Loading...
Agreement - HydroScience Engineers, Inc. - Expires 2027-12-31City of Gilroy  Agreement/Contract Tracking    Today’s Date:    September 20, 2024 Your Name: Julie Oates  Contract  Type:  Services over $5k ‐ Contractor ‐  Design Professional  Phone Number: 408‐846‐0413    Contract Effective Date:  (Date contract goes into effect)  10/1/2024  Contract Expiration Date: 12/31/2027  Contractor / Consultant Name:  (if an individual’s name, format as  last name, first name)  HydroScience Engineers, Inc.  10569 Old Placerville Rd  Sacramento, CA 95827  Taxpayer ID: 94‐3288991  Signer’s Name/Title: William Slenter/Principal    Contract Subject:  (no more than 100 characters)  Joint Morgan Hill‐Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs Project  Project No. 24‐RFP‐PW‐499  Contract Amount:  (Total Amount of contract. If no  amount, leave blank)  $673,348.00    By submitting this form, I confirm  this information is complete:  Date of Contract   Contractor/Consultant name and complete address   Terms of the agreement (start date, completion date or “until  project completion”, cap of compensation to be paid)   Scope of Services, Terms of Payment, Milestone Schedule and  exhibit(s) attached   Taxpayer ID or Social Security # and Contractors License # if  applicable   Contractor/Consultant signer’s name and title   City Administrator or Department Head Name, City Clerk  (Attest), City Attorney (Approved as to Form)       Routing Steps for Electronic Signature  Risk Manager      City Attorney Approval As to Form      City Administrator or Department Head      City Clerk Attestation        Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC TYPE OF   PROCURMENT  DOLLAR THRESHOLD / SIGNING AUTHORITY              STAFF LEVEL                  DEPARTMENT HEAD    CITY ADMINISTRATOR   COUNCIL APPROVAL               $0‐$999.99  $1,000‐$49,999.99   $50,000‐$99,999.99     $100,000‐Above  EQUIPMENT  /SUPPLIES/  MATERIALS    Furniture, hoses,  parts, pipe  manholes, office  supplies, fuel, tools,  PPE items, etc…     Vendor selection at  discretion of staff              Payment Method  Purchase Card or  Payment Request  (if   vendor does not accept   credit cards)   Informal  bid/quotation – 3 quotes (verbal  or written)   Purchasing  Summary form  w/ Purchasing  Approval   Purchase  Requisition     Payment Method  Purchase Order*     Informal  bid/quotation –         3 written quotes   Purchasing  Summary form w/  City Administrator  Approval   Purchase  Requisition       Payment Method  Purchase Order   Formal Bid   Advertisement   Council Approval   Purchase  Requisition signed  by City  Administrator          Payment Method  Purchase Order  GENERAL SERVICES    Janitorial, landscape  maintenance,  equipment repair,  installation, graffiti  abatement, service  inspections,  uniform cleaning,  etc…     Vendor selection at  discretion of staff   May require insurance   documents depending  on scope/ nature of   work      Payment Method  Purchase Card (if  incorporated)  Signed Payment Request (if so proprietor or partner)   Informal  bid/quotation – 3 quotes (verbal  or written)   Purchasing  Summary form  w/ Department  Head Approval   Standard  Agreement   Purchase  Requisition    Payment Method  Purchase Order*     Informal Bid/RFP  quotation – 3  written quotes   Purchasing  Summary form w/  City Administrator  Approval   Standard  Agreement   Purchase  Requisition      Payment Method  Purchase Order   Formal  Bid/RFP/RFQ   Advertisement   Council Approval   Standard  Agreement   Purchase  Requisition            Payment Method  Purchase Order  PROFESSIONAL   SERVICES    Consultants,  architects,   designers, auditors,   etc...   Vendor selection at the  discretion of staff   Purchase Summary  Form w/ Purchasing  Approval   Standard Agreement  signed by Department  Head   Purchase Requisition        Payment Method  Purchase Order   RFP/RFQ to at  least 3  consultants   Purchase  Summary Form  w/ Department  Head Approval   Standard  Agreement   Purchase  Requisition    Payment Method  Purchase Order   RFP/RFQ to a list  of consultants   Evaluation  Spreadsheet w/  City Administrator  Approval   Standard  Agreement   Purchase  Requisition      Payment Method  Purchase Order   Formal RFP/RFQ   Advertisement   Council Approval   Standard  Agreement signed  by City  Administrator   Purchase  Requisition        Payment Method  Purchase Order    Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (For design professional contracts over $5,000) This AGREEMENT made this 16th day of September, 2024 between: CITY: City of Gilroy, having a principal place of business at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California and CONSULTANT: HydroScience Engineers, Inc., having a principal place of business at 10569 Old Placerville Rd, Sacramento, CA 95827. ARTICLE 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement will become effective on October 1, 2024 and will continue in effect through December 31, 2027 unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS It is the express intention of the parties that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee, agent, joint venturer or partner of CITY. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between CITY and CONSULTANT or any employee or agent of CONSULTANT. Both parties acknowledge that CONSULTANT is not an employee for state or federal tax purposes. CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any of the rights or benefits afforded to CITY’S employees, including, without limitation, disability or unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, medical insurance, sick leave, retirement benefits or any other employment benefits. CONSULTANT shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement. ARTICLE 3. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT A. Specific Services CONSULTANT agrees to: perform the services as outlined in Exhibit “A” (“Specific Provisions”) and Exhibit “B” (“Scope of Services”) within the time periods described in and Exhibit “C” (“Milestone Schedule”). B. Method of Performing Services CONSULTANT shall determine the method, details and means of performing the above-described services. CITY shall have no right to, and shall not, control the manner or determine the method of accomplishing CONSULTANT’S services. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -2- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 C. Employment of Assistants CONSULTANT may, at the CONSULTANT’S own expense, employ such assistants as CONSULTANT deems necessary to perform the services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement, subject to the prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in Article 5 below. CITY may not control, direct, or supervise CONSULTANT’S assistants in the performance of those services. CONSULTANT assumes full and sole responsibility for the payment of all compensation and expenses of these assistants and for all state and federal income tax, unemployment insurance, Social Security, disability insurance and other applicable withholding. D. Place of Work CONSULTANT shall perform the services required by this Agreement at any place or location and at such times as CONSULTANT shall determine is necessary to properly and timely perform CONSULTANT’S services. ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATION A. Consideration In consideration for the services to be performed by CONSULTANT, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in Exhibit “D”. In no event however shall the total compensation paid to CONSULTANT exceed $673,348.00. B. Invoices CONSULTANT shall submit invoices for all services rendered. C. Payment Payment shall be due according to the payment schedule set forth in Exhibit “D”. No payment will be made unless CONSULTANT has first provided City with a written receipt of invoice describing the work performed and any approved direct expenses (as provided for in Exhibit “A”, Section IV) incurred during the preceding period. If CITY objects to all or any portion of any invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT of the objection within thirty (30) days from receipt of the invoice, give reasons for the objection, and pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. It shall not constitute a default or breach of this Agreement for CITY not to pay any invoiced amounts to which it has objected until the objection has been resolved by mutual agreement of the parties. D. Expenses CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incident to the performance of services for CITY, including but not limited to, all costs of equipment used or provided by CONSULTANT, all fees, fines, licenses, bonds or taxes required of or imposed against CONSULTANT and all other of CONSULTANT’S costs of doing business. CITY shall not be responsible for any expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in performing services for CITY, except for those expenses constituting “direct expenses” referenced on Exhibit “A.” Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -3- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT A. Tools and Instrumentalities CONSULTANT shall supply all tools and instrumentalities required to perform the services under this Agreement at its sole cost and expense. CONSULTANT is not required to purchase or rent any tools, equipment or services from CITY. B. Workers’ Compensation CONSULTANT agrees to provide workers’ compensation insurance for CONSULTANT’S employees and agents and agrees to hold harmless, defend with counsel acceptable to CITY and indemnify CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, damages, costs, fees, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, arising out of any injury, disability, or death of any of CONSULTANT’S employees. C. Indemnification of Liability, Duty to Defend 1. As to professional liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, to the extent arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any willful or negligent acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S assistants, employees or agents, including all claims relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any property. 2. As to other liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S assistants, employees or agents, including all claims relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any property. D. Insurance In addition to any other obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall, at no cost to CITY, obtain and maintain throughout the term of this Agreement: (a) Commercial Liability Insurance on a per occurrence basis, including coverage for owned and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence for all damages due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death to any person, and damage to property, including the loss of use thereof; and (b) Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omissions) with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 aggregate; provided however, Professional Liability Insurance written on a claims made basis must comply with the requirements set forth below. Professional Liability Insurance written on a claims made basis (including without Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -4- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 limitation the initial policy obtained and all subsequent policies purchased as renewals or replacements) must show the retroactive date, and the retroactive date must be before the earlier of the effective date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work. Claims made Professional Liability Insurance must be maintained, and written evidence of insurance must be provided, for at least five (5) years after the completion of the contract work. If claims made coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the earlier of the effective date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work, CONSULTANT must purchase so called “extended reporting” or “tail” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work, which must also show a retroactive date that is before the earlier of the effective date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work. As a condition precedent to CITY’S obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish written evidence of such coverage (naming CITY, its officers and employees as additional insureds on the Comprehensive Liability insurance policy referred to in (a) immediately above via a specific endorsement) and requiring thirty (30) days written notice of policy lapse or cancellation, or of a material change in policy terms. E. Assignment Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, neither this Agreement nor any duties or obligations of CONSULTANT under this Agreement may be assigned or subcontracted by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY, which CITY may withhold in its sole and absolute discretion. F. State and Federal Taxes As CONSULTANT is not CITY’S employee, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for paying all required state and federal taxes. Without limiting the foregoing, CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that:  CITY will not withhold FICA (Social Security) from CONSULTANT’S payments;  CITY will not make state or federal unemployment insurance contributions on CONSULTANT’S behalf;  CITY will not withhold state or federal income tax from payment to CONSULTANT;  CITY will not make disability insurance contributions on behalf of CONSULTANT;  CITY will not obtain workers’ compensation insurance on behalf of CONSULTANT. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC G. Prevailing Wage CONSULTANT agrees and acknowledges that it is its obligation to determine whether, and to what extent, any work performed is or any workers employed relative to any construction to be performed under this Agreement are subject to any Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and other Regulations and established policies of CITY and the laws of the State of California and the United States, including, without limitation, the California Labor Code and Public Contract Code relating to public contracting and prevailing wage requirements (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). To the extent Prevailing Wage Laws apply to work performed or workers employed for the purpose of performing work under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall fully comply with and ensure that all workers and/or subcontractors are informed of and comply with all Prevailing Wage Laws and specifically any applicable requirement of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq. and the regulations thereunder, which require the payment of prevailing wage rates based on labor classification, as determined by the State of California, and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” or “maintenance” projects. It is the duty of CONTRACTOR to post a copy of applicable prevailing wages at the job site. Prevailing wage information may be obtained at www.dir.ca.gov. No CONSULTANT or Subconsultant may be awarded an Agreement containing Public work elements unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to Labor Code 1725.5. Registration with DIR must be maintained throughout the entire term of this AGREEMENT, including any subsequent amendments. -5- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -6- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 ARTICLE 6. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY A.Cooperation of City CITY agrees to respond to all reasonable requests of CONSULTANT and provide access, at reasonable times following receipt by CITY of reasonable notice, to all documents reasonably necessary to the performance of CONSULTANT’S duties under this Agreement. B.Assignment CITY may assign this Agreement or any duties or obligations thereunder to a successor governmental entity without the consent of CONSULTANT. Such assignment shall not release CONSULTANT from any of CONSULTANT’S duties or obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A.Sale of Consultant’s Business/ Death of Consultant. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of the proposed sale of CONSULTANT’s business no later than thirty (30) days prior to any such sale. CITY shall have the option of terminating this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice of sale. Any such CITY termination pursuant to this Article 7.A shall be in writing and sent to the address for notices to CONSULTANT set forth in Exhibit A, Subsection V.I., no later than thirty (30) days after CITY’ receipt of such notice of sale. If CONSULTANT is an individual, this Agreement shall be deemed automatically terminated upon death of CONSULTANT. B.Termination by City for Default of Consultant Should CONSULTANT default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, CITY, at CITY’S option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notification to CONSULTANT. For the purposes of this section, material breach of this Agreement shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1.CONSULTANT’S failure to professionally and/or timely perform any of the services contemplated by this Agreement. 2.CONSULTANT’S breach of any of its representations, warranties or covenants contained in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to payment only for work satisfactorily completed through the date of the termination notice, as reasonably determined by CITY, provided that such payment shall not exceed the amounts set forth in this Agreement for the tasks described on Exhibit C” which have been fully, competently and timely rendered by CONSULTANT. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if CITY terminates this Agreement due to CONSULTANT’S default in the performance of this Agreement or material breach by CONSULTANT of any of its provisions, then in addition to any other rights and remedies CITY may have, CONSULTANT shall reimburse Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -7- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 CITY, within ten (10) days after demand, for any and all costs and expenses incurred by CITY in order to complete the tasks constituting the scope of work as described in this Agreement, to the extent such costs and expenses exceed the amounts CITY would have been obligated to pay CONSULTANT for the performance of that task pursuant to this Agreement. C.Termination for Failure to Make Agreed-Upon Payments Should CITY fail to pay CONSULTANT all or any part of the compensation set forth in Article 4 of this Agreement on the date due, then if and only if such nonpayment constitutes a default under this Agreement, CONSULTANT, at the CONSULTANT’S option, may terminate this Agreement if such default is not remedied by CITY within thirty (30) days after demand for such payment is given by CONSULTANT to CITY. D.Transition after Termination Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall immediately stop work, unless cessation could potentially cause any damage or harm to person or property, in which case CONSULTANT shall cease such work as soon as it is safe to do so. CONSULTANT shall incur no further expenses in connection with this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall promptly deliver to CITY all work done toward completion of the services required hereunder, and shall act in such a manner as to facilitate any the assumption of CONSULTANT’s duties by any new consultant hired by the CITY to complete such services. ARTICLE 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS A.Amendment & Modification No amendments, modifications, alterations or changes to the terms of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until made in a writing signed by both parties hereto. B.Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Throughout the term of this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall use due professional care to comply fully with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“the Act”) in its current form and as it may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall also require such compliance of all subcontractors performing work under this Agreement, subject to the prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in Article 5 above. The CONSULTANT shall defend with counsel acceptable to CITY, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY OF GILROY, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from and against all suits, claims, demands, damages, costs, causes of action, losses, liabilities, expenses and fees, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, that may arise out of any violations of the Act by the CONSULTANT, its subcontractors, or the officers, employees, agents or representatives of either. C.Attorneys’ Fees If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -8- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 attorneys’ fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. D.Captions The captions and headings of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of the Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving questions of interpretation. E.Compliance with Laws The CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of all State and National laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the CITY which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work, or the materials used in the work, or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and of all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Without limiting the foregoing, CONSULTANT agrees to observe the provisions of the Municipal Code of the CITY OF GILROY, obligating every contractor or subcontractor under a contract or subcontract to the CITY OF GILROY for public works or for goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of the race, color, sex, religious creed, national origin, ancestry of any employee, applicant for employment, or any potential subcontractor. F.Conflict of Interest CONSULTANT certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no CITY employee or office of any public agency interested in this Agreement has any pecuniary interest in the business of CONSULTANT and that no person associated with CONSULTANT has any interest that would constitute a conflict of interest in any manner or degree as to the execution or performance of this Agreement. G.Entire Agreement This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by CONSULTANT for CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. No other agreements or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of CITY prior to execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement. Such other agreements or conversations shall be considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon CITY. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -9- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 H.Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to the conflict of laws provisions of any jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue with respect to any and all disputes arising hereunder shall be in state and federal courts located in Santa Clara County, California. I. Notices Any notice to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal delivery in writing or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses appearing in Exhibit “A”, Section V.I. but each party may change the address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. Notices delivered personally will be deemed delivered as of actual receipt; mailed notices will be deemed delivered as of three (3) days after mailing. J. Partial Invalidity If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. K.Time of the Essence All dates and times referred to in this Agreement are of the essence. L. Waiver CONSULTANT agrees that waiver by CITY of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. Executed at Gilroy, California, on the date and year first above written. CONSULTANT: CITY: HydroScience Engineers, Inc. CITY OF GILROY By: By: Name: William Slenter Name: Jimmy Forbis Title: Principal Title: City Administrator Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number 94-3288991 H.Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to the conflict of laws provisions of any jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue with respect to any and all disputes arising hereunder shall be in state and federal courts located in Santa Clara County, California. I. Notices Any notice to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal delivery in writing or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses appearing in Exhibit “A”, Section V.I. but each party may change the address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. Notices delivered personally will be deemed delivered as of actual receipt; mailed notices will be deemed delivered as of three (3) days after mailing. J. Partial Invalidity If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. K. Time of the Essence All dates and times referred to in this Agreement are of the essence. L. Waiver CONSULTANT agrees that waiver by CITY of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. Executed at Gilroy, California, on the date and year first above written. CONSULTANT: CITY: HydroScience Engineers, Inc. CITY OF GILROY By: By: Name: William Slenter Name: Jimmy Forbis Title: Principal Title: City Administrator Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number 94-3288991 Approved as to Form ATTEST: City Attorney City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “A” SPECIFIC PROVISIONS I. PROJECT MANAGER CONSULTANT shall provide the services indicated on the attached Exhibit “B”, Scope of Services (“Services”). (All exhibits referenced are incorporated herein by reference.) To accomplish that end, CONSULTANT agrees to assign Robert Le, who will act in the capacity of Project Manager, and who will personally direct such Services. Except as may be specified elsewhere in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish all technical and professional services including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise to perform all operations necessary and required to satisfactorily complete the Services required herein. II. NOTICE TO PROCEED/COMPLETION OF SERVICE A. NOTICE TO PROCEED CONSULTANT shall commence the Services upon delivery to CONSULTANT of a written “Notice to Proceed”, which Notice to Proceed shall be in the form of a written communication from designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed may be in the form of e-mail, fax or letter authorizing commencement of the Services. For purposes of this Agreement, Bret Swain shall be the designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed shall be deemed to have been delivered upon actual receipt by CONSULTANT or if otherwise delivered as provided in the Section V.I. (“Notices”) of this Exhibit “A”. B. COMPLETION OF SERVICES When CITY determines that CONSULTANT has satisfactorily completed all of the Services, CITY shall give CONSULTANT written Notice of Final Acceptance, and CONSULTANT shall not incur any further costs hereunder. CONSULTANT may request this determination of completion when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all of the Services and, if so requested, CITY shall make this determination within two (2) weeks of such request, or if CITY determines that CONSULTANT has not satisfactorily completed all of such Services, CITY shall so inform CONSULTANT within this two (2) week period. III. PROGRESS SCHEDULE The schedule for performance and completion of the Services will be as set forth in the attached Exhibit “C”. IV. PAYMENT OF FEES AND DIRECT EXPENSES Payments shall be made to CONSULTANT as provided for in Article 4 of this Agreement. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -2- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 Direct expenses are charges and fees not included in Exhibit “B”. CITY shall be obligated to pay only for those direct expenses which have been previously approved in writing by CITY. CONSULTANT shall obtain written approval from CITY prior to incurring or billing of direct expenses. Copies of pertinent financial records, including invoices, will be included with the submission of billing(s) for all direct expenses. V. OTHER PROVISIONS A. CONSULTANT’S SERVICES TO BE APPROVED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER All civil (including structural and geotechnical) engineering plans, calculations, specifications and reports shall be prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, a licensed civil engineer and shall include his or her name and license number. Interim documents shall include a notation as to the intended purpose of the document, such as “preliminary” or “for review only.” All civil engineering plans and specifications that are permitted or that are to be released for construction shall bear the signature and seal of the licensee and the date of signing and sealing or stamping. All final civil engineering calculations and reports shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee, and the date of signing and sealing or stamping. B. STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, skills and licenses necessary to perform the Services, and its duties and obligations, expressed and implied, contained herein, and CITY expressly relies upon CONSULTANT’S representations and warranties regarding its skills, qualifications and licenses. CONSULTANT shall perform such Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Any plans, designs, specifications, estimates, calculations, reports and other documents furnished under this Agreement shall be of a quality acceptable to CITY. The minimum criteria for acceptance shall be a product of neat appearance, well-organized, technically and grammatically correct, checked and having the maker and checker identified. The minimum standard of appearance, organization and content of the drawings shall be that used by CITY for similar purposes. C. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANT CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of the Services furnished by it under this Agreement. The CITY’S review, acceptance or payment for any of the Services shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement, and CONSULTANT shall be and remain liable to CITY in accordance with applicable Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -3- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 law for all damages to CITY caused by CONSULTANT’S negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement. D. RIGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONSULTANT CITY, through its authorized employees, representatives or agents, shall have the right, at any and all reasonable times, to audit the books and records (including, but not limited to, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, time cards, etc.) of CONSULTANT for the purpose of verifying any and all charges made by CONSULTANT in connection with this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain for a minimum period of three (3) years (from the date of final payment to CONSULTANT), or for any longer period required by law, sufficient books and records in accordance with standard California accounting practices to establish the correctness of all charges submitted to CITY by CONSULTANT, all of which shall be made available to CITY at the CITY’s offices within five (5) business days after CITY’s request. E. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIAL All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, manufacturing procedures, data (including, but not limited to, computer data and source code), drawings, descriptions, documents, discussions or other information developed or received by or for CONSULTANT and all other written and oral information developed or received by or for CONSULTANT and all other written and oral information submitted to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by CONSULTANT and shall not, without the prior written consent of CITY, be used for any purposes other than the performance of the Services, nor be disclosed to an entity not connected with the performance of the such Services. Nothing furnished to CONSULTANT which is otherwise known to CONSULTANT or is or becomes generally known to the related industry (other than that which becomes generally known as the result of CONSULTANT’S disclosure thereof) shall be deemed confidential. CONSULTANT shall not use CITY’S name or insignia, or distribute publicity pertaining to the services rendered under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without the express written consent of CITY. F. NO PLEDGING OF CITY’S CREDIT. Under no circumstances shall CONSULTANT have the authority or power to pledge the credit of CITY or incur any obligation in the name of CITY. G. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL. All material including, but not limited to, computer information, data and source code, sketches, tracings, drawings, plans, diagrams, quantities, estimates, specifications, proposals, tests, maps, calculations, photographs, reports and other material developed, collected, prepared (or caused to be prepared) under this Agreement shall be the property of CITY, but CONSULTANT may retain and use copies thereof subject to Section V.E of this Exhibit “A”. CITY shall not be limited in any way in its use of said material at any time for any work, whether or not associated with the City project for which the Services are performed. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -4- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 H. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY. This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. I. NOTICES. Notices are to be sent as follows: CITY: Bret Swain, PE City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 CONSULTANT: Robert Le, PE HydroScience Engineers, Inc. 10569 Old Placerville Rd Sacramento, CA 95827-2504 J. FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS. If the box to the left of this sentence is checked, this Agreement involves federal funding and the requirements of this Section V.J. apply. If the box to the left of this sentence is checked, this Agreement does not involve federal funding and the requirements of this Section V.J. do not apply. 1. DBE Program CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Title 49, Part 26, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 26) and the City-adopted Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs. 2. Cost Principles Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31, shall be used to determine the allowable cost for individual items. 3. Covenant against Contingent Fees The CONSULTANT warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Local Agency shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, at its discretion, to deduct from the agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “B” SCOPE OF SERVICES Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Sewer Trunk Line Repairs Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499 Scope of Work The scope includes design, bid, and construction phase support. It also includes necessary studies identified by HydroScience to inform the design, supporting topographic mapping and optional geotechnical investigation, research, utility coordination, and permitting. • Task 1 – Project Management • Task 2 – Preliminary Engineering • Task 3 – Detailed Design/Bid Package • Task 4 – Engineering Services During the Bidding Phase • Task 5 – Construction Engineering Support Services Task 1 – Project Management HydroScience will prepare for, coordinate, and facilitate one kickoff meeting with the City. During the kickoff meeting, HydroScience will confirm the scope of work, schedule, budget, and availability of project documents and electronic files; review project goals, priorities, and conceptual design requests; review unique project features, discuss format of deliverables; review regulatory items, approval processes, and administrative procedures; and clarify responsibilities of each party. HydroScience will provide general project management activities, including team coordination, project budget tracking and reporting, managing subconsultants, invoicing, and maintaining the project schedule. The project schedule will identify tasks, subtasks, design development milestones, critical path designation, and progress meetings. HydroScience will prepare for, coordinate, and facilitate the design review workshops at the 35%, 65%, and 95% level of design submittal milestones, as well as a meeting at the completion of the Technical Evaluations. The intent of the workshops is to help facilitate the City’s review of the design progress. Following the workshops, City will provide a set of consolidated review comments to HydroScience. HydroScience will maintain a tracking log of comments and outstanding items, which will be returned to the City with responses/action taken. A peer review of the plans will occur at the 95% stage. This peer review will be performed by Eric Petrel, who has over 36 years of experience designing pipeline and manhole Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC rehabilitations all over California. Eric will review the plans and prepare the Certification of Peer Review on HydroScience Letterhead for submittal with the 95% Submittal. Deliverables • Project schedule in Gantt chart format (Microsoft Project) • Monthly progress reports included with each invoice • Response to comments (PDF/Excel) • Peer Review Submittal (PDF) • Meeting agendas and minutes (PDF) Task 2 – Preliminary Engineering Under this task, HydroScience will gather and evaluate existing design documents for the existing infrastructure, including but not limited to: easements, design documents, AutoCAD files, City as-builts/record drawings, and available utility maps. Details of this task include the following. Site Walk: HydroScience will conduct an initial walkthrough along the project alignment to identify existing conditions in comparison to records, manhole locations, traffic circulation, pavement conditions, access challenges, potential bypass pipe routings, and related information. For manholes within private properties, HydroScience will identify potential impacts of the work on businesses which will inform our stakeholder coordination strategy. Records Review: We will gather and review City as-built drawings and CCTV inspection records to fully understand the configuration and alignment of the existing Joint Trunk and the interior of the pipe segments and the manholes to be rehabilitated. We assume all data files associated with the Condition Assessment will be provided on flash drive for our use. This data will help us to determine the optimal method of repair to be performed, any excavation for access, traffic impacts, contractor work areas, any necessary spot repairs prior to lining, laterals to be reinstated, and related design considerations. We will also review our existing records from our work in those areas on the Relief Trunk Project and the SCRWA Projects. Topographic field survey/Record Boundary Mapping: Our subconsultant, HMH, will provide topographic surveying and mapping to support the design of the Project. After setting up survey control for the projects, HMH will perform field topographic surveying to obtain the following information for an 800 LF segment of Leavesley Road (open cut replacement) at a width of 170 ft (back of walk to back of walk) plus a 3,100 LF segment on the Access Road at a width of 80 ft (CIPP segments): • Location, rim, invert, pipe size, and direction of flow of accessible sanitary sewer manholes, storm drain manholes, storm drain inlets. • All surface features from back-of-sidewalk to back-of-sidewalk. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC • Utility surface features: utility vaults, boxes, hydrants • Water valves: Location, rim, top of nut, and length of extension of water valves • Street monuments and trees • All USA-marked utilities • Develop 3d TIN surface with contours. • Deliverables in AutoCAD 2018 and PDF Using current Assessor’s maps and recorded maps and documents from the County of Santa Clara, HMH will prepare a record boundary in AutoCAD format. This record boundary shall contain the street right-of-way lines along the defined alignment. The right-of-way lines of intersecting streets will also be shown up to the curb return along with 25 feet of the side property lines. The street centerlines or monument lines, as appropriate for any particular street, will also be provided in the base file. The record right-of-way will be tied to the field survey by locating sufficient street monuments. Evidence of property corners will not be searched for in the field and no monuments will be set. Since no title reports are to be provided, there may be street easements or other documents that affect the street right-of-way lines that would not be shown in the base file. Also, the existence of other easements or appurtenant rights cannot be determined without title reports and therefore, will not be shown. Utility Service Alert (USA) will be contacted to obtain record information regarding the existence of utilities within the street right-of-way. In addition to the two sewer segments noted above, HMH will perform field topographic surveying for 40 (forty) sewer manholes to obtain location, rim, invert, pipe size, and direction of flow. Also included will be a 10’ square of surface topo around each sewer manhole. Utility research will be performed for the 8 manholes that will be raised. Utility Coordination: HydroScience will send utility research/as-built plans request letters to local utility companies that may have facilities within the project limits. A map of the approximate utility locations (including underground utilities) will be created based on data provided by the utility companies and surface utility features as identified during the topographic survey. When the existing data allows, the drawing will indicate utility type, diameter, material, approximate cover, and the horizontal location of the utility. HydroScience will review utility information provided by the City and other utility providers. If information provided by the utility providers does not match information collected during the site walk and information in the previous design drawings, HydroScience will identify potential candidates for utility potholing. CEQA Notice of Exemption: An initial review of the project indicates that the project likely qualifies for a “Replacement or Reconstruction” exemption under CEQA Section 15301(h) as well as Section 15303(f). HydroScience will prepare a technical project description and Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC assist the City with the filing of a Notice of Exemption. This form will be filed with the County Clerk’s office. Technical Evaluations: HydroScience will conduct the following technical evaluations which will be documented in a technical memorandum prepared for the City’s review: • Evaluation of two (2) manhole lining alternatives (CIPM and cementitious), budgetary cost comparison, bypassing requirements or alternatives (flow-through plug), service life comparison, CCTV observations affecting liner selection and installation requirements. • Pipeline CIPP lining parameters, construction access and excavation requirements for installing the liner in the identified locations, CCTV observations affecting liner selection and installation requirements. • Flow bypass strategy for the CIPP and open-cut segments. • Pipe crown spray lining requirements, maximum allowable sewer flow during lining and time of day/season acceptable for installation, surface preparation requirements. • Prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate incorporating recommended approaches from this evaluation. • Preliminarily identify any required potholing to inform the detailed design. Each evaluation item will be examined from the standpoint of feasibility, cost- effectiveness, risk, and minimization of impacts. HydroScience will document the evaluations in a focused technical memorandum and present to the City for review. HydroScience will conduct a review workshop to discuss questions and arrive at decisions for detailed design. Stakeholder Coordination: HydroScience will assist the City in coordinating work that may affect private properties, such as the Premium Outlets, Gilroy Crossing, landowners along the gravel access road, and PG&E for transmission towers in the access road and Renz Lane. Our scope includes a total of 78 hours to assist with this coordination. This effort will inform specification requirements and drawing notes addressing any special provisions required to facilitate operation of these services during construction and sequencing of work to minimize downtime. The contract documents will identify allowable hours of work and maximum amount of time that access to any property can be interrupted. Requirements for critical facilities (for example, maintaining at least one access to businesses at all times) will be specified on the Drawings. Deliverables • CEQA Notice of Exemption • Utility Potholing Report • Technical Evaluations Memorandum Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Assumptions • Borings are located within City right-of-way and will be completed during the daytime. • Disposal of excess soil cuttings from borings will be placed in 55-gallon drums and disposed of, except on the access road where they will be spread. Disposal of hazardous materials is not included in this task. • No-fee encroachment permits for surveying, geotechnical, and utility locating will be issued by the City for this task. • No new monuments will be set. Survey monument preservation, as defined and required by Section 8771 of the Professional Land Surveyor’s Act, is not included in this task. • Title reports are excluded, and Right-of-way acquisition is not necessary. • Stamped traffic control plans are not required for exploration work in City rights of way. • City will provide as-built drawings for the entire length of the existing trunk sewer. • The existing trunk sewer is entirely contained within existing City right-of-way and easements. Task 3 – Detailed Design/Bid Package The detailed design will include three interim submittals and the stamped and final Bid Package. The scope of work for each submittal is as follows: 35% Submittal: This submittal will include the topographic survey, utility information collected from the utilities, the visual observations collected during the site walk, the right- of-way limits and boundaries from the record boundary survey, and the proposed plans for open cut and CIPP repairs. Preliminary manhole repair and raising typical details will be provided, and preliminary details and references to City standards included as appropriate. Where utility information may be lacking or require verification, proposed pothole locations will be identified. Additional components of the 35% Submittal will include a table of contents for technical specifications and a construction cost estimate based on the likely bid items for each project component. Where required, a list of expected permits will be identified. 65% Submittal: Comments on the 35% Submittal will be reviewed and the responses incorporated into the 65% Submittal. The 65% Submittal will also include construction details and flow bypassing diagrams. An updated estimate of probable construction costs, as well as a draft of the technical specifications will be prepared. 95% Submittal: Comments on the 65% Submittal will be reviewed and the responses incorporated into the 95% Submittal. The 95% Submittal will also include all of the elements required to have a complete set of contract documents suitable for advertising, Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC pending final City review. The submittal will be peer reviewed per the scope in Task 1, and will include front end specifications, including the City’s agreement, using the City’s standard front-end specifications. An updated estimate of probable construction costs, as well as a draft of the technical and special provisions will be prepared. The 95% Submittal will be used to submit to Caltrans for permit review and approval. The portions going to Caltrans will be stamped and formatted in accordance with their requirements. The City will be responsible for any permit fees Caltrans requires for their review and permitting of the project. Bid Package: The Bid Package will incorporate all comments on the 95% Submittal and be a stamped set of contract documents that are suitable for advertisement. The detailed design effort will include the following: Temporary Traffic Control Plan: HydroScience will prepare a temporary traffic control plan for the open cut work at Leavesley to satisfy Caltrans Requirements. We will additionally prepare 2-3 typical traffic control details and specifications for the contractor to comply with in accordance with MUTCD requirements. The contractor shall prepare detailed temporary traffic control plans for all areas other than the open-cut based on our typical plans and specification requirements. Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs) and Encroachment Permits (EPs): During Preliminary Engineering, the full extent of TCEs and EPs will be determined based on facility locations, excavation extents, and record boundary locations. For the purposes of scoping, we have assumed the following are required and these will be prepared by HydroScience in coordination with the City: • County EP for manhole repairs north of City limits. • Caltrans EP for Open Cut and manhole repairs in Leavesley Rd. • TCEs for CIPP and manhole work in the access road. • TCEs for manhole work in private property. HydroScience will facilitate a design review meeting at the 35%, 65% and 95% submittals. We have assumed these will be conducted as virtual meetings. Deliverables: • 35% Submittal, PDF/Word/Excel • Response to Comments, 35%, 65%, 95%, Excel • 65% Submittal, PDF/Word/Excel • 95% Submittal, PDF/Word/Excel • Caltrans Permit Application (PDF) • Bid Package, one full size set of stamped plans (bond), one hard copy of the specifications, and electronic copies of the plans (CAD/PDF), specifications (Word/PDF), and estimate (Excel/PDF) Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC • Meeting agendas and minutes for three design review meetings • Comment log with responses Assumptions • Stakeholder coordination assistance is limited to the total number of hours shown. • City will pay any costs for the Caltrans Permit Application • Project disturbance is less than 1 acre. The Contractor will address all Storm Water and Water Pollution Control Plan per our standard specification. HydroScience will prepare a Water Pollution Control Plan form and if required an exhibit to satisfy Caltrans. • Manhole repairs will not require pumped bypass from the upstream to the downstream manhole. HydroScience will evaluate a flow through plug option as part of rehabilitation evaluation. HydroScience’s scope for bypass schematics is limited to the three pipe repair sections. • Flow data required for bypassing plans and schematics will be provided by the City. • Review comments for each design submittal will be compiled by the City and submitted as a single set of comments. • City to provide their standard front-end specifications. If needed, HydroScience will make minor project-specific edits to the front-ends. Task 4 – Engineering Services During the Bidding Phase HydroScience will assist the City during bid solicitation and bid phase services as needed and requested up to the allowance outlined in the proposed budget. Services may include: • Response to prospective bidder inquiries during the bidding period • Preparation of up to two addenda • Attending the pre-bid meeting • Review and evaluation of bids • Preparing conformed contract document package that incorporates all addenda to issue for bid award Assumptions • The City is responsible for bid advertisement and any costs associated with advertisement • The City is responsible for preparing for, coordinating, and hosting pre-bid meetings • Addenda prepared during bidding will be based on relatively minor comments or clarification to the design, not requiring significant design revisions Deliverables • Responses to inquiries and addenda in PDF format Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Task 5 – Construction Engineering Support Services HydroScience will provide engineering support services in support of the City’s Construction Management efforts. It is expected that HydroScience will provide engineering services during construction as needed and requested up to the proposed budget. Services may include the following: • Attend and prepare material for an internal handoff meeting from the design team to the City’s construction management team. HydroScience will brief the City on key issues, permit requirements, possible construction risks, and items of note regarding the design, construction sequencing, or other items of concern. • HydroScience will attend selected construction meetings as directed by the City. For the purpose of this budget, we have assumed attending one pre-construction meeting and up to five construction progress meetings, two on-site and three virtual. We have budgeted approximately 48 hours for this work, which includes attending weekly construction meetings and completing action items assigned to HydroScience at these meetings. • HydroScience will respond to selected RFIs generated by the Contractor. RFI reviews will be provided in the same format as the RFI was submitted. RFIs may address changed conditions, corrective actions, or items requested by the Contractor. Responding to up to 20 RFIs results in a budget of 80 hours to respond to RFIs, an average of four hours per RFI. • We expect that the City will require HydroScience to review up to 20 separate submittals, and their corresponding resubmittals. It is not expected that the City will ask HydroScience to review all submittals. Submittal reviews will be returned to the City in the format utilized by the construction manager, which is expected to be either email or an electronic document tracking cloud software system. At an average of about 6 hours per submittal, we have budgeted a total of 120 hours for this task. It is expected that any potential product substitutions will be included in submittals from the Contractor. • HydroScience will prepare a final punch list of incomplete and/or unacceptable items of construction work for the City’s review and approval. HydroScience will attend a final close-out walk through with the City when all punch list items have been corrected by the Contractor. • Prepare Record Drawings. Based on red-lines developed and provided by the Contractor, HydroScience will prepare Record Drawings and provide the AutoCAD and PDF drawings to the City. Assumptions • City to provide Construction Management services and address administrative submittals. HydroScience is not responsible for providing construction quality control testing. • City to prepare for and run all construction meetings. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Deliverables: • Responses to RFIs, submittals, and potential change orders, using the cloud based software provided by the City’s Construction Manager • Punch List, Excel • Record Drawings, AutoCAD and PDF Optional Scope Items The following scope items are offered as optional scope items, itemized separately in the fee. HydroScience will work with the City during Preliminary Engineering to determine the merits and benefits of including this work: Geotechnical Investigation at Leavesley Rd: Geo-Logic will perform the project geotechnical study. The geotechnical study will include subsurface exploration at the Leavesley Rd open-cut segment, performing engineering analysis of data, developing geotechnical recommendations for the project design, and analytical testing of selected soil samples that may be disposed during construction for hazardous material. The analytical testing will include testing for CAM 17 metals, total hydrocarbons, VOC (8260B), and pesticides. Geo-Logic will perform a site reconnaissance to observe surface site conditions, plan and perform up to 2 exploratory borings by means of a tract or truck-mounted drilling rig to a depth of 20 feet below ground surface, prepare traffic control plans, and obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for planned borings. Soil sampling and penetration testing will be performed at about 5-foot intervals. Laboratory testing of soil samples will include natural moisture content and unit weight, Atterberg Limits, unconfined compressive strength, percent passing a No. 200 sieve, and sieve analysis. Borings will be backfilled with cement grout, and in existing pavement areas the borings will be capped at the top with cold-patch asphalt or cement with black dye. Geotechnical Investigation at CIPP Repair Segments: Optionally, Geo-Logic will complete an additional 4 exploratory borings up to 20 deep each at the two CIPP repair segments and evaluate the collected data in accordance with the description in the base scope. A no -fee City encroachment permit will be secured for this exploratory work. Soil cuttings will be spread in vacant areas near the boring locations. Potholing: BESS Testl ab (BTL) will optionally perform up to 10 utility potholes using hydro- vacuum excavation methods and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) locating at locations specified by HydroScience within the Project limits. Potholing will be performed to identify the precise horizontal and vertical position of existing utilities that need to be located to complete the pipeline design. Data collected as a result of potholing activities will be presented in a report that will include utility type, size, material, depth and pictures of the exposed utility. Pothole locations (in the field) will be marked with wooden lath and ribbon, Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC with the pothole number, utility size and depth or MAG nail with pertinent utility data annotated on the ground surface. The following is included/assumed: • 8 potholes in asphalt paved locations and 2 potholes in the access road (compacted dirt) • GPR locating of buried manhole tops • Secure exploration permits from County of Santa Clara, City of Gilroy, Caltrans (Leavesley) • Day work for all locations except Leavesley. Night work for 2 potholes on Leavesley. • Pothole plan to be prepared in advance of field work. • Provide a Traffic Control Plan that is stamped and signed by a P.E. or T.E. for the potholing work. • Restoration per City of Gilroy Standard Details UN-1 • All potholes to be within existing ROWs • HMH will perform a second mobilization to survey completed potholes and add this data to the CAD backgrounds. Manhole Bypassing Design and Additional Construction Services: The base scope assumes that manhole repairs will not require pumped bypass from the upstream to the downstream manhole. Optionally, HydroScience will develop bypass schematics for the manhole repairs that would facilitate manhole lining options that require a completely dry manhole, and include these in the Contract Documents. HydroScience will provide additional Construction Engineering Support Services for this additional construction scope. The following are assumed in this optional budget: • Bypassing of up to 40 manholes will be addressed • There will be enough similarity in the bypassing requirements for some of the manholes that schematics can be copied and lightly modified, and in some cases multiple manholes can be bypassed in one operation, such that the number of unique schematics assumed for budgeting is a quantity of 30. • An additional 3 RFIs and 5 submittals will be reviewed as a result of the additional bypassing. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “C” MILESTONE SCHEDULE Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 1 Notice to Proceed 0 days Tue 10/1/24 Tue 10/1/24 2 Preliminary Engineering 125 days Mon 10/7/24 Mon 3/31/25 3 Kickoff Meeting & Site Visit 0 days Mon 10/7/24 Mon 10/7/24 4 Site Walk and Records Review 5 days Tue 10/8/24 Mon 10/14/24 5 Geotechnical 40 days Tue 10/29/24 Mon 12/23/24 6 Topographic Survey 40 days Tue 10/15/24 Mon 12/9/24 7 Utility Coordination 20 days Tue 12/10/24 Mon 1/6/25 8 Prepare Technical Eval Memo 40 days Tue 10/15/24 Mon 12/9/24 9 City Review 15 days Tue 12/10/24 Mon 12/30/24 10 CEQA Notice of Exemption 10 days Tue 2/11/25 Mon 2/24/25 11 Potholing 10 days Tue 2/11/25 Mon 2/24/25 12 Stakeholder Coordination 45 days Tue 1/28/25 Mon 3/31/25 13 Detailed Design/Bid Package 314 days Tue 12/10/24 Fri 2/20/26 14 Prepare 35% PS&E 45 days Tue 12/10/24 Mon 2/10/25 15 City Review 15 days Tue 2/11/25 Mon 3/3/25 16 Review Meeting 0 days Tue 2/25/25 Tue 2/25/25 17 Prepare 65% PS&E 45 days Tue 2/25/25 Mon 4/28/25 18 City Review 15 days Tue 4/29/25 Mon 5/19/25 19 Review Meeting 0 days Tue 5/13/25 Tue 5/13/25 20 Prepare 95% PS&E 45 days Tue 5/13/25 Mon 7/14/25 21 City Review 5 days Tue 7/15/25 Mon 7/21/25 22 Review Meeting 0 days Mon 7/21/25 Mon 7/21/25 23 Caltrans Permitting (Longitudinal)9 emons Mon 4/28/25 Fri 1/23/26 24 TCEs and EPs 3 emons Mon 7/14/25 Sun 10/12/25 25 Prepare Final PS&E 10 days Mon 1/26/26 Fri 2/6/26 26 City Review 5 days Mon 2/9/26 Fri 2/13/26 27 Camera-Ready Submittal 5 days Mon 2/16/26 Fri 2/20/26 28 Bid Phase 55 days Fri 2/20/26 Fri 5/8/26 29 Council Approval to Bid 0 days Fri 2/20/26 Fri 2/20/26 30 Advertise 40 days Mon 2/23/26 Fri 4/17/26 31 Pre-Bid Conference 0 days Fri 4/17/26 Fri 4/17/26 32 Bid Opening 0 days Fri 4/17/26 Fri 4/17/26 33 Notice of Intent to Award 5 days Mon 4/20/26 Fri 4/24/26 34 Council Package and Approval 5 days Mon 4/27/26 Fri 5/1/26 35 Execute Contract 5 days Mon 5/4/26 Fri 5/8/26 36 Construction Phase 270 days Fri 5/15/26 Fri 5/28/27 37 Pre-Construction Meeting 0 days Fri 5/15/26 Fri 5/15/26 38 Mobilization, Submittals 30 days Mon 5/18/26 Fri 6/26/26 39 Procure Materials 60 days Mon 6/29/26 Fri 9/18/26 40 Construction (review RFIs, COs; attend meetings) 180 days Mon 9/21/26 Fri 5/28/27 41 Surface Restoration and Punch List 20 days Mon 5/3/27 Fri 5/28/27 42 Project Close-out and As-Built Drawings 20 days Mon 5/3/27 Fri 5/28/27 43 Construction Window 371 days Fri 5/1/26 Fri 10/1/27 44 Dry Weather Flow Period 110 days Fri 5/1/26 Thu 10/1/26 45 Dry Weather Flow Period 110 days Mon 5/3/27 Fri 10/1/27 Notice to Proceed 10/1 Kickoff Meeting & Site Visit 10/7 Site Walk and Records Review 10/14 Geotechnical 12/23 Topographic Survey 12/9 Utility Coordination 1/6 Prepare Technical Eval Memo 12/9 City Review 12/30 CEQA Notice of Exemption 2/24 Potholing 2/24 Stakeholder Coordination 3/31 Prepare 35% PS&E 2/10 City Review 3/3 Review Meeting 2/25 Prepare 65% PS&E 4/28 City Review 5/19 Review Meeting 5/13 Prepare 95% PS&E 7/14 City Review 7/21 Review Meeting 7/21 Caltrans Permitting (Longitudinal) 1/23 TCEs and EPs 10/12 Prepare Final PS&E 2/6 City Review 2/13 Camera-Ready Submittal 2/20 Council Approval to Bid 2/20 Advertise 4/17 Pre-Bid Conference 4/17 Bid Opening 4/17 Notice of Intent to Award 4/24 Council Package and Approval 5/1 Execute Contract 5/8 Pre-Construction Meeting 5/15 Mobilization, Submittals 6/26 Procure Materials 9/18 Construction (review RFIs, COs; attend meetings) 5/28 Surface Restoration and Punch List 5/28 Project Close-out and As-Built Drawings 5/28 Dry Weather Flow Period 10/1 Dry Weather Flow Period 10/1 M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2024 2025 2026 2027 Task Milestone Summary City Task Contractor Task Page 1 City of Gilroy Engineering Services for Project Schedule Updated: Wed 9/4/24 Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “D” PAYMENT SCHEDULE Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Fee for Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Sewer Trunk Line Repairs Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499 June 14, 2024 Task Description Bill SlenterPrincipal-in-ChargeEric PetrelPeer ReviewRobert LeProject ManagerWilson ZhuProject EngineerMarc FernandezPermitting, Pvmt, TCPsStaff EngineerCAD ManagerLabor HoursFeeHMHSurveyingGeo-LogicGeotechnicalBESS TestlabUtility LocatingDirect CostsExpense Subtotal with MarkupTotal FeePhase TotalsRate Classification Princ E-IX E-V E-V E-III E-I CAD-M Hourly billing rate $305 $292 $242 $242 $215 $187 $160 1 Project Management $20,974 Project Management 6 24 8 38 $9,574 $0 $9,574 Meetings and Workshops 20 20 8 48 $11,400 $0 $11,400 2 Preliminary Engineering $136,896 Site Walk/Records Review 8 16 8 32 $7,304 $300 $330 $7,634 Topographic Survey 1 2 4 7 $1,366 $71,200 $78,320 $79,686 Utility Coordination 2 6 20 6 34 $6,636 $0 $6,636 CEQA NOE 1 10 11 $2,662 $0 $2,662 Technical Evaluations 16 16 35 4 30 101 $23,484 $0 $23,484 Stateholder Coordionation 8 24 16 30 78 $16,794 $0 $16,794 3 Detailed Design/Bid Package $217,660 35% Submittal 6 35 90 80 40 251 $53,362 $0 $53,362 65% Submittal 12 65 110 10 100 24 321 $70,544 $0 $70,544 95% Submittal 10 35 90 36 125 24 320 $68,125 $0 $68,125 Bid Package 2 25 40 10 30 8 115 $25,354 $250 $275 $25,629 4 Engineering Services During Bidding $12,317 Engineering Services During Bidding 16 20 15 5 56 $12,317 $0 $12,317 5 Construction Engineering Support Services $84,386 Initial/Construction Meetings 24 24 48 $11,616 $500 $550 $12,166 RFIs 14 26 40 80 $17,160 $0 $17,160 Submittals 10 25 35 50 120 $26,790 $0 $26,790 Change Orders 4 12 6 22 $4,994 $0 $4,994 Punch List/Close Out 4 12 8 24 $5,368 $300 $330 $5,698 Record Drawings 4 8 16 28 $5,464 $250 $275 $5,739 Project Coordination/General Assistance 10 22 6 15 53 $11,839 $0 $11,839 TOTAL - Base Services Tasks 6 56 341 610 90 557 127 1787 $392,153 $71,200 $0 $0 $1,600 $80,080 $472,233 Optional Tasks Geotechnical Investigation at Leavesley Rd 0 $0 $36,280 $36,280 $36,280 Geotechnical Investigation at CIPP Repair Segments 0 $0 $16,860 $16,860 $16,860 Potholing and GPR (allowance) + Survey 0 $0 $4,700 $48,673 $53,373 $53,373 Manhole Bypassing Design 4 8 90 90 120 120 432 $85,874 $0 $85,874 Manhole Bypassing Additional Construction Services 2 8 8 24 42 $8,728 $0 $8,728 TOTAL - Optional Tasks 0 6 16 90 98 144 120 474 $94,602 $4,700 $53,140 $48,673 $0 $106,513 $201,115 $201,115 Summary Total Base Tasks Total Optional Tasks Total Base + Optional Tasks $472,233 $201,115 $673,348 Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 2 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal LABOR CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE Principal $305 Engineer IX $292 Engineer VIII $280 Engineer VII $265 Engineer VI $253 Engineer V $242 Engineer IV $231 Engineer III $215 Engineer II $204 Engineer I $187 Engineering Aide $110 Construction Professional VI $200 Construction Professional V $190 Construction Professional IV $180 Construction Professional III $170 Construction Professional II $150 Construction Professional I $140 Cross Connection Control Specialist $135 CAD Manager $160 CAD Designer I $140 Marketing Professional $120 Administrative II $110 Administrative $95 HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS, INC. 2024 Standard Schedule of Billing Rates Rates are subject to increase 3% annually Hourly billing rates include postage and telephone charges that are normal to the work authorized. Other direct costs for travel, reproduction, mail service, outside services, etc. will be invoiced at 110 percent of the actual cost. Rates for expert witness services shall be billed at the quoted rates plus $50/hour. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 3 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal Schedule 2024 NorCal Effective Through 12/31/2024 2024 FEE SCHEDULE PROFESSIONAL STAFF Staff Professional I ....................................................................................................... $1 38.00/Hour Staff Professional II ........................................................................................................ 153.00/Hour Staff Professional III ....................................................................................................... 168.00/Hour Project Professional I ..................................................................................................... 18 4.00/Hour Project Professional II .................................................................................................... 20 0.00/Hour Project Professional III ................................................................................................... 21 6.00/Hour Senior Professional I ...................................................................................................... 22 4.00/Hour Senior Professional II ..................................................................................................... 23 9.00/Hour Senior Professional III .................................................................................................... 25 5.00/Hour Principal Professional I .................................................................................................. 270 .00/Hour Principal Professional II ................................................................................................. 289 .00/Hour Principal Professional III ................................................................................................ 308 .00/Hour Court Appearance (Expert Witness, Deposition, etc.; four-hour minimum) ............. 2 x HourlyRate FIELD/LABORATORY STAFF Technician I ...................................................................................................................... 97.00/Hour Technician II ................................................................................................................... 117.00/Hour Technician III (or Minimum Prevailing Wage) ............................................................... 132.00/Hour Technician IV ................................................................................................................. 146.00/Hour Laboratory Manager ...................................................................................................... 176.0 0/Hour Principal Technician ....................................................................................................... 19 7.00/Hour Managing Technician ..................................................................................................... 211.0 0/Hour CADD/GIS CADD/GIS/Database Manager I ..................................................................................... 117.00/Hour CADD/GIS/Database Manager II .................................................................................... 138.00/Hour CADD Designer .............................................................................................................. 15 3.00/Hour GIS Specialist .................................................................................................................. 153.00/Hour SUPPORT STAFF Administrative Assistant I .............................................................................................. 117.0 0/Hour Administrative Assistant II ............................................................................................. 132.0 0/Hour Administrative Assistant III ............................................................................................ 135.0 0/Hour Technical Editor ............................................................................................................. 109.00/Hour Senior Technical Editor .................................................................................................. 153.00/Hour *Overtime Premium is 35% of PERSONNEL CHARGE EQUIPMENT CHARGES BAT Permeameter ........................................................................................................... 200 .00/Day Compaction Testing Equipment & Supplies ...................................................................... 50.00/Day Peel & Shear Strength Apparatus (FML Seams) ......................................................... 900.00/Month Portable Laboratory (8’ x 32’ trailer) with equipment ................................................. 1,200/Month Portable Laboratory (mobilization / demobilization) ...........................................................1,500.00 ReMi/Refraction Seismograph ........................................................................................ 600.00/Day Sealed Single Ring Infiltrometer (SSRI) ............................................... 200.00/Day or 750.00/Month Sealed Double Ring Infiltrometer (SDRI) ..................................................................... Call for Quote Slope Inclinometer .......................................................................................................... 2 50.00/Day Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Reconnaissance ........................................................ 250.00/Day Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 4 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal Schedule 2024 NorCal Effective Through 12/31/2024 EXPENSES Vehicle Use for Field Services ............................................................... 17.00/Hour or 500.00/week Soil Sampling Equipment & Drilling Supplies ..................................................................... 7.00/Hour Groundwater Sampling Equipment and Supplies ............................................................ 17.00/Hour Per Diem ............................................................. Le sser of (Cost +15%) or (Local Government Rate) Outside Services (Consultants, Surveys, Chemical lab Tests, etc.) ................................... Cost + 15% Reimbursables (Maps, Photos, Permits, Expendable Supplies, etc.)................................ Cost + 15% Outside Equipment (Drill Rig, Backhoe, Monitoring Equipment, etc.) ............................................ Cost + 15% PERMITS, FEES AND BONDS The costs of all permits, fees, and performance bonds required by government agencies are to be paid by the Client, unless stated otherwise in an accompanying proposal. INSURANCE Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. carries workers' compensation, comprehensive general liability and automobile with policy limits normally acceptable to most clients. The cost for this insurance is covered by the fees listed in this schedule. Cost of any special insurance required by the Client, including increases in policy limits, adding additional insured parties and waivers of subrogation, are charged at cost plus 15%. Unless otherwise stated, such charges are in addition to the estimated or maximum charges stated in any accompanying proposal. TERMS Payment is due upon presentation of invoice and is past due thirty (30) days from invoice date. Past due accounts are subject to a finance charge of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month, or the maximum rate allowed by law. PROPOSAL PERIOD Unless otherwise stated, a proposal accompanying this schedule is effective for sixty (60) days. If authorization to proceed is not received within this period, Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. reserves the right to renegotiate the fee. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 5 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal Schedule 2024 NorCal Effective Through 12/31/2024 2024 FEE SCHEDULE TEST NAME TEST METHOD UNIT RATE Geotechnical / Physical Properties Moisture Content, gravimetric .................................................................D2216/AASHTO T265 ....... $26/Test Moisture Content (volumetric and gravimetric) and Bulk Density ..........D2216/D7263 ................... $60/Test Porosity ............................................................................................................................................... $60/Test Particle Size Analyses Standard Sieves and Hydrometer ........................................................D422 ............................... $225/Test Standard Sieves; no Hydrometer .........................................................D422 ............................... $180/Test Particle Size Analysis – Aggregate, no hydrometer .............................D422/C136/CT202 .......... $180/Test Particle Size Analysis with Gravel with hydrometer ............................D422 ............................... $230/Test Percent Passing #200 Sieve ..................................................................D1140/C117 ..................... $90/Test Particle Size Analysis, #4, #40, #200 with wash ............................................................................. $70/Test Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index (LL, PL, and PI) ...................D4318 ............................. $170/Test Wet preparation, add .................................................................................................................... $55/Test USCS Classification (included with sieve and Atterberg Limits) ...............D2487 ............................. $350/Test Specific Gravity,Fine (<4.75mm diameter materials) ...............................D854 ............................... $115/Test Specific Gravity,Coarse (>4.75mm diameter materials) ...........................C127 ............................... $125/Test Dispersion Testing Double Hydrometer (add second hydrometer) ...................................D4221 ............................. $150/Test Proctor Compaction Test Method A or B (<25% retained on a 3/8” sieve) ..................................D698/D1557 ................... $250/Test Method C (>25% retained on a 3/8” sieve) .........................................D698/D 1557 ................... $265/Test Moisture Density Single Point, std/mod (Proctor check point) ...........D698/D1557 .................. $125/Point Percent Organic Matter by Muffle Furnace .............................................D2974 ............................. $105/Test Permeability / Conductivity Testing Hydraulic Conductivity, Fixed Wall up to 8” Diameter Cell .........................................................................D5856/USBR 5600-89 .... $380/Test up to 12” Diameter Cell .......................................................................D5856/USBR 5600-89 .... $540/Test Extra Load per Test ..................................................................................................................... $140/Load Hydraulic Conductivity, Flexible Wall Falling Head, Rising Tail, 1” to 4” Diameter Sample ............................D5084 ............................. $370/Test Falling Head, Rising Tail, 6” Diameter Sample .....................................D5084 ............................. $665/Test High Pressure (<1200 psi) per sample, add ................................................................................... $65/Test Ksat with other permeant fluid, long term ..........................................D7100 .......................... $5,00 0/Test Added machine time per day .............................................................................................................. $80/Day Intrinsic Permeability (Calculation) ..........................................................Fetter .............................. No Charge Strength and Consolidation Testing Consolidation Testing Consolidation Test – Method A ...........................................................D2435A ........................... $460/Test Consolidation Test – Method B ............................................................D2435B ........................... $560/Test Consolidation Test (single point) .........................................................D2435 ............................. $125/Test Consolidation Test (without rate data) ................................................D2435 ............................. $190/Test Test rate data per load increment .......................................................D2435 ...................... $90/Test-Load Consolidate Test (multiple points and time rates) ..............................D2435 ............................. $465/Test Strength Testing Unconfined Compressive Strength (UC), 2-3” .....................................D2166 ............................. $110/Test Unconfined Compressive Strength (UC), 4 or 6” .................................D2166 ............................. $150/Test Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 6 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal Schedule 2024 NorCal Effective Through 12/31/2024 Strength and Consolidation Testing, Continued Triaxial Compression Unconsol.-Undrained Triax. Compression (UU), 2-3”, 1-pt test ..........D2850 ............................. $215/Test Unconsol.-Undrained Triax. Compression (UU), 4”, 1-pt test ..............D2850 ............................. $255/Test Unconsol.-Undrained Triax. Compression (UU), 6”, 1-pt test ..............D2850 ............................. $450/Test Consolidated Undrained Triax. Compression (CU), 2-3” (3 pt. test) ....D4767 .......................... $1,500/Test Consolidated Undrained Triax. Compression (CU), 2-3” (per point) ...D4767 ............................ $500/Point Consolidated Undrained Triax. Compression (CU), 4” (3 pt. test) .......D4767 .......................... $1,665/Test Consolidated Undrained Triax. Compression (CU), 4” (per point) .......D4767 ............................ $555/Point Consolidated Undrained Triax. Compression (CU), 6” (3 pt. test) .......D4767 .......................... $3,015/Test Consolidated Undrained Triax. Compression (CU), 6” (per point) .......D4767 .........................$1,055/Point CU – add per point for progressive (staged) test ........................................................................ $315/Point Consolidated Drained Triax. Compression (CD), 2-3” (3 pt. test) ........D7181 .......................... $1,890/Test Consolidated Drained Triax. Compression (CD), 2-3” (per point) ........D7181 ............................ $630/Point Consolidated Drained Triax. Compression (CD), 4” (3 pt. test) ...........D7181 .......................... $2,115/Test Consolidated Drained Triax. Compression (CD), 4” (per point) ...........D7181 ............................ $705/Point Consolidated Drained Triax. Compression (CD), 6” (3 pt. test) ...........D7181 .......................... $3,300/Test Consolidated Drained Triax. Compression (CD), 6” (per point) ...........D7181 .........................$1,100/Point High Pressure (>120 psi), add ....................................................................................................... $80/Point Direct Shear Direct Shear, 2.5” (3 pt. test) ...............................................................D3080 ............................. $615/Test Direct Shear, 2.5” (per point) ...............................................................D3080 ............................ $205/Point Additional Cycles (per load) .................................................................D3080 .............................. $55/Load Direct Shear, 12” (3 pt. test) ................................................................D3080 .......................... $1,155/Test Direct Shear, 12” (per point) ................................................................D3080 ............................ $385/Point California Bearing Ratio (per point) ..........................................................D1883 ............................ $350/Point Added machine time when > 2 days of shear ..................................................................................... $80/Day Aggregate and Rock Testing Dry Rodded Unit Weight ..........................................................................C29 ................................... $90/Test Rock Density .............................................................................................D7263 ............................... $60/Test Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .............................................................D5084 ............................. $370/Test Rock Point Load Index, 1-break ................................................................D5731 ............................... $55/Test Rock Point Load Index, multiple breaks ...................................................D5731 ............................. $210/Test Rock Joint Direct Shear, per point ............................................................D5607 ............................ $290/Point Rock Joint Direct Shear, add per load ......................................................D5607 ............................ $105/Load Uniaxial Strength, Peak Only ....................................................................D7012 ............................. $145/Test Geosynthetics Testing Large Scale Direct Shear Geosynthetic/Geosynthetic, 3-point test ............................................D5321 ............................. $7 50/Test Geosynthetic/Geosynthetic, per point ................................................D5321 ............................. $250/Test Soil/Geosynthetic, 3-point test ............................................................D5321 .......................... $1,005/Test Soil/Geosynthetic, per point ................................................................D5321 ............................. $335/Test Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL), 3-point test .........................................D6243 .......................... $1,0 65/Test Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL), per point .............................................D6243 ............................. $355/Test Soil/GCL, 3-point test ...........................................................................D6243 .......................... $1,005/Test Soil/GCL, per point ...............................................................................D6243 ............................. $335/Test Sandwich (multiple layers), 3-point test ................................................................................... $1,410/Test Sandwich (multiple layers), per point ......................................................................................... $470/Point Large Scale Puncture Large Scale Puncture, modified ...........................................................D5514 ............................. $465/Test Puncture Test High Pressure (>120 psi), per point ....................................................................... $95/Point Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 7 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal Schedule 2024 NorCal Effective Through 12/31/2024 Soil with Amendments and Slurry Testing Slurry Wall Soil/Bentonite Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, Falling Head, Rising Tail 1-100 samples ......................................................................................D5084 ............................. $325/Test 101-200 samples ..................................................................................D5084 ............................. $315/Test 201-300 samples ..................................................................................D5084 ............................. $305/Test 301-400 samples ..................................................................................D5084 ............................. $294/Test Greater than 400 samples ...................................................................D5084 ............................. $290/Test Soi/Cement/Bentonite, Unconfined Compressive (UC) Strength ............D4832 ............................... $28/Test Soil / Bentonite Mix Evaluation ........................................................................................................ $325/Test Soil / Cement / Bentonite Mix Evaluation ........................................................................................ $430/Test Pocket Penetrometer ......................................................................................................................... $20/Test Soil Chemistry pH of Soil ............................................................................................................................................ $25/Test All test methods are ASTM unless otherwise noted. Special sample preparation and laboratory testing not listed above will be charged at applicable personnel rates. All laboratory test rates are for standard turn-around time and normal reporting procedures. Rush orders will be subject to a 50 percent premium. Manpower requirements or test protocol may preclude the granting of a rush request. Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 8 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE Professional & Office Per Hour Principal Senior Land Development Manager $270 $254 Senior Civil Engineering or Land Surveying or Landscape Architect Manager $245 Land Development Manager $218 Civil Engineering, Land Surveying or Landscape Architect Manager $214 Senior Planner $234 Senior Civil Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Landscape Architect $198 Engineering Design Specialist $190 Design Specialist $176 Project Planner $212 Project Civil Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Landscape Architect $182 Project Arborist $170 Senior Engineer, Surveyor, or Landscape Designer $186 Engineer, Planner, Surveyor, or Landscape Designer $174 Assistant Engineer, Surveyor, Planner, or Landscape Designer $154 Junior Engineer, Surveyor, Planner, or Landscape Designer $144 Senior Technician $156 Project Technician $144 Technician $134 Assistant Technician $124 Junior Technician $102 Intern $ 96 Project Support Staff $ 96 Field Services Per Hour 2-Person Field Crew $290 3-Person Field Crew $380 1-Person Field Crew $202 Senior Field Engineer $192 Field Engineer $168 Printing, Reproductions & Materials at Cost, Plus 20% Transportation at Cost, including mileage based upon IRS rates Other Outside Services at Cost, Plus 20% Rates are subject to Adjustment July 1, 2024 DRS Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC HydroScience Engineers 9 City of Gilroy  Engineering Services for Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs  Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499Cost Proposal Services Houlry Rate Night/OT Rate Emergency Rate Project Management $185.00 Project Coordination $145.00 Utility Foreman $185.50 Licensed Professional (Civil / Surveyor )$190.00 LiDAR / UAV / Data Processing and Extraction $125.00 CAD Technician $117.00 Reports / Sketches / Clerical $101.00 Administrative Support $101.00 Data Processing and Extraction $132.50 Utility Location & Gas Transmission Standby 1-Person Utility Designation w/ GPR & EM Pipe Locator $185.50 $296.80 $371.00 2-Person Utility Designation w/ Multi Antenna GPR $371.00 $593.60 $742.00 1-Person Gas Transmisson Stand by w/truck and equipment $196.00 $313.60 $392.00 Potholing and Vacuum Excavation 2-Person Utility Potholing w/ air vacuum truck $330.00 $429.00 $528.00 1-Person Utility Potholing w/ hydro vacuum truck $317.00 $412.10 $507.20 2-Person Utility Potholing w/ hydro vacuum truck $397.00 $516.10 $635.20 2-Person Utility Potholing w/ Air OX vacuum truck $444.00 $577.20 $710.40 2-Person Key Hole & Surface Restoration w/ equipment $320.00 $416.00 $512.00 1-Person Dump Truck Crew w/equipment $214.00 $278.20 $342.40 Traffic Control 1-Person Traffic Control w/ arrow truck $163.00 $211.90 $260.80 2-Person Traffic Control w/ arrow truck $259.00 $336.70 $414.40 1-Person Flagger / TC Helper $140.00 $182.00 $224.00 GPR Concrete Scanning and Coring 1-Person GPR Concrete Scanning w/ equipment $200.00 $260.00 $320.00 1-Person GPR Concrete Scanning w/ equipment Prevailing Wage $268.00 $348.40 $428.80 1-Person Saw Cutting & Coring w/ equipment $154.00 $200.20 $246.40 1-Person Saw Cutting & Coring w/ equipment Prevailing Wage $175.00 $227.50 $280.00 CCTV Camera – Video Inspection 2-Person CCTV Pipe Inspection w/ Main Line Crawler Unit $334.00 $434.20 $534.40 2-Person CCTV Pipe Inspection w/ Lateral Line Push Unit $323.00 $419.90 $516.80 2-Person Hydro Flushing w/ hydro vacuum truck $397.00 $516.10 $635.20 Surveying and Mapping 1-Person Survey Crew - GPS / Robotic / 3D Scanner $197.00 $256.10 $315.20 2-Person Survey Crew - GPS / Robotic / 3D Scanner $280.00 $364.00 $448.00 2-Person Survey Crew - Mobile LiDAR Scanner $364.00 $473.20 $582.40 2-Person Survey Crew - UAV Data Collection $289.00 $375.70 $462.40 Additional Cost 1-Person Utility Support Truck $160.00 $208.00 $256.00 1-Person General Labor Hourly Rate $140.00 $182.00 $148.40 1-Person Operator Hourly Rate $180.00 $234.00 $288.00 1-Person Utility Truck Mobilization Rate $111.00 Air/hydrovac Utility Truck Mobilization Rate $290.00 Hydrovac Utility Truck Mobilization Rate $330.00 Large Specialty Utility Truck Mobilization Rate $370.00 Traffic Control Plans – non-stamped (per sheet)$400.00 Traffic Control Plans – Stamped (per sheet)$600.00 Mileage, if applicable Current IRS Rate Lodging and meals, applies when over 50 miles Current GSA Rate Remote Hose Per 25' Section (3" 4" or 6" 10")$27/Each Off site disposal of Non-Hazardous Material $1,100/Load Off-Road Vehicle Rental Cost +10% Outside reproductions, shipping, services and consultants Cost +10% Cost of specialty field supplies,rental equipment, bridge tolls etc. Cost +10% Conditions Work site must be safe and prepared in advanced prior to scheduleing our crews (if managed by client) Show up cost is a 4 hour minimum per our houlry rates (Per National Pipe Line agreement) Minimum charge is 4 hours Over time applies after eight hours of work on site and weekends Emergencies and Sundays are double time Rates above apply to day shift (typical BESS day shift hours are 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM). Night rate applies outside of normal shift hours. Overtime after 8hrs on site up to 12hrs and Saturdays Overtime after 12hrs, Emergency,Sundays and Holidays 3% escalation may apply for multi year contracts NOTE: Rates are portal to portal from our nearst office. Mobilization may apply for distances further than 50 miles from nearest office. Hayward (Corporate) | Fresno | Los Angeles | Sacramento | F. (408) 988-0101 Utility Locating - Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) - Electromagnetic Pipe Locators Structural Concrete Scanning - Potholing Vacuum Excavation - CCTV Pipe Inspection Mobile LiDAR Scanning - 3D Scanning - 3D Utility Mapping - Gas Standy by - www.besstestlab.com DBE 34267 - CSLB 817532 - DIR 1000007058 - MBE 1208095 - SBE 38052 - SLEB 18-00111 - ISN 400231830 BESS Utility Solutions Rate Schedule 2023 Docusign Envelope ID: F0D8DFF4-12E9-4EC8-8480-839FA649F57DDocusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57SBABB8BJ2 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC "6 13.Racing Covered "autos" while used in any pro­ fessional or organized racing or demoli­ tion contest or stunting activity, or while practicing for such contest or activity. This insurance also does not apply while that covered "auto" is being prepared for such a contest or activity. C.Limit Of Insurance Regardless of the number of covered "autos", "insureds", premiums paid, claims made or vehicles involved in the 11 accident11 , the most we will pay for the total of all damages and "covered pollution cost or ex­ pense" combined, resulting from any one "accident" is the Limit of Insurance for Liabil­ ity Coverage shown in the Declarations. All 0bodily injury," "property damage" and 11covered pollution cost or expense" resulting from continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same conditions will be con­ sidered as resulting from one 11accident". No one will be entitled to receive duplicate payments for the same elements of "loss" under this Coverage Form and any Medical Payments Coverage Endorsement, Uninsured Motorists Coverage Endorsement or Underin­ sured Motorists Coverage Endorsement at­ tached to this Coverage Part. SECTION Ill • PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE A.Coverage 1.We will pay for "loss" to a covered "auto" or its equipment under: a.Comprehensive Coverage. From any cause except: (1)The covered "auto's"collision with another object; or (2)The covered 11 auto's" overturn. b.Specified Causes of Loss Coverage. Caused by: (1)Fire, lightning or explosion; (2)Theft; (3)Windstorm, hail or earthquake; (4)Flood; (5)Mischief or vandalism; or (6)The sinking, burning, collision or derailment of any conveyance transporting the covered 11auto". c.Collision Coverage. Caused by: (1)The covered "auto's"collision with another object; or (2)The covered "auto's" overturn. 2.Towing. We will pay up to the limit shown in the Declarations for towing and labor costs incurred each time a covered 11 auto11 of the private passenger type is disabled. However, the labor must be performed at the place of disablement. 3.Glass Breakage -Hitting a Bird or Ani­ mal -Falling Objects or Missiles. If you carry Comprehensive Coverage for the damaged covered "auto", we will pay for the following under Comprehen­ sive Coverage: a.Glass breakage; b."Loss" caused by hitting a bird or animal; and c."Loss" caused by falling objects or missiles. However, you have the option of having glass breakage caused by a covered "auto's" collision or overturn considered a "loss" under Collision Coverage. 4.Coverage Extensions a.Transporation Expenses We will pay up to $20 per day to a maximum of $600 for temporary transportation expense incurred by you because of the total theft of a covered "auto1 1 of the private pas­ senger type. We will pay only for those covered "autos" for which you carry either Comprehensive or Speci­ fied Causes of Loss Coverage. We will pay for temporary transportation expenses incurred during the period beginning 48 hours after the theft and ending, regardless of the poli­ cy's expiration, when the covered "auto" is returned to use or we pay for its "loss". b.Loss Of Use Expenses For Hired Auto Physical Damage, we will pay expenses for which an "in­ sured" becomes legally responsible to pay for loss of use of a vehicle rented or hired without a driver, un­ der a written rental contract or agreement. We will pay for loss of use expenses if caused by: (1)Other than collision only if the Declarations indicate that Com­ prehensive Coverage is provided for any covered "auto"; CAOO 0103 06 ®ISO Properties, Inc., 2005 Page 6 of 13 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 57UECBE2565 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC COST SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GILROY AND THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE JOINT MORGAN HILL-GILROY SEWER TRUNK LINE REPAIR PROJECT This Cost Sharing Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this ___th day of September, 2024, by and between the City of Gilroy, California, a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California ("Gilroy''), and the City of Morgan Hill, California, a general law municipal corporation of the State of California ("Morgan Hill"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties'' and sometimes individually as a "Party”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the parties share ownership of a joint trunk line for the disposal of sewage to the South County Regional Wastewater Authority facility; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to contract with experienced service providers for the design and construction of necessary repairs along the joint trunk line as identified in the Joint Trunk Pipeline Condition Assessment Report completed by Water Works Engineers on behalf of the City of Morgan Hill in January 2021 (the "Report"); and WHEREAS, the Report recommended certain repairs such as structural cured-in- place-pipe (CIPP) lining and open cut replacement of pipelines found to be in need of point repairs, spray coating of various pipelines, and manhole repairs. In particular, a set of recommended repairs characterized as "Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects" is listed in Table 49 on pages 87-88 of the Report (pages 86-88 of the Report are attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and incorporated herein by this reference); and WHEREAS, the referenced Table 49 lists five reaches of pipeline requiring repair as well as 40 manholes. These pipeline segments and manholes are shown on the aerial photograph attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 and incorporated herein by this reference. The pipeline repairs and manhole locations along with the designations on Exhibit A-2 of locations for pipeline spray coating collectively comprise the "Project" that is the subject of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Parties have determined to share all costs described in this Agreement for the design, construction, and construction management of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Parties have identified capacity shares for separate sections of the trunk line. For the purpose of this Project, the responsibility of the cost of the Project has been determined to be 50% Gilroy and 50% Morgan Hill, and each of the Parties has indicated its willingness to fund these shares of the costs; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2024, Gilroy issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design of the Project, evaluated, and selected a consultant to prepare the contract documents, and is prepared to award a contract to the selected consultant subsequent to the execution of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is imperative that the Project, once started, shall be completed to a fully functioning and safe condition. Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75 11 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS AND OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: AGREEMENT 1. Gilroy Rights and Responsibilities In addition to all other rights and obligations applicable to Gilroy under this Agreement, Gilroy shall: a) Select and hire consultant(s) and/or contractor(s) required to design the Project. b) Select and hire consultant(s) and/or contractor(s) required to construct the Project. c) Select and hire consultant(s) required for construction management to oversee the construction of the Project. d) Coordinate with said consultant(s) and contractor(s) as needed. e) Provide project management, engineering, and construction management for the Project. f) Prior to authorizing any consultant to proceed with any optional tasks, as identified in consultant’s agreement to provide services performed by the consultant or the consultant’s subconsultant(s), request and obtain written approval of the cost and scope of such optional tasks from Morgan Hill. g) Prior to agreeing to any change orders that, either alone or in combination with any and all prior change orders, would increase the Total Project Costs (defined in Section 1(h), below) chargeable to Morgan Hill to an amount that would likely exceed the amount of Morgan Hill's estimated proportional share of the Total Project Costs shown in Table 2 of Section 3B below, notify Morgan Hill of the requested change order(s), and request and obtain written approval of such change order(s) from Morgan Hill. h) Pay all costs associated with the Project, expressly excluding any and all costs and fees, including legal fees, related to the preparation, review, negotiation, processing and execution of this Agreement, but including the following: design, engineering, project management, preparation of bid documents, printing costs, construction, construction management, inspections, environmental review, cost of land acquisition, permit fees, legal fees, administrative costs, and advertising costs (collectively, "Project Costs" and, in total, "Total Project Costs"). Total Project Costs shall include Project Costs already incurred by Gilroy. i) At least ten (10) business days prior to awarding and entering into any Project - related agreement, disclose any such agreement, including the maximum Project Costs encumbered thereby, to Morgan Hill and notify Morgan Hill of Gilroy's intent to enter into such agreement. j) Provide Morgan Hill with an itemized invoice for Morgan Hill's share of Project Costs as set forth in this Agreement and provide Morgan Hill with documentation Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC for all Project Costs incurred. k) Meet with Morgan Hill to address any optional tasks that Morgan Hill disapproves pursuant to Sections 1(f) and 2(c) of this Agreement, below, and consult with Morgan Hill in a good faith effort to reduce the costs of any such optional tasks and to otherwise reconcile and resolve any related disputes between Gilroy and Morgan Hill. l) Meet with Morgan Hill to address any change order that Morgan Hill disapproves pursuant to Sections 1(g) and 2(d) of this Agreement, below, and consult with Morgan Hill in a good faith effort to reduce the costs of any such change order and to otherwise reconcile and resolve any related disputes between Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 2. Morgan Hill Rights and Responsibilities In addition to all other rights and obligations applicable to Morgan Hill under this Agreement, Morgan Hill shall: a) Pay to Gilroy Morgan Hill's proportional share of the Project Costs pursuant to this Agreement as set forth in invoices provided by Gilroy related to the Project pursuant to Section 1(j) above, or any part thereof, which Gilroy shall issue in the proportional amounts set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement, below, within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. Morgan Hill acknowledges that Gilroy has disclosed to Morgan Hill, and Morgan Hill has reviewed and accepted, all Project Costs incurred by Gilroy to date, and Morgan Hill agrees to reimburse Gilroy for its proportional share of those Project Costs in accordance with Section 3 of this Agreement. b) Notify Gilroy of any problems with any invoice received from Gilroy within twenty - one (21) days after receipt thereof. c) Review and decide regarding optional tasks pursuant to Section 1(f), above, within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request for such approval. Any submitted disapproval shall contain a statement of Morgan Hill's reasons for such disapproval. d) Review and decide regarding change orders associated with Project Costs that would exceed the Total Project Costs amount shown in Table 2 of Section 3B, below, pursuant to Section 1(g), above, within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request for such approval. Any submitted disapproval shall contain a statement of Morgan Hill's reasons for such disapproval. Morgan Hill shall not unreasonably withhold or deny approval of a change order, provided that Gilroy shall have informed Morgan Hill of the change order. Morgan Hill shall meet with Gilroy and work in good faith to address the reason leading to any such disapproval and attempt to resolve and reconcile any disputes related there to. Morgan Hill shall have no rights to approve or deny change orders that, cumulatively, when added to all other Project Costs, do not exceed the Total Project Costs shown in Table 2 of Section 3B, below. e) Support the construction management phase of the Project by agreeing to provide proportional funding for, as a Project Cost, a part -time Engineer employed by Gilroy who will help oversee the work and prepare written status reports to Morgan Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Hill regarding construction status and pending change orders. 3. Cost Sharing A. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties shall share all Project Costs for or related to the completion of the design, construction, and construction management of the Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Sewer Trunk Line Repair Project (Project) in the proportional amounts set forth in Table 1. Table 1: Proportional Share of Cost Gilroy 50% Morgan Hill 50% B. The Total Project Costs are estimated as follows: Table 2: Estimated Total Project Costs Design Cost* Construction Cost Construction Management Cost Total Project Cost Gilroy $370,342 $1,255,750 $188,363 $1,814,455 Morgan Hill $370,342 $1,255,750 $188,363 $1,814,455 Total $740,684 $2,511,500 $376,726 $3,628,910 *Design cost includes $201,115 in optional tasks and $67,335 (10%) in contingency. The Project’s construction cost estimate is based on the estimates in the Joint Trunk Pipeline Condition Assessment Report, WaterWorks Engineers, January 2021 with the unit costs escalated per the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) and a review of recent unit prices for similar projects. The detailed Estimated Total Project Costs are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. The Parties agree that the Estimated Total Project Costs are only estimates. Gilroy makes no representations or warranties that the Project can be completed for the amount of these Estimated Total Project Costs, and neither Gilroy nor Morgan Hill shall be obligated to pay more than its proportionate share of the Actual Total Project Costs of the Project, or any part thereof, in the event the Actual Total Project Costs exceed the Estimated Total Project Costs. Furthermore, Gilroy makes no representations or warranties that the Project can be completed within a certain number of days or by a certain date. All Project Costs, whether foreseen or unforeseen and regardless of cause, including but Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC not limited to Project Cost overruns, approved or allowed change orders, and/or delays, shall be shared by the Parties in the contribution percentages set forth in this Agreement. C. Representatives from both Parties shall review the construction bids, and if the lowest responsible, responsive bid is less than or equal to the estimated total construction cost shown in Table 2, consistent with the definition of Total Project Costs herein, and has a reasonable contingency as determined by both Parties, each Party shall present such bid for approval to its respective City Council. The bids will be reviewed first by the Morgan Hill City Council and then by the Gilroy City Council. Should the Morgan Hill City Council not approve the bid, Morgan Hill shall provide written legal documentation explaining the reason, which will be presented as legal justification for the rejection of the bids by the Gilroy City Council. If the Parties elect to terminate this Agreement due to failure to obtain acceptable construction bids, then such termination shall not relieve Morgan Hill of its obligation to pay its proportionate share of Project Costs incurred by Gilroy prior to and including the date of the termination. In addition, the obligations of Sections 4 and 5 hereof shall survive such termination. D. Morgan Hill and Gilroy agree to appropriate sufficient amounts of funds to complete the Project in accordance with the Estimated Total Project Costs shown in Section 3B, above, in the contribution percentages set forth in this Agreement. E. Should the Actual Total Project Costs exceed the agreed to participation amounts set forth in Section 3B above, due to an unforeseen construction condition or due to an accumulation of change orders as defined in the contract specifications, and, in the professional opinion of the Gilroy Public Works Director/City Engineer, awaiting City Council authorization from both Parties will make for an unsafe condition and/or result in extraordinary costs due to a delay in waiting for such authorization from the City Councils of both Parties, Gilroy's Public Works Director/City Engineer shall have the authority to execute a change order necessary to address the unsafe condition or avoid the extraordinary costs of the Project within the original intent of the scope of the Project. Should this occur, Gilroy's Public Works Director/City Engineer shall provide written documentation to Morgan Hill explaining the situation and the reason(s) that Gilroy's Public Works Director/City Engineer directed the contractor to proceed and the designated representatives from each Party will report to their respective City Council the scope of the work exceeding the original authorization and why Gilroy's Public Works Director/City Engineer provided such direction to the contractor. Those representatives for each Party shall request further funding authorization for such additional work, provided the additional work is necessary to complete the Project as intended in the original scope. F. In the event the Actual Total Project Costs exceed the amounts stated above in Section 3B and if either Party, upon consideration of the need for a change order, chooses through an official action of its respective City Council to not participate, that Party shall pay the full costs to terminate the Project and restore the Project site to a safe and functioning condition. Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC 4. Legal Challenges to the Project Gilroy shall immediately notify Morgan Hill of any legal challenges to any element of the Project or Project approvals or any related claims. If Gilroy and Morgan Hill are both named parties in any lawsuit or claim, then the Parties shall consult and, where appropriate coordinate, on appropriate defenses, including the retention of any attorneys or consultants, to any such challenges or claims. Whether or not Gilroy and Morgan Hill have separate or joint legal counsel, and whether or not Morgan Hill is a named party, Morgan Hill shall reimburse Gilroy for its proportional share of any attorneys' fees, consultants' fees, and other fees and costs incurred by Gilroy related to its defense of any legal challenges to any element of the Project or Project approvals or to any Project-related claim involving any administrative and/or judicial proceedings and related appeals, excepting only, and to the extent that, the underlying allegations giving rise to the legal challenge or claim allege gross negligence or willful misconduct solely on the part of Gilroy. If Morgan Hill is not a named party to any legal challenge or claim, then Gilroy shall have sole discretion to choose its own legal counsel, to control its legal defense, and to settle or otherwise resolve any such challenge or claim. If Gilroy and Morgan Hill are both named parties, then each Party reserves the right to have separate counsel. 5. Indemnification Pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify, defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to the other Party and hold the other Party, its officers, employees, and agents, harmless from any damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) which occurred or is occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, or agents, under, or in connection with, any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to such Party under this Agreement. Neither Party, nor any officer, employee, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other Party hereto, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, or agents, under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to such other Party under this Agreement. 6. Notices Notices given under this Agreement may be hand delivered or delivered by email, with an additional copy sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the appropriate party at the following addresses: To Gilroy: City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Attn: Heath McMahon, Utilities Director Heath.McMahon@cityofgilroy.org; and Attn: Saeid Vaziry, Senior Civil Engineer Saeid.Vaziry@cityofgilroy.org Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC To Morgan Hill: City of Morgan Hill 17575 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Attn: Chris Ghione, Public Services Director Chris.Ghione@morganhill.ca.gov; and Attn: James F. Sylvain, Deputy Director for Utilities Services james.sylvain@morganhill.ca.gov 7. Additional Provisions The Parties further agree as follows: a) One or both Parties' waiver of any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement. b) This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the Parties relating to the Project. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or effect. c) The Exhibits attached to this Agreement are a part of this Agreement and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. d) This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. e) This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but both of which, together shall constitute one and the same document. f) This Agreement shall remain in effect until the Project is complete, and for a period of two (2) years thereafter, unless earlier terminated or extended by written agreement of the Parties. All amendments to this Agreement must be approved in writing by both Parties to be effective. The provisions of Sections 4 and 5 hereof shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. g) The Parties agree that they shall endeavor to resolve any dispute about this Agreement in good faith. The Parties further agree that should such dispute remain unresolved, they shall engage in mediation and, if no agreement between the Parties can be reached through mediation, by binding arbitration to resolve such disputes, instead of resorting to court action. h) The designated project manager for Gilroy for the duration of the construction project is Gilroy's Senior Civil Engineer or his or her designee. Gilroy's project manager shall have all the necessary authority to direct technical and professional work within the scope of this Agreement and shall serve as the principal point of contact with Gilroy. Morgan Hill's Public Services Director/City Engineer, or his or her designee, shall serve as the principal point of contact for Morgan Hill. i) Time is of the essence of each and every term, provision , and obligation hereof. j) This Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create any third- party beneficiary rights in any person or entity who is not a party, unless expressly provided herein. Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC k) Each party hereto declares and represents that in entering into this Agreement, it has relied and is relying solely upon its own judgment, belief, and knowledge of the nature, extent, effect, and consequence relating thereto. Each party further declares and represents that this Agreement is made without reliance upon any statement or representation not contained herein of any other party or any representative, agent, or attorney of the other party. The parties are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms, and conditions of this Agreement and the decision of whether or not to seek the advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each of the parties. Accordingly, no party shall be deemed to have been the drafter hereof, and the principle of law set forth in Civil Code §1654 that contracts are construed against the drafter shall not apply. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT AS OF THE DATE FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. CITY OF MORGAN HILL City Manager Date: ATTEST: City Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney CITY OF GILROY City Administrator Date: ATTEST: City Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75 9/11/2024 9/11/2024 Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC EXHIBITS LOCATED AT: https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/49795/GilroyCostShareAgrExhibit s-TrunkLineAssessment Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 1 City of Morgan Hill Joint Trunk Pipeline Condition Assessment Report - DRAFT Date: January 2021 Prepared by: Water Works Engineers Anthony Baltazar, P.E. Table of Contents 0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Purpose for Investigation ............................................................................................................................ 7 2 Project Approach/Methodology .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Risk Prioritization Methodology .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Field Assessment Role in Risk Prioritization ...................................................................................... 13 2.3 City Master Plan Role in Risk Prioritization ....................................................................................... 14 2.4 Location Criteria Forms Role in Risk Prioritization ............................................................................ 14 3 Summary of Field Assessment ................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Investigation Procedures ................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Summary of Work Completed ........................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................................... 20 4 Summary of Manhole Location Criteria Forms ......................................................................................... 50 5 Summary of City Master Plan .................................................................................................................... 50 5.1 Capital Improvement Projects ........................................................................................................... 50 5.2 Pipe Capacity Rating Data .................................................................................................................. 52 5.3 Flow Volume Rating ........................................................................................................................... 52 6 Risk Prioritization Results .......................................................................................................................... 53 6.1 Probability Rating and Criteria .......................................................................................................... 53 6.2 Consequence Rating and Criteria ...................................................................................................... 57 6.3 Overall Risk Rating ............................................................................................................................. 62 7 Proposed Repair, Rehabilitation, and/or Replacement (RRR) Alternatives .............................................. 68 7.1 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................ 68 7.2 Manholes ........................................................................................................................................... 74 8 Unit Cost for Each RRR Alternative ............................................................................................................ 75 8.1 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................ 75 8.2 Manholes ........................................................................................................................................... 76 9 RRR Alternatives Assignment .................................................................................................................... 76 9.1 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................ 76 9.2 Manholes ........................................................................................................................................... 82 10 Proposed Improvement Project Bundling/Phasing & Analysis ................................................................. 84 10.1 “All-at-Once” Approach ..................................................................................................................... 85 10.2 Phasing Approach .............................................................................................................................. 86 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 2 11 O&M Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 86 12 Construction Cost Estimates...................................................................................................................... 86 13 Recommended Project .............................................................................................................................. 87 14 Potential Constraints of Recommended Methodology ............................................................................. 89 14.1 Permits ............................................................................................................................................... 89 14.2 Environmental Considerations .......................................................................................................... 89 14.3 Utility Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 89 15 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 90 List of Appendices 15.1 Appendix A – Summary of Pipeline Work Completed 15.2 Appendix B – Pipeline Structural Quick Ratings 15.3 Appendix C – Pipeline Maintenance Quick Ratings 15.4 Appendix D – Pipeline Overall Risk Ratings 15.5 Appendix E – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once 15.6 Appendix F – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – Phased 15.7 Appendix G – Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects 15.8 Appendix H – Recommended Intermediate Projects 16.9 Appendix I – Mapbook, Pipeline Inspection Findings List of Tables Table 1: Structural/O&M Condition Rating Determination .......................................................................................9 Table 2: Pipe Capacity Rating Determination .......................................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Weighting Factors for Probability Criteria ................................................................................................. 10 Table 4: Probability Rating Determination .............................................................................................................. 10 Table 5: Flow Volume Rating Determination .......................................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Proximity to Waterways Rating Determination ........................................................................................ 12 Table 7: Public Impact Rating Determination .......................................................................................................... 12 Table 8: O&M Access and Safety Rating Determination ......................................................................................... 12 Table 9: Weighting Factors for Consequence Criteria ............................................................................................. 13 Table 10: Consequence Rating Determination ........................................................................................................ 13 Table 11: Abandoned Inspection Summary ............................................................................................................ 17 Table 12: Pipelines Not Inspected ........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 13: Manholes Not MACP Inspected ............................................................................................................... 19 Table 14: Nonexistent Manholes............................................................................................................................. 19 Table 15: Pipelines with Grade 5 Structural Defects ............................................................................................... 21 Table 16: Pipelines with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 21 Table 17: Pipelines with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 21 Table 18: Pipelines with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 22 Table 19: Pipelines with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 24 Table 20: Pipelines with Grade 5 Maintenance Defects ......................................................................................... 26 Table 21: Pipelines with Grade 4 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity .......................................................... 26 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 3 Table 22: Pipelines with Grade 3 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity .......................................................... 26 Table 23: Pipelines with Grade 2 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity .......................................................... 26 Table 24: Pipelines with Infiltration Defect Observations ....................................................................................... 31 Table 25: Pipelines with Lateral Connections .......................................................................................................... 33 Table 26: Manholes with Grade 5 Structural Defects ............................................................................................. 35 Table 27: Manholes with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity .............................................................. 37 Table 28: Manholes with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity .............................................................. 37 Table 29: Manholes with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity .............................................................. 38 Table 30: Manholes with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity .............................................................. 40 Table 31: Manholes with Grade 5 O&M Defects..................................................................................................... 42 Table 32: Manholes with Grade 3 O&M Defects as Highest Severity ..................................................................... 42 Table 33: Manholes with Grade 2 O&M Defects as Highest Severity ..................................................................... 43 Table 34: Manholes with Grade 1 O&M Defects as Highest Severity ..................................................................... 46 Table 35: Manholes with Infiltration Defect Observations ..................................................................................... 46 Table 36: Buried Manholes ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 37: City GIS and Field Assessment Findings Discrepancies ............................................................................ 48 Table 38: Probability Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines .............................................................................. 53 Table 39: Probability Rating & Criteria for Pipelines Not Inspected ....................................................................... 57 Table 40: Consequence Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines .......................................................................... 58 Table 41: Consequence Rating & Criteria for Pipelines Not Inspected ................................................................... 62 Table 42: Overall Risk Rating by Rank for Inspected Pipelines ................................................................................ 63 Table 43: Overall Risk Rating by Rank for Pipelines Not Inspected ......................................................................... 67 Table 44: Pipeline RRR Alternatives Assignment ..................................................................................................... 78 Table 45: Pipelines with Structural Defects Requiring Immediate Rehabilitation .................................................. 82 Table 46: Pipelines with I&I Defects Requiring Immediate Rehabilitation ............................................................. 82 Table 47: Manhole RRR Alternatives Assignment ................................................................................................... 82 Table 51: Cost Estimate Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 87 Table 52: Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects ..................................................................................... 87 Table 53: Recommended Immediate/Intermediate Projects ................................................................................. 88 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 4 0 Executive Summary This Condition Assessment Report (Report) was prepared by Water Works Engineers (WWE) on behalf of the City of Morgan Hill (City) in an effort to summarize the condition assessment performed, and the resultant recommendation(s), for the JTP sanitary sewer trunk main. After collecting condition assessment data on roughly 61,807 linear feet of trunk main, a review/analysis was performed on the data in conjunction with a capacity analysis based on the City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), October 2017. A Risk Prioritization Methodology was employed for all pipelines to determine their Overall Risk Rating, which is used to determine the recommended path forward for rehabilitating the trunk main. Multiple Repair, Rehabilitation, and Renewal (RRR) alternative methodologies (Section 7) were explored as options to address the trunk main’s varying structural degradation and capacity constraints. In particular, two methodologies were considered as viable for various components of the overall project: Structural Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) Lining (Section 7.1.2.2) and Spray Coating (Section 7.1.2.3). From a constructability standpoint, Microtunneling (Section 7.1.3.3) was considered as a viable alternative for replacement of the existing line but has a significant cost impact when compared with other alternatives. Also from a constructability standpoint, Pipe Bursting (Section 7.1.3.2) was considered as a viable alternative for replacement of the existing line but is considered infeasible due to the structurally degraded portions of the JTP trunk main being reinforced concrete pipe material. By analyzing these alternative methodologies side-by-side with the viable capacity projects from the City’s SSMP, two project bundles/approaches (Section 10) were formed with an emphasis on risk reduction, feasibility/constructability, consistent and accurate cost estimating taking into account identified project constraints, and cost efficiencies. The results of the condition assessment analysis formed the basis for recommending rehabilitation for the reinforced concrete pipe segments along the trunk main. The Overall Risk Rating for each pipeline was determined on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a relatively low risk and 5 being a high risk of failure. A majority of the trunk main pipelines have Overall Risk Ratings of 5 or 4. The following summarizes the number of pipelines that fall under each value for the Overall Risk Rating. Table i: Executive Summary Overall Risk Rating Summary Overall Risk Rating Number of Pipelines 5 57 4 30 3 35 2 38 1 8 Two alternatives were developed and analyzed. These included improvements to address existing and future buildout planning horizon capacity related problems identified in the SSMP(i.e. capacity improvement projects JT- P2 through JT-P9) combined with improvements required to address emergency (0-2 year), immediate (2-5 year) and intermediate (2-15 year) condition deficiencies identified during the project field work. An intermediate project to address significant existing structural deficiencies is recommended be constructed within the next 2- Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 5 years. To address the remainder of the capacity and condition deficiencies, two phasing approaches were analyzed. “All-at-Once” assumed all of the condition deficiencies and existing and future buildout planning horizon capacity deficiencies (i.e. JT-P2 through JT-P9) would be constructed within a 5-year period as a single immediate/intermediate project. “Phased” assumed all of the condition deficiencies and existing and future buildout planning horizon capacity deficiencies (i.e. JT-P2 through JT-P9) would be constructed over a 5 to 15-year period as a multi-phased intermediate project. This approach required additional emergency/immediate improvements (i.e. crown spraying of lines with capacity deficiencies that are being phased). The following summarizes the cost estimate for each by project bundle. Table ii: Executive Summary Project Alternatives Cost Estimate Summary Approach Project Bundle Emergency / Immediate Project Immediate / Intermediate Project Total Project Cost* All-at- Once Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 (Appendix E) $0.84 Million (0-2 years) $32.8 Million (2-5 years) $47.1 Million Phased Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 (Appendix F) $1.1 Million (0-2 years) $28.3 Million (2-5 years) $5.8 Million (5-15 years) $47.8 Million *All presented 2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $100,000, including design and construction contingencies. The recommended project bundle for the JTP trunk main is summarized below. It should be noted that the recommendation for completing the capacity improvement projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 is based on the results of the SSMP. The capacity project’s efficacy should be confirmed through flow monitoring during the design phase to verify the proposed pipe diameters. Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once The “Emergency/Immediate Projects” (0-2 years) include the following: • Structural CIPP lining and/or open cut replacement of the pipelines found to be in need of point repairs (see Appendix G) • Manhole RRR activities (as discussed in Section 9.2) The “Intermediate Projects” (2-5 years) include the following: • Structural CIPP lining of all assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1 and Appendix H) • Capacity Improvement Projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 6 This project bundle assumes the City is able to obtain the necessary funding to perform the various projects within 5 years (exclusive of engineering design and permitting, which is assumed to be 1 year), with anticipated substantial completion of all improvements in 2027. The “Emergency/Immediate Projects” are recommended to be completed by Year 2, with the “Intermediate Projects’ recommended to be completed by Year 5. The Total Construction Cost Opinion for this project bundle is $47.1 Million. However, if the City is unable to take this approach, a “Phased” approach has also been explored in this Report (see Section 10.2). While more expensive overall than the project bundle explained above, this approach allows the City to “space out” the requisite funding over a span of about 15 years. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 7 1 Purpose for Investigation The City aims to complete cyclical condition assessment(s) of its wastewater collection assets by identifying system deficiencies, developing rehabilitation and replacement recommendations to repair those deficiencies, and create a prioritized capital program to construct the improvements. The City’s Joint Trunk Pipeline (JTP) conveys wastewater from a large portion of the City’s collection system infrastructure, and eventually discharges its flow to the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The JTP starts near the intersection of Monterey Rd and California Ave, turning west and then south along Harding Ave, through various agricultural fields in San Martin, through the City of Gilroy, and terminating at the SCRWA WWTP. The goal of the condition assessment project is to inspect the trunk sewer main to determine its physical condition and determine if there are structural and/or maintenance deficiencies that require repair, rehabilitation, replacement and/or O&M enhancements to maintain level of service consistent with City requirements. Once/if pipelines are identified as having structural and/or maintenance deficiencies, they are evaluated to determine the appropriate renewal/maintenance activity to address the issue(s) and lessen the potential risk of failure. Pipeline renewal denotes any activity that is taken to renew or increase the serviceable life of an asset. Pipeline renewal can be accomplished in various ways, including repair (i.e. localized repair of individual defects that affect a small portion of the overall line segment), rehabilitation (i.e. activities that address defects along the entire line segment but leave the host pipe in place), and replacement (i.e. activities that replace the defective line segment with an entirely new pipeline). Maintenance activities aim to improve operation and knowledge of the sewer trunk main and allow the City to better maintain the sewer infrastructure through activities like periodic cleaning. Maintenance activities can encompass various methods such as heavy cleaning (i.e. remove debris/dirt from pertinent line segments), closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection (i.e. CCTV of line segments not completed as part of this project), and adding access (i.e. adding manholes to portions of the alignment to allow for future access). This Report contains a summary of the results of the condition assessment performed and the engineering analysis WWE utilized to determine the preferred methodology for the rehabilitation of the JTP wastewater trunk main. Each pipeline segment is prioritized by need for repair, rehabilitation, and/or replacement (RRR) based on a risk prioritization methodology, which is explained in more detail in Section 2 below. 2 Project Approach/Methodology 2.1 Risk Prioritization Methodology The risk prioritization methodology utilized by WWE produces an Overall Risk Rating for each pipeline segment that can then be used to rank each asset in order of their calculated risk of failure. The Overall Risk Rating is determined using two separate ratings: Probability Rating and Consequence Rating. Figure 1 below shows the Risk Rating Matrix used to determine the Overall Risk Rating. The orange box with a thick black outline denotes a pipeline that has a Probability Rating of 4 and a Consequence Rating of 3, resulting in an Overall Risk Rating of 4 as shown in the legend. In general, pipelines with a high probability of failure represent a higher risk. The risk associated with pipelines that have serious consequences of failure can be mitigated if the probability of failure is low. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 8 Figure 1: Risk Rating Matrix 2.1.1 Probability Rating The Probability Rating is based on three criteria: • Structural Condition Rating • O&M Condition Rating • Pipe Capacity Rating 2.1.1.1 Structural Condition Rating The Structural Condition Rating is based on the structural observations obtained during the CCTV inspections. Each observation (e.g. cracks, fractures, breaks, holes, etc.) is assigned an individual defect grade ranging from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most severe. These structural observations are used to calculate the pipeline’s Total Structural Score. The Total Structural Score for a pipeline is calculated through the summation of three terms, as described below: • The highest structural observation defect grade multiplied by 100. • The sum of the structural observation defect grades. • The average structural observation defect grade per unit length of the pipeline multiplied by 100. The resultant Total Structural Score is then used to determine the pipeline’s Structural Condition Rating, as shown in Table 1 below. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 9 Table 1: Structural/O&M Condition Rating Determination Total Structural/O&M Score Structural/O&M Condition Rating < 150 1 150 – 249.9 2 250 – 349.9 3 350 – 449.9 4 > 450 5 For example, assume a pipeline that is 438.9 feet in length has a high structural observation defect grade of 3. Also assume the sum of its structural observation defect grades is 43. The pipeline’s Total Structural Score would be calculated as follows: • (3 x 100) = 300 • 43 • 100 x (43 / 438.9) = 9.797 o Total Structural Score = 300 + 43 + 9.797 = 352.797 This pipeline’s Total Structural Score would then be rounded up to the nearest whole number (i.e. 353). As Table 1 shows, the pipeline’s Structural Condition Rating would be 4. 2.1.1.2 O&M Condition Rating The O&M Condition Rating is determined exactly the same way as the Structural Condition Rating, except the O&M observation data for the pipeline is used instead. For the same pipeline described above, assume the highest O&M observation defect grade is 2 and the sum of its O&M observation defect grades is 23. The pipeline’s Total O&M Score would be calculated as follows: • (2 x 100) = 200 • 23 • 100 x (23 / 438.9) = 5.24 o Total O&M Score = 200 + 23 + 5.24 = 228.24 This pipeline’s Total O&M Score would then be rounded up to the nearest whole number (i.e. 229). As Table 1 shows, the pipeline’s O&M Condition Rating would be 2. 2.1.1.3 Pipe Capacity Rating The Pipe Capacity Rating is based on the pipeline’s depth-to-diameter (d/D) value during existing peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions. The City’s hydraulic modeling results for the existing peak wet weather flow scenario are utilized for determining each pipeline’s d/D value. A pipeline’s Pipe Capacity Rating is determined according to Table 2 below. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 10 Table 2: Pipe Capacity Rating Determination d/D Value Pipe Capacity Rating < 0.60 1 0.60 – 0.6999 2 0.70 – 0.7499 3 0.75 – 0.90 4 > 0.90 5 Pipelines that are flowing at or near hydraulic capacity are more likely to cause a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) in the case of a total or partial blockage or structural failure. For the same pipeline previously described, assume its d/D value is 0.65 under the “Existing PWWF” modeling scenario. As Table 2 shows, the pipeline’s Pipe Capacity Rating would be 2. 2.1.1.4 Total Probability Score The Total Probability Score for a given pipeline is the summation of the three probability criteria after each criterion has been multiplied by their associated weighting factor. Table 3 below summarizes the weighting factors for all three of the probability criteria. Table 3: Weighting Factors for Probability Criteria Probability Criteria Weighting Factor Structural Condition Rating 5 Pipe Capacity Rating 3 O&M Condition Rating 2 Continuing with the same pipeline from above, its Total Probability Score would be calculated as follows: • (Structural Condition Rating = 4) x (Weighting Factor = 5) = 20 • (Pipe Capacity Rating = 2) x (Weighting Factor = 3) = 6 • (O&M Condition Rating = 2) x (Weighting Factor = 2) = 4 o Total Probability Score = 20 + 6 + 4 = 30 The Total Probability Score is then translated into the Probability Rating according to Table 4 below. Table 4: Probability Rating Determination Total Probability Score Probability Rating 10 – 16 1 17 – 24 2 25 – 32 3 33 – 40 4 41 – 50 5 Therefore, the hypothetical pipeline’s Total Probability Score of 30 translates to a Probability Rating of 3. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 11 2.1.2 Consequence Rating The Consequence Rating is based on four criteria: • Flow Volume Rating • Proximity to Waterways Rating • Public Impact Rating • O&M Access and Safety Rating 2.1.2.1 Flow Volume Rating The Flow Volume Rating is based on the pipeline’s maximum flow volume during current PWWF conditions. Each pipeline’s maximum flow value is taken from the City’s hydraulic modeling results for the “Existing PWWF” scenario. In the absence of model results, the pipeline’s existing diameter will be used instead. The probability of failure (i.e. SSO) is not more likely in a pipeline solely because it conveys more flow volume than another. However, a failure in a pipeline with larger flow volumes will result in more damages, higher cleanup costs, and is more likely to cause Category 1 SSOs. A pipeline’s Flow Volume Rating is determined according to Table 5 below. Table 5: Flow Volume Rating Determination Flow Volume (MGD) Pipe Diameter (in) Flow Volume Rating < 0.25 < 10 1 0.25 – 1.05 10 – 13 2 1.05 – 3.15 14 – 23 3 3.15 – 7.20 24 – 35 4 > 7.20 > 35 5 Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline had a maximum flow volume of 1.75 MGD, its corresponding Flow Volume Rating would be 3. 2.1.2.2 Proximity to Waterways Rating The Proximity to Waterways Rating is based on the distance from the pipeline’s US manhole to drainages (i.e. to storm drain inlets and/or waterways). A major focus of the California State Water Resources Control Board’s General Waste Discharge Requirements is to reduce the occurrence of SSOs, particularly SSOs that affect waterways of the United States. Any sewage spill to a waterway immediately becomes a Category 1 SSO, and is likely to draw fines or other enforcement action for the responsible agency. Therefore, proximity of assets to waterways is another significant factor in the criticality of failure. A pipeline’s Proximity to Waterways Rating is determined according to Table 6 below. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 12 Table 6: Proximity to Waterways Rating Determination Location – Proximity to Waterways Proximity to Waterways Rating US SSMH > 2500 ft to waterway 1 US SSMH > 2500 ft to waterway & < 500 ft to storm drain inlet 2 US SSMH < 2500 ft to waterway 3 US SSMH < 2500 ft to waterway & < 500 ft to storm drain inlet 4 US SSMH < 1000 ft to waterway 5 Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline is less than 2500 feet from the nearest waterway and less than 500 feet from the nearest storm drain inlet, its corresponding Proximity to Waterways Rating would be 4. 2.1.2.3 Public Impact Rating The Public Impact Rating is based on the distance from the pipeline to public areas such as farms, parks, schools, hospitals, and other densely populated locations. A pipeline’s Public Impact Rating is determined according to Table 7 below. Table 7: Public Impact Rating Determination Location – Public Impact Public Impact Rating > 1000 feet from public facilities, limited public traffic, limited economic impact 1 Within 1000 feet of public facilities, moderate public traffic, moderate economic impact 3 Within 100 feet of public facilities, significant public traffic, significant economic impact, high construction cost 5 Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline is within 1000 feet of an elementary school, its corresponding Public Impact Rating would be 3. 2.1.2.4 O&M Access and Safety Rating The O&M Access and Safety Rating is based on the ability to access the pipeline for O&M or repair work as well as the ability for O&M staff or contractors to safely perform the work. A pipeline’s Public Impact Rating is determined according to Table 8 below. Table 8: O&M Access and Safety Rating Determination Location – O&M Access and Safety O&M Access and Safety Rating In roadway, residential street 1 In roadway, arterial roadway 2 Not in roadway, can access with truck 3 Not in roadway, must walk equipment to site 4 Not in roadway, no safe working area, under buildings 5 Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline is in an arterial roadway, its corresponding O&M Access and Safety Rating would be 2. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 13 2.1.2.5 Total Consequence Score The Total Consequence Score for a given pipeline is the summation of the four consequence criteria after each criterion has been multiplied by their associated weighting factor. Table 9 below summarizes the weighting factors for all four of the consequence criteria. Table 9: Weighting Factors for Consequence Criteria Consequence Criteria Weighting Factor Flow Volume Rating 4 Proximity to Waterway Rating 3 Public Impact Rating 2 O&M Access and Safety 1 Continuing with the same pipeline from above, its Total Consequence Score would be calculated as follows: • (Flow Volume Rating = 3) x (Weighting Factor = 4) = 12 • (Proximity to Waterway Rating = 4) x (Weighting Factor = 3) = 12 • (Public Impact Rating = 3) x (Weighting Factor = 2) = 6 • (O&M Access and Safety = 2) x (Weighting Factor = 1) = 2 o Total Consequence Score = 12 + 12 + 6 + 2 = 32 The Total Consequence Score is then translated into the Consequence Rating according to Table 10 below. Table 10: Consequence Rating Determination Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating 10 – 16 1 17 – 24 2 25 – 32 3 33 – 40 4 41 – 50 5 Therefore, the hypothetical pipeline’s Total Consequence Score of 32 translates to a Consequence Rating of 3. This pipeline’s Consequence Rating of 3 and Probability Rating of 3 equates to an Overall Risk Rating of 3 according to Figure 1. The following sections discuss how the aforementioned criteria are collected for their use in the risk prioritization methodology. 2.2 Field Assessment Role in Risk Prioritization During the field assessment of the JTP, data for two of the criteria are collected. The CCTV inspections provide the structural and O&M defect observations that are used to determine the Structural Condition Rating and the O&M Condition Rating of each pipeline. The inspections also provide the diameter of each pipeline, which is used to determine the Flow Volume Rating in the absence of maximum flow volume data from the model results. The procedures of the CCTV inspections are discussed in more detail in Section 3.1 below. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 14 2.3 City Master Plan Role in Risk Prioritization The City’s Sewer System Master Plan contains a capacity assessment that provides the information needed to determine the Pipe Capacity Rating and Flow Volume Rating for the pipelines. Specifically, the model scenario titled “Existing PWWF” was utilized to determine the d/D values needed for the Pipe Capacity Rating and the maximum flow values needed for the Flow Volume Rating. It should be noted that Ultimate Buildout PWWF values contained in the Master Plan are projected to be higher than existing values. However, when assessing an individual pipe’s risk of failure as it pertains to this Report, the pipe’s current conditions are utilized so as to not overestimate the asset’s probability/consequence of failure should future conditions be used. A more detailed discussion of the City’s Master Plan can be found in Section 5 below. 2.4 Location Criteria Forms Role in Risk Prioritization Location Criteria Forms filled out during the field assessment provide the information needed to determine the Proximity to Waterways Rating, Public Impact Rating, and O&M Access and Safety Rating. A more detailed discussion of the Location Criteria Forms can be found in Section 4 below. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 15 3 Summary of Field Assessment 3.1 Investigation Procedures 3.1.1 Pipelines Water Works Engineers (WWE) was retained to coordinate the inspection efforts and conduct the condition assessment of the JTP wastewater trunk main . WWE teamed with Professional Pipe Services (Pro-Pipe), a division of Hoffman Southwest Corporation, to perform the cleaning and CCTV inspection of the identified sewer trunk main. Cleaning and inspection work began on October 12th, 2019 and continued until March 2020, at which time Santa Clara County issued a Shelter in Place Order due to public health concerns regarding COVID-19. While a majority of the pipeline inspection work was completed in this timeframe, the remaining pipeline work was completed in October 2020. Due to the location of the JTP along farmland and roads with regular traffic, as well as higher wastewater flows during the day, virtually all cleaning and inspection work was conducted at night. Various methods of flow control were utilized along the JTP trunk main to provide a larger view of the pipeline segments by lowering water level in the inspected segment. The “plug and release” method was utilized whereby a plug was inserted to completely stop flow while crew members monitored upstream surcharging to ensure no spills occurred. Another method utilized in pipe segments with larger amounts of flow involved inserting “flow- through” plugs, which allow much smaller amounts of wastewater flow to pass through and into the pipe segment being inspected. Cleaning activities were conducted with a Vac-Con Recycler combination sewer cleaner to perform high- velocity/vacuum cleaning (HVVC) of the sewer trunk pipeline segments before CCTV inspections were completed. The Recycler machine allows for the reuse of water in the debris tank for cleaning purposes, leading to reduction in occurrences of tank refilling during working hours and increased efficiency. Cleaning of the sewer trunk pipelines was conducted before inspections to: 1) Increase the probability that the CCTV camera would be able to traverse the pipeline and not be slowed or stopped by debris so a complete inspection could be performed; and 2) Provide the CCTV camera an unobstructed view of the pipeline interior so that structural defects (e.g. cracks, fractures) could be assessed. This method may limit the ability of the assessment to document maintenance related problems (e.g. debris, grease, roots) since pre-cleaning by design has the potential to remove or reduce some of these potential deficiencies. However, assessing the structural condition of the pipeline was prioritized above the maintenance condition for this project because it was assumed that the pipes were more likely to fail due to a structural issue than a blockage since the pipelines were to be cleaned as part of this project. CCTV inspections were conducted using the IBAK Panoramo scanner technology. The IBAK Panoramo 3D Optoscanner incorporates the use of two high-resolution digital cameras in the front and rear sections of the housing, with 185° wide-angle lenses and parallel-mounted xenon flashlights capable of 360° spherical images. The Panoramo system captures 100% of the pipeline interior and is delivered with a virtual 3D reader that enables the reviewer to see the entire pipe interior from any angle. Additionally, the virtual 3D reader provides a flat-view Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 16 component that enables the reviewer to make accurate measurements of features/observations and to more easily assess the changes in observations along the pipeline to identify trends. Hyperlinks to the inspection files were included in an ESRI GIS shapefile of the inspected pipelines so the virtual 3D reader could be opened for a specific pipeline from a map environment for easy access. Observations and defects were collected during the inspection work and coded using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) standards. Version 7.0 of the PACP Reference Manual was used for coding. The intent of the NASSCO PACP is to provide a means to accurately assess underground infrastructure using tools and procedures that can serve as a national standard. A benefit of the NASSCO PACP is it includes a Condition Grading System that provides pipe ratings to quantitatively describe the condition of a pipeline that can be used to compare it to ratings of other pipelines. The PACP Quick Rating uses a four-character alphanumeric score based on the number of defects with the highest severity grade and the number of defects of the next highest severity grade for a given pipeline. Quick Ratings for both structural and maintenance conditions were applied to all of the pipelines inspected as part of this project. Quick Ratings are formulated as follows: 1. The first character is the highest severity grade occurring along the pipe segment. 2. The second character is the total number of occurrences of that highest severity grade. If the total number is greater than 9, then alphabetic characters are assigned as follows: A – 10-14; B – 15-19; C – 20-24; etc. 3. The third character is the next highest severity grade occurring along the pipe segment. 4. The fourth character is the total number of occurrences of the severity grade derived in Step 3 above. This follows the same rules as the character is Step 2. WWE reviewed each pipeline inspected as part of this project, with particular attention to pipelines that had Quick Ratings (Structural and Maintenance) indicating PACP Grade 5 and Grade 4 defects. WWE evaluated potential renewal/maintenance activities for each pipeline so that no pipeline inspected as part of this project will have defect(s) more severe than a Grade 3 once the activities are completed. The findings from the condition assessment and a discussion of the potential renewal/maintenance activities can be found below in Section 3.3.1 and Section 7.1, respectively. 3.1.2 Manholes Manhole inspection work began on March 4th, 2020 and continued until March 18th, 2020. As was the case for the pipeline inspection work, Santa Clara County issued a Shelter in Place Order due to public health concerns regarding COVID-19. Similar to the pipeline work, manhole inspections were conducted at night. CCTV manhole inspections were conducted using the IBAK Panoramo Si 3D Optical Manhole Scanner. The Si captures 100% of the entire manhole cavity for review in a virtual 3D reader, which can be utilized in flat-view for measuring inverts, defects, etc. It also has the capability to be exported as a point cloud into AutoCAD. Hyperlinks to the inspection files were included in an ESRI GIS shapefile of the inspected manholes so the virtual 3D reader could be opened for a specific manhole from a map environment for easy access. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 17 Observations and defects were collected during the inspection work and coded using the NASSCO Manhole Assessment and Certification Program (MACP) standards. Level 2 MACP coding was performed using Version 7.0 of the PACP Reference Manual. Many of the defects found in pipelines are also found in manholes, therefore PACP defect codes are used where applicable for the Level 2 MACP inspections. WWE reviewed each manhole inspected as part of this project, with particular attention to manholes that had Structural Quick Ratings indicating Grade 5 and Grade 4 defects. WWE evaluated potential renewal activities for each manhole so that no manhole inspected as part of this project will have defect(s) more severe than a Grade 3 once the activities are completed. The findings from the condition assessment and a discussion of the potential renewal activities are found below in Section 0 and Section 7.2, respectively. 3.2 Summary of Work Completed 3.2.1 Pipeline Cleaning/Inspection The JTP trunk main consists of approximately 62,006 linear feet of sewer pipe as it pertains to this project. Cleaning was performed on each pipeline prior to commencement of CCTV inspection, which were performed on almost every pipe segment along the trunk main (i.e. 61,807 LF, or 99%, of trunk main was inspected). It is the opinion of the WWE that there is sufficient inspection data to warrant the recommendation of projects to address the deteriorating condition of certain portions of the JTP trunk main. The following CCTV inspections were abandoned due to the stated reasoning provided in Table 11 below. • MH-116_MH-116A: The entirety of this pipeline was able to be inspected by performing a reverse inspection from the opposite direction until the same joint seal was reached. • MH-155_MH_156: As the last pipeline along the trunk main, the water level during the time of inspection was too high for a complete CCTV inspection to be performed. Table 11: Abandoned Inspection Summary Date Pipeline Facility ID US Manhole DS Manhole Cleaning? Reason for Abandonment 12/10/2019 MH-116_MH-116A MH-116 MH-116A YES Joint Seal Blocking Path (reverse setup completed total pipe inspection length) 01/16/2020 MH-155_MH-156 MH-155 MH-156 YES Camera Underwater (missing approximately 163 LF of estimated 263LF of total pipeline length due to excessive water level) Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 18 Table 12 below summarizes the three siphon pipelines (on Wren Ave, north of La Primavera Way) that were not inspected during the field assessment. A brief explanation of why the pipe segments were unable to be inspected is described in Table 12, with a more detailed explanation of what was performed provided below. • Pro-Pipe set up the bypass pumping system, with the intent to install a flow-through plug at MH-90 and connect the bypass pump to the plug in order to reroute the sewage around the siphon pipe segments. Cleaning was then to be performed on both siphon barrels before eventually running the CCTV camera through the barrels in a relatively dry condition. • Pro-Pipe rented a variety of flow-through plugs with the recognition that getting a 24” plug into these relatively small manholes was going to be difficult, especially given the configuration of the siphon inlet. The bypass pump manufacturer recommended that the connection size of the flow-through portion of the plug be 8” in diameter to achieve full capacity, however the 24”/8” flow-through plug was very rigid and the manholes are not big enough to get the plug into the line. Pro-Pipe was able to get a 6” flow- through plug into the line, however the bypass operation was limited by the smaller diameter pipe and the system started to surcharge, thereby not allowing sufficient time to complete the CCTV inspection before Pro-Pipe was forced to remove the plug entirely. • Pro-Pipe was able to clean both the 12” and 18” siphon barrels, and while doing so were able to visually inspect the siphon inlet manhole configuration where the two barrels split. Roughly 85% of the wastewater flow and almost all of the debris was going through the lower 12” barrel, which had significant levels of debris that Pro-Pipe was able to remove with multiple cleaning passes. The 18” barrel inlet is configured at a higher elevation than the 12” barrel, thereby resulting in a lower amount of flow (~15%) and very little debris. Pro-Pipe was able to successfully clean and remove the debris in the 18” barrel. • Pro-Pipe also found during the visual inspection that there was no indication of pipe degradation at the pipe inlets. Refer to Section 11.2 later in this report for WWE’s recommendation(s) regarding the siphon barrel pipe segments. Table 12: Pipelines Not Inspected Pipeline Facility ID US Manhole (USMH) DS Manhole (DSMH) Length (ft)* Reason for No Inspection MH-90_MH-91 MH-90 MH-91 47 Due to the relatively small size of the manhole openings, the flow-through plug with sufficient capacity to allow for CCTV inspection was unable to be installed. The largest flow-through plug that was successfully installed was unable to convey enough bypassed flow, resulting in the upstream system surcharging too quickly to allow for inspection. MH-91_MH-92 MH-91 MH-92 99 MH-92_MH-93 MH-92 MH-93 56 *Total length of pipe segment based on estimated GIS lengths Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 19 3.2.2 Manhole Inspection There are a total of 169 manholes along the JTP trunk main, of which 150 (88.7%) were MACP inspected. Table 13 below summarizes the manholes that were not inspected as part of this project. The reasoning behind the inability to inspect each manhole is also provided. Table 13: Manholes Not MACP Inspected Manhole Facility ID Reason for No MACP Inspection MH-66 Unable to locate MH-71 Unable to safely access in garlic fields without crop damage MH-72 Unable to safely access in garlic fields without crop damage MH-85 Unable to confirm exact manhole MH-91 Intermediate siphon manhole, unable to inspect MH-92 Intermediate siphon manhole, unable to inspect MH-127 Unable to locate under grass/landscaping MH-128 Unable to locate under grass/landscaping MH-137 Unable to locate manhole MH-138 Unable to locate manhole MH-138A Unable to locate manhole, potentially paved over MH-142A Unable to locate manhole, under gravel road MH-142B Unable to locate manhole, under gravel road MH-151 Unable to access locked cover MH-152 Unable to access locked cover MH-153 Unable to access locked cover MH-154 Unable to access locked cover MH-155 Unable to access locked cover MH-156 Unable to access locked cover The manholes listed below in Table 14 seemingly do not exist after the inspection work was completed and reviewed, even though they were initially included in the City’s original system GIS data. A description of the location where each manhole was originally believed to exist is also provided. Table 14: Nonexistent Manholes Nonexistent Manhole Facility ID Original Location Description MH-45 On Harding Ave north of intersection of Highland Ave and Harding Ave MH-49 On Highland Ave west of intersection of Highland Ave and Harding Ave MH-124 Grass Area west of Arroyo Cir near Hometown Buffet (7950 Arroyo Cir, Gilroy, CA 95020) MH-129 Grass area west of Arroyo Cir near Kaiser Medical Center (7520 Arroyo Cir, Gilroy, CA 95020) Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 20 3.3 Summary of Findings This section reviews the findings of the inspection work and subsequent condition assessment. The section is broken down into four further sections. The first section reviews the structural/O&M/construction observations found during the pipeline inspections, while the second section reviews the structural/O&M observations found during the manhole inspections. The third section reviews the manholes that were unable to be found during the inspections and are thought to be buried (i.e. under grass/landscaping, gravel, road, etc.). The fourth section reviews differences along the alignment between the City’s GIS and field assessment findings. 3.3.1 Pipeline Inspection Findings This section provides a summary of the pipeline observations made during the inspection phase. As previously explained in Section 2.1.1, these pipeline observations are used in the risk prioritization methodology. Figures summarizing the Structural Quick Rating and O&M Quick Rating for each pipeline inspected as part of this project are included in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. See Table 38 and Table 39 in Section 6 for the pipelines’ Structural and O&M Condition Ratings. A more detailed view of the pipeline inspections performed and the defect observations found during the field assessment can be found in Appendix I in Section 15.9. 3.3.1.1 Structural Observations The structural defect codes listed in the tables below are the PACP codes applied to the observed structural defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. There may also be continuous stretches of the codes, which will have the linear footage indicated. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. The tables are sorted on the Structural Quick Rating column so the pipelines with the largest count of the highest severity defects are listed in descending order from the top of the table. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other PACP codes. • SMW – Missing Wall (Grade 5) • SRP – Reinforcement Projecting (Grade 5) • SRV – Reinforcement Visible (Grade 4) • SAM – Aggregate Missing (Grade 4) • FM – Fractures, Multiple (Grade 4) • SAP – Aggregate Projecting (Grade 3) • FL – Fracture, Longitudinal (Grade 3) • FS – Fracture, Spiral (Grade 3) • CM – Cracks, Multiple (Grade 3) • JAM – Joint Angular Medium (Grade 3) • CL – Crack Longitudinal (Grade 2) • CS – Crack Spiral (Grade 2) • FC – Fracture Circumferential (Grade 2) • SAV – Aggregate Visible (Grade 2) • SSS – Surface Spalling (Grade 2) • CC – Crack Circumferential (Grade 1) • SRI – Roughness Increased (Grade 1) • SSC – Spalling of Coating (Grade 1) It should be noted that the linear footage provided for the continuous stretches of a defect might be the total sum of multiple continuous stretches along the pipe segment. For example, a single pipe segment may have 2 separate 10-foot stretches of continuous Spiral Fractures (FS) that would be described as having 20 feet of this particular defect. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 21 Table 15 below lists the pipelines along the JTP trunk main that have a Grade 5 structural defect. These pipelines are shown as red pipelines in Appendix B. Table 15: Pipelines with Grade 5 Structural Defects Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-116_MH-116A 544B (1) SMW, (1) SRP, 10 LF of continuous SMW Table 16 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 4 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as orange pipelines in Appendix B. Table 16: Pipelines with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-60_MH-61 4331 16 LF of continuous FM MH-135_MH-136 422R (1) SRV, (1) SAM MH-142B_MH-142C 4138 (1) FM MH-143_MH-144 4132 (1) FM Table 17 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as yellow pipelines in Appendix B. Table 17: Pipelines with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-142F_MH-143 372Z (4) CM, (3) SAP MH-116A_MH-117 372E (1) SAP, 28 LF of continuous SAP MH-147_MH-148 352M (3) SAP, (2) CM MH-139_MH-140 342Z (3) CM, (1) FL MH-142C_MH-142D 342N (4) FL MH-153_MH-154 342L (3) SAP, (1) FL MH-59_MH-60 3411 (4) FL MH-151_MH-152 332Z (2) CM, (1) SAP MH-117_MH-118 332G (3) SAP MH-137_MH-138 332D (1) SAP, 10 LF of continuous SAP MH-142A_MH-142B 332C (2) FL, (1) CM MH-53_MH-54 3321 (1) CM, (1) FL, (1) FS MH-131_MH-132 322Z (2) SAP MH-126_MH-127 322S (2) CM MH-142E_MH-142F 322L (2) CM MH-110_MH-111 322G (1) FL, (1) CM Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 22 Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-146_MH-147 322G (1) CM, (1) SAP MH-145_MH-146 322C (1) FL, (1) SAP MH-7_MH-9 3225 (1) CM, (1) JAM MH-100_MH-101 312O (1) FS MH-152_MH-153 312N (1) SAP MH-97A_MH-98 312L (1) FL MH-112_MH-113 312L (1) CM MH-142D_MH-142E 312L (1) CM MH-88_MH-89 312K (1) FS MH-95_MH-96 312F (1) CM MH-138_MH-138A 312F (1) SAP MH-113_MH-114 312I (1) CM MH-149_MH-150 312B (1) SAP MH-32_MH-33 3127 (1) FL MH-3_MH-5 3126 (1) FS MH-5_MH-7 3126 (1) FS MH-16_MH-18 3126 (1) JAM MH-44_MH-48 3125 (1) FL MH-70_MH-71 3124 (1) FL MH-24_MH-26 3122 (1) CM MH-21_MH-21A 3121 (1) FS MH-61_MH-62 3100 (1) FL Table 18 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as blue pipelines in Appendix B. Table 18: Pipelines with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-140_MH-141 2Z1V (10) CL, (3) SAV, (1) CC, 850 LF of continuous SAV MH-128_MH-130 2Y1U (10) CL, (2) CS, (1) SAV, (1) SSS, 586 LF of continuous SAV MH-150_MH-151 2X1W (7) CL , (2) SAV, 595 LF of continuous SAV MH-107_MH-108 2W1U (2) CL, (1) SAV, 585 LF of continuous SAV MH-125_MH-126 2T1O (5) CL, (1) CS, (1) FC, (1) SAV, 486 LF of continuous SAV MH-106_MH-107 2T13 532 LF of continuous SAV MH-105_MH-106 2S1R (3) CL, (1) FC, (1) SAV, 479 LF of continuous SAV MH-111_MH-112 2R12 490 LF of continuous SAV MH-133_MH-134 2Q1R (2) SAV, 458 LF of continuous SAV Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 23 Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-115_MH-116 2P1P (1) CL, (1) SAV, 416 LF of continuous SAV MH-101_MH-102 2P1D (3) CL, (1) CS, (1) FC, 408 LF of continuous SAV MH-98_MH-99 2O1O (3) SAV, (2) SSS, (2) CS, (2) CL, 363 LF of continuous SAV, 10 LF of continuous SSS MH-134A_MH-135 2N1U (4) SAV, 373 LF of continuous SAV MH-109_MH-110 2M1R (3) SAV, (3) CL, (1) CS, 319 LF of continuous SAV MH-118_MH-119 2M1O (3) SAV, (1) CL, (1) FC, 341 LF of continuous SAV MH-123_MH-125 2M1N (2) CL, (1) SAV, 342 LF of continuous SAV MH-104_MH-105 2L1K (4) CL, (2) SAV, 311 LF of continuous SAV MH-127_MH-128 2K1Z (3) CL, (3) CS, (3) SAV, (1) FC, 248 LF of continuous SAV MH-96_MH-96A 2K1L (2) CL, (1) SSS, 293 LF of continuous SAV MH-89_MH-90 2G1H (2) CL, (2) SAV, (1) CS, 174 LF of continuous SAV MH-103_MH-104 2G1G 217 LF of continuous SAV MH-148_MH-149 2G1F (1) CS, 192 LF of continuous SAV, 24 LF of continuous CL MH-141_MH-142 2D1O (7) CL, (4) SAV, 73 LF of continuous SAV MH-138A_MH-139 2D1I (1) CL, (1) SAV, 113 LF of continuous SAV MH-96A_MH-97 2D1C (2) SSS, 120 LF of continuous SAV MH-122_MH-123 2D16 (8) SAV, (3) CL, (1) FC, 76 LF of continuous SAV MH-94_MH-95 2D00 130 LF of continuous SAV MH-99_MH-100 2D00 (2) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CS, 115 LF of continuous SAV MH-97_MH-97A 2C00 120 LF of continuous SAV MH-102B_MH-103 2B1B 91 LF of continuous SAV MH144_MH-145 2B1A (3) SAV, (2) CL, 54 LF of continuous CL MH-130_MH-131 2A1V (3) SAV, (1) CL, 37 LF of continuous SAV MH-121_MH-122 2A1F (8) SAV, 25 LF of continuous SAV MH-26_MH-27 2A11 (9) CL, (1) CS MH-119_MH-120 2912 (6) SAV, (2) FC, (1) CL MH-33_MH-36 2900 (8) CL, (1) CS MH-108_MH-109 281C (1) CL, (1) SAV, 28 LF of continuous SAV MH-142_MH-142A 281A (1) CL, 33 LF of continuous SAV MH-102_MH-102A 2812 (1) CL, (1) SAV, 28 LF of continuous SAV MH-114_MH-115 261L (3) SAV, (2) CS, (1) CL MH-29_MH-32 2611 (5) CL, (1) CS MH-120_MH-121 251A (3) SAV, (1) CL, (1) FC MH-64_MH-65 2500 (4) CL, (1) CS MH-132_MH-133 241S (3) CL, (1) SAV MH-87_MH-88 2400 (4) CL MH-93_MH-94 2400 (1) FC, 17 LF of continuous SAV Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 24 Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-77_MH-78 2311 (3) CL MH-11_MH-15 2300 (2) CL, (1) FC MH-42_MH-44 2300 (2) CL, (1) CS MH-55_MH-56 2300 (3) CL MH-18_MH-21 2211 (2) CL MH-9_MH-11 2200 (2) CL MH-15_MH-16 2200 (1) CL, (1) CS MH-21A_MH-24 2200 (2) CL MH-27_MH-29 2200 (2) CL MH-38_MH-40 2200 (2) CL MH-56_MH-57 2200 (2) CL MH-71_MH-72 2200 (1) CL, (1) CS MH-102A_MH-102B 211B (1) FC MH-134_MH-134A 211A (1) SAV MH-136_MH-137 211A (1) SAV MH-73_MH-74 2112 (1) CL MH-36_MH-38 2100 (1) SAV MH-40_MH-41 2100 (1) CL MH-34_MH-35 2100 (1) CL MH-39A_MH-43 2100 (1) CL MH-86_MH-87 2100 (1) CL MH-154_MH-155 2100 5 LF of continuous SAV MH-155_MH-156 2100 (1) CL MH-54_MH-55 2100 (1) CL MH-57_MH-58 2100 (1) CL MH-68_MH-69 2100 (1) CL MH-50_MH-51 2100 (1) CL MH-51_MH-52 2100 (1) CL MH-52_MH-53 2100 (1) CL MH-65_MH-66 2100 (1) CL Table 19 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 1 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as cyan pipelines in Appendix B. Table 19: Pipelines with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-80_MH-81 1100 (1) CC MH-63_MH-64 1100 (1) CC Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 25 3.3.1.2 O&M Observations The O&M defect codes listed in the tables below are the PACP codes applied to the observed O&M defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. There may also be continuous stretches of the codes, which will have the linear footage indicated. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other PACP codes. • IGB – Infiltration Gusher, Barrel (Grade 5) • RMB – Roots Medium, Barrel (Grade 4) • IRB – Infiltration Runner, Barrel (Grade 4) • IR – Infiltration Runner (Grade 4) • MCU – Miscellaneous, Camera Underwater (Grade 4) • RMJ – Roots Medium, Joint (Grade 3) • DAGS – Deposits Attached, Grease (1-10%: Grade 2) • DSZ – Deposits Settled, Other (1-10%: Grade 2) • DSF – Deposits Settled, Fine (Grade 2) • DSGV – Deposits Settled, Gravel (Grade 2) • DNF – Deposits Ingress, Fine (Grade 2) • DAE – Deposits Attached, Encrustation (1-10%: Grade 2) • DSC – Deposits Settled, Hard/Compacted (Grade 2) • IW – Infiltration Weeper (Grade 2) • DAR – Deposits Attached, Ragging (Grade 2) • OBS – Obstruction Built Into Structure (Grade 2) • ISSRB – Intruding Sealing Material Sealing Ring Broken (Grade 2) • ISSR – Intruding Sealing Material Sealing Ring (Grade 2) • RFB – Roots Fine, Barrel (Grade 2) • OBR – Obstruction Rocks (Grade 2) • RFJ – Roots Fine, Joint (Grade 1) • IS – Infiltration Stain (Grade N/A) o IS defects are described in the NASSCO PACP Manual as follows: “No moisture present during the inspection but a watermark indicates water has entered in the past.” It should be noted that the linear footage provided for the continuous stretches of a defect might be the total sum of multiple continuous stretches along the pipe segment. For example, a single pipe segment may have 2 separate 10-foot stretches of continuous DAGS defect that would be described as having 20 feet of this particular defect. Table 20 lists the pipeline(s) in the trunk main that has a Grade 5 O&M defect. This pipeline is shown as a red pipeline in Appendix C. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 26 Table 20: Pipelines with Grade 5 Maintenance Defects Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-153_MH-154 512A (1) IGB Table 21 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 4 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as orange pipelines in Appendix C. Table 21: Pipelines with Grade 4 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-145_MH-146 422Z (2) IRB MH-155_MH-156 4200 (2) MCU MH-152_MH-153 412Z (1) IR MH-146_MH-147 412P (1) IRB MH-120_MH-121 412L (1) RMB Table 22 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as yellow pipelines in Appendix C. Table 22: Pipelines with Grade 3 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-121_MH-122 312Z (1) RMJ Table 23 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as blue pipelines in Appendix C. Table 23: Pipelines with Grade 2 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-15_MH-16 2Z1M 781 LF of continuous DAGS MH-32_MH-33 2Z1C 995 LF of continuous DAGS MH-16_MH-18 2Z16 (1) DSZ, 1013 LF of continuous DAGS, 444 LF of continuous DAE MH-19_MH-20 2Z16 (1) DAE, 1027 LF of continuous DAGS MH-118_MH-119 2Z16 (3) ISSRB, (1) IW, 909 LF of continuous DAGS MH-128_MH-130 2Z15 (1) IW, (1) SSS, (1) DAR, 1171 LF of continuous DAGS MH-35_MH-37 2Z15 763 LF of continuous DAGS MH-126_MH-127 2Z13 (7) OBR, (5) DAR, (3) IW, (1) DSZ, 1011 LF of continuous DAGS, 495 LF of continuous DAE Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 27 Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-139_MH-140 2Z13 (1) IW, 1150 LF of continuous DAGS MH-64_MH-65 2Z13 1154 LF of continuous DAGS MH-143_MH-144 2Z13 (6) DAR, 962 LF of continuous DAGS MH-113_MH-114 2Z13 696 LF of continuous DAGS MH-140_MH-141 2Z12 1148 LF of continuous DAGS MH-65_MH-66 2Z12 1144 LF of continuous DAGS MH-25_MH-28 2Z12 1077 LF of continuous DAGS MH-23_MH-25 2Z12 1010 LF of continuous DAGS MH-127_MH-128 2Z12 1009 LF of continuous DAGS MH-131_MH-132 2Z12 (8) ISSRB, (1) ISSR, 957 LF of continuous DAGS MH-86_MH-87 2Z12 990 LF of continuous DAGS MH-33_MH-36 2Z12 (3) IW, 943 LF of continuous DAGS MH-72_MH-73 2Z12 835 LF of continuous DAGS MH-130_MH-131 2Z11 (1) DAR, (1) DSGV, 1180 LF of continuous DAGS MH-122_MH-123 2Z11 1060 LF of continuous DAGS MH-24_MH-26 2Z11 1015 LF of continuous DAGS MH-87_MH-88 2Z11 1014 LF of continuous DAGS MH-105_MH-106 2Z11 1011 LF of continuous DAGS MH-9_MH-11 2Z11 (3) DSGV, 961 LF of continuous DAGS, 22 LF of continuous DSF MH-30_MH-31 2Z11 988 LF of continuous DAGS MH-28_MH-30 2Z11 879 LF of continuous DAGS MH-101_MH-102 2Z11 (1) IW, 840 LF of continuous DAGS MH-141_MH-142 2Z11 804 LF of continuous DAGS MH-123_MH-125 2Z11 783 LF of continuous DAGS MH-100_MH-101 2Z11 (3) DAR, (2) ISSRB, 781 LF of continuous DAGS MH-18_MH-21 2Z00 (1) DSGV, (1) DSF, 1021 LF of continuous DAGS, 881 LF of continuous DAE, 12 LF of continuous DSGV MH-10_MH-12 2Z00 (2) DSZ, 880 LF of continuous DAGS, 439 LF of continuous DSF MH-150_MH-151 2Z00 (23) DAR, 1205 LF of continuous DAGS MH-37_MH-39 2Z00 1205 LF of continuous DAGS MH-151_MH-152 2Z00 (30) DAR, 1199 LF of continuous DAGS MH-107_MH-108 2Z00 1180 LF of continuous DAGS MH-51_MH-52 2Z00 1175 LF of continuous DAGS MH-50_MH-51 2Z00 1163 LF of continuous DAGS Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 28 Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-42_MH-44 2Z00 (2) IW, 1097 LF of continuous DAGS, 40 LF of continuous DSGV MH-134A_MH-135 2Z00 (1) DAR, 1111 LF of continuous DAGS MH-44_MH-48 2Z00 (3) IW, 1102 LF of continuous DAGS MH-26_MH-27 2Z00 1096 LF of continuous DAGS MH-106_MH-107 2Z00 1085 LF of continuous DAGS MH-55_MH-56 2Z00 1068 LF of continuous DAGS MH-61_MH-62 2Z00 1062 LF of continuous DAGS MH-58_MH-59 2Z00 (2) DAR, 1059 LF of continuous DAGS MH-56_MH-57 2Z00 1057 LF of continuous DAGS MH-43_MH-46 2Z00 (1) DAR, 1046 LF of continuous DAGS MH-53_MH-54 2Z00 1045 LF of continuous DAGS MH-39A_MH-43 2Z00 1044 LF of continuous DAGS MH-142F_MH-143 2Z00 (9) DAR, (6) IW, (1) DSGV, 1042 LF of continuous DAGS MH-59_MH-60 2Z00 (2) DAR, 1038 LF of continuous DAGS MH-60_MH-61 2Z00 1036 LF of continuous DAGS MH-57_MH-58 2Z00 1035 LF of continuous DAGS MH-4_MH-6 2Z00 1028 LF of continuous DAGS MH-36_MH-38 2Z00 (1) DSGV, 1005 LF of continuous DAGS, 16 LF of continuous DSGV MH-132_MH-133 2Z00 (1) DAE, (1) DAR, 1019 LF of continuous DAGS MH-17_MH-19 2Z00 1018 LF of continuous DAGS MH-34_MH-35 2Z00 1009 LF of continuous DAGS MH-21_MH-21A 2Z00 499 LF of continuous DAE, 499 LF of continuous DAGS MH-125_MH-126 2Z00 (1) IW, 991 LF of continuous DAGS MH-31_MH-34 2Z00 986 LF of continuous DAGS MH-52_MH-53 2Z00 985 LF of continuous DAGS MH-62_MH-63 2Z00 984 LF of continuous DAGS MH-111_MH-112 2Z00 (1) DAR, 973 LF of continuous DAGS MH-5_MH-7 2Z00 971 LF of continuous DAGS MH-133_MH-134 2Z00 970 LF of continuous DAGS MH-67_MH-68 2Z00 965 LF of continuous DAGS MH-68_MH-69 2Z00 965 LF of continuous DAGS MH-76_MH-77 2Z00 965 LF of continuous DAGS MH-3_MH-5 2Z00 (1) DAR, (1) DSGV, 964 LF of continuous DAGS MH-75_MH-76 2Z00 964 LF of continuous DAGS Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 29 Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-29_MH-32 2Z00 (2) IW, 962 LF of continuous DAGS MH-74_MH-75 2Z00 (1) DAGS, 961 LF of continuous DAGS MH-109_MH-110 2Z00 960 LF of continuous DAGS MH-8_MH-10 2Z00 952 LF of continuous DAGS MH-54_MH-55 2Z00 939 LF of continuous DAGS MH-6_MH-8 2Z00 938 LF of continuous DAGS MH-78_MH-79 2Z00 914 LF of continuous DAGS MH-38_MH-40 2Z00 (1) DAR, 905 LF of continuous DAGS MH-79_MH-80 2Z00 893 LF of continuous DAGS MH-115_MH-116 2Z00 (1) DSZ, (1) ISSRB, 883 LF of continuous DAGS MH-27_MH-29 2Z00 (1) DSC, 881 LF of continuous DAGS MH-83_MH-84 2Z00 873 LF of continuous DAGS MH-84_MH-85 2Z00 868 LF of continuous DAGS MH-82_MH-83 2Z00 863 LF of continuous DAGS MH-77_MH-78 2Z00 862 LF of continuous DAGS MH-73_MH-74 2Z00 855 LF of continuous DAGS MH-71_MH-72 2Z00 839 LF of continuous DAGS MH-70_MH-71 2Z00 837 LF of continuous DAGS MH-80_MH-81 2Z00 823 LF of continuous DAGS MH-48_MH-50 2Z00 810 LF of continuous DAGS MH-85_MH-85A 2Z00 790 LF of continuous DAGS MH-14_MH-17 2Z00 752 LF of continuous DAGS MH-135_MH-136 2Z00 (1) DAR, 750 LF of continuous DAGS MH-98_MH-99 2Z00 (3) DSGV, (1) DAR, (1) DAGS, 742 LF of continuous DAGS MH-112_MH-113 2Z00 (2) DAR, (1) DSZ, 726 LF of continuous DAGS MH-114_MH-115 2Z00 (2) DAR, 666 LF of continuous DAGS MH-138_MH-138A 2Z00 (16) ISSRB, (5) ISSR, 607 LF of continuous DAGS MH-142C_MH-142D 2Y00 664 LF of continuous DAGS MH-88_MH-89 2Y00 663 LF of continuous DAGS MH-104_MH-105 2Y00 652 LF of continuous DAGS MH-97A_MH-98 2X00 (1) IW, (1) DAR, 632 LF of continuous DAGS MH-96_MH-96A 2X00 (4) DAGS, (1) IW, 611 LF of continuous DAGS MH-63_MH-64 2W00 618 LF of continuous DAGS MH-102_MH-102A 2W00 600 LF of continuous DAGS MH-142E_MH-142F 2W00 (8) DAR, (1) RFB, 560 LF of continuous DAGS MH-117_MH-118 2V00 (1) DAR, 595 LF of continuous DAGS MH-81_MH-82 2T00 538 LF of continuous DAGS Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 30 Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-22_MH-23 2S11 505 LF of continuous DAGS MH-21A_MH-24 2S00 (1) DSZ, 514 LF of continuous DAGS MH-20_MH-22 2R12 490 LF of continuous DAGS MH-142B_MH-142C 2Q11 (3) DAR, 442 LF of continuous DAGS MH-89_MH-90 2Q00 464 LF of continuous DAGS MH-138A_MH-139 2Q00 (1) DAR, 445 LF of continuous DAGS MH-103_MH-104 2Q00 (4) IW, 434 LF of continuous DAGS MH-147_MH-148 2Q00 (14) DAR, 393 LF of continuous DAGS MH-110_MH-111 2P00 (3) ISSRB, 407 LF of continuous DAGS MH-95_MH-96 2O00 (2) DAGS, 410 LF of continuous DAGS MH-116_MH-116A 2O00 (3) ISSR, (3) ISSRB, (3) DAR, (1) DAGS, 352 LF of continuous DAGS MH-148_MH-149 2O00 (2) DAR, 385 LF of continuous DAGS MH-119_MH-120 2N00 (1) RFB, 393 LF of continuous DAGS MH-66_MH-67 2N00 386 LF of continuous DAGS MH-69_MH-70 2N00 385 LF of continuous DAGS MH-137_MH-138 2L00 (1) DSZ, 328 LF of continuous DAGS MH-116A_MH-117 2K00 (2) DAR, (3) ISSRB, (1) ISSR, 289 LF of continuous DAGS MH-142D_MH-142E 2K00 (3) DAR, 295 LF of continuous DAGS MH-94_MH-95 2I00 (1) DAGS, 259 LF of continuous DAGS MH-96A_MH-97 2I00 250 LF of continuous DAGS MH-99_MH-100 2I00 (2) DAGS, 235 LF of continuous DAGS MH-11_MH-15 2I00 (3) DSGV, (1) DSZ, (1) DNF, 232 LF of continuous DAGS MH-108_MH-109 2H11 237 LF of continuous DAGS MH-7_MH-9 2H00 (1) DSZ, 139 LF of continuous DAGS, 101 LF of continuous DSF MH-97_MH-97A 2H00 (1) IW, 239 LF of continuous DAGS MH-142A_MH-142B 2H00 236 LF of continuous DAGS MH-39_MH-39A 2F00 188 LF of continuous DAGS MH-102B_MH-103 2F00 187 LF of continuous DAGS MH-149_MH-150 2F00 (5) DAR, 149 LF of continuous DAGS MH-13_MH-14 2D00 144 LF of continuous DAGS MH-102A_MH-102B 2D00 (1) DAR, 129 LF of continuous DAGS MH-134_MH-134A 2C11 98 LF of continuous DAGS MH-144_MH-145 2C00 113 LF of continuous DAGS MH-142_MH-142A 2C00 (1) DAR, 109 LF of continuous DAGS MH-136_MH-137 2C00 108 LF of continuous DAGS MH-85A_MH-85B 2A00 66 LF of continuous DAGS Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 31 Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-2_MH-4 2A00 64 LF of continuous DAGS MH-46_MH-47 2800 43 LF of continuous DAGS MH-93_MH-94 2600 34 LF of continuous DAGS MH-12_MH-13 2600 26 LF of continuous DAGS MH-85B_MH-86 2200 14 LF of continuous DAGS MH-1_MH-3 2100 (1) DSGV MH-47_MH-48 2100 (1) DAGS MH-41_MH-42 2100 (1) OBS (flow meter) Table 24 lists the pipelines that have infiltration PACP defects. Looking at this data, the four pipelines with an infiltration and inflow (I&I) defect of severity grade 4 or 5 warrant consideration for rehabilitation to address the defect. Refer to Section 9.1 for the recommended rehabilitation activity for these defects. Besides these 4 pipelines, there does not seem to be evidence of widespread or significant I&I defects along the trunkline. A majority of the defects are “IS – Infiltration Stain”, which do not indicate an immediate risk for I&I flow entry to the collection system. “IS” defects are described in the NASSCO PACP Manual as follows: “No moisture present during the inspection but a watermark indicates water has entered in the past.” Table 24: Pipelines with Infiltration Defect Observations Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Infiltration PACP Observation(s) MH-153_MH-154 512A (1) IGB MH-145_MH-146 422Z (2) IRB MH-146_MH-147 412P (1) IRB MH-152_MH-153 412Z (1) IR MH-142F_MH-143 2Z00 (6) IW MH-103_MH-104 2Q00 (4) IW MH-33_MH-36 2Z12 (3) IW, (2) IS MH-126_MH-127 2Z13 (3) IW, (2) IS MH-44_MH-48 2Z00 (3) IW MH-29_MH-32 2Z00 (2) IW MH-42_MH-44 2Z00 (2) IW MH-118_MH-119 2Z16 (1) IW, (6) IS MH-128_MH-130 2Z15 (1) IW, (5) IS MH-139_MH-140 2Z13 (1) IW, (3) IS MH-101_MH-102 2Z11 (1) IW, (1) IS MH-96_MH-96A 2X00 (1) IW MH-97_MH-97A 2H00 (1) IW MH-97A_MH-98 2X00 (1) IW MH-125_MH-126 2Z00 (1) IW Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 32 MH-32_MH-33 2Z1C (3) IS, 106 LF of continuous IS MH-19_MH-20 2Z16 (6) IS MH-35_MH-37 2Z15 (5) IS MH-16_MH-18 2Z16 (4) IS MH-15_MH-16 2Z1M (3) IS MH-113_MH-114 2Z13 (3) IS MH-20_MH-22 2R12 (2) IS MH-23_MH-25 2Z12 (2) IS MH-25_MH-28 2Z12 (2) IS MH-127_MH-128 2Z12 (2) IS MH-131_MH-132 2Z12 (2) IS MH-140_MH-141 2Z12 (2) IS MH-22_MH-23 2S11 (1) IS MH-24_MH-26 2Z11 (1) IS MH-28_MH-30 2Z11 (1) IS MH-30_MH-31 2Z11 (1) IS MH-100_MH-101 2Z11 (1) IS MH-108_MH-109 2H11 (1) IS MH-121_MH-122 312Z (1) IS MH-122_MH-123 2Z11 (1) IS MH-123_MH-125 2Z11 (1) IS MH-130_MH-131 2Z11 (1) IS MH-134_MH-134A 2C11 (1) IS MH-141_MH-142 2Z11 (1) IS 3.3.1.3 Pipelines with Lateral Connections A total of thirty-four (34) lateral, or “tap”, connections across sixteen (16) different pipelines were observed during the CCTV inspections. The PACP codes used to make the observations for the lateral connections, and their associated NASSCO descriptions, are provided below. Table 25 lists the pipelines that were observed to have lateral connections, along with pertinent information regarding the connections themselves. • TF – Factory Made Tap Connection o The tap connection appears to be a “purpose-made or pre-formed pipe fitting that was built into the sewer during construction.” • TFA – Active Factory Made Tap Connection o The tap connection appears to be a “purpose-made or pre-formed pipe fitting that was built into the sewer during construction.” The tap connection is considered active if it was obviously contributing flow to the pipeline during the inspection. However, use of another PACP code denoting a tap connection does not mean that the connection is not active. It simply means that while the CCTV camera was inspecting the tap connection, no activity was observed. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 33 • TB – Break-in/Hammer Tap Connection o The tap connection appears to be a rough hole that “has been made in the wall of the sewer main with a lateral pipe inserted into it without the use of a fitting for connecting and sealing the lateral pipe.” • TBA – Active Break-in/Hammer Tap Connection o The tap connection appears to be a rough hole that “has been made in the wall of the sewer main with a lateral pipe inserted into it without the use of a fitting for connecting and sealing the lateral pipe.” The tap connection is considered active if it was obviously contributing flow to the pipeline during the inspection. However, use of another PACP code denoting a tap connection does not mean that the connection is not active. It simply means that while the CCTV camera was inspecting the tap connection, no activity was observed. • TS – Saddle Tap Connection o The tap connection appears to be “a special fitting used to connect and seal the lateral pipe to the inside or outside wall of the sewer main, typically found on lateral connections that have been made after the sewer main was installed, or on installed pipelines that will not accommodate a factory made tap.” • TSA – Active Saddle Tap Connection o The tap connection appears to be “a special fitting used to connect and seal the lateral pipe to the inside or outside wall of the sewer main, typically found on lateral connections that have been made after the sewer main was installed, or on installed pipelines that will not accommodate a factory made tap.” The tap connection is considered active if it was obviously contributing flow to the pipeline during the inspection. However, use of another PACP code denoting a tap connection does not mean that the connection is not active. It simply means that while the CCTV camera was inspecting the tap connection, no activity was observed. Table 25: Pipelines with Lateral Connections Pipeline Facility ID PACP Observation Lateral Diameter (in) Clock Position Distance from USMH (ft) MH-94_MH-95 TS 4 2 122.9 MH-95_MH-96 TS 4 1 168.7 TS 4 9 139.4 TS 4 2 138.9 TS 4 2 48.6 MH-96_MH-96A TB 4 2 5.5 TB 4 10 48.4 TB 4 3 51.5 TB 4 3 59.1 TB 4 11 79.9 TB 4 3 113.7 TB 4 10 171.1 TB 4 3 191.3 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 34 TB 4 3 280.4 MH-96A_MH-97 TB 4 2 27.2 TB 4 10 74.5 MH-97_MH-97A TB 4 10 39.9 MH-97A_MH-98 TB 4 3 144.2 TB 4 3 192.1 TB 4 2 269.4 TB 4 2 313 MH-98_MH-99 TB 4 2 75.1 TB 4 2 120.2 TB 4 1 199.4 MH-100_MH-101 TBA 10 9 31.5 MH-106_MH-107 TSA 4 12 26.3 MH-111_MH-112 TB 6 2 100.9 MH-114_MH-115 TFA 6 9 2.1 MH-134A_MH-135 TF 8 1 272.1 MH-152_MH-153 TS 8 11 383.4 TS 8 11 315.7 MH-59_MH-60 TB 6 11 233.9 MH-60_MH-61 TF 6 11 126.1 MH-62_MH-63 TBA 6 2 476.9 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 35 3.3.2 Manhole Inspection Findings 3.3.2.1 Structural Observations The structural defect codes listed in the tables below are the MACP codes applied to the observed structural defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. There may also be continuous stretches of the codes, which will have the linear footage indicated. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. The tables are sorted on the Structural Quick Rating column so the manholes with the largest count of the highest severity defects are listed in descending order from the top of the table. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other MACP codes. • SMW – Missing Wall (Grade 5) • HVV – Hole Void Visible (Grade 5) • JOL – Joint Offset Large (Grade 5) • SRV – Reinforcement Visible (Grade 5) • Frame Offset Distance o >4”: Grade 5 o 1”-4”: Grade 3 o <1”: Grade 1 • Cover/Frame Fit (Oversized): Grade 5 • SAM – Aggregate Missing (Grade 4) • Cover Condition o Corroded: Grade 4 o Sound: Grade 1 • Frame Seal Condition o Cracked/Loose: Grade 4 o Missing: Grade 3 o Sound: Grade 1 • CM – Crack Multiple (Grade 3) • FL – Fracture Longitudinal (Grade 3) • SAP – Aggregate Projecting (Grade 3) • LFW – Lining Feature Wrinkled (Grade 2) • CC – Crack Circumferential (Grade 2) • CL – Crack Longitudinal (Grade 2) • CS – Crack Spiral (Grade 2) • MMS – Missing Mortar Small (Grade 2) • SAV – Aggregate Visible (Grade 2) • SRI – Roughness Increased (Grade 1) • Adjustment Ring Condition (Sound): Grade 1 • Frame Condition (Sound): Grade 1 Table 26 below lists the manholes along the trunk main that have a Grade 5 structural defect. Table 26: Manholes with Grade 5 Structural Defects Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-123 5341 (3) SRV MH-130 5341 (3) SRV MH-75 5331 (2) SRV, (1) SMW MH-79 5241 (1) JOL, Frame Offset Distance = 7” MH-29 5231 (2) SRV MH-41 5231 (2) SRV MH-87 5231 (2) SRV Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 36 Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-147 5226 (2) SRV MH-146 5224 (2) SRV MH-68 5223 (1) HVV, Cover/Frame Oversized MH-120 5222 (1) SRV, Cover/Frame Oversized MH-55 5141 (1) SRV MH-70 5141 (1) SRV MH-99 5132 (1) SRV MH-32 5131 (1) SMW MH-122 5131 (1) SRV MH-97A 5131 (1) SRV MH-102A 5131 (1) SRV MH-109 5129 (1) SRV MH-150 5128 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-139 5128 (1) SRV MH-90 5127 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-64 5127 (1) SRV MH-102B 5127 (1) SRV MH-94 5127 (1) SMW MH-148 5126 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-101 5126 (1) SRV MH-81 5125 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-60 5125 (1) SRV MH-144 5125 (1) SRV MH-126 5124 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-16 5124 (1) SMW MH-93 5124 (1) SRV MH-36 5124 (1) SMW MH-15 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-119 5121 (1) SRV The particular JOL defect found for MH-79 was found to be so severe that WWE/Pro-Pipe decided that immediate attention was deserved from the City. Subsequently, the City’s repair crew promptly went out on June 18th, 2020 and performed a point repair on the JOL defect. Therefore, this report will not recommend a corrective action for this particular defect. Table 27 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 4 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 37 Table 27: Manholes with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-4 4324 (3) SAM MH-149 4131 (1) SAM MH-78 4131 Seal Condition Loose MH-21A 4131 Cover Condition Corroded MH-131 412B Seal Condition Loose MH-52 412A Seal Condition Loose MH-54 412A Seal Condition Loose MH-56 412A Seal Condition Loose MH-74 412A Seal Condition Loose MH-57 4129 Seal Condition Loose MH-96 4129 Seal Condition Cracked MH-73 4129 Seal Condition Loose MH-53 4128 Seal Condition Loose MH-51 4127 Seal Condition Loose MH-58 4127 Seal Condition Loose MH-59 4127 Seal Condition Loose MH-100 4127 Seal Condition Cracked/Loose MH-80 4127 Seal Condition Loose MH-69 4126 Seal Condition Loose MH-18 4124 Seal Condition Cracked MH-135 4124 Cover Condition Corroded MH-33 4122 Seal Condition Cracked MH-31 4121 (1) SAM Table 28 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. Table 28: Manholes with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-24 3222 (1) CM, (1) SAP MH-5 312A (1) CM MH-98 312A (1) FL MH-83 3128 Seal Condition Missing MH-121 3128 (1) CM MH-105 3128 (1) CM MH-61 3126 (1) CM MH-7 3125 (1) FL MH-125 3124 Frame Offset Distance = 2” Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 38 Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-84 3123 (1) CM MH-97 3123 (1) CM MH-6 3122 (1) CM MH-86B 3122 (1) CM MH-22 3121 (1) CM MH-96A 3121 (1) CM Table 29 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. Table 29: Manholes with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-133 2A15 (6) CL, (4) SAV MH-108 2A15 (6) SAV, (4) CL MH-134 2A15 (6) SAV, (4) CL, (2) CC, (1) MMS MH-67 2A14 (7) CL, (6) SAV MH-136 2A14 (7) SAV, (3) CL MH-76 2A14 (5) CL, (5) SAV MH-116 2A14 (6) SAV, (5) CL MH-27 2914 (5) SAV, (3) CL, (1) CC MH-107 2914 (6) SAV, (3) CL MH-142D 2814 (4) SAV, (2) CC, (1) CL, (1) CS MH-88 2814 (3) CL, (3) SAV, (2) CC MH-110 2814 (5) SAV, (2) MMS, (1) CL MH-114 2814 (5) SAV, (2) CL, (1) CC MH-117 2814 (4) SAV, (2) CL, (2) CC MH-142 2715 (5) SAV, (1) CC, (1) CL MH-143 2715 (5) SAV, (2) CL MH-118 2715 (6) SAV, (1) CL MH-145 2715 (5) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CC MH-14 2714 (6) SAV, (1) CC MH-116A 2714 (7) SAV MH-102 2714 (4) SAV, (2) CL (1) CC MH-63 2714 (4) SAV, (2) CL, (1) MMS MH-13 2714 (5) SAV, (2) CL MH-106 2714 (5) SAV, (2) CL MH-115 2714 (5) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CC MH-112 2615 (5) SAV, (1) CL MH-82 2615 (3) SAV, (3) CL Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 39 Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-103 2614 (4) CL, (2) SAV MH-11 2614 (5) SAV, (1) CC MH-9 2614 (5) SAV, (1) CC MH-77 2614 (4) SAV, (2) CL MH-111 2614 (4) SAV, (2) CL MH-8 2614 (3) SAV, (3) CC MH-132 2614 (4) SAV, (2) CL MH-3 2516 (5) SAV MH-17 2515 (2) SAV, (1) MMS, (1) CL, (1) CC MH-1 2515 (4) SAV, (1) CL MH-140 2515 (4) SAV, (1) CC MH-62 2515 (5) SAV MH-113 2514 (3) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CC MH-141 2514 (4) SAV, (1) CL MH-142F 2514 (4) SAV, (1) CC MH-134A 2416 (3) SAV, (1) CC MH-19 2415 (2) SAV, (2) CC MH-142E 2414 (4) SAV MH-12 2414 (3) SAV, (1) CC MH-2 2414 (4) SAV MH-104 2414 (1) CC, (1) CL, (1) MMS, (1) SAV MH-65 2315 (2) SAV, (1) CL MH-95 2315 (2) CC, (1) SAV MH-42 2314 (2) CC, (1) SAV MH-21 2314 (3) SAV MH-44 2314 (3) SAV MH-26 2314 (3) SAV MH-38 2314 (2) CL, (1) SAV MH-86 2314 (2) MMS, (1) CL MH-40 2314 (2) CC, (1) LFW MH-10 2218 (1) CL, (1) CC MH-85A 2215 (2) SAV MH-142C 2215 (1) SAV, (1) CC MH-46 2215 (2) CC MH-89 2215 (2) SAV MH-28 2214 (1) CL, (1) SAV MH-30 2214 (1) SAV, (1) CC MH-34 2214 (1) SAV, (1) CC MH-35 2214 (1) CL, (1) CC Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 40 Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-47 2214 (2) CC MH-25 2115 (1) CC MH-20 2114 (1) CC MH-48 2114 (1) CC MH-39 2114 (1) SAV MH-43 2114 (1) CC MH-50 2114 (1) SAV Table 30 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 1 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. Table 30: Manholes with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-39A 1500 Cover Condition Sound, Adjustment Ring Condition Sound, Frame Condition Sound, Seal Condition Sound, Frame Offset Distance = 0”, MH-23 1400 Cover Condition Sound, Frame Condition Sound, Seal Condition Sound, Frame Offset Distance = 0” MH-37 1400 Cover Condition Sound, Frame Condition Sound, Seal Condition Sound, Frame Offset Distance = 0” Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 41 3.3.2.2 O&M Observations The O&M defect codes listed in the tables below are the PACP codes applied to the observed O&M defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other PACP codes. • OBI – Obstruction Intruding Through Wall (Grade 5) • Cover/Frame Fit o Oversized: Grade 5 o Good: Grade 1 • Frame Seal Condition o Cracked/Loose/Offset/Missing: Grade 3 o Sound: Grade 1 • Pipe Connection Condition o Defective: Grade 3 o Sound: Grade 1 • Frame Seal Inflow o Stained: Grade 2 o None: Grade 1 • OBS – Obstruction Built into Structure o Chimney/Cone & Wall (30-100%): Grade 2 • RFB – Roots Fine Barrel o Channel: Grade 2 o Chimney/Cone & Wall/Bench: Grade 1 • DAR – Deposits Attached, Ragging o Chimney/Cone & Wall: Grade 1 o Bench (<30%): Grade 1 o Channel (1-10%): Grade 1 • DSC – Deposits Settled Hard/Compacted o Bench (<30%): Grade 1 • DSF – Deposits Settled, Fine silt/sand o Bench (<30%): Grade 1 • DSGV – Deposits Settled Gravel o Bench (<30%): Grade 1 • DSZ – Deposits Settled, Other o Bench (<30%): Grade 1 • IS – Infiltration Stain (Grade 1) • ISJ – Infiltration Stain Joint (Grade 1) • ISZ – Intruding Sealing Material Other (Grade 1) • OBN – Obstruction Construction Debris Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 42 o Bench (<30%): Grade 1 • OBP – Obstruction External Pipe or Cable o Chimney/Cone & Wall (<30%): Grade 1 • RFC – Roots Fine Connection (Grade 1) • RFJ – Roots Fine Joint (Grade 1) • RMB – Roots Medium Barrel o Chimney: Grade 1 • RMC – Roots Medium Connection o Wall: Grade 1 • RMJ – Roots Medium Joint o Cone & Wall: Grade 1 • Cover Insert Condition (Sound): Grade 1 • Frame Condition (Sound): Grade 1 • Chimney I/I (None): Grade 1 Table 31 below lists the manholes in the JTP trunk main that have a Grade 5 O&M defect. Table 31: Manholes with Grade 5 O&M Defects Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-68 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-120 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-32 5121 (1) OBI MH-150 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-90 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-148 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-81 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-126 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-15 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized MH-119 5121 (1) OBI MH-149 5121 (1) OBI MH-133 5121 (1) OBI MH-28 5121 (1) OBI Table 32 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. Table 32: Manholes with Grade 3 O&M Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-18 3122 Seal Condition Cracked MH-123 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-130 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-79 3121 Seal Condition Loose/Offset Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 43 Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-55 3121 Seal Condition Cracked/Loose MH-70 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-122 3121 Pipe #4 Condition Defective (Root Intrusion) MH-78 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-131 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-52 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-54 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-56 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-74 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-57 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-96 3121 Seal Condition Cracked MH-73 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-53 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-51 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-58 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-59 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-100 3121 Seal Condition Cracked/Loose MH-80 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-69 3121 Seal Condition Loose MH-33 3121 Seal Condition Cracked MH-83 3121 Seal Condition Missing MH-14 3121 Pipe #2 Condition Defective (Blocked) MH-116A 3121 Pipe #3 Condition Defective (Protruding) Table 33 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. Table 33: Manholes with Grade 2 O&M Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-42 2215 (1) OBS, Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-39A 2215 (1) OBS, Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-21A 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-134A 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-65 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-21 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-16 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-93 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-24 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-17 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 44 Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-113 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-142E 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-44 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-64 2118 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-102B 2118 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-103 2118 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-29 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-60 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-144 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-5 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-84 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-22 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-27 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-142 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-143 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-11 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-1 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-140 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-26 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-75 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-41 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-147 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-146 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-97A 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-94 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-36 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-31 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-121 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-7 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-96A 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-67 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-136 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-142D 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-118 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-102 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-112 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-9 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-141 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-142F 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 45 Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-19 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-12 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-38 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-86 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-85A 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-30 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-34 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-35 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-47 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-25 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-20 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-48 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-23 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-99 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-102A 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-4 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-98 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-125 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-6 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-86B 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-88 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-145 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-63 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-82 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-77 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-111 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-62 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-2 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-95 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-40 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-10 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-142C 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-39 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-43 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-50 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-37 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-87 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-109 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-139 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 46 Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-101 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-135 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-105 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-61 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-97 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-108 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-134 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-76 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-116 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-107 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-110 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-114 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-117 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-13 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-106 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-115 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-8 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-132 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-104 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-46 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained MH-89 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained Table 34 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 1 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. Table 34: Manholes with Grade 1 O&M Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-3 1700 Cover/Frame Fit Good, Cover Insert Condition Sound, Frame Condition Sound, Seal Condition Sound, Frame Seal Inflow None, Chimney I/I None, Pipe Connection Condition(s) Sound Table 35 lists the manholes that have infiltration MACP defects. Looking at this data, there does not seem to be evidence of potentially significant infiltration and inflow (I&I). Table 35: Manholes with Infiltration Defect Observations Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Infiltration PACP Observation(s) MH-21A 1500 (3) IS MH-93 1400 (1) IS Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 47 Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Infiltration PACP Observation(s) MH-16 1300 (1) IS MH-17 1300 (3) ISJ MH-143 1300 (2) IS MH-12 1200 (1) IS MH-14 1200 (2) IS MH-84 1200 (2) IS MH-118 1200 (2) IS MH-142D 1200 (1) IS MH-144 1200 (1) IS MH-146 1200 (1) IS MH-111 1100 (1) IS MH-102 1100 (1) IS 3.3.3 Buried Manholes During the field assessment, there were found to be multiple instances along the JTP trunkline where the manhole was unable to be found and is assumed to be buried. Table 36 below lists the manholes that are believed to be buried, along with a description of their estimated locations. Table 36: Buried Manholes Manhole Facility ID Pipeline Diameter (in) Location Description MH-66 24” South of Fitzgerald Ave, located in a ditch that straddles the property line between the residential homes to the west and the farmland to the east MH-127 36” Located underneath the grass/landscaping on the western side of Arroyo Circle, near 7700 Arroyo Circle, Gilroy, CA 95020 MH-128 36” Located underneath the grass/landscaping on the western side of Arroyo Circle, near 7520 Arroyo Circle, Gilroy, CA 95020 MH-137 36” Located on the southern side of Renz Lane, west of 850 Renz Lane, Gilroy, CA 95020 MH-138 36” Located underneath the grass/landscaping south of Renz Lane/MH-137, west of 850 Renz Lane and north of SR-152 MH-138A 36” Located underneath parking lot pavement of the Gilroy Crossing shopping mall, near southwest corner of Mimi’s Café at 6935 Camino Arroyo, Gilroy, CA 95020 MH-142A 36” Located underneath gravel/dirt road, south of Holloway Road MH-142B 36” Located underneath gravel/dirt road, south of Holloway Road and MH-142A Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 48 3.3.4 Differences between City GIS and Field Assessment Findings During the field assessment, discrepancies between the City’s wastewater collection system configuration in GIS and WWE’s field assessment findings were found. Table 37 below lists the differences for the associated assets. Table 37: City GIS and Field Assessment Findings Discrepancies Asset Facility ID Discrepancy Description MH-45; MH-44_MH-48 MH-45 does not exist; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH- 44_MH-48 was created MH-49; MH-48_MH-50 MH-49 does not exist; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH- 48_MH-50 was created MH-124; MH-123_MH-125 MH-124 does not exist; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH- 123_MH-125 was created MH-129; MH-128_MH-130 MH-129 does not exist; pipeline is split into two separate pipelines in City GIS due to MH-129; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH- 128_MH-130 was created MH-21A; MH-39A; MH-85A; MH-85B; MH-96A; MH-97A; MH-102A; MH-102B; MH-116A; MH-134A; MH-138A; MH-142A; MH-142B; MH-142C; MH-142D; MH-142E; MH-142F Manholes not in City GIS MH-21_MH-21A; MH-21A_MH-24; MH-39_MH-39A; MH-39A_MH-43; MH-85_MH-85A; MH-85A_MH-85B; MH-85B_MH-86; MH-96_MH-96A; MH-96A_MH-97; MH-97_MH-97A; MH-97A_MH-98; MH-102_MH-102A; MH-102A_MH-102B; Pipelines not in City GIS that were created based on the new manholes found and described in the row above Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 49 Asset Facility ID Discrepancy Description MH-102B_MH-103; MH-116_MH-116A; MH-116A_MH-117; MH-134_MH-134A; MH-134A_MH-135; MH-138_MH-138A; MH-138A_MH-139; MH-142_MH-142A; MH-142A_MH-142B; MH-142B_MH-142C; MH-142C_MH-142D; MH-142D_MH-142E; MH-142E_MH-142F; MH-99 Manhole actually located about 128 feet south of City GIS location MH-100 Manhole actually located about 37 feet southwest of City GIS location MH-106 Manhole actually located about 75 feet southeast of City GIS location MH-110 Manhole actually located about 46 feet southeast of City GIS location Pipelines/manholes from MH-119 to MH-128 Manhole locations, and by extension pipe lengths/locations, differ significantly from original City GIS data Pipelines from MH-142 to MH-152 Manhole locations, and by extension lengths/locations/alignments, differ from original City GIS data Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 50 4 Summary of Manhole Location Criteria Forms Manhole Location Criteria Forms were completed for manholes along the JTP trunkline. The forms include space for a sketch of the area surrounding the manhole under inspection. The sketches typically include any surrounding streets, other known utilities, and/or buildings of importance. The likely drainage path of an SSO emanating from the manhole to the nearest storm drain inlet or waterway was drawn when identifiable. The bottom half of the form is comprised of three location descriptions of the manhole. These three location descriptions are the Proximity to Waterways Rating, Public Impact Rating, and O&M Access and Safety Rating previously described in Section 2.1.2. When determining a pipeline’s Consequence Rating, the US manhole’s three location criteria ratings are used. See Table 40 in Section 6 for the ratings for the trunk main pipelines. 5 Summary of City Master Plan In October of 2017, Akel Engineering Group (AKEL) completed the Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP) for the City, which included a capacity assessment of the City’s wastewater collection system and the JTP trunk main. In this section, WWE has summarized the pertinent capacity improvement(s) recommended by AKEL. How the capacity improvement(s) help to direct and prioritize the recommended RRR alternative proposed in this Report is discussed in more detail in Section 9.1 and Section 10. This section also includes discussion on the model results data used for determining the Pipe Capacity Rating and the Flow Volume Rating for the pipelines. 5.1 Capital Improvement Projects AKEL’s modeling approach to criterion for assessing capacity performance of existing pipes allowed for depth to diameter (d/D) ratios up to 90 percent, even though the City’s maximum d/D ratio for newly designed pipes is 0.7. WWE generally agrees with this stance, in that “the criterion for existing pipes is relaxed in order to maximize the use of the existing pipes before costly pipe improvements are required.” AKEL recommended a total of nine (9) improvement projects pertaining to the JTP trunk main, all but one of which consists of constructing a new relief trunk. The improvement project titled JT-P1 is an upsizing replacement of an existing section of the JTP from 21” to 30”, which appears to have already been constructed (i.e. pipe segment MH-48_MH-50, located on Highland Avenue from Harding Avenue and then west along JTP trunk main for about 400 linear feet). Figure 2 below is an excerpt of Table 7.1 from AKEL’s SSMP, which shows brief descriptions of the improvements JT-P2 through JT-P9. Figure 2: Excerpt of Table 7.1 from AKEL SSMP Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 51 Figure 3 below is an excerpt of Figure 7.4 from the AKEL SSMP, which shows the locations of the proposed improvement projects (i.e. JT-P2 through JT-P9). Figure 3: Excerpt of Figure 7.4 from AKEL SSMP The JTP improvement projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 make up a large portion of the Joint Relief Trunk that was initially identified in the City’s 2002 Master Plan, and its necessity has been confirmed since then through more recent studies. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 52 To estimate the total project costs shown in Figure 2 above, AKEL applied a contingency of 15% to construction costs. AKEL estimated various costs as the 15% of the total construction cost with contingency. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following: • Unforeseen events • Unknown conditions • Project Administration • Construction Management and Inspection • Legal Costs 5.2 Pipe Capacity Rating Data The City’s SSMP capacity assessment results provide the data needed to determine the Pipe Capacity Ratings for the pipelines as previously discussed in Section 2.1.1. The results of the model scenario “Existing PWWF” were used to determine the d/D values. Please refer to Table 38 and Table 39 in Section 6 for the Pipe Capacity Ratings for the trunk main pipelines. 5.3 Flow Volume Rating Lastly, the City’s SSMP capacity assessment results were also utilized to determine the Flow Volume Ratings for the pipelines as previously discussed in Section 2.1.2. The results of the model scenario “Existing PWWF” were used to determine the maximum flow values. Please refer to Table 38 and Table 39 in Section 6 for the Flow Volume Ratings for the trunk main pipelines. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 53 6 Risk Prioritization Results In this section, all of the various criteria previously discussed in Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.1.2 are assigned for each pipe segment (both comprehensively for those segments that were CCTV’ed and for only those criteria where we have data for segments where CCTV was not able to be conducted). For the pipelines that were not CCTV inspected, the Structural and O&M Condition Ratings had to be assumed, thereby resulting in assumed values for Total Probability Score, Probability Rating, and the Overall Risk Rating. For these pipelines, the Structural and O&M Condition Ratings are chosen by looking at the nearby US and/or DS pipelines that were CCTV inspected and assuming the lowest Quick Rating applies. This was chosen as the methodology for pipelines not CCTV inspected because it is not desirable to overestimate the severity and frequency of defect observations, which would likely lead to recommended repair/rehabilitation that might not have been necessary had CCTV inspection been performed. For a visual representation of each pipeline’s Overall Risk Rating, see Appendix Din Section 15.4. 6.1 Probability Rating and Criteria Table 38 below lists the three probability criteria, Total Probability Score, and Probability Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment. Table 38: Probability Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines Pipeline Facility ID Structural Condition Rating Pipe Capacity Rating O&M Condition Rating Total Probability Score Probability Rating MH-1_MH-3 1 1 2 12 1 MH-2_MH-4 1 1 3 14 1 MH-3_MH-5 3 1 5 28 3 MH-4_MH-6 1 1 5 18 2 MH-5_MH-7 3 1 5 28 3 MH-6_MH-8 1 1 5 18 2 MH-7_MH-9 3 1 3 24 2 MH-8_MH-10 1 1 5 18 2 MH-9_MH-11 2 1 5 23 2 MH-10_MH-12 1 1 5 18 2 MH-11_MH-15 2 1 4 21 2 MH-12_MH-13 1 1 3 14 1 MH-13_MH-14 1 1 3 14 1 MH-15_MH-16 2 1 5 23 2 MH-14_MH-17 1 1 5 18 2 MH-16_MH-18 3 1 5 28 3 MH-17_MH-19 1 1 5 18 2 MH-18_MH-21 2 1 5 23 2 MH-19_MH-20 1 1 5 18 2 MH-21_MH-21A 3 1 5 28 3 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 54 Pipeline Facility ID Structural Condition Rating Pipe Capacity Rating O&M Condition Rating Total Probability Score Probability Rating MH-20_MH-22 1 1 5 18 2 MH-21A_MH-24 2 1 5 23 2 MH-22_MH-23 1 1 5 18 2 MH-24_MH-26 3 1 5 28 3 MH-23_MH-25 1 1 5 18 2 MH-26_MH-27 2 1 5 23 2 MH-25_MH-28 1 1 5 18 2 MH-27_MH-29 2 1 5 23 2 MH-28_MH-30 1 1 5 18 2 MH-29_MH-32 2 1 5 23 2 MH-30_MH-31 1 1 5 18 2 MH-32_MH-33 3 1 5 28 3 MH-31_MH-34 1 1 5 18 2 MH-33_MH-36 2 1 5 23 2 MH-34_MH-35 2 1 5 23 2 MH-36_MH-38 2 1 5 23 2 MH-35_MH-37 1 1 5 18 2 MH-37_MH-39 1 1 5 18 2 MH-38_MH-40 2 2 5 26 3 MH-40_MH-41 2 2 1 18 2 MH-39_MH-39A 1 1 3 14 1 MH-41_MH-42 1 1 2 12 1 MH-42_MH-44 2 2 5 26 3 MH-39A_MH-43 2 1 5 23 2 MH-44_MH-48 3 3 5 34 4 MH-43_MH-46 1 1 5 18 2 MH-46_MH-47 1 1 3 14 1 MH-47_MH-48 1 1 2 12 1 MH-48_MH-50 1 1 5 18 2 MH-50_MH-51 2 5 5 35 4 MH-51_MH-52 2 5 5 35 4 MH-52_MH-53 2 3 5 29 3 MH-53_MH-54 3 1 5 28 3 MH-54_MH-55 2 1 5 23 2 MH-55_MH-56 2 1 5 23 2 MH-56_MH-57 2 1 5 23 2 MH-57_MH-58 2 1 5 23 2 MH-58_MH-59 1 1 5 18 2 MH-59_MH-60 3 1 5 28 3 MH-60_MH-61 4 2 5 36 4 MH-61_MH-62 3 1 5 28 3 MH-62_MH-63 1 1 5 18 2 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 55 Pipeline Facility ID Structural Condition Rating Pipe Capacity Rating O&M Condition Rating Total Probability Score Probability Rating MH-63_MH-64 1 3 5 24 2 MH-64_MH-65 2 5 5 35 4 MH-65_MH-66 2 5 5 35 4 MH-66_MH-67 1 5 4 28 3 MH-67_MH-68 1 5 5 30 3 MH-68_MH-69 2 5 5 35 4 MH-69_MH-70 1 5 4 28 3 MH-70_MH-71 3 5 5 40 4 MH-71_MH-72 2 5 5 35 4 MH-72_MH-73 1 5 5 30 3 MH-73_MH-74 2 4 5 32 3 MH-74_MH-75 1 3 5 24 2 MH-75_MH-76 1 4 5 27 3 MH-76_MH-77 1 3 5 24 2 MH-77_MH-78 2 2 5 26 3 MH-78_MH-79 1 2 5 21 2 MH-79_MH-80 1 2 5 21 2 MH-80_MH-81 1 2 5 21 2 MH-81_MH-82 1 2 5 21 2 MH-82_MH-83 1 1 5 18 2 MH-83_MH-84 1 1 5 18 2 MH-84_MH-85 1 2 5 21 2 MH-85_MH-85A 1 1 5 18 2 MH-85A_MH-85B 1 1 3 14 1 MH-85B_MH-86 1 1 2 12 1 MH-86_MH-87 2 1 5 23 2 MH-87_MH-88 2 1 5 23 2 MH-88_MH-89 5 1 5 38 4 MH-89_MH-90 4 1 5 33 4 MH-93_MH-94 2 1 3 19 2 MH-94_MH-95 3 3 4 32 3 MH-95_MH-96 5 1 4 36 4 MH-96_MH-96A 5 1 5 38 4 MH-96A_MH-97 3 1 4 26 3 MH-97_MH-97A 3 1 4 26 3 MH-97A_MH-98 5 1 5 38 4 MH-98_MH-99 5 2 5 41 5 MH-99_MH-100 3 1 4 26 3 MH-100_MH-101 5 1 5 38 4 MH-101_MH-102 5 1 5 38 4 MH-102_MH-102A 2 1 5 23 2 MH-102A_MH-102B 2 1 3 19 2 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 56 Pipeline Facility ID Structural Condition Rating Pipe Capacity Rating O&M Condition Rating Total Probability Score Probability Rating MH-102B_MH-103 3 1 4 26 3 MH-103_MH-104 4 5 5 45 5 MH-104_MH-105 5 1 5 38 4 MH-105_MH-106 5 1 5 38 4 MH-106_MH-107 5 1 5 38 4 MH-107_MH-108 5 1 5 38 4 MH-108_MH-109 3 1 4 26 3 MH-109_MH-110 5 1 5 38 4 MH-110_MH-111 4 1 5 33 4 MH-111_MH-112 4 1 5 33 4 MH-112_MH-113 5 1 5 38 4 MH-113_MH-114 5 1 5 38 4 MH-114_MH-115 3 1 5 28 3 MH-115_MH-116 5 1 5 38 4 MH-116_MH-116A 5 1 4 36 4 MH-116A_MH-117 5 1 4 36 4 MH-117_MH-118 5 1 5 38 4 MH-118_MH-119 5 1 5 38 4 MH-119_MH-120 2 1 4 21 2 MH-120_MH-121 2 1 5 23 2 MH-121_MH-122 3 1 5 28 3 MH-122_MH-123 3 2 5 31 3 MH-123_MH-125 5 1 5 38 4 MH-125_MH-126 5 1 5 38 4 MH-126_MH-127 5 1 5 38 4 MH-127_MH-128 5 1 5 38 4 MH-128_MH-130 5 1 5 38 4 MH-130_MH-131 4 1 5 33 4 MH-131_MH-132 5 1 5 38 4 MH-132_MH-133 3 1 5 28 3 MH-133_MH-134 5 1 5 38 4 MH-134_MH-134A 2 1 3 19 2 MH-134A_MH-135 5 1 5 38 4 MH-135_MH-136 5 2 5 41 5 MH-136_MH-137 2 3 3 25 3 MH-137_MH-138 5 1 4 36 4 MH-138_MH-138A 5 1 5 38 4 MH-138A_MH-139 3 4 5 37 4 MH-139_MH-140 5 2 5 41 5 MH-140_MH-141 5 2 5 41 5 MH-141_MH-142 4 2 5 36 4 MH-142_MH-142A 3 4 3 33 4 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 57 Pipeline Facility ID Structural Condition Rating Pipe Capacity Rating O&M Condition Rating Total Probability Score Probability Rating MH-142A_MH-142B 4 4 4 40 4 MH-142B_MH-142C 5 4 5 47 5 MH-142C_MH-142D 5 4 5 47 5 MH-142D_MH-142E 5 4 4 45 5 MH-142E_MH-142F 5 4 5 47 5 MH-142F_MH-143 5 4 5 47 5 MH-143_MH-144 5 1 5 38 4 MH-144_MH-145 3 1 3 24 2 MH-145_MH-146 5 2 5 41 5 MH-146_MH-147 5 1 5 38 4 MH-147_MH-148 5 5 5 50 5 MH-148_MH-149 4 1 4 31 3 MH-149_MH-150 4 1 4 31 3 MH-150_MH-151 5 2 5 41 5 MH-151_MH-152 5 2 5 41 5 MH-152_MH-153 5 3 5 44 5 MH-153_MH-154 5 1 5 38 4 MH-154_MH-155 2 1 1 15 1 MH-155_MH-156 2 5 4 33 4 Table 39 below lists the three probability criteria, Total Probability Score, and Probability Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were not CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment. Table 39: Probability Rating & Criteria for Pipelines Not Inspected Pipeline Facility ID Structural Condition Rating Pipe Capacity Rating O&M Condition Rating Total Probability Score Probability Rating MH-90_MH-91 2 1 2 17 2 MH-91_MH-92 2 1 2 17 2 MH-92_MH-93 2 1 2 17 2 6.2 Consequence Rating and Criteria Table 40 below lists the four consequence criteria, Total Consequence Score, and Consequence Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 58 Table 40: Consequence Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines Pipeline Facility ID Flow Volume Rating Public Impact Rating Proximity to Waterways Rating O&M Access and Safety Rating Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating MH-1_MH-3 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-2_MH-4 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-3_MH-5 3 5 1 1 26 3 MH-4_MH-6 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-5_MH-7 3 5 1 1 26 3 MH-6_MH-8 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-7_MH-9 3 5 1 1 26 3 MH-8_MH-10 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-9_MH-11 3 5 1 1 26 3 MH-10_MH-12 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-11_MH-15 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-12_MH-13 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-13_MH-14 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-15_MH-16 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-14_MH-17 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-16_MH-18 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-17_MH-19 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-18_MH-21 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-19_MH-20 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-21_MH-21A 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-20_MH-22 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-21A_MH-24 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-22_MH-23 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-24_MH-26 4 1 1 1 22 2 MH-23_MH-25 4 1 1 1 22 2 MH-26_MH-27 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-25_MH-28 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-27_MH-29 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-28_MH-30 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-29_MH-32 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-30_MH-31 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-32_MH-33 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-31_MH-34 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-33_MH-36 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-34_MH-35 4 3 1 1 26 3 MH-36_MH-38 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-35_MH-37 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-37_MH-39 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-38_MH-40 4 5 1 1 30 3 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 59 Pipeline Facility ID Flow Volume Rating Public Impact Rating Proximity to Waterways Rating O&M Access and Safety Rating Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating MH-40_MH-41 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-39_MH-39A 3 5 1 1 26 3 MH-41_MH-42 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-42_MH-44 4 5 1 1 30 3 MH-39A_MH-43 3 5 1 1 26 3 MH-44_MH-48 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-43_MH-46 3 5 1 1 26 3 MH-46_MH-47 3 3 1 1 22 2 MH-47_MH-48 5 3 1 1 30 3 MH-48_MH-50 5 3 1 1 30 3 MH-50_MH-51 5 5 2 1 37 4 MH-51_MH-52 5 5 2 4 40 4 MH-52_MH-53 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-53_MH-54 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-54_MH-55 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-55_MH-56 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-56_MH-57 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-57_MH-58 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-58_MH-59 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-59_MH-60 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-60_MH-61 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-61_MH-62 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-62_MH-63 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-63_MH-64 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-64_MH-65 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-65_MH-66 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-66_MH-67 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-67_MH-68 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-68_MH-69 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-69_MH-70 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-70_MH-71 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-71_MH-72 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-72_MH-73 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-73_MH-74 5 5 2 4 40 4 MH-74_MH-75 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-75_MH-76 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-76_MH-77 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-77_MH-78 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-78_MH-79 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-79_MH-80 5 5 1 4 37 4 MH-80_MH-81 5 5 1 4 37 4 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 60 Pipeline Facility ID Flow Volume Rating Public Impact Rating Proximity to Waterways Rating O&M Access and Safety Rating Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating MH-81_MH-82 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-82_MH-83 5 5 1 1 34 4 MH-83_MH-84 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-84_MH-85 5 5 1 3 36 4 MH-85_MH-85A 5 1 4 1 35 4 MH-85A_MH-85B 5 3 4 1 39 4 MH-85B_MH-86 5 3 4 1 39 4 MH-86_MH-87 5 3 4 1 39 4 MH-87_MH-88 5 5 5 1 46 5 MH-88_MH-89 5 5 5 1 46 5 MH-89_MH-90 5 3 5 1 42 5 MH-93_MH-94 5 1 5 1 38 4 MH-94_MH-95 5 1 5 1 38 4 MH-95_MH-96 5 1 5 1 38 4 MH-96_MH-96A 5 1 5 1 38 4 MH-96A_MH-97 5 3 5 1 42 5 MH-97_MH-97A 5 3 5 1 42 5 MH-97A_MH-98 5 3 4 1 39 4 MH-98_MH-99 5 3 4 1 39 4 MH-99_MH-100 5 5 4 1 43 5 MH-100_MH-101 5 5 4 1 43 5 MH-101_MH-102 5 5 4 3 45 5 MH-102_MH-102A 5 5 4 3 45 5 MH-102A_MH-102B 5 5 4 3 45 5 MH-102B_MH-103 5 5 4 3 45 5 MH-103_MH-104 5 5 2 1 37 4 MH-104_MH-105 5 5 4 1 43 5 MH-105_MH-106 5 5 4 1 43 5 MH-106_MH-107 5 5 2 1 37 4 MH-107_MH-108 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-108_MH-109 5 3 1 2 31 3 MH-109_MH-110 5 3 1 2 31 3 MH-110_MH-111 5 3 1 2 31 3 MH-111_MH-112 5 3 1 2 31 3 MH-112_MH-113 5 3 2 2 34 4 MH-113_MH-114 5 3 2 2 34 4 MH-114_MH-115 5 3 2 2 34 4 MH-115_MH-116 5 3 2 2 34 4 MH-116_MH-116A 5 5 2 2 38 4 MH-116A_MH-117 5 5 2 2 38 4 MH-117_MH-118 5 5 2 2 38 4 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 61 Pipeline Facility ID Flow Volume Rating Public Impact Rating Proximity to Waterways Rating O&M Access and Safety Rating Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating MH-118_MH-119 5 5 2 2 38 4 MH-119_MH-120 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-120_MH-121 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-121_MH-122 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-122_MH-123 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-123_MH-125 5 3 2 2 34 4 MH-125_MH-126 5 3 2 3 35 4 MH-126_MH-127 5 1 2 3 31 3 MH-127_MH-128 5 1 2 3 31 3 MH-128_MH-130 5 1 2 3 31 3 MH-130_MH-131 5 1 1 3 28 3 MH-131_MH-132 5 1 3 3 34 4 MH-132_MH-133 5 3 5 3 44 5 MH-133_MH-134 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-134_MH-134A 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-134A_MH-135 5 3 2 3 35 4 MH-135_MH-136 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-136_MH-137 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-137_MH-138 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-138_MH-138A 5 3 2 3 35 4 MH-138A_MH-139 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-139_MH-140 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-140_MH-141 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-141_MH-142 5 3 2 1 33 4 MH-142_MH-142A 5 5 2 1 37 4 MH-142A_MH-142B 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-142B_MH-142C 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-142C_MH-142D 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-142D_MH-142E 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-142E_MH-142F 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-142F_MH-143 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-143_MH-144 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-144_MH-145 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-145_MH-146 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-146_MH-147 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-147_MH-148 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-148_MH-149 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-149_MH-150 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-150_MH-151 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-151_MH-152 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-152_MH-153 5 5 2 3 39 4 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 62 Pipeline Facility ID Flow Volume Rating Public Impact Rating Proximity to Waterways Rating O&M Access and Safety Rating Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating MH-153_MH-154 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-154_MH-155 5 5 2 3 39 4 MH-155_MH-156 5 5 2 3 39 4 Table 41 below lists the four consequence criteria, Total Consequence Score, and Consequence Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were not CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment. Table 41: Consequence Rating & Criteria for Pipelines Not Inspected Pipeline Facility ID Flow Volume Rating Public Impact Rating Proximity to Waterways Rating O&M Access and Safety Rating Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating MH-90_MH-91 1 1 5 1 22 2 MH-91_MH-92 1 1 5 1 22 2 MH-92_MH-93 1 1 5 1 22 2 6.3 Overall Risk Rating Table 42 below lists the Probability Rating, Consequence Rating, and Overall Risk Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were CCTV inspected. In the event that pipelines have the same Overall Risk Rating according to Figure 1 above, they will be ranked in order of the following: 1. Probability Rating 2. Consequence Rating 3. Total Probability Score 4. Total Consequence Score 5. Structural Condition Rating 6. Pipe Capacity Rating 7. O&M Condition Rating 8. Flow Volume Rating 9. Proximity to Waterways Rating 10. Public Impact Rating 11. O&M Access and Safety Rating 12. Most US Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 63 Table 42: Overall Risk Rating by Rank for Inspected Pipelines Pipeline Facility ID Probability Rating Consequence Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank MH-147_MH-148 5 4 5 1 MH-142B_MH-142C 5 4 5 2 MH-142C_MH-142D 5 4 5 3 MH-142E_MH-142F 5 4 5 4 MH-142F_MH-143 5 4 5 5 MH-142D_MH-142E 5 4 5 6 MH-103_MH-104 5 4 5 7 MH-152_MH-153 5 4 5 8 MH-98_MH-99 5 4 5 9 MH-145_MH-146 5 4 5 10 MH-150_MH-151 5 4 5 11 MH-151_MH-152 5 4 5 12 MH-135_MH-136 5 4 5 13 MH-139_MH-140 5 4 5 14 MH-140_MH-141 5 4 5 15 MH-88_MH-89 4 5 5 16 MH-101_MH-102 4 5 5 17 MH-100_MH-101 4 5 5 18 MH-104_MH-105 4 5 5 19 MH-105_MH-106 4 5 5 20 MH-89_MH-90 4 5 5 21 MH-142A_MH-142B 4 4 5 22 MH-70_MH-71 4 4 5 23 MH-97A_MH-98 4 4 5 24 MH-143_MH-144 4 4 5 25 MH-146_MH-147 4 4 5 26 MH-153_MH-154 4 4 5 27 MH-96_MH-96A 4 4 5 28 MH-117_MH-118 4 4 5 29 MH-118_MH-119 4 4 5 30 MH-106_MH-107 4 4 5 31 MH-125_MH-126 4 4 5 32 MH-134A_MH-135 4 4 5 33 MH-138_MH-138A 4 4 5 34 MH-131_MH-132 4 4 5 35 MH-112_MH-113 4 4 5 36 MH-113_MH-114 4 4 5 37 MH-115_MH-116 4 4 5 38 MH-123_MH-125 4 4 5 39 MH-107_MH-108 4 4 5 40 MH-133_MH-134 4 4 5 41 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 64 Pipeline Facility ID Probability Rating Consequence Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank MH-138A_MH-139 4 4 5 42 MH-95_MH-96 4 4 5 43 MH-116_MH-116A 4 4 5 44 MH-116A_MH-117 4 4 5 45 MH-60_MH-61 4 4 5 46 MH-137_MH-138 4 4 5 47 MH-141_MH-142 4 4 5 48 MH-51_MH-52 4 4 5 49 MH-50_MH-51 4 4 5 50 MH-68_MH-69 4 4 5 51 MH-71_MH-72 4 4 5 52 MH-65_MH-66 4 4 5 53 MH-64_MH-65 4 4 5 54 MH-44_MH-48 4 4 5 55 MH-155_MH-156 4 4 5 56 MH-142_MH-142A 4 4 5 57 MH-126_MH-127 4 3 4 58 MH-127_MH-128 4 3 4 59 MH-128_MH-130 4 3 4 60 MH-109_MH-110 4 3 4 61 MH-110_MH-111 4 3 4 62 MH-111_MH-112 4 3 4 63 MH-130_MH-131 4 3 4 64 MH-132_MH-133 3 5 4 65 MH-102B_MH-103 3 5 4 66 MH-99_MH-100 3 5 4 67 MH-96A_MH-97 3 5 4 68 MH-97_MH-97A 3 5 4 69 MH-73_MH-74 3 4 4 70 MH-94_MH-95 3 4 4 71 MH-148_MH-149 3 4 4 72 MH-149_MH-150 3 4 4 73 MH-122_MH-123 3 4 4 74 MH-67_MH-68 3 4 4 75 MH-72_MH-73 3 4 4 76 MH-52_MH-53 3 4 4 77 MH-53_MH-54 3 4 4 78 MH-69_MH-70 3 4 4 79 MH-66_MH-67 3 4 4 80 MH-114_MH-115 3 4 4 81 MH-59_MH-60 3 4 4 82 MH-61_MH-62 3 4 4 83 MH-121_MH-122 3 4 4 84 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 65 Pipeline Facility ID Probability Rating Consequence Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank MH-75_MH-76 3 4 4 85 MH-77_MH-78 3 4 4 86 MH-136_MH-137 3 4 4 87 MH-32_MH-33 3 3 3 88 MH-16_MH-18 3 3 3 89 MH-21_MH-21A 3 3 3 90 MH-3_MH-5 3 3 3 91 MH-5_MH-7 3 3 3 92 MH-108_MH-109 3 3 3 93 MH-38_MH-40 3 3 3 94 MH-42_MH-44 3 3 3 95 MH-24_MH-26 3 2 3 96 MH-87_MH-88 2 5 3 97 MH-102_MH-102A 2 5 3 98 MH-102A_MH-102B 2 5 3 99 MH-144_MH-145 2 4 3 100 MH-74_MH-75 2 4 3 101 MH-76_MH-77 2 4 3 102 MH-63_MH-64 2 4 3 103 MH-86_MH-87 2 4 3 104 MH-54_MH-55 2 4 3 105 MH-55_MH-56 2 4 3 106 MH-56_MH-57 2 4 3 107 MH-57_MH-58 2 4 3 108 MH-120_MH-121 2 4 3 109 MH-79_MH-80 2 4 3 110 MH-80_MH-81 2 4 3 111 MH-78_MH-79 2 4 3 112 MH-84_MH-85 2 4 3 113 MH-81_MH-82 2 4 3 114 MH-119_MH-120 2 4 3 115 MH-93_MH-94 2 4 3 116 MH-134_MH-134A 2 4 3 117 MH-58_MH-59 2 4 3 118 MH-83_MH-84 2 4 3 119 MH-85_MH-85A 2 4 3 120 MH-62_MH-63 2 4 3 121 MH-82_MH-83 2 4 3 122 MH-7_MH-9 2 3 2 123 MH-27_MH-29 2 3 2 124 MH-29_MH-32 2 3 2 125 MH-36_MH-38 2 3 2 126 MH-15_MH-16 2 3 2 127 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 66 Pipeline Facility ID Probability Rating Consequence Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank MH-18_MH-21 2 3 2 128 MH-21A_MH-24 2 3 2 129 MH-26_MH-27 2 3 2 130 MH-33_MH-36 2 3 2 131 MH-34_MH-35 2 3 2 132 MH-9_MH-11 2 3 2 133 MH-39A_MH-43 2 3 2 134 MH-11_MH-15 2 3 2 135 MH-40_MH-41 2 3 2 136 MH-48_MH-50 2 3 2 137 MH-4_MH-6 2 3 2 138 MH-6_MH-8 2 3 2 139 MH-8_MH-10 2 3 2 140 MH-10_MH-12 2 3 2 141 MH-28_MH-30 2 3 2 142 MH-30_MH-31 2 3 2 143 MH-31_MH-34 2 3 2 144 MH-35_MH-37 2 3 2 145 MH-37_MH-39 2 3 2 146 MH-14_MH-17 2 3 2 147 MH-17_MH-19 2 3 2 148 MH-19_MH-20 2 3 2 149 MH-20_MH-22 2 3 2 150 MH-22_MH-23 2 3 2 151 MH-25_MH-28 2 3 2 152 MH-43_MH-46 2 3 2 153 MH-23_MH-25 2 2 2 154 MH-154_MH-155 1 4 2 155 MH-85A_MH-85B 1 4 2 156 MH-85B_MH-86 1 4 2 157 MH-2_MH-4 1 3 1 158 MH-12_MH-13 1 3 1 159 MH-13_MH-14 1 3 1 160 MH-39_MH-39A 1 3 1 161 MH-47_MH-48 1 3 1 162 MH-1_MH-3 1 3 1 163 MH-41_MH-42 1 3 1 164 MH-46_MH-47 1 2 1 165 Table 43 below lists the Probability Rating, Consequence Rating, and Overall Risk Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were not CCTV inspected. Note that these pipelines are listed according to the ranking explained for Table 42. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 67 Table 43: Overall Risk Rating by Rank for Pipelines Not Inspected Pipeline Facility ID Probability Rating Consequence Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank MH-90_MH-91 2 2 2 166 MH-91_MH-92 2 2 2 167 MH-92_MH-93 2 2 2 168 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 68 7 Proposed Repair, Rehabilitation, and/or Replacement (RRR) Alternatives In this section, WWE reviews various RRR alternative methodologies that aim to address the widespread structural condition issues along the JTP trunk main. In Section 7.1, pipeline RRR alternatives are discussed, while manhole RRR alternatives are discussed in Section 7.2. All of the pipeline RRR alternatives discussed in Section 7.1 require sewage bypass pumping, with the exception of the following alternative: spray coating. Spray coating, as described in Section 7.1.2.3, is applied to the crown of the pipe, thus allowing for continual conveyance of live wastewater flow. Bypass pumping operations will largely be similar for the various alternatives that require it, but the length of time of bypass pumping will depend on how quickly the actual RRR work is completed. The cost of the bypass pumping is also dependent on how long the RRR work lasts, as the sewer pipeline needs to remain out of service until the finished product is tested and ready to be put back into service. 7.1 Pipelines 7.1.1 Repair Grade 5 structural defects characterized as “point defects” can pose an immediate failure risk. The point defects found along the JTP trunk main include the following: • SMW – Missing Wall • SRP – Reinforcement Projecting The following repair methodologies can be utilized to address the point defects. 7.1.1.1 Open Cut Point Repair Open cut trench excavation consists of excavating a trench to manually install each “stick” or piece of new pipe where the point defect is located. Excavation must be performed to an adequate depth such that the existing pipe is exposed, allowing for the repair to take place. This method is commonly used where the pipe is located under non-pavement areas such as a front yard or back yard of a residence. However, open cut trench excavation for a pipeline under a paved area can be accomplished, albeit at higher costs. This is due to the need to saw cut and remove the existing pavement, fill the excavated area with the proper backfill (compacted stone, sand, aggregate base, etc.), and then replace the pavement after the pipe repair has been completed. Open cut point repairs under non-pavement areas would typically require backfilling with soil and the restoration of surface vegetation with seed/sod, which is significantly cheaper. One significant advantage of the open cut method is that due to it being widely known, with many experienced contractors available, it promotes a competitive bidding environment. For a majority of the JTP trunk main alignment, heavily trafficked areas (e.g. Leavesley Road near US-101) are not an issue when assessing feasibility and cost of repair methodologies. However, the only pipe segment that was found to have grade 5 structural defects (MH-116_MH-116A) that would warrant immediate corrective action(s) is located on Leavesley Road west of US-101 highway. Due to the severity and continuous length of the “missing wall” defect, as well as the close proximity of the other two grade 5 “missing wall” and “reinforcement projecting” Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 69 structural defects, it is likely an open cut point repair to address these defects will be the most cost-conscious methodology while still sufficiently addressing the near-term risks of the inspected defects. 7.1.1.2 Point Repair(s) with Structural CIPP Lining The structural defects mentioned above could theoretically be addressed utilizing segmental structural CIPP point repair technology that would cover the defect length plus approximately 5 to 10 linear feet either side of the defect. A proven structural CIPP system would be used to renew the short sections of the gravity-flow pipelines. This is a relatively fast, trenchless installation for maximum diameters of up to 48” depending on the manufacturer and installer. The process is typically done with a corrosion-resistant fiberglass composite system and is an industry proven means for expeditiously repairing and sealing isolated pipe defects such as cracks, holes, fractures, leaks, joint offsets, corrosion and root intrusion. As such, point repairs utilizing a structural CIPP liner material are also commonly used to address I&I defects to reduce additional wastewater flow volumes and associated treatment costs. Using a properly designed high-strength resin and fiberglass matrix, this method provides structural strength while maintaining a relatively thin (1/2” – 1” thick), tapered profile and smooth finish to help maintain flow capacity. The resins can be cured under ambient sewer conditions with very low shrink and can cure under water if necessary. It is desirable to have design criteria that maximizes the potential for the tightest possible fit against the host pipe while eliminating the need for a preliner/heater system/end seal. However, if a preliner/heater system/end seal is determined to be necessary, it will be addressed in the design stage of the project. This alternative would require less excavation when compared to the open cut method, thus potentially reducing overall costs for point repairs under paved areas. The method typically only requires one access point to complete the installation of the CIPP liner as well. An added benefit of this jointless pipe liner is the reduction in root and water infiltration when compared to a new “stick” of installed pipe under the open cut method. For successful implementation of the trenchless point repair method any roots and debris in the pertinent pipeline must be removed before installation. It should also be noted that this method is typically not applicable for collapsed/severely broken pipe, or pipes with heavy root blockages. While a large majority of CIPP work is performed on the “smaller” pipe sizes of about 12” and smaller, there are still a number of contractors who are experienced and qualified enough to address the aforementioned structural defects through the use of this methodology. While the structural CIPP lining point repair methodology would typically address most grade 5 structural defects that warrant immediate corrective action, the aforementioned defects found in pipeline MH-116_MH-116A are so severe that CIPP lining would likely not be feasible. However, this point repair methodology will still be considered for potentially addressing any significant I&I point defects found through the inspection work. 7.1.1.3 Chemical Grouting Chemical grouting is one of the oldest methods for impeding infiltration into sewer systems, including pipes and manholes. Several chemical grouting manufacturers, such as AvantiGrout, can provide a short term (2 to 10-year service life) product suitable for the rehabilitation of pipeline infiltration spots. Due to the grout being applied under pressure, the product is able to form into the surrounding soil near the infiltration defect and not simply fill Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 70 the crack/joint/etc. The product’s low viscosity allows it to enter virtually any space/area that water can reach, making chemical grout a robust and versatile option. 7.1.2 Rehabilitation 7.1.2.1 Sliplining The sliplining method of pipe rehabilitation would involve the insertion (pushing or pulling) of a new, smaller pipeline (typically HDPE pipe) inside the existing JTP trunk main. The newly inserted pipeline would provide adequate structural strength to replace the deteriorated existing pipeline. The annular space between the inside of the existing pipeline and the outside of the new sliplined pipeline would be grouted for the following reasons: • To prevent soil and groundwater migration into the annular space • To keep the newly inserted pipe from moving around while inside of the existing pipe • To transfer loads from the existing pipe to the new pipe to maintain structural integrity Advantages of the sliplining method include the fact that it is has been successfully used for decades, thus making it a well-understood technology. With many experienced contractors available, the anticipated competitive bids often result in sliplining being a cost effective trenchless rehabilitation solution. However, it would be prudent to require contractors to provide evidence of sufficient prior sliplining experience. Another advantage of sliplining includes the installation rate of about 300-500 feet per day, after mobilization and preparation, thus limiting significant impacts (such as major multi-lane closures) to shorter periods of time. A significant disadvantage of the sliplining method is the resultant reduction in flow capacity for the trunk main. The JTP trunk main has already been identified as capacity deficient, thus requiring the construction of the JT-P2 through JT-P9 improvement projects (as discussed in Section 5.1). Also, the insertion pit and staging area required for sliplining are much larger than what is required for structural CIPP installation (see Section 7.1.2.2). The insertion pits are typically about 60 feet long by 4-8 feet wide, while the staging areas are typically about 250 feet long by 15 feet wide due to the HDPE pipe fusion process, although this staging work can potentially be located outside of the alignment (or at minimum outside of a traffic lane along the edge of the right of way) and then the pipe mobilized to the alignment only when the insertion pit is prepared and ready for actual installation. Another potential disadvantage includes the need for small pits to reconnect all of the laterals along the trunk main. The contractor would have to completely clean the trunk main of all debris and roots before the sliplining installation can occur and CCTV inspect the finished product to ensure its quality. Due to the JTP trunk main already being identified as capacity deficient and in need of the relief trunk improvement project (see Section 5.1), combined with the plan of continued use of the JTP trunk main for conveyance of future flows even after the relief trunk improvement project is constructed, the sliplining rehabilitation methodology will not be considered for addressing the structural issues along the JTP trunk main due to the greater reduction in flow capacity when compared to structural CIPP lining (discussed in Section 7.1.2.2) and/or spray coating (discussed in Section 7.1.2.3). 7.1.2.2 Structural CIPP Lining – Full Pipe Segment Full segment structural CIPP lining utilizes the same methodology as previously described in Section 7.1.1.2, but with the liner being installed from manhole to manhole for the pipeline (i.e. “full segment”). Major factors that can impact the thickness of the CIPP liner include the following: Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 71 •Extent of (crown) deterioration of the existing pipe •The “ovality” of the pipe (i.e. whether or not the existing pipe has lost its round shape) •Depth of cover •Groundwater level Based on preliminary research of expected groundwater levels in Morgan Hill and Gilroy, groundwater within the pipe zone during installation of the structural CIPP liner becomes more likely as one moves further downstream along the JTP trunk main. This is due to two primary reasons: 1) the JTP trunk main depth typically increases the further downstream one goes, and 2) groundwater levels tend to increase as you move south from Morgan Hill to Gilroy. However, the groundwater levels in Gilroy tend to follow a seasonal pattern where the highest levels are recorded during the typical “wet” months of December through March. In any case, the possibility for high groundwater levels will need to be considered during design and construction of any potential CIPP lining improvement projects. A distinct advantage of structural CIPP lining is that the liner is thinner than the typical HDPE pipe used for the sliplining process, while still providing adequate structural strength to replace the deteriorated trunk main. Because the liner is bonded to the existing pipe, there is no annular space that would have to be grouted and the cured liner would not be likely to move inside the host pipe. Another advantage is the ability of CIPP liners to be used through siphons like the one located near the intersection of Wren Avenue and La Primavera Way. Also, the insertion pit and staging area required for this method are much smaller than what is required for a sliplining installation. The insertion pits are typically about 5 feet long by 5 feet wide where needed (most smaller diameter CIPP installations can typically utilized an existing manhole entrance as the insertion point), while the staging areas are typically about 20 feet long by 12 feet wide. The staging area size assumes that the felt is impregnated with the resin at the factory rather than on-site. Installation lengths can reach up to 1,000 feet between access pits, which should render this methodology applicable to every pipeline along the JTP trunk main. Another advantage to consider is that the lateral connections along the JTP trunk main can be remotely reinstated, whereas sliplining would require a small pit for each lateral reinstatement. Lastly, due to the existence of several companies capable of installing structural CIPP liners, this method can be cost-competitive with sliplining. One disadvantage of structural CIPP lining is the potential of styrene from the curing water to be eventually discharged to the SCRWA WWTP. This styrene could negatively affect the plant’s biological treatment process(es). To prevent styrene discharge, options include the following: •The use of a resin system that does not contain styrene •Cure the pipe liner through steam or ultraviolet light instead of water •Require the onsite treatment of the curing water prior to discharge into the trunk main; however, this may require an additional water discharge permit review Another disadvantage is related to the reinstatement of the lateral connections. Each time the lateral pipe is tapped, there is some risk of water seeping between the CIPP liner and the existing pipe. With the potential high groundwater table for the JTP trunk main as one moves further south, a lateral sealing technology would be preferred where the lateral connects to the trunk main. A robot can be used to remotely apply top hats or Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 72 interface seals from inside the CIPP liner, thus eliminating the need for aboveground access as with sliplining lateral reinstatement. Also, the contractor would have to completely clean the trunk main of all debris and roots before the structural CIPP lining installation can occur and potential repairs would be needed where holes in the pipe liner walls occur. Lastly, CCTV inspection of the finished lining product would be needed to ensure its quality. 7.1.2.3 Spray Coating Applying a magnesium hydroxide spray coating to the crown of the concrete sections of the JTP trunk main could reduce corrosion potential for some period of time and thus extend the useful life by acting as a sacrificial layer that the sulphuric acid will react with and neutralize instead of the concrete pipe. An example of such a product is Thioguard TST, which is an alkaline magnesium hydroxide slurry that is typically applied with a coating thickness of 100-125 mils. While the spray coating neutralizes existing sulphuric acid on the surface of the pipeline, it also deactivates the bacteria that is responsible for the generation of the sulphuric acid. The spray coating also reacts with hydrogen sulfide gas, thus helping to reduce potential odor problems. Typical spray coating treatment can cost significantly less than the previously mentioned rehabilitation methodologies, but would need to be replenished on a regular basis. Thioguard TST has been estimated to extend sewer asset life by 20 years provided that annual retreatment using the magnesium hydroxide spray coating occurs. In the case of the JTP trunk main, this system could be used on a more limited basis (spray every 2-3 years) to support phasing of the more comprehensive rehabilitation methods over a longer period of time. 7.1.3 Replacement 7.1.3.1 Dig & Replace Open Cut Method The dig and replace open cut method is the same methodology previously described in Section 7.1.1.1, but with an entire manhole to manhole pipe segment being removed and replaced with a new pipe. This traditional method of excavating, bedding, laying, and backfilling a pipeline is commonly utilized across the industry, thus providing a competitive bidding environment if chosen. The main disadvantage of this method in relation to the JTP trunk main is the substantial negative impact on local residents, regional commuters, traffic, and the environment. Relative to other trenchless replacement methods discussed in this Report, the open cut method would have the greatest impact on nearby commercial businesses and local residents due to traffic impacts. Also, in areas of the alignment where the groundwater table is high, dewatering of the trench and the preparation of a suitable, stable trench bottom can be difficult to achieve. To prevent settlement of the area surrounding the trench, areas with high groundwater would likely require impermeable shoring and imported light-weight backfill. Lastly, with depths of the trunk main reaching 23 feet, the open cut construction costs would be significantly more expensive than the trenchless methodologies discussed below. Due to the high construction costs and negative impact on local residents, traffic, and the environment, the open cut replacement methodology will not be explored further in this Report. 7.1.3.2 Pipe Bursting Pipe bursting is a trenchless construction method for replacing an existing pipe through the fragmentation of the existing pipe and installing a new pipe of equal or larger diameter in its place. The method starts with the initial cracking of the existing pipe with an oversized conical bursting head, which then fragments the existing pipe. This Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 73 conical bursting head is effectively creating a tunnel into which the new pipe, which is pulled behind the bursting head, is simultaneously installed. Typical diameters for new pipe installed through this method can experimentally reach up to 54 inches, although more typical maximum diameters are 24 to 36-inches, with installation lengths varying from 200-600 feet. On routine to moderately difficult projects, upsizing typically ranges from 1-2 pipe diameter sizes. Pipe diameter upsizing of three or more sizes can be difficult and is dependent on favorable soil conditions. It also tends to require specific bursting equipment to be specified. Using an appropriate pipe bursting technique, almost all types of existing pipe material can be replaced. However, exceptions to pipe bursting applications include pre-stressed concrete cylinder and heavily reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). There have been instances where concrete pipe can be successfully replaced with pipe bursting if it is not heavily reinforced or if it is substantially deteriorated. Because roughly 40% of the JTP trunk main is concrete pipe or reinforced concrete pipe, this must be taken into consideration. While HDPE is the most commonly used material for the newly installed pipe, both continuous and segmented pipe such as HDPE, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ductile iron and steel are used as the new product pipe. Pipe bursting is very effective if the existing pipeline has structural defects that prevent other trenchless methods from being utilized and if the pipeline has inadequate capacity. When compared to the traditional open-cut construction method, pipe bursting can limit ground surface damage and disruption. Because these are significant concerns along the JTP trunk main (crop fields, heavily trafficked roadways, commercial parking lots), pipe bursting could reduce the social costs typically associated with pipeline replacement. While providing a significantly smaller environmental footprint, installation rates can reach up to 200 linear feet per hour after all of the required set-up is completed. Another advantage is that the pipe bursting pits have the ability to be located at manholes that already require replacement. While the receiving pit can be an existing manhole where replacement is not required, this manhole has to be prepared in advance by enlarging the pipe entry point in order to avoid damage to the existing manhole. One disadvantage of the pipe bursting method is the increasing difficulty of installation as the existing pipe diameter increases. Typical pipe bursting diameters of the existing pipeline range from 8 to 24 inches with installation lengths of up to 500 feet. However, projects have been completed in the past for larger diameter pipes using the pneumatic pipe bursting technique. Another disadvantage involves the potential for soil heave or settlement, especially when upsizing larger diameter pipelines. Soil heave can impact crossing utilities, but the impact can be mitigated by potholing or placing pits above the utility and then extracting the soil so that no load is placed on the existing utility during the pipe bursting application. While certain sections of the roadway can be sawcut so that only that area is raised when significant heave is anticipated, roadway disruption like this would need to be minimized on any highly traversed roadway along the JTP trunk main alignment. Lastly, pipe bursting is possible for a single siphon. However, pipe bursting is not recommended for parallel siphon pipes located close together like the double barrel siphon near the intersection of Wren Avenue and La Primavera Way. 7.1.3.3 Microtunneling Microtunneling is a trenchless pipe replacement methodology that utilizes a closed face, remotely controlled, guided, pipe jacking system to provide continuous support to the excavation face. Personnel entry into the tunnel is not required because microtunneling is remotely controlled. A method of microtunneling called in-line Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 74 microtunneling can be employed to replace the existing trunk main. The existing pipe is filled with flowable fill to prevent fluid loss, and then the microtunnel boring machine (MTBM) excavates the entire pipe and surrounding ground to allow for the installation of the new pipe. The system is guided by a laser mounted in the jacking shaft that projects a beam onto a target in the steering section of the MTBM. The remotely controlled steering jacks steer the MTBM by extending or retracting. In this manner, the contractor can precisely control the line and grade of the installed pipe. Microtunneling can achieve installation lengths of around 800 linear feet. Microtunneling typically has a unit cost around $35 per inch-diameter foot, making it considerably more expensive than the other methodologies discussed in this Report. 7.2 Manholes 7.2.1 Repair In Section 3.3.3, instances of buried manholes along the JTP trunk main are discussed. The manholes described in Table 36 were found to be buried during the field assessment. These manholes are recommended to be repaired by raising them to be flush with ground level so that they are accessible when necessary (i.e. for any future cleaning/inspection/repair activities). The work involved will likely include the following: locating the existing buried manhole, excavating down to the top of the manhole, installing the necessary amount of manhole sections/risers/rings, installing the existing or new manhole frame and cover, cleaning, bedding/backfill, compaction, testing, and any other subgrade improvements required per the applicable jurisdictional agency’s standards. 7.2.2 Rehabilitation This section contains discussion of the potential rehabilitation methodologies available to address the Grade 5 and Grade 4 structural defects listed in Table 26 and Table 27, respectively. 7.2.2.1 Cured-In-Place Manhole Liners Cured-in-place manhole (CIPM) liners are similar to the CIPP liners previously discussed for pipeline rehabilitation in Section 7.1.2.2. A properly designed high-strength resin and fiberglass matrix would be installed in the manhole. These liners can be pre-made, designed and fabricated for each manhole as necessary. Constant diameter liners are also available should the pertinent manholes be similar in size and shape. Any infiltration spots must be stopped using a fast-setting cementitious material before the CIPM liner can be installed (see Section 7.2.2.2), with the liner providing further infiltration prevention once installed. CIPM liners are a good rehabilitation alternative that can expeditiously repair and seal isolated manhole defects while keeping the structural integrity of the manhole intact. They are typically installed from the bench all the way up to the cone of the manhole. While more expensive than the other manhole rehabilitation methodologies discussed below, CIPM liners are suitable for manholes with several structural/O&M defects that would render spot application of cementitious liners/grout cost prohibitive in comparison. 7.2.2.2 Cementitious Liners Cementitious liners, such as SewperCoat, provide high-strength, corrosion-resistant protection against potential future structural defects. They can also be used to rehabilitate existing defects such as those found in the manholes described in Table 26 and Table 27. The liner is typically applied by troweling, spray application, and/or Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 75 centrifugally spin-casting. Cementitious liners, as discussed in the previous section, can also be used to stop infiltration at manholes. The following process is recommended to be used when using cementitious liners to rehabilitate manhole defects: 1) Break away any degraded concrete to create a hard surface. 2) Clean and coat any exposed reinforcement. 3) Apply fast setting mortar. 4) Apply SewperCoat or other similar cementitious lining product to defect(s). 7.2.2.3 Chemical Grouting Chemical grouting is one of the oldest methods for impeding infiltration into sewer systems, including manholes. Several chemical grouting manufacturers, such as AvantiGrout, can provide a short term (2 to 10-year service life) product suitable for the rehabilitation of manhole infiltration spots. Typically, chemical grout is only applied to manholes that are structurally sound unless the grout is being used to prevent water from entering the manhole during application of a liner such as CIPM liners discussed in Section 7.2.2.1 above. Grout injection holes are drilled at strategic locations so as to re-direct flow that is infiltrating into the manholes. This is a good reason why the potential contractors should provide evidence of prior experience with applying chemical grout. 8 Unit Cost for Each RRR Alternative This section includes discussion of the unit costs assumed for the viable RRR alternatives mentioned previously in Section 7. 8.1 Pipelines 8.1.1 Repair: Point Repair(s) with Structural CIPP Lining For the point repairs with structural CIPP lining methodology discussed in Section 7.1.1.2, a unit cost of $435 per linear foot will be used. This unit cost comes out larger than the comparable “per linear foot” unit cost of the structural CIPP lining rehabilitation methodology due to the significantly smaller total length of pipeline to be repaired. Mobilization costs for installing CIPP lining along a handful of different pipeline segments, as opposed to the full pipe segment CIPP lining of the entire JTP trunk main, are a factor in the difference in unit costs. Also, the pipelines that will potentially be recommended for this repair methodology are all 36” diameters which also helps to account for the higher unit cost. This unit cost of $435 per linear foot accounts for the structural lining material, installation, insertion pits, bedding and backfill, mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, excavation, bypass pumping, and equipment. 8.1.2 Repair: Point Repair(s) with Open Cut For the point repair with open cut dig and replace methodology discussed in Section 7.1.1.1, a unit cost of $1,000 per linear foot will be used. This unit cost accounts for excavation, backfill, paving, sheeting/shoring/bracing, pipe material, installation, mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, bypass pumping, and equipment. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 76 8.1.3 Rehabilitation: Structural CIPP Lining – Full Pipe Segment For the structural CIPP lining of full pipe segments rehabilitation methodology discussed in Section 7.1.2.2, a unit cost of $12 per inch-diameter-foot will be used. This unit cost accounts for the structural lining material, installation, insertion pits, bedding and backfill, mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, excavation, bypass pumping, and equipment. The unit cost also accounts for manhole channelization upgrades to eliminate potential low spots and to smoothen the wastewater flow. 8.1.4 Rehabilitation: Spray Coating For the spray coating rehabilitation methodology discussed in Section 7.1.2.3, a unit cost of $0.30 per inch- diameter-foot will be used. This unit cost accounts for the coating material, application, insertion pits, bedding and backfill, mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, excavation, and equipment. 8.2 Manholes 8.2.1 Repair: Raising Buried Manholes A unit cost of $4,000 per manhole will be used for estimating the cost of raising the buried manholes identified in this Report. This unit cost accounts for locating the manhole, excavation, installed materials, bedding and backfill, mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, and equipment. 8.2.2 Rehabilitation: CIPM Liners A unit cost of $11 per inch-diameter-vertical foot will be used for estimating the cost of rehabilitating manholes utilizing CIPM liners. This unit cost accounts for labor, mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, structural lining material, and equipment. 8.2.3 Rehabilitation: Cementitious Liners A unit cost of around $110 per vertical foot would typically be for estimating the cost of rehabilitating manholes utilizing cementitious liners. However, given the limited number of manholes that have significant vertical footage lengths in need of rehabilitation within the same manhole, a unit cost of $2,675 per manhole will be used. This unit cost accounts for material, labor, mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, and equipment. 9 RRR Alternatives Assignment This section entails assigning viable RRR alternative methodologies to pipelines based on an analysis of their Pipe Capacity Rating, Structural Condition Rating and Overall Risk Rating as previously discussed in Section 6. For the three siphon pipelines not CCTV inspected during the field assessment, RRR alternative methodologies will be assigned based on their assumed Structural Condition Rating and Overall Risk Rating (note these segments should be reevaluated for appropriate RRR alternative based on actual field results from any future CCTV inspection). The assignment of RRR alternative methodologies to manholes is based on an analysis of their observed defects (structural and O&M) and field assessment findings. 9.1 Pipelines Pipelines were assigned viable RRR methodologies based on the decision tree presented in Figure 4 below. For each pipeline along the trunk main, the steps in the decision tree are followed until one of the four end results is Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 77 reached. The results of the assignment procedure for each pipeline is listed in Table 44 below (listed in order from upstream to downstream). The table lists the following information: • Pipeline Facility ID • Length (feet) • Pipe Material • Pipe Diameter (in) • Pipe Capacity Rating (utilized in decision tree) • Structural Condition Rating (utilized in decision tree) • Overall Risk Rating • Rank • Structural CIPP Lining viable? “Y” for yes and “N” for no • Spray Coating viable? “Y” for yes and “N” for no • Pipe Bursting viable? “Y” for yes and “N” for no Figure 4: RRR Pipe Assignment Decision Tree Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 78 Table 44: Pipeline RRR Alternatives Assignment Pipeline Facility ID Length (ft) Material Diameter (in) Pipe Capacity Rating Structural Condition Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank CIPP Spray Coating Pipe Bursting MH-1_MH-3 32.8 PVC 18 1 1 1 163 N N N MH-2_MH-4 37.4 PVC 30 1 1 1 158 N N N MH-3_MH-5 513.7 VCP 18 1 3 3 91 N N N MH-4_MH-6 522.5 PVC 30 1 1 2 138 N N N MH-5_MH-7 488.18 VCP 18 1 3 3 92 N N N MH-6_MH-8 486.8 PVC 30 1 1 2 139 N N N MH-7_MH-9 494.28 VCP 18 1 3 2 123 N N N MH-8_MH-10 493.76 PVC 30 1 1 2 140 N N N MH-9_MH-11 489.95 VCP 21 1 2 2 133 N N N MH-10_MH-12 456.1 PVC 30 1 1 2 141 N N N MH-11_MH-15 120.41 VCP 24 1 2 2 135 N N N MH-12_MH-13 26.3 PVC 30 1 1 1 159 N N N MH-13_MH-14 81.9 PVC 30 1 1 1 160 N N N MH-15_MH-16 397.13 VCP 24 1 2 2 127 N N N MH-14_MH-17 404.8 PVC 30 1 1 2 147 N N N MH-16_MH-18 514.49 VCP 24 1 3 3 89 N N N MH-17_MH-19 514.43 PVC 30 1 1 2 148 N N N MH-18_MH-21 520.37 VCP 24 1 2 2 128 N N N MH-19_MH-20 519.02 PE 30 1 1 2 149 N N N MH-21_MH-21A 253.39 VCP 24 1 3 3 90 N N N MH-20_MH-22 250.9 PE 30 1 1 2 150 N N N MH-21A_MH-24 261.4 VCP 24 1 2 2 129 N N N MH-22_MH-23 260.2 PE 30 1 1 2 151 N N N MH-24_MH-26 518.1 VCP 24 1 3 3 96 N N N MH-23_MH-25 522 PE 30 1 1 2 154 N N N MH-26_MH-27 566.04 VCP 24 1 2 2 130 N N N MH-25_MH-28 564.4 PE 30 1 1 2 152 N N N MH-27_MH-29 447.3 VCP 24 1 2 2 124 N N N MH-28_MH-30 446.6 PE 30 1 1 2 142 N N N MH-29_MH-32 503.34 VCP 24 1 2 2 125 N N N MH-30_MH-31 499.8 PE 30 1 1 2 143 N N N MH-32_MH-33 500.75 VCP 24 1 3 3 88 N N N MH-31_MH-34 501.4 PE 30 1 1 2 144 N N N MH-33_MH-36 510.03 VCP 24 1 2 2 131 N N N MH-34_MH-35 508.2 PE 30 1 2 2 132 N N N MH-36_MH-38 551.14 VCP 24 1 2 2 126 N N N MH-35_MH-37 388.7 PE 30 1 1 2 145 N N N MH-37_MH-39 611.4 PE 30 1 1 2 146 N N N MH-38_MH-40 455.76 VCP 24 2 2 3 94 N N N MH-40_MH-41 83.5 VCP 24 2 2 2 136 N N N MH-39_MH-39A 107.4 PE 30 1 1 1 161 N N N Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 79 Pipeline Facility ID Length (ft) Material Diameter (in) Pipe Capacity Rating Structural Condition Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank CIPP Spray Coating Pipe Bursting MH-41_MH-42 12.5 VCP 24 1 1 1 164 N N N MH-42_MH-44 551.73 VCP 24 2 2 3 95 N N N MH-39A_MH-43 532.3 PE 30 1 2 2 134 N N N MH-44_MH-48 556.29 VCP 24 3 3 5 55 N N N MH-43_MH-46 539.46 PE 30 1 1 2 153 N N N MH-46_MH-47 28.8 PVC 30 1 1 1 165 N N N MH-47_MH-48 8.89 PVC 30 1 1 1 162 N N N MH-48_MH-50 412 PVC 30 1 1 2 137 N N N MH-50_MH-51 599.64 VCP 24 5 2 5 50 N N N MH-51_MH-52 593.04 VCP 24 5 2 5 49 N N N MH-52_MH-53 498.32 VCP 24 3 2 4 77 N N N MH-53_MH-54 526.24 VCP 27 1 3 4 78 N N N MH-54_MH-55 473.22 VCP 27 1 2 3 105 N N N MH-55_MH-56 540.38 VCP 27 1 2 3 106 N N N MH-56_MH-57 534.31 VCP 27 1 2 3 107 N N N MH-57_MH-58 534.64 VCP 27 1 2 3 108 N N N MH-58_MH-59 534.41 VCP 27 1 1 3 118 N N N MH-59_MH-60 535.26 VCP 27 1 3 4 82 Y N N MH-60_MH-61 532.74 VCP 27 2 4 5 46 Y Y N MH-61_MH-62 536.74 VCP 27 1 3 4 83 Y N N MH-62_MH-63 498.1 VCP 27 1 1 3 121 N N N MH-63_MH-64 313.73 VCP 24 3 1 3 103 N N N MH-64_MH-65 581.72 VCP 24 5 2 5 54 N N N MH-65_MH-66 577.32 VCP 24 5 2 5 53 N N N MH-66_MH-67 199.32 VCP 24 5 1 4 80 N N N MH-67_MH-68 487.4 VCP 24 5 1 4 75 N N N MH-68_MH-69 488.64 VCP 24 5 2 5 51 N N N MH-69_MH-70 199 VCP 24 5 1 4 79 N N N MH-70_MH-71 425.2 VCP 24 5 3 5 23 N N N MH-71_MH-72 424 VCP 24 5 2 5 52 N N N MH-72_MH-73 423.6 VCP 24 5 1 4 76 N N N MH-73_MH-74 439.82 VCP 24 4 2 4 70 N N N MH-74_MH-75 486.2 VCP 24 3 1 3 101 N N N MH-75_MH-76 487.3 VCP 24 4 1 4 85 N N N MH-76_MH-77 487 VCP 24 3 1 3 102 N N N MH-77_MH-78 447.63 VCP 27 2 2 4 86 N N N MH-78_MH-79 467.84 VCP 27 2 1 3 112 N N N MH-79_MH-80 457.54 VCP 27 2 1 3 110 N N N MH-80_MH-81 418.23 VCP 27 2 1 3 111 N N N MH-81_MH-82 275.51 VCP 27 2 1 3 114 N N N MH-82_MH-83 442.31 VCP 30 1 1 3 122 N N N MH-83_MH-84 440.74 VCP 30 1 1 3 119 N N N MH-84_MH-85 437.72 VCP 30 2 1 3 113 N N N Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 80 Pipeline Facility ID Length (ft) Material Diameter (in) Pipe Capacity Rating Structural Condition Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank CIPP Spray Coating Pipe Bursting MH-85_MH-85A 402.12 VCP 30 1 1 3 120 N N N MH-85A_MH-85B 38.81 VCP 30 1 1 2 156 N N N MH-85B_MH-86 9.51 VCP 30 1 1 2 157 N N N MH-86_MH-87 501.53 VCP 30 1 2 3 104 N N N MH-87_MH-88 511.18 VCP 30 1 2 3 97 N N N MH-88_MH-89 336.9 RCP 27 1 5 5 16 Y Y N MH-89_MH-90 235.7 RCP 27 1 4 5 21 Y Y N MH-90_MH-91 47 RCP 12&18 1 2 2 166 N N N MH-91_MH-92 99 RCP 12&18 1 2 2 167 N N N MH-92_MH-93 56 RCP 12&18 1 2 2 168 N N N MH-93_MH-94 20.4 RCP 27 1 2 3 116 N N N MH-94_MH-95 134.4 RCP 27 3 3 4 71 Y Y N MH-95_MH-96 211.23 RCP 27 1 5 5 43 Y Y N MH-96_MH-96A 310.05 RCP 27 1 5 5 28 Y Y N MH-96A_MH-97 134.5 RCP 27 1 3 4 68 Y Y N MH-97_MH-97A 122.4 RCP 27 1 3 4 69 Y Y N MH-97A_MH-98 321.51 RCP 27 1 5 5 24 Y Y N MH-98_MH-99 402.68 RCP 27 2 5 5 9 Y Y N MH-99_MH-100 130.62 RCP 27 1 3 4 67 Y Y N MH-100_MH-101 395.82 RCP 36 1 5 5 18 Y Y N MH-101_MH-102 427.42 RCP 36 1 5 5 17 Y Y N MH-102_MH-102A 310.71 RCP 36 1 2 3 98 N N N MH-102A_MH-102B 75.89 RCP 36 1 2 3 99 N N N MH-102B_MH-103 98.4 RCP 36 1 3 4 66 Y Y N MH-103_MH-104 222.71 RCP 36 5 4 5 7 Y Y N MH-104_MH-105 340.21 RCP 36 1 5 5 19 Y Y N MH-105_MH-106 510.62 RCP 36 1 5 5 20 Y Y N MH-106_MH-107 553.05 RCP 36 1 5 5 31 Y Y N MH-107_MH-108 596.75 RCP 36 1 5 5 40 Y Y N MH-108_MH-109 124.91 RCP 36 1 3 3 93 Y Y N MH-109_MH-110 485.72 RCP 36 1 5 4 61 Y Y N MH-110_MH-111 211.62 RCP 36 1 4 4 62 Y Y N MH-111_MH-112 496.55 RCP 36 1 4 4 63 Y Y N MH-112_MH-113 371.84 RCP 36 1 5 5 36 Y Y N MH-113_MH-114 351.13 RCP 36 1 5 5 37 Y Y N MH-114_MH-115 336.83 RCP 36 1 3 4 81 Y Y N MH-115_MH-116 444.31 RCP 36 1 5 5 38 Y Y N MH-116_MH-116A 199.42 RCP 36 1 5 5 44 Y Y N MH-116A_MH-117 151.62 RCP 36 1 5 5 45 Y Y N MH-117_MH-118 307.23 RCP 36 1 5 5 29 Y Y N MH-118_MH-119 462.46 RCP 36 1 5 5 30 Y Y N MH-119_MH-120 206.7 RCP 36 1 2 3 115 N N N MH-120_MH-121 193.51 RCP 36 1 2 3 109 N N N Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 81 Pipeline Facility ID Length (ft) Material Diameter (in) Pipe Capacity Rating Structural Condition Rating Overall Risk Rating Rank CIPP Spray Coating Pipe Bursting MH-121_MH-122 532.15 RCP 36 1 3 4 84 N N N MH-122_MH-123 534.84 RCP 36 2 3 4 74 Y Y N MH-123_MH-125 398.54 RCP 36 1 5 5 39 Y Y N MH-125_MH-126 498.12 RCP 36 1 5 5 32 Y Y N MH-126_MH-127 510.46 RCP 36 1 5 4 58 Y Y N MH-127_MH-128 511.05 RCP 36 1 5 4 59 Y Y N MH-128_MH-130 596.03 RCP 36 1 5 4 60 Y Y N MH-130_MH-131 595.2 RCP 36 1 4 4 64 Y Y N MH-131_MH-132 484.6 RCP 36 1 5 5 35 Y Y N MH-132_MH-133 518.3 RCP 36 1 3 4 65 Y Y N MH-133_MH-134 492.45 RCP 36 1 5 5 41 Y Y N MH-134_MH-134A 53.8 RCP 36 1 2 3 117 N N N MH-134A_MH-135 559.2 RCP 36 1 5 5 33 Y Y N MH-135_MH-136 379.8 RCP 36 2 5 5 13 Y Y N MH-136_MH-137 60.5 RCP 36 3 2 4 87 N N N MH-137_MH-138 172.12 RCP 36 1 5 5 47 Y Y N MH-138_MH-138A 308.1 RCP 36 1 5 5 34 Y Y N MH-138A_MH-139 226.7 RCP 36 4 3 5 42 Y Y N MH-139_MH-140 577.8 RCP 36 2 5 5 14 Y Y N MH-140_MH-141 578.3 RCP 36 2 5 5 15 Y Y N MH-141_MH-142 406.6 RCP 36 2 4 5 48 Y Y N MH-142_MH-142A 60.7 RCP 36 4 3 5 57 Y Y N MH-142A_MH-142B 122.6 RCP 36 4 4 5 22 Y Y N MH-142B_MH-142C 223.99 RCP 36 4 5 5 2 Y Y N MH-142C_MH-142D 336.5 RCP 36 4 5 5 3 Y Y N MH-142D_MH-142E 150.8 RCP 36 4 5 5 6 Y Y N MH-142E_MH-142F 283 RCP 36 4 5 5 4 Y Y N MH-142F_MH-143 523.9 RCP 36 4 5 5 5 Y Y N MH-143_MH-144 485.6 RCP 36 1 5 5 25 Y Y N MH-144_MH-145 63.9 RCP 36 1 3 3 100 Y Y N MH-145_MH-146 560.9 RCP 36 2 5 5 10 Y Y N MH-146_MH-147 206.05 RCP 36 1 5 5 26 Y Y N MH-147_MH-148 199.2 RCP 36 5 5 5 1 Y Y N MH-148_MH-149 196.8 RCP 36 1 4 4 72 Y Y N MH-149_MH-150 80.29 RCP 36 1 4 4 73 Y Y N MH-150_MH-151 608.6 RCP 36 2 5 5 11 Y Y N MH-151_MH-152 603.2 RCP 36 2 5 5 12 Y Y N MH-152_MH-153 392.51 RCP 36 3 5 5 8 Y Y N MH-153_MH-154 327.2 RCP 36 1 5 5 27 Y Y N MH-154_MH-155 10.6 RCP 36 1 2 2 155 N N N MH-155_MH-156 207.2 RCP 42 5 2 5 56 N N N Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 82 Table 45 below lists the pipeline that was found to have significant structural defects that are in need of immediate rehabilitation. Table 45: Pipelines with Structural Defects Requiring Immediate Rehabilitation Facility ID RRR Alternative Reason for Recommendation MH-116_MH-116A Open Cut Point Repair (replace roughly 35 LF of pipe from approximately 19’ to 54’ downstream of MH-116) (1) SMW – Missing Wall 10 LF of continuous SMW – Missing Wall (1) SRP – Reinforcement Projecting Table 46 below lists the pipelines that were found to have significant I&I-related defects that are in need of immediate rehabilitation. All four (4) of the pipelines are recommended for eventual full pipe length structural CIPP lining rehabilitation due to the widespread structural degradation of the reinforced concrete pipe sections of the JTP trunk main (i.e. from MH-88 to the SCRWA WWTP), and thus are recommended for immediate structural CIPP lining rehabilitation in order to complete that work in advance. Table 46: Pipelines with I&I Defects Requiring Immediate Rehabilitation Facility ID RRR Alternative Reason for Recommendation MH-153_MH-154 Structural CIPP Lining (Full Pipe Segment) (1) IGB – Infiltration Gusher, Barrel (Grade 5 Severity) MH-145_MH-146 (2) IRB – Infiltration Runner, Barrel (Grade 4 Severity) MH-146_MH-147 (1) IRB – Infiltration Runner, Barrel (Grade 4 Severity) MH-152_MH-153 (1) IR – Infiltration Runner (Grade 4 Severity) 9.2 Manholes This section lists the manholes that were found to be in need of repair, rehabilitation, or replacement based on observed defects and field assessment findings. Table 47 below lists these manholes along with their RRR alternative(s) and reason for recommendation. Table 47: Manhole RRR Alternatives Assignment Facility ID RRR Alternative Reason for Recommendation MH-66 Repair: Raising Buried Manholes These manholes were found to be buried during the field assessment. In order to allow for proper and adequate access for future O&M and/or construction activities, these manholes are recommended to be raised flush with ground level. MH-127 MH-128 MH-137 MH-138 MH-138A MH-142A MH-142B Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 83 Facility ID RRR Alternative Reason for Recommendation MH-123 Rehabilitation: Cementitious Liners or Rehabilitation: CIPM Liner These manholes were observed to have either Grade 5 or Grade 4 structural defects. Therefore, these manholes are recommended for rehabilitation through the use of a cementitious liner or CIPM liner. MH-130 MH-75 MH-29 MH-41 MH-87 MH-147 MH-146 MH-68 MH-120 MH-55 MH-70 MH-99 MH-32 MH-122 MH-97A MH-102A MH-109 MH-139 MH-64 MH-102B MH-94 MH-101 MH-60 MH-144 MH-16 MH-93 MH-36 MH-119 MH-4 MH-149 MH-31 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 84 10 Proposed Improvement Project Bundling/Phasing & Analysis This section contains discussion of the analysis performed to determine feasible project bundling/phasing alternatives. As mentioned previously in Section 5.1, the JT-P2 through JT-P9 improvement projects are required to address the capacity deficiencies identified in the City’s SSMP. The following topics were used to determine comparable project bundling approaches. Construction Methodology Feasibility As it pertains to the RRR methodologies to address the widespread structural degradation along the RCP portions of JTP trunk main, structural CIPP lining and spray coating are considered feasible. Pipe bursting is not feasible for the RCP portions of the JTP trunk main because pipe bursting of reinforced concrete pipe is difficult/experimental and in many cases not feasible, and the concern for potential heaving of the various crop fields/roads/commercial areas would make the construction process slow with a high probability of failure and/or significant surface damage and unsafe conditions for the general public. For this reason, pipe bursting would not be considered feasible for addressing the trunk main’s structurally degraded portions. While the microtunneling and open cut replacement methodologies are technically feasible to address the structural degradation found along the JTP trunk main, the significantly higher associated costs and overall public disturbance when compared to the aforementioned structural CIPP lining and spray coating methodologies effectively rule out their potential for recommendation. Also, the extent to which the RCP portions of the JTP trunk main have become degraded does not preclude the host pipe’s ability to continue to serve as a trunk main for the City should a rehabilitation methodology be employed to extend its useful life. For these reasons, the structural CIPP lining and spray coating rehabilitation methodologies will be included in the proposed improvement project bundling and phasing options. Capacity Due to the planned continued use of the existing JTP trunk main even after the relief trunk JT-P2 through JT-P9 capacity improvement projects are constructed, any methodology employed to address the structural degradation along the JTP trunk main needs to account for impacts on conveyance capacity. To that end, the relatively low impact on conveyance capacity stemming from structural CIPP lining and/or spray coating of the JTP trunk main was an important factor in the decision to recommend their potential implementation in the future. While structural CIPP lining obviously decreases the inside diameter of the JTP trunk main once installed, the smoother profile (and thereby smaller friction losses when analyzing conveyance capacity) can effectively offset the loss of inside diameter. Lastly, spray coating is typically applied to a thickness of about 100-125 mils (or 0.1 to 0.125 inches), which will likely not negatively affect the conveyance capacity of the JTP trunk main to the point where the JT-P2 through JT-P9 capacity improvement projects would become insufficient/undersized. Capacity Project Cost Review When looking at the cost estimates in the City’s SSMP for the aforementioned JT-P2 through JT-P9 capacity improvement projects, the unit costs utilized appear to adequately account for the degree of difficulty of constructing the various projects along the selected route. Therefore, when estimating the costs of the approaches subsequently in this section, the original cost estimates will be utilized as the starting basis and will Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 85 be escalated utilizing ENR’s 20-city national average Construction Cost Index values (i.e. a roughly 2% increase per year from the original estimate). Two variations of project bundling/phasing approaches were analyzed, with the following sub-sections discussing the approaches determined to be feasible, comparatively costed (with similar feasibility profiles and level of risk contingencies included), and addressing the structural degradation of the JTP trunk main. Two alternatives were developed, analyzed, and grouped into two separate sections, the first being “Emergency/Immediate Projects” and the second being “Intermediate Projects”. These included improvements to address existing and future buildout planning horizon capacity related problems identified in the SSMP combined with improvements required to address emergency (0-2 year) and intermediate (2-10 year) condition deficiencies identified during the project field work. An emergency/immediate project to address significant existing structural deficiencies and raise buried manholes will be constructed in the next 2-years. To address the remainder of the capacity and condition deficiencies, two phasing approaches were analyzed. “All-at-Once” assumed all of the projects addressing the structural condition deficiencies and existing and future planning horizon capacity deficiencies (i.e. JT-P2 through JT-P9) would be constructed within a 5-year period as a single intermediate project. “Phased” assumed all of the projects addressing the structural condition deficiencies would be constructed over a 2 to 15-year period as a multi-phased immediate/intermediate project. However, the JT-P2 through JT-P9 capacity improvement projects would still be constructed within a 5-year period due to the City’s SSMP originally recommending these projects to begin in 2018. This approach required additional emergency/immediate improvements (i.e. crown spraying of lines with condition deficiencies that are being phased). The project bundling options are described below and their associated cost estimates in Section 12. 10.1 “All-at-Once” Approach Providing there are no schedule and/or budgetary constraints, the various components of the overall project are recommended to be completed all at the same time. This provides the most expedient approach to address the high-risk structural defects with a methodology that will extend the trunk main’s useful life by 30-50 years for rehabilitated pipe segments and 50-75 years for new pipes. Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once The “Emergency/Immediate Projects” (0-2 years) include the following: • Structural CIPP lining and/or open cut replacement of the pipelines found to be in need of point repairs (see Appendix G) • Manhole RRR activities (as discussed in Section 9.2) The “Intermediate Projects” (2-5 years) include the following: • Structural CIPP lining of all assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1 and Appendix H) • Capacity Improvement Projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 86 10.2 Phasing Approach If the “All-at-Once” approach cannot be implemented due to City identified constraints, a combination of structural CIPP lining and crown spray coating could be completed. Note after completion of the phased approach, service life expectancies similar to the “All-at-Once” approach would be met. Structural CIPP Lining & CIP-6 with Microtunneling – Phased The “Emergency/Immediate Projects (Years 0-2)” include the following: • Structural CIPP lining and/or open cut replacement of the pipelines found to be in need of point repairs (see Appendix G) • Spray coating of all assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1) • Manhole RRR activities (as discussed in Section 9.2) The “Immediate/Intermediate Projects (Years 2-5 years)” include the following: • Structural CIPP lining of all assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1) DS of MH-130 • Spray coating re-application of assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1) US of MH-130 • Capacity Improvement Projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 The “Intermediate/15-YR Projects (Years 5-15)” include the following: • Spray coating re-application of assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1) US of MH-130 • Structural CIPP lining of all assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1) US of the “CIP-6” capacity project 11 O&M Recommendations Due to past discussions with City staff regarding historical cleaning regimens/programs employed for the JTP trunk main, WWE recommends that the City perform periodic cleaning of the JTP trunk main on a more regular basis (i.e. once every 3-5 years). This will ensure that the vital JTP trunk main is maintained properly so that the City can continue to sufficiently convey wastewater flows while reducing the potential for O&M-related SSOs and associated costs. In addition, due to the visual inspection performed on the siphon barrel pipe segments near the intersection of Wren Avenue and La Primavera Way, WWE recommends that these also be cleaned on a more regular basis (similarly, once every 3-5 years) to ensure continued function performance for the only siphon along the JTP trunk main. 12 Construction Cost Estimates Planning level construction cost estimates were prepared for the project bundles previously described in Section 10. Table 51 below lists the associated appendices and total construction cost opinion for the aforementioned project bundles. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 87 Table 48: Cost Estimate Comparison Approach Project Bundle Appendix Total Construction Cost Opinion All-at- Once Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 Appendix E $47.1 Million Phased Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 Appendix F $47.8 Million 13 Recommended Project Based on previous discussion regarding construction methodology feasibility, capacity, and the costs shown in Table 51, the project bundle “Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once” is the recommended project. Not only is this project bundle the least expensive, but it also addresses the structurally degraded portions of the JTP trunk main in the quickest fashion. If this All-at-Once approach is not feasible based on City-identified constraints (i.e. funding, schedule), the phased approach for the project bundle “Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9– Phased” is recommended. The recommended project bundle “Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once” is broken down into two separate groups of various RRR projects, as shown in Appendix E. The first group of “Emergency/Immediate Projects” is comprised of pipeline and manhole work, with Table 52 below summarizing the RRR activities for each asset. Appendix G contains a figure that graphically illustrates the “Emergency/Immediate Projects”. Table 49: Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects Asset Facility ID RRR Activity Note(s) MH-116_MH-116A Open Cut Point Repair 36”; replace roughly 35 LF of pipe from approximately 19’ to 54’ downstream of MH-116 MH-153_MH-154 Structural CIPP Lining (Full Pipe Segment) 36” MH-145_MH-146 36” MH-146_MH-147 36” MH-152_MH-153 36” MH-66 Repair: Raising Buried Manholes These manholes were found to be buried during the field assessment. In order to allow for proper and adequate access for future O&M and/or construction activities, these manholes are recommended to be raised flush with ground level. MH-127 MH-128 MH-137 MH-138 MH-138A MH-142A MH-142B MH-123 Rehab: Cementitious Liners These manholes were observed to have either Grade 5 or Grade 4 structural defects. Therefore, these MH-130 MH-75 Exhibit A Exhibit A-1 Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 88 Asset Facility ID RRR Activity Note(s) MH-29 manholes are recommended for rehabilitation through the use of a cementitious liner or CIPM liner. MH-41 MH-87 MH-147 MH-146 MH-68 MH-120 MH-55 MH-70 MH-99 MH-32 MH-122 MH-97A MH-102A MH-109 MH-139 MH-64 MH-102B MH-94 MH-101 MH-60 MH-144 MH-16 MH-93 MH-36 MH-119 MH-4 MH-149 MH-31 The second group of “Intermediate Projects” aims to address the structural degradation of the trunk main through structural CIPP lining. Also included are the capacity Improvement projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 as previously discussed in 5.1. Table 53 below lists the pipelines that are recommended to be structurally lined with CIPP. Appendix H contain a figure that graphically illustrates the “Intermediate Projects”. Table 50: Recommended Immediate/Intermediate Projects Pipeline Facility ID RRR Activity Note(s) From MH-59 to MH-62 Structural CIPP Total Length: 1,605 ft From MH-88 to MH-90 Total Length: 573 ft From MH-94 to MH-102 Total Length: 2,591 ft From MH-102B to MH-119 Total Length: 6,265 ft From MH-122 to MH-134 Total Length: 5,140 ft Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 89 Pipeline Facility ID RRR Activity Note(s) From MH-134A to MH-136 Total Length: 939 ft From MH-137 to MH-154 Total Length: 7,695 ft 14 Potential Constraints of Recommended Methodology 14.1 Permits The following are potential permits that could be required for construction of these project alternatives dependent on final selected alignment and construction methodology: • California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit • Santa Clara County and City of Gilroy Encroachment Permits • US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit (Miller Slough) • Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Water Quality Certification (if contaminated water is encountered or CIPP curing water is pretreated prior to discharge) 14.2 Environmental Considerations Examples of environmental considerations for structural CIPP lining include noise, dust, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documentation. It is anticipated that the condition related work could be conducted as a categorical exemption (CatEx) or initial study and mitigated or negative declaration (IS M/ND). However, the capacity related project would likely require an ISMND. 14.3 Utility Coordination Due to the potential for conflicting existing utilities, the project should follow the ABC Process as agreed upon by the American Public Works Association (APWA) Joint Utilities Coordination Committee to collect Quality A Level information as defined by the ASCE Standard 38-02 for Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data. Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC CITY OF MORGAN HILL JOINT TRUNK PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT January 2021 PAGE | 90 15 Appendices 15.1 Appendix A – Summary of Pipeline Work Completed 15.2 Appendix B – Pipeline Structural Quick Ratings 15.3 Appendix C – Pipeline Maintenance Quick Ratings 15.4 Appendix D – Pipeline Overall Risk Ratings 15.5 Appendix E – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once 15.6 Appendix F – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – Phased 15.7 Appendix G – Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects 15.8 Appendix H – Recommended Intermediate Projects 15.9 Appendix I – Mapbook, Pipeline Inspection Findings Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix A – Summary of Pipeline Work Completed Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ¯ 0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet Summary of PipelineWork Completed Appendix A Joint Trunk PipelineCondition Assessment ReportLegend CCTV & Cleaning Abandoned No CCTV/Cleaning Work Description Mo n t e r e y R d California Ave Highland AveHa r d i n g A v e Fitzgerald Ave Day Rd Wren AveLeavesley Rd SR-152 SCRWA WWTP Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix B – Pipeline Structural Quick Ratings Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ¯ 0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet StructuralQuick Ratings Appendix B Joint Trunk PipelineCondition Assessment Report Mo n t e r e y R d California Ave Highland AveHa r d i n g A v e Fitzgerald Ave Day Rd Wren AveLeavesley Rd SR-152 SCRWA WWTP Legend 5000 - 5999 4000 - 4999 3000 - 3999 2000 - 2999 1000 - 1999 0000 Not Inspected Structural Quick RatingExhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix C – Pipeline Maintenance Quick Ratings Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ¯ 0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet MaintenanceQuick Ratings Appendix C Joint Trunk PipelineCondition Assessment Report Mo n t e r e y R d California Ave Highland AveHa r d i n g A v e Fitzgerald Ave Day Rd Wren AveLeavesley Rd SR-152 SCRWA WWTP Legend 5000 - 5999 4000 - 4999 3000 - 3999 2000 - 2999 1000 - 1999 0000 Not Inspected Maintenance Quick RatingExhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix D – Pipeline Overall Risk Ratings Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ¯ 0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet Overall RiskRatings Appendix D Joint Trunk PipelineCondition Assessment Report Mo n t e r e y R d California Ave Highland AveHa r d i n g A v e Fitzgerald Ave Day Rd Wren AveLeavesley Rd SR-152 SCRWA WWTP LegendOverall Risk Rating 5 4 3 2 1 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix E – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Quantity Unit Total Cost Emergency/Immediate Projects Pipelines MH-116_MH-116A (Open Cut Point Repair)35 LF $35,000 MH-145_MH-146 (Structural CIPP)561 LF $244,035 MH-146_MH-147 (Structural CIPP)206 LF $89,610 MH-152_MH-153 (Structural CIPP)393 LF $170,955 MH-153_MH-154 (Structural CIPP)327 LF $142,245 Manholes Repair: Raising Buried Manholes 8 EA $32,000 Rehabilitation: Cementitious Liners 32 EA $125,675 $839,500 Immediate/Intermediate Projects Structural CIPP Lining*24807 LF $10,290,723 Capacity Improvement Projects: JT-P2 thru JT-P9**1 LS $22,473,992 *based on $12/in-dia-ft for structural liner **excalated from original City SSMP estimate using ENR CCI Index $32,800,000 Note: All costs are in 2021 Dollars. Subtotal, Emergency/Immediate Projects (years 0-2)$839,500 Subtotal, Immediate/Intermediate Projects (years 2-5)$32,800,000 Project SUBTOTAL $33,640,000 Design (Emergency/Immediate)15%$125,925 Design (Intermediate)10%$3,280,000 Design Contingency 15%$5,046,000 Construction Contingency 15%$5,046,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (WWE AND JT-P2 thru JT-P9) to the nearest $10,000 $47,100,000 Project:Morgan Hill Joint Trunk Pipeline Computed By: ARB 1/15/21 Checked By:MJF 1/15/21 $4,000 APPENDIX E - Project Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 - All-at-Once Unit Cost $1,000 $435 $435 $435 $435 $4,000 $415 $22,473,992 Subtotal Subtotal Exhibit ADocusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix F – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – Phased Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Quantity Unit Total Cost Emergency/Immediate Projects (Years 0-2) Pipelines MH-116_MH-116A (Open Cut Point Repair)35 LF $35,000 MH-145_MH-146 (Structural CIPP)561 LF $244,035 MH-146_MH-147 (Structural CIPP)206 LF $89,610 MH-152_MH-153 (Structural CIPP)393 LF $170,955 MH-153_MH-154 (Structural CIPP)327 LF $142,245 Spray Coat 24807 LF $257,268 Manholes Repair: Raising Buried Manholes 8 EA $32,000 Rehabilitation: Cementitious Liners 32 EA $125,675 $1,096,800 Intermediate Projects (Years 2-5) Structural CIPP Lining* (DS of MH-130)10725 LF $4,633,161 Spray Coat (re-application of pipes US of MH-130)14082 LF $141,439 Capacity Improvement Projects: JT-P2 thru JT-P9**1 LS $22,473,992 *based on $12/in-dia-ft for structural liner **excalated from original City SSMP estimate using ENR CCI Index $27,200,000 Note: All costs are in 2021 Dollars. Subtotal, Emergency/Immediate Projects (years 0-2)$1,096,800 Subtotal, Immediate/Intermediate Projects (years 2-5)$27,200,000 Project SUBTOTAL $28,297,000 Design (Emergency/Immediate)15%$164,520 Design (Immediate/Intermediate)10%$2,720,000 Design Contingency 15%$4,244,550 Construction Contingency 15%$4,244,550 YEARS 0-5 COST ESTIMATE (WWE AND JT-P2 thru JT-P9) to the nearest $10,000 $39,700,000 Intermediate/15-YR Projects (Years 5-15) Spray Coat (re-application of pipes US of MH-130)14082 LF $141,439 Structural CIPP Lining* (US of MH-130)14082 LF $5,657,562 *based on $12/in-dia-ft for structural liner $5,800,000 Subtotal, Intermediate/15-YR Phase Projects (years 10-15)$5,800,000 Design (Intermediate/15-YR Phase Projects)10%$580,000 Design Contingency 15%$870,000 Construction Contingency 15%$870,000 YEARS 10-15 COST ESTIMATE (WWE AND CIP-6 15-YR PHASE) to the nearest $10,000 $8,100,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (WWE AND CIP-6) to the nearest $10,000 $47,800,000 APPENDIX F - Project Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 - Phased Unit Cost Project: Morgan Hill Joint Trunk Pipeline Computed By: ARB 1/15/21 Checked By: MJF 1/15/21 $1,000 $435 $435 $10.37 $4,000 $435 Subtotal $435 $10.04 Subtotal $432 $10.04 $22,473,992 Subtotal $402 $4,000 Exhibit ADocusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix G – Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ¯ 0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet RecommendedEmergency/ImmediateProjects Appendix G Joint Trunk PipelineCondition Assessment Report Mo n t e r e y R d California Ave Highland AveHa r d i n g A v e Fitzgerald Ave Day Rd Wren AveLeavesley Rd SR-152 SCRWA WWTP Legend MH RRR Activity Raise Buried MH Pipe RRR Activity Structural CIPP All Other Pipes Cast-in-Place Liner/Cement Liner Open Cut Point Repair Open Cut Point Repair MH-116_MH-116A (Replace 35 LF of Pipe from ~19' to ~54' Downstream of MH-116) Structural CIPP Lining (Full Pipe Segment) MH-145_MH-146 & MH-146_MH-147 Structural CIPP Lining (Full Pipe Segment) MH-152_MH-153 & MH-153_MH-154 Exhibit A Exhibit A-1 Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix H – Recommended Intermediate Projects Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ¯ 0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet RecommendedIntermediateProjects Appendix H Joint Trunk PipelineCondition Assessment Report Mo n t e r e y R d California Ave Highland AveHa r d i n g A v e Fitzgerald Ave Day Rd Wren AveLeavesley Rd SR-152 SCRWA WWTP Legend CIPP Continue O&M Program Structural CIPP MH-59 to MH-62 Structural CIPP MH-88 to MH-90 Structural CIPP MH-94 to MH-102 Structural CIPP MH-102B to MH-119 Structural CIPP MH-122 to MH-134 Structural CIPP MH-134A to MH-136 Structural CIPP MH-137 to MH-154 Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Appendix I –Mapbook, Pipeline Inspection Findings Exhibit A Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC E‐1MH‐116 to MH‐116AGravity MainLeavesley Rd Intersection of South Valley Fwy33Open Cut Point Repair3335 1,351 47,28547,300218,60050% 50%109,300109,300E‐2MH‐145 to MH‐146Gravity MainCamino Arroyo From 1000' n/o Mayock Rd to Mayock Rd33Structural CIPP Lining33561 588 329,868 329,900478,40050% 50%239,200239,200E‐3MH‐146 to MH‐147Gravity MainCamino Arroyo From Mayock Rd to 150' ne/o Camino Arroyo33Structural CIPP Lining33206 588 121,128 121,100175,60050% 50%87,80087,800E‐4MH‐152 to MH‐153Gravity MainCamino Arroyo From 650' n/o Southside Dr to 325 n/o Southside Dr33Structural CIPP Lining33393 588 231,084 231,100335,10050% 50%167,550167,550E‐5MH‐153 to MH‐154Gravity MainCamino Arroyo From 325' n/o Southside Dr to 100' n/o Southside Dr33Structural CIPP Lining33327 588 192,276 192,300278,80050% 50%139,400139,400921,7001,486,500743,250743,250E‐6ManholeVarious‐‐Repair RaisingBuried Manholes8 Manholes 10,000 80,00080,000116,00050% 50%58,00058,000E‐7ManholeVarious‐‐RehabilitationCementitious Liners32 Manholes 10,000 320,000 320,000464,00050% 50%232,000232,000400,000580,000290,000290,000Spray CoatingVarious‐‐Spray Coating24,807 12.37 306,863 306,900445,00050% 50%222,500222,500306,900445,000222,500222,500921,7001,486,500743,250743,250400,000580,000290,000290,000306,900445,000222,500222,5001,628,600 2,511,5001,255,750 1,255,750Gilroy Morgan Hill740,68450% 50%370,342370,342376,72650% 50%188,363188,3633,628,9101,814,455 1,814,455Notes :4. Cost Allocation based on  Morgan Hill‐Gilroy Joint Trunk Agreement.5. Design cost based on fee proposal from HydroScience Engineers (6/14/24) plus 10% contingency.6. Construction Management cost estimated at 15% of construction cost.3. Capital Improvement Cost for Open Cut Point Repair on Leavesley Road includes $150,000 allowance for coordination with Caltrans (i.e., traffic control plans, traffic control implementation, and permitting). 1.  Source of all identified projects, recommended costs, and contingencies are based on City of Morgan Hill, Joint Trunk Pipeline Condition Assessment Report  completed by Water Works Engineers, January 2021. Units costs were escalated to reflect the current ENR CCI for July 2024.2. Capital Improvement Costs include a contingency markup of 45% (20% general contingency and 25% construction contingency)Total Construction CostsSubtotal ‐ Pipeline ProjectsSubtotal ‐ Manhole ProjectsSubtotal ‐ Spray CoatingTotal Construction CostsDesign & Construction ManagementDesign5Construction Management6Total Project CostSubtotal ‐ Spray CoatingPipelinesSubtotal ‐ Pipeline ProjectsManholesSubtotal ‐ Manhole ProjectsSpray CoatingExhbit BEstimated Total Project CostsJoint Morgan Hill‐Gilroy Trunk Line Repair Project Gilroy CIP Project 800980 ‐ Emergency/Immediate RepairsImprovement ID1Type of Improvement AlignmentLimitsExistingDiam.(in)New/Parallel/ReplaceGilroy(%)MorganHill(%)Gilroy($)Infrastructure Costs1Baseline Const.Costs1($)Capital Improv.Cost2,3($)Suggested CostAllocation4Cost AllocationDiameter(in)Length(ft)Unit Cost($)Infr. Cost($)Morgan Hill($)Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC U:\Legal Forms\CONTRACT ROUTING FORMS Revised 6/13/2023  City of Morgan Hill Contract Checklist Contract # ________________________________ Is FPPC Required (completed by CA)? ___________ Date: ___________________ Project Name:________________________________________________________________ Contractor’s Name: ___________________________________________________________ Project Manager: _____________________________________________________________ Department: _________________________________________________________________ STANDARD CITY/AGENCY FORM: Is this a Standard City/Agency Form without any changes: YES NO [If there are changes to the Standard City/Agency Form, describe in attached memo/ email] Are there funds for this request? YES NO Fund:_____________________________________________________________________ Project:____________________________________________________________________ Account #: _________________________________________________________________ CONTRACTOR’S INSURANCE ***To be completed before agreement is routed to Shadia Hrichi. ***Please fill in one of the section below: Insurance reviewed and approved on date of: __________________ Insurance is not required per email dated: _____________________ *NOTE: Amended contracts do not require additional/new insurance 9/10/24 Gilroy Trunk Line Cost Share Agreement City of Gilroy Chris Ghione Public Services x CIP Project 643 NA 9/10/24 4 Docusign Envelope ID: 84950200-6DC8-462A-B053-7ECD6BF67C75 No Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 849502006DC8462AB0537ECD6BF67C75 Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: GilroyTrunkLineCostShareAgreement Source Envelope: Document Pages: 118 Signatures: 4 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 City Clerk's Office AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 17575 Peak Ave Morgan Hill, CA 95037 cityclerk@morganhill.ca.gov IP Address: 35.131.77.142 Record Tracking Status: Original 9/10/2024 8:56:27 AM Holder: City Clerk's Office cityclerk@morganhill.ca.gov Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Morgan Hill Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Donald Larkin donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov City Attorney/Risk Manager Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 35.131.77.142 Sent: 9/10/2024 9:02:59 AM Viewed: 9/10/2024 9:16:45 AM Signed: 9/10/2024 9:16:56 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 9/10/2024 9:16:45 AM ID: a6195ef7-1412-488c-b373-a1181aad388a Christina Turner christina.turner@morganhill.ca.gov City Manager City of Morgan Hill Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 138.229.181.219 Sent: 9/10/2024 9:17:00 AM Viewed: 9/11/2024 7:19:06 AM Signed: 9/11/2024 7:20:26 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 9/11/2024 7:19:05 AM ID: 4d02f8c4-894f-4426-b4b3-c49f4fa5373b Michelle Bigelow michelle.bigelow@morganhill.ca.gov City Clerk Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 75.141.173.151 Sent: 9/11/2024 7:20:29 AM Viewed: 9/11/2024 8:20:58 AM Signed: 9/11/2024 8:21:02 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 9/11/2024 8:20:58 AM ID: 1a685d41-fd8f-449f-bf5f-03f3dc10e752 In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Chris Ghione chris.ghione@morganhill.ca.gov Public Services Director Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 9/11/2024 8:21:05 AM Viewed: 9/17/2024 8:11:23 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 9/12/2024 10:07:07 AM ID: 14c844ce-9de4-4b4d-a53d-c49137e56654 Angel Echavarria angel.echavarria@morganhill.ca.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 9/11/2024 8:21:06 AM Viewed: 9/11/2024 8:22:55 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 7/18/2024 2:25:26 PM ID: 066f48c2-1e16-415d-a140-5dc49c4c5dc0 Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 9/10/2024 9:02:59 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 9/11/2024 8:20:58 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 9/11/2024 8:21:02 AM Completed Security Checked 9/11/2024 8:21:06 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Morgan Hill (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 5/29/2020 4:52:24 PM Parties agreed to: Donald Larkin, Christina Turner, Michelle Bigelow, Chris Ghione, Angel Echavarria Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. How to contact City of Morgan Hill: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: michelle.bigelow@morganhill.ca.gov To advise City of Morgan Hill of your new email address To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at michelle.bigelow@morganhill.ca.gov and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address. If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences. To request paper copies from City of Morgan Hill To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to michelle.bigelow@morganhill.ca.gov and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Morgan Hill To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an email to michelle.bigelow@morganhill.ca.gov and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guide- signing-system-requirements. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system. By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm that:  You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and  You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and  Until or unless you notify City of Morgan Hill as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by City of Morgan Hill during the course of your relationship with City of Morgan Hill. Docusign Envelope ID: 821AEAEB-A021-40D8-B0B1-780EC55F48CC