[0:00] That's it.
Great.
[0:03] All right. Okay, well, maybe I I guess
I'll I'll call to order and start the
[0:07] meeting. Um
first order is roll call and I'll start
[0:12] and then we can go around. John Tantum,
I volunteered to be chair of this
[0:15] committee, a Cove Road resident.
Go ahead, Mr. Isaacson. Sitting in for
[0:20] Larry Store.
Keith Fagan, a
[0:24] town resident. Uh Peter Mark, city
council member. I'm going to excuse
[0:28] myself and get a pen. This one doesn't
work good.
[0:30] Okay.
[0:34] Julian Poolweiler with Stetson
Engineers, uh design team for the Beach
[0:37] Road stabilization project.
Adrian Formaini, both with the city
[0:41] project management team.
Great.
[0:44] Tony Boyd, public works director.
Um
[0:48] and uh the others I I can chime in that
Robert's uh
[0:52] excused himself from from being here. He
wasn't able to make it, but he is
[0:55] joining us on Zoom. So, yeah, that's
city manager Robert Zadnik.
[1:00] Robert, Robert, can you hear us? Are you
on audio?
[1:05] Uh yeah, hi everyone. Can you hear me?
Yes.
[1:08] Yeah, can you can you hear us okay,
Robert?
[1:11] Yes. Yeah, you're coming through loud
and clear. Thanks.
[1:14] Great.
[1:17] And I'm Chris Berry, assistant engineer
with the city of Belvedere in the public
[1:20] works department.
[1:22] Peter, were you out when
when the
[1:25] when the call came around to your your
seat?
[1:27] » You know I said it, Peter. Okay, thanks.
Yeah, um
[1:32] All right. Okay, well, the next item is
the approval of the minutes from our
[1:36] prior meeting on February 26th,
uh which are in the packet here and were
[1:42] distributed earlier. Are there any
comments?
[1:46] on those?
Happy to make a motion to approve it.
[1:50] I'll second that.
In favor? I.
[1:54] Uh the minutes were approved from the
February 26th meeting.
[1:59] Um
next is the the the matter at hand to
[2:04] talk about the Beach Road stabilization
project and the bids and reviewing the
[2:09] bids and
uh
[2:11] discussing those and hopefully come out
come up with a recommendation for the
[2:15] city council.
Great. So, maybe Tony, I'll let you take
[2:18] it take over. Yep, thank you. Yeah, and
um thank you everybody for for being
[2:23] here once again um
in your time.
[2:26] And um
this uh this meeting is a follow-up from
[2:32] our last meeting which really introduced
you all to the to the plans for the
[2:35] project and uh the context for it. Um
this meeting is to uh present the
[2:42] selection process
um
[2:44] uh to you all and uh basically um
uh request a recommendation uh that the
[2:53] city council approve uh the the contract
uh for the for the project and award the
[2:57] contract uh to a contractor. Um
and so, what I'll be doing is I'll walk
[3:03] you through the selection process um
and we are uh I think it's fairly
[3:09] informal. We can, you know, discuss and
ask questions as we go. And um yeah,
[3:14] happy to fill you in on on any of the of
the details.
[3:20] All right. So, um
so, to start with I'd like to clarify in
[3:25] my memo um
>> [clears throat]
[3:28] » uh that because I didn't point this out
in the memo. Um this contract is for the
[3:34] sheet pile installation portion of the
project, which is the main uh the sort
[3:38] of the meat of the project. Uh there is
another um
[3:42] segment which it which has to do with
the the private properties on Beach
[3:45] Road, number 16 uh to number 28 Beach
Road, um where there are gangways and
[3:52] utilities on on the properties there
that will need to be removed for the
[3:55] installation of the pre of the of the
sheet piles.
[3:59] And that's a project in itself. Um and
so, that will be a a separate contract.
[4:03] Um
And there there's a little bit of
[4:07] possible confusion with with uh with the
numbers that that amount was included in
[4:11] the engineer's estimates um
uh
[4:14] you know, and and that's not really I I
didn't really um clarify that or point
[4:18] that out in the memo.
Um
[4:21] and yeah, we we can we can look at it
more closely uh but uh exhibit C, the
[4:26] engineer's estimate will will show
uh
[4:30] that uh where that that line was
included in the total cost of of the
[4:34] estimate versus the cost of this
proposal.
[4:38] Um
and
[4:42] yeah, if need be um I could also
it'll take me a few minutes, but at some
[4:47] point I did
uh pull up uh some of these documents
[4:51] onto the screen if it's helpful.
And Robert might find that
[4:55] that useful.
Um okay. Um so, the RFP was posted on
[5:00] February 20th.
There was a lot of interest um it seemed
[5:04] to us with uh 58 downloads of uh of the
RFP materials. Um
[5:11] uh it gives some indication, I guess, of
of uh all the contractors out there and
[5:15] and who are kind of perusing the sites
and
[5:17] uh
interested to see what what projects are
[5:20] going on.
Um
[5:22] that was followed by a mandatory site
meeting uh with with prospective
[5:26] contractors.
Um so, any contractor who wanted to
[5:30] submit a bid would have to be at the at
the site meeting.
[5:33] Uh there were 14 companies represented
there.
[5:36] Um and the deadline for questions
following that was March 9th. Um we
[5:42] received four questions in writing
and responded to in in in an addendum.
[5:49] Um there were two adden- addenda issued.
Uh the first addendum was um
[5:55] a change to the insurance requirements
in the contract.
[5:58] Um so, that uh yeah, basically uh
provided uh the details of that.
[6:03] Um and then addendum two um
uh provided details on the on the uh
[6:08] pre-bid meeting, um
the questions received, um the responses
[6:13] to those questions, and also a
clarification of of some of the uh
[6:16] contractor's responsibilities uh during
during the project um
[6:21] related to workflow, their workflow, and
coordination.
[6:26] The deadline was March the 19th um
and that was uh attended by four
[6:32] different contractors' representatives
uh as well as a union representative
[6:36] representative. Um A union from
local three. Operators. It's not
[6:42] uncommon that they show up knowing about
this type of projects. Yeah, thank you.
[6:48] Thanks, I wouldn't have known that.
Um
[6:51] and then
uh yeah, so and it was fairly
[6:55] straightforward. Each uh each envelope
each sealed envelope was opened and the
[7:01] bids uh bid amount was was read out
loud. Um
[7:05] uh people people, you know, took notes
and uh and then asked some questions. Um
[7:11] most of the questions, I think all the
questions were
[7:13] » So, they they they opened up their bids
amongst all the other competitors?
[7:17] Yeah, so basically we received the bids
um at a table we had a little table
[7:21] stationed next to the door there. As
they came in, uh they they uh handed in
[7:25] their bid
um and then um at the designated time
[7:29] which was 11:30 on that day,
um we declared that uh bids were now uh
[7:35] closed and then uh and then we stood up
at a at a table and opened each bid
[7:39] individually, pulled out the the
documents, and read out the number to
[7:43] the to the uh the contractors. Is that
is that a requirement? So, is that a
[7:48] requirement? It is the It's a law. I'm
sorry, I didn't mean to speak over you.
[7:51] Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that was that
is the procedure for
[7:53] uh public opening. And it sort of takes
away your ability to negotiate with
[7:56] anybody.
It does and the law it's it's it's uh
[8:03] it's a legal requirement for for public
agencies. Um
[8:07] and and
the the possibility to negotiate um
[8:12] is actually extremely limited. I mean,
the the the amount on the bid uh if the
[8:17] city is to accept a bid,
um
[8:20] it has to justify not accepting the
lowest bid, basically. Um if it's not
[8:25] going to accept the the lowest bid, um
there there needs to be a reason in, you
[8:30] know, um
uh that the city would would do that. I
[8:34] mean, it's very seldom that that a city
would want to not [clears throat] accept
[8:37] the lowest bid. But but is there is
there I'm sorry to meet you.
[8:41] » No, no.
Just just
[8:43] couple questions. So, you went from 58
downloads, I guess, I know it's a it's a
[8:48] gross number um
to 14 visits and four
[8:52] made meeting the deadline. Did anybody
come in after the deadline? Um which I
[8:56] know you you need to exclude, but I'm
saying anybody come in just for
[9:00] information.
>> No, no, nobody came in after the
[9:02] deadline.
>> normal or why would you think you'd go
[9:04] from 58 to 14? I I understand a 58 to
14, but 14 to four seems a larger jump
[9:09] than I would expect. I'll go over the
bats and then I'll and then I'll let
[9:12] I'll let you Adrian chime in. He's
definitely um
[9:16] kind of written a few more of these
rodeos than I have. Um but
[9:19] um I think uh one of the main reasons
was there was this a specific piece of
[9:24] equipment that was um specified in the
RFP and and uh and that was this uh
[9:30] silent piler, this guy can machine. And
there are very few uh if
[9:36] if any, I think, in Northern California
um
[9:39] uh companies that that provide that. Um
so,
[9:43] you know, that was another thing is that
all of them had the same subcontractor
[9:47] uh to drive these piles in.
Um
[9:50] and I think yeah, some of the comments
at the pre-bid meeting um
[9:54] related to that. They they sort of said,
well, I mean, if we're all going to have
[9:57] the same prime I mean, if we're all
going to have the same sub,
[10:00] um
what difference does it make to you
[10:02] guys? And so, I think a lot of people
felt that they wouldn't have a
[10:06] competitive chance. So, you know, so
didn't didn't want to waste their time.
[10:10] Um but yeah, Adrian Yeah. So, uh you
know, it was certainly a great turnout
[10:17] at the pre-bid versus who pulled plans.
And who pulled plans could be a host of
[10:21] individuals that may actually not even
have any
[10:25] ultimate goal of bidding on the project.
However, they are very interested
[10:28] whether it be a vendor. Uh there are
several
[10:32] uh communication
uh companies that will track projects
[10:37] and then, you know, post items. Um so,
you usually have a very broad spectrum
[10:42] of individuals that will pull plans and
and anyone's allowed to do it. So, then
[10:46] you get down to the pre-bid meeting,
which is certainly a more uh fine-tuned
[10:51] group of individuals
that still may consist of additional
[10:57] individuals outside of who will be
bidding on the project. Myself signed in
[11:02] on the pre-bid sheet because I was an
attendee.
[11:05] Um my project manager Kyle, you know,
Tony. So, there were
[11:09] others at the pre-bid that necessarily
weren't going to be bidding on the
[11:12] project including subcontractors
to potential primes.
[11:17] So, one of the critical uh
subcontractors and at that point we
[11:22] weren't sure if there was a
uh a prime or a subcontracting component
[11:28] to the uh company that does retain
several of these Dyken silent pilers.
[11:33] And they were, you know, there with
three individuals, you know, that are
[11:36] all from Blue Iron. So, that's how your
list kind of kind of kind of
[11:42] that we ended up with? Is that a
successful process or would we wish we'd
[11:45] had more or what what how do we how do
you evaluate that? Exactly. Yes. So,
[11:49] good question. So, because of the uh
selective equipment for installation,
[11:55] these contractors all knew that Blue
Iron was going to be
[12:00] involved with this contract. You can
only make the case Blue Iron's you know,
[12:04] selected who they who they want to work
with. Correct. So, we do know based on
[12:08] the bid results that Blue Iron so
provided numbers to several contractors
[12:12] and that's great. And all of them were
very close on that one particular bid
[12:16] item when we analyzed the results.
>> But they're not though. But they're not
[12:20] though. I mean, unless it's embedded in
these lines. I mean, there's there's
[12:22] there's quite a big of variance in the,
you know, uh line five, six, seven, and
[12:26] eight.
You would think you would think if it's
[12:28] the same contractor between the same The
contractor is this the opinion of cost
[12:32] for the
project? I'm just looking at the
[12:34] line-by-line breakdown. Must be in the
bid
[12:36] Okay. Yeah, so that's a computer too.
I'm sure it's in a more detailed
[12:39] tabulation. But but you know, where you
would where you would expect to see
[12:44] So, I'm I'm my bad. I'm sorry. I didn't
have a thought that was on the one Where
[12:47] you would expect to see some consistency
among them all
[12:51] would be alignment A, alignment A,
alignment B, alignment C, you know,
[12:54] where this where where the the
structural steel um sheet piles are
[12:57] being driven. You know, basically line
five, six, and seven.
[13:00] Um
and part of I guess
[13:05] Yeah. I don't know what I'm seeing right
now, but
[13:07] To jump in, I'm I I I 100% see what
you're saying and it is a bit of a head
[13:11] head scratcher about why Valentine
uh uh
[13:15] have 2.3 million whereas the other
contractors I think are more
[13:20] closely um converged at, you know,
between 1.6
[13:27] and and 1.8 million. Quick question. Are
uh are
[13:31] are we we're in at this point we're not
even discussing Valentine's numbers or
[13:34] do you want to discuss their I mean,
they're they're they're way high. No,
[13:39] no, no, I know. I know. I know. I'm I'm
I mean, well, just just with four on the
[13:42] page and I you may want to just mention
why you knocked out Corcus.
[13:46] Yes. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. I was
coming to that. Yeah.
[13:50] Yeah, so
they knocked out Corcus. They didn't
[13:52] they didn't really follow the process.
Yeah, we can we can look at the
[13:54] administrative oversight by Corcus and
they just forgot to sign something or
[13:57] was it like a substantial
they didn't
[14:00] complete something important? Uh it was
an it was I think
[14:04] I if it was me, if it was my company,
I'd be very frustrated uh because um
[14:10] it is it's it's a very minor
detail when you're filling out a form,
[14:15] but
in in an RFP um it's it's significant
[14:20] um and
uh it basically
[14:25] um
The frustration for us too is that um we
[14:29] we were aware that Corcus had downloaded
those those addenda
[14:33] um and
so when they when they filled in their
[14:37] form um saying that they had not they
they did not acknowledge uh the the
[14:41] addenda basically. I mean, but but but
in the city's defense and our in our
[14:45] broader legal defense of this is also
that when and if
[14:49] they're they're not acknowledging those
two addenda which we we we can't verify
[14:52] that it's in their their their budget
data and and they'll perform the work
[14:54] according to the specs that you laid
out. Exactly. What's your real change?
[14:58] Which is why you have to sort of
eliminate that.
[15:00] There's no way to have them acknowledge
the addenda after the fact. It was too
[15:06] late at that point after the envelopes
have been opened. Is that right? It you
[15:10] know, it's
It would have been basically, yeah. I
[15:14] think that would have resulted in
protest from from the other bidders um
[15:19] basically that they didn't follow
procedures and then were being given an
[15:22] allowance for
you know, to to correct items in their
[15:26] in their bid.
Um
[15:28] Yeah. And you know, I mean, I think
ultimately um
[15:33] you know, the city attorney weighed in
on it and and uh
[15:36] yeah, it it was quite clear that uh this
was the only option.
[15:40] Yeah. Um
Luckily for us the the next the next
[15:45] bidder was was a very close in price and
they, you know, for the total.
[15:49] I mean, but on those my question was a
lot of those install sheet pile. Yeah,
[15:54] you go from
even if you take out Valentine, you
[15:57] know, there's a six there's a $300,000
swing on line five.
[16:03] Between between between Thompson and and
Gordon Gordon Mhm. And and Thompson
[16:09] being the third. That's why they were in
third place. No, no, no, but I'm saying
[16:12] but if if if the same subcontractor is
providing the service, maybe there's
[16:15] more detail that that there that I'm not
seeing. Because they are carrying costs
[16:18] of unforeseen to for covering a sub. So,
guaranteed Thompson is a more local
[16:24] contractor from Nevada and they may or
may not have worked with um um Blue Iron
[16:30] as much, but I do know that both Corcus
and Gordon Ball both
[16:35] work with them quite often and that is
probably that is a reflection in Gordon
[16:39] Ball's number is that they have a very
good understanding and operation for
[16:44] their subcontractor which is carrying,
you know, 75% of this this project
[16:50] weight here.
Um that is the way I see it.
[16:54] What a really good question. Um what is
the ultimate nature of our agreement
[16:59] with this contractor? Is it a guaranteed
max? What factors you you mentioned that
[17:03] in your review of um
uh
[17:08] references that one of the one of the
things you got back about Gordon Ball in
[17:11] particular was that they were able to
finish the project on time and on
[17:14] budget.
[17:17] What
what are the opportunities or what are
[17:19] the negative opportunities to be off
budget for us? I mean,
[17:23] if is this a guaranteed max? Is this a
fixed price? What happens
[17:27] um certainly I understand client driven
change orders or or or material driven
[17:30] change orders, but is that what can can
can can drive this into an overage
[17:33] situation? Yes. And and it's really and
and Adrian definitely please do chime in
[17:38] here, but
um
[17:40] my understanding is that
uh they based their
[17:44] their their estimates of of costs or
their their price
[17:50] on the If if other
you know, if they get out to the sites
[17:54] and and um you know, they start digging
and there's something something else
[17:59] down there than other than loose sand
and rock, for example, um that causes
[18:03] delays and
you know, changes um then then costs can
[18:08] change. Yeah.
[18:12] Yeah. Most of them Yeah, and then some
of the units are are are stated you have
[18:16] you do a square foot for the sheet pile,
but primarily they are either single
[18:21] units or total and or, you know, lump
sum. So, each the only the square
[18:26] footage is on the the sheet pile, which
is total.
[18:29] And then it's a furnish and install, so
it's a completed system. I mean, Jason
[18:34] repair that was completed a few years
ago. Were there many change orders
[18:36] associated with that project? Not one.
And did it come in on budget? Uh well,
[18:43] that one was a little There was there it
was not the same development of that
[18:48] project based on the situation because
it was more of a observation that was
[18:53] made with both and Miller Pacific during
and Stetson during the H and H study in
[18:58] 2019 for the shoreline resiliency for
both shoreline and
[19:03] Santa Paula and Beach.
Uh so, that was when it was prompted and
[19:07] the wall was showing uh significant
signs of failure. So, that was what
[19:11] prompted that project. So, it certainly
was in line with pricing
[19:16] um and there was no additional inflated
costs due to a
[19:20] you know, expedited, you know, time
frame. Blue Iron came in well under
[19:24] because they had a unique perspective on
the installation of sheet with uh
[19:29] um just cutting edge tech
[19:32] you know, so
they were we were able to complete the
[19:36] project faster than other companies.
So And can you confirm my understanding
[19:41] as well that it's it it would go both
ways as well. So, if less materials are
[19:45] used, for example, um
than than anticipated calculated the
[19:50] square footage, um then
then uh that's what's that is what it's
[19:56] built to the city as well as well
invoiced. Yeah, I mean they're they're
[20:00] you know, this is what they were
expecting and they're going to they're
[20:03] going to procure sheets like this is the
first thing that has to happen. So
[20:07] » Right. So as far as the sheets go those
that would be a single kind of bulk
[20:11] order I guess.
>> Oh yeah, and they're going to jump on
[20:13] that as soon as possible just because of
the lead time and getting into a roll
[20:17] because these sheets very well may not
be on the brand yet. Okay. So it's yes
[20:22] specific to sheets yeah. Okay.
I just know that I mean you know with
[20:27] paving for example if um
you know for whatever reason it turns
[20:31] out that it's a few tons less than than
expected. Absolutely
[20:37] and that's what's important just for
keeping on track with you know that all
[20:40] those all those things. But yeah we'll
certainly do that. And the good thing
[20:43] that we have going for us is
the knowledge base of both Gordon and
[20:47] Blue Iron is that they're
straightforward contracting that very
[20:51] they work well together. So the mere
fact that they are a well-oiled machine
[20:56] is going to have you know it's going to
just you know
[21:00] assist tremendously versus you know
other subs that may or may not have that
[21:05] well of a communication yeah you know
so. And then also yeah just to just to
[21:11] add
if there is if there are complications
[21:15] you know it's it's uh
the city you know through its through
[21:20] its engineer engineering team would have
to
[21:24] um
um
[21:25] uh
basically approve any any changes like
[21:28] that any changes to the to the scope.
So cost would be a part of that
[21:34] decision. So if you know if there's a if
there's a huge change
[21:38] it because of you know some
some unforeseen circumstance that that
[21:44] results in a big change in cost
somewhere
[21:47] that would be a decision that the city
would weigh
[21:49] for in terms of the project as a whole.
What we do know is that we had very
[21:54] little issues whatsoever with a
significant section of Beach Road
[21:58] several years ago. We saw very
very bland questions from contractors.
[22:04] The bids came in without carrying costs
of which we had no idea how this is
[22:09] going to go down.
So that was those were all really good
[22:12] signs of a well-designed bid package
from both the technical side as well as
[22:17] the opinion of cost. It was it was very
it was right in line with what we you
[22:22] know we were hoping to see. We're just
very excited we didn't see this as a
[22:26] huge The lowest the lowest bid it's
Gordon Ball not Norman Ball right. I
[22:31] think in your memo you Yeah right sorry
I for some reason I kept So I think a
[22:36] little bit of Herman Ball I don't know
why it is wrong. See you the experience
[22:39] they have but we have not worked with
Gordon Ball before as a city. They are a
[22:44] large contractor so there's a very good
chance that they wouldn't have probably
[22:48] been worked on any They are typically a
huge large scale commercial contractor
[22:54] doing anything else than that.
But I I do know of that nature cuz they
[22:58] they do a lot of municipal work.
>> Okay. I don't know but I don't know the
[23:01] company is that are public company or a
privately held company we have I'm not
[23:05] sure and or if it's a member owned we
have to you know have to look into look
[23:09] into that. One of them There was there
was a level of analysis required for
[23:14] for this
review. But this is this is They they
[23:18] are a large company that does many
projects that's not name I've never
[23:22] heard of. No yeah.
um Yeah it's I have noted them either.
[23:27] um
I don't know if they're nationwide I
[23:30] don't know if they're that
>> No they're not. I do know that they do a
[23:32] lot of work with PG&E. They do a lot of
public utility work so they are they
[23:38] understand the public process. And I do
know again that they work with Blue Iron
[23:43] quite a bit with projects. And a lot of
times Gordon Ball is in prime for PG&E
[23:47] projects where Blue Iron is their sub.
Yeah their their references were um
[23:53] uh were I thought I thought very good
that the projects that they that they
[23:58] highlighted
were very similar to this.
[24:01] They all involved installing sheet pile
in in locations a lot of locations with
[24:07] with water river banks and and boat
launches and and these kind of
[24:12] situations and and one of the
one of the project managers that I spoke
[24:16] to from I think it was the Santa Clara
Santa Clara
[24:19] water district
said that they
[24:23] um
that they were also in very close
[24:25] proximity to homes and that they
uh you know they performed everything
[24:30] that they needed to with you know
vibration monitoring and and that kind
[24:33] of equipment so they they're definitely
familiar with with this this type of
[24:38] work. They were they were nearby
projects here in the area in Northern
[24:42] California.
>> Yes yes yeah.
[24:49] Yeah.
Right well so okay
[24:56] where did I where was I? um
>> [clears throat]
[25:00] » Addenda yeah okay. So
[25:05] The addenda were were required to be
acknowledged and and one contractor
[25:09] didn't as we know
um
[25:13] Is there
and I understand that the strict nature
[25:16] of the
bid process
[25:18] uh
[25:22] We're not obligated to take anything
just just thing you guys have to get
[25:25] right? Correct.
>> Right we can say cuz you're
[25:28] you're above what our expected cost will
be we're not obligated to take anything
[25:31] on
>> Yes. Yeah. Um it's still subject to city
[25:34] approval
but you I mean there's there's there's a
[25:37] number of line items you know
you know 10 12 and 15 for example where
[25:43] they are higher than everybody else.
Uh and I know that just the it's the
[25:48] discrepancies that you guys have the
uniqueness of that individual
[25:51] contracting approach and their their
sensitivity to that particular line item
[25:55] I can imagine. But you can't go back to
them and say you know we'd like to we'd
[25:58] like these three items to be
reconsidered or looked at is does does
[26:02] this municipal process allow for that or
not?
[26:05] No um
yeah unfortunately not because of the
[26:09] because of the RFP process um
you know everybody
[26:14] uh everybody provide you know has the
same uses the same parameters for their
[26:19] for their costing and and the the final
price
[26:23] um
can't be changed before the before the
[26:26] contract is awarded. After the contract
is awarded
[26:30] then there can be some negotiation with
with the contractor. The contractor is
[26:35] awarded at that price but change orders
can
[26:39] be
generated by the city that change the
[26:43] scope of work. So that's often in
negotiation.
[26:47] » be I mean I'm just saying cuz we have to
separate decision by the city as to
[26:51] appropriate more money for this
right. So that's not insignificant. um
[26:56] uh ask so it would be against this
process and perhaps municipal law I
[27:02] don't know
that you can't go to them and say you
[27:06] were the low bidder
after we excluded one you know full
[27:10] transparency you're the low bidder
but you're still above our budget we
[27:13] can't award the contract unless you were
to reconsider these three line items
[27:16] which you're you're you're 10% above the
competitors. Would you consider to do
[27:20] so? That's not you can't do that?
We do you Yes so
[27:26] and and just so you know that we have
discussed
[27:29] that
angle because in a public contract
[27:32] that's kind of where you go next. You
look to VE or value engineer some of
[27:37] your items
and where you do not take away or
[27:42] we don't want to adjust and or go back
to the design team to say we need to
[27:49] change the how we go about getting you
know this design completed. It is maybe
[27:55] a reduction of overall footage and we
can't you know there's a very good
[28:00] chance that the contractor is going to
be willing to negotiate cuz they want
[28:03] this project that's for certain. But if
you
[28:05] by your process you award the contract
at this price what reason do they have
[28:09] to negotiate It's not as easy as looking
why are you well you're $80,000 more
[28:14] than the competitor so why can't you do
it for their cost? Because there are so
[28:17] many different moving mechanics we don't
know what the other contractor may or
[28:22] may not have had or if they underbid
that.
[28:24] But
at this point with them we don't care.
[28:27] Realistically we don't care. I mean if
if if if we're if we're now one to one
[28:30] with these folks
and we want to award it then we don't do
[28:33] it. I I get where you're going with
this. I
[28:35] I'm just I'm just saying that.
We haven't added obstacle here that
[28:39] we've got to get this money from this
from the city and ultimately from our
[28:41] residents. And
that's not a
[28:46] you know
something the city council is going to
[28:48] love to be vote on and be comfortable
with and the the way you propose to do
[28:52] it is to put up other projects.
You know other lanes other maintenance
[28:56] projects other other capital
improvements
[28:58] or finding it in the this this this
broader budget whether it's contingency
[29:01] or things like this which probably
possible but
[29:05] depending on what you find out there.
Yeah
[29:08] yeah no for sure. 300,000 for
Belvedere's is is a big
[29:11] » Well let's let's let's shelve that
aspect over for now cuz if and when we
[29:14] go there there's other things to talk
about certainly. Um
[29:17] I would just say that it's a it's a
competitive public bidding process and
[29:22] so you've provided all the parameters in
the contract documents and these
[29:25] contractors have put their best foot
forward so to speak. This is this is
[29:29] what they're proposing to do and I would
say you're not really one to one with
[29:33] anybody until the contract is awarded.
But they also know your estimate going
[29:38] in.
I mean it's it's it's not it's not a
[29:41] it's a coming from the private you know
construction world that's just lunacy
[29:45] lunacy to me.
But
[29:47] Well I get it. If you if you if you're
attempting to negotiate with one
[29:51] contractor before awarding a contract,
all the other ones say, "Well, how come
[29:54] you didn't come to us? We We could We
could do it, too." And it just, you
[29:58] know, it could sort of unravel the whole
process. I get it. I get it.
[30:02] Yeah, and I I mean, to your point, you
lose all your leverage if if you've
[30:06] already signed a contract with them. Um
but I think I mean, in my in my
[30:10] experience, and and maybe you you guys
can chime in on this, um
[30:15] you know, contractors are generally uh
willing to talk. You know, they they're
[30:21] um
that
[30:23] if you say, you know, "By the way, you
know, we We've got everything signed,
[30:26] but
um
[30:28] this is this uh you know, finances are
very tight for us, and we would like to
[30:32] find ways to to reduce the costs. Um we
we may want to reduce the scope
[30:37] somewhere. Um
but we did notice in your in your uh bid
[30:41] that you know, these were much higher
than than other people's, and Okay. are
[30:45] you able to, you know, you know, share
with us what the you Cuz we can always
[30:49] say to them, "So, we're not going to
either uh
[30:52] Ball, you reduce by this amount. And and
we'll award it to you, otherwise we will
[30:56] award it to nobody, and we will we will
we won't go forward, and we'll do
[31:00] another RFP, and we'll just
we'll rebid the whole thing, and let let
[31:03] them it's a little bit of a
Put that on the table then. If they say
[31:08] they won't, then we just put the RFP out
again, and start the process again. I
[31:11] don't think you can Well, well, I don't
think you can do that. Well, why not?
[31:14] Why Why What What Well, look, it's
public I mean, I'm not a I'm not a I'm
[31:17] not a contractor. It changes the scope.
It changes the scope. I mean, obviously,
[31:20] or the timing. No, no, because because
basically, if if if if if we choose not
[31:24] to do this now, realistically at this
point in time, even with the same scope
[31:27] in a rebid process, or modify this
slightly, we missed the '26 window.
[31:31] Right. If you miss the '26 window, it's
not going to get any less expensive
[31:35] knowing, you know, that
>> that, for sure. And the re so the the
[31:38] re-solicitation process, what we've done
is certainly has a a cost that isn't
[31:43] going to necessarily, you know, be able
to be recouped as well in a lot of the
[31:47] public, you know, process has, you know,
there's has to be, you know, completed
[31:51] again. But but if we don't have the
money Yeah, no, I I they might say,
[31:54] "Okay, well, we'll we'll help you with
that." So, I mean
[31:58] they might say, "Okay."
And that's why I know that, you know,
[32:01] again, internally within you know, with
James, I'll try to remember who else was
[32:05] on that call, but Stetson, we talked
about at least areas identified that we
[32:10] can discuss, um and it was confident We
don't have specifics, you know, but
[32:14] there were certainly some areas uh to
look at that we started to discuss. You
[32:18] know,
one of them would be, you know, just uh
[32:21] essentially
I I think again, though in accordance
[32:25] with the public contracting, you you
can't begin these negotiations until
[32:29] after a contract is awarded to to one of
these. And so, I think that's probably
[32:34] what the city is looking at. You You
either have to make the decision to
[32:36] award a contract Could we go to all of
them and say, "This is This is our
[32:40] budget. Would you like to Uh I think
that that that sort of involves
[32:44] reopening up the bidding process. I
don't I can't I think once it's closed,
[32:48] you can't reopen it. You would be
looking at a rebid.
[32:51] The issue with the timing is that
there's an in-water work window, June
[32:55] through October.
And so, to start the process over means
[32:59] we wouldn't have enough time to issue a
rebid, open it all up, and receive bids
[33:04] in order to construct this year. So,
re-bidding the project does mean you're
[33:08] you're you're looking at next year,
2027.
[33:14] Let's be realistic.
Um
[33:17] how confident are we that
with the ability to start this project?
[33:21] First question. Second question is
um what I would be afraid would happen
[33:26] is that there would be a delay, there
would be a uh uh
[33:29] a backlog of this particular equipment
or something like that, and the
[33:31] contractor gets started under this
price, and says we have to finish it
[33:34] next year, and here's the here's the
cost to do so.
[33:38] Well, I think they would be under
contract to um
[33:41] uh you know, to to complete it by
October uh 15th, I think is what the
[33:45] contract says. But just like but just
like finding a a a you know, Right.
[33:49] immovable boulder under the ground,
there's a there's a there's a delay with
[33:52] Blue Hill Stetson. I apologize. Blue
Iron. Blue Iron. That That can't deliver
[33:56] it. It's out of their control, and
they're they're they're delayed a month,
[33:59] and they and they That's I don't for I
mean, anything's possible, but I'm um
[34:03] they're they're they have agreed to
perform this project by a certain date,
[34:08] and if not, there are liquidated damages
daily that occur if they are not
[34:13] complete by that time frame.
Do we Do we think we'll get this done in
[34:17] this time frame?
I mean, can it be They need to go, yeah.
[34:20] Permit I mean, we're you know, there's
Um there are there are a few factors um
[34:25] that that are outstanding. Um
Yeah. What Like what? So, first of all,
[34:31] uh permitting. Uh we're waiting for a
BCDC permit. Um
[34:35] and they are in a review sort of stage.
Um they have a commission meeting where
[34:41] it needs to be approved. Um and which I
believe it is April 29th, I think, 19th
[34:48] or 29th, so it can only be after that.
Um
[34:52] uh PG&E need to complete some uh some
work in on Beach Road to modify their uh
[35:00] their lines, their um
utility lines, main lines through there.
[35:04] » Before we get going.
Yes. Yeah. Given what we've heard from
[35:07] PG&E, is that is that likely?
Uh they uh we we ask them We We meet
[35:13] with them about every 2 weeks uh
to get progress and and update uh
[35:17] updates from them. Um
they
[35:21] assure us that um that that it's that
it's
[35:25] doable to do before before June. Um
but we have no control over that or or
[35:31] over their their work. So, if these
dependencies um if if Gordon and
[35:36] Company, Gordon Ball, can't get started
to comfortably make the window
[35:41] this contract's void then, right? We're
not, you know, cuz obviously, the prices
[35:44] probably wouldn't be held for the next
year.
[35:47] Well, I think there's probably room to
negotiate, and and if they would like to
[35:51] keep the contract for next year um you
know, they may they may be some uh some
[35:57] way to um
you know, to
[36:00] to keep them on board um with some kind
of uh
[36:04] you know, adjustment in price, you know,
related to inflation or something. There
[36:09] There is some flexibility built into the
way this is structured. There's a
[36:12] There's a The in-water work window is a
5-month period, June through October,
[36:16] but the actual construction period is
only 65 days. And so, even if they don't
[36:21] necessarily have to start on June 1st, I
mean, that can slide backwards, and
[36:25] there would there would still be room
for them to complete this project. And
[36:28] in theory, the the out-of-water work can
continue outside that window. That's
[36:31] correct. It is. Yeah. Yeah.
Um
[36:35] And so, you know, that's
that's the reason we did try to put this
[36:38] out to bid early, to get the bids early,
to have a contractor under contract
[36:42] early so that these these scheduling and
um
[36:47] the the coordination between the city,
Hadley, PG&E, this can all kind of be
[36:52] worked out over the next several months
until June, and when when the
[36:55] construction would actually occur. Mhm.
>> [clears throat]
[37:00] » Yeah. Um
The other The other factor is uh
[37:04] easements with uh temporary construction
easements with the property owners on on
[37:08] Beach Road, because uh
the work that would need to take place
[37:12] on their property um for this project to
to go ahead. I mean, the seawall
[37:16] actually
enters their property at uh you know,
[37:20] at at their property lines. Um
so, it's a couple of feet in from the
[37:24] property line, so the the work and the
structures would would all be on their
[37:27] on their land.
Um
[37:30] and we've met we've met with them um
a few times, uh described the project,
[37:35] and we've sent over the uh the easement
agreements. Um
[37:40] So, at this point, we're waiting for
them to
[37:42] um review those. Uh
[37:46] And we're we're ready to go for the for
the April meeting for them uh to to have
[37:51] those easements um
approved by City Council. Um
[37:55] And yeah, but but we do have to wait for
their their signatures, basically, on
[37:58] their side.
How many property owners are we talking
[38:01] about again? Uh three property owners.
Um Yeah. Um
[38:05] And one of them has indicated that um
he's is absolutely willing. Um he's just
[38:12] out of the country right now. Um so,
he's uh seems seems like he's ready to
[38:18] sign as soon as he gets back. Uh the
other two
[38:21] uh are new uh new owners of of the
property. And um
[38:26] I think it seems like they're wanting to
review the the language more carefully,
[38:30] and um Was it a
It's three properties, but two owners,
[38:34] right? Cuz there's Yeah.
Yes.
[38:37] » Hadley owns one building, and the Spruce
Group owns the other two. Yes, yeah. And
[38:41] those other two are are owned, I think,
on paper by two different LLCs, but it's
[38:45] the same people. Okay, so that's okay.
Yeah.
[38:49] Yeah.
So, from a financial perspective, I'm
[38:53] looking at
this overall project budget relative to
[38:56] appropriations funding at the top. Um
we're looking at that 3.475
[39:02] line
of which includes two $280,000 or so,
[39:08] that's going to a separate contractor to
do the utility work.
[39:13] Right? So, that's where we get the 300
So, that the the we have a $315,000
[39:17] variance on that line if we take this
this this bid from Gordon and Ball,
[39:21] right?
Uh yeah, it's it's
[39:26] uh without knowing it, we don't have the
exact number for the contracts uh of the
[39:30] other amounts. I would assume the 279
that the way you got your 315 was the
[39:34] 279
um plus the 35 over
[39:39] this number. Correct, yeah. With a with
a little bit of Yeah, yeah. flexibility
[39:43] to in case that 279 is over.
>> So, I'm just writing 315 in parentheses
[39:47] next to the 3475, which means Right. on
this page we're 315 over budget on that
[39:53] particular line. And you've
discussed this with Helga and her and
[39:58] your recommendations with Robert as well
is to handle this either within this
[40:04] $4.6 million
total project expenditures
[40:08] budget, finding it somewhere, whether
it's coming out of your hide
[40:13] I mean from a project manager
perspective or somewhere along this line
[40:15] of our mass remediation, somewhere
somewhere through here you think you
[40:19] might be able to find some
money. That that's option one, right?
[40:23] Just confirming that's what that means.
>> Yeah. And option two is in the broader
[40:27] public works budget.
Um capital improvement projects, whether
[40:30] it's paving or whether it's a retaining
wall or whether it's a lane improvement
[40:34] or something like that, finding that
money in that over the next couple
[40:37] years. Yeah, and and
and there are two components to that,
[40:40] too. So, there are existing CIP funds
that
[40:45] that that
overlap with
[40:48] with with some of the work in this
project. So, paving for example, there's
[40:52] a we have a we have a CIP fund for
paving.
[40:55] And that that could cover the cost of
the the paving restoration
[41:00] in instead of using this
this account for that for for those
[41:04] costs.
>> Use that account.
[41:06] » Yeah, exactly. I get it. Um
[41:12] Yeah, exactly. And the sidewalk, yeah,
exactly.
[41:14] And and we have it in we have not
embedded the contingency on this budget.
[41:20] Um
Well, with that
[41:24] so
so with that over
[41:29] I'm just saying on paper on paper right
now we're talking about that one line
[41:32] item having a
a negative variance.
[41:35] But that 383 arguably still exists if we
if we know we have 4.6 in our in our in
[41:43] our fund at this point.
>> Yes, right. Yes. So, so yeah,
[41:46] sorry I I I
took me a minute there, but yeah,
[41:49] basically that would restore that that
contingency amount.
[41:52] » Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
So,
[41:55] however we decide,
you may want to work with Helga. I would
[41:58] suggest if this is to be recommended to
the city council, I wouldn't go in with
[42:02] this to $315,000 over tier.
I would I would I would front it by
[42:07] saying exactly what you've talked about
before, that we're going to approach
[42:10] this if we award this contract with
diligent approach to value engineer to
[42:16] to line item look at things to to
recognize this is over budget and see
[42:20] where we can get some some some
potential savings out of this contract.
[42:24] May yield nothing, but but that's an
approach and we certainly should do
[42:26] that. I would also try to identify
specifically where you think this money
[42:30] can come from. Meaning if you if you if
you have known expenditures that you
[42:35] think are going to be less than what you
have up here anyway,
[42:38] for example, if you know that
you know, the
[42:42] the
environmental mitigation costs are not
[42:45] $100,000, but they're going to be
$80,000 much like we had with the repair
[42:48] over there on Beach Road. You know,
you that came in less than we thought we
[42:52] were going to commit. So, I'm not saying
we take that money, but I'm saying if
[42:55] you know already where we are, I
identify it. You could you could
[42:59] probably say of that we know we've got
$35,000 in
[43:05] city planning paving sorry, sidewalks
for the next 2026 2027 we have
[43:12] $45,000 in in road paving for the 2026
and 2027 budget that we can apply to
[43:18] this.
And our assessment is that that won't
[43:21] damage our overall
value of our infrastructure around the
[43:26] city. So, we can apply that those small
amounts of those larger budgets. We can
[43:29] also apply
$200,000 of contingency to that and
[43:33] that's where we think we can make up
this money and still and still retain
[43:36] the 4.630.
Right.
[43:38] » Yeah, exactly. You need to present it in
a fashion like that. Right. Yeah, and
[43:41] that's that's that is definitely what's
what we had planned was you know, be
[43:46] able to be specific about you know,
about how you know, how this is
[43:50] possible.
And and there would be council approval
[43:55] for for some of those changes as well.
Well, they'll have
[43:58] comments and they'll and they'll
probably stress you know, we really want
[44:01] you to push the value engineering and
and really you know, sharpen your pencil
[44:05] on the scope, you know, once you have
the contract selected to keep within the
[44:08] the appropriate public bidding process
so that we can make sure we we make this
[44:12] project as as tight and and not only
timely, but also it does our our our
[44:17] base minimum needs for the for the for
the for the money we're spending so we
[44:20] get as much value as we possibly can.
Right. Yeah. Yeah.
[44:23] Yeah, I yeah, I I hear you and I think
um
[44:28] I we all feel that way. We definitely I
know I I you know, and and and I
[44:32] definitely know Robert does and
everybody does.
[44:36] Yeah, I mean it's it's um it's
we we all want a want a project that's
[44:41] delivered on time and under budget.
You know, some of this this
[44:47] law that we have to
comply with
[44:50] is is a little cumbersome and
frustrating,
[44:54] but you know, from from the time that we
start meeting with the with the
[44:59] contractor,
there will definitely be you know, a lot
[45:02] of emphasis on on um
keeping costs you know, within budget.
[45:08] Um and if I mean you know, I I
to be fair, I think I think the
[45:13] contractors probably get that from from
everybody that they all the cities that
[45:16] they work with. Um But yeah, and I mean
you know, some of the costs, you know,
[45:21] and I can I can point to some in on here
that's um
[45:24] we anticipate
not not having to pay for example,
[45:29] environmental mitigation costs.
BCDC
[45:33] uh
may ask us to you know, mitigate for
[45:37] much more than than we are already. Um
but it seems like they're not
[45:43] um
in in our discussions with them so far,
[45:45] they haven't said that they that they
will that they will and they've accepted
[45:49] our
submission with with the mitigation that
[45:52] we've proposed. Um So,
uh you know, for example there, there's
[45:56] potential for that full 100,000 to be
available to be to be moved into another
[46:01] sort of road. Um
Yeah. Um
[46:06] Yeah, and then
you know, land surveying and mapping for
[46:09] example, that's another item that's we
haven't we haven't had to Yeah, I you
[46:14] know, I I I Yeah. You understand me.
Just as you prepare it, sharpen your
[46:19] pencil in because you you know, come in
solution oriented to the council.
[46:23] » Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah, okay.
Yeah, appreciate that.
[46:31] Are you guys probably I mean
you've sat down with them. You've you've
[46:35] you've you've met with them. Are you
comfortable with them being a partner in
[46:39] in if not that it it doesn't sound like
it's a big job for them, but it's a big
[46:42] job for us.
>> Yeah, no, we haven't actually met with
[46:44] them.
Yeah, we we wanted to but you know, I
[46:47] actually I I spoke to
Gordon Ball yesterday on the phone. Um
[46:54] And
um but we had wanted to have this
[46:59] meeting before we you know,
provided any kind of official
[47:03] communication to especially well, to the
other contractors. Um and it's obviously
[47:08] not going to be an easy phone call with
Marcus, but um
[47:12] yeah, that's So, Peter, I mean so
if we make a recommendation, we're
[47:17] making a recommendation knowing it's
higher than the budget, although with
[47:20] your mitigating
recommendations, it may be lower, but it
[47:24] sounds like it's it's worth discussing
among the city council anyway. I mean
[47:27] it's it's not so far out there.
>> Absolutely. It's
[47:30] it's achievable potentially. Well, I
mean
[47:33] I mean I'm sure maybe Glenn you less so
than us, but we're
[47:36] we're just all reacting to that like
public process is you know, I wouldn't
[47:40] bid my house with that process. You
know,
[47:42] and it's just a it's just a just a it's
sort of frustrating, but um
[47:47] I think you need to present it that you
know, this is the process and and it's
[47:51] not it's not unusual to have our
estimate be be a little bit short of the
[47:54] of of the in fact, the dynamic of the of
the process to to to almost have that be
[48:00] the the norm.
But there is an opportunity
[48:04] and I and I do believe it's worth the
time because because we have a lot to do
[48:07] between BCDC, PG&E and the easements um
which would at the end of the day if
[48:12] those if those don't come through,
you know, this project's not going to go
[48:15] ahead anyway. So, work aggressively with
with the selected contractor to and it's
[48:21] not like we have much of a choice. We
have to choose
[48:23] the non-eliminated low low bid, right?
Right. Yeah, and and I think
[48:29] if if we're choosing if we're choosing
any, yeah.
[48:31] Right, yeah, exactly. And and I I think
that you know, if if if there was
[48:35] another close bid for example, and and
you know, there was a way to parse
[48:39] through the qualifications, um then then
we might be having a different
[48:44] conversation, but I think you know, we
have one apparently bidder. The the next
[48:48] one is you know,
500,000. I mean you know, higher. I
[48:52] touched on this last meeting, too, and I
know this will come up in the city
[48:54] council is
and it's hard it's hard to weigh this
[48:59] against known risk failure there, but is
this is this something that you know, in
[49:04] a year or two might be might be better
pricing?
[49:07] I'm not saying non-inflationary pricing,
but just better pricing relative to the
[49:11] war, the supply chain issues, steel
prices, gas petroleum prices. Good good
[49:15] question. And currently so far, we
actually
[49:19] do a lot of supply chain analysis for
our projects nationwide.
[49:23] So, right now I do know that most of the
sheet pile is coming from US. So, no
[49:31] tariffs. So, that has not been impacted.
Currently, the price of oil has not
[49:37] impacted the sheet pile pricing. And
that was something that, you know, once
[49:42] we started to see what was happening in
around and that's typically one of the
[49:45] first triggers is the price of oil will
just start to impact everything for
[49:49] production and
specifically sheet pile. So, at this
[49:54] point we don't foresee
any changes and we're that close that it
[49:59] would be not a major escalation. We may
have more impacts if we push the project
[50:04] and
you know, without
[50:07] you know, we're talking, you know, two
years down the road we're probably Even
[50:12] these folks these folks gave these bids,
you know, these orders are good. The
[50:16] price associations have been two or
three weeks, right? Two three and a half
[50:18] weeks.
Um
[50:20] would it could or would they come back
and say there's a 10% premium based on
[50:24] recent events?
They I do know that there there is a
[50:28] level of like they are entitled to that,
but I don't know the specifics
[50:32] personally to what that is.
>> They could do that. They could come back
[50:34] with a I'm not sure to the specifics.
So, it all depends on I think on the
[50:38] specifics of the contract. I'm just not
fully aware they are, you know, entitled
[50:43] to that.
>> [clears throat]
[50:45] » All the good scenario I mean as far as
whether the contract
[50:49] Yeah, yeah, two or three two or three
as as as they go lower their price they
[50:52] can ask us to raise the price. No, this
is what the contract would be. Yeah.
[50:57] And that's yeah, they're they're hanging
their hat on that and knowing that okay,
[51:00] well, you know, we have to
we get a word once, you know, supposed
[51:04] to that we you know, move specifically
on the sheets that would be the big
[51:07] thing. So, I mean if it's if it's if
it's
[51:11] legitimately now a cost of theirs big
it's
[51:14] choose not to take the contract, right?
Or the or are they obligated to take
[51:17] this contract?
Well, they're I think yeah, they have
[51:21] you Julian can speak to this as well.
Again, are they obligated or that's
[51:23] where they're yeah, that's where we have
a bond. Mhm. A bid bond.
[51:29] Yeah.
>> [clears throat]
[51:32] » Well, so this committee we were going to
make a recommendation. It sounds like
[51:36] the staff's recommendation is to to
recommend city council to accept the bid
[51:41] of Gordon
Ball.
[51:43] Um are we ready to decide on that with
the committee? I don't know how we what
[51:48] do we further questions or discussion?
I would I would
[51:54] edit that a bit in the sense that
it's not this committee's decision to go
[51:59] ahead with the project.
Right? From a from a broader risk
[52:02] perspective from a broader financing
perspective and from a broader um
[52:06] operations perspective. But in in the
event the council is clearly said to us
[52:09] at a retreat hence the formation of this
committee is um
[52:14] we want this project to go forward. It
should it go forward we want you to do
[52:18] the proper due diligence and proper
transparency to make sure that it's done
[52:21] in a fair equitable manner and that
you're getting as much value for the
[52:24] process as possible.
I think we should that's what we should
[52:26] say is that given the process and given
the understanding of the project and the
[52:29] scope,
this is the best contract for the job
[52:32] and given the conditions that we talked
about a second ago that you're going to
[52:35] post awarding of the contract value
engineer and look for look look for
[52:39] potential values in the scope itself and
um
[52:42] here are ways we can potentially
mitigate the cost in the existing
[52:45] budgets or other budgets. Um that's the
recommendation to choose Gordon Ball.
[52:51] What is it the
>> Yeah, I think it should be yeah. We're
[52:53] not saying the project should go ahead
with this. Ultimately,
[52:56] you know, five people up there with
public comment are going to decide
[52:59] whether this is this this, you know,
$4.6 million is something the city sees
[53:03] a priority for the next, you know, year
and a half to
[53:06] to mitigate this risk. Yeah. Yeah.
Um so it sounds like it it's um
[53:13] on the understanding that there will be
you know, aggressive um
[53:18] uh
what
[53:22] I don't want to say reduction in cost
I mean, you know, you know the people up
[53:27] there myself and and what I mean
they're going to say, you know, find a
[53:31] place, you know, figure out the 315,
right? You know, we'd rather not have
[53:34] that. We'd rather we'd rather you, you
know, get it out of the get it out of
[53:38] the project one way or the other, you
know, either sharpen your pencil from a
[53:40] scope perspective, value engineer it or
if you have to do exactly what what what
[53:45] you guys talked about is is, you know,
take a portion that that's responsible
[53:49] of a paving and a sidewalk budget or
other public works budgets and apply it
[53:53] to this recognizing that you're you're
you're you're stealing from Peter to pay
[53:56] Paul, but but be confident that you're
you're doing that in a in a in a in a
[54:01] balanced way that you're not
jeopardizing Paul in that scenario.
[54:05] They're going to want to see that
information. Right. Yeah. Yeah.
[54:09] And and just just be confident that you
thought about it so that if you're not
[54:12] able to lower the price
that we're not we don't have a, you
[54:15] know, day one $315,000
hit to this budget. You don't want to go
[54:19] through a project day one with that kind
of, you know, budget deficit.
[54:23] » for sure.
Um
[54:25] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I I
>> help you with the staff report too. I
[54:28] mean, like I'm don't stress about that.
Between Robert, you and me and Helga we
[54:31] can figure out how to Yeah. write that
up. Yeah, that that
[54:35] I really appreciate that. Um
Yeah, and and I think I think part of
[54:40] the
um
[54:42] you know, one of the questions that that
we'd have for you is is uh whether you
[54:45] think, you know, where would be a more
appropriate um place to to look for um
[54:51] savings uh and yeah, so
you know, see our existing CIP funds
[54:56] versus scope of the projects and um
yeah, these kind of Well, that's kind of
[55:00] a contract. I mean, I mean, yes
the the city can start with, you know,
[55:06] what what what what um
parks and lanes what what what broader
[55:10] public works infrastructure are you
doing that one you don't think you're
[55:13] going to get to. Every year we don't get
to projects, right? That happens all the
[55:16] time. So so so so
figure out which are the ones we don't
[55:20] think we're going to get to
and roll that into '27 '28 or '26 '27 or
[55:25] even '26 '27 '27 '28 and that's that's a
that's appropriate that potentially
[55:30] could be used um for this recognizing
you're just kicking a can down the road.
[55:34] It's not a savings, but
but it's a new public works budget next
[55:38] year. Right. Yeah, exactly. And and if
through your personal or a professional
[55:43] assessment
that
[55:45] project can be deferred for that amount
of time. I mean, that's got to be part
[55:49] of it as well.
Yes, exactly. And I think I actually
[55:52] didn't get to that part of when I was
talking about the CIPs and the and the
[55:55] paving um yeah, the It's got to be based
on some assessment
[55:59] Well, exactly. Yeah,
I mean, because there are as you say
[56:02] projects that roll over every year and
there are also, you know, sort of
[56:07] forecast funds for
for for different projects that you
[56:12] know, won't be used for one reason or
another and and can be pushed off to the
[56:16] following year. Yeah.
And we'll just see if there are any I
[56:19] see Patrick has joined. If there are
comments from Patrick or any I don't
[56:22] know if there are any other Robert or
Rob or Glenn or anyone else who might
[56:26] not have a chance to speak about this
and
[56:30] Robert, Patrick, Glenn, any
[56:35] Hey,
>> [clears throat]
[56:36] » I can go ahead and comment. I've just
been listening to this
[56:40] well, to the whole conversation, but on
this last part we we did actually meet
[56:44] Tony, myself and Helga and take a look
at our 20 our current budget in terms of
[56:49] rollover and then what we're looking at
for next year in terms of projects that
[56:53] have funds assigned, but not necessarily
a project earmarked for those funds. So,
[56:58] I think there um you know, to Peter and
and Tony to your point there is enough
[57:02] flexibility in the next, you know, this
current year and next year
[57:06] we need to we we can find a way to pay
for this 315. Um but but the broader
[57:10] point is let's let's work really hard
and try and bring the cost down, which
[57:14] is of course what we'll present to city
council.
[57:21] Yeah,
and so and this is just Robbie, you've
[57:25] just reminded me of another thing that's
um
[57:28] we would like to emphasize is that we
have no plans to request more funds from
[57:34] from reserves
uh from general fund or critical
[57:37] infrastructure reserves.
Um the you know, all the all the cost
[57:41] savings would come from existing and
forecast funds and from the projects
[57:46] itself.
Yeah.
[57:49] That's a bit that's that's
sort of splitting hairs because it's
[57:53] Well,
it's just going to be it really comes
[57:55] from the city
>> all all the same funds. So, it's a
[57:57] matter of Right.
>> whether it's
[58:00] in an existing appropriation or not.
Right. Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. We
[58:05] can't print money. So, it's it's at the
end of the day it's coming from
[58:08] something or we're not doing something.
Oh, yeah, exactly. We're putting
[58:12] deferring something or yeah. But I I I
think Robert said it exactly right and
[58:17] Yeah. we can we can endeavor to to make
that presentation and I'll and I'll
[58:20] certainly
be part of that and help explain it to
[58:23] the council as we go forward.
Yeah, well, thank you. Yeah.
[58:27] Okay, well, there's no further
discussion. It seems like we should try
[58:31] and bring our our committee's
recommendation to our to a vote and
[58:35] I think the movement is that the sub
committee
[58:39] will vote to
um
[58:42] I guess
that the vote along with the the staff
[58:46] has made the proper recommendation to
the city council subject to the
[58:51] adjustments and sort of
financing and payment. Um
[58:57] and I I I guess we're not quite
endorsing that the the committee should
[59:00] do this, but the committee supports the
staff's recommendation. I think you said
[59:03] it exactly right that that that we we
support the recommendation of the of the
[59:07] city staff that
Gordon Ball is the is is the contractor
[59:11] to select and that
um
[59:14] uh we encourage the the staff in the
presentation to city council to to focus
[59:18] on
you know, value engineering and and and
[59:21] scope considerations and then identify
where the
[59:25] surplus $315,000 can come from within
existing budgets.
[59:30] I was um [clears throat] may I move into
the vote on that?
[59:34] Uh second that.
I can second that. And all all in favor,
[59:38] I
I think it's just the three of us
[59:42] Well, thank you. Yeah, and hopefully the
the speaker caught all of the
[59:46] caught all of the language in there.
It's much better than the last one, I
[59:49] know that.
Um so, the microphone of the speaker,
[59:52] yeah.
And so, this may be the final time we'll
[59:55] have to meet, I guess maybe subject to
Yeah, I don't know.
[59:59] Robert, remind me, do we think it makes
sense to because because there's still
[1:00:05] as you mentioned between BCDC, Genie,
and the
[1:00:08] easements and the ultimate, you know,
issues of permits and getting going. Uh
[1:00:14] and and after all, this committee
is designed to be the eyes and ears of
[1:00:19] the community just just just just to
understand and, you know, either
[1:00:22] anecdotally or or publicly make a
comment that, you know, we've been aware
[1:00:25] of what's going on. I'd suggest another
in, you know,
[1:00:29] if not one or two month at monthly
intervals, just to check in where you
[1:00:32] are in this process
um so that the next month you presumably
[1:00:36] would have received city council
approval, you presumably would have
[1:00:39] engaged in a contract with Gordon Ball,
and have those initial discussions, and
[1:00:43] have a tentative timeline for the
project. That would be So, in about a
[1:00:47] month's time from now That's what I
think unless you think that's that's too
[1:00:50] soon.
Um
[1:00:52] No, I think I think there would be uh
quite a few there'd be a few updates in
[1:00:58] a month's time. Um and we can
possibly, you know, change the date if
[1:01:03] if we need to if we're waiting on for
some, you know, some
[1:01:06] um decision or something. Robert, that's
not surpassing the the the um
[1:01:12] charter or design of this subcommittee?
No, the the subcommittee is ad hoc. We
[1:01:18] can't exist forever. Um but if we have a
clear ending point which may align
[1:01:23] you know, with the duration of the
project and maybe at the close out uh
[1:01:27] we'll have a final report that goes back
to council. I think that's still the
[1:01:31] scope. Yeah, I would agree. I think it'd
be good to meet in another month.
[1:01:35] And actually maybe throughout the until
the project is completed I absolutely We
[1:01:38] discussed even having maybe one
committee member available for whether
[1:01:42] it be every construction meeting, but at
least it's certainly up to speed whether
[1:01:47] it's even also a follow-up after our
construction meeting with the
[1:01:51] contractor. I'm under the impression
we'll be doing those weekly. Could be a
[1:01:54] bi-weekly check-in or something of that
nature, but I think that it's very
[1:01:58] important to keep you guys in the loop
throughout the process, too. You know,
[1:02:02] we'll also have the have the contract
happening,
[1:02:05] it sounds like. So, you'll you'll bring
this to council in April?
[1:02:08] Yes. Yeah, that is the plan. Okay. Yeah.
Um
[1:02:14] Yeah, so April 13th
um and
[1:02:18] yeah, unfortunately, I'm going to be out
of town for a couple of weeks here, but
[1:02:21] I have the the draft staff report and um
you know, uh I think the finance the
[1:02:29] fiscal impact section is is the part we
need to um
[1:02:33] drill down into. Yeah.
But uh
[1:02:37] yeah, that and hopefully the
construction easements
[1:02:40] and maybe even a contract for the other
portion of the work if that can all
[1:02:44] happen in in in April,
uh that would be There's no bid
[1:02:49] requirement for that? Is that the bid
threshold or something? They would
[1:02:52] typically be, yes,
but there is in this case
[1:02:57] what's called a sole source
justification
[1:03:00] for for this for this contract
because they have specialized
[1:03:06] knowledge of that company.
>> installed it.
[1:03:08] Yes, exactly. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:03:12] Yeah, and
but that's, you know, these are all
[1:03:15] updates that can can come at the next
meeting for sure. Yeah. Okay, so we'll
[1:03:19] plan on having a meeting probably late
April after the city council meeting and
[1:03:23] after progress has been made. Um
and then we'll see
[1:03:26] periodically after after that. Um would
you like to pencil in a date now that we
[1:03:30] can
uh
[1:03:32] or or uh
Would you Yeah. prefer to to wait and
[1:03:38] have a a poll maybe further down the
line? If we if we sort of have a a
[1:03:42] target date that we are, you know, can
then confirm, I think um
[1:03:46] All right, for me that always seems to
work work better.
[1:03:50] So, maybe the week of the 27th?
Okay.
[1:03:55] I'm gone that whole week.
Are you there the week of the 20th? I'm
[1:03:59] there the 20th.
[1:04:02] I I'm here the week of the 20th.
When does city council act? Uh you said
[1:04:08] it was the
13th. 13th, yeah. So, that's great.
[1:04:12] So, that's a week after the city council
meeting. But you might not have made
[1:04:15] much progress with the contract. Yeah,
it might be a little soon. Might shoot
[1:04:18] for beginning of May, like the week of
the 4th. Early May might be better. I'm
[1:04:21] away the week of the 4th, so I can do
the Monday or Tuesday.
[1:04:26] And there's always, you know, we can
there's no reason this for emailing
[1:04:29] communication Personally, I could I
could join a Zoom call.
[1:04:32] » Or even a remote call if that's Yeah.
Yeah, I know it works for you. I guess
[1:04:35] it would do we if we're not voting on
things necessarily, we don't have to all
[1:04:39] be present, correct? And
I don't know what the or can we not have
[1:04:42] a meeting? It's not a Brown Act, I don't
believe. Right, Robert?
[1:04:47] That is correct. I don't believe this is
a Brown Act. I don't believe
[1:04:50] So, I mean If this same group is meeting
Sorry, sorry. If this same group is
[1:04:55] meeting meeting the
you know, the the core group that we
[1:04:58] have here today, then it is a Brown Act
meeting. If it's just one person
[1:05:02] assigned to meet with staff and what's
not
[1:05:06] Well, I I guess our question, Robert, is
if
[1:05:09] we couldn't do this as a complete remote
meeting.
[1:05:15] Right, we need to have a quorum. Then
then the majority a majority of the
[1:05:18] members have to be in person.
It worked out today because only one
[1:05:22] person
member of that sub of the subcommittee
[1:05:25] was was connected remotely.
Do we want to shoot for say Wednesday
[1:05:30] the 6th and
if John can't I did do it remotely, but
[1:05:34] I'm happy to do that remotely. Yeah,
sure. Let's do that. Okay. Let's May the
[1:05:39] 6th.
[1:05:43] 2 2 p.m. Or sorry, 1 p.m.
Yeah, if that time works for everyone.
[1:05:51] Keep it consistent, I guess.
[1:05:55] Okay.
All right, I just need to raise one
[1:05:59] point.
Yes, a design point. Yeah, uh go ahead.
[1:06:03] Yeah, that's okay.
So, this is addressed to Stetson.
[1:06:07] Uh has to do with the height of the
sheet piling.
[1:06:11] Larry's question to you apparently was
misunderstood.
[1:06:15] He's asking why not
maintain the level the
[1:06:20] » [clears throat]
>> same as the existing sheet piling.
[1:06:25] Oh, the 2019 sheet piling, the top of
it.
[1:06:28] Um
>> Maintaining that height. It was It was
[1:06:32] primarily to save cost to to not have a
higher sheets and more concrete backfill
[1:06:38] and any any fill you put along the wall
um requires a mitigation from the
[1:06:45] jurisdiction. So, the wall where
existing sheet piling
[1:06:49] is the new sheet piling. It's It's
approximately a foot lower.
[1:06:55] You're cutting it off.
You're cutting off longer pieces anyway.
[1:07:00] Maybe. I mean, it depends where they
where they drive it to. Well,
[1:07:04] I could drive it in and drive it in
those. These aren't being driven.
[1:07:09] These aren't being driven. Yeah, they're
being pressed. There's no driving.
[1:07:13] There there will be a It's that We did
We did We did design it so there's a
[1:07:17] It's a It's a It'll be a gradual
transition, so it's not going to be a an
[1:07:21] abrupt, you know,
90° change. It's There is going to be a
[1:07:25] transition
over over a period of a horizontal
[1:07:28] distance, so
>> And and the 2019
[1:07:31] repair has one as well. There's a a
little slope down to two different
[1:07:35] elevations.
Um but to add
[1:07:38] Julian to the reason for keep reasons to
keep it keep it down, one is the
[1:07:43] permitting
because permitting agencies um
[1:07:47] were
happy to see that if that's the the all
[1:07:52] the pile would be kept below the the
height of
[1:07:55] where the sea sea lettuce reaches
because that would be colonized much
[1:08:00] more quickly by sea lettuce and
barnacles and so on. So, the lower the
[1:08:03] better for them
as far as habitat goes.
[1:08:07] Um then also aesthetics. Um right now
from from the the homes along there or
[1:08:13] from from the water
um
[1:08:16] it's it's less visible
the the lower down it is.
[1:08:19] Um so,
that along with the embedding the
[1:08:23] uh the gravel into the top of the
concrete along there um
[1:08:27] you know, sort of the the permitting and
and somewhat for aesthetics. So, we're
[1:08:31] talking about a foot.
About a foot, yes. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:08:36] Yeah, so I mean, and if you look at the
the 2019 piles, there's a point on the
[1:08:40] piles where the barnacles stop. And then
above that is just the the metal, you
[1:08:45] know. So, the idea here was that
the this would be completely below that
[1:08:49] that level of
you know, habitat. Is Is there Is there
[1:08:54] inherently a
you know, for the people viewing it from
[1:08:57] the water side or from the
homes out there? Obviously,
[1:09:01] um
I mean, there is every every aesthetic
[1:09:03] appeal to having it consistent as as
much as consistent as as possible. Um
[1:09:07] but you're saying there's there's
there's no structural need for it cuz
[1:09:11] that the note we got today clearly said
that the the the structural requirements
[1:09:16] are really down below as opposed to
above. No structural need for it. My my
[1:09:19] biggest concern is is it would add
additional mitigation measures and
[1:09:23] potentially hold up the BCDC permitting
process. Um you guys need to sort of
[1:09:27] give us a thumbs up and thumbs down
this. I mean I see Larry's point that it
[1:09:30] might look better if it was less It was
all the same. jig jaggy.
[1:09:35] But not enough to delay or or the
project or to have a cost consideration
[1:09:40] or have
you know, permitting issues with you
[1:09:43] know, the lead agency there. Right.
Yeah. Or even if we can do it from an
[1:09:47] environmental perspective whether
whether ours are are
[1:09:51] review covered that scope. But then
again, we did we're we're we're we're
[1:09:55] we're we're
we're we're I'm leaning on the broader
[1:09:58] review, right? So that matter that
should matter. The environmental review
[1:10:01] should matter, right?
No, so that it wouldn't I don't think
[1:10:05] impact the EIR if it was you know, if if
what you're talking about is is the 2019
[1:10:11] sheet piles cuz I think that's
probably what was kind of envisioned as
[1:10:17] the sort of a comparable Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, I don't know if Julian if you have
[1:10:21] any thoughts on that. Well, it would
require going back to all the agencies.
[1:10:26] It would be it would be more fill in the
jurisdictional waters. So we'd have to
[1:10:29] restart or you know, renegotiate with
all the agencies and there would be a
[1:10:34] cost increase.
Yeah.
[1:10:38] Any answer?
>> If I could chime in here too, from from
[1:10:41] what we've talked about on this project
from the beginning we we always
[1:10:45] envisioned I think this aesthetic
improvement that we're talking about
[1:10:49] whether that be a cap or riprap or some
other kind of concealment method
[1:10:53] for hiding that you know, the steel
sheet piles and the concrete. That would
[1:10:57] always be coming as kind of a phase two.
And it's just a matter of when we can
[1:11:01] get that done in terms of you know,
perhaps the larger project or when funds
[1:11:05] are available. But you know, the
structural [clears throat] component
[1:11:09] holding up the wall and you know,
keeping the cost down low was always our
[1:11:13] primary target at least in the short
term.
[1:11:17] Okay, I'll tell Larry. Thank you.
Yeah, he raised it last month also. And
[1:11:22] I think
Yeah. You should I don't know if Larry
[1:11:25] got that note you sent around today. Um
Um I I think he uh
[1:11:30] with with the response from the state
and I think he must have because I think
[1:11:33] that's what what you might be referring
to then for the
[1:11:37] as far as the the misunderstanding. I
think that's maybe what what he was
[1:11:41] referring He brought it up last week too
last month too. So he he may or may not
[1:11:45] have it well.
>> Right. Yeah, and I I mean I I
[1:11:49] misunderstood it too actually cuz I
thought he was talking about having a
[1:11:53] higher up
you know,
[1:11:55] to support the wall. I think he just
wanted it to match what was there. Yeah,
[1:11:59] I understand. And yes.
And so
[1:12:03] Okay, I think we can adjourn unless
there's any further comments. Thank you
[1:12:06] so much. So many thanks. Thanks. Yeah,
thank you all. Thank you all so much.
[1:12:11] Thanks Robert.
>> Thanks Robert.
[1:12:16] What