[0:00] That's it.

[0:01] Great.

[0:03] All right. Okay, well, maybe I I guess

[0:04] I'll I'll call to order and start the

[0:07] meeting. Um

[0:08] first order is roll call and I'll start

[0:12] and then we can go around. John Tantum,

[0:14] I volunteered to be chair of this

[0:15] committee, a Cove Road resident.

[0:18] Go ahead, Mr. Isaacson. Sitting in for

[0:20] Larry Store.

[0:22] Keith Fagan, a

[0:24] town resident. Uh Peter Mark, city

[0:26] council member. I'm going to excuse

[0:28] myself and get a pen. This one doesn't

[0:29] work good.

[0:30] Okay.

[0:34] Julian Poolweiler with Stetson

[0:35] Engineers, uh design team for the Beach

[0:37] Road stabilization project.

[0:39] Adrian Formaini, both with the city

[0:41] project management team.

[0:43] Great.

[0:44] Tony Boyd, public works director.

[0:46] Um

[0:48] and uh the others I I can chime in that

[0:50] Robert's uh

[0:52] excused himself from from being here. He

[0:54] wasn't able to make it, but he is

[0:55] joining us on Zoom. So, yeah, that's

[0:58] city manager Robert Zadnik.

[1:00] Robert, Robert, can you hear us? Are you

[1:03] on audio?

[1:05] Uh yeah, hi everyone. Can you hear me?

[1:07] Yes.

[1:08] Yeah, can you can you hear us okay,

[1:10] Robert?

[1:11] Yes. Yeah, you're coming through loud

[1:13] and clear. Thanks.

[1:14] Great.

[1:17] And I'm Chris Berry, assistant engineer

[1:18] with the city of Belvedere in the public

[1:20] works department.

[1:22] Peter, were you out when

[1:24] when the

[1:25] when the call came around to your your

[1:27] seat?

[1:27] » You know I said it, Peter. Okay, thanks.

[1:30] Yeah, um

[1:32] All right. Okay, well, the next item is

[1:34] the approval of the minutes from our

[1:36] prior meeting on February 26th,

[1:39] uh which are in the packet here and were

[1:42] distributed earlier. Are there any

[1:43] comments?

[1:46] on those?

[1:47] Happy to make a motion to approve it.

[1:50] I'll second that.

[1:51] In favor? I.

[1:54] Uh the minutes were approved from the

[1:56] February 26th meeting.

[1:59] Um

[2:02] next is the the the matter at hand to

[2:04] talk about the Beach Road stabilization

[2:06] project and the bids and reviewing the

[2:09] bids and

[2:10] uh

[2:11] discussing those and hopefully come out

[2:13] come up with a recommendation for the

[2:15] city council.

[2:16] Great. So, maybe Tony, I'll let you take

[2:18] it take over. Yep, thank you. Yeah, and

[2:21] um thank you everybody for for being

[2:23] here once again um

[2:24] in your time.

[2:26] And um

[2:28] this uh this meeting is a follow-up from

[2:32] our last meeting which really introduced

[2:33] you all to the to the plans for the

[2:35] project and uh the context for it. Um

[2:39] this meeting is to uh present the

[2:42] selection process

[2:44] um

[2:44] uh to you all and uh basically um

[2:49] uh request a recommendation uh that the

[2:53] city council approve uh the the contract

[2:56] uh for the for the project and award the

[2:57] contract uh to a contractor. Um

[3:01] and so, what I'll be doing is I'll walk

[3:03] you through the selection process um

[3:06] and we are uh I think it's fairly

[3:09] informal. We can, you know, discuss and

[3:11] ask questions as we go. And um yeah,

[3:14] happy to fill you in on on any of the of

[3:17] the details.

[3:20] All right. So, um

[3:23] so, to start with I'd like to clarify in

[3:25] my memo um

[3:28] » [clears throat]

[3:28] » Uh that because I didn't point this out

[3:31] in the memo. Um this contract is for the

[3:34] sheet pile installation portion of the

[3:36] project, which is the main uh the sort

[3:38] of the meat of the project. Uh there is

[3:40] another um

[3:42] segment which it which has to do with

[3:44] the the private properties on Beach

[3:45] Road, number 16 uh to number 28 Beach

[3:48] Road, um where there are gangways and

[3:52] utilities on on the properties there

[3:54] that will need to be removed for the

[3:55] installation of the pre of the of the

[3:57] sheet piles.

[3:59] And that's a project in itself. Um and

[4:01] so, that will be a a separate contract.

[4:03] Um

[4:05] And there there's a little bit of

[4:07] possible confusion with with uh with the

[4:09] numbers that that amount was included in

[4:11] the engineer's estimates um

[4:13] uh

[4:14] you know, and and that's not really I I

[4:15] didn't really um clarify that or point

[4:18] that out in the memo.

[4:19] Um

[4:21] and yeah, we we can we can look at it

[4:24] more closely uh but uh exhibit C, the

[4:26] engineer's estimate will will show

[4:29] uh

[4:30] that uh where that that line was

[4:32] included in the total cost of of the

[4:34] estimate versus the cost of this

[4:37] proposal.

[4:38] Um

[4:40] and

[4:42] yeah, if need be um I could also

[4:46] it'll take me a few minutes, but at some

[4:47] point I did

[4:49] uh pull up uh some of these documents

[4:51] onto the screen if it's helpful.

[4:53] And Robert might find that

[4:55] that useful.

[4:56] Um okay. Um so, the RFP was posted on

[5:00] February 20th.

[5:02] There was a lot of interest um it seemed

[5:04] to us with uh 58 downloads of uh of the

[5:08] RFP materials. Um

[5:11] uh it gives some indication, I guess, of

[5:13] of uh all the contractors out there and

[5:15] and who are kind of perusing the sites

[5:16] and

[5:17] uh

[5:18] interested to see what what projects are

[5:20] going on.

[5:21] Um

[5:22] that was followed by a mandatory site

[5:24] meeting uh with with prospective

[5:26] contractors.

[5:27] Um so, any contractor who wanted to

[5:30] submit a bid would have to be at the at

[5:32] the site meeting.

[5:33] Uh there were 14 companies represented

[5:35] there.

[5:36] Um and the deadline for questions

[5:40] following that was March 9th. Um we

[5:42] received four questions in writing

[5:45] and responded to in in in an addendum.

[5:49] Um there were two adden- addenda issued.

[5:52] Uh the first addendum was um

[5:55] a change to the insurance requirements

[5:56] in the contract.

[5:58] Um so, that uh yeah, basically uh

[6:01] provided uh the details of that.

[6:03] Um and then addendum two um

[6:06] uh provided details on the on the uh

[6:08] pre-bid meeting, um

[6:10] the questions received, um the responses

[6:13] to those questions, and also a

[6:14] clarification of of some of the uh

[6:16] contractor's responsibilities uh during

[6:19] during the project um

[6:21] related to workflow, their workflow, and

[6:23] coordination.

[6:26] The deadline was March the 19th um

[6:29] and that was uh attended by four

[6:32] different contractors' representatives

[6:34] uh as well as a union representative

[6:36] representative. Um A union from

[6:39] local three. Operators. It's not

[6:42] uncommon that they show up knowing about

[6:44] this type of projects. Yeah, thank you.

[6:48] Thanks, I wouldn't have known that.

[6:50] Um

[6:51] and then

[6:53] uh yeah, so and it was fairly

[6:55] straightforward. Each uh each envelope

[6:58] each sealed envelope was opened and the

[7:01] bids uh bid amount was was read out

[7:03] loud. Um

[7:05] uh people people, you know, took notes

[7:07] and uh and then asked some questions. Um

[7:11] most of the questions, I think all the

[7:12] questions were

[7:13] » So, they they they opened up their bids

[7:15] amongst all the other competitors?

[7:17] Yeah, so basically we received the bids

[7:20] um at a table we had a little table

[7:21] stationed next to the door there. As

[7:22] they came in, uh they they uh handed in

[7:25] their bid

[7:26] um and then um at the designated time

[7:29] which was 11:30 on that day,

[7:31] um we declared that uh bids were now uh

[7:35] closed and then uh and then we stood up

[7:37] at a at a table and opened each bid

[7:39] individually, pulled out the the

[7:41] documents, and read out the number to

[7:43] the to the uh the contractors. Is that

[7:46] is that a requirement? So, is that a

[7:48] requirement? It is the It's a law. I'm

[7:50] sorry, I didn't mean to speak over you.

[7:51] Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that was that

[7:52] is the procedure for

[7:53] uh public opening. And it sort of takes

[7:55] away your ability to negotiate with

[7:56] anybody.

[7:58] It does and the law it's it's it's uh

[8:03] it's a legal requirement for for public

[8:05] agencies. Um

[8:07] and and

[8:08] the the possibility to negotiate um

[8:12] is actually extremely limited. I mean,

[8:13] the the the amount on the bid uh if the

[8:17] city is to accept a bid,

[8:19] um

[8:20] it has to justify not accepting the

[8:22] lowest bid, basically. Um if it's not

[8:25] going to accept the the lowest bid, um

[8:27] there there needs to be a reason in, you

[8:30] know, um

[8:31] uh that the city would would do that. I

[8:34] mean, it's very seldom that that a city

[8:36] would want to not [clears throat] accept

[8:37] the lowest bid. But but is there is

[8:39] there I'm sorry to meet you.

[8:41] » No, no.

[8:41] Just just

[8:43] couple questions. So, you went from 58

[8:46] downloads, I guess, I know it's a it's a

[8:48] gross number um

[8:50] to 14 visits and four

[8:52] made meeting the deadline. Did anybody

[8:54] come in after the deadline? Um which I

[8:56] know you you need to exclude, but I'm

[8:58] saying anybody come in just for

[9:00] information.

[9:01] » No, no, nobody came in after the

[9:02] deadline.

[9:03] » Normal or why would you think you'd go

[9:04] from 58 to 14? I I understand a 58 to

[9:06] 14, but 14 to four seems a larger jump

[9:09] than I would expect. I'll go over the

[9:10] bats and then I'll and then I'll let

[9:12] I'll let you Adrian chime in. He's

[9:14] definitely um

[9:16] kind of written a few more of these

[9:17] rodeos than I have. Um but

[9:19] um I think uh one of the main reasons

[9:22] was there was this a specific piece of

[9:24] equipment that was um specified in the

[9:27] RFP and and uh and that was this uh

[9:30] silent piler, this guy can machine. And

[9:34] there are very few uh if

[9:36] if any, I think, in Northern California

[9:38] um

[9:39] uh companies that that provide that. Um

[9:42] so,

[9:43] you know, that was another thing is that

[9:45] all of them had the same subcontractor

[9:47] uh to drive these piles in.

[9:49] Um

[9:50] and I think yeah, some of the comments

[9:52] at the pre-bid meeting um

[9:54] related to that. They they sort of said,

[9:56] well, I mean, if we're all going to have

[9:57] the same prime I mean, if we're all

[9:59] going to have the same sub,

[10:00] um

[10:01] what difference does it make to you

[10:02] guys? And so, I think a lot of people

[10:04] felt that they wouldn't have a

[10:06] competitive chance. So, you know, so

[10:08] didn't didn't want to waste their time.

[10:10] Um but yeah, Adrian Yeah. So, uh you

[10:14] know, it was certainly a great turnout

[10:17] at the pre-bid versus who pulled plans.

[10:19] And who pulled plans could be a host of

[10:21] individuals that may actually not even

[10:23] have any

[10:25] ultimate goal of bidding on the project.

[10:27] However, they are very interested

[10:28] whether it be a vendor. Uh there are

[10:31] several

[10:32] uh communication

[10:35] uh companies that will track projects

[10:37] and then, you know, post items. Um so,

[10:40] you usually have a very broad spectrum

[10:42] of individuals that will pull plans and

[10:45] and anyone's allowed to do it. So, then

[10:46] you get down to the pre-bid meeting,

[10:48] which is certainly a more uh fine-tuned

[10:51] group of individuals

[10:53] that still may consist of additional

[10:57] individuals outside of who will be

[10:59] bidding on the project. Myself signed in

[11:02] on the pre-bid sheet because I was an

[11:04] attendee.

[11:05] Um my project manager Kyle, you know,

[11:07] Tony. So, there were

[11:09] others at the pre-bid that necessarily

[11:11] weren't going to be bidding on the

[11:12] project including subcontractors

[11:15] to potential primes.

[11:17] So, one of the critical uh

[11:20] subcontractors and at that point we

[11:22] weren't sure if there was a

[11:25] uh a prime or a subcontracting component

[11:28] to the uh company that does retain

[11:30] several of these Dyken silent pilers.

[11:33] And they were, you know, there with

[11:34] three individuals, you know, that are

[11:36] all from Blue Iron. So, that's how your

[11:37] list kind of kind of kind of

[11:42] that we ended up with? Is that a

[11:43] successful process or would we wish we'd

[11:45] had more or what what how do we how do

[11:47] you evaluate that? Exactly. Yes. So,

[11:49] good question. So, because of the uh

[11:52] selective equipment for installation,

[11:55] these contractors all knew that Blue

[11:58] Iron was going to be

[12:00] involved with this contract. You can

[12:02] only make the case Blue Iron's you know,

[12:04] selected who they who they want to work

[12:06] with. Correct. So, we do know based on

[12:08] the bid results that Blue Iron so

[12:10] provided numbers to several contractors

[12:12] and that's great. And all of them were

[12:14] very close on that one particular bid

[12:16] item when we analyzed the results.

[12:18] » But they're not though. But they're not

[12:20] though. I mean, unless it's embedded in

[12:21] these lines. I mean, there's there's

[12:22] there's quite a big of variance in the,

[12:24] you know, uh line five, six, seven, and

[12:26] eight.

[12:27] You would think you would think if it's

[12:28] the same contractor between the same The

[12:30] contractor is this the opinion of cost

[12:32] for the

[12:33] project? I'm just looking at the

[12:34] line-by-line breakdown. Must be in the

[12:36] bid

[12:36] Okay. Yeah, so that's a computer too.

[12:38] I'm sure it's in a more detailed

[12:39] tabulation. But but you know, where you

[12:42] would where you would expect to see

[12:44] So, I'm I'm my bad. I'm sorry. I didn't

[12:45] have a thought that was on the one Where

[12:47] you would expect to see some consistency

[12:49] among them all

[12:51] would be alignment A, alignment A,

[12:52] alignment B, alignment C, you know,

[12:54] where this where where the the

[12:55] structural steel um sheet piles are

[12:57] being driven. You know, basically line

[12:59] five, six, and seven.

[13:00] Um

[13:01] and part of I guess

[13:05] Yeah. I don't know what I'm seeing right

[13:06] now, but

[13:07] To jump in, I'm I I I 100% see what

[13:10] you're saying and it is a bit of a head

[13:11] head scratcher about why Valentine

[13:14] uh uh

[13:15] have 2.3 million whereas the other

[13:18] contractors I think are more

[13:20] closely um converged at, you know,

[13:24] between 1.6

[13:27] and and 1.8 million. Quick question. Are

[13:30] uh are

[13:31] are we we're in at this point we're not

[13:32] even discussing Valentine's numbers or

[13:34] do you want to discuss their I mean,

[13:37] they're they're they're way high. No,

[13:39] no, no, I know. I know. I know. I'm I'm

[13:40] I mean, well, just just with four on the

[13:42] page and I you may want to just mention

[13:44] why you knocked out Corcus.

[13:46] Yes. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. I was

[13:48] coming to that. Yeah.

[13:50] Yeah, so

[13:50] they knocked out Corcus. They didn't

[13:52] they didn't really follow the process.

[13:53] Yeah, we can we can look at the

[13:54] administrative oversight by Corcus and

[13:56] they just forgot to sign something or

[13:57] was it like a substantial

[13:59] they didn't

[14:00] complete something important? Uh it was

[14:02] an it was I think

[14:04] I if it was me, if it was my company,

[14:07] I'd be very frustrated uh because um

[14:10] it is it's it's a very minor

[14:13] detail when you're filling out a form,

[14:15] but

[14:16] in in an RFP um it's it's significant

[14:20] um and

[14:22] uh it basically

[14:25] um

[14:26] The frustration for us too is that um we

[14:29] we were aware that Corcus had downloaded

[14:31] those those addenda

[14:33] um and

[14:35] so when they when they filled in their

[14:37] form um saying that they had not they

[14:39] they did not acknowledge uh the the

[14:41] addenda basically. I mean, but but but

[14:43] in the city's defense and our in our

[14:45] broader legal defense of this is also

[14:47] that when and if

[14:49] they're they're not acknowledging those

[14:50] two addenda which we we we can't verify

[14:52] that it's in their their their budget

[14:53] data and and they'll perform the work

[14:54] according to the specs that you laid

[14:56] out. Exactly. What's your real change?

[14:58] Which is why you have to sort of

[14:59] eliminate that.

[15:00] There's no way to have them acknowledge

[15:03] the addenda after the fact. It was too

[15:06] late at that point after the envelopes

[15:08] have been opened. Is that right? It you

[15:10] know, it's

[15:13] It would have been basically, yeah. I

[15:14] think that would have resulted in

[15:16] protest from from the other bidders um

[15:19] basically that they didn't follow

[15:20] procedures and then were being given an

[15:22] allowance for

[15:24] you know, to to correct items in their

[15:26] in their bid.

[15:27] Um

[15:28] Yeah. And you know, I mean, I think

[15:31] ultimately um

[15:33] you know, the city attorney weighed in

[15:34] on it and and uh

[15:36] yeah, it it was quite clear that uh this

[15:38] was the only option.

[15:40] Yeah. Um

[15:43] Luckily for us the the next the next

[15:45] bidder was was a very close in price and

[15:47] they, you know, for the total.

[15:49] I mean, but on those my question was a

[15:52] lot of those install sheet pile. Yeah,

[15:54] you go from

[15:56] even if you take out Valentine, you

[15:57] know, there's a six there's a $300,000

[15:59] swing on line five.

[16:03] Between between between Thompson and and

[16:07] Gordon Gordon Mhm. And and Thompson

[16:09] being the third. That's why they were in

[16:10] third place. No, no, no, but I'm saying

[16:12] but if if if the same subcontractor is

[16:14] providing the service, maybe there's

[16:15] more detail that that there that I'm not

[16:16] seeing. Because they are carrying costs

[16:18] of unforeseen to for covering a sub. So,

[16:22] guaranteed Thompson is a more local

[16:24] contractor from Nevada and they may or

[16:27] may not have worked with um um Blue Iron

[16:30] as much, but I do know that both Corcus

[16:32] and Gordon Ball both

[16:35] work with them quite often and that is

[16:37] probably that is a reflection in Gordon

[16:39] Ball's number is that they have a very

[16:42] good understanding and operation for

[16:44] their subcontractor which is carrying,

[16:47] you know, 75% of this this project

[16:50] weight here.

[16:51] Um that is the way I see it.

[16:54] What a really good question. Um what is

[16:57] the ultimate nature of our agreement

[16:59] with this contractor? Is it a guaranteed

[17:00] max? What factors you you mentioned that

[17:03] in your review of um

[17:07] uh

[17:08] references that one of the one of the

[17:10] things you got back about Gordon Ball in

[17:11] particular was that they were able to

[17:13] finish the project on time and on

[17:14] budget.

[17:17] What

[17:18] what are the opportunities or what are

[17:19] the negative opportunities to be off

[17:21] budget for us? I mean,

[17:23] if is this a guaranteed max? Is this a

[17:24] fixed price? What happens

[17:27] um certainly I understand client driven

[17:28] change orders or or or material driven

[17:30] change orders, but is that what can can

[17:32] can can drive this into an overage

[17:33] situation? Yes. And and it's really and

[17:36] and Adrian definitely please do chime in

[17:38] here, but

[17:39] um

[17:40] my understanding is that

[17:42] uh they based their

[17:44] their their estimates of of costs or

[17:46] their their price

[17:50] on the If if other

[17:52] you know, if they get out to the sites

[17:54] and and um you know, they start digging

[17:57] and there's something something else

[17:59] down there than other than loose sand

[18:00] and rock, for example, um that causes

[18:03] delays and

[18:05] you know, changes um then then costs can

[18:08] change. Yeah.

[18:12] Yeah. Most of them Yeah, and then some

[18:13] of the units are are are stated you have

[18:16] you do a square foot for the sheet pile,

[18:18] but primarily they are either single

[18:21] units or total and or, you know, lump

[18:23] sum. So, each the only the square

[18:26] footage is on the the sheet pile, which

[18:28] is total.

[18:29] And then it's a furnish and install, so

[18:31] it's a completed system. I mean, Jason

[18:34] repair that was completed a few years

[18:35] ago. Were there many change orders

[18:36] associated with that project? Not one.

[18:40] And did it come in on budget? Uh well,

[18:43] that one was a little There was there it

[18:45] was not the same development of that

[18:48] project based on the situation because

[18:50] it was more of a observation that was

[18:53] made with both and Miller Pacific during

[18:55] and Stetson during the H and H study in

[18:58] 2019 for the shoreline resiliency for

[19:01] both shoreline and

[19:03] Santa Paula and Beach.

[19:04] Uh so, that was when it was prompted and

[19:07] the wall was showing uh significant

[19:09] signs of failure. So, that was what

[19:11] prompted that project. So, it certainly

[19:13] was in line with pricing

[19:16] um and there was no additional inflated

[19:19] costs due to a

[19:20] you know, expedited, you know, time

[19:22] frame. Blue Iron came in well under

[19:24] because they had a unique perspective on

[19:26] the installation of sheet with uh

[19:29] um just cutting edge tech

[19:32] you know, so

[19:34] they were we were able to complete the

[19:36] project faster than other companies.

[19:38] So And can you confirm my understanding

[19:41] as well that it's it it would go both

[19:43] ways as well. So, if less materials are

[19:45] used, for example, um

[19:48] than than anticipated calculated the

[19:50] square footage, um then

[19:53] then uh that's what's that is what it's

[19:56] built to the city as well as well

[19:57] invoiced. Yeah, I mean they're they're

[20:00] you know, this is what they were

[20:01] expecting and they're going to they're

[20:03] going to procure sheets like this is the

[20:05] first thing that has to happen. So

[20:07] » Right. So as far as the sheets go those

[20:09] that would be a single kind of bulk

[20:11] order I guess.

[20:12] » Oh yeah, and they're going to jump on

[20:13] that as soon as possible just because of

[20:15] the lead time and getting into a roll

[20:17] because these sheets very well may not

[20:19] be on the brand yet. Okay. So it's yes

[20:22] specific to sheets yeah. Okay.

[20:25] I just know that I mean you know with

[20:27] paving for example if um

[20:29] you know for whatever reason it turns

[20:31] out that it's a few tons less than than

[20:33] expected. Absolutely

[20:37] and that's what's important just for

[20:38] keeping on track with you know that all

[20:40] those all those things. But yeah we'll

[20:42] certainly do that. And the good thing

[20:43] that we have going for us is

[20:45] the knowledge base of both Gordon and

[20:47] Blue Iron is that they're

[20:48] straightforward contracting that very

[20:51] they work well together. So the mere

[20:53] fact that they are a well-oiled machine

[20:56] is going to have you know it's going to

[20:58] just you know

[21:00] assist tremendously versus you know

[21:03] other subs that may or may not have that

[21:05] well of a communication yeah you know

[21:08] so. And then also yeah just to just to

[21:11] add

[21:13] if there is if there are complications

[21:15] you know it's it's uh

[21:18] the city you know through its through

[21:20] its engineer engineering team would have

[21:23] to

[21:24] um

[21:25] uh

[21:26] basically approve any any changes like

[21:28] that any changes to the to the scope.

[21:32] So cost would be a part of that

[21:34] decision. So if you know if there's a if

[21:36] there's a huge change

[21:38] it because of you know some

[21:41] some unforeseen circumstance that that

[21:44] results in a big change in cost

[21:45] somewhere

[21:47] that would be a decision that the city

[21:48] would weigh

[21:49] for in terms of the project as a whole.

[21:52] What we do know is that we had very

[21:54] little issues whatsoever with a

[21:56] significant section of Beach Road

[21:58] several years ago. We saw very

[22:01] very bland questions from contractors.

[22:04] The bids came in without carrying costs

[22:07] of which we had no idea how this is

[22:09] going to go down.

[22:11] So that was those were all really good

[22:12] signs of a well-designed bid package

[22:15] from both the technical side as well as

[22:17] the opinion of cost. It was it was very

[22:20] it was right in line with what we you

[22:22] know we were hoping to see. We're just

[22:24] very excited we didn't see this as a

[22:26] huge The lowest the lowest bid it's

[22:28] Gordon Ball not Norman Ball right. I

[22:31] think in your memo you Yeah right sorry

[22:33] I for some reason I kept So I think a

[22:36] little bit of Herman Ball I don't know

[22:37] why it is wrong. See you the experience

[22:39] they have but we have not worked with

[22:41] Gordon Ball before as a city. They are a

[22:44] large contractor so there's a very good

[22:46] chance that they wouldn't have probably

[22:48] been worked on any They are typically a

[22:50] huge large scale commercial contractor

[22:54] doing anything else than that.

[22:56] But I I do know of that nature cuz they

[22:58] they do a lot of municipal work.

[23:00] » Okay. I don't know but I don't know the

[23:01] company is that are public company or a

[23:03] privately held company we have I'm not

[23:05] sure and or if it's a member owned we

[23:07] have to you know have to look into look

[23:09] into that. One of them There was there

[23:10] was a level of analysis required for

[23:14] for this

[23:16] review. But this is this is They they

[23:18] are a large company that does many

[23:19] projects that's not name I've never

[23:22] heard of. No yeah.

[23:23] um Yeah it's I have noted them either.

[23:27] um

[23:28] I don't know if they're nationwide I

[23:30] don't know if they're that

[23:31] » No they're not. I do know that they do a

[23:32] lot of work with PG&E. They do a lot of

[23:35] public utility work so they are they

[23:38] understand the public process. And I do

[23:41] know again that they work with Blue Iron

[23:43] quite a bit with projects. And a lot of

[23:45] times Gordon Ball is in prime for PG&E

[23:47] projects where Blue Iron is their sub.

[23:50] Yeah their their references were um

[23:53] uh were I thought I thought very good

[23:56] that the projects that they that they

[23:58] highlighted

[23:59] were very similar to this.

[24:01] They all involved installing sheet pile

[24:05] in in locations a lot of locations with

[24:07] with water river banks and and boat

[24:10] launches and and these kind of

[24:12] situations and and one of the

[24:14] one of the project managers that I spoke

[24:16] to from I think it was the Santa Clara

[24:18] Santa Clara

[24:19] water district

[24:21] said that they

[24:23] um

[24:24] that they were also in very close

[24:25] proximity to homes and that they

[24:28] uh you know they performed everything

[24:30] that they needed to with you know

[24:31] vibration monitoring and and that kind

[24:33] of equipment so they they're definitely

[24:35] familiar with with this this type of

[24:38] work. They were they were nearby

[24:40] projects here in the area in Northern

[24:42] California.

[24:42] » Yes yes yeah.

[24:49] Yeah.

[24:51] Right well so okay

[24:56] where did I where was I? um

[24:59] » [clears throat]

[25:00] » Addenda yeah okay. So

[25:05] The addenda were were required to be

[25:07] acknowledged and and one contractor

[25:09] didn't as we know

[25:11] um

[25:13] Is there

[25:14] and I understand that the strict nature

[25:16] of the

[25:17] bid process

[25:18] uh

[25:22] We're not obligated to take anything

[25:23] just just thing you guys have to get

[25:25] right? Correct.

[25:26] » Right we can say cuz you're

[25:28] you're above what our expected cost will

[25:29] be we're not obligated to take anything

[25:31] on

[25:31] » Yes. Yeah. Um it's still subject to city

[25:34] approval

[25:35] but you I mean there's there's there's a

[25:37] number of line items you know

[25:40] you know 10 12 and 15 for example where

[25:43] they are higher than everybody else.

[25:46] Uh and I know that just the it's the

[25:48] discrepancies that you guys have the

[25:50] uniqueness of that individual

[25:51] contracting approach and their their

[25:53] sensitivity to that particular line item

[25:55] I can imagine. But you can't go back to

[25:57] them and say you know we'd like to we'd

[25:58] like these three items to be

[26:00] reconsidered or looked at is does does

[26:02] this municipal process allow for that or

[26:03] not?

[26:05] No um

[26:06] yeah unfortunately not because of the

[26:09] because of the RFP process um

[26:12] you know everybody

[26:14] uh everybody provide you know has the

[26:16] same uses the same parameters for their

[26:19] for their costing and and the the final

[26:22] price

[26:23] um

[26:24] can't be changed before the before the

[26:26] contract is awarded. After the contract

[26:28] is awarded

[26:30] then there can be some negotiation with

[26:33] with the contractor. The contractor is

[26:35] awarded at that price but change orders

[26:37] can

[26:39] be

[26:41] generated by the city that change the

[26:43] scope of work. So that's often in

[26:46] negotiation.

[26:47] » Be I mean I'm just saying cuz we have to

[26:49] separate decision by the city as to

[26:51] appropriate more money for this

[26:53] right. So that's not insignificant. um

[26:56] uh ask so it would be against this

[26:59] process and perhaps municipal law I

[27:02] don't know

[27:03] that you can't go to them and say you

[27:06] were the low bidder

[27:07] after we excluded one you know full

[27:10] transparency you're the low bidder

[27:12] but you're still above our budget we

[27:13] can't award the contract unless you were

[27:15] to reconsider these three line items

[27:16] which you're you're you're 10% above the

[27:18] competitors. Would you consider to do

[27:20] so? That's not you can't do that?

[27:23] We do you Yes so

[27:26] and and just so you know that we have

[27:28] discussed

[27:29] that

[27:30] angle because in a public contract

[27:32] that's kind of where you go next. You

[27:34] look to VE or value engineer some of

[27:37] your items

[27:38] and where you do not take away or

[27:42] we don't want to adjust and or go back

[27:45] to the design team to say we need to

[27:49] change the how we go about getting you

[27:52] know this design completed. It is maybe

[27:55] a reduction of overall footage and we

[27:57] can't you know there's a very good

[28:00] chance that the contractor is going to

[28:01] be willing to negotiate cuz they want

[28:03] this project that's for certain. But if

[28:04] you

[28:05] by your process you award the contract

[28:07] at this price what reason do they have

[28:09] to negotiate It's not as easy as looking

[28:12] why are you well you're $80,000 more

[28:14] than the competitor so why can't you do

[28:16] it for their cost? Because there are so

[28:17] many different moving mechanics we don't

[28:20] know what the other contractor may or

[28:22] may not have had or if they underbid

[28:23] that.

[28:24] But

[28:25] at this point with them we don't care.

[28:27] Realistically we don't care. I mean if

[28:28] if if if we're if we're now one to one

[28:30] with these folks

[28:31] and we want to award it then we don't do

[28:33] it. I I get where you're going with

[28:34] this. I

[28:35] I'm just I'm just saying that.

[28:37] We haven't added obstacle here that

[28:39] we've got to get this money from this

[28:40] from the city and ultimately from our

[28:41] residents. And

[28:44] that's not a

[28:46] you know

[28:47] something the city council is going to

[28:48] love to be vote on and be comfortable

[28:50] with and the the way you propose to do

[28:52] it is to put up other projects.

[28:54] You know other lanes other maintenance

[28:56] projects other other capital

[28:57] improvements

[28:58] or finding it in the this this this

[29:00] broader budget whether it's contingency

[29:01] or things like this which probably

[29:03] possible but

[29:05] depending on what you find out there.

[29:07] Yeah

[29:08] yeah no for sure. 300,000 for

[29:10] Belvedere's is is a big

[29:11] » Well let's let's let's shelve that

[29:13] aspect over for now cuz if and when we

[29:14] go there there's other things to talk

[29:15] about certainly. Um

[29:17] I would just say that it's a it's a

[29:19] competitive public bidding process and

[29:22] so you've provided all the parameters in

[29:24] the contract documents and these

[29:25] contractors have put their best foot

[29:27] forward so to speak. This is this is

[29:29] what they're proposing to do and I would

[29:32] say you're not really one to one with

[29:33] anybody until the contract is awarded.

[29:36] But they also know your estimate going

[29:38] in.

[29:39] I mean it's it's it's not it's not a

[29:41] it's a coming from the private you know

[29:43] construction world that's just lunacy

[29:45] lunacy to me.

[29:46] But

[29:47] Well I get it. If you if you if you're

[29:49] attempting to negotiate with one

[29:51] contractor before awarding a contract,

[29:53] all the other ones say, "Well, how come

[29:54] you didn't come to us? We We could We

[29:56] could do it, too." And it just, you

[29:58] know, it could sort of unravel the whole

[29:59] process. I get it. I get it.

[30:02] Yeah, and I I mean, to your point, you

[30:04] lose all your leverage if if you've

[30:06] already signed a contract with them. Um

[30:08] but I think I mean, in my in my

[30:10] experience, and and maybe you you guys

[30:12] can chime in on this, um

[30:15] you know, contractors are generally uh

[30:18] willing to talk. You know, they they're

[30:21] um

[30:22] that

[30:23] if you say, you know, "By the way, you

[30:25] know, we We've got everything signed,

[30:26] but

[30:27] um

[30:28] this is this uh you know, finances are

[30:30] very tight for us, and we would like to

[30:32] find ways to to reduce the costs. Um we

[30:35] we may want to reduce the scope

[30:37] somewhere. Um

[30:38] but we did notice in your in your uh bid

[30:41] that you know, these were much higher

[30:43] than than other people's, and Okay. are

[30:45] you able to, you know, you know, share

[30:47] with us what the you Cuz we can always

[30:49] say to them, "So, we're not going to

[30:50] either uh

[30:52] Ball, you reduce by this amount. And and

[30:55] we'll award it to you, otherwise we will

[30:56] award it to nobody, and we will we will

[30:58] we won't go forward, and we'll do

[31:00] another RFP, and we'll just

[31:02] we'll rebid the whole thing, and let let

[31:03] them it's a little bit of a

[31:06] Put that on the table then. If they say

[31:08] they won't, then we just put the RFP out

[31:09] again, and start the process again. I

[31:11] don't think you can Well, well, I don't

[31:13] think you can do that. Well, why not?

[31:14] Why Why What What Well, look, it's

[31:16] public I mean, I'm not a I'm not a I'm

[31:17] not a contractor. It changes the scope.

[31:19] It changes the scope. I mean, obviously,

[31:20] or the timing. No, no, because because

[31:22] basically, if if if if if we choose not

[31:24] to do this now, realistically at this

[31:26] point in time, even with the same scope

[31:27] in a rebid process, or modify this

[31:29] slightly, we missed the '26 window.

[31:31] Right. If you miss the '26 window, it's

[31:33] not going to get any less expensive

[31:35] knowing, you know, that

[31:36] » That, for sure. And the re so the the

[31:38] re-solicitation process, what we've done

[31:40] is certainly has a a cost that isn't

[31:43] going to necessarily, you know, be able

[31:45] to be recouped as well in a lot of the

[31:47] public, you know, process has, you know,

[31:49] there's has to be, you know, completed

[31:51] again. But but if we don't have the

[31:52] money Yeah, no, I I they might say,

[31:54] "Okay, well, we'll we'll help you with

[31:56] that." So, I mean

[31:58] they might say, "Okay."

[32:00] And that's why I know that, you know,

[32:01] again, internally within you know, with

[32:03] James, I'll try to remember who else was

[32:05] on that call, but Stetson, we talked

[32:07] about at least areas identified that we

[32:10] can discuss, um and it was confident We

[32:12] don't have specifics, you know, but

[32:14] there were certainly some areas uh to

[32:16] look at that we started to discuss. You

[32:18] know,

[32:19] one of them would be, you know, just uh

[32:21] essentially

[32:23] I I think again, though in accordance

[32:25] with the public contracting, you you

[32:27] can't begin these negotiations until

[32:29] after a contract is awarded to to one of

[32:31] these. And so, I think that's probably

[32:34] what the city is looking at. You You

[32:35] either have to make the decision to

[32:36] award a contract Could we go to all of

[32:39] them and say, "This is This is our

[32:40] budget. Would you like to Uh I think

[32:42] that that that sort of involves

[32:44] reopening up the bidding process. I

[32:46] don't I can't I think once it's closed,

[32:48] you can't reopen it. You would be

[32:49] looking at a rebid.

[32:51] The issue with the timing is that

[32:53] there's an in-water work window, June

[32:55] through October.

[32:56] And so, to start the process over means

[32:59] we wouldn't have enough time to issue a

[33:01] rebid, open it all up, and receive bids

[33:04] in order to construct this year. So,

[33:05] re-bidding the project does mean you're

[33:08] you're you're looking at next year,

[33:09] 2027.

[33:14] Let's be realistic.

[33:15] Um

[33:17] how confident are we that

[33:19] with the ability to start this project?

[33:21] First question. Second question is

[33:23] um what I would be afraid would happen

[33:26] is that there would be a delay, there

[33:27] would be a uh uh

[33:29] a backlog of this particular equipment

[33:30] or something like that, and the

[33:31] contractor gets started under this

[33:33] price, and says we have to finish it

[33:34] next year, and here's the here's the

[33:35] cost to do so.

[33:38] Well, I think they would be under

[33:39] contract to um

[33:41] uh you know, to to complete it by

[33:43] October uh 15th, I think is what the

[33:45] contract says. But just like but just

[33:47] like finding a a a you know, Right.

[33:49] immovable boulder under the ground,

[33:51] there's a there's a there's a delay with

[33:52] Blue Hill Stetson. I apologize. Blue

[33:55] Iron. Blue Iron. That That can't deliver

[33:56] it. It's out of their control, and

[33:58] they're they're they're delayed a month,

[33:59] and they and they That's I don't for I

[34:01] mean, anything's possible, but I'm um

[34:03] they're they're they have agreed to

[34:06] perform this project by a certain date,

[34:08] and if not, there are liquidated damages

[34:10] daily that occur if they are not

[34:13] complete by that time frame.

[34:16] Do we Do we think we'll get this done in

[34:17] this time frame?

[34:19] I mean, can it be They need to go, yeah.

[34:20] Permit I mean, we're you know, there's

[34:22] Um there are there are a few factors um

[34:25] that that are outstanding. Um

[34:28] Yeah. What Like what? So, first of all,

[34:31] uh permitting. Uh we're waiting for a

[34:32] BCDC permit. Um

[34:35] and they are in a review sort of stage.

[34:39] Um they have a commission meeting where

[34:41] it needs to be approved. Um and which I

[34:45] believe it is April 29th, I think, 19th

[34:48] or 29th, so it can only be after that.

[34:51] Um

[34:52] uh PG&E need to complete some uh some

[34:56] work in on Beach Road to modify their uh

[35:00] their lines, their um

[35:02] utility lines, main lines through there.

[35:04] » Before we get going.

[35:05] Yes. Yeah. Given what we've heard from

[35:07] PG&E, is that is that likely?

[35:10] Uh they uh we we ask them We We meet

[35:13] with them about every 2 weeks uh

[35:15] to get progress and and update uh

[35:17] updates from them. Um

[35:19] they

[35:21] assure us that um that that it's that

[35:24] it's

[35:25] doable to do before before June. Um

[35:28] but we have no control over that or or

[35:31] over their their work. So, if these

[35:33] dependencies um if if Gordon and

[35:36] Company, Gordon Ball, can't get started

[35:39] to comfortably make the window

[35:41] this contract's void then, right? We're

[35:42] not, you know, cuz obviously, the prices

[35:44] probably wouldn't be held for the next

[35:45] year.

[35:47] Well, I think there's probably room to

[35:49] negotiate, and and if they would like to

[35:51] keep the contract for next year um you

[35:54] know, they may they may be some uh some

[35:57] way to um

[35:59] you know, to

[36:00] to keep them on board um with some kind

[36:03] of uh

[36:04] you know, adjustment in price, you know,

[36:06] related to inflation or something. There

[36:09] There is some flexibility built into the

[36:11] way this is structured. There's a

[36:12] There's a The in-water work window is a

[36:14] 5-month period, June through October,

[36:16] but the actual construction period is

[36:18] only 65 days. And so, even if they don't

[36:21] necessarily have to start on June 1st, I

[36:23] mean, that can slide backwards, and

[36:25] there would there would still be room

[36:26] for them to complete this project. And

[36:28] in theory, the the out-of-water work can

[36:30] continue outside that window. That's

[36:31] correct. It is. Yeah. Yeah.

[36:33] Um

[36:35] And so, you know, that's

[36:36] that's the reason we did try to put this

[36:38] out to bid early, to get the bids early,

[36:40] to have a contractor under contract

[36:42] early so that these these scheduling and

[36:46] um

[36:47] the the coordination between the city,

[36:50] Hadley, PG&E, this can all kind of be

[36:52] worked out over the next several months

[36:54] until June, and when when the

[36:55] construction would actually occur. Mhm.

[36:58] » [clears throat]

[37:00] » Yeah. Um

[37:02] The other The other factor is uh

[37:04] easements with uh temporary construction

[37:06] easements with the property owners on on

[37:08] Beach Road, because uh

[37:10] the work that would need to take place

[37:12] on their property um for this project to

[37:15] to go ahead. I mean, the seawall

[37:16] actually

[37:17] enters their property at uh you know,

[37:20] at at their property lines. Um

[37:22] so, it's a couple of feet in from the

[37:24] property line, so the the work and the

[37:25] structures would would all be on their

[37:27] on their land.

[37:29] Um

[37:30] and we've met we've met with them um

[37:32] a few times, uh described the project,

[37:35] and we've sent over the uh the easement

[37:38] agreements. Um

[37:40] So, at this point, we're waiting for

[37:41] them to

[37:42] um review those. Uh

[37:46] And we're we're ready to go for the for

[37:48] the April meeting for them uh to to have

[37:51] those easements um

[37:53] approved by City Council. Um

[37:55] And yeah, but but we do have to wait for

[37:57] their their signatures, basically, on

[37:58] their side.

[38:00] How many property owners are we talking

[38:01] about again? Uh three property owners.

[38:03] Um Yeah. Um

[38:05] And one of them has indicated that um

[38:09] he's is absolutely willing. Um he's just

[38:12] out of the country right now. Um so,

[38:14] he's uh seems seems like he's ready to

[38:18] sign as soon as he gets back. Uh the

[38:20] other two

[38:21] uh are new uh new owners of of the

[38:24] property. And um

[38:26] I think it seems like they're wanting to

[38:28] review the the language more carefully,

[38:30] and um Was it a

[38:32] It's three properties, but two owners,

[38:34] right? Cuz there's Yeah.

[38:36] Yes.

[38:37] » Hadley owns one building, and the Spruce

[38:39] Group owns the other two. Yes, yeah. And

[38:41] those other two are are owned, I think,

[38:43] on paper by two different LLCs, but it's

[38:45] the same people. Okay, so that's okay.

[38:47] Yeah.

[38:49] Yeah.

[38:51] So, from a financial perspective, I'm

[38:53] looking at

[38:54] this overall project budget relative to

[38:56] appropriations funding at the top. Um

[38:59] we're looking at that 3.475

[39:02] line

[39:04] of which includes two $280,000 or so,

[39:08] that's going to a separate contractor to

[39:11] do the utility work.

[39:13] Right? So, that's where we get the 300

[39:15] So, that the the we have a $315,000

[39:17] variance on that line if we take this

[39:19] this this bid from Gordon and Ball,

[39:21] right?

[39:23] Uh yeah, it's it's

[39:26] uh without knowing it, we don't have the

[39:27] exact number for the contracts uh of the

[39:30] other amounts. I would assume the 279

[39:33] that the way you got your 315 was the

[39:34] 279

[39:36] um plus the 35 over

[39:39] this number. Correct, yeah. With a with

[39:41] a little bit of Yeah, yeah. flexibility

[39:43] to in case that 279 is over.

[39:45] » So, I'm just writing 315 in parentheses

[39:47] next to the 3475, which means Right. on

[39:50] this page we're 315 over budget on that

[39:53] particular line. And you've

[39:56] discussed this with Helga and her and

[39:58] your recommendations with Robert as well

[40:00] is to handle this either within this

[40:04] $4.6 million

[40:06] total project expenditures

[40:08] budget, finding it somewhere, whether

[40:10] it's coming out of your hide

[40:13] I mean from a project manager

[40:14] perspective or somewhere along this line

[40:15] of our mass remediation, somewhere

[40:17] somewhere through here you think you

[40:19] might be able to find some

[40:21] money. That that's option one, right?

[40:23] Just confirming that's what that means.

[40:24] » Yeah. And option two is in the broader

[40:27] public works budget.

[40:28] Um capital improvement projects, whether

[40:30] it's paving or whether it's a retaining

[40:32] wall or whether it's a lane improvement

[40:34] or something like that, finding that

[40:35] money in that over the next couple

[40:37] years. Yeah, and and

[40:38] and there are two components to that,

[40:40] too. So, there are existing CIP funds

[40:43] that

[40:45] that that

[40:46] overlap with

[40:48] with with some of the work in this

[40:50] project. So, paving for example, there's

[40:52] a we have a we have a CIP fund for

[40:53] paving.

[40:55] And that that could cover the cost of

[40:58] the the paving restoration

[41:00] in instead of using this

[41:02] this account for that for for those

[41:04] costs.

[41:05] » Use that account.

[41:06] » Yeah, exactly. I get it. Um

[41:12] Yeah, exactly. And the sidewalk, yeah,

[41:13] exactly.

[41:14] And and we have it in we have not

[41:16] embedded the contingency on this budget.

[41:20] Um

[41:22] Well, with that

[41:24] so

[41:25] so with that over

[41:29] I'm just saying on paper on paper right

[41:31] now we're talking about that one line

[41:32] item having a

[41:34] a negative variance.

[41:35] But that 383 arguably still exists if we

[41:40] if we know we have 4.6 in our in our in

[41:43] our fund at this point.

[41:44] » Yes, right. Yes. So, so yeah,

[41:46] sorry I I I

[41:48] took me a minute there, but yeah,

[41:49] basically that would restore that that

[41:51] contingency amount.

[41:52] » Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

[41:53] So,

[41:55] however we decide,

[41:57] you may want to work with Helga. I would

[41:58] suggest if this is to be recommended to

[42:00] the city council, I wouldn't go in with

[42:02] this to $315,000 over tier.

[42:05] I would I would I would front it by

[42:07] saying exactly what you've talked about

[42:09] before, that we're going to approach

[42:10] this if we award this contract with

[42:14] diligent approach to value engineer to

[42:16] to line item look at things to to

[42:18] recognize this is over budget and see

[42:20] where we can get some some some

[42:21] potential savings out of this contract.

[42:24] May yield nothing, but but that's an

[42:25] approach and we certainly should do

[42:26] that. I would also try to identify

[42:28] specifically where you think this money

[42:30] can come from. Meaning if you if you if

[42:33] you have known expenditures that you

[42:35] think are going to be less than what you

[42:36] have up here anyway,

[42:38] for example, if you know that

[42:40] you know, the

[42:42] the

[42:43] environmental mitigation costs are not

[42:45] $100,000, but they're going to be

[42:46] $80,000 much like we had with the repair

[42:48] over there on Beach Road. You know,

[42:50] you that came in less than we thought we

[42:52] were going to commit. So, I'm not saying

[42:53] we take that money, but I'm saying if

[42:55] you know already where we are, I

[42:57] identify it. You could you could

[42:59] probably say of that we know we've got

[43:03] $35,000 in

[43:05] city planning paving sorry, sidewalks

[43:08] for the next 2026 2027 we have

[43:12] $45,000 in in road paving for the 2026

[43:16] and 2027 budget that we can apply to

[43:18] this.

[43:20] And our assessment is that that won't

[43:21] damage our overall

[43:24] value of our infrastructure around the

[43:26] city. So, we can apply that those small

[43:27] amounts of those larger budgets. We can

[43:29] also apply

[43:31] $200,000 of contingency to that and

[43:33] that's where we think we can make up

[43:34] this money and still and still retain

[43:36] the 4.630.

[43:37] Right.

[43:38] » Yeah, exactly. You need to present it in

[43:40] a fashion like that. Right. Yeah, and

[43:41] that's that's that is definitely what's

[43:43] what we had planned was you know, be

[43:46] able to be specific about you know,

[43:48] about how you know, how this is

[43:50] possible.

[43:52] And and there would be council approval

[43:55] for for some of those changes as well.

[43:57] Well, they'll have

[43:58] comments and they'll and they'll

[43:59] probably stress you know, we really want

[44:01] you to push the value engineering and

[44:03] and really you know, sharpen your pencil

[44:05] on the scope, you know, once you have

[44:06] the contract selected to keep within the

[44:08] the appropriate public bidding process

[44:10] so that we can make sure we we make this

[44:12] project as as tight and and not only

[44:14] timely, but also it does our our our

[44:17] base minimum needs for the for the for

[44:18] the for the money we're spending so we

[44:20] get as much value as we possibly can.

[44:21] Right. Yeah. Yeah.

[44:23] Yeah, I yeah, I I hear you and I think

[44:27] um

[44:28] I we all feel that way. We definitely I

[44:30] know I I you know, and and and I

[44:32] definitely know Robert does and

[44:33] everybody does.

[44:36] Yeah, I mean it's it's um it's

[44:39] we we all want a want a project that's

[44:41] delivered on time and under budget.

[44:44] You know, some of this this

[44:47] law that we have to

[44:49] comply with

[44:50] is is a little cumbersome and

[44:52] frustrating,

[44:54] but you know, from from the time that we

[44:56] start meeting with the with the

[44:59] contractor,

[45:00] there will definitely be you know, a lot

[45:02] of emphasis on on um

[45:05] keeping costs you know, within budget.

[45:08] Um and if I mean you know, I I

[45:11] to be fair, I think I think the

[45:13] contractors probably get that from from

[45:14] everybody that they all the cities that

[45:16] they work with. Um But yeah, and I mean

[45:20] you know, some of the costs, you know,

[45:21] and I can I can point to some in on here

[45:23] that's um

[45:24] we anticipate

[45:26] not not having to pay for example,

[45:29] environmental mitigation costs.

[45:32] BCDC

[45:33] uh

[45:34] may ask us to you know, mitigate for

[45:37] much more than than we are already. Um

[45:40] but it seems like they're not

[45:43] um

[45:44] in in our discussions with them so far,

[45:45] they haven't said that they that they

[45:47] will that they will and they've accepted

[45:49] our

[45:50] submission with with the mitigation that

[45:52] we've proposed. Um So,

[45:55] uh you know, for example there, there's

[45:56] potential for that full 100,000 to be

[45:59] available to be to be moved into another

[46:01] sort of road. Um

[46:04] Yeah. Um

[46:06] Yeah, and then

[46:08] you know, land surveying and mapping for

[46:09] example, that's another item that's we

[46:11] haven't we haven't had to Yeah, I you

[46:14] know, I I I Yeah. You understand me.

[46:17] Just as you prepare it, sharpen your

[46:19] pencil in because you you know, come in

[46:22] solution oriented to the council.

[46:23] » Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah, okay.

[46:26] Yeah, appreciate that.

[46:31] Are you guys probably I mean

[46:33] you've sat down with them. You've you've

[46:35] you've you've met with them. Are you

[46:37] comfortable with them being a partner in

[46:39] in if not that it it doesn't sound like

[46:41] it's a big job for them, but it's a big

[46:42] job for us.

[46:43] » Yeah, no, we haven't actually met with

[46:44] them.

[46:45] Yeah, we we wanted to but you know, I

[46:47] actually I I spoke to

[46:51] Gordon Ball yesterday on the phone. Um

[46:54] And

[46:56] um but we had wanted to have this

[46:59] meeting before we you know,

[47:01] provided any kind of official

[47:03] communication to especially well, to the

[47:06] other contractors. Um and it's obviously

[47:08] not going to be an easy phone call with

[47:10] Marcus, but um

[47:12] yeah, that's So, Peter, I mean so

[47:15] if we make a recommendation, we're

[47:17] making a recommendation knowing it's

[47:18] higher than the budget, although with

[47:20] your mitigating

[47:22] recommendations, it may be lower, but it

[47:24] sounds like it's it's worth discussing

[47:25] among the city council anyway. I mean

[47:27] it's it's not so far out there.

[47:28] » Absolutely. It's

[47:30] it's achievable potentially. Well, I

[47:32] mean

[47:33] I mean I'm sure maybe Glenn you less so

[47:34] than us, but we're

[47:36] we're just all reacting to that like

[47:38] public process is you know, I wouldn't

[47:40] bid my house with that process. You

[47:42] know,

[47:42] and it's just a it's just a just a it's

[47:44] sort of frustrating, but um

[47:47] I think you need to present it that you

[47:48] know, this is the process and and it's

[47:51] not it's not unusual to have our

[47:52] estimate be be a little bit short of the

[47:54] of of the in fact, the dynamic of the of

[47:57] the process to to to almost have that be

[48:00] the the norm.

[48:02] But there is an opportunity

[48:04] and I and I do believe it's worth the

[48:06] time because because we have a lot to do

[48:07] between BCDC, PG&E and the easements um

[48:11] which would at the end of the day if

[48:12] those if those don't come through,

[48:14] you know, this project's not going to go

[48:15] ahead anyway. So, work aggressively with

[48:18] with the selected contractor to and it's

[48:21] not like we have much of a choice. We

[48:22] have to choose

[48:23] the non-eliminated low low bid, right?

[48:26] Right. Yeah, and and I think

[48:29] if if we're choosing if we're choosing

[48:30] any, yeah.

[48:31] Right, yeah, exactly. And and I I think

[48:33] that you know, if if if there was

[48:35] another close bid for example, and and

[48:38] you know, there was a way to parse

[48:39] through the qualifications, um then then

[48:43] we might be having a different

[48:44] conversation, but I think you know, we

[48:46] have one apparently bidder. The the next

[48:48] one is you know,

[48:49] 500,000. I mean you know, higher. I

[48:52] touched on this last meeting, too, and I

[48:53] know this will come up in the city

[48:54] council is

[48:57] and it's hard it's hard to weigh this

[48:59] against known risk failure there, but is

[49:03] this is this something that you know, in

[49:04] a year or two might be might be better

[49:06] pricing?

[49:07] I'm not saying non-inflationary pricing,

[49:09] but just better pricing relative to the

[49:11] war, the supply chain issues, steel

[49:13] prices, gas petroleum prices. Good good

[49:15] question. And currently so far, we

[49:17] actually

[49:19] do a lot of supply chain analysis for

[49:21] our projects nationwide.

[49:23] So, right now I do know that most of the

[49:27] sheet pile is coming from US. So, no

[49:31] tariffs. So, that has not been impacted.

[49:34] Currently, the price of oil has not

[49:37] impacted the sheet pile pricing. And

[49:40] that was something that, you know, once

[49:42] we started to see what was happening in

[49:44] around and that's typically one of the

[49:45] first triggers is the price of oil will

[49:47] just start to impact everything for

[49:49] production and

[49:51] specifically sheet pile. So, at this

[49:54] point we don't foresee

[49:56] any changes and we're that close that it

[49:59] would be not a major escalation. We may

[50:02] have more impacts if we push the project

[50:04] and

[50:05] you know, without

[50:07] you know, we're talking, you know, two

[50:10] years down the road we're probably Even

[50:12] these folks these folks gave these bids,

[50:14] you know, these orders are good. The

[50:16] price associations have been two or

[50:17] three weeks, right? Two three and a half

[50:18] weeks.

[50:19] Um

[50:20] would it could or would they come back

[50:21] and say there's a 10% premium based on

[50:24] recent events?

[50:26] They I do know that there there is a

[50:28] level of like they are entitled to that,

[50:31] but I don't know the specifics

[50:32] personally to what that is.

[50:33] » They could do that. They could come back

[50:34] with a I'm not sure to the specifics.

[50:36] So, it all depends on I think on the

[50:38] specifics of the contract. I'm just not

[50:40] fully aware they are, you know, entitled

[50:43] to that.

[50:44] » [clears throat]

[50:45] » All the good scenario I mean as far as

[50:47] whether the contract

[50:49] Yeah, yeah, two or three two or three

[50:51] as as as they go lower their price they

[50:52] can ask us to raise the price. No, this

[50:55] is what the contract would be. Yeah.

[50:57] And that's yeah, they're they're hanging

[50:58] their hat on that and knowing that okay,

[51:00] well, you know, we have to

[51:02] we get a word once, you know, supposed

[51:04] to that we you know, move specifically

[51:06] on the sheets that would be the big

[51:07] thing. So, I mean if it's if it's if

[51:09] it's

[51:11] legitimately now a cost of theirs big

[51:13] it's

[51:14] choose not to take the contract, right?

[51:16] Or the or are they obligated to take

[51:17] this contract?

[51:19] Well, they're I think yeah, they have

[51:21] you Julian can speak to this as well.

[51:22] Again, are they obligated or that's

[51:23] where they're yeah, that's where we have

[51:25] a bond. Mhm. A bid bond.

[51:29] Yeah.

[51:31] » [clears throat]

[51:32] » Well, so this committee we were going to

[51:34] make a recommendation. It sounds like

[51:36] the staff's recommendation is to to

[51:38] recommend city council to accept the bid

[51:41] of Gordon

[51:42] Ball.

[51:43] Um are we ready to decide on that with

[51:46] the committee? I don't know how we what

[51:48] do we further questions or discussion?

[51:51] I would I would

[51:54] edit that a bit in the sense that

[51:57] it's not this committee's decision to go

[51:59] ahead with the project.

[52:00] Right? From a from a broader risk

[52:02] perspective from a broader financing

[52:04] perspective and from a broader um

[52:06] operations perspective. But in in the

[52:08] event the council is clearly said to us

[52:09] at a retreat hence the formation of this

[52:11] committee is um

[52:14] we want this project to go forward. It

[52:16] should it go forward we want you to do

[52:18] the proper due diligence and proper

[52:19] transparency to make sure that it's done

[52:21] in a fair equitable manner and that

[52:23] you're getting as much value for the

[52:24] process as possible.

[52:25] I think we should that's what we should

[52:26] say is that given the process and given

[52:28] the understanding of the project and the

[52:29] scope,

[52:31] this is the best contract for the job

[52:32] and given the conditions that we talked

[52:33] about a second ago that you're going to

[52:35] post awarding of the contract value

[52:36] engineer and look for look look for

[52:39] potential values in the scope itself and

[52:42] um

[52:42] here are ways we can potentially

[52:43] mitigate the cost in the existing

[52:45] budgets or other budgets. Um that's the

[52:48] recommendation to choose Gordon Ball.

[52:51] What is it the

[52:52] » Yeah, I think it should be yeah. We're

[52:53] not saying the project should go ahead

[52:54] with this. Ultimately,

[52:56] you know, five people up there with

[52:57] public comment are going to decide

[52:59] whether this is this this, you know,

[53:01] $4.6 million is something the city sees

[53:03] a priority for the next, you know, year

[53:05] and a half to

[53:06] to mitigate this risk. Yeah. Yeah.

[53:09] Um so it sounds like it it's um

[53:13] on the understanding that there will be

[53:15] you know, aggressive um

[53:18] uh

[53:21] what

[53:22] I don't want to say reduction in cost

[53:25] I mean, you know, you know the people up

[53:27] there myself and and what I mean

[53:30] they're going to say, you know, find a

[53:31] place, you know, figure out the 315,

[53:33] right? You know, we'd rather not have

[53:34] that. We'd rather we'd rather you, you

[53:36] know, get it out of the get it out of

[53:38] the project one way or the other, you

[53:39] know, either sharpen your pencil from a

[53:40] scope perspective, value engineer it or

[53:42] if you have to do exactly what what what

[53:45] you guys talked about is is, you know,

[53:47] take a portion that that's responsible

[53:49] of a paving and a sidewalk budget or

[53:51] other public works budgets and apply it

[53:53] to this recognizing that you're you're

[53:55] you're you're stealing from Peter to pay

[53:56] Paul, but but be confident that you're

[53:59] you're doing that in a in a in a in a

[54:01] balanced way that you're not

[54:03] jeopardizing Paul in that scenario.

[54:05] They're going to want to see that

[54:06] information. Right. Yeah. Yeah.

[54:09] And and just just be confident that you

[54:10] thought about it so that if you're not

[54:12] able to lower the price

[54:14] that we're not we don't have a, you

[54:15] know, day one $315,000

[54:17] hit to this budget. You don't want to go

[54:19] through a project day one with that kind

[54:20] of, you know, budget deficit.

[54:23] » For sure.

[54:24] Um

[54:25] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I I

[54:27] » Help you with the staff report too. I

[54:28] mean, like I'm don't stress about that.

[54:30] Between Robert, you and me and Helga we

[54:31] can figure out how to Yeah. write that

[54:33] up. Yeah, that that

[54:35] I really appreciate that. Um

[54:38] Yeah, and and I think I think part of

[54:40] the

[54:41] um

[54:42] you know, one of the questions that that

[54:43] we'd have for you is is uh whether you

[54:45] think, you know, where would be a more

[54:48] appropriate um place to to look for um

[54:51] savings uh and yeah, so

[54:54] you know, see our existing CIP funds

[54:56] versus scope of the projects and um

[54:58] yeah, these kind of Well, that's kind of

[55:00] a contract. I mean, I mean, yes

[55:03] the the city can start with, you know,

[55:06] what what what what um

[55:08] parks and lanes what what what broader

[55:10] public works infrastructure are you

[55:11] doing that one you don't think you're

[55:13] going to get to. Every year we don't get

[55:15] to projects, right? That happens all the

[55:16] time. So so so so

[55:19] figure out which are the ones we don't

[55:20] think we're going to get to

[55:21] and roll that into '27 '28 or '26 '27 or

[55:25] even '26 '27 '27 '28 and that's that's a

[55:28] that's appropriate that potentially

[55:30] could be used um for this recognizing

[55:33] you're just kicking a can down the road.

[55:34] It's not a savings, but

[55:36] but it's a new public works budget next

[55:38] year. Right. Yeah, exactly. And and if

[55:41] through your personal or a professional

[55:43] assessment

[55:44] that

[55:45] project can be deferred for that amount

[55:47] of time. I mean, that's got to be part

[55:49] of it as well.

[55:50] Yes, exactly. And I think I actually

[55:52] didn't get to that part of when I was

[55:54] talking about the CIPs and the and the

[55:55] paving um yeah, the It's got to be based

[55:58] on some assessment

[55:59] Well, exactly. Yeah,

[56:01] I mean, because there are as you say

[56:02] projects that roll over every year and

[56:04] there are also, you know, sort of

[56:07] forecast funds for

[56:09] for for different projects that you

[56:12] know, won't be used for one reason or

[56:13] another and and can be pushed off to the

[56:16] following year. Yeah.

[56:18] And we'll just see if there are any I

[56:19] see Patrick has joined. If there are

[56:21] comments from Patrick or any I don't

[56:22] know if there are any other Robert or

[56:23] Rob or Glenn or anyone else who might

[56:26] not have a chance to speak about this

[56:27] and

[56:30] Robert, Patrick, Glenn, any

[56:35] Hey,

[56:36] » [clears throat]

[56:36] » I can go ahead and comment. I've just

[56:38] been listening to this

[56:40] well, to the whole conversation, but on

[56:41] this last part we we did actually meet

[56:44] Tony, myself and Helga and take a look

[56:46] at our 20 our current budget in terms of

[56:49] rollover and then what we're looking at

[56:51] for next year in terms of projects that

[56:53] have funds assigned, but not necessarily

[56:55] a project earmarked for those funds. So,

[56:58] I think there um you know, to Peter and

[57:00] and Tony to your point there is enough

[57:02] flexibility in the next, you know, this

[57:04] current year and next year

[57:06] we need to we we can find a way to pay

[57:07] for this 315. Um but but the broader

[57:10] point is let's let's work really hard

[57:12] and try and bring the cost down, which

[57:14] is of course what we'll present to city

[57:15] council.

[57:21] Yeah,

[57:22] and so and this is just Robbie, you've

[57:25] just reminded me of another thing that's

[57:27] um

[57:28] we would like to emphasize is that we

[57:30] have no plans to request more funds from

[57:34] from reserves

[57:35] uh from general fund or critical

[57:37] infrastructure reserves.

[57:38] Um the you know, all the all the cost

[57:41] savings would come from existing and

[57:43] forecast funds and from the projects

[57:46] itself.

[57:47] Yeah.

[57:49] That's a bit that's that's

[57:50] sort of splitting hairs because it's

[57:53] Well,

[57:54] it's just going to be it really comes

[57:55] from the city

[57:56] » All all the same funds. So, it's a

[57:57] matter of Right.

[57:59] » Whether it's

[58:00] in an existing appropriation or not.

[58:02] Right. Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. We

[58:05] can't print money. So, it's it's at the

[58:07] end of the day it's coming from

[58:08] something or we're not doing something.

[58:11] Oh, yeah, exactly. We're putting

[58:12] deferring something or yeah. But I I I

[58:14] think Robert said it exactly right and

[58:17] Yeah. we can we can endeavor to to make

[58:19] that presentation and I'll and I'll

[58:20] certainly

[58:21] be part of that and help explain it to

[58:23] the council as we go forward.

[58:25] Yeah, well, thank you. Yeah.

[58:27] Okay, well, there's no further

[58:29] discussion. It seems like we should try

[58:31] and bring our our committee's

[58:33] recommendation to our to a vote and

[58:35] I think the movement is that the sub

[58:38] committee

[58:39] will vote to

[58:41] um

[58:42] I guess

[58:44] that the vote along with the the staff

[58:46] has made the proper recommendation to

[58:49] the city council subject to the

[58:51] adjustments and sort of

[58:53] financing and payment. Um

[58:57] and I I I guess we're not quite

[58:58] endorsing that the the committee should

[59:00] do this, but the committee supports the

[59:01] staff's recommendation. I think you said

[59:03] it exactly right that that that we we

[59:05] support the recommendation of the of the

[59:07] city staff that

[59:09] Gordon Ball is the is is the contractor

[59:11] to select and that

[59:13] um

[59:14] uh we encourage the the staff in the

[59:16] presentation to city council to to focus

[59:18] on

[59:19] you know, value engineering and and and

[59:21] scope considerations and then identify

[59:24] where the

[59:25] surplus $315,000 can come from within

[59:27] existing budgets.

[59:30] I was um [clears throat] may I move into

[59:32] the vote on that?

[59:34] Uh second that.

[59:35] I can second that. And all all in favor,

[59:38] I

[59:40] I think it's just the three of us

[59:42] Well, thank you. Yeah, and hopefully the

[59:44] the speaker caught all of the

[59:46] caught all of the language in there.

[59:48] It's much better than the last one, I

[59:49] know that.

[59:50] Um so, the microphone of the speaker,

[59:52] yeah.

[59:53] And so, this may be the final time we'll

[59:55] have to meet, I guess maybe subject to

[59:57] Yeah, I don't know.

[59:59] Robert, remind me, do we think it makes

[1:00:01] sense to because because there's still

[1:00:05] as you mentioned between BCDC, Genie,

[1:00:07] and the

[1:00:08] easements and the ultimate, you know,

[1:00:11] issues of permits and getting going. Uh

[1:00:14] and and after all, this committee

[1:00:16] is designed to be the eyes and ears of

[1:00:19] the community just just just just to

[1:00:21] understand and, you know, either

[1:00:22] anecdotally or or publicly make a

[1:00:23] comment that, you know, we've been aware

[1:00:25] of what's going on. I'd suggest another

[1:00:27] in, you know,

[1:00:29] if not one or two month at monthly

[1:00:31] intervals, just to check in where you

[1:00:32] are in this process

[1:00:34] um so that the next month you presumably

[1:00:36] would have received city council

[1:00:37] approval, you presumably would have

[1:00:39] engaged in a contract with Gordon Ball,

[1:00:41] and have those initial discussions, and

[1:00:43] have a tentative timeline for the

[1:00:45] project. That would be So, in about a

[1:00:47] month's time from now That's what I

[1:00:48] think unless you think that's that's too

[1:00:50] soon.

[1:00:51] Um

[1:00:52] No, I think I think there would be uh

[1:00:56] quite a few there'd be a few updates in

[1:00:58] a month's time. Um and we can

[1:01:01] possibly, you know, change the date if

[1:01:03] if we need to if we're waiting on for

[1:01:04] some, you know, some

[1:01:06] um decision or something. Robert, that's

[1:01:08] not surpassing the the the um

[1:01:12] charter or design of this subcommittee?

[1:01:16] No, the the subcommittee is ad hoc. We

[1:01:18] can't exist forever. Um but if we have a

[1:01:20] clear ending point which may align

[1:01:23] you know, with the duration of the

[1:01:24] project and maybe at the close out uh

[1:01:27] we'll have a final report that goes back

[1:01:29] to council. I think that's still the

[1:01:31] scope. Yeah, I would agree. I think it'd

[1:01:33] be good to meet in another month.

[1:01:35] And actually maybe throughout the until

[1:01:36] the project is completed I absolutely We

[1:01:38] discussed even having maybe one

[1:01:39] committee member available for whether

[1:01:42] it be every construction meeting, but at

[1:01:44] least it's certainly up to speed whether

[1:01:47] it's even also a follow-up after our

[1:01:49] construction meeting with the

[1:01:51] contractor. I'm under the impression

[1:01:52] we'll be doing those weekly. Could be a

[1:01:54] bi-weekly check-in or something of that

[1:01:56] nature, but I think that it's very

[1:01:58] important to keep you guys in the loop

[1:02:00] throughout the process, too. You know,

[1:02:02] we'll also have the have the contract

[1:02:04] happening,

[1:02:05] it sounds like. So, you'll you'll bring

[1:02:07] this to council in April?

[1:02:08] Yes. Yeah, that is the plan. Okay. Yeah.

[1:02:13] Um

[1:02:14] Yeah, so April 13th

[1:02:16] um and

[1:02:18] yeah, unfortunately, I'm going to be out

[1:02:20] of town for a couple of weeks here, but

[1:02:21] I have the the draft staff report and um

[1:02:26] you know, uh I think the finance the

[1:02:29] fiscal impact section is is the part we

[1:02:31] need to um

[1:02:33] drill down into. Yeah.

[1:02:35] But uh

[1:02:37] yeah, that and hopefully the

[1:02:39] construction easements

[1:02:40] and maybe even a contract for the other

[1:02:43] portion of the work if that can all

[1:02:44] happen in in in April,

[1:02:46] uh that would be There's no bid

[1:02:49] requirement for that? Is that the bid

[1:02:51] threshold or something? They would

[1:02:52] typically be, yes,

[1:02:54] but there is in this case

[1:02:57] what's called a sole source

[1:02:58] justification

[1:03:00] for for this for this contract

[1:03:03] because they have specialized

[1:03:06] knowledge of that company.

[1:03:07] » Installed it.

[1:03:08] Yes, exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:03:12] Yeah, and

[1:03:14] but that's, you know, these are all

[1:03:15] updates that can can come at the next

[1:03:17] meeting for sure. Yeah. Okay, so we'll

[1:03:19] plan on having a meeting probably late

[1:03:21] April after the city council meeting and

[1:03:23] after progress has been made. Um

[1:03:25] and then we'll see

[1:03:26] periodically after after that. Um would

[1:03:29] you like to pencil in a date now that we

[1:03:30] can

[1:03:32] uh

[1:03:32] or or uh

[1:03:35] Would you Yeah. prefer to to wait and

[1:03:38] have a a poll maybe further down the

[1:03:40] line? If we if we sort of have a a

[1:03:42] target date that we are, you know, can

[1:03:44] then confirm, I think um

[1:03:46] All right, for me that always seems to

[1:03:48] work work better.

[1:03:50] So, maybe the week of the 27th?

[1:03:53] Okay.

[1:03:55] I'm gone that whole week.

[1:03:57] 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.

[1:04:05] When does city council act? Uh you said

[1:04:08] it was the

[1:04:09] 13th. 13th, yeah. So, that's great.

[1:04:12] So, that's a week after the city council

[1:04:13] meeting. But you might not have made

[1:04:15] much progress with the contract. Yeah,

[1:04:17] it might be a little soon. Might shoot

[1:04:18] for beginning of May, like the week of

[1:04:20] the 4th. Early May might be better. I'm

[1:04:21] away the week of the 4th, so I can do

[1:04:23] the Monday or Tuesday.

[1:04:26] And there's always, you know, we can

[1:04:28] there's no reason this for emailing

[1:04:29] communication Personally, I could I

[1:04:31] could join a Zoom call.

[1:04:32] » Or even a remote call if that's Yeah.

[1:04:34] Yeah, I know it works for you. I guess

[1:04:35] it would do we if we're not voting on

[1:04:37] things necessarily, we don't have to all

[1:04:39] be present, correct? And

[1:04:41] 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

[1:04:43] believe. Right, Robert?

[1:04:47] That is correct. I don't believe this is

[1:04:49] a Brown Act. I don't believe

[1:04:50] So, I mean If this same group is meeting

[1:04:53] Sorry, sorry. If this same group is

[1:04:55] meeting meeting the

[1:04:57] you know, the the core group that we

[1:04:58] have here today, then it is a Brown Act

[1:05:00] meeting. If it's just one person

[1:05:02] assigned to meet with staff and what's

[1:05:04] not

[1:05:06] Well, I I guess our question, Robert, is

[1:05:08] if

[1:05:09] we couldn't do this as a complete remote

[1:05:11] meeting.

[1:05:15] Right, we need to have a quorum. Then

[1:05:16] then the majority a majority of the

[1:05:18] members have to be in person.

[1:05:20] It worked out today because only one

[1:05:22] person

[1:05:23] member of that sub of the subcommittee

[1:05:25] was was connected remotely.

[1:05:28] Do we want to shoot for say Wednesday

[1:05:30] the 6th and

[1:05:32] if John can't I did do it remotely, but

[1:05:34] I'm happy to do that remotely. Yeah,

[1:05:36] 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.

[1:05:47] Yeah, if that time works for everyone.

[1:05:51] Keep it consistent, I guess.

[1:05:55] Okay.

[1:05:57] All right, I just need to raise one

[1:05:59] point.

[1:06:01] Yes, a design point. Yeah, uh go ahead.

[1:06:03] Yeah, that's okay.

[1:06:05] So, this is addressed to Stetson.

[1:06:07] Uh has to do with the height of the

[1:06:09] sheet piling.

[1:06:11] Larry's question to you apparently was

[1:06:13] misunderstood.

[1:06:15] He's asking why not

[1:06:18] maintain the level the

[1:06:20] » [clears throat]

[1:06:20] » Same as the existing sheet piling.

[1:06:25] Oh, the 2019 sheet piling, the top of

[1:06:27] it.

[1:06:28] Um

[1:06:29] » Maintaining that height. It was It was

[1:06:32] primarily to save cost to to not have a

[1:06:35] higher sheets and more concrete backfill

[1:06:38] and any any fill you put along the wall

[1:06:41] um requires a mitigation from the

[1:06:45] jurisdiction. So, the wall where

[1:06:47] existing sheet piling

[1:06:49] is the new sheet piling. It's It's

[1:06:52] approximately a foot lower.

[1:06:55] You're cutting it off.

[1:06:57] You're cutting off longer pieces anyway.

[1:07:00] Maybe. I mean, it depends where they

[1:07:02] where they drive it to. Well,

[1:07:04] I could drive it in and drive it in

[1:07:06] those. These aren't being driven.

[1:07:09] These aren't being driven. Yeah, they're

[1:07:10] being pressed. There's no driving.

[1:07:13] There there will be a It's that We did

[1:07:15] We did We did design it so there's a

[1:07:17] It's a It's a It'll be a gradual

[1:07:19] transition, so it's not going to be a an

[1:07:21] abrupt, you know,

[1:07:22] 90° change. It's There is going to be a

[1:07:25] transition

[1:07:27] over over a period of a horizontal

[1:07:28] distance, so

[1:07:29] » And and the 2019

[1:07:31] repair has one as well. There's a a

[1:07:33] little slope down to two different

[1:07:35] elevations.

[1:07:37] Um but to add

[1:07:38] Julian to the reason for keep reasons to

[1:07:41] keep it keep it down, one is the

[1:07:43] permitting

[1:07:45] because permitting agencies um

[1:07:47] were

[1:07:49] happy to see that if that's the the all

[1:07:52] the pile would be kept below the the

[1:07:54] height of

[1:07:55] where the sea sea lettuce reaches

[1:07:58] because that would be colonized much

[1:08:00] more quickly by sea lettuce and

[1:08:02] barnacles and so on. So, the lower the

[1:08:03] better for them

[1:08:05] as far as habitat goes.

[1:08:07] Um then also aesthetics. Um right now

[1:08:10] from from the the homes along there or

[1:08:13] from from the water

[1:08:15] um

[1:08:16] it's it's less visible

[1:08:17] the the lower down it is.

[1:08:19] Um so,

[1:08:21] that along with the embedding the

[1:08:23] uh the gravel into the top of the

[1:08:25] concrete along there um

[1:08:27] you know, sort of the the permitting and

[1:08:29] and somewhat for aesthetics. So, we're

[1:08:31] talking about a foot.

[1:08:33] About a foot, yes. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:08:36] Yeah, so I mean, and if you look at the

[1:08:38] the 2019 piles, there's a point on the

[1:08:40] piles where the barnacles stop. And then

[1:08:42] above that is just the the metal, you

[1:08:45] know. So, the idea here was that

[1:08:47] the this would be completely below that

[1:08:49] that level of

[1:08:51] you know, habitat. Is Is there Is there

[1:08:54] inherently a

[1:08:55] you know, for the people viewing it from

[1:08:57] the water side or from the

[1:08:59] homes out there? Obviously,

[1:09:01] um

[1:09:01] I mean, there is every every aesthetic

[1:09:03] appeal to having it consistent as as

[1:09:05] much as consistent as as possible. Um

[1:09:07] but you're saying there's there's

[1:09:09] there's no structural need for it cuz

[1:09:11] that the note we got today clearly said

[1:09:14] that the the the structural requirements

[1:09:16] are really down below as opposed to

[1:09:17] above. No structural need for it. My my

[1:09:19] biggest concern is is it would add

[1:09:21] additional mitigation measures and

[1:09:23] potentially hold up the BCDC permitting

[1:09:25] process. Um you guys need to sort of

[1:09:27] give us a thumbs up and thumbs down

[1:09:29] this. I mean I see Larry's point that it

[1:09:30] might look better if it was less It was

[1:09:33] all the same. jig jaggy.

[1:09:35] But not enough to delay or or the

[1:09:38] project or to have a cost consideration

[1:09:40] or have

[1:09:42] you know, permitting issues with you

[1:09:43] know, the lead agency there. Right.

[1:09:45] Yeah. Or even if we can do it from an

[1:09:47] environmental perspective whether

[1:09:48] whether ours are are

[1:09:51] review covered that scope. But then

[1:09:53] again, we did we're we're we're we're

[1:09:55] we're we're

[1:09:56] we're we're I'm leaning on the broader

[1:09:58] review, right? So that matter that

[1:10:00] should matter. The environmental review

[1:10:01] should matter, right?

[1:10:03] No, so that it wouldn't I don't think

[1:10:05] impact the EIR if it was you know, if if

[1:10:09] what you're talking about is is the 2019

[1:10:11] sheet piles cuz I think that's

[1:10:14] probably what was kind of envisioned as

[1:10:17] the sort of a comparable Yeah, exactly.

[1:10:20] Yeah, I don't know if Julian if you have

[1:10:21] any thoughts on that. Well, it would

[1:10:24] require going back to all the agencies.

[1:10:26] It would be it would be more fill in the

[1:10:28] jurisdictional waters. So we'd have to

[1:10:29] restart or you know, renegotiate with

[1:10:32] all the agencies and there would be a

[1:10:34] cost increase.

[1:10:36] Yeah.

[1:10:38] Any answer?

[1:10:39] » If I could chime in here too, from from

[1:10:41] what we've talked about on this project

[1:10:44] from the beginning we we always

[1:10:45] envisioned I think this aesthetic

[1:10:47] improvement that we're talking about

[1:10:49] whether that be a cap or riprap or some

[1:10:51] other kind of concealment method

[1:10:53] for hiding that you know, the steel

[1:10:55] sheet piles and the concrete. That would

[1:10:57] always be coming as kind of a phase two.

[1:11:00] And it's just a matter of when we can

[1:11:01] get that done in terms of you know,

[1:11:03] perhaps the larger project or when funds

[1:11:05] are available. But you know, the

[1:11:08] structural [clears throat] component

[1:11:09] holding up the wall and you know,

[1:11:11] keeping the cost down low was always our

[1:11:13] primary target at least in the short

[1:11:15] term.

[1:11:17] Okay, I'll tell Larry. Thank you.

[1:11:21] Yeah, he raised it last month also. And

[1:11:22] I think

[1:11:23] Yeah. You should I don't know if Larry

[1:11:25] got that note you sent around today. Um

[1:11:27] Um I I think he uh

[1:11:30] with with the response from the state

[1:11:31] and I think he must have because I think

[1:11:33] that's what what you might be referring

[1:11:35] to then for the

[1:11:37] as far as the the misunderstanding. I

[1:11:40] think that's maybe what what he was

[1:11:41] referring He brought it up last week too

[1:11:42] last month too. So he he may or may not

[1:11:45] have it well.

[1:11:48] » Right. Yeah, and I I mean I I

[1:11:49] misunderstood it too actually cuz I

[1:11:51] thought he was talking about having a

[1:11:53] higher up

[1:11:54] you know,

[1:11:55] to support the wall. I think he just

[1:11:57] wanted it to match what was there. Yeah,

[1:11:59] I understand. And yes.

[1:12:01] And so

[1:12:03] Okay, I think we can adjourn unless

[1:12:04] there's any further comments. Thank you

[1:12:06] so much. So many thanks. Thanks. Yeah,

[1:12:09] thank you all. Thank you all so much.

[1:12:11] Thanks Robert.

[1:12:11] » Thanks Robert.

[1:12:16] What

Beach Road Stabilization Project Oversight Subcommittee Meeting: March 25, 2026

Agenda

Transcript