 156,000 19.9% 31,044
SD-7B Railroad Ave SD 0 15 560 186,000 19.9% 37,014
SD-8 Allison Ave SD 18 24 390 191,000 19.9% 38,009
SD-9 Elmhurst Ave SD 10 15 380 126,000 19.9% 25,074
SD-10 Madrona Ave SD 12 15 280 93,000 19.9% 18,507
SD-11 Spring St SD 15 24 270 133,000 19.9% 26,467
SD-12 Crane Ave SD 15 12 410 126,000 19.9% 25,074
SDRR-1 Storm Drain Rehabilitation
and Replacement 15 24 15,191
7,432,000 0% -
$19,273,000 $ 2,356,359
Sources: City of St Helena Draft Integrated Utility Master Plan Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Plan Summary; Willdan Financial Services.
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This chapter uses the planned facilities approach to calculate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the growth in EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 7.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.
Table 7.4: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Cost of Planned Facilities Allocated to New Development $ 2,356,359 Growth in EDUs 1,200
Cost per EDU $ 1,964
Sources: Tables 7.2 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services.
Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
35 Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 7.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 7.4 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 7.1. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Table 7.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2
Total
Fee1
Fee per Sq.
Ft.3
Current
Fee4
Percent
Difference
Residential Dwelling Unit 5 $ 1,964 0.86 $ 1,689 $ 34 $ 1,723 $ 0.61 $ 2.01 (69.7%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 1,964 0.95 $ 1,866 $ 37 $ 1,903 $ 1.90 $ 3.21 (40.7%) Office 1,964 0.79 1,552 31 1,583 1.58 3.21 (50.7%)
Industrial 1,964 0.95 1,866 37 1,903 1.90 3.21 (40.7%)
Hotel 1,964 0.33 648 13 661 2.64 2.72 (2.8%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. 4 Current fee show n is the single family fee per square foot. 5 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Agenda Item #12.7.
36 8. Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water system facilities to accommodate growth within the City of St. Helena. This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan, 2021. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a water facilities impact fee to fund water facilities that serve new development.
Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 8.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s Integrated Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit.
Table 8.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
DU or KSF
or Hotel
Rooms
per Acre GPD per Acre
Average
Flow
Generation/
DU, KSF,
Room
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential
Single Family 5.00 1,280 256 1.00
Multifamily 28.00 5,280 189 0.74
Nonresidential
Commercial1 21.78 1,100 51 0.20
Office1 21.78 1,100 51 0.20
Industrial1 21.78 940 43 0.17
Hotel Rooms 30.00 1,100 37 0.14
Sources: St. Helena 2040 General Plan; Table 4.4, City of St. Helena Draft Integrated Utility Master Plan; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Nonresidential densities are based on a maximum floor-area-ratio of 0.5 for commercial, office and industrial.
EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. The EDU factors from Table 8.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total Agenda Item #12.7.
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
37 EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 418 new EDUs through 2040, comprising 11.9% of water demand in the City at that time.
Table 8.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 2,018 172 2,018 172 2,190
Multifamily 0.74 838 72 620 53 673
Subtotal 2,856 244 2,638 225 2,863
Nonresidential
Commercial 0.20 782 326 156 65 221
Office 0.20 222 93 44 19 63
Industrial 0.17 1,536 641 261 109 370
Subtotal 2,540 1,059 462 193 655
Total 3,100 418 3,518
Percent of Total 88.1% 11.9% 100.0%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 8.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. The new water facilities were all identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan. Since water facilities projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of water demand at the planning horizon.
Projects that are needed solely because of new development are allocated completely to the impact fee program. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.
Finally, the Meadowood replacement tank is allocated to new development based on the excess capacity of the tank.
Agenda Item #12.7.