Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25C - AREA FEE STUDY REG2UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ . CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: DECEMBER 21, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED ? As Recommended AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORATION SYSTEM ? As Amended IMPROVEMENT AREA FEE STUDY WITH ? Ordinance on 15t Reading ? Ordinance on 2nd Reading KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For i' ~ CONTINUED TO ~*-t ' L'- FILE NUMBER _ CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute the attached agreement with Kimley Horn and Associates, subject to non- substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, to provide engineering services for the preparation of a transportation system improvement area fee study, in the amount not to exceed $400,000. 2. Approve an appropriation adjustment recognizing $75,000 in unanticipated prior years Area E Fund 34 revenue and appropriate the same amount to the New Transportation System Improvement Area E (account no. 03417660-66220). DISCUSSION In 1982, the City began assessing a transportation system improvement area (TSIA) fee on land development projects to mitigate level of service traffic impacts related to the developments. The monies collected help to fund capacity improvement and traffic safety projects. The current TSIA fee rates are assessed on a per square foot basis and vary based on type of use - single family residential, multiple family residential, and nonresidential. Single family and multiple family rates are assessed consistently throughout the City at $1.80 and $1.10 per square foot, respectively, whereas the nonresidential rate varies from $1.81 to $5.53 per square foot depending on the location. The current TSIA fee rates were established in 1993 based on projected land development and the costs for anticipated capacity improvement projects. The rates have remained constant since that time. With the significant increase in costs for right of way and construction since the last increase, it is recommended that we undertake a study the TSIA fee rates. 25C-1 Agreement for Transportation System Improvement Area Fee Study with KHA December 21, 2009 Page 2 The fees collected in portions of the City are shared with the City of Tustin as part of a joint powers authority (JPA) agreement. Therefore, staff sought and received authorization for partial funding to conduct a study from the JPA board and involved the City of Tustin staff in preparation of a request for proposal (RFP) for fee study services. In March of 2009, the Public Works Agency issued the RFP to qualified engineering firms. Six proposals were received in response to the RFP and evaluated by the project team consisting of staff from Santa Ana and Tustin. Each firm was rated according to its qualifications, past experience, and capacity to perform the required work. Based on the proposals submitted, the ratings for the top two firms are as follows: FIRM RATING FEES 1. Kimley Horn and Associates 87 $375,000 2. LSA 82 $476,177 The fee schedules for these firms were compared. The fee for Kimley Horn and Associates is reasonable and in line with staff's estimate. Because of the experience of key personnel, client satisfaction and competitive rate, it is recommended that the firm of Kimley Horn and Associates be retained for the required services. Any fee rate changes recommended by the study will be presented to the Council for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There is no environmental impact associated with this action. FISCAL IMPACT Upon approval of the appropriation adjustment, funding in the amount of $75,000 will be available in New Transportation System Improvement Area E (account no. 03417660-66220). Funding in the amount of $325,000 is available in Transportation System Improvement Area C (account no. 99117950-66220); Transportation System Improvement Area C-2 (account no. 04817660-66220); Transportation System Improvement Area D (account no. 99217950-66220); New Transportation System Improvement Area F (account no. 03517660-66220). The not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 includes a $25,000 contingency. 25C-2 Agreement for Transportation System Improvement Area Fee Study with KHA December 21, 2009 Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: t ~ Raul Godinez I Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Executive Director Public Works Agency Finance & Management Services Agency 25C-3 25C-4 AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT STUDY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 7`" day of December, 2009 by and between Kimley-Horn and Associates, a North Carolina corporation (hereinafter "Consultant"), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City"). RECITALS A. The City desires to retain a consultant having special skill and knowledge in the field of traffic engineering to prepare a transportation impact fee study. B. Consultant represents that Consultant is able and willing to provide such services to the City. C. In undertaking the performance of this Agreement, Consultant represents that it is knowledgeable in its field and that any services performed by Consultant under this Agreement will be performed in compliance with such standards as may reasonably be expected from a professional consulting firm in the field. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and respective promises, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant shall perform traffic engineering and analysis services to develop a transportation impact fee schedule, as set forth in Consultant's Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference. 2. REPRESENTATIVES For purposes of implementing this Agreement, the representative of City shall be the Executive Director of the Public Works Agency, or his designated representative, and the representative of the Consultant shall be the President or his/her designated representative. Except as may be otherwise stated herein, such representatives shall have the authority to act on behalf of their respective parties in carrying out the terms of this Agreement. 3. DELIVERY OF WORK PRODUCT -OWNERSHIP Consultant warrants and represents that it has the absolute right to enter into and perform this Agreement and will perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with standards and practices prevailing in the industry. Consultant's contribution to the Project, including works. to be produced by Consultant hereunder, will not infringe or misappropriate the proprietary or 1 25C-5 personal rights of any third person or party. Consultant shall deliver to City any work product which results from the services provided. Said work product shall be submitted in hard copy and produced in a form compatible with City's information systems, as agreed between the Project Manager and Consultant. In regard to all material produced as a deliverable under this Agreement, including but not limited to records, papers, drawings, specifications, programs, systems and other materials prepared by Consultant, Consultant agrees, for itself and its affected officers, employees, agents, contractors, and volunteer workers, that (a) other such material shall be the property of the City, and may not be copyrighted without prior review from the City, and (b) the authors of all such material, whether copyrighted or not, award to the City, and to its officers, agents and employees acting within the scope of their official duties, as a condition of payment to the Consultant, a royalty-free, nonexclusive, irrevocable license throughout the world for governmental purposes to disclose, publish, translate, reproduce, and use such materials. 4. COMPENSATION a. City agrees to pay, and Consultant agrees to accept as total payment for its services, the rates and charges identified in Exhibit B. The total sum to be expended under this Agreement shall not exceed $375,000.00.00 during the term of this Agreement. b. Payment by City shall be made within thirty (30) days following receipt of proper invoice evidencing work performed, subject to City accounting procedures. City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the contract price for each project until the completed Project has been accepted by City. Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standards of performance set forth in the Recitals which may reasonably be expected by City. i 5. TERM This Agreement shall commence on the date first written above and terminate on completion of the project and acceptance by the City of the final report for each study, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 14, below. 6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. This Agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed to create an employer-employee relationship, a joint venture relationship, or to allow the City to exercise discretion or control over the professional manner in which Consultant performs the services which are the subject matter of this Agreement; however, the services to be provided by Consultant shall be provided in a manner consistent with all applicable standards and regulations governing such services. Consultant shall pay all salaries and wages, employer's social security taxes, unemployment insurance and similar taxes relating to employees and shall be responsible for all applicable withholding taxes. 2 25C-6 7. INSURANCE Prior to undertaking performance of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain and shall require its subcontractors, if any, to obtain and maintain insurance as described below: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance which shall include, but not be limited to protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom and damage to property, resulting from any act or occurrence arising out of Consultant's operations in the performance of this Agreement, including, without limitation, acts involving vehicles. The amounts of insurance shall be not less than the following: single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and property damage, in the total amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Such insurance shall (a) name the City, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives as additional insured(s); (b) be primary with respect to insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by the City; and (c) contain standard separation of insureds provisions. b. Business automobile liability insurance, or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than $2,000,000 combined single limit. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles. c. Worker's Compensation Insurance. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3300 of the Labor Code, Consultant, if Consultant has any employees, is required to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance. Prior to commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement, Consultant agrees to obtain and maintain any employer's liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per accident. d. Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per claim, and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. e. The following requirements apply to the insurance to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this section: 3 25C-7 (i) Consultant shall maintain all insurance required above in full force and effect for the entire period covered by this Agreement. (ii) Certificates of insurance shall be furnished to the City upon execution of this Agreement and shall be approved in form by the City Attorney. (iii) Certificates and policies shall state that the policies shall not be canceled or reduced in coverage or changed in any other material aspect without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. f. If Consultant fails or refuses to produce or maintain the insurance required by this section or fails or refuses to furnish the City with required proof that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, the City shall have the right, at the City's election, to forthwith terminate this Agreement. Such termination shall not effect Consultant's right to be paid for its time and materials expended prior to notification of termination. Consultant waives the right to receive compensation and agrees to indemnify the City for any work performed prior to approval of insurance by the City. 8. INDEMNIFICATION Consultant agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, special counsel, and representatives from liability: (1) for personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief arising out of claims for personal injury, including health, and claims for property damage, to the extent arising from the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant or its contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees, or other persons acting on their behalf which relates to the services described in section 1 of this Agreement; and (2) from any claim that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief is due by reason of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant arising from this Agreement. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY If Consultant receives from the City information which due to the nature of such information is reasonably understood to be confidential and/or proprietary, Consultant agrees that it shall not use or disclose such information except in the performance of this Agreement, and further agrees to exercise the same degree of care it uses to protect its own information of like importance, but in no event less than reasonable care. "Confidential Information" shall include all nonpublic information. Confidential information includes not only written information, but also information transferred orally, visually, electronically, or by other means. Confidential information disclosed to either party by any subsidiary and/or agent of the other party is covered by this Agreement. The foregoing obligations of non-use and nondisclosure shall not apply to any information that (a) has been disclosed in publicly available sources; (b) is, through no fault of the Consultant disclosed in a publicly available source; (c) is in rightful possession of the Consultant without an obligation of confidentiality; (d) is required to be disclosed by operation of law; or (e) is independently developed by the Consultant without reference to information disclosed by the City. 4 25C-8 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE Consultant covenants that it presently has no interests and shall not have interests, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with performance of services specified under this Agreement. 11. NOTICE Any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered in person or mailed by first class or certified mail, postage prepaid, or sent by facsimile or other telegraphic communication in the manner provided in this Section, to the following persons: To City: Clerk of the City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702-1988 facsimile (714) 647-6956 With courtesy copies to: Executive Director of the Public Works Agency City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-36) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 facsimile (714) 647-5635 and City Attorney City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-29) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 facsimile (714) 647-6515 To Consultant: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. J.D. Douglas 765 The City Drive, Suite 400 Orange, California facsimile (714) 938-9488 A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter, any communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. If sent by mail, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been deposited in the United States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth above. If sent by facsimile, communication shall be effective or deemed to 5 25C-9 have been given twenty-four (24) hours after the time set forth on the transmission report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, addressed as set forth above. For purposes of calculating these time frames, weekends, federal, state, County or City holidays shall be excluded. 12. EXCLUSIVITY AND AMENDMENT This Agreement represents the complete and exclusive statement between the City and Consultant, and supersedes any and all other agreements, oral or written, between the parties. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any attachments hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. This Agreement may not be modified except by written instrument signed by the City and by an authorized representative of Consultant. The parties agree that any terms or conditions of any purchase order or other instrument that are inconsistent with, or in addition to, the terms and conditions hereof, shall not bind or obligate Consultant nor the City. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein. 13. ASSIGNMENT Inasmuch as this Agreement is intended to secure the specialized services of Consultant, Consultant may not assign, transfer, delegate, or subcontract any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City and any such assignment, transfer, delegation or subcontract without the City's prior written consent shall be considered null and void. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the City's ability to have any of the services which are the subject to this Agreement performed by City personnel or by other consultants retained by City. 14. TERMINATION This Agreement maybe terminated by the City upon thirty (30) days written notice of termination. In such event, Consultant shall be entitled to receive and the City shall pay Consultant compensation for all services performed by Consultant prior to receipt of such notice of termination, subject to the following conditions: a. As a condition of such payment, the Executive Director may require Consultant to deliver to the City all work product completed as of such date, and in such case such work product shall be the property of the City unless prohibited by law, and Consultant consents to the City's use thereof for such purposes as the City deems appropriate. However, any use of unfinished work product shall be at City's sole risk. b. Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standard of performance specified in the Recitals of this Agreement. 15. DISCRIMINATION Consultant shall not discriminate because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability, as defined and prohibited 6 25C-10 by applicable law, in the recruitment, selection, training, utilization, promotion, termination or other employment related activities. Consultant affirms that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 16. JURISDICTION -VENUE This Agreement and all questions relating to its validity, interpretation, performance, and enforcement shall be government and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, interpretation, performance, and enforcement of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of California. Both parties further agree that Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in connection with or by reason of this Agreement. 17. PROFESSIONAL LICENSES Consultant shall, throughout the term of this Agreement, maintain all necessary licenses, permits, approvals, waivers, and exemptions necessary for the provision of the services hereunder and required by the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, the City of Santa Ana and all other governmental agencies. Consultant shall notify the City immediately and in writing of her inability to obtain or maintain such permits, licenses, approvals, waivers, and exemptions. Said inability shall be cause for termination of this Agreement. 18. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS a. Each undersigned represents and warrants that its signature hereinbelow has the power, authority and right to bind their respective parties to each of the terms of this Agreement, and shall indemnify City fully, including reasonable costs and attorney's fees, for any injuries or damages to City in the event that such authority or power is not, in fact, held by the signatory or is withdrawn. b. Captions and headings in this Agreement, including the title of this Agreement, are for convenience only and are not to be considered in construing this Agreement. c. All Exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto shall be incorporated as if fully set forth in the body of this Agreement. 7 25C-11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written. CITY OF SANTA ANA ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAR DAVID N. REAM Clerk of the Council City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOSEPH W.FLETCHER City Attorney By: Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC., INC. SERINE CIANDELLA, AICP Vice President 8 25C-12 i `'NAN(~O; IN (O (ONNO{ao (D CtDI OINiO~ ISaolPUeJ~ iNrOJNN; Nhri th1nM rN Nr;(V t i i I I r o i Irz;olsgop~o ~ocooo ~ooo loooooo,o ooao~ I ~oddn$;aa(o.~d 00000 oiool oooooolo ooNN r m ~ I ~ Noooo ~oao; 00(00000{ oooN o aauueldpaaulBu3 Y , i~ ~ M V Bue,~n ~ooo0 000 0000000 000 f ~aI~IFl~4~g Nocrooo ooo~ 0000000 oocovN r Ialo.L\IH u~N~NN c~rh cC°orNMQOr°NCO NeN-ON ~ r 00 6ul;unoaoy;aa(ad 00000 000 oooooolo OONN }ioddn$;aa(oad oovo~ oov ooooNNO ola~M r z Q z O OD N 00 00 f0 O tf 00 (D <D O O O O CO E N O ~ ~euupldNaeul6u3 r M r~ N N r r N Q ~ r ~ ~ W ~ ~ uoSlldeuul~~ oooolo iooo 0000000 oao~ao IL (n J `Q Y Y uei~pyuaa~eQ 00000 ao~ 0000000 oooM ~a Z F- ~I~Paa4o! ONN~aO ANN ONOOON•d' optl'aoet M ~ m cOr ~ ~ ellapuel~aulaa 00000 000 0000000 oor[~ ci fY ~ Q = sel6nogp tAN~N.tD N~v co coooocoN~ v~~N ia- ~ ~ r O ~ 00 ~ g L~ ~ ~ ~ o 0. N _V C ~ •C U O y C 3 N c O ~ EU ~ ~ y ~p ~ v,0 ~ N p ~I C (p=Z c~ y~ O ~ H «~I ~ .Vxi y t6 J 0 E~ W O~ t7 ~ N O N C ff w O 'G O c 3 N LL ,~~oO¢¢ c a m O N C O U_ N u' O C N fA ~ ~ $ ~ ~ C'~ ~ ~z O ~^2~j ~ Gf ~ y{Y'~aqq dF- ~ d ~ alp tat~~~~ ~ ~j cdt'~~ dQ > ~ O a~+ ~ E C N Q N O h E~ O O O N O w N ~ ~ ~ ao Nlil~~ O,U ~,c~0.'~ co r^ E Zv,~o gW O mw~ ~~~3 ~o~~~m~ma~a>~~~+rz ~ ~ o' ~ y ~U,U ~~cnl-OCI- A~~ y0 ~ ~ •--NC+~~f tn~rNC'7~rNM'd ~iA~~~--N ~G ddddd oomm cicici~~ci~l ao°~~ ~ d ad ci o ui ai Exhibit A 25C-13 SANTA ANA/TUSTIN TSIA FEE STUDY DIRECT EXPENSES STUDY ONE rate Cost Allocation 0.00 included in billing rate Mileage - meetings 9 10 0.485 43.65 Mileage -field work 2 30 0.485 29.10 Outside Printing 0.00 see below Computer - Task A 258 0 0.00 included in billing rate Computer - Task B 92 0 0.00 included in billing rate Computer - Task C 74 0 0,00 included in billing rate Phone 0.00 included in billing rate Fed Ex/courier 100.00 sub adman fee 32081 5% 1604.07 applied to sub costs TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES 1776.82 PRINTING color color b/w b/w Color copies copies pages cost/page pages cost/page total Task A tech memo 0 25 1 100 0.1 0 Task B tech memo 0 20 1 100 0.1 0 Task C. tech memo 0 25 1 100 0.1 0 Draft Report 0 70 1 300 0.1 0 Final Report 0 70 1 300 0.1 0 0 STUDY TWO rata Cost Allocation 0.00 included in billing rate Mileage -meetings 9 10 0.485 43.65 Mileage -field work 2 30 0.485 29.10 Outside Printing 0.00 see below Computer - Task A 262 0 0,00 included in billing rate Computer - Task B 92 0 0.00 included in billing rata Computer - Task C 74 0 0.00 included in billing rate Phone 0.00 included to billing rate Fed Ex/courier 100.00 sub adman fee 36905 5% 1845.27 applied to sub costs TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES 2018.02 PRINTING color color b/w b/w Golor copies copies pages cost/page pages cost/page total Task A tech memo 0 25 1 125 0,1 0 Task B tech memo 0 20 1 150 0.1 0 Task C tech memo 0 25 1 125 0.1 0 Draft Report 0 70 1 300 0.1 0 Final Report 0 70 1 300 0.1 0 0 i i i 25C-14 SANTAANAfTUSTfN TSIA FEE STUDY Bitting Rates iClmley-Horn and Associates J.D. Douglas $ 254.59 Serine Ciandella $ 249.48 Richard Liu $ 159.85 Darren Adrian $ 209.48 Lynne Filson $ 184.66 Engineer/Planner $ 100.68 Project Support $ 65.42 Project Accounting $ 113.69 Cordoba Corporation Cathy Higley $ 240.00 Xu Yang $ 120.40 EngineerJPlanner $ 85.00 Project Support $ 105.00 25C-15 25C-16 SANTA ANA/TUSTIN TSIA FEE STUDY Revised Budget: October 15, 2009 PROJECT BUDGET: STUDY ONE a or a or rec STUDY ONE Hours Cost Ex enses* Subs Total Cost A. Forecast Traffic A.1 Future Develo ment 15 $ 2,260 $ 20,685 $ 22 945 A.2 Committed Roadwa Pro acts 12 1 626 - 1,626 A.3 Existln Traffic and Future Forecasts 173 20 64s 8 612 29,257 A.4 U dated Cosl Allocation Summa 22 3,225 - 3,225 A.5 Technical Memorandum 26 3,849 - 3,849 B. Review/U date Trans ortatlon Im rovement Pro acts B. Im rovemenls for Ex stin Conditions 22 2 751 - 2 751 B.2 Future Im rovements 72 10,231 - 10,231 6.3 Cost Estimates 176 22,370 - 22,370 C. Develo Trans ortatlon Im act Fee C.1 Model Data for Nexus Anal sis 38 4,824 4,824 C.2 Internal Area t3ounda Alternatives 62 8,817 - 8,817 C.3 Fee Levels Su rted b Nexus Anal sis 32 4,894 - 4,894 C.4a Surve of Traffic Fees in Other Jurlsdicti _ _ C.4b Task C Tech Memo and Meetln s 16 3 414 3 414 C.5a Recommended Fee Levels 26 5,056 - 5,056 C.Sb Technical Portion of Draft Ordinances 8 1,642 - 1,642 D. Pre are Re ort D.1 Draft Re ort 20 3,087 - 3,087 D.2 Final Re ort 12 2,044 2,044 E. Pro ect Mana ement and Qualit Control 102 16 152 2 785 18 937 Direct Ex enses 1,777 1 777 STUDY ONE TOTAI. 824 $ 116 890 $ 1,777 $ 32,081 $ 150,748 ' Dhect Expense detail on attached sheet BUDGET SUMMARY BY TASK a or a or rec STUDY ONE Hours Cost Ex enses* Subs Total Cost A. Forecast Traffic 248 31,606 29 297 60 903 B. Review/U date Trans ortatlon Im roveme 274 35,353 - - 35,353 C. Deve o Trans ortatlon Im act ee 172 28,648 - - 28,648 D. Pre are 12e ort 32 5131 5,131 j E. Pro ect Mana ement and Qualit Control 102 16152 2,785 18,937 Direct Ex enses 1,777 1,777 STUDY ONE TOTAL 824 $ 116,890 $ 1,777 $ 32,081 $ 150,748 40.4% a or a or rec STUDY 7W0 Hours Cost Ex enses* Subs Total Cost A. Forecast Traffic 447 57 036 34 121 91,159 B. Review/U date Trans ortafion Im roveme 200 29,634 - - 29 634 C. Develo Trans ortatlon Im act Fee 282 44,713 - x4,713 D, Pre are Re ort 136 19,894 19,894 E. Pro ect Mana ement and Qualit Control 186 31,793 - 2,785 34,578 Direct Ex enses 2,018 STUDY TWO TOTAL 1 251 $ 183,072 $ 2,018 $ 36,905 $ 221 995 59.6% TOTAL STUDY ONE + STUDY TWO 2,075 $ 299,961 $ 3,795 $ 68 987 $ 372,743 E x h i b i t g Cost Proposal 2009-10-15.XLS;10/1512009 25C-17 Y-+~ } iT ~i~ ~ ~ _ - 'F f ; F 6_r H-r ~ - ~ STU©Y ONE: SANTA ANA/T'USTIN 't` Task A: Forecast Traffic The purpose of this task is to quantify future development, develop the traffi be used for the nexus analysis, and document information about future roadway improvements {committed Improvements as well as other potential improvemen#s in the study area}. The two Cities will provide lists and traffic studies that identify proposed future developments w(ihln the study area (the area covered by the JPA). If these developments represent less than full 4 buildout of the respective General Plans, it Is assumed that the Cities will also provide information 4 about other potential future development (land use 1 scenario. Estimates of development timing will be ob#a ned from the~reports orlfrom City staff 35 A To be able to use the land use Information as the basis for OCTAM trip forecasting (rather 1 than relying on OCTAM's socioeconomic forecasts), we will apply OCTA's Subarea Modeling ~ Guidelines: convert the land use data to socioeconomic data and then generate trips (productions and attractions) by purpose. 1 ~ Analysis of existing traffic conditions wifl be needed as a base for developing the future traffic ~ forecasts, and to demonstrate that the improvements in the fee program are not addressing existing congestion problems. Since traffic volumes are somewhat lower than normal during the current recessionary period, any new traffic counts will be reviewed and adjusted if necessary to be consistent with pre-recession counts. We are proposing several adaptations of OCTAM so the modeling will address the particular needs of this s#udy: ¦ Since OCTAM 3.3 has only two scenarios (base year 2003 and future year 2035), we will develop an interim (10-year) forecasting scenario by interpolating between 2003 and 2035. ' We will incorporate the land use-based tri trip levels outside the local area to provide reasonatble growth nAbac ground ((through) trafficM for each of the horizon years. ' We wifl adjust trip generation to account #or reduced trip-making associated with mixed use and transit-oriented developments. ¦ We will post-process (adjust) the raw model outputs so the future forecasts will be based on, and consistent w1th, the existing traffic counts. As part of the modeling in this task, we will produce future traffic forecasts and Level of Service results for the study area roads and intersections, to lay the groundwork for identification of needed improvements in Task B. The updated list of committed improvements will be used In Task 13 to help identify potential improvements to alleviate existing congestion and near-term ('I0-year) future congestion. The updated cost allocation table will provide information on sources and amounts of committed funding, so that those amounts will be excluded from the fee calculations 1n Task C. 8 tTL770153.09 - _ ~ and Associates, inc. 25C-18 i ~ s ~ 3s ~ - k~i., Its , - r ` ~ ~ £ ~ ~ ~ p ~ .ice ` ~ '~F;i ~'1= e f kT~S { ~ , To maximize efficiency of the study process (so we won't need to go back later and redo work elements in response to feedback from the Cities), and avoid the need for more meetings than have been outlined In the RFI' we are proposing an interim data review process to obtain City feedback when each step is complete, rather #han waiting until the end of the entire task. We will submit completed data elements {land use tables, committed improvements lists, existing traffic counts and LOS, future volumes and LOS, and cost allocation table) to the Cities when each is completed, and reques# review and commen# before we apply those data in subsequent steps. Not only will this make the process more smooth and efficient, but it also will contribute to our step- by-step consensus-building process. The following section fists the activities that we have identified as part of each task component. SubtaskA.'i: Document Future Development 1. Obtain future land use information for the study area. 2. Document the land use type, quantity, location, timing, and the data source. 3. Prepare a table that lists the future development types, quantities, and phase by OCTAM TAZ. 4. Submit land use data to Cities for review/comment and concurrence. 5. Convert land use data into socioeconomic data by TAZ. 6. Calculate future development's trip generation by TAZ 7. Calculate appropria#e trip reductions for mixed-use ortransit-oriented developments. 8. Summarize future trip generation by OCTAM TAZ for each of two scenarios: 2019 and 2035. ~ Subtask A.2: Document Commf#ted Roadway Improvements 1. Obtain in#ormation about committed roadway improvements. 2. Document committed roadway improvements, projected year of completion, and funding information. 3. Submit committed improvements information to Cities for review/comment and concurrence. Subtask A.3: Document Existing Traffic Conditions and Prepare Future Traffic Forecasts Up to 60 roadway segments and/or intersections wil? be.$elected in consul#ation with Cities' staff as locations that maybe candidates for enhancements due to future development. These will be the "study locations" for all scenarios. ~ 1. Obtain available recent traffic counts {at midblock and intersection study locations) from the Cities. ~ 2. Conduct new traffic counts at study locations for which recent counts are not available. ~ For budgeting purposes, we have assumed up to 25 midblock locations (24 hours) and 15 intersections (AM and PM peak turning movements} wilt be counted. ~ 3. Calculate existing peak levels of service {LOS), in accordance with the Cities' LOS guidelines. ~ 4. Submit existing count volumes and LOS results to Cities for review/comment and concurrence. ~ 9lnnorss.ov Kfmley-Nom ~ and Associates, Inc. 25C-19 z 0. ~ - 1 l J ~ - .Y ~ ~ ' h CC ~ p~~r~ • Y ~ ~ ~`di y ~Y, ;C~ ~%4tt~`~'1r:s~yy-e-3 I:~ ' - 5. Obtain OCTAM roadway networks, trip tables, and command fifes from OCTA. - ~ 6. CreatB an Existing Plus Committed network and a 2035 network. 7. Create trip tables for 2019 and 2035. _ 4~ 8. Create post-processor using traffic counts and base year model outputs. ~ 9. Prepare future traffic forecasts for 2019 and 2035. 1. 10. Calculate Levels of Service for study area segments and intersections (2019 and 2035). 11. Submit future traffic forecasts and LOS to Cities for review/comment and concurrence. Subtask A.4: Prepare Updated Cost Allocation Summary 1. Use available information to document cost estimates and committed funding for candidate improvements. ~ 2. Develop an updated cost allocation summary table. (This table will be updated again after the technical evaluation identifies additional projects for the nexus study improvement list.} 3. Submif cost allocation table to Cities for review/comment and concurrence. Subtask A.5: Tecltinical Memorandum 1. Prepare a technical memorandum. Task A Deliverables and Meetings Technical memorandum to document the results of Subtasks A.1 through A.4. (15 copies plus - an electronic version in MS Word will be submitted) =_;t~ A meeting with the Cifles' staff to review/discuss comments on the technical memorandum. J; Task B: Review/Update Transportation Improvement Projects _ The purpose of this task Is to identify improvements needed to alleviate traffic congestion from - future development, and develop an estimate of their aggregate cost. The two Cities have provided =L~ initial project lists, and this task will undertake the technical analysis to confirm or modify those improvement needs and add others if needed. Development fees cannot be used to pay for improvements that address existing congestion problems, so the existing conditions analysis will be used to identify study area improvements needed now. Some of these may be committed improvements, others may be unfunded. These improvements will be excluded from the fee program. Future improvement needs will be identified separately for the 2019 and 2035 scenarios. Developing the improvement cost estimates will be a critical element of this task, since costs are one of the primary factors that will drive the fee level. It will be important to have consistent, reasonable planning-level cost estimates for all the projects in the fee program. Roadway improvement costs have shown substantial volatility recently -recent street reconstruction bids i ' SOITL770153.09 ® Kimley-Nom and Associates,lnc. 25C-20 i' Y \ 1''. ~ - ~',1`~~t - 3 ~ y ~ ~ . ~ 1. . /2t • , 'r ~ 7~ rid.. ~~casta~ I _ ~ - -:'~...C - - _.9.. ~ _~~S ~ -t t for some of our clients have come in 40°~b below the cost of similar projects a year ago so we wUl base our cost estimates on recent experience with projects that fait into an expected cost range for when the projects wilt be constructed. The City of Santa Ana will be providing cost estimates ~ for the projects on its list. To achieve consistency, we propose to first have our roadway design engineers consult with Santa Ana staff and recommend appropriate unit cost factors based on ~ both our recent experience and the City's data. We will meet with staff from both Cities to agree on consensus cost factors that will be consistently applied to the improvements in the study. ! The cost estimates will include factors for planning, engineering, and environmental studies, as well as an appropriate contingency factor. The unit cost for right-of--way (which will fikefy involve different unit costs for different land use types) will be determined in consultation with both R Cities' staff. Schematic design drawings of roadway segment and intersection projects (including ~ anticipated turn pocket lengths and other appropriate design components) will be developed on the most current readily available aerial mapping. This and cursory filed reviews will be used to assist in identifying critical constraints and estimating both construction quantities and right-of-way acquisition costs. 4 Subtask B.1: identify Improvements Needed for Existing Conditions f? ~ 1. tdentify improvements needed to mitigate existing congestion. (These will be excluded from the nexus analysis.) Calculate LOS with improvements. 9 Subtask B.2: identify Future Improvements 4 1. Identify additional improvements needed to mitigate 2019 congestion. Calculate LOS with (mprovements. 2. Identify additional improvements needed to mitigate 2035 congestion. Calculate LOS with ~ improvements. 3. Submit improvement fists to Cities for review/comment and concurrence. ~ Subtask B.3: Develop Cost Estimates 1. Prepare aplanning-?evet project improvement cost template. 2. Review Santa Ana cost estimates and unit cost assumptions, along with recent available ~ construction cost information, and recommend appropriate methods and unit cost factors to 1 apply in this study. 3. Meet with Santa Ana and Tustin staff to develop consensus on a consistent costing methodology and unit cost factors. 4. Prepare schematic design drawings of roadway and intersection widening Improvements on aerial photographs. Drawings will be prepared for improvements in the Tustin portion of the study area, and for improvements in the Sonia Ana portion identified in Subtask B.2 but not on the City's initial list of improvement projects (Santa Ana staff will provide the cost estimates for those). For budgeting purposes, we have assumed two miles of roadway widening/ construction, two railroad overcrossings, and tour intersection widening projects. 1 1 171770153.09 Klmley-Hom ~ and Associates, inc. 25C-21 ~ _ L u, p~ Y.. d, f 5. For each improvement, use the drawings to determine quantities and right-of-way implications (full or partial take), and fill out the cost template to develop a cost estimate. 6. For each improvement, document the portion of the total cost that is covered by other ,6 committed sources of funding. Subtract committed #unding from the tots! project cost to determine the amount to be included in the fee calculations. Task B Deliverables and Meetings - ~ Technical memorandum that reports L4S results, documents forecast congestion, identifies improvements to address congestion, and presents schematic design drawings and cost estimates for identified projects. (15 copies plus an electronic version in MS Word will be ~ submitted.) • A meeting with the Cities` staffs (to review the initial cast es#imates and develop consensus on methodology). ~ Task G: Develop the Transportation Impact Fee ~ The purpose of this task is to utilize the land use, modeling, and project cost data to calculate the - ~ defensible fee level, identify appropriate internal fee area boundaries, and determine a fee level and _ ~ structure that is reasonable as well as supported by the nexus analysis. Modeling. The first step is to develop model data That will establish the nexus between planned future development and the needed improvements. To keep the fee structure as simple as possible, we will first evaluate the land use and improvement cost data to determine whether a single fee is defensible for the entire study area. If the proportion of new trips in each part of the study area is in line with the proportion of project costs in that area, a singfeper--trip cost would be justified throughout the study area and there would be no need for internal fee areas. Since this study area has the complexity of two jurisdictions, it is possible that a single zone fee structure may not be supported by the data. Assuming that it is not, we will explore op#fonal approaches for relating trips to costs, relating the total trip generation to total improvement cost by geographic area. The objective of this analysis will be to find a method that establishes a clear connection between trips and improvement costs. The model data will be tailored to the type of nexus being established. If the land use and cost data support a single fee level throughout the area, data that demonstrate trip interactions between different parts of the study area will establish the nexus. If the planned development and the needed improvements are dispersed throughout the study area, we will use model data to determine each area's trip contributions to each improvement project, and perform a fair share calculation to establish appropriate fee levels. When the modeling is performed to establish the nexus, we will also use the model to determine the sources of existing trips on those roadways, so existing trips can be subtracted and cost allocations are assigned only to future developments. 12 JTL770153.09 Klmley-Hom t~ and Assodaies, lno. 25C-22 tiY : _ 4 /f~ pp ~."•i "`+3 •r t,.Y~±t+c4_ 'S. , t.~7"~al ~ i ` -ors ~4 ' 't G ~Jrt F . E ~ ~-~~T. ' r h~ =l'..~, "s Internal Boundaries. Once the needed model data have been assembled, the next step is to evaluate and possibly update the internal boundaries. If the data do not support a single zone structure, the internal boundary lines should be drawn #o combine areas with similar trip con#ributlon characteristics so that the differing fee levels will be justifiable, equitable, and defensible basod on the model data. In preparing this analysis, we have found that it simplifies the process (and makes the results more understandable) to convert land use in each subarea into equivalent single family dwelling units, based on relative trip generation between the land use categories. This way, the study participants can more readily understand the relative growth in each subarea, and are better able to relate the results to the magnitude of fee level implied in the calculations. When the final fee level recommendation is developed, it also makes it easier to convert the per-trip fee into an appropriate fee rate for each land use category. Fee Level Recommendation. When a traffic Impact fee has not been updated for 16 years, it can be challenging for staff to determine what is a fair and equitable level to recommend to the City Council. The nexus analysis usually Justifies a fee that is not only much higher than the currentiy- adopted fee but also seems to be well above a level that might be considered "reasonable". On ' ~ the other hand, the needed improvements may be costlier than those funded by programs of nearby peer Cities, so adopting a fee level that Is comparable to other programs may not generate ~ sufficient revenue to implement the needed Improvements. In past projects we have found that our experience in balancing these issues and recommending a zone structure and fee level can help staff reach a consensus on a program to recommend to the Council. In a case like this involving multiple agencies, it will be essential to have a staff consensus before going to the JPA Board and City Councils. So we will develop a recommendation based on the nexus analysis, a survey of peer Cities' fee levels, and input from the technical staff and development community participants in the study. Ta reach consensus between both Cities' staff on the recommended program, we will conduct a joint meeting/workshop of the technical team to review the zone alternatives, the nexus data, the peer Cities' survey results, and the recommended fee program. The earlier reviews and concurrence on land use assumptions and improvement cost estimates will make it possible to focus this discussion on the rationale behind the consultant recommendations, so #hat the meeting outcome can be a consensus fee program recommendation to take to elected offlclafs. Once we have developed consensus among the technical team, we will prepare the technical inputs required for the two Cities' ordinances. As explained in the pre-proposal meeting, the City d~ Attorneys' offices will take the lead in preparing the ordinances, and the traffic consultant will S5~ provide the needed technical input. _ z"" 13 I TL7701 S3 .09 ®S~ KimleyHom ~ and Associates, inc. 25C-23 z :r - ~ ~ - , a „p a T s s.' k Mn co= bf . ~ ,t4 ~ rx Subtask C.9: Prepare Model Data for Nexus Analysis 1. Review the current internal boundaries for traffic fee levels, and consider adjustments to the boundaries if a clearer connection between land use and improvements could be established. ~ 2. For each subarea, calculate the percentage of trips generated in the overall study area, as well ~ as the percentage of improvement costs. 3. Evaluate optional approaches for establishing the nexus between trips and improvement costs, ~ and identify the specific model data needed. For budgeting purposes, we have assumed that ~ select link model runs will be used to determine each geographic area's fair share of each ~ improvement's cost. ~ 4. Prepare select link model runs using the 2019 and 2035 model to identify origins/destinations ~ of trips using streets being improved. For budgeting purposes, we have assumed that select link model data will be developed for 15 improvement projec#s. 5. Prepare select link model runs using the base year model to identify origins/destinations of existing trips using streets where improvements in the 2035 scenario are located. ~ Subtask C.2: Evaluate Internal Area Boundary Alternatives i . Based on the location of future development and the location of selected street capacity improvement projects, Identify two internal fee boundary alternatives that meet criteria for a _ rational nexus. 2. For each boundary alternative, use the select link data to determine each project's percentage of traffic attributable to each internal area, and the percentage attributable to through traffic. Subtask C.3: Identify Fee Levels Supported by Nexus Analysis ~ For each boundary alternative, calculate fee levels in each area as follows: 1. Apply the traffic percentages determined in C.2.2 to the cost of each improvement to determine the fair-share of cost attributable to each area. 2. Total the fair-share costs of projects for each area. 3. Calculate the per trip fee for each area, and convert the per-trip fee into a fee per equivalent single family unit. Subtask C.4: Compare with Traff1c Fees in Other Jurisdictions 1. Survey nearby peer Cities with development impact fees for street capacity improvements, and compare fee levels for different types of land use. 2. Prepare technical memorandum. t~,~ l'~ ra In~ro~ss.o9 i~ KimleyHom andAssoclates,lnc. 25C-24 t ~ FL ( i 'fi~r r 1~ ~ - ~ T 4_ - ' ' s , ~ _ _ .r. Subtask C.5: Draft Ordinances 1. Recommend a boundary alternative and a fee level that is Moth technically justified and reasonable. Consult with the Cities' staff, and develop consensus recommendation on a boundary alternative and fee level. 2, Prepare the technical portion of the ordinances to be adopted by the two Cities. Task C Deliverables and Meetings Prepare a technical memorandum that presents the consultant's fee program Yecommendationsavd supporting information developed in Subtasks C.1 through C.4. (15 copies plus an electronic version in MS Word will be submitted) • A meeting with both the Cities' staff to develop consensus on boundary alternatives to be ~ studied. • A meeting in each City with members of the development community (after Subtasks C.3 and ~ C.4) to share information on fee levels supported by the nexus analysis and fee levels in other jurisdictions and solicit input on the appropriate boundary structure and fee level. ~ A meeting with both Cities' staff to review the consultant's fee program recommendations and develop consensus on the recommendations to be forwarded to the JPA Board and City Councils. Task D: Prepare Report 'the study report will document the methodology, assumptions, data, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. The draft report will be based on the technical memoranda prepared for Tasks A, B, and C. An Executive Summary will be included to provide elected officials an understanding of the process, assumptions, methodology, conclusions, and recommendations without the technical detail. The Final Report will Jncorporate responses to comments from the two Cities on the draf# report. Subtask D.1: Prepare Draft Traffic Impact Fee Report 1. Prepare a draft report, ~ Subtask D.2: Prepare Final Traffic impact Fee Report i . Prepare a final report that addresses comments on the draft. Task D Deliverables and Meetings Prepare a Draft Report. {15 copies plus an electronic version in MS Word will be submitted) • Prepare a Final Report. (25 copies plus an electronic version in MS Word will be submitted) Attend a meeting of the JPA Board to approve and adopt the updated fee program. Attend a meeting of each Clty Council to approve and adopt the updated fee program. 15 J 71770153.09 Kimley-Horn a andAssodates, Inc. 25C-25 }j/ ~ t h S •~Y' E w - - ~ '-n ~ STUDY TWO: SANTA ANA ~ Study Two involves updating the fee program for the rest of Santa Ana outside the joint TSIA area with Tustin. Since the RFP's requested tasks and our scope of work are essentially the same as Study One, we are nat repeating the material presented above for Study One. Rather, the discussion below presents only those elements of our approach that will be different than in Study One. Task A: Forecast Traffic ` ~ For the sake of consistency between the two s#udies, we propose that the 2035 modeling performed for Study One also be used for Study Twv. (Study Two does not involve a Year 2019 scenario.) So the 2035 model runs will be based on future land use growth throughout the entire ~ City of Santa Ana as well as the TSIA portion of Tustin. In our cost esfimate, labor hours have been split between the two studies for the 2035 modeling tasks that will be performed in the same model runs. The following activities are different than Study One: ~ The Study Two land use and trip generation involve only the 2035 scenario and not an interim scenario for 20#9. • For budgeting purposes, we have assumed that we will conduct new traffic counts at up to 30 midblock locations (24 hours) and 20 intersections (AM and PM peak turning movements) Trip tables, traffic forecasts, and LOS analysis will be performed for 2035, but not 2019. Task A Deliverables and Meetings ¦ We will provide eight copies plus an electronic version In MS Word of the technical memorandum. We will have one meeting w?th Santa Ana staff to review/discuss comments on the technical memorandum. Task B; Review/Update Transportation Improvement Projects Task B will follow the same rocess as in Stud One exce t that the im rovement ro ects wi0 be P Y ~ P p p l located in the rest of Santa Ana outside the joint Santa Ana/Tus#in TS1A area. The following activities cif. are different than Study One: ~ For budgeting purposes, we have assumed that schematic design drawings and cost r~n~ estimates will be prepared for 2 miles of roadway widening/construction projects and 10 intersection widening projects. (Santa Ana staf# will provide the cost estimates for the improvements on the City's initial lis#.) _ Task B Deliverables and Meetings • We will provide eight copies pins an electronic version in MS Word of the technical memorandum. 16 I TL770153.09 v f~mley-Hom ? and Associates, Inc. 25C-26 h 3 f Y a, ti F'l` ~ x~ a7 y Z.C fix. -~€~~~'`G ~ i ~ t €a~~ s-yt e. } 7 ~ 7 ~ _ l~z _ _ ~ ~ We will have one meeting with Santa Ana staff to review the initia? cost estimates and develop consensus on methodology. Task C: Develop the Transpor#ation Impact Fee ¦ Task C will follow the same process as in Study One. With the exception of the survey of peer Cities' fee programs, the activi#ies in this task will be conducted separately from Study One (including the modeling}, since the nexus and fee program parameters for Study Two will be independent of Study One. Activities that refer to both Cities In Study One apply only to Santa Ana in Study Two, and modeling will involve only the 2035 scenario. • For budgeting purposes, we have assumed that select link model data will be developed for 25 improvement projects in the 2035 modeling scenario. Task C Deliverables and Meetings We will provide eight copies of the technical memorandum plus an electronic version in MS - ~ Word ~ We will have one meeting with just Santa Ana staff to develop consensus an boundary alternatives to be studied. • We will have one meeting with members of the Santa Ana development community (after Subtasks C.3 and C.4} to share information on fee levels supported by the nexus analysis and ~ fee levels in other jurisdictions and solicit input on the appropriate boundary structure and fee level. We will have one meeting with Santa Ana staff to review the consultant's fee program recommendations and develop consensus on the recommendations to be forwarded to the ~ City Council. ~a -d Task D: Prepare Report Task D will follow the same process as in Study One. Task D Deliverables and Meetings We will provide eight copies of the Draft Report, plus an electronic version in MS Word ¦ We will provide 15 copies of the Final Report, plus an electronic version in MS Word We will attend a meeting of the Santa Ana City Council for approval and adoption of the updated fee program. 17 I TL770153.09 ~ a~rldAssoclates, Inc. 25C-27 25C-28