Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2019 City Council - Regular Meeting Packet September 11, 2019 5:04 PM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR Mayor Roland Velasco COUNCIL MEMBERS Marie Blankley Dion Bracco Peter Leroe-Muñoz Carol Marques Fred Tovar Cat Tucker CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF GILROY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 7351 ROSANNA STREET GILROY, CA 95020 SPECIAL MEETING 5:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required, to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. A mi nimum of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and Staff. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204. A sound enhancement system is also available for use in the C ity Council Chambers. If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on exi sting facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the a genda packet in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Monday of each month, at 6:00 p.m. If a holiday, the meeting will be rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of th e single meeting in July which lands on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 09/16/2019 Page2 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org SPECIAL MEETING - INTERVIEWS 5:30 P.M. Interviews to Fill 5 Seats on the Youth Commission With Terms Ending 9/30/2021 1. Staff Report: Shawna Freels, City Clerk 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Interview applicants for the Gilroy Youth Commission. REGULAR MEETING I. OPENING A. Call to Order 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Invocation 3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda 4. Roll Call B. Orders of the Day C. Employee Introductions II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations 1. Proclamation Naming October 4, 2019 as Manufacturing Day III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 09/16/2019 Page3 PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the Council may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by public members for Council agenda item “public comment by Members of the Public on items not on the agenda” will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.) A. Library Commission Annual Presentation to Council B. Presentation of Vision Plan by Gilroy Chamber of Commerce City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 09/16/2019 Page4 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Bracco – Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Santa Clara Co. Library JPA, SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee (alternate), South County Regional Wastewater Authority, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team (alternate), Street Naming Committee Council Member Tucker –CalTrain Policy Group, General Plan Advisory Committee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Hab itat Agency Implementation Board, Street Naming Committee, Visit Gilroy Board Council Member Blankley - ABAG, Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board of Directors (alternate), Economic Development Corporation Board, Gilroy Sister Cities Association, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority, VTA Board of Directors Alternate, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, VTA South County City Group Council Member Marques - Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board (alternate), URM Task Force Sub-Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility (alternate) Council Member Tovar –Santa Clara Co. Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board, Santa Clara Co. Library JPA (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCVWD Water Committee (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board, South County Regional Wastewater Authority, South County United for Health, Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility, VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate) Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG (alternate), CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Historic Heritage Committee, SCVWD Water Committee, Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Mobility Partnership Mayor Velasco - Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board of Directors, Economic Development Corporation Board, General Plan Advisory Committee, Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Historic Heritage Committee (alternate), South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority (alternate), URM Task Force Sub-Committee, VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA South County City Group (alternate) V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE) All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 09/16/2019 Page5 A. Approval of Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Large Meter Replacement Project No. 18-PW-251 B. Approval of the 2020 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule C. Approval of a Funding Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Through March 31, 2047 for 2016 Measure B Bicycle Pedestrian Education and Encouragement Funding D. Approval of the Declaration of 26 Vehicles and Equipment as Surplus and Authorize the Disposition of the Surplus Through Auction E. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Proclaiming the Termination of the Period of a Local Emergency for the Gilroy Garlic Festival Incident VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS A. Approval of a Contract with Dewberry Architects Inc. in the Amount of $215,423 with a Project Contingency of $43,085 (20%) for the Design of the One Stop Development Review Center, Project No. 19-RFP-PW-429 1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Approve a Contract with Dewberry Architects Inc. in the Amount of $215,423 with a Project Contingency of $43,085 (20%) for the Design of the One Stop Development Review Center; Project No. 19-RFP-PW -429, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. B. Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Budget in the Amount of $177,800 and Approval of a Contract with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers in the Amount of $562,145 with a Project Contingency of $56,214 (10%) for Design and Construction Engineering Services of Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well); Project No. 19-RFP-PW-420 1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: a) Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget for the Water Development Fund 436 increasing appropriations in the amount of $177,800. b) Approve a contract with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers in the amount of $562,145 with a project contin gency of $56,214 (10%) for the design and construction engineering services for the Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well); Project No. 19-RFP-PW -420, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing Under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the Issuance of California Municipal Finance Authority Bonds for the Benefit of Gilroy Lewis Street, L.P. to Provide Financing for the Cannery Apartments Project City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 09/16/2019 Page6 1. Staff Report: Greg Larson, Interim Community Development Director 2. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Possible Action: Adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the issuance of the Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) for the benefit of Meta Housing Corporation (the "Developer") a California nonprofit corporation and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof (the "Borrower"), to provide for the financing of the Project, such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code and California Government Code Section 6500. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Update on Providing City Water Service to a Property Located at 935 Southside Drive Known as the Former Site of the Rodriguez Labor Camp 1. Staff Report: Greg Larson, Interim Community Development Director 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Receive report and provide direction to staff . X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation of Research from Other Municipalities on the Deployment of Motorized Scooters 1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Receive report and provide direction to staff. B. Policy Discussion and Direction Concerning the City's Unfunded Pension Liabilities and Establishment of a IRS Section 115 Trust 1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, Finance Director 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Receive report and provide direction to staff. C. Approval of Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding and Adoption of a Resolution Approving Associated Salary Schedules for the Period of July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 09/16/2019 Page7 1. Staff Report: LeeAnn McPhillips, Human Resources Director/Risk Manager 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: a) Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Gilroy Management Association for the period July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021. b) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 salary schedules associated with the Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding. D. Consideration of a Potential Firearms Buyback Event 1. Staff Report: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Receive report and provide direction to staff XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS XIII. CLOSED SESSION - NONE ADJOURNMENT MEETING DATES SEPTEMBER, 2019 16* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers 17* Special Meeting/Closed Session - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers OCTOBER, 2019 7* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers 21* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers 28 Special Joint Meeting with Santa Clara Valley Water District. - 6:00 p.m., Morgan Hill Council Chambers NOVEMBER, 2019 4* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers 18* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers DECEMBER, 2019 2* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers 9* Special Meeting/Board & Commission Interviews - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers * meeting is webstreamed and televised City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Interviews to Fill 5 Seats on the Youth Commission With Terms Ending 9/30/2021 Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: City Clerk Submitted By: Shawna Freels Prepared By: Shawna Freels Suzanne Guzzetta Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Interview applicants for the Gilroy Youth Commission. BACKGROUND The City conducted an eighteen-week recruitment period prior to the summer break and through the beginning of the school year to fill five seats on the Youth Commission for 2-year terms ending 9/20/2021. We partnered with the Gilroy Unified School District Public Information Office to distribute the recruitment material to all Junior High and High School Principals, as well as through GUSD Twitter, Facebook and E-newsletters. W e also published the open recruitment in our activity guide, promoted the recruitment Packet Pg. 8 efforts through all of our social media outlets and the City website, and reached out to the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, CARAS, and Leadership Gilroy. Recreation staff took extra efforts to conduct outreach at the Gilroy Youth Center, Late Night Gym, San Ysidro Park, at special community events, and with the parent organization San Ysidro Nueva Vida from East Gilroy. 22 applications were received for Council interview. Applicants are:  Kenneth Apte *  Alexandra Beyret  Eshaan Billing  Brennan Burge  Jackson Burge  Julia Fox  Luis Garcia  Kaitlyn Hynek  Sajiv Jampani  Joshua Jang  Meyhar Kamrah  Senna Kolagatla *  Clarissa Lara  Joshua Martinez  Alayna Matthews  Adriana Mireles  Awa Ndao  Reet Padda  Ryanne Palacios  Serena Ramirez  Isabella Sells  Kimberly Wu * incumbent CONCLUSION Staff recommends the Council interview applicants at this evening’s meeting, and make appointments to the six open seats at your October 7, 2019 regular meeting. Attachments: 1. 2019 Youth Commission Applications Packet Pg. 9 Name Age Grade Incumbent School Kenneth Apte 16 12 Yes Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Alexandra Beyret 14 9 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Eshaan Billing 14 9 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Brennan Burge 12 7 Brownell Middle School Jackson Burge 13 8 Brownell Middle School Julia Fox 15 10 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Luis Garcia 17 11 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Kaitlyn Hynek 17 12 Valley Christian High School Sajiv Jampani 12 7 Brownell Middle School Joshua Jang 13 8 Brownell Middle School Meyhar Kamrah 15 9 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Senna Kolagatla 16 12 Yes Christopher High School Clarissa Lara 16 10 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Joshua Martinez 12 7 Brownell Middle School Alayna Matthews 17 12 Monte Vista Christian School Adriana Mireles 12 7 Brownell Middle School Awa Ndao 16 11 Christopher High School Reet Padda 15 10 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Ryanne Palacios 13 9 Serena Ramirez 15 10 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Isabella Sells 14 9 California Connections Academy Kimberly Wu 15 10 Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) 2019 Youth Commission Applicants 2019 YC Applicants Kenneth Apte Alexandra Beyret Eshaan Billing Brennan and Jackson Burge Julia Fox Luis D. Garcia Kaitlyn Hynek Sajiv Jampani Joshua Jang Meyhar Kamrah Senna Kolagotla Clarissa Lara Joshua Martinez Alayna Matthews Adriana Mireles Awa Ndao Reet Padda Serena Ramirez Isabella Sells Kimberly Wu Rebecca Palacios a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*:______Kenneth Apte_______________________________ Birthdate*:___09/29/2002_____________ Address:______ Grade*:___12_____Phone number(s):_( email address:___ Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: A prior term on the Youth Commission 180+ hours volunteering in Gilroy (especially tutoring) Other leadership experience that qualifies me for the role: VP of Technology at Gavilan College (Part of the ASB) Member of the Enrollment Management Committee at Gavilan 10th grade class president Current class treasurer Member of the Gilroy Library Teen Advisory Board Vice President of the Gilroy League of Writers Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? As expected from a commission member, I would like to take this opportunity to produce tangible benefit to the youth of Gilroy in the form of interesting, educational, and enrichening activities for them. I would also like to suggest changes within the commission itself pushing for more annual projects especially) so that our work as a commission can reach and impact more of Gilroy, as I have noticed a lot of limitations for the commission in my prior term. a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy?If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I believe that the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy today is a lack of awareness of the events and opportunities that Gilroy holds for them. This may range from the weekly tutoring services of the Gilroy Library to youth Hackathons organized by Gavilan College. There are a wealth of opportunities for the Gilroy youth to find fun and personal growth in, and I would like to communicate this effectively to them. As I pursued 2 years ago, I would like to create a website than can be a hub for this information so that the Gilroy youth can be informed. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? The greatest thing I can do to improve my previous performance as part of the Youth Commission is to use the insights I gained from my prior term. I saw the dip in event attendance and then its resurgence the next year after more effective communication policies were implemented. I saw how our meetings became smoother when commissioners did “homework” to prepare what they were going to say. I saw the time and financial constraints of the commission and how best to work around that. I would like to hold an officer position in the commission and really facilitate the meetings, discussions, and events using this experience, and if possible, push for the release of the website we created in the last 2 years. All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public recordMail or email your application to:Shawna Freels, City ClerkCity of Gilroy7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020shawna.freels@ci.gilroy.ca.usThe City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Alexandra Beyret Birth Date*: 03/03/2005 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 9________ School: GECA high school Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I have been volunteering for CJSF in my middle school. I do not have too much experience working within the city of Gilroy, but now is the time for me to start. I have began working with the Santa Clara Gilroy Library every weekend for two hours. I am truly ready for helping the city of Gilroy because it is time for me to do something. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed for the main reason that I want to help my city out. Gilroy has gone through so much these past months, and everyone is doing something to help. I believe it is my turn to help. If I become appointed, I will be part of the change that will benefit Gilroy. I will have a voice and a say in what happens to Gilroy. I will help change this city for the better! What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I think the youth of Gilroy are not in tune with everyone. A sociological problem called rolelessness arises in our city. Teens do not have many opportunities to get out and do something and be independent. They are dependent on others only because of the small amounts of activities available for them. If I would be appointed, I would create more activities for teens and children to be involved in. So they don’t think that they can’t do anything, that they won’t become dependent on their parents. Rolelessness is a problem that is affecting many teens these days, it affects our country. However, step by step, we can crush this in our own city first, helping all teens have a role in our community. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Eshaan Billing Birth Date*: July 24, 2005 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 9________ School: Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I have been a resident of Gilroy for over a decade, and recently have started caring for the community and I want to give back. For example, since spring this year, I have been tutoring at CIEL to help the kids enrich their knowledge. I also have been participating in many other community service from picking fruits for homeless shelters to helping kids use bikes to make smoothies(There was a bike that causes a blender to blend for kids to ride). I also volunteered at Gilroy Gardens during the summer in a variety of ways, such as packing food packs for homeless people. When I get time I go to the Sikh temple in San Jose to help wash the dishes and help in the kitchen. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission because I think it is a great opportunity for me to give back to the community and help all kinds of people in all kinds of ways. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I feel that the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy is not being able good education. I feel that many kids from poor families have so much potential, but are not able to access tutors or get extra help. If I am appointed, I will take steps in trying to get more nonprofit agencies like CIEL to help the kids access education help and succeed. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? N/A All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Brennan Burge Birth Date*: 01-17-07 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 7________ School: Brownell Middle School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: Some activities that I have done to help the Gilroy community include the following: volunteering to help at my Elementary school Fall festival, cleaning up trash in some of the town parks, taking time to help the teacher during lunch so they can let there class do more fun activities. With helping at the fall festival it provides the schools community and kids something fun to look towards and be happy to go to. Cleaning up trash makes the parks more enjoyable for anyone to play at. When kids have fun activities at school it makes school more enjoyable witch makes students more ethusyastct to attend school. Some groups that I have been in that can qualify me for this commission include, City Junior Recreation Leader Group, at the moment I am waiting for my training to officially qualify me to me to volunteer. I have also been apart of my school's student council. Those are a few orginizations/groups i have been apart of that would help me succed in the City of Gileoy Youth Commision. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be apart of the Gilroy Youth Commission because I think it could have a positive impact on changing some of the problems the youth face if there are opinions from one of the youth. Being a part of the youth in the gilroy community I see some of the problems the youth face directly. I can see and relate to these issues, this can lead to myself putting in positive ideas that can have a great impact on changing/improving these problems. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? The biggest problem that the youth face in gilroy is bullying in schools, online, and in general. If I was appointed to change this issue some of the steps I would take are as followed. I would make a survey to see how many people have been bullied, what for, how they would want to see it change/ how they would change it, or if they have ever bullied anyone and why. This would show us what actions we need to take to fix this problem. Then we would take whatever action we would need to take. After it has been taken care of wecould makeanother survey to see if it has improved the situation, asking if they have seen and improvment and in what way. Those are a few steps that I would take to improve on one of the big problems the youth are facing in gilroy. There are other issues I have seen with in the youth such as the nicotine issues, and disscrimintation, this can be improved by education. Going to the youth and teaching them on the negitive effects of Julling and how everyone is the same. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Jackson Burge Birth Date*: 01-16-2006 Address: Phone Number(s): (Email Address: Grade*: 8________ School: Brownell Middle School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: Most of my previous experience with organizations similar to the Youth Commission have been with school groups such as the El Roble Student Council in 3rd and 4th grade, along with the Rucker Student Council when I attended that school for 5th grade G.A.T.E. My most recent experience was with the Brownell Associated Student Body in 6th and 7th grade. with five years of doing similar task but on a smaller scale, the Youth Commission seems like an appropriate promotion. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I believe that having experience with a committee such as the Youth Commission would allow for a variety of career choices further down the road. The differences between a school council and a city council are major, despite the fact that said city council mostly impacts the youth. Being able to support the children and teenagers would give me something to work for and support other than school, also providing me with knowledge of how a more official council of representatives functions. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I have noticed a plethora of safety issues when it comes to the people of my age. Most or them are in regard of transportation to and from school. Countless times I have had to back up on a cross walk because some one decides that they have wasted enough time waiting and they don't need to look up from their phone to make sure no one is crossing. This is baffling because it happens most often in school zones, where parents are picking up or dropping off their kids. Students usually have safety programs for crossing roads and walking/biking to and from school, however, we should also have some form of hand out for parents that goes along with said programs. This may reach the target audience of drivers who are slightly impatient. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Julia Fox Birth Date*: 05/22/2004 Address: Phone Number(s): (Email Address: Grade*: 10________ School: Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: Some of my prior experience working with the City of Gilroy was volunteering each year at the Garlic Festival. At the festival, I assisted the Christopher High School water polo team with keg rolling or the Gilroy Gators with food preparation. I also volunteered for the South County Tail Waggers when their event came to my neighborhood. It was satisfying to help my community and I had fun working with my peers. Currently, I am offering my services to my fellow students and staff at Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy (GECA). I am tutoring freshmen and sophomores. Also, I am a teacher aide for my freshman English teacher, Mrs. Omainsky. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would love to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission because I will make an impact on this wonderful community. I want to work towards bringing the community closer together, especially after this tragic event. I also want to encourage the youth to participate more in community activities. I think the Gilroy Youth Commission and the youth in Gilroy could benefit from my shared experiences, like the struggles we may all face in school. I also want to be appointed because I have an interest in how a local government functions and I am looking for more opportunities to volunteer my time and effort. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I believe the biggest problem facing the youth is the stress or anxiety they may face at home or school. Most kids are afraid or unable to go to counselors to discuss the obstacles they may be facing. If I am appointed, I want to work on reaching out to those who are struggling. I think this is necessary because it is something that is blocking us from getting closer together. Those who are struggling must have an output to feel safe in our community. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? n/a All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) e e City of Gilroy Applications for the Gilroy Youth Commission OZcat 6al\" I'9 Name*: ( M CLl Birth Date*:) Address: " 1 ` Number(s): ( l Address: Poi- ;)- 1 \ School: I)f, , U Ovje'ns (rAcnr_ Far Lj qye4'-e"'4'radeMPlease list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: 1 E\ r0, "s l -A or6n AAA GAura..l Pels, Va 1 art)g C®\\" e. S , ce; M ; V PT) l al^) ( a 1 kn6 kca l n e-r F I1 e l PO Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? 1t.ir t o V1 P fit r- fa, l T I CCk[ %lotCL V\J i9 1 1I1 e T I lJ 1J ` fi' " (' M rnrl'1'I V16v 19Y c Te-P l i e- etee_ - - .- YJrc' 2S.AcTT 1`, Q y G` n!\ M k e_-0 -1- '1 S// CDM f (]1 .1flre, 9,11 Y\C'( 1'!]`)n f) flil1 1lgII7PC 0.MPC 'Tor UCCf'SS® What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the you h of Gilroy? If you are appointed, w at are the steps you will take to address this problem? 7 t n-(' ( © M --; c , 1- jV C'K sS R Y1.(-ri1/( ''12. Ee% r-,_ 1 7feoLcktv le1r Sf%C(^S i'lv O. y1 1' P_ v0Y—S 1 Qssl, ness w cs , f\ 0 i6y- -n eC, 1c nG 1,_ ,r,c l l ore- aIves 10 r r 1 s cesS' Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record Mail or email your application to Shawna Freels, City Clerk City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 shawna. freels(a)ci.pilrov.ca.us The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Kaitlyn Hynek Birth Date*: June 19, 2002 Address: Phone Number(s): (Email Address: Grade*: 12________ School: Valley Christian High School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I have volunteered in my community for as long as I can remember. For the past eight years I have also been the recipient of the Gold Presidential Service Award for the amount of community service hours I have completed. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I believe that I can offer a unique view, having lived in Gilroy for my entire life, but going to school in a different city since sixth grade allows me to see things differently, and provide a different perspective from those who are currently in the Gilroy school district. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I feel that the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy is, just like the youth of so many communities in this day and age, the lack of security they can feel. Whether it be lack of security in schools, with their friends, or at home; youth can have a problem feeling connected to one another and feel safe while connecting with one another. If I am appointed, I will try to take steps to allow the youth of our community to have open and safe spaces where they can connect with one another and feel secure in the way that they are handling their relationships with one another. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? N/A All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Sajiv Jampani Birth Date*: 04/01/2007 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 7________ School: Brownell Middle School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I have been participating in the Associated Student Body (ASB) for more than a year. In addition, I am currently a member of the Students Leading Education (SLED) team of Gilroy that is a network of student leaders engaging the school district in solving real problems. I have participated in a Tech Challenge program to represent my school. Last two summers, I have also participated in the Makerspace program at the Gilroy Library. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed to the Gilroy youth commission so I can work on ways to improve social peace and improve technical education for the youth in Gilroy. I also want to help kids my age in the community by organizing events for them. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I feel that the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy is violence and social differences in the community. To reduce the problem, I would organize discussions about bringing peace in the community using technology. I would also introduce technical workshops for the youth to learn and work together to develop peace, reduce hatred and become successful. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Birth Date*: 01/12/2006Name*: Joshua Jang Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 8________ School: Brownell Middle School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: In the past, I have participated in student council during fourth and fifth grade at Rucker Elementary. I also helped with ASB at Browned during sixth grade. I hope this is enough experience for me to be able to qualify for the youth commission. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission, because I would like to help make Gilroy a better place. As an eighth grader at Brownell, I often feel the lack of being listened to. I know Gilroy and the Gilroy Unified School District are trying to give students and minors a voice. However, rarely is there a time that students are listened to. I want to join the Gilroy Youth Commission to hopefully receive a voice and say in the matters of our city. There are plenty of great students who have good ideas that can benefit Gilroy. I could collect ideas from peers around me and offer them at meetings. I want to help the community and make a positive impact. I will admit another reason is that I can benefit from the program. This could get me volunteer hours and would look good on my college resume, but my focus is on helping Gilroy. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? The youth of Gilroy is very diverse. There are plenty of students who would like to build up Gilroy and plenty who don't care. If I were to be completely honest, at least half of the students at my current school don't care what is happening to Gilroy. That's where my problem comes from. The biggest problem of facing the youth of Gilroy is being taken seriously and being listened to. If I had to be honest I am probably in the middle of the popularity scale and the way middle school works is the more popular you are, the better people listen to you. A lot of these students don't want to be at school and really don't care about much. If I were to give a speech to the youth of Gilroy there wouldn't be many who'd care about what I was saying. That is why I have a plan to address the problem. In order to face minors of Gilroy and truly get something out of that time and spread a message, that message needs to be conveyed in a relatable way to them. If something is more relatable to a person, they will be more engaged and comprehend better. That is why authors use similes or metaphors, because deep, meaningful concepts are hard to understand. When an author uses a simile or metaphor, the reader can understand the concept, because it is now in a simpler idea. People are also more likely to be more interested in something if they are familiar with it and it impacts them. I feel I can show how events and happenings in Gilroy and the city's atmosphere impacts them. This can help the youth of Gilroy understand and be willing to help. a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? n/a All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: MEYHAR KAMRAH Birth Date*: 01/24/2004 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 9________ School: GECA Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I am a proud student of GECA, always held great academic records, social awareness, willingness to give back to society and friends. I was 1/8 students selected to attend summer camp at Stanford from whole county of Santa Clara. I am contributing towards social causes in US and India with a focus on improving health conditions of women in rural areas of India. I come from family of Doctors, academicians with great values and integrity. I have been part of various community services programs initiated by schools, I have been part of. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I understand the challenges faced by the youth and adolescents. I want to create awareness about the problems the youth faces, pressures (academic and social) and want to bring experts and mentors within the community to address those challenges. I firmly believe, if we want to address any problems, first we need to identify and acknowledge the problem, quantify it and put in a systematic plan with the help of experts to eradicate the problem. This is a journey and constant monitoring and improvement is the key to make such programs/initiatives successful. I would like to create new avenues for students within Gilroy to help them aware of developments in various fields, bring in various experts and successful role models to help them understand challenges and opportunities in various fields and prepare them to take informed decisions about their career goals. This could be a beginning and with the help of primary and secondary research activities, I would like to define, redefine my progressive goals for the youth of Gilroy. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? It depends, the problems could be categorized into 1. Academic and Career related : a. Lack of clear directions on choosing career goals b. Inability to take informed decisions due to lack of role models and understanding it from experts working in various aspired fields c. Lack of resources and updates on current industry trends 2. Social a. Peer pressure b. academic stress c. Lack of community belonging d. Diversity a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) 3. Health a. mental health b. physical health c. overall well being d. Physiological changes due to adolescence and there are lot others , I would like to put in a scientific approach in place with 80/20 law and to take a clear goal driven and methodical approach to address those. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? I will have to understand the goals, success and obstacles faced by previous groups and then with the help of data , should be able to identify what worked well and what needs to be improved. I can bring in data driven approach, informed decision with the help of data and bring in components of primary and secondary research to identify top 3-5 problems/challenges faced by youth and put a plan in place to address those. All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) Name: Senna Kolagotla Birthdate: September 16, 2002 Address: Grade: 12th Phone number: Email: Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: Coming from the family that I come from volunteering is very very important. As early as seven years of age I remember helping out at our temple and Yoga community. My parents told us that all the old people at the center needed energetic feet to run around for them, so my sister and I became their feet. I remember elderlies at the center would guide us on filing books back in the library, send us to fetch or deliver things, flower decorations etc. We even put on aprons and baked cookies for Christmas, don’t know if we were help there or nuisance, but we enjoyed it thoroughly. I started formally volunteering at MMC cafe three and half years ago as a cashier. Volunteering and being a part of our community has been extremely important for me. When I got into high school I decided that I wanted to make a difference at my school. I was ecstatic when I made it into ASB and set out to make a difference. As an ASB member, I planned all the major activities in school including dances, rallies, and spirit weeks which would be attended by hundreds of students or more. The most important event to me was kindness week. There were different treats and activities for each day of the week to reiterate the difference a small smile can make in a person’s life. Along with ASB I am also a member of the Gilroy Foundation Youth Board. Part of my platform on the board is to spread awareness about the importance of physical and mental health. I am also a captain on my competitive volleyball team and have been dancing for 10 years. I also play on the Christopher High School Varsity team. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission again because I want to continue to be involved in my community. Living in a close knit community has taught me many things and has also created a bond between me and the people around me. These people have become like family and I would like to give back to the place/people that have given me so much. I also want to help come up with a solution for the many problems the youth of Gilroy faces every day. Furthermore, I want to help make the lives of the less fortunate students better and create more opportunities for them to succeed. People’s social status should not determine how far they get in life. I believe it is important for everyone to have an equal chance of succeeding, so I want to help create a path for everyone to reach their goal. I moved to Gilroy 5 years ago with my parents and little sister. We left our families and friends back in Chicago where my dad,my sister and I were born. We expected to be homesick and lonely, but Gilroy welcomed us with open arms. We made friends instantly who have become family now. I have always been taught to give back as much as you get if not more, so this would be my little effort in that direction. I would like to give back to this small town because it has given a lot to me. a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) While studying in Gilroy schools I have made friends from all kinds of backgrounds and have come across problems or issues that many kids struggle with. I want to help come up with solutions for the many problems our youth faces daily. I want to make a difference in the life of less fortunate students by helping them succeed. I believe we have many programs in place, but awareness to take advantage needs to be there. I would like to work towards having kids become more aware and sincere towards mental and physical health. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? A major problem that the youth in Gilroy faces is a lack of focus on eating healthy and exercising daily. As an athlete and as my time volunteering at a health and wellness center I have learned the importance of eating healthy from a young age and the effect it has on you. Studies show that kids who eat healthier and get a sufficient amount of exercise tend to do better in school and have a healthy mindset. This means that kids will not be as prone to take drugs, drink alcohol, or engage in other inappropriate behavior. They also have to be shown how taking care of their body can be beneficial to their future. They have to be aware. Making these changes in our youth will create a lasting effect on our community. To fix this problem we could create a program to educate the students and their parents to show them how important eating healthy and exercising are. We could present it at all the schools and create pamphlets for the parents. Then we could talk to the district about supplying healthier options at schools. There are many ways for people to eat healthily and get proper exercise, but for all that to happen they have to be aware how important taking care of yourself is. I am lucky enough to be born in a family where my mom wakes up every morning and makes me a fresh healthy lunch. This is a luxury that not everyone has and I want to change that by spreading awareness and finding healthier options for our youth. What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? To improve my performance on the commission I could provide guidance to the newer commissioners, Being on the commission for two years and taking lead of the Pampered Princess Party I have learned a lot. I would love to pass on the things I have learned to future commissioners so they can keep impacting Gilroy youth in a positive manner. a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Clarissa Lara Birth Date*: January 15, 2003 Address: Phone Number(s): (Email Address: Grade*: 10________ School: Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: As for groups or organizations, I have worked as the Club Coordinator for the Girl Who Code Club at the Gilroy Public Library since September. The first session met every Saturday for 15 weeks and the second every Thursday for 10 weeks. I have also become the main facilitator for a Google CS First class that meets every Saturday within the same location. I have also volunteered at St. Joseph's Family Center, the Gilroy Garlic Festival, and different elementary level events such as the Fall Festival at Rucker elementary, the Talent Show at Luigi Aprea as well as Lego math tutoring sessions at PA Walsh Elementary school. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I want to create a career shadowing program for teenagers in order for them to make more informed decisions when it comes to college and their future occupation. The program would work by connecting high schoolers with mentors in a field they are interested in. This way, they can see what it would truly be like to be in that career or perhaps discover one they hadn't considered. With the Youth Council behind me, I would be able to reach a wider audience while at the same time fulfilling my role as a Youth Commissioner: helping my generation's voices be heard. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? The lack of easily accessible role models has made it so that teenagers in our community do not see themselves as capable of becoming more than they are—as the leaders and innovators of the future. In order to counteract this and also give them the foundation for better life decisions in college, I want to create a shadowing program. This will serve not only as an enormous boost to their college applications, but also as a way to truly see what it is they do, and do not want to pursue in terms of career, as well as an example path to get them started. To do this I will first present the idea, advertise it in order to get willing mentors, and then advertise at the high school level in order to get shadows. This way I can connect people together in order launch the program forward. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? N/A All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Joshua Martinez Birth Date*: 02/28/07 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 7________ School: Brownell Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I am 12 years old and I moved to Gilroy 6 years ago from San Jose with my parents and 2 younger brothers. I attended Luigi Aprea from 1st-5th grade. During that time I took GATE enrichment classes and one of the classes had us go to a city council meeting and perform the Pledge of Allegiance in sign language. I was elected Bulldog Ambassador in 5th grade, which provided me with mediator training. I helped resolve conflicts out on the playground successfully. I also took meditation training and lead other classrooms during meditation sessions. I am now attending ASB at Brownell hoping to be more involved. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission because I would have a voice. I enjoy helping others and making a difference in this world. I’m not shy with my thoughts and opinions and I feel I would be a positive addition to the commission. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? I feel the biggest problem is overuse and influence of the internet. I would encourage programs and activities that help keep youth busy and engaged. I would also have experts or speakers go to schools and talk about the effects of the internet. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name *: Alayna Matthews Birth Date* Address: 9/11/2018 16:58 4/28/2002 Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade *: 11 School: Monte Vista Christian School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I am a high school student at Monte Vista Christian School. There, I am a part of many groups. I was recently elected as ASB Secretary, and have been a part of student leadership for 5 years. I am also Vice President of the California Scholarship Federation group(scholars for service), and student ambassador at MVCS. I have been worship team leader for 5 years, and peer tutor for 2 years. Additionally, I was the recipient of 4 Christian Character Awards and even started a girls group on campus for Christians seeking fellowship. Outside of school, I am a Sunday School teacher at Morgan Hill Bible Church, and volunteer at Santa Clara Valley Medical Health and Hospital Sytems, however, I am hoping to transfer to St. Louise Hospital soon. I'm currently working with a vascular surgeon to publish a medical research paper as well. I have a heart for service and enjoy working at Kumon Learning Center(Morgan Hill) as a math and reading tutor. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commision because I believe that it is extremely important for the youth to be involved in politics, especially females. I also want to help create a culture in which diversity among teens in which diversity is celebrated, whether that be in sports, academics, or the arts. I strongly believe that Gilroy has the potential to become a town in which the youth is known for being well rounded, motivated, and most importantly, kind. It would be an honour to be part of a team who could do this. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? The Youth in Gilroy tend to be very individualistic. We were born into a time where competition is encouraged. Healthy competition is often very helpful, but from what I've noticed, the individualistic mindset here is harmful. To change this, I would propose planning monthly city- a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) wide service opportunities. It would give teens a chance to help others while bonding with friends. These activities could include collecting and wrapping gifts for underprivileged children, free tutoring, and making care packages for those in shelters. These activities would not only help teens think of others in the community but also help build healthy relationships with their classmates, as they would be working alongside one another. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record Mail or email your application to: Shawna Freels, City Clerk City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 shawna.freels(a ci.gilroy.ca. us The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Adriana Mireles Birth Date*: 02-02-2007 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 7________ School: Brownell Middle School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: Dear City Council Members, I am so excited to apply today for the great honor to become a member of the Gilroy Youth Commission. My name is Adriana Mireles. I am a 12-year-old 7th grader at Brownell Middle School and have lived in Gilroy all my life in my grandparents' home. My mother Sarah was very young when she had me. My dad's family lives in Michoacan, Mexico. I am very proud of my mom because she recently graduated from college with an Associate of Science degree as a Vet Tech. Although it was hard as a single mom to go to college while having a job as a licensed hair stylist, she never gave up and taught me that if I can dream something, I can do it. Like my mom, I love animals very much. I have three rescue dogs at home and a rescue rabbit. My grandma Silvia is an immigrant from Germany. She moved to California when my mom was my age. I call her Oma which is the German word for grandma. She takes me to work at her college sometimes. I like learning new things there like how to draw for animation. Oma also takes me to the Gilroy “Coffee with the Mayorâ€events where they have great donuts. I like our Mayor Roland Velasco. Being mayor is not easy because you have to listen to all sides and opinions and make the right decisions and there is always at least one who does not like your decision. My grandma always says, “It is important to be involved in community politics because if you sleep in democracy, you wake up with another Hitler.” My grandpa Clay is my best friend. He helps me with math homework and takes me to DreamPower Horsemanship in Gilroy where I am a volunteer and a member of the Hitch Team. Yes, I can drive a horse carriage all by myself. Flash and Captain Bingo whom we call Wishe for “Wish he would go fasterâ€are the carriage horses. All horses are therapists who work with special needs kids, youth at risk, and veterans. I help with events and as a groomer. Horses eat a lot and we always need to fundraise money to feed them. I volunteered as pooper scooper in the 4th of July Parade in Morgan Hill with the DreamPower mini horses. It is hard work but fun because the pooper scoopers get the most applause. I am a huge Alexander Hamilton fan and save up my weekly allowance to go and see the musical. The tickets are so expensive. I know all the songs by heart. Hamilton inspired me to be of service to the American people. This summer I went to Washington DC with my grandparents. I love history. We visited the monuments, Arlington, the Smithsonian, Mount Vernon, and the souvenir shop in the National Archives has the coolest Alexander Hamilton stuff. My Congressman Jimmy Panetta and his team invited us for a tour and I learned so much about American history and the three branches of government. I think it would be cool to work a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) as an intern for a Congressman and maybe become a Congresswoman myself one day or maybe President? I think as a member of the Gilroy Youth Commission, I can learn a lot about how to govern a city, express my opinions, and be a voice for children and teens against bullying and injustice. I love my hometown Gilroy and want to contribute to its success. The shooting at the 2019 Garlic Festival scared everyone and I was so sad but it also made our community stand together even more. We are Gilroy strong as brothers and sisters against violence, no matter where we came from or what language we speak. Please consider me as a member of the Gilroy Youth Commission, I would love to serve. Sincerely, Adriana Mireles Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? Reading about Alexander Hamilton and visiting Washington DC this summer inspired me to be of service to the American people. I think as member of the Gilroy Youth Commission I can learn to express my opinions and be a voice for children and teenager who are afraid to speak up against bullying in school and in cyberspace. It would be interesting to work with the City Council, the Mayor, and other members of the Youth Commission and learn how to govern a community. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? Bullying is one major problem I see many children and teenagers are faced with in school and online. Many kids are too shy or afraid to speak up. I want to help and be a voice for them. The steps I would take would be setting up info tables in schools and community events where children and teenagers can talk to me about bullying and get help if they have a problem with a bully. I would also try to contact school counselors and talk to students who are known as bullies and maybe find out why they are behaving like that. I would like to discuss with other youth how to act on social media and how we can protect ourselves from cyber bullying or stalking. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? n/a All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Awa Ndao Birth Date*: 01/11/03 Address: Phone Number(s): (Email Address: Grade*: 11________ School: Christopher High School Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: In terms of service, I have volunteered as a Jr. Guard for the City of Gilroy, having completed over 40 hours as a volunteer. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission because I believe that I can serve as a powerful, extremely vocal spokesperson for Gilroy's youth. Being aware of the issues facing our youth, I can offer a first-hand perspective of these issues and aid in providing reasonable solutions on how to better handle these problems. As a part of this Commission, I would work to make the best interests of the youth heard, and help in catering to these interests. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? The biggest problem that seems to be plaguing the youth of Gilroy is a lack of support in terms of schooling (pressure, grades, teachers who aren't teaching material well). The pressure of receiving excellent grades is overwhelming for many, coupled with the fact that some administrators' teaching methods don't quite reach every student and cater to their way of learning. If appointed, some of the steps I plan to take in addressing the problem include a survey of students in the community to find out how they learn best: learning environment, method (visual, auditory, etc.) and create tutoring opportunities within school communities that cater to those. When it comes to tutoring and opportunities for academic help, most of the time these facilities aren't located on school grounds, making it more difficult for students to make the commute. Rather than having students going to tutoring facilities outside of school, we can bring the tutoring opportunities to them. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Reet Padda Birth Date*: 02/03/2004 Address: Phone Number(s): (Email Address: Grade*: 10________ School: Dr. TJ Owens Gilroy Early College Academy Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: For the school years of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, I was elected as president of student council at Gilroy Prep School, where I helped the students and staff unite as a community. In turn, this fostered a healthy environment where students could easily learn and grow. The summer after my eighth grade promotion, I volunteered in the classrooms where summer school was held and helped the teachers prepare for next year, as well as helping the students who were attending summer school. I also volunteered at the 2018 Gilroy Garlic Festival along with participating in the Fourth of July Parade in Morgan Hill. I was part of a group representing the Indian Association of the South Santa Clara County, which is a non-profit organization. Furthermore, I took part in the "Leaders on Loose" training and volunteered at the Gilroy Youth Soccer League games. I am currently sophomore class president, and I am working with the rest of the GECA ASB to create a supportive environment for students throughout all four classes. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? At school and throughout the community, I have heard many ideas about programs that can be incorporated into our curriculum at school, and can have positive effects on students. As a member of the Gilroy Youth Commission, I will have the opportunity to spread these ideas throughout the community. I want to give back to the community that has helped me grow as an individual and has shown incredible courage in adverse times. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? One of the dilemmas many youth in Gilroy face is deciding whether or not to go to college, and which college they should go to. Although our schools provide some opportunities to learn more about various colleges and universities, researching about a college can only help to a certain extent. If students were able to interact with alumni from those schools, they would receive first- hand information. The concept is similar to that of a career fair, but instead of having people from different occupations discuss their line of work, alumni from universities across the country would talk about their experience in the school they attended. Not only could alumni come speak and answer questions, but current students could also describe their experiences in college so far. The "college fair" could potentially be held at Gavilan College in Gilroy. Alumni and/or teachers could also help senior students write their college essays or applications. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? n/a a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*' q A 'Pwo ((0-5 Birth date*: I q J Phone numbers) :(L"address: r Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with proups or org niz tions that wo ld qualif you for thi Commissign: I t i? it 01 u 11 +ee Vi u%1 t -D .5 %Z U- L/i 12N `f'!A-.e-- /10 me Xe 6S . Jn 1 ` d- e t? &OAMr55roA.01,- t(s Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? Gi/ v k (d IV vyt C..O m4th' av y s bvi l r v ° e Gov l ctt,, J_ pu4-4,P iv -j-n r'0 I'DU < , J - What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If. you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? -P2P. I %'btci C'S robl-wr. c' vqj °-4v- Yr)1A,/V D - G Iv 0 I s )'tv are- ren0J i pi Vda e e vt 1` to 0 V l i v V71 r 1,4 ' e- g'7 / d U % ( o o - Vt (Tt 5 (' Ou Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve yd'ur previous performance on the Commission? All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record Mail or email your application to: Shawna Freels, City Clerk City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 shawna. freels(cr ci.ailrov.ca.us The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any tirne and will keep thern on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Serena Ramirez Birth Date*: 03/15/2004 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 10________ School: Gilroy Early College Academy Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: In my pursuit to obtain community service hours to fulfill the 80-hour graduation requirement, I have volunteered through the city during the past 2 summers. I spent 57 hours volunteering as a Camper Cubs counselor in 2018. This past summer I signed up to help Seniors with Technology but was told this was only an as-needed position and only ended up doing it for 2 hours. Although most of my volunteer hours have been dedicated to the older and younger demographics, I would have much rather volunteered in programs offered to people in my own age group. This being said, I've noticed there are very few options available for kids my age. I have no experience in working with groups or organizations outside of school and work. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? I would love to get the opportunity to apply myself to helping the community. As well as making Gilroy a safer and more exciting place to be, I would like to make the unique teen perspective more widely accessible to the public. I believe that I could contribute some more creative flair to activities hosted in Gilroy with my additions since my strong suit is in writing and drawing. Along with this, I am sure that I can allow my demographic's opinions to be heard and manifest their desires to the best of my ability. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? One of the biggest problems facing the youth of Gilroy is the lack of activities for them to partake in. Although Gilroy offers many recreational classes during the summer, outside of this time period teens rarely have the opportunity to spend time with their community in a way that is engaging. If I am appointed, one step I would take to address this problem would be to convey ideas from my peers and transform them into events that pique their interests. Along with this, I would attempt to contribute potential fundraiser ideas that could fund these events. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? I am not a reapplying commissioner. All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) City of Gilroy Application for the Gilroy Youth Commission Name*: Isabella Sells Birth Date*: 12/10/2004 Address: Phone Number(s): Email Address: Grade*: 9________ School: California Connections Academy Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission: I have been serving as a 'Leaders on the Loose' program volunteer in the City of Gilroy. Through the program, I have been volunteering for various Youth Sports programs including Aquatic Program during the summer as an assistant swim instructor and a certified Junior Life Guard. I always have hearts for making my community a better place for all and also volunteered as a Senior Tech Center at the Gilroy Senior Center. I have learned a lot about how to work with others and bring smiles to others' faces. I also served as an elected president of National Junior Honor Society, Connections Academy Chapter, to lead the group of middle school volunteers serving the community through Foster care help, Animal Shelter Help, and Cal Fire Victim help. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? Unlike serving the community physically as an individual or as a group, the Gilroy Youth Commissioner's position seems like many positive and collective decisions to make a community a better place, especially for the youth of Gilroy. I'd like to contribute my leadership and service in planning projects that can make Gilroy an amazing place to live for all, especially for the youth like me. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? The biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy is lack of technology education opportunities. I was very impressed with the organized sports in the City of Gilroy through my volunteering. However, through my Senior Tech Tutoring, I realized that most tech camps and lessons are concentrated in up North in San Jose & Palo Alto Area. I think that the technology literacy is crucial in the next century and I believe that there should be more affordable technology education programs for the youth. The Gilroy schools are doing a great job, but the youth needs more knowledge than basic tech education. Reapplying Commissioners: What can you do to improve your previous performance on the Commission? N/A All Commission, Board and Committee applications are a public record The City of Gilroy accepts applications at any time and will keep them on file for one year. a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) Received by City Clerk's Office 7/12/19 City of Gilroy Application For the Gilroy Youth Commission Name: Kimberly Wu Birthdate: 05/10/2004 Address: Grade: 10 (Dr. T.J. Owens Gilroy Early College Academy) Phone number(s): ( Email address: 1. Please list your background, including community service within the City of Gilroy, and any prior experience with groups or organizations that would qualify you for this Commission. During the summer leading up to my freshman year, I was involved in the City of Gilroy's Leaders on the Loose (LOL) program. Also during the 2018 summer, I volunteered with the Camper Cubs where I supervised young children and assisted camp leaders with various activities. I actively participate in community events around the city, including events like Kids Discover Arts and National Night Out. I was a member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation, and during my membership, I consistently volunteered at the Gilroy Demonstration Garden. This will be my first experience participating in a group of this kind. 2. Why would you like to be appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission? The Gilroy Youth Commission has been an organization of interest since I was in middle school, so having the opportunity to be appointed is incredibly valuable to me. Most significantly, I wish to act as a voice for my peers and speak for any weaknesses within the community. I understand the importance of addressing complications facing the youth, and it is never too early or late to confront these concerns. In addition, being a member of this committee will strengthen my leadership skills. As I wish to pursue a career in business, having the necessary abilities to direct and assist others is mandatory; I know that I will gain the experience necessary in the Gilroy Youth Commission. Not only will this organization grow my leadership capacity, but it will also reinforce my dexterity in teamwork. Communicating and collaborating is an inevitable aspect of my life, and any opportunities to build this skill is beneficial. Serving the community under the guidance and care of the members and supervisors of the Gilroy Youth Commission will provide an excellent resume of teamwork. As I continue my high school journey, my goal is to serve the community in a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) Received by City Clerk's Office 7/12/19 the most relevant ways, and I recognize that being appointed will bring me a large step forward to fulfilling this achievement. 3. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the youth of Gilroy? If you are appointed, what are the steps you will take to address this problem? What do you want to do when you grow up?" is a question most adults ask young individuals. Often, the answer is "I don't know." Although it is imperative that children cherish their childhood, many realize as they grow up that adolescence is a daunting period. The biggest issue tackling the youth of Gilroy is the lack of career -related, interactive extra curriculars. As mentioned previously, I have the prospect of pursuing my future in the business field, and I find it particularly difficult to find opportunities related to business. Finding programs or classes that focus in teaching concepts like entrepreneurship or financial literacy to teenagers is scarce, and I am sure this is the case for other careers. To supplement the lack of these career -related educational courses, I am currently taking classes at Gavilan College with the ambition to complete my associate degree in general business by the time I graduate high school; however, not every child gets to have the circumstance nor resources to immerse their primary and secondary education within a college environment. This makes it increasingly challenging for the youth to explore possible career paths and discover their passion. Encouraging the youth to seek their areas of dedication is imperative for their future, and this process also helps gain their college readiness. We can take significant steps in fostering a successful adulthood for children and teenagers by implementing enrichment programs that focus in a variety of career paths. Adult volunteers who have expertise in their respective fields can act as teachers. Although these programs, more detailed than school career days, will not be particularly rigorous nor demanding, they provide a hands-on, interactive experience that puts children in the shoes of these various jobs. For example, coding is a popular path many young teenagers are interested in. Having educational coding classes where children learn about its fundamentals allows them to decide whether or not this is what they wish to pursue. Not only that, but they also breed the idea of "trying something new" and gaining a valuable skill set. These programs differ from other summer classes or school courses because they are free, local, and they operate during the school year. They can also build valuable teamwork abilities with individuals who have similar passions and goals. Being appointed to the Gilroy Youth Commission will allow me to move forward with these potential steps, and I am more than excited to build a successful future for the future leaders of Gilroy and beyond. a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 2019 Youth Commission Applications (2418 : Youth Commission Interviews) Proclamation of the City of Gilroy WHEREAS, manufacturing is a critical component of Gilroy, California’s economy; and WHEREAS, manufacturing innovation drives economic growth, giving workers the resources to remain the most productive in the world; and, WHEREAS, Gilroy’s economic growth depends on the education and vocational opportunities that align with manufacturers’ skilled-labor needs; and, WHEREAS, the manufacturers in our community provide employment for approximately 1,700 workers and generate $94 million in annual payrolls; and, WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy, California supports and joins in this national effort to help America’s manufacturers do what they do best – grow their business, create jobs, and ensure that our communities remain as vibrant tomorrow as they are today. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROLAND VELASCO, Mayor of the City of Gilroy, and on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim October 4, 2019 Gilroy Manufacturing Day ____________________ Roland Velasco, Mayor 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Communication: Proclamation Naming October 4, 2019 as Manufacturing Day (Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Large Meter Replacement Project No. 18-PW -251 Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Girum Awoke Prepared By: Faranak Mahdavi Faranak Mahdavi Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization  Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Approve the Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Large Meter Replacement, Project No. 18-PW -251. BACKGROUND In the spring of 2017, staff identified 101 large meters (sizes three inches and larger) that needed to be tested and eventually replaced or upgraded as a Capital project. The testing of 101 large meters was performed by Ferguson Enterprises in early 2018. In the process of testing and investigation, the City Water Operations staff replaced 11 large meters and determined eight meters (six irrigation meters, one large meter at 500 West Tenth Street, and one large meter at 8190 Murray Avenue) would be replaced after the completion of the Large Meter Replacement Project. 6.A Packet Pg. 43 On October 1, 2018, City Council awarded American Pipeline Services a contract to replace 82 large meters that were not in good working condition and not providing proper monthly readings. The scope of the project included replacing large water meters at Saint Louise Hospital and various other medical facilities, commercial businesses, schools, and public facilities. This included all of the meters in the “Base Bid” as well as the meters in “Add Alternate 1” and “Add Alternate 2.” Out of the 82 meters in the base and alternate bids, a total of 73 large meters were ultimately replaced. Nine of the 82 meters were not replaced due to the following circumstances:  Two at Saint Louise Hospital – No operating valves, limited shutoff time, and lack of contractor expertise required that this meter be replaced in the future as a standalone project.  One at Glenview School – The existing meter was a two-inch meter and did not require replacement.  One at the Sewer Plant – The meter at this location was a secondary meter and is not being used, therefore it did not require replacement.  Four at the Sunset Gardens Senior Housing development (7750 Wren Ave) – These meters had already been replaced by the senior housing development.  One at Gilroy Gardens – This meter had already been replaced by City Water Operations staff and Gilroy Gardens. DISCUSSION The original contract with American Pipeline Services for the Large Meter Replacement Project was approved by City Council on October 1, 2018, in the amount of $333,778 with a contingency of $33,378. During construction, three change orders were approved. The first change order added 30 calendar days to the project schedule due to scope changes and delays in receiving materials. The second change order , in the amount of $10,125, was for changes in the scope due to unforeseen conditions in the field. The third change order, in the amount of $8,204.37, was for additional labor costs for multiple site visits to schedule the work and exercise the valves to avoid any unnecessary water interruptions to customers. Information on the complete project cost is presented below: Construction Contract Amount $333,778 Change Order 1 Additional 30 days Change Order 2 $10,125 Change Order 3 $8,204.37 Final Construction Amount $352,107.37 6.A Packet Pg. 44 The project was entirely funded with Water Enterprise Funds. The project has been deemed fully complete and the attached Notice of Completion document is ready for acceptance and recordation with Santa Clara County (Attachment 1). FINANCIAL IMPACT There are no financial impacts with this action. Attachments: 1. Notice of Acceptance of Completion 6.A Packet Pg. 45 6.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Notice of Acceptance of Completion (2320 : Notice of Acceptance of Completion for Large Meter Replacement Project No. 18-PW- 6.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Notice of Acceptance of Completion (2320 : Notice of Acceptance of Completion for Large Meter Replacement Project No. 18-PW- 6.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Notice of Acceptance of Completion (2320 : Notice of Acceptance of Completion for Large Meter Replacement Project No. 18-PW- City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of the 2020 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: City Clerk Submitted By: Shawna Freels Prepared By: Shawna Freels Mayor Roland Velasco Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2020 schedule of regular City Council meetings. BACKGROUND City Charter Section 408 requires regular meetings of the City Council to be set by ordinance, with no less than one regular meeting held per month. Gilroy City Code Section 2.13 establishes regular meetings of the City Council on the first and third Mondays of each month at 6:00 p.m. If the day fixed for a regular meeting of the Council falls on a day designated as a legal or national holiday, the meeting shall then be held at the same hour on the next Monday. If said Monday is also a legal or national holiday, the Council meeting shall be held on the next weekday not a holiday following said Monday. 6.B Packet Pg. 49 The single exception to this is the month of July as only one regular meeting is to be calendared for the month of July, to be held on the first day of the month that is not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. CONCLUSION Included is a proposed calendar of 2020 regular City Council meetings following these guidelines. It is recommended that the City Council approve the schedule of 2020 regular meetings. Attachments: 1. 2020 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule 6.B Packet Pg. 50 2020 GILROY CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE Gilroy City Council Chambers 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 6:00 p.m. Monday, January 6, 2020 Monday, January 20, 2020 (City Holiday, MOVED to January 27, 2020)* Monday, January 27, 2020* Monday, February 3, 2020 Monday, February 17, 2020 (City Holiday, MOVED to February 24, 2020)* Monday, February 24, 2020* Monday, March 2, 2020 Monday, March 16, 2020 Monday, April 6, 2020 Monday, April 20, 2020 Monday, May 4, 2020 Monday, Ma y 18, 2020 Monday, June 1, 2020 Monday, June 15, 2020 Wednesday, July 1, 2020 Monday, August 3, 2020 Monday, August 17, 2020 Monday, September 7, 2020 (City Holiday, MOVED to September 14, 2020)* Monday, September 14, 2020* Monday, September 21, 2020 Monday, October 5, 2020 Monday, October 19, 2020 Monday, November 2, 2020 Monday, November 16, 2020 Monday, December 7, 2020 * If a regular meeting falls on a holiday, it is rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single regular meeting in July, which will fall on the first day of the month not a holiday or a Friday, Saturday or Sunday Draft August 29, 2019 6.B.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 2020 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule (2383 : 2020 Council Meeting Schedule) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of a Funding Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Through March 31, 2047 for 2016 Measure B Bicycle Pedestrian Education and Encouragement Funding Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Girum Awoke Prepared By: Girum Awoke Ogarita Carranza Strategic Plan Goals  Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Approve a funding agreement with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority effective through March 31, 2047 for 2016 Measure B bicycle pedestrian education and encouragement funding. BACKGROUND On November 8, 2016, a 30 year half-cent transportation sales tax measure referred to as 2016 Measure B was approved by Santa Clara County voters. The implementation of the Measure was delayed due to a legal challenge. On January 23, 2019, the last of 6.C Packet Pg. 52 the legal challenges to the Measure were exhausted, allowing the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to proceed with the implementation of the program. One of the Measure B categories include a Bicycle and Pedestrian program category to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects and educational programs; In order to be eligible to receive the 2016 Measure B Bike/Ped Education and Encouragement funding, the City must enter into a funding agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Upon the execution of the agreement, the City will receive approximately $35,000 annually to use for the development and distribution of materials that are designed and intended to satisfy the following goals  Promote, educate, and/or encourage safe walking or bicycling for residents or visitors of every age and ability;  Communicate to residents and visitors the benefits of walking and bicycling; and  Communicate to school children, residents, and visitors the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. ANALYSIS Currently, the City does not have dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian educational programs and outreach efforts. This funding source will enable the City to conduct several bicycle and pedestrian education activities including but not limited to:  Safe Routes to Schools programs and activities.  Development and distribution of maps that promote places to walk or bike  Education of walking and bicycling skills to adults and children.  Creation and distribution of marketing materials to encourage safe walking, biking, and driving.  Working with law enforcement officials to ensure common understanding and consistent application among law enforcement officials of traffic laws related to biking and walking.  Purchase and distribution of bicycle helmets, lights, reflective vests, or other bicycle/pedestrian safety equipment to be used in education/encouragement activities.  Community-based bicycle/pedestrian surveys of facilities and surrounding areas to learn, observe, and identify bicycle and pedestrian hot spots.  Purchase and distribution of incentives for education/encouragement activities.  Organization and implementation of crosswalk stings or other activities that educate roadway users on traffic laws. The agreement requires that all 2016 Measure B funds are expended on only allowable Bicycle and Pedestrian program expenditures as described above. In addition, the City of Gilroy will be required to annually complete and submit to VTA, by October 1st of each year, proposed work program for the Bicycle and Pedestrian program, which will be approved by VTA. Also, the City will need to submit an annual report to VTA, by 6.C Packet Pg. 53 October 1st of each year, with a summary of the prior fiscal year’s completed Bicycle and Pedestrian Education and Encouragement program. The term of this Agreement will commence on July 1, 2019, and continue until (i) June 30, 2021, or (ii) until all Bike/Ped EandE Program funds allocated through June 30, 2021 under this AGREEMENT have been expended entirely, whichever occurs later. The VTA may extend the term of this AGREEMENT for two 2 -year periods as follows: o Option Year 1: July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2023, or until all BIKE/PED EandE PROGRAM funds allocated to RECIPIENT through June 30, 2023, under this AGREEMENT have been expended entirely, whichever occurs later. o Option Year 2: July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2025, or until all BIKE/PED EandE PROGRAM funds allocated to RECIPIENT through June 30, 2025, under this AGREEMENT have been expended entirely, whichever occurs later. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The estimated annual allocation for Gilroy is $35,000. There are no financial impacts associated with entering into this agreement. Attachments: 1. 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 6.C Packet Pg. 54 Rev 07/2019 Page 1 of 10 DRAFT – 08.02.19 FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY (or COUNTY) OF XXXX AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR 2016 MEASURE B BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN EDUCATION and ENCOURAGEMENT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) is between the CITY (or COUNTY) OF XXXX, referred to herein as “RECIPIENT”, and the SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, referred to herein as “VTA”. Hereinafter, RECIPIENT and VTA may be individually referred to as “PARTY” or collectively referred to as “PARTIES”. I. RECITALS 1. Whereas, on June 24, 2016, the VTA Board of Directors adopted a resolution to place a ballot measure before the voters of Santa Clara County in November 2016 to authorize a one-half of one percent retail transaction and use tax (“2016 MEASURE B”) for 30 years for nine transportation- related program categories; and 2. Whereas, on November 8, 2016, the voters of Santa Clara County enacted 2016 MEASURE B for 30 years to pay for the nine transportation-related program categories; and 3. Whereas, on October 5, 2017, the VTA Board of Directors established the 2016 Measure B Program (“PROGRAM”) and adopted the 2016 Measure B Program Category Guidelines; and 4. Whereas, the PROGRAM includes a Bicycle & Pedestrian program category (“BIKE/PED CATEGORY”) to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects and educational programs; and 5. Whereas, the BIKE/PED CATEGORY consists of three sub-categories, including the education & encouragement program (“BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM”); 6. Whereas, the duration of 2016 MEASURE B will be 30 years from the initial year of collection, beginning April 1, 2017, and continuing through March 31, 2047; and 7. Whereas, VTA and RECIPIENT desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds will be administered by VTA as directed by the VTA Board of Directors. NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES agree as follows: 6.C.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 2 of 10 II. AGREEMENT 1. BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM CATEGORY The BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM covers activities and the development and distribution of materials that are designed and intended to satisfy the following goals (i) promote, educate, and/or encourage safe walking or bicycling for residents or visitors of every age and ability; (ii) communicate to residents and visitors the benefits of walking and bicycling; and (iii) communicate to school children, residents, and visitors the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this AGREEMENT will commence on July 1, 2019, and continue until (i) June 30, 2021, or (ii) until all BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds allocated to RECIPIENT through June 30, 2021 under this AGREEMENT have been expended entirely, whichever occurs later. At VTA’s sole option, VTA may extend the term of this AGREEMENT for two 2-year periods as follows: Option Year 1: July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2023, or until all BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds allocated to RECIPIENT through June 30, 2023, under this AGREEMENT have been expended entirely, whichever occurs later. Option Year 2: July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2025, or until all BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds allocated to RECIPIENT through June 30, 2025, under this AGREEMENT have been expended entirely, whichever occurs later. VTA may exercise these options by providing written notice to RECIPIENT at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-current term. 3. ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS RECIPIENT is permitted to use RECIPIENT’s allocated BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds for the following activities/projects (each, an “E&E PROJECT”), provided, however, that RECIPIENT must obtain VTA’s prior written approval for such E&E PROJECT (VTA approval must be given by the person identified below in Section 8(d), or his/her designee): a. Organization and implementation of K-12 Safe Routes to Schools programs and activities. b. Organization and implementation of Vision Zero programs. Vision Zero is defined by [https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/] as ”Strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all”. c. Organization and implementation of Open streets events. Open streets events are defined by [https://openstreetsproject.org/] as “Programs that temporarily open streets to people by closing them to cars”. 6.C.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 3 of 10 d. Creation and implementation of marketing to encourage mode shift towards active transportation. e. Development and distribution of maps that promote places to walk or bike f. Education of walking and bicycling skills to adults and children. g. Working with law enforcement officials to ensure common understanding and consistent application among law enforcement officials of traffic laws related to biking and walking. h. Organization and implementation of broad or targeted safety campaigns to promote safe driving, walking, and bicycling behavior.* i. Creation and distribution of marketing materials to encourage safe walking, biking, and driving.* j. Purchase and distribution of bicycle helmets, lights, reflective vests, or other bicycle/pedestrian safety equipment to be used in education/encouragement activities k. Purchase and distribution of incentives for education/encouragement activities. l. Organization and implementation of crosswalk stings or other activities that educate roadway users on traffic laws. Crosswalk stings are activities conducted by law enforcement to educate the public about crosswalk right of way laws that may or may not include citations. m. Organization and implementation of special community events focused on achieving the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM goals described in Section 1. BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM CATEGORY DEFINITION, such as community rides or walks. n. Energizer stations and other Bike to Work Day activities. o. Implementation of valet bicycle parking. p. Community-based bicycle/pedestrian surveys of facilities and surrounding areas to learn, observe, and identify bicycle and pedestrian hot spots. q. Any other program or activity approved by VTA in writing. *Any safety campaign or public service announcement targeted to motorists must focus on safe, responsible, and respectful motorist interactions with pedestrians and bicyclists. RECIPIENT is permitted to use the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds allocated hereunder for direct costs and staff time costs incurred by RECIPIENT to support E&E PROJECTS. RECIPIENT is permitted to use the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds allocated hereunder for the costs incurred for evaluation of the E&E PROJECTS (as required under Section 4. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS). Notwithstanding the foregoing, RECIPIENT is not permitted to use BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds allocated hereunder for capital improvements. E&E PROJECTS may be targeted and limited to specific demographics (e.g. school children, seniors, people with disabilities, etc.) to the extent not prohibited by applicable law. Only BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM costs incurred on or after July 1, 2017, will be eligible for reimbursement. 4. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS Deleted: While E&E PROJECTS can be targeted to specific demographics (e.g. school children, seniors, people with disabilities, etc.), all E&E PROJECTS must be available to the general public.¶ 6.C.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 4 of 10 RECIPIENT must identify the project reach and scale of each E&E PROJECT and one or more metric that will be measured to evaluate whether goal is achieved. The frequency and schedule of each E&E PROJECT evaluation must also be identified and approved by VTA. Examples of acceptable metrics can be found on Attachment A. 5. MAXIMUM FUNDING ALLOCATIONS a. RECIPIENT’s maximum funding allocation for each fiscal year, starting July 1, 2017, will be based upon the VTA Board of Directors Adopted Biennial Budget for the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM and the annual fund distribution formula described below. b. The BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM annual fund distribution formula is calculated every two fiscal years (in line with VTA’s budget cycle; a fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30) and is based on the following: i. First, at the same time that VTA plans and finalizes its budget for the two upcoming fiscal years, the VTA Board of Directors determines the allocation of 2016 MEASURE B funds for the two upcoming fiscal years. ii. Second, the VTA Board of Directors determines the amount of 2016 MEASURE B funds to be allocated amongst the PROGRAM categories and subcategories, including the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM category. iii. Third, each city’s percentage share (“CITY PERCENTAGE SHARE”) and the County of Santa Clara’s percentage share (“SCC PERCENTAGE SHARE”) of the total population of Santa Clara County, California (including unincorporated areas) (according to the then most current California Department of Finance’s annual population estimates (Report E-1, or any successor report)) is calculated by dividing the city’s or County of Santa Clara’s (as applicable) total population by the total population of all of Santa Clara County and multiplying the result by 100. iv. Fourth, an allocation is made to VTA and the County of Santa Clara for countywide (with respect to Santa Clara County) BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM activities (“COUNTYWIDE ACTIVITIES”). v. Fifth, the 2016 MEASURE B funds remaining for the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM category allocation are calculated by deducting the amount allocated for COUNTYWIDE ACTIVITIES in (iii) immediately above from the total BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM category allocation (“REMAINING FUNDS”). vi. Sixth, each CITY PERCENTAGE SHARE is multiplied by the REMAINING FUNDS to determine the dollar amount that would be allocated to each city. vii. Seventh, each city is allocated $10,000 (“10K ALLOCATIONS”). Cities that would receive less than $10,000 as a result of the calculation described in (iii) above (“LOW 6.C.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 5 of 10 POP CITIES”) will be identified and will not be allocated any additional funds beyond the $10,000 allocated to each city as described in this section. viii. Eighth, the modified REMAINING FUNDS are calculated by subtracting the cumulative total of all 10K ALLOCATIONS from the REMAINING FUNDS (“MOD REMAINING FUNDS”). ix. Ninth, a modified Santa Clara County population is calculated by deducting the cumulative populations attributed to the County of Santa Clara (unincorporated areas) and all LOW POP CITIES (“MODIFIED POPULATION”). x. Tenth, a modified population percentage share (“MOD CITY PERCENTAGE SHARE”) is calculated for all cities that are not LOW POP CITIES (“NON-LOW POP CITIES”) by dividing the NON-LOW POP CITY’s total population by the MODIFIED POPULATION and multiplying the result by 100. xi. Eleventh, each NON-LOW POP CITY’s MOD CITY PERCENTAGE SHARE is multiplied by the MOD REMAINING FUNDS to calculate the NON-LOW POP CITY’s additional allocation of 2016 MEASURE B funds for the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM category. This allocation will be made in addition to the 10K ALLOCATION described above. c. RECIPIENT’s allocations are subject to change based on variations in annual population and actual 2016 MEASURE B receipts for prior fiscal years. d. BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM allocations may remain unspent for a maximum of three fiscal years, provided that (i) RECIPIENT provides VTA with a satisfactory explanation for why the allocation is not being spent (ii) VTA provides RECIPIENT with written approval for such explanation. e. At the end of the fourth fiscal year, allocations that remain unspent will be returned by VTA to the pool of 2016 MEASURE B funds allocated to the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM category for redistribution in the next allocation cycle pursuant to the formula above. f. All funds will be available on a reimbursement basis only. 6. VTA’s OBLIGATIONS VTA will: a. Annually update the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM formula to reflect the most current populations the California Department of Finance’s annual population estimates (Report E- 1, or any successor report). VTA shall use the updated BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM allocation formula in the allocations beginning July 1 immediately following each VTA budget cycle. b. Annually report to the public the amount of BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM revenues allocated and distributed to RECIPIENT. 6.C.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 6 of 10 c. Annually report to the public a summary of E&E PROJECT evaluation metrics submitted by RECIPIENT, as required in Section 4. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS. d. Conduct an assessment regarding the effectiveness of the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM using approved metrics and data provided by RECIPENT (pursuant to Section 4. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS) related to RECIPIENT’s E&E PROJECT(s). e. Biennially, or however frequently as VTA determines is appropriate based upon the number of ongoing E&E PROJECTs, report to the public the effectiveness of the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM based on the assessment described immediately above in Section 6.d. f. VTA shall remit the amount due to the RECIPIENT under an invoice within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a complete and proper, fully documented invoice. 7. RECIPIENT’s OBLIGATIONS RECIPIENT will: a. Ensure that all 2016 MEASURE B funds are expended on only allowable BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM expenditures as described above in Section 3. ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS. b. Annually complete and submit to VTA, by October 1st of each year, RECIPIENT’s proposed work program for the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM, in which RECIPIENT will set forth proposed E&E PROJECTS, and develop all such E&E PROJECTS that are approved by VTA as eligible. RECIPIENT’s proposed metrics and frequency of E&E PROJECT evaluation must be included with the proposed work program (see Section 4. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS); VTA must provide approval of these proposed metrics and the frequency of evaluation. c. Annually submit to VTA, by October 1st of each year, a summary of the prior fiscal year’s completed E&E PROJECTS. d. Submit to VTA, on a frequency as approved by VTA, the evaluation of the completed E&E PROJECT pursuant to Section 4. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS. e. If applicable, annually submit to VTA, by October 1st of each year, an explanation of why no BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM funds are planned for expenditure during the upcoming fiscal year. f. Annually complete and submit to VTA, by October 1st of each year, any accompanying reporting requirements for the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM. g. Submit to VTA all records including contractors’ invoices, miscellaneous invoices, and force account charges as substantiation for invoices submitted to VTA for reimbursement hereunder. h. Maintain financial records, books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs related to this AGREEMENT for five (5) years. RECIPIENT shall 6.C.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 7 of 10 make such records available to VTA upon VTA’s written request for review and audit purposes. Financial audits will be performed at VTA’s sole discretion. i. Submit invoices to VTA, no more frequently than monthly, for reimbursement of eligible E&E PROJECT costs (see Section 3. ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS). RECIPIENT must submit invoices within one year of the date RECIPIENT incurs the cost submitted on the invoice for reimbursement (unless otherwise approved by VTA in writing). 8. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS a. Indemnity. Neither VTA nor any officer or employee thereof will be responsible for any damage or liability arising out of or relating to RECIPIENT’s acts or omissions under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction associated with this AGREEMENT. RECIPIENT shall fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless VTA from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by California Government Code §810.8) arising out of or relating to RECIPIENT’s acts or omissions under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT. This provision will survive the termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT. b. Amendment. No alteration or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT will by valid unless made in writing and signed by both of the PARTIES hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein will be binding on any of the PARTIES hereto. c. Entire Agreement. This AGREEMENT contains the entire understanding between VTA and RECIPIENT relating to the subject matter hereof. This AGREEMENT supersedes any and all other agreements which may have existed between the PARTIES, whether oral or written. This AGREEMENT is binding upon each PARTY, their legal representatives, and successors for the duration of the AGREEMENT. d. Notices. Any notice which may be required under this AGREEMENT must be in writing, will be effective when received, and must be given by personal service or certified mail to the individuals at the addresses set forth below, or to such other address which may be specified in writing by the PARTIES hereto. VTA: Marcella Rensi Deputy Director, Grants & Allocations Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 N First Street San Jose, CA 95134 Email: marcella.rensi@vta.org RECIPIENT: [INSERT TITLE] CITY Address City, CA, Zip Code 6.C.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 8 of 10 Email Written notification to the other PARTY must be provided, in advance, for changes in the name or address of the individuals identified above. The individual identified above for RECIPIENT is RECIPIENT’s BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM liaison (“LIAISON”). The LIAISON will be (i) the liaison to VTA pertaining to implementation of this AGREEMENT and (ii) the contact for information about the BIKE/PED E&E PROGRAM and E&E PROJECTS. e. Representation of Authority. Each PARTY to this AGREEMENT represents and warrants that each person whose signature appears hereon has been duly authorized and has the full authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the entity that is a party to this AGREEMENT. f. No Waiver. The failure of either PARTY to insist upon the strict performance of any of the terms, covenant and conditions of this AGREEMENT will not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy that either PARTY may have, and will not be deemed a waiver of either PARTY’s right to require strict performance of all of the terms, covenants, and conditions hereunder. g. Dispute Resolution. If a question or allegation arises regarding (i) interpretation of this AGREEMENT or its performance, or (ii) the alleged failure of a PARTY to perform, the PARTY raising the question or making the allegation shall give written notice thereof to the other PARTY. The PARTIES shall promptly meet in an effort to resolve the issues raised. If the PARTIES fail to resolve the issues raised, alternative forms of dispute resolution, including mediation, may be pursued by mutual agreement. It is the intent of the PARTIES to the greatest extent possible to avoid litigation as a method of dispute resolution. h. Severability. If any of the provisions of this AGREEMENT (or portions or applications thereof) are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, VTA and RECIPIENT shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions this AGREEMENT with a view toward effecting the purpose of this AGREEMENT, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof will not be affected thereby. i. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California will govern this AGREEMENT, as well as any claim that might arise between RECIPIENT and VTA, without regard to conflict of law provisions. j. Venue. Any lawsuit or legal action arising from this AGREEMENT must be commenced and prosecuted in the courts of Santa Clara County, California. RECIPIENT agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts located in Santa Clara County, California for the purpose of litigating all such claims. Signatures of PARTIES on following page. 6.C.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 9 of 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, VTA and RECIPIENT have executed this AGREEMENT as of the last date set forth below (“EFFECTIVE DATE”). Santa Clara Valley RECIPIENT Transportation Authority Nuria I. Fernandez Name General Manager/CEO Title Date Date Approved as to Form Approved as to Form Megan Gritsch Staff Attorney II 6.C.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding Rev 07/2019 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT A Example Evaluation Requirement Metrics  Project reach o Hypothetical Example: Online media safety campaign had 10,000 unique views, resulting in 2,000 people taking the “I will drive, walk, and bike safely and responsibly” pledge.  Mode shift o Hypothetical Example: At the end of the school year, 200 bicycles were counted in the bike cage, an increase of 20% over the number of bicycles counted at the beginning of the year.  Behavior change o Hypothetical Example: Individualized marketing packets were provided to 1,200 households. 200 households requested additional information. Before and after surveys showed that 5% of households that requested additional information switched to biking, walking, or taking transit more.  Safety improvements o Hypothetical Example: After the crosswalk sting, motorists were observed yielding to pedestrians 8 out of 10 times, an increase of 10% over the yielding rate before the crosswalk sting. However, these rates decreased over time, suggesting that continued events or infrastructure changes are needed to permanently improve driver behavior.  Community Engagement o Hypothetical Example: At the end of five Train the Trainer events, of the 25 trainees, ten agree to lead Safe Routes to School activities at their schools. 6.C.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 2016MB_BikePed_EE_MasterAgreement_DRAFT_080219 (2385 : VTA Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement Funding City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of the Declaration of 26 Vehicles and Equipment as Surplus and Authorize the Disposition of the Surplus Through Auction Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Finance Department Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis Bryce Atkins Strategic Plan Goals  Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Approve the surplus of 26 vehicles and equipment and authorize the disposal of the surplus by auction. BACKGROUND Under Gilroy City Code Section 2.43(c)(6), the sale of personal property with estimated value in excess of $50 shall require the approval of the City Council prior to sale. The Fleet Division of Public Works (“Fleet”) has identified a list of 26 vehicles and equipment (“vehicles”) recommended for disposition. The list is attached to this staff report. ANALYSIS 6.D Packet Pg. 65 The 26 vehicles include two pieces of equipment not typically classified as vehicles, namely a tractor and a crack sealer. The vehicles and equipment have reached the end or their useful life and have either been already replacement or deemed unnecessary for current operations. The total value of those items that are included in the Kelly Blue Book (“KBB”) is $45,3371. However, the KBB value is an average estimate, and does not consider the specific use and wear and tear that a particular vehicle receives. Fleet is estimating the value of all items, including those that are not on KBB, may generate closer to $31,200. Once approved, Fleet will coordinate with an auction company to dispose of the vehicles. Fleet staff are familiar with the auction process, and the auction companies used by the City in previous surplus processes. ALTERNATIVES Council may: 1. Declare the vehicles as surplus and authorize staff to dispose of them through auction. Recommended. The auction process is the most cost and time efficient method available at this time, and the vehicles are outdated and of limited usability for City purposes. 2. Choose not to declare the vehicles as surplus. Not recommended. This would cause an accumulation of vehicles to occupy needed space at the Fleet facility or other City storage area. Additionally, delay in disposing of these assets will reduce the potential recovery of value as revenue from their sale. 3. Choose to surplus the items, but not authorize disposition through auction. Not recommended. While the City could place the vehicles for sale through direct purchase, the benefit will be limited due to the staff time to manage the sale of each individual vehicle, as well as the cost of advertising each vehicle. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE Undetermined amount of revenue for the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Due to the nature of auction dispositions, the amount of revenue will not be known until the assets are sold. Attachments: 1. Fleet Auction Vehicle List (8-23-19) 1 The value for the Sterling Sewer Truck was not derived from the Kelly Blue Book, as it is not a good source for estimating this particular large, heavy duty truck. Its average value was identified on HiBid.com, an online auction company website. However, the vehicle has known problems that will like produce lower value at auction. 6.D Packet Pg. 66 Fleet Surplus Asset List Revised 8/23/19 Unit #Year Make Model VIN #Mileage KBB Value Fleet Est Fixed Asset # 1049 2000 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAFP71W1YX207078 143,275 452.00$ 500.00$ 5009270049 1050 2000 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAFP71W9YX104040 90,494 927.00$ 650.00$ 5009270035 1307 2005 Chrysler 300 2C3JA53G35H652271 100,479 2,150.00$ 1,500.00$ 5009270248 1602 2006 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAFP71WX6X132569 104,284 1,000.00$ 500.00$ 5009270162 1604 2006 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAFP71W86X132571 102,642 1,223.00$ 650.00$ 5009270164 1606 2006 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAFP71W46X123902 106,237 950.00$ 450.00$ 5009270166 1713 2007 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAHP71W87X125341 110,558 1,802.00$ 750.00$ 5009270187 1714 2007 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAHP71WX7X125342 98,547 1,500.00$ 650.00$ 5009270188 1807 2008 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAHP71V68X150506 110,012 1,910.00$ 750.00$ 5009270217 1808 2008 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAHP71V88X150507 103,448 1,910.00$ 750.00$ 5009270218 2306 2006 Chevrolet Tahoe 1GNEC13Z43J299639 268,932 1,200.00$ 400.00$ 5009270124 2402 2004 Toyota 4-Runner JTEZU14R340033103 164,212 3,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 5009270156 2407 1984 Ford Aerostar 1FMCA11U6RZB10203 134,410 398.00$ 400.00$ 5008050287 2510 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe 1GNEC13Z35R254504 145,339 1,900.00$ 800.00$ 5009270148 2512 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe 1GNEC13Z55R256805 105,495 2,800.00$ 1,200.00$ 5009270150 2714 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 1GNEC03087R341295 112,245 5,100.00$ 2,500.00$ 5009270195 2802 1998 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer 1GNDT13W0WK146255 124,652 637.00$ 500.00$ 5009020108 2811 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe 1GNEC03028R173963 115,942 6,016.00$ 5,000.00$ 5009270211 3496 1988 GMC Animal Control 1GTC34JXEJE536999 99,688 650.00$ 750.00$ 5008050292 3921 1968 International Bus 416366H859087 100,168 N/A 250.00$ 5008060448 3960 1999 Sterling Sewer Truck 2FZXMJBB3XAA70989 82,205 5,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 5009270042 4402 1994 Tymco Sweeper 1FDXR72CXRVA27514 62,500 N/A 2,500.00$ 5009270027 4690 1991 Case Tractor B22064 3,170 (Hrs)N/A 500.00$ 5009280001 5901 2009 Honda ST1300PA9 JH2SC51769K600037 64,891 3,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 5009270227 6301 1993 Aeroil Crack Sealer 11962 795 (Hrs)N/A 1,250.00$ under $10k; N/A 2501-STP 1994 Chevrolet K-2500 1GCFK24H1RE179620 68,514 1,812.00$ 1,000.00$ 5009020121 45,337.00$ 31,200.00$ 6.D.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Fleet Auction Vehicle List (8-23-19) (2391 : Fleet Surplus 2019) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Proclaiming the Termination of the Period of a Local Emergency for the Gilroy Garlic Festival Incident Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Administration Submitted By: Gabriel Gonzalez Prepared By: Gabriel Gonzalez Trevin Barber Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy proclaiming the termination of the period of a local emergency effective September 3, 2019 . BACKGROUND On Sunday, July 28, 2019, a shooter opened fire at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, an annual community event that draws thousands of City residents and visitors, and the latest reports indicate that three people were killed and 12 more were wounded before the shooter was killed. The Gilroy Police and Gilroy Fire Departments, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and law enforcement and emergency response personnel from 6.E Packet Pg. 68 neighboring jurisdictions responded to the incident, and the area remains an active shooter crime scene. The City activated its Emergency Operations Center on July 28, 2019 to coordinate its response to the crisis. Gilroy Police Department began operating a witness telephone line for witnesses who may have information, and a family reu nification telephone line for festival attendees and a family reunification center was opened at Gavilan College. Given the significant emergency facing the community, a local emergency was proclaimed on July 28, 2019 by the Director of Emergency Services. This situation will require ongoing law enforcement, emergency response, and health and mental health support resources for the community that are beyond the capacity and control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, and will require the combined forces of mutual aid. California Government Code Section 8630 and Chapter 9 of the Gilroy City Code (Emergency Organization and Function) allows the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected, or likely to be affected, by a local emergency and the City Council is not in session. A copy of the Director of Emergency Services’ proclamation is attached for reference. The City Council adopted resolution 2019-42 on August 1, 2019 ratifying the proclamation of a local emergency in order to continue the local emergency. The local emergency time period can be further extended or terminated at the direction of the Council. The EOC has been activated since July 28th in response to the incident. However, at this time, the situation resulting from said conditions of extreme peril have been deemed not to be beyond the control of the normal protective services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the City. Thus the EOC was officially deactivated September 3, 2019. Attachments: 1. Resolution termination of local emergency Garlic Festival 2. Proclamation of Local Emergency 6.E Packet Pg. 69 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX RESOLUTION NO. 2019-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY PROCLAIMING THE TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 8630 and Chapter 9 of the Gilroy City Code, Emergency Organization and Functions, empower the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said City is affected, or likely to be affected, by a public emergency, and the City Council is not in session; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2019, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency due to the Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting pursuant to this authority, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, under Government Code Section 8630 and Chapter 9 of the Gilroy City Code, the local emergency shall not remain in effect for longer than seven (7) days unless it has been ratified by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council ratified the existence of the local emergency on August 1, 2019 with the adoption of Resolution 2019-42; and WHEREAS, the situation resulting from said conditions of extreme peril is now deemed not to be beyond the control of the normal protective services, personnel, equipment and facilities of and within said City of Gilroy. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy, State of California, does hereby proclaim the termination of said period of local emergency. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2019 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ____________________________ Roland Velasco, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Shawna Freels, City Clerk 6.E.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Resolution termination of local emergency Garlic Festival [Revision 1] (2408 : Termination of a Local Emergency - Garlic Incident) 6.E.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency (2408 : Termination of a Local Emergency - Garlic Incident) 6.E.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency (2408 : Termination of a Local Emergency - Garlic Incident) 6.E.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency (2408 : Termination of a Local Emergency - Garlic Incident) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of a Contract with Dewberry Architects Inc. in the Amount of $215,423 with a Project Contingency of $43,085 (20%) for the Design of the One Stop Development Review Center, Project No. 19-RFP-PW -429 Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Girum Awoke Prepared By: Girum Awoke Julie Oates Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization  Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Approve a Contract with Dewberry Architects Inc. in the Amount of $215,423 with a Project Contingency of $43,085 (20%) for the Design of the One Stop Development Review Center; Project No. 19-RFP-PW -429, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. BACKGROUND The City Council has previously committed to remodel the o ld police department building (City Hall Annex) to serve as a one-stop customer service center (One stop shop). This will provide the necessary office space for staff to conduct work more efficiently and will enhance the City’s customer service functions by providing a facility 7.A Packet Pg. 74 where residents, businesses, and developers can go to obtain required licenses and permits. A well designed one-stop shop improves the customer experience and foster a positive business environment, while reducing the number of separate departments a customer must physically apply to, saving both public and private entities time and financial resources. Development Customer Service Centers are a best practice in promoting job creation and wealth-importing economic development projects. The new Center is anticipated to provide a positive customer experience, where all development and construction needs can be addressed at one location. Applicants benefitting from this experience will range from shopping center and hotel developers, to small businesses applying for business permit, to homeowners pursuing single family residence remodels. In spring 2019, as part of the mid-year budget update discussion, the City council directed staff to pursue the preparation of full design plans and cost estimates for a customer friendly and modern development review center. This initiative is directly tied to the council’s strategic goals of “Focusing on Revenue Driving Economic Development” and “Providing Opportunities for Meaningful Public Engagement”. ANALYSIS A Request for Proposals (RFP) for Professional Architectural Design Services for the Old Police Department Building (Annex) Renovation Project was issued on July 5, 2019 through the City’s Finance Department on the City of Gilroy Website and in the San Jose Mercury News. Six proposals were received by the Friday July 26, 2019 deadline from the following consultants: 1. Aetypic 2. Dewberry Architects, Inc. 3. Gutierrez/Associates 4. Kasavan Architects 5. LCA Architects 6. Spector Corbett Architects The proposals were reviewed and ranked based on the criteria listed in the RFP by a scoring committee. Dewberry Architects, Inc. was selected to perform the design services for this project because they were determined to be the most qualified firm to complete the design of this project. Dewberry Architects, Inc. is scheduled to begin the design process upon award of the contract by the City Council and execution of the contract. The proposals were reviewed based on the criteria listed in the RFP for Professional Architectural Design Services for the Old Police Department Building (Annex) Renovation Project. A committee was formed to review each of the firms based on their qualifications and experience. Firms were evaluated based on the following criteria: 7.A Packet Pg. 75  Statement of Qualifications  References  Key Staff  Contract Performance  Project Understanding  Ability to Meet Project Schedule Dewberry Architects, Inc. was evaluated as the most qualified firm to complete the design of this renovation project. The scope of work includes but is not limited to:  Prepare 30% Conceptual Plans  Prepare 65% Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E)  Prepare 100% (Final) PS&E  Bid Support Services  Construction Support Services  Coordination with City Staff FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE Dewberry Architects Inc.’s proposed fee for providing architectural design services is $215,423. Staff recommends including a 20% contingency of $43,085 for a total contract budget of $258,508. Staff is requesting Council’s approval of this contract. Justification for 20% Contingency Staff is requesting a 20% contingency for this contract for the following reasons:  The work involves investigation and repurposing of an old structure with limited as-built information and construction history. With sufficient contingency, staff can direct the consultant to perform additional investigation, modify design plans or attend additional coordination meetings and workshops without a lengthy contract amendment process  Given the tight project delivery timeline and anticipa ted Building code changes (estimated to take effect early next year), staff and consultant will be working together to produce final plans and estimate by December 31, 2019. With sufficient contingency, it will be possible to perform expedited review of documents as well as response to stakeholder comments/feedback in timely manner. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council can approve the contract and budget amendment as requested. STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ALTERNATIVE. 7.A Packet Pg. 76 2. The City Council could deny staff’s recommendation and not approve the contract which could result in significant delay in the project. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS ALTERNATIVE. PUBLIC OUTREACH In preparation for this project, staff has made presentation about the goals and anticipated timelines for at the quarterly developers’ roundtable meeting, which was received well. In addition, the project team will visit other one stop centers in the Bay area and engage customers, staff and other stakeholders in the project development process to design and construct the most practically and economically feasible development review center. Attachments: 1. Dewberry Agreement for Services 7.A Packet Pg. 77 -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (For design professional contracts over $5,000) This AGREEMENT made this 16 day of September, 2019 between: CITY: City of Gilroy, having a principal place of business at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California and CONSULTANT: Dewberry Architects Inc., having a principal place of business at 300 North Lake Avenue, 12th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101. ARTICLE 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement will become effective on September XX, 2019 and will continue in effect through September XX, 2022 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. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -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 $215,423. 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 DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -3- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 responsible for any expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in performing services for CITY, except for those expenses constituting “direct expenses” referenced on Exhibit “A.” 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) DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -4- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 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 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. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -5- 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 DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -6- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 reimburse 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 DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -7- 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. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -8- 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: Dewberry Architects, Inc CITY OF GILROY By: By: Name: Alan Korth Name: Gabriel A. Gonzalez Title: Principal Title: City Administrator Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -9- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 Approved as to Form ATTEST: City Attorney City Clerk DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -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 James Aguilar, 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, Julie Oates 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. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -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 DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -3- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 applicable 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. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -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: Julie Oates City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 CONSULTANT: James Aguilar Dewberry Architects Inc. 1760 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 280 Sacramento, CA 95833 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 DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -5- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -6- K. PREVAILING WAGE. CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR 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. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “B” SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. 30% Conceptual Plans • Work with a stakeholders committee to finalize the conceptual design to proceed to construction document development. 2. 65% Design Development and PS&E • Analysis of the existing space to identify opportunities and constraints related to the building’s structural, electrical, lighting, mechanical, fire sprinkler, and plumbing systems. • Electrical Engineer to utilize record drawings along with site visits to validate the capacity of existing normal (utility) and emergency power systems to accommodate loads anticipated with the additions and changes. • Mechanical/Plumbing Engineer to use record drawings along with site visits to analyze existing conditions to determine existing cooling and heating loads and integration with new systems requirements including an evaluation of an adequate sanitary system. • Structural Engineer (along with a geotechnical engineer as necessary) to perform an investigation to serve as the basis for design and for development of special inspection processes for observation and testing services during construction. • Analysis of the internal and external spaces and features for issues related to accessibility and code compliance. • Review reports for work already performed for identification of existing hazardous materials such as, but not limited to, asbestos and lead paint; mitigation or removal plan for any discovered hazardous materials (City intends to perform asbestos and lead abatement prior to construction of this project). • Timely coordination with the City’s Building Division during permit plan-check to assure that the design conforms to current code standards and can be permitted, which would include the preparation of permit application and response to comments generated. • Timely coordination with the City’s Facilities and IT staff to determine any modifications or enhancements to the building’s entry system or security system (including video surveillance, network cabling and infrastructure, audio visual needs for new and existing conference rooms, computer components including multifunction printers, and for new and existing office spaces affected by the remodeling project. • Prepare an accurate and reliable engineer’s construction cost estimate to be used for budgeting and to supplement the bid documents. DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -2- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 3. 100% (Final) PS&E • Preparation of plans, technical specifications, and final cost documents, structural calculations, estimate for bidding according to Prevailing Wage Requirements and the California Public Contract Code. • Prepare final contract plans and technical specifications consistent with City standards. Final plans shall be drawn on archival ready sheets 22” x 34” in size and to an appropriate scale. The final plans and specifications, in hard copy and electronic format, shall be delivered to, and become the property of, the City of Gilroy. Electronic format of project files shall be AutoCAD 2014 or later, Microsoft Word, Excel, Project, or any other format agreeable with the City. 4. Bid Support Services • Interpret plans and specifications as required during the bidding process. • Assist in preparing addenda that may be issued to bidders. • Assist in evaluating bids. • Respond to RFIs from potential bidders. • Prepare addenda as necessary. 5. Construction Support Services • Attend and participate in a pre-construction conference with the responsive low- bid contractor. • Assist the City Engineer, contractor, construction manager, contract administrator and inspector with interpretation of plans and specifications, requests for information, analysis of changed conditions, development of corrective action and review of submittals, coordinate revisions submittals for all disciplines during the entire permitting process. • Upon completion of construction, the consultant shall compile all construction information and prepare “as-built” drawings to the satisfaction of the City, as needed. 6. Coordination with City Staff • Communicate regularly with the City’s Project Manager using telephone, fax, email, written correspondence and face-to-face meetings as required throughout the term of the contract.DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “C” MILESTONE SCHEDULE Notice to Proceed - September 2019 Project Kick-Off - October 2019 Stakeholder Workshop - October 2019 30% Design Plans - November 2019 65% Design Plans - December 2019 100% PS&E - March 2020 DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) -1- 4845-6718-3385v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “D” PAYMENT SCHEDULE DRAFT7.A.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) Appendix - 8 CITY OF GILROY - OLD POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING (ANNEX) RENOVATION HOURLY RATE SCHEDULES STANDARD HOURLY RATES BY CLASSIFICATION Dewberry Architects Inc. Project Principal $280.00 Senior Project Manager $200.00 Project Manager $165.00 Senior Project Architect $160.00 Project Architect $145.00 Senior Architect $160.00 Accessibility CASp Coordinator $160.00 Senior Designer $170.00 Designer $140.00 Job Captain $125.00 Cadd Technician IV $120.00 Cadd Technician III $95.00 Cadd Technician II $85.00 Senior Interior Designer $140.00 Interior Designer $110.00 Jr. Interior Designer $85.00 Security Electronics $150.00 Specification Writer $135.00 Administration $65.00 Capital Engineering Sr. Principal $230.00 Principal $210.00 Director $200.00 Sr. Project Manager $190.00 Project Manager $182.00 Field Services $180.00 Senior Engineer $164.00 Engineer $149.00 Senior Designer $139.00 Designer $128.00 Technician / CADD $118.00 Intern $113.00 Project Administrator $98.00 Sr. Admin. $67.00 Clerical / Admin. $54.00 Sierra West Group Principal Program Manager/ Investigator $150.00 Principal / Sr. Cost Manager $125.00 Cost Manager / Quantity Surveyor $110 Mechanical / Electrical Estimator $110 Civil Engineer / Estimator $110 Administrative $78 ECOM Engineering, Inc. Principal $225.00 Sr. Project Manager $218.00 Project Manager $185.00 Engineer $165.00 Sr. Designer $165.00 Sr. CADD Operator $125.00 Project Assistant $105.00 Contract Manager $100.00 Administration $85.00 The Crosby Group Principal-in-Charge $302.00 Project Manager $204.00 Senior Structural Engineer $192.00 Structural Engineer $180.00 Senior Project Engineer $176.00 Project Engineer $170.00 Structural Designer $158.00 BIM Manager $174.00 BIM Designer $150.00 Clerical $77.00 Ifland Engineers Principal Engineer $230.00 Senior Engineer $205.00 Project Engineer $165.00 Staff Engineer $145.00 QSP/QSD Services $145.00 Project Manager $140.00 Assistant Engineer $130.00 Senior CADD Technician $115.00 Junior Engineer / CADD Technician II $100.00 CADD Technician I $85.00 Clerical Assistant $65.00DRAFT 7.A.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Dewberry Agreement for Services (2371 : Award of Consultant Contract Design of Development Review Center) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Budget in the Amount of $177,800 and Approval of a Contract with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers in the Amount of $562,145 with a Project Contingency of $56,214 (10%) for Design and Construction Engineering Services of Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well); Project No. 19-RFP-PW -420 Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Girum Awoke Prepared By: Girum Awoke Faranak Mahdavi Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION a) Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget for the Water Development Fund 436 increasing appropriations in the amount of $177,800. b) Approve a contract with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers in the amount of $562,145 with a project contingency of $56,214 (10%) for the design and construction engineering services for the Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well); Project No. 19-RFP-PW -420, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. 7.B Packet Pg. 98 BACKGROUND The City of Gilroy has undergone new development over the past several years resulting in an increase in demand for water. The City’s Department of Public Works has taken a proactive approach in determining the current level of water use versus the available water supply by producing a Report on Potable Water Demand and Supply for Imminent Development which was presented to council in November 2018.In a typical water system’s planning and development process, a city holistically evaluates the system for adequacy and then prepares a master plan. With the delay in the completion of the City of Gilroy General Plan for 2040, Gilroy’s next Water System Master Plan is still a few years out. Considering Gilroy’s projected demand for water in the near future, the City may not have time to wait for the next water system master plan to be completed before constructing a new well. Below is a summary of the projected demand requirements in the next few years: Average Day Demands (ADD):  Existing Development: 7.2 mgd  Imminent Development: 0.9 mgd  Estimated 2022 Demand: 8.1 mgd The increase in ADD due to imminent development is approximately 1 million gallons per day which is equivalent to one new well with an average production of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm). Based on the detailed analysis of imminent development, current daily water production, and historical consumption, council approved the design and construction of a new well in order to meet near-future water demand. On May 12, 2019, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to perform the design and construction engineering services for the Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well) project. The RFP was advertised on the City of Gilroy’s Website and in the San Jose Mercury News. Two proposals were received by the Friday, June 7, 2019 deadline from the following consultants: GHD, Inc. and Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). The scoring committee reviewed and evaluated the proposals. LSCE was selected as the most qualified firm for this project based on their qualifications, thorough project understanding, and their approach to the design and coordination process for the project. LSCE will begin the design process upon award of the contract by the City Council, and execution of the contract. DISCUSSION 7.B Packet Pg. 99 The scoring committee reviewed, scored and qualified each of the firms based on their qualifications and experience for the design and construction engin eering services for the Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well) project. Below are the criteria listed in the RFP:  Qualifications & Experience  Organization & Approach  Scope of Services to be Provided  Conflict of Interest Statement (Pass/Fail)  References LSCE demonstrated the most thorough understanding of the project, and had the best approach to the design and coordination process. The scope of work includes but is not limited to property acquisition, environmental study, site investigation, production well design and construction, pump station design and construction, and permitting assistance from various regulatory agencies such as the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water and the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE LSCE’s proposed fee for design and construction engineering services for the Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well) project is $562,145. Staff recommends including a 10% contingency of $56,214, addressing unforeseen issues tha t may arise during the design process, for a total contract budget of $620,000. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to amend the budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020, increasing appropriations in the Water Development Fund 436 by $177,800 for the design and construction engineering services of the project. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may choose to approve the contract with LSCE in the amount of $620,000 which includes the project contingency. This will allow the design of the project to commence, and lead to the construction to a new well to address our potable water demand needs. STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ALTERNATIVE. 2. Deny staff’s recommendation and not approve the contract with LSCE which will delay the project. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS ALTERNATIVE. Attachments: 1. Resolution Fund 436 Budget Amendment 7.B Packet Pg. 100 2. LSCE Agreement for Services 7.B Packet Pg. 101 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF GILROY FOR 2019-2020 AND APPROPRIATING PROPOSED EXPENDITURE AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2019-2020, and the City Council carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 3, 2019; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to said budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated September 16, 2019 for the award of design and construction engineering services for the Potable Water Well Number 9 (McCarthy Well) Project, City Project No. 19-RFP-PW-420. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the appropriations for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 in the Water Development Fund 436 shall be increased by $177,800. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2019 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ATTEST: Roland Velasco, Mayor Shawna Freels, City Clerk 7.B.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Resolution Fund 436 Budget Amendment (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX 7.B.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Resolution Fund 436 Budget Amendment (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for 7.B.bPacket Pg. 104Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -2- 4835-2267-0361v1 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” (“Payment Schedule”). In no event however shall the total compensation paid to CONSULTANT exceed $620,000 (including contingency). 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 7.B.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -3- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 responsible for any expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in performing services for CITY, except for those expenses constituting “direct expenses” referenced on Exhibit “A.” 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 reasonable 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, CONSU LTANT 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, 7.B.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -4- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 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 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 mater ial 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. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -5- 4835-2267-0361v1 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.H., 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 completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement 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 7.B.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -6- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 may have, CONSULTANT shall reimburse 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 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 requir e 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 reasonable 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. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -7- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 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 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 performa nce 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. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable 7.B.bPacket Pg. 111Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -1- 4835-2267-0361v1 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 Jason Coleman, 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 complete the Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 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, Faranak Mahdavi 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.H. (“Notices”) of this Exhibit “A”. B. COMPLETION OF SERVICES When CITY determines that CONSULTANT has completed all of the Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, 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 completed all of the Services as required by the terms of this Agreement and, if so requested, CITY shall make this determination within two (2) weeks of such request, or if CITY determines that CONSULTANT has not completed all of such Services as required by this Agreement, 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. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -2- 4835-2267-0361v1 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. 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. B. 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. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for the accuracy of any project or technical information provided by the CITY. 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 law for all damages to CITY caused by CONSULTANT’S negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement. C. 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 avail able to CITY at the CITY’s offices within five (5) business days after CITY’s request. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -3- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 D. 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. E. 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. F. 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.D 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. However, CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for, and City shall indemnify CON SULTANT from, damages resulting from the use of said material for work other than PROJECT, including, but not limited to, the release of this material to third parties for work other than on PROJECT. G. 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. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -4- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 H. NOTICES. Notices are to be sent as follows: CITY: Faranak Mahdavi City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 CONSULTANT: Jason Cloeman 500 First Street Woodland, CA 95695 I. 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.I. 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.I. 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. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -5- J. PREVAILING WAGE. CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR 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. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -1- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “B” SCOPE OF SERVICES 7.B.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable CITY OF GILROY SCOPE OF WORK July 1 8, 2019 LSCE has reviewed and understands the project as outlined in the City’s RFP. The Scope of Work identified in the tasks below addresses all the core objectives described in RFP. Clarifications and additions to the Scope of Work have been made below per the City’s request after City review of LSCE’s original proposal. All revisions are show in italicized text for reference. Task 1 – Project Coordination, Meetings, and Administration Task 1.1 – Kickoff and Information Request LSCE’s work on the project will begin with a kickoff meeting with City staff and key LSCE team members to discuss the various aspects of the project. Items such as contact information, chain of command, the City’s project expectations, respective roles and responsibilities, schedule, design preferences and parameters, and site constraints shall be discussed at the kick-off meeting. Following the meeting, LSCE will provide the City with a list of requested information. Task 1.2 - Project Coordination, Meetings, and Administration Key LSCE team members will attend regular design meetings with the City to discuss various aspects of the project. For each meeting, LSCE will prepare and distribute meeting agendas, minutes, and action item summaries. LSCE will also provide frequent updates via email or telephone throughout the project as needed. This task also provides for project management and administrative activities such as: (a) Contractual Arrangements, (b) Ongoing Examination Regarding Adherence to The Scope, Budget, and Schedule, (c) Coordination of Staff Resources (d) Internal Review of Work Products, (e) Management of Subcontractors, (f) Billing Review, and (g) Scoping and Budgeting. Task 2 – Property Acquisition and Permitting Assistance Task 2.1 – Property Acquisition LSCE will communicate and work with the property owner to acquire the property with the assistance of a licensed commercial land appraiser. This task includes the effort required to negotiate with the property owner regarding the value and dimensions of the new property site for the new proposed pump station, conducting of an independent appraisal of valuation of the approximately 14,450 sq. foot split lot area (boundary line locations provided by City) within the existing 53,925 sq. foot lot, provide right of way acquisition for the new proposed site, and prepare a legal plat and description of the new parcel. LSCE assumes the services of an attorney for litigation or legal support is not required for the transfer of ownership of the property. Task 2.2 – Permitting Assistance Through our work on numerous projects in the past, LSCE has developed a good working relationship with the State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB-DDW) and other regional permitting and regulatory entities in the area and can assist in expediting all necessary applications and supporting permit documents in a cost-efficient manner. LSCE envisions the following permitting activities will need to be undertaken to complete the project. SWRCB-SWRCB-DDW Siting Concurrence: LSCE believes that early communications with SWRCB- SWRCB-DDW is essential to address any concerns that the agency may have regarding well siting and design before preparation of project plans and specifications. After approval of the well design by the City, LSCE will prepare an initial SWRCB-DDW submittal document requesting siting and design concurrence for the new well based on compliance with SWRCB-DDW and Department of Water 7.B.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable Resources (DWR) regulations. The initial submittal will include a monitoring well profile, monitoring well water quality summary, preliminary well design, site layout, location may, map indicating location and distances of sanitary features from the proposed well location, delineation of wellhead control zone, and the preliminary Drinking Water Source Assessment Protection (DWSAP) Report. SWRCB-DDW Water Supply Amendment: LSCE will interact with the SWRCB-DDW and the City for completion of a draft and final water supply permit. LSCE has completed numerous water supply permits and fully understands the SWRCB-DDW process and required submittals. A draft water supply amendment will be submitted to the SWRCB-DDW following construction of the production well. The draft water supply amendment package typically includes submittal of the well datasheet, well driller’s logs, well completion report, well test data, DWSAP report, and Title 22 water quality results. Following final completion and acceptance of the project, LSCE will assist the City with preparation of the final SWRCB-DDW amended water supply permit which includes all documents from the draft water supply amendment submittal and preparation of the permit application, As-Built drawings, well pump specifications, bacteriological test results and a facility operations plan. The SWRCB- DDW no longer charges a fee for filing of the water supply amendment package. CEQA: LSCE envisions the project may meet the requirements for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption, however, LSCE is prepared to develop an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) with a “Notice of Completion”. Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project to reduce potential environmental impacts. A draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) will be prepared to ensure that each mitigation measure adopted as a condition of project approval, will be implemented. LSCE anticipates significant archeological or biological impediments are not present on or near the project site and therefore the Initial Study will only include a cursory review of the site biological resources and cultural resources and not require a full reporting and assessment effort. Other Permitting Activities: LSCE will contact applicable agencies as needed to establish permitting requirements and prepare all permit documentation required by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency (SCVHA), Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA), Bay Area Quality Management District (BAQMD), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). LSCE assumes the general contractors assigned to construct the well and well pump station will pay all specific permitting fees required City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, SCVWD, SCRWA, and RWQCB. LSCE assumes the City will pay the permit fees for the BAQMD (estimated to be no more than $1,000). Task 3 – Site Specific Investigation Task 3.1 Initial Site Assessment Well Siting Review: LSCE will complete a thorough onsite inspection/assessment of the site. Specifically, LSCE will evaluate the well site related to siting and constructability of the new well and with regards to SWRCB-DDW setback distances from sanitary features and control zone requirements. Specific items to be assessed will include: • Site Size • Site Access • Minimum setback distances from sanitary features per DDW regulations • Land Use – Site and Vicinity • Seasonal Ground Conditions • Location Relative to Distribution System • Location Relative to Utilities • Equipment Layout • Water Supply for Drilling • Fluids Disposal • Cuttings Storage and Disposal 7.B.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable • Neighbors • Need for Sound Attenuation • Safety/Security Hydrogeologic Review: The goal of the hydrogeologic review is to determine probable yield, water quality, the anticipated well depth, screen intervals, static and pumping water levels, specific capacity, and water level impacts to nearby wells due to pumping of the new well. LSCE will collect, review, and utilize available data and information to refine our conceptual hydrogeologic model of the Gilroy area to preliminarily characterize site specific conditions (well depth, water quality, yield) at the well site. LSCE will utilize the following sources of data and information to refine our understanding of the project area: • Well Construction Details, Water Quality, Water Levels, and Well Performance of City Wells and other wells in the Vicinity of the Project Area • State of California Water Well Drillers Completion Reports • Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) • Reports Prepared for the City by Others • Hydrogeologic Reports Prepared by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Department of Oil and Gas, and Others • California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW) • Previous Work Completed by LSCE • Local Drilling and Pump Contractors Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Groundwater Quality: LSCE will investigate possible sources of groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the project site. LSCE will evaluate available information on possible sources of contamination and use this information and other references to address source water protection as required by the DWSAP program. LSCE will prepare a preliminary DWSAP document for the well site. LSCE will review information from the following sources: • Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department • Geo Tracker • California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) • Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) • Sanborn Maps Task 3.2 Test Hole and Monitoring Well Task 3.2 will include test hole drilling and monitoring well installation. A test hole will be drilled to collect lithologic samples for analysis, and to conduct down hole geophysical surveys that will be used to design the new production well. The preliminary test hole depth will be based on the information developed as part of Task 3.1. LSCE will provide subcontracted test hole drilling services from a licensed drilling contractor and will oversee the work to ensure that it is performed in accordance with our stringent specifications and high expectations. LSCE will require that the drilling contractor contains all fluids and cuttings generated by drilling operations and properly dispose of those materials at an appropriate facility. LSCE will provide documentation and sampling services during the drilling process including a drilling log, geological samples at a minimum of 10-foot intervals, geophysical (electric) logs, and sieve (grain size) analysis. If the nature, depth, and thickness of aquifer materials from the test hole are favorable, LSCE will recommend converting the test hole to a multiple-completion monitoring well. A typical monitoring well may include up to three, 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piezometers, completed in different zones. The screen section(s) of each piezometer will be isolated from one another using intermediate bentonite seals allowing for discrete water level measurements and water quality sampling. LSCE will oversee the construction and development of the monitoring wells. After development of the monitoring wells, LSCE will mobilize a sampling rig and collect water samples from each piezometer and submit to a state certified laboratory for Title 22 Drinking Water analysis. and other constituents of 7.B.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable concern in the area. Task 3.3 Well Design Recommendation Report LSCE will prepare and deliver to the City an Investigation Summary and Preliminary Well Designs report that will summarize the findings of the site assessment and site characterization work performed as part of Tasks 3.1. The report will include: • A summary of all field activities associated with test hole drilling, monitoring well construction and development, and water quality testing • A lithologic log based upon interpretation of collected lithologic samples and geophysical logs • Geophysical logs • Grain size distribution charts of selected formation samples • Monitoring well as-built diagram • Daily inspection sheets • A summary of water quality results and analytical reports • Copies of all project permits • Copy of Well Completion Report LSCE will prepare preliminary production well designs based on data gathered during test hole and monitoring well evaluation and our experience in the area. The principal design elements to achieve a hydraulically efficient and sand- free well include: • Borehole and casing depths and diameters • Casing material type(s) • Screen placements • Screen type and material • Accessory pipe depth, material, and diameter • Casing and screen wall thickness • Gravel pack gradation • Screen slot size • Seal depths The report will include a drafted preliminary well design profile and conceptual site layout. The design elements of the well design and yield estimation will be discussed in the report. An engineer’s estimate for the construction and testing of the well will be included in the report. LSCE will meet with the City to discuss the results and findings of the test hole/monitoring well investigation and new well design recommendations. LSCE will incorporate the City’s design comments into the final well design. Task 3.4 Siting Concurrence After approval of the well design by the City, LSCE will prepare an initial SWRCB-DDW submittal document requesting siting and design concurrence for the new well based on compliance with SWRCB- DDW and DWR regulations. The initial submittal will include a preliminary well design, site layout, location may, map indicating location and distances of sanitary features from the proposed well location, delineation of wellhead control zone, and the preliminary DWSAP Report. LSCE will prepare DDW submittals for the preliminary and final amended water supply permit under Task 5. The preliminary water supply permit includes well design information, site plan, preliminary DWSAP, and CEQA documentation. The Final water supply permit submittal will include updates to the information from the preliminary submittal in addition to the Operations Plan, well and chlorination data sheets, an engineering report, and final As- Built diagrams. Task 4 - Production Well Design and Construction 7.B.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable Task 4.1 – Production Well Construction Specifications LSCE will prepare specifications that will include detailed construction requirements that must be followed by the well drilling contractor during every phase of the project, including the minimum acceptable methods for drilling fluid control, well development and testing, and performance standards. Other site-specific items will include requirements for containment and disposal of drill cuttings and handling of discharge water during development and test pumping in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations. Task 4.1 also includes interaction with regulatory agencies such as DDW, the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, and the SCVWD related to permitting for drilling, construction, and testing of the new well. Permits and plans that are typically required for a well installation project include drilling, discharge, water supply, encroachment permits, storm water pollution and prevention plan (SWPPP), and traffic control plans. LSCE will prepare a complete set of specifications (Special Provisions and Technical Specifications), drawings in AutoCAD V10, and a bid sheet suitable for the solicitation of competitive bids. LSCE will provide a draft copy of the specifications and plans to the City for review. Upon acceptance by the City, LSCE will provide the City with the final specifications for incorporation with the City’s front-end contract documents and forms for solicitation of bids. LSCE assumes that the City will contract directly with the selected contractor for the construction and testing of the wells. Task 4.2 – Production Well Construction Bidding Assistance LSCE will provide the City with a list of at least three qualified drilling contractors to solicit bids from for the well installation project. LSCE will conduct a mandatory pre-bid conference for prospective contractors with the City and LSCE project managers present. LSCE will prepare any required written clarifications and/or addendums to clarify the scope for bidding purposes. LSCE will review and tabulate all formal bids to ensure responsiveness with the contract requirements. A thorough background check on qualifications and references will be conducted on the lowest responsible bidder and the findings of that review will be discussed with the City. LSCE will prepare a formal summary of the bid review and a recommendation for award to the lowest responsible bidder. Task 4.3 – Well Construction and Testing Oversight Services As part of our inspection and oversight duties, LSCE will verify that all aspects of the project are carried out as set forth in the project specifications and according to accepted well drilling practices. LSCE will notify the contractor regarding lack of compliance with the project specifications or accepted water well drilling practices and, as the City’s agent, will identify corrective measures to be implemented. LSCE will immediately stop work on the project if there are any safety, property damage, or permit violation concerns. LSCE will document all aspects of the project, including inspection items, calculations, and communications with the contractor and other involved parties. LSCE will provide frequent updates to the City via email, phone, and in person, if requested in addition to regular weekly updates. Pre-construction Conference: LSCE will conduct a preconstruction meeting to address any final logistical questions and confirm the Contractors understanding of the project requirements before operations begin. Well Location Verification: LSCE will verify the location of the planned well before drilling commences. Mobilization/Site Preparation Inspection: LSCE will ensure that the contractor is set up per specifications and has all the required equipment/materials onsite before drilling operations begin. Conductor Casing: LSCE will witness conductor/surface casing installation and grouting operations Borehole Construction: LSCE will monitor drilling operations and drilling fluid control to insure minimal 7.B.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable formation damage. Materials Inspection: LSCE will inspect and verify that all materials are as specified and in good condition. Casing Installation: LSCE will witness borehole conditioning and casing assembly installation. Gravel and Annular Seal Placement: LSCE will inspect gravel and seal(s) installation and estimate final quantities to be installed. Well Development and Discharge Monitoring: LSCE will witness initial well development techniques with the drilling rig, final development of the well by pumping, and compliance with all discharge requirements. Well Testing: LSCE will witness acceptance tests for minimum sand production and maximum well efficiency, monitor well pump tests, and evaluate well performance in order to develop pump design criteria. Video Inspection, Plumbness and Alignment Testing, Well Disinfection: LSCE will witness video, plumbness and alignment testing, and final well disinfection. Cleanup: LSCE will verify contractor's compliance with site cleanup and well security requirements. Payment and Acceptance: LSCE will review all invoices for accuracy and make recommendations for payment and for final acceptance. Well Construction Summary Report: LSCE will prepare two bound copies of a Well Construction and Testing Summary Report. Task 5– Pump Station Design and Construction Task 5.1 – Preliminary Pump Station Design Activities LSCE will meet with and conduct a site visit with City personnel to discuss the overall pump station project design requirements, construction concepts, and site constraints at both pump station sites. The primary goal of the site visit is to discuss design elements needed to serve the new facilities including, new water supply connections, storm drain pump‐to‐waste (overboard) operations, building sewer, electrical service, radio communications, access controls, etc. Task 5.2 – Obtain Survey Basemap and Geotechnical Investigation Completion of a topographic survey basemap in ACAD format will be needed for the project site. The basemap will be used for preliminary layout of the pump station that in turn will be used for preparing the final bidding plans. LSCE will also solicit the services of a geotechnical sub consultant to perform geotechnical exploration and preparation of a geotechnical engineering report required to develop the project design drawings/specifications. Task 5.3 –Pump Station Design and Construction Specifications This task covers the scope of work required to prepare the engineering plans and technical specifications for the project, consisting of a well pump and motor, motor control center, discharge piping, chemical treatment systems, standby diesel generator, instrumentation, electrical control panels, SCADA communication, CMU block building to house the above ground components onsite and other required site improvements. The design will also address all other site modifications and improvements including grading, drainage, paving, fencing, painting, etc. The design will be completed at 30%, 65% and 100% stages and an Engineer’s Estimate of project construction costs will be prepared with each design phase. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable After review of each design phase by the City, LSCE will prepare the complete set of plans and specifications for the subsequent design stage, incorporating any comments received from the City in the previous design review. Task 5.4 – Pump Station Bidding Assistance LSCE will provide a list of a minimum of five (5) general and specialty contractors who may be interested in bidding on this project, for the City’s review and approval. LSCE assumes the City will prepare and distribute advertisements for bids in newspaper, Builders Exchanges, and other media. LSCE will assist the City with preparing any required written clarifications and/or addendums to clarify the scope for bidding purposes. Task 5.5 – Pump Station Construction and Commissioning LSCE’s approach to providing construction support services involves a close relationship with construction timing, schedule, progress and administrative processes so as to not delay progress. LSCE will act on behalf of the City and work in close coordination with the City’s assigned project manager. LSCE assumes the scope of construction period services include the following: Pre-Construction Meeting: LSCE will hold a pre-construction conference to discuss the baseline schedule and the procedure for construction progress, RFIs, status of submittals, and any miscellaneous items throughout construction. A formal agenda and meeting minutes documenting the status of the construction meetings will be prepared. Construction Staking: LSCE will coordinate with the surveyor to provide the Contractor with an initial set of construction staking for the well and pump station site, including building corners for both sites. LSCE assumes no more than 2 site visits are required by the surveyor for construction staking. Submittal Review: LSCE will complete the review and transmittal of technical submittals provided by the general contractor. A submittal spreadsheet log will be maintained for use in tracking and documenting submittal review. LSCE assumes no more than 40 submittals will need to be reviewed/approved. Requests for Information: During the construction period, the general contractor will ask questions on details of the contract, substitutions, and alternative approaches that are best answered by the designer. LSCE will review questions and provide written clarifications. LSCE assumes no more than 15 RFIs will need to be reviewed. Change Order Assistance: LSCE will assist in the preparation of any necessary field instructions and change orders. Anticipated assignments may include: preparing requests to the general contractor for proposals for extra or changed work; review of contractor requests for change order to determine if work proposed is considered extra work; opinion of probable construction cost; and, review and negotiation of cost estimates. LSCE assumes no more than 5 change orders will need to be reviewed/approved. On-site Inspections: LSCE will provide scheduled on-site milestone inspections including special inspections for electrical, structural and mechanical components. LSCE will prepare an inspection report for each site-visit indicating the date and times, people on-site, material delivered, work completed, and corrections noted. LSCE assumes the following milestone inspections will be required which include: Civil/Mechanical Engineer Support (6 site visits) Furnish an engineer for field observation of station layout/grading; pedestal construction and well pump installation; station piping/valving installations; transducer installation; utility service lines/conduits and ventilation system construction; chemical feed equipment installations; and other site improvements. Structural Engineer Support (4 site visits) Furnish an engineer for field observation of construction of pump station building components 7.B.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable including the rebar for the concrete slab, CMU wall, and roof trusses for the pump station building. Geotechnical Engineering Services (6 site visits) The work will include observation of major excavations, grading, and fill areas to confirm that material encountered is consistent with assumptions developed during the design. Observe and advise field staff on unusual, questionable, or unanticipated soil conditions. Perform compaction testing of earthwork for pad/footing subgrade and utility trench backfill operations, and concrete break testing. Electrical Engineering Support (4 site visits) Inspection of conduit routing, equipment anchorage, control and distribution panel configuration and electrical switchgear will be performed. Also included in this task will be to inspect the electrical for “green tagging” for power company electrical service connection. Startup/Commissioning (4 site visits): LSCE will oversee and be responsible for the approval of the contractor’s startup and commissioning activities for a fully functioning and operable facility, including all equipment acceptance testing, communications and programming, and close-out permitting requirements. This process will involve coordinating the general contractor, sub-contractors, systems integrator, equipment manufacturers, City staff and regulatory agencies. A preliminary site inspection will be conducted during startup/testing & commissioning of the pump station, in which LSCE will prepare list of incomplete construction items (punch list) for the general contractor to complete prior to final acceptance of the project by the City. Hydraulic performance acceptance testing will also be conducted to ensure the completed down hole pump assemblies at both sites operate as warranted by the equipment manufacturer and to ensure the pump station is operating at the flow rates, pressures and efficiencies for which the entire facility was designed. As-Built Drawings: At the end of the construction phase of the project, LSCE will modify the project drawings into a set of project Record Drawings based on field changes and red line markups from the general contractor and LSCE construction management staff. Record Drawings and Operation & Maintenance manuals will be provided to the City after they have been reviewed and approved by LSCE and the City. Digital copies of the record drawings and technical specifications will be provided for City records. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable -1- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “C” MILESTONE SCHEDULE 7.B.b Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable 7.B.bPacket Pg. 127Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “D” PAYMENT SCHEDULE 7.B.b Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable EXHIBIT D- PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND HOURLY RATES LSCE’s estimated cost to complete the scope of work outlined in our proposal was based on our understanding of the project and what would be typically expected to complete the tasks described based on our prior experience. The cost estimate assumed the following: • The City will provide daily inspection services during construction of the well pump station and LSCE will provide milestone inspections as identified in the workplan. • Prevailing wage rates for applicable work for LSCE personnel and subcontractors • SWPPP is not required as the planned project will disturb less than 1 acre. • LSCE will retain the test hole driller and pay for monitoring well Title 22 water quality analysis. • General Conditions, Supplemental General Conditions, and other “front end” specifications will be prepared by City staff. • Design documents will conform to the City’s standards. • The City will pay all permitting fees. Exhibit D includes detailed estimated project costs that includes hours per LSCE work tasks and subtasks, billing rate by employee classification, estimated subcontracted costs, and miscellaneous expenses. LSCE will invoice monthly on a time and materials basis as incurred for labor, materials, and subcontracted services in accordance with our 2019 Schedule of Fees for Engineering and Field Services. LSCE’s 2019 Labor Fees shall remain in effect for the full contract period (project completion). 7.B.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable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±3XPS6WDWLRQ'HVLJQDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ7DVN3UHOLPLQDU\3XPS6WDWLRQ'HVLJQ$FWLYLWLHV7DVN2EWDLQ6XUYH\%DVHPDSDQG*HRWHFKQLFDO,QYHVWLJDWLRQ7DVN3XPS6WDWLRQ'HVLJQDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ6SHFLILFDWLRQV7DVN3XPS6WDWLRQ&RQVWUXFWLRQDQG&RPPLVVLRQLQJ6XPPDU\7DVN3URGXFWLRQ:HOO&RQVWUXFWLRQ%LGGLQJ$VVLVWDQFH7DVN,QLWLDO6LWH$VVHVVPHQW7DVN:HOO'HVLJQ5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ5HSRUW7DVN6LWLQJ&RQFXUUHQFH7DVN±3URGXFWLRQ:HOO'HVLJQDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ7DVN7HVW+ROHDQG0RQLWRULQJ:HOO7RWDO&RVW(VWLPDWH7DVN±.LFNRIIDQG,QIRUPDWLRQ5HTXHVW7DVN3XPS6WDWLRQ%LGGLQJ$VVLVWDQFH7DVN6LWH6SHFLILF,QYHVWLJDWLRQ7RWDO7DVN&RVW(VWLPDWH7DVN±3URMHFW&RRUGLQDWLRQ0HHWLQJVDQG$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ7DVN±3URMHFW&RRUGLQDWLRQ0HHWLQJVDQG$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 6XE&RQVXOWDQWDQG6HUYLFH3URYLGHUIHHVLQFOXGH/6&( VPDUNXS(VWLPDWHG&RVWVIRU'HVLJQDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQRI&LW\RI*LOUR\0F&DUWK\:HOO3XPS6WDWLRQ7RWDO7DVN&RVW(VWLPDWH7RWDO7DVN&RVW(VWLPDWH7RWDO7DVN&RVW(VWLPDWH7DVN:HOO&RQVWUXFWLRQDQG7HVWLQJ2YHUVLJKW6HUYLFHV7DVN3URSHUW\$FTXLVLWLRQDQG3HUPLWWLQJ$VVLVWDQFH7DVN3URSHUW\$FTXLVLWLRQ7DVN3HUPLWWLQJ$VVLVWDQFH6800$5<7DVN3URGXFWLRQ:HOO&RQVWUXFWLRQ6SHFLILFDWLRQV7RWDO7DVN&RVW(VWLPDWHEXHIBIT D - PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND HOURLY RATES7.B.bPacket Pg. 130Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini 500 FIRST STREET WOODLAND, CALIFORNIA 95695 SCHEDULE OF FEES - ENGINEERING AND FIELD SERVICES 2019 Professional:* Senior Principal Principal Professional Supervising Professional Senior Professional Project Professional Project Professional – Prevailing Wage Staff Professional Staff professional – Prevailing Wage $215/hr. $210/hr. $200/hr. $187/hr. $145 to 170/hr. $177hr. $130 to 140/hr. $165 hr. Technical: Engineering Inspector ACAD Drafting/GIS Engineering Assistant Scientist Technician $130/hr. $130/hr. $100 to 120/hr. $100 to 120/hr. $100 to 120/hr. Clerical Support: Word Processing, Clerical Digital Communications Specialist Project Admin/Accounting Assistant $75/hr. $90/hr. $90/hr. ********* Vehicle Use $0.58/mi. Subsistence Cost Plus 15% Groundwater Sampling Equipment (Includes Operator) $170.00/hr. Copies .20 ea. ********** Professional or Technical Testimony 200% of Regular Rates Technical Overtime (if required) 150% of Regular Rates Outside Services/Rentals Cost Plus 15% Services by Associate Firms Cost Plus 15% * Engineer, Geologist, Hydrogeologist, and Hydrologist 7.B.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable PROFESSIONAL RATE SCHEDULE Expert Research Testimony and Depositions-------------------------------------------------------------------------------$325.00 per hour Principal Electrical Engineer--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$235.00 per hour Professional Engineer-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$200.00 per hour E.I.T.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$180.00 per hour Field Tech./Designer/IT Programmer---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$160.00 per hour Cad/Drafting Technician--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$122.00 per hour Clerical---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ 85.00 per hour 1.0) RATES ARE FIXED AND VALID THROUGH JUNE 2022. THANK YOU AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL. ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC. JOSEPH P. PREVENDAR, P.E., PRESIDENT GARY R. OLSEN, P.E., VP OF POWER/GENERATION 7.B.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable 7.B.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable 7651 Eigleberry Street 408-842-2173 Gilroy, CA 95020-5122 Fax 842-3662 Email:engineering@hannabrunetti.com CITY OF GILROY – MCCARTHY WELL PROJECT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOURLY FEE SCHEDULE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL Principal Engineer $ 190.00 Associate Engineer/Project Manager $ 170.00 Project Engineer $ 155.00 Surveyor $ 165.00 Design Engineer $ 135.00 Assistant Surveyor $ 130.00 Junior Civil Engineer $ 115.00 Technician $ 115.00 Inspector $ 127.00 Draftsperson $ 110.00 Clerical $ 74.00 Witness – Per Deposition Appearance Minimum 4-hour increments Witness – Per Court Appearance Minimum 4-hour increments FIELD One-Person Survey Crew $ 200.00 Two-Person Survey Crew $ 235.00 Three-Person Survey Crew $ 280.00 Rates are locked in and valid through the estimated project completion date of June 2022 7.B.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES www.engeo.com PREFERRED CLIENT FEE SCHEDULE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES President ........................................................................................................................................ $380.00 per hour Principal Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist ................................................................................... $290.00 per hour Associate Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist ................................................................................. $245.00 per hour Senior Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist ...................................................................................... $215.00 per hour Project Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist ..................................................................................... $195.00 per hour Environmental Scientist ................................................................................................................. $180.00 per hour Staff Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist ......................................................................................... $174.00 per hour Assistant Engineer ......................................................................................................................... $140.00 per hour Construction Services Manager .................................................................................................... $170.00 per hour* Senior Field Representative II ....................................................................................................... $150.00 per hour*/** Senior Field Representative I ........................................................................................................ $135.00 per hour*/** Field Representative ...................................................................................................................... $125.00 per hour*/** Environmental Technician ............................................................................................................. $130.00 per hour*/** Senior Laboratory Technician ....................................................................................................... $155.00 per hour Laboratory Technician ................................................................................................................... $140.00 per hour Senior CAD Specialist ................................................................................................................... $145.00 per hour CAD Specialist ............................................................................................................................... $135.00 per hour GIS Analyst .................................................................................................................................... $150.00 per hour Network Administrator ................................................................................................................... $195.00 per hour Project Assistant ............................................................................................................................ $118.00 per hour * Two-hour minimum portal to portal. * OVERTIME RATES: Rates increased by factor of 1.5 for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) Monday through Friday, and the first eight (8) hours worked on Saturday. Rates increased by factor of 2.0 for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) Monday through Friday, all hours worked in excess of eight (8) on Saturday and all hours worked on Sunday and holidays. ** For Prevailing Wage projects, increase the hourly rate by $15. ** Rates increased by factor of 1.25 for night shift hours (hours commencing after 4:00 p.m. or before 4:00 a.m.); rates increased by factor of 1.875 (an additional factor of 1.5) for all night shift hours in excess of eight (8). 7.B.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS CHARGES www.engeo.com DESCRIPTION COST PER UNIT ($) UNIT Air Content Meter 7.00 hour Bailers (Disposable) 8.00 each Concrete Crack Monitor 20.00 each Coring Machine 25.00 hour Double-Ring Infiltrometer 40.00 hour Electronic Water Level Indicator 5.00 hour Engineering Analysis Software 28.00 hour Equipment Transport(er) 100.00 hour Exploration Equipment (Percussion Penetrometer) 50.00 hour Floor Flatness/Floor Level Equipment 20.00 hour Generator 15.00 hour GIS Website Portal Maintenance 100.00 month GPR/GPS Handheld Device 10.00 hour GPR/GPS/Drone Survey Grade Equipment 175.00 hour Hand Auger and Soil Sampler 15.00 hour Hydraulic Pull-Test Equipment 25.00 hour Interface Probe 2.00 hour Magnetic Particle Test Equipment 25.00 hour Moisture Content Test Equipment 6.00 hour Multi-Parameter Water Meter 15.00 hour pH Meter/Turbidity Meter 10.00 hour Photo Ionization Detector 15.00 hour Pachometer 100.00 hour Sampling Tubes 10.00 each Sand Cone Equipment and Material 5.00 hour Schmidt Hammer 20.00 hour Seisometer 50.00 hour Skidmore Wilhelm Bolt Tension Calib. 40.00 hour Slope Inclinometer/Settlement Indicator/VW Readout 50.00 hour Torque Wrench 15.00 hour Transfer Pump 3.00 hour Ultrasonic Equipment 50.00 hour Vapor Emission Test Kit 40.00 kit Vector Conversion 60.00 conversion Vehicle, mileage, nuclear gauge, misc. equipment, wireless communication 27.00 hour Vehicle, mileage, misc. equipment, wireless communication 18.00 hour Vibration Monitor 1800.00 month Water Sampling Pumps 20.00 hour Bridge Toll actual actual Mileage .78 mile Parking actual actual AutoCAD, Civil 3D, GIS, Drone Data Processing 25.00 hour Photocopies Black & White 0.25 each Photocopies Color 11 x 17 1.50 each Photocopies Color 8½ x 11 1.00 each Plot - Black & White 3.00 square foot Plot - Color 4.00 square foot Postage actual actual Scan - Black & White 1.50 each Scan - Color 3.75 each Telephone 0.50 minute 7.B.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable STANDARD HOURLY RATES Environmental/Planning/GIS Hourly Rate* Principal Planner $160.00 Senior Biologist/Environmental Scientist/Planner/GIS Analyst $135.00 Associate Biologist/Environmental Scientist/Planner/GIS Technician $115.00 Assistant Biologist/Environmental Scientist/Planner $95.00 *Hourly Rates for the City of Gilroy Potable Water Well Project are in effect for the duration of the project, through 2022. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable Jason Coleman July 12, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California We will provide you with an electronic file (PDF) of the appraisal report. Upon request, we will furnish you with two bound copies. Our fee for this appraisal will be $4,000. The amount of $2,000 is due in advance, as a deposit. Our fee includes two hours of phone calls for Q&A related to the appraisal. Any additional work will be billed based on our hourly rates at $260 for Laura Hulberg, $360 for myself, Josh Fronen and $155 for analysts. You may send the deposit by check or, if preferred, wired to the following account. Please be sure the payment includes a reference to the address of the property to be appraised. If by Check: If by Wire: Valbridge Property Advisors 55 South Market Street, Suite 1210 San Jose, CA 95113-1207 Bank of Marin 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1545 Oakland, CA 94612 Attn: Claudia Romero Routing Number: 121141877 Account Number: 21797874 The estimated completion date of the appraisal is August 9, 2019. This date assumes that we will receive written authorization to proceed by July 11, (please return this letter by email) the deposit by July 15, and that the relevant information needed for the appraisal will be received from our client on a timely basis. In order to appraise this property, please provide the information listed on page 4, as applicable. 7.B.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: LSCE Agreement for Services (2326 : Award of Consultant Contract to Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Potable City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Public Hearing Under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the Issuance of California Municipal Finance Authority Bonds for the Benefit of Gilroy Lewis Street, L.P. to Provide Financing for the Cannery Apartments Project Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Community Development Department Submitted By: Greg Larson Prepared By: Greg Larson Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization  Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the issuance of the Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) for the benefit of Meta Housing Corporation (the "Developer") a California nonprofit corporation and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof (the "Borrower"), to provide for the financing of the Project, such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code and California Government Code Section 6500. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8.A Packet Pg. 139 Meta Housing Corporation, a non-profit affordable housing developer, has requested that the California Municipal Financing Authority (CMFA) serve as the issuer of tax- exempt revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $36,423,120. The proceeds of the bonds will be used for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of a 104-unit affordable multifamily rental housing facility to be owned and operated by the borrower and located at 111 Lewis Street in the City of Gilroy, California, generally known as the Cannery Apartments. POLICY DISCUSSION In order for all or a portion of the bonds for this project to qualify as tax-exempt financing, the City of Gilroy must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing community members an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of this project. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the project must provide its approval of the issuance of the bonds for the financing of the project. The policy question being asked is: “Should the City approve or deny the issuance of CMFA bonds associated with the Cannery Apartments project?” BACKGROUND The City Council has been requested to conduct a public hearing pursuant to the federal Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). TEFRA requires that a public hearing be held by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which a project to be financed with tax-exempt financing is located, and that the governing body approve the proposed financing. Meta Housing Corporation is a non-profit affordable housing developer that proposes to obtain tax exempt financing in an amount not to exceed $36,423,120 to finance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a 104-unit affordable multifamily rental housing facility located at 111 Lewis Street in the City of Gilroy, California, generally known as the Cannery Apartments. The California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) is a joint powers authority formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses with the issuance of both taxable and tax-exempt debt, and would be the issuing agency for the proposed bonds under this approval. ANALYSIS Approval of the issuance of bonds associated with this project demonstrates the City is trying to support the creation and maintenance of affordable housing within the City by meeting the policies and implementation programs listed below from the City’s 2015- 2023 Housing Element: 8.A Packet Pg. 140 Goal H-1: Housing Production Policy H-1.1 The City shall strive to ensure adequate land is available at a range of densities to meet Gilroy’s existing and projected housing needs. Policy H-1.2 The City shall encourage the provision of a variety of housing options for Gilroy residents. Policy H-1.3 The City shall encourage a mix of housing in new development areas to avoid the overconcentration of specific housing types in some areas of the city. Policy H-1.6 The City shall continue to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and encourage and coordinate activities with the Downtown Business Association and Economic Development Corporation to encourage mixed-use development. Action H-1.C. Variety of Housing in Neighborhood Districts Action H-1.D. Facilitate Infill Development Goal H-2: Affordable Housing Policy H-2.1 The City shall encourage the provision of new affordable housing. Policy H-2.4 The City shall encourage partnerships between non -profit and for- profit housing developers to encourage affordable housing production. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may vote to approve the resolution a uthoring the issuance of bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Meta Housing Corporation (the "Developer") a California nonprofit corporation and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof (the "Borrower"). This action would be in support of the Housing Element policies and implementation programs. Staff recommends this action. The City Council can choose not to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Meta Housing Corporation (the "Developer") a California nonprofit corporation and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof (the "Borrower"). Staff does not recommend this action. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the project will be the sole responsibility of the borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or other 8.A Packet Pg. 141 responsibility for the project or the repayment of the bonds for the financing of the project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the borrower. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, and in order to support affordable housing, staff recommends that the City conduct the TEFRA Hearing and adopt the resolution in favor of the issuance of the bonds by the CMFA for the Cannery Apartments project. PUBLIC OUTREACH A Notice of Public Hearing of the Gilroy City Council to consider the approval of the issuance of multifamily revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority was published on September 5, 2019. Attachments: 1. TERFA Resolution for 111 Lewis Street (2019-xx) 8.A Packet Pg. 142 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $36,423,120 TO REFINANCE A 104-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF GILROY LEWIS STREET, L.P., AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, Meta Housing Corporation, on behalf of Gilroy Lewis Street, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”), has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) issue one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $36,423,120,000 (the “Bonds”) for the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a 104-unit affordable multifamily rental housing facility (the “Project”) owned and operated by the Borrower and located at 111 Lewis Street in the City of Gilroy (the “City”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City because the Project is to be located within the territorial limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Gilroy as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds with respect to the Project by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority only for the purposes of (i) 8.A.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: TERFA Resolution for 111 Lewis Street (2019-xx) (2379 : TEFRA Issuance of CMFA Bonds to Gilroy Lewis Street, L.P.) RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project will be located, in accordance with said Section 147(f), and (ii) Section 4 of the Agreement. Section 3. The issuance and delivery of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of and execution by the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party and subject to the sale of the Bonds by the Authority. Section 4. The payment of the principal, prepayment premium, if any, and purchase price of and interest on the Bonds shall be solely the responsibility of Borrower. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt or obligation of the City. Section 5. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents that they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the refinancing transaction approved hereby. Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2019 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ___________________________ Roland Velasco, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Shawna Freels, City Clerk 8.A.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: TERFA Resolution for 111 Lewis Street (2019-xx) (2379 : TEFRA Issuance of CMFA Bonds to Gilroy Lewis Street, L.P.) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Update on Providing City Water Service to a Property Located at 935 Southside Drive Known as the Former Site of the Rodriguez Labor Camp Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Community Development Department Submitted By: Greg Larson Prepared By: Greg Larson Sue O'Strander Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Receive report and provide direction to staff . BACKGROUND On August 19, 2019, the City Council considered extension of City water service to support the re-establishment of a previously existing farmworker labor camp (i.e. Rodriguez Labor Camp). The subject property, addressed at 935 Southside Drive, is located outside City limits and operated as a labor camp for single men until about 10 years ago. The existing buildings remained on-site and were utilized for other residential purposes in the intervening time period. 9.A Packet Pg. 145 Before the meeting, the County of Santa Clara provided a letter in support of the requested water connection. In addition, staff for the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO) submitted a letter including citations of Government Code sections and their interpretation of the process. The City Council provided direction to staff to proceed, pending research on the LAFCO comment letter and to ensure that the applicant would hold the City harmless for any potential litigation. On September 10, 2019, a law firm representing Christopher Ranch, owner of the subject property, submitted a response to the LAFCO staff Letter (see attachment). At this time, additional research has been conducted by the City Attorney’s Office and the Public Works Department, as described in the following sections. LEGAL ANALYSIS The City Attorney’s office has analyzed the LAFCO staff letter and is of the opinion that the City may continue sewer service to the project and initiate water service without obtaining LAFCO approval. Their analysis is as follows: The LAFCO staff letter looks to Government Code Section 56133 as the primary source of law regarding a City’s ability to provide utility services outside of its jurisdictional boundary. Generally speaking, LAFCO approval is required, but there are two relevant exceptions as follows: 56133(e)(3). The provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities, including, but not limited to, incidental residential structures, for projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly support agricultural industries. However, prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city or district shall first request and receive written approval from the commission in the affected county. 56133(e)(4). An extended service that a city or district was providing on or before January 1, 2001. Sewer Service The LAFCO staff letter says that because the City, as of the August 19, 2019 meeting had not provided documentation establishing the start date of the existing sewer service, “we do not see how this exemption applies to the provision of sewer services.” We note preliminarily that it could be argued that Section 56133 does not even apply to this sewer service, since by its terms that section only applies to “new or extended” services, and this sewer service has been provided for many years. Nonetheless, on the assumption that Section 56133 may apply, following the August 19, 2019 meeting, staff and the applicant have performed additional factual investigation of this matter. Anecdotal evidence indicated that sewer service has been provided for 9.A Packet Pg. 146 several decades. More precisely, a plan set submitted to the County of Santa Clara for a building permit in 1987 shows the existing sewer line running north to south along the eastern edge of the property and a sewer lateral extending into the property for the women’s and men’s toilets and showers building. It thus appears to be accurate to state that sewer service was provided to this site for the labor camp prior to January 1, 2001. Thus, sewer service may be continued pursuant to the exception in Section 56133(e)(4). Water Service With respect to water, the LAFCO staff letter asserts that the proposed project would be a “new use” and that it would “support development,” and thus the exception of Subsection (e)(3) would not apply. However, since the date of the LAFCO staff letter, the applicant has further clarified the scope of the facilities that would receive water service on site, and it is the Attorney’s opinion that within the context of Section 56133, water service to this site would be appropriate. These facts include the following:  The applicant intends to refurbish existing buildings only. No new buildings would be constructed.  In the prior structures, there were some individual kitchens and bathrooms. These will be removed.  The existing communal bathrooms/locker rooms for men and women will be restored. Existing common cooking facilities will be removed; there will be no common cooking facilities, as meals will be catered.  The facilities are solely to house workers for Christopher Ranch agricultural projects.  The facilities will only be occupied six to seven months of the year. There will be no winter use and no secondary uses (such a homeless shelter, etc.).  The workers would be transported to and from the facility by bus. Based on these facts, we are of the opinion that supplying water service to the refurbished facilities does not qualify as either supporting or inducing development. As far as supporting development, we note that the provision of surplus water is expressly allowed to “incidental residential structures.” Since that is specifically allowed, presumably providing service to such residential structures is not in and of itself an action that would be deemed to constitute support of development. This is agricultural worker housing only. If anything, the use being proposed is less “residential” than the prior use since the existing kitchens and bathrooms have been removed and will not be replaced. 9.A Packet Pg. 147 As for inducing development, looking at the site and the surrounded lands, Community Development is of the opinion that there is no realistic inducement of further development that would be occasioned by providing water service to the farm labor camp. Accordingly, the exception of Section 56133(e)(3) does apply. The proposed service would be the provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities, including but not limited to incidental residential structures, for projects that or that directly support agricultural industries. Furthermore, the provision of water service will not support to induce development. Service Connection Clarifications pertaining to connection details for the water service were not yet completed at the time of the preparation of this staff report. While helpful to understand the scope of the request, the additional information is not anticipated to influence direction on an agreement for services. Additional details under review include the current material, length and condition of the existing water main along Southside drive, the distance to the nearest fire hydrant, the number and size of service connections (domestic use, fire suppression, irrigation etc.) required. CONCLUSION If the Council authorizes the City Administrator to enter into an agreement for water service with Christopher Ranch, LLC, staff will coordinate efforts between the City Attorney and Christopher Ranch for an agreement with suitable delivery terms, restricted use and indemnification, and acceptable by the City Attorney. ALTERNATIVES 1. If the Council wishes to support the requested water connection, Council can authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement for water service with Christopher Ranch, LLC. This option is recommended because it would support re-establishment of the previously existing farm labor camp, located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, and the exception under Government Code Section 56133 does apply. 2. If the Council does not wish to support the requested water connection, no further action is necessary at this time. This option is not recommended as it would not support re-establishment of a previously existing use. Attachments: 1. Letter to Mayor and City Council (dated September 10, 2019) 9.A Packet Pg. 148 N/4atteoni L A W Y E R September 10, 201 9 Nunn an E. M att eo n i Peggy hl. O'Ladghliil Bradley RI. Nlatteoni Advance Copy via Emgj! Honorable Mayor Roland Velasco and Members of the City Council City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Bart on G. Hecht man Gerry Houlihan Re September 16, 2019 City CounciIMeeting Provision of City Water Service to Existing, Unoccupied labor camp Located at 935 Southside Drive Dear Mayor Velasco and Members of the City Council This office represents the Christopher Ranch, the owner of 935 Southside Drive and the applicant for City water services to serve the existing buildings on that property. This letter provides information responsive to LAFCO's letter of August 19, 2019. The Christopher family has been farming in South County for more than 60 years. The family currently owns or leases approximately 600 acres Qf active farmland in Santa Clara County requiring a seasonal labor force in the range of 400 people. Commercial crops raised by Christopher Ranch include garlic, shallots and bell peppers. It is one of the largest agricultural operations in Santa Clara County in terms of gross yield and labor employment. The strong Bay Area economy that has arisen since the last recession created a construction boom which has drawn much of the agricultural labor force into higher paying construction jobs. Additionally. since 2016 the uncertainty regarding U.S. immigration policies has reduced the flow of immigration of agricultural workers from. Mexico and elsewhere in Central America. These factors, combined with the extraordinary increase in housing costs have resulted in inadequate labor availability for the agricultural work needs of Christopher Ranch. m848 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95] 26 ph. 408.293.4300 fax. 408.293.4004 wlvw.matteoni.colll 9.A.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Letter to Mayor and City Council (dated September 10, 2019) (2410 : Water Service to Christopher Ranch Labor Camp) Honorable Mayor Roland Velasco and Members of the City Council City of (gilroy September 10, 2019 Page 2 To address this f)ressing need, Christopher Ranch purchased the Rodriguez labor camp, which contains five large single-story residential buildings and a communal bathroom building on approximately three acres. Christopher Ranch intends to rehabilitate the six buildings. none of which meet current code, and then to provide housing for migrant farm workers and their families (approximately 150-200 occupants) for 180 days each year, generally in the April to October timeframe. ~ The labor camp will be unused during the off season, during which security would be provided by an on-site caretaker. The Rodriguez labor camp was built in the 1950s. It is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Though the SCRWA wastewater treatment plant is located to the South directly across Southside Drive inside the City limits, the subject property is not in Gilroy's Urban Service Area and the surrounding properties to the East, North and West in the unincorporated County are. consistent with their zoning, used for large-scale agriculture with one adjacent unincorporated parcel used as a migrant farmworker and emergency shelter (the Ochoa Migrant Center). 935 Southside Drive was used as a farm labor camp from its construction in the 1950s throug.h at least the 1990s. Thereafter, a variety of improvements were made without permits to allow portions of the structures to be rented as individual apartments. The County eventually cited the prior owners for the illegal work and ultimately the site was vacated. However, the structures which housed the migrant workers for approximately 50 years still remain on the site. Christopher Ranch will be utilizing those existing structures, after rehabilitating them to bring them up to current code by replacing the doors and windows, upgrading the plumbing and electrical and improving the insulation of the interior walls. All of the unpermitted work done by the former owners has been removed, as has the community kitchen---all meals for the laborers and their families will be provided by a catering company. The laborers and their families will be transported to and from the site by bus. Though the date of initial sewer connection has not been determined, County- approved plans from 1987 'confirm that the connection of the labor camp's sewer line to the City's public sewer main was existing by 1 987, long before 2001 (and therefore under Government Code Section 56133(e)(4) not requiring LAFCO approval). A copy of that County-approved plan has been provided to City staff. Christopher Ranch's only need from the City is the extra-territorial extension of water service. Christopher Ranch's 9.A.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Letter to Mayor and City Council (dated September 10, 2019) (2410 : Water Service to Christopher Ranch Labor Camp) Honorable Mayor Roland Velasco and Members of the City Council City of Gilroy September 10, 2019 Page 3 consultants and City staff have confirmed an existing City main water line running across the frontage of the site and Christopher Ranch has requested out-of-area water service from the City of Gilroy, which is the subject of the upcoming Council hearing. The requested extension of water service under.these circumstances is explicitly authorized by Government Code Section 561 33(e)(3) as an activity that does DQ! require an Out-Of-Area Contract for Services through LAFCO, because the application seeks "The provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities, including, but not limited to incidental residential structures, for projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly support agriculturalindustries." Christopher Ranch seeks water for residential structures to be occupied solely for the purpose of supporting Christopher Ranch's agricultural industries. While there was some investigation of the possibility of using th.e labor camp as an emergency shelter during the off season (as has occurred at the adjacent Ochoa Migrant Center), Christopher Ranch has no interest in that or any other out-of-season use and would, in fact, accept as a condition of the provision of water service a requirement that the water service be limited in the off season to that necessary to maintain the property, including a caretaker's unit. In its April 19th letter, LAFCO staff nonetheless asserts that an Out-Of-Area Contract for Services through LAFCO is required, referencing the second portion of Government Code Section 56133(e)(3): "However, prior to extending surplus water service to any project that would support or induce development the city or district shall first request and receive written approval from- the commission in the effected county.' LAFCO's conclusory analysis is not supported by any evidence that the provision of City water "will support or induce development". As a factual matter, the labor camp is an ex/sf/ng development. with six standing structures, an existing sewer connection, and an existing, functioning water well which does not meet current code. The replacement of one source of a utility with a different source of .utility does not constitute new development. 9.A.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Letter to Mayor and City Council (dated September 10, 2019) (2410 : Water Service to Christopher Ranch Labor Camp) Honorable Mayor Roland Velasco and Members of the City Council City of Gilroy September tO, 2019 Page 4 Nor does the absence of occupants for even a decade cause the reoccupation to be considered "development". Certainly, it would be absurd to say that the owner of a home, whose child moved out of the house 10 years ago, is "developing" his property by now allowing an aging parent to move into the bedroom formerly occupied by the child. The re-use of property for its prior use, utilizing the same existing structures for the new use as were used historically, does not constitute development for purposes of Section 56133(e)(3). The sole case addressing Section 56133 supports this interpretation. In .4ffard v. Board of Super/sons of Contra Costa Cot/nfy (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1 066, the court held that Section 56133 applied regarding an extra:territorialsewer connection for a new single family home on a vacant five acre rural parcel (/d. at 1078): Constructing a new structure qn vacant land for a new use is the commonly understood meaning of "development" Similarly, LAFCO's unsupported implication that the extension df water service to the labor camp will induce development is contrary to the facts. The City's water line is already existing across the front of the property and extends well past the property. The proposal would not extend that water main. Both the County and the City of-Gilroy have strong general plan policies to retain existing agriculture such as found in three directions from the subject site (in the fourth direction is the wastewater treatment plant). The location of the labor camp at this site actually induces the conf/nuaf/on of those nearby agricultural uses even though Christopher Ranch does not control those properties: Christopher Ranch bringing in laborers to stay at the labor camp and .work its own fields frees up to some extent other laborers to work fields adjacent to the labor camp that ard not controlled by Christopher Ranch. Providing City water to this existing labor camp could not conceivably trigger the relocation of the adjacent wastewater treatment plant. And, given the critical shortage of seasonal farm labor housing and the extraordinary increase in the homeless experienced in the South County, there is no likelihood whatsoever that providing water to the Rodriguez labor camp would cause the Ochoa Migrant Center to be redeveloped for some other use. Nor is there any likelihood that the City.of Gilroy will annex this parcel into the City to accommodate the labor camp. because the City of Gilroy'd Zoning Code does not allow a labor camp in any zoning district. 9.A.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Letter to Mayor and City Council (dated September 10, 2019) (2410 : Water Service to Christopher Ranch Labor Camp) Honorable Mayor Roland Velasco and Members of the City Council City of Gilroy September 10, 2019 Page 5 We recognize that LAFCO has supported the long-term retention of agricultural uses in the South County, as that retention is a central tenet of the County's General Plan and the City of Gilroy's General Plan. We believe and appreciate that LAFCO staff is conceptually supportive of the providing .of a labor camp at this location in order to serve those long-term agricultural policies. It is our position that the extra-territorial provision of water by the City to this labor camp is, pursuant to Government Code Section 56133(e)(3), consistent with State law and LAFCO policies, without the obtaining of any written or other approval from LAFCO. We look forward to the Council's hearing of this matter on September 16th and to the approval for the out-of-area service request for water. Very truly yours BARTONG.HECHTMAN BGH:cab cc: Christopher Ranch Sue O'Strander, Interim Community Development Director Andy Faber, Gilroy City Attorney Rob .Eastwood, Santa Clara County qmoh-us01-tsai \Data\Clients\Christopher Ranch\Correspondence\Ltr to Mayor & City Council of Gilroy.docx 9.A.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Letter to Mayor and City Council (dated September 10, 2019) (2410 : Water Service to Christopher Ranch Labor Camp) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Presentation of Research from Other Municipalities on the Deployment of Motorized Scooters Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Girum Awoke Prepared By: Girum Awoke Gary Heap Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Receive report and provide direction to staff. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The availability and advancement of smartphones and web-based applications, coupled with robust wireless networks, has stimulated the introduction and wide spread use of electric scooters in the United States. Currently, there are more than 15 companies operating electric scooters in the United States, and scooter trips accounted for more than a third of all micromobility (a term commonly used to describe a category of transportation modes which include docked and dockless bike-share systems, electric bikes, and electric scooters) trips in 2018. 10.A Packet Pg. 154 In many cases, electric scooters were introduced to cities without proper planning and coordination, which in some cities has resulted in the loss of life, bodily and/or property damage. Along with providing a great deal of promise for transportation solutions, there are also challenges and concerns that decision-makers should consider in order to make the right decisions for their communities. Some of the challenges posed by motorized scooters include preventable accidents to riders, blockage of accessible travel ways and entries, lack of timely removal of defective or improperly placed scooters, and undue burden on city resources that deal with these problems. In response to public outcry and complaints from residents, many cities in California have launched pilot programs that limit the deployment of electric scooters to only one or two operators, over a defined period of time. In addition to a pilot program that allows one or more vendors with a predetermined fleet size and mode of operation, it is also important to develop a comprehensive policy that addresses the permit process/fees, equitable distribution of device s, and most importantly safety provisions and considerations. In order to ensure a safe deployment and use of electronic scooters, it is also important to develop a policy that addresses the type, location and number of scooters allowed to operate in a city. In addition, the policy needs to include a process to authorize vendors, and have provisions that deal with parking, cost recovery, and access to vendor data. BACKGROUND While automobiles are still the predominant mode of transportation in the United States, a new wave of transportation options have emerged in the wake of new technologies and application-based mobility services. According to the National League of Cities (NLC), the past 12-18 months have been marked by a race toward shared micromobili ty modes of transportation such as bicycles and electric scooters (also known as e- scooters). At the request of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, one of the Bay area scooter service providers made a presentation at the November 2018 commission meeting about the benefits of micromobility and expressed their interest and willingness to start service in the city. Subsequently, the City Council directed staff to investigate the feasibility of motorized scooter service in the city and some of the important considerations for deployment of this service, and directed staff to prepare a report summarizing findings. This staff report, as well as the attached summary report (white paper), will provide in-depth information on micromobility, particularly electric scooters, and explore the best management practices of other jurisdictions regarding regulation, enforcement, and use of these devices. ANALYSIS Micromobility has become a well-known term describing a category of transportation modes. These include docked and dockless bike-share systems, electric bikes, and 10.A Packet Pg. 155 electric scooters. These devices are also referred to as personal transportation devices (PTDs). Many of these modes are flexible, accessible, and easy-to-use with the emergence of web-based applications available on smartphones. In addition, these modes allow for shared usage at multiple times a day with different customers through the use of dockless systems. This versatility has boosted the demand and popularity of these devices throughout many communities. History In general, micromobility devices are not new to transportation. For example, electric scooters were invented in 1913 by a New York manufacturer known as Autoped Company of America (Autoped). Although described as a “freak” vehicle by the press at the time, Autoped was essentially the predecessor of the modern day electric scooter. It was intended for short distance commutes and was marketed as a way to save money, time, and fuel. Similar to today’s electric scooter, the Autoped was also popular for recreational use, and for a time, was used by couriers for the United States Postal Service in New York City. Unfortunately, the Autoped did not achieve commercial success like today’s electric scooter. This was due in part to its high cost and th e financial hardships brought on by the Great Depression. Current Trend and Usage Currently there are more than 15 companies who operate electric scooters in the United States. These companies are Lyft, Skip, Lime, Bird, Jump, Hopr, Drop, Spin, Gotcha, Scoot, Razor, Cloud, Ofo, Ridecell, and Uscooter. Bird, Lime, and Spin are currently the main scooter operators in the San Francisco Bay Area. Early adopters of these electric scooters include the cities of Santa Monica, California (where one of the prominent scooter companies started operations and where there are currently four licensed contractors for electric scooters), and Austin, Texas (where currently there are ten providers renting out more than 14,000 scooters). According to data collected by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) in 2018, after being in service for less than 18 months, electric scooters had already overtaken existing station-based bike-shares and boosted the total number of micromobility trips from 35 million in 2017 to 84 million in 2018. Of the 84 million trips, 38.5 million were by electric scooters. As of the end of 2018, over 85,000 electric scooters were available for public use in over 100 U.S. cities. Challenges associated with large scale deployment and operation of Scooters With new modes of transportation, there are new challenges. There is no exception with electric scooters. The primary challenges associated with electric scooters are discussed below. 1. Safety Standards and Regulations: 10.A Packet Pg. 156 Due to limited regulations and processes at the federal and state level, safety standards for these devices have largely been left up to cities. With the rapid deployment of these devices in the past 18 months, many jurisdictions have adopted pilot programs to further study the effects of PTDs on their communities. Due to the experimental nature of the regulations, there are many concerns regarding safety and injuries. In 2018, the Public Health Department in Austin, Texas conducted a scooter-related injuries study and the results were as follows:  Out of the 192 scooter-related injuries studied, 48 percent involved head injuries. Seventy percent sustained injuries to the upper limbs and 55 percent involved injuries to the lower limbs. In addition, 35 percent of riders sustained bone fractures. Almost half of the injuries (80) were considered severe. Less than one percent of the riders were wearing a helmet at the time of injury. In the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, studies found that only 4 percent of ride rs wore helmets, which means 96 percent of all riders were not wearing helmets.  As for where the injuries occurred, more than half (55 percent) of the interviewed riders were injured in the street and one-third (33 percent) were injured on the sidewalk. It is also worth noting that the City of Austin allows scooters to operate on sidewalks. Similarly, results of the electric scooter pilot program in the City of Portland, Oregon found that hospital visits for scooter-related injuries accounted for about 5 percent of the total injuries from traffic collisions (for more details, please refer to the attached summary report). 2. Violations: In an effort to combat scooter-related injuries and collisions, cities have implemented experimental regulations and enforcement practices to protect communities. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the City of San Diego saw a dramatic increase in scooter-related citations issued in 2018. There were a total of 11 citations issued from 2014 to 2017 and over 1,500 in 2018. It is worth noting that, while the State of California gives adults 18 and older the option of wearing helmets while riding scooters, the City of San Diego requires adults to wear helmets while riding scooters. For this reason, 90 percent of the citations were issued to adults riding without a helmet. 3. Device Management: Another area of challenge is the number of scooters operating at any given time as well as where and how they are parked within public areas including sidewalks, breezeways, driveways, promenades etc.  Fleet size: In order to ensure a safe and smooth transition for electric scooters into communities, many cities have adopted pilot programs that limit the total 10.A Packet Pg. 157 number of scooters that can operate in the city at one time. As of September 2018, the City of San Jose allows approximately 1,700 electric scooters to operate within the downtown area and central San Jose.  Parking: According to a study by Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI), in downtown San Jose, the vast majority of scooters (72 percent) were parked on sidewalks. However, 90 percent of the scooters parked on sidewalks did not overtly disrupt pedestrian traffic. In most cases, only a small portion of the scooter was within one foot of the edge of the sidewalk. As a result, the study found that only 2 percent of the scooters blocked access for the disabled and, for the most part, the scooters were well parked and in compliance with the permits. Given the MTI study was time and location specific, more research (and data) is needed to determine the actual extent of blockage of access and travel-way by scooters. 4. Education and Outreach: Given the sudden launch of e-scooter in many cities around the country, time was of the essence in developing permit programs. The rapid rollout of electric scooters also necessitated a significant amount of public education and engagement. To share information about the pilot program and e-scooter rules of the road, the City of Portland developed educational materials on e -scooter laws and proper riding and parking techniques in five languages and distributed over 5,000 copies to residents. The Portland Bureau of Transportation also created a project website that was viewed more than 50,000 times. In addition, as the pilot period proceeded, the city and participating companies developed new educational materials and approaches to address emerging challenges. City staff solicited community input and hosted safety events and a “helmet giveaway” campaign. E-scooter companies were also directed to include riding rules in their application interfaces and posted them physically on the scooters. In short, this new mode of transportation triggers the need for enormous education and outreach efforts. In the case of Portland, the city held eight community events, plac ed warning signs at all main entry points to trails, responded to over 2,860 comments and complaints, and distributed handbills and flyers to educate riders on the street. These kinds of community outreach and educational campaigns demand a lot of resources from cities and require a tremendous amount of cooperation between communities and service providers. 5. City Resources: In an effort to better integrate electric scooters into their communities, many cities have found themselves creating new staff positions in order to administer permits; monitor and respond to permit compliance issues; and educate riders, partners, and the public. In addition, the introduction of these devices also increases the demand for 10.A Packet Pg. 158 enforcement from police departments that are often already strapped for resources. For this reason, cities are currently evaluating cost recovery measures to help with offsetting these costs. For example, in the City of Santa Monica, each company must pay $20,000 annually, $130 per device annually, and $1 per device each day, which amounts to a total revenue of approximately $1,000,000 per year. These permitting costs are similar to what Los Angeles and other neighboring cities charge micromobility companies to use the public right-of-way. Regulations (Current and proposed) Federal Regulations Although the federal government is concerned with the safety of PTDs, they are not currently governed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Instead, the safety of these devices is left to the Consumer Product Saf ety Commission (CPSC) who regulates a broad range of products from bicycles and baby pacifiers to wallpaper steamers and fondue pots. Although revisions were made in 2003, the CPSC has no specific requirements for throttles, motors, or batteries on PTDs. In addition, the CPSC’s Consumer Protection Safety Act does not explicitly cover renters of devices from shared fleets. The CPSC’s purview is limited only to the manufacturers and importers of these devices. Therefore, the CPSC in its current form is ill-equipped to regulate the full spectrum of micromobility technology. State Regulations According to MTI, state regulations on micromobility devices, especially electric scooters, vary widely from state to state. Specific regulations for PTDs like electric scooters are rare. For example, only four states (California, Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia) specifically address motorized skateboards and only six states (California, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) specifically address electric scooters. An example of the variability of electric scooter regulations between states can be seen with Nebraska, which considers them to be vehicles and Idaho, which considers them to be pedestrians. State regulations also vary in terms of where PTDs are allowed. For example, in California, users of motorized scooters must ride on roads, unless there is a bicycle lane, in which case they must ride in the bicycle lane. While in Virginia, users of electric scooters can choose whether to ride on streets or sid ewalks, but the rules are different for each location. If riding on sidewalks, riders have the same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians. If riding on roads, PTD users must yield to pedestrians. Currently, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) does not require registration or license plates for electric scooters. However, the state does not prohibit local authorities from regulating the registration and permitting of these scooters. There are also provisions in the vehicle code that prohibit an individual from operating a motorized scooter under certain conditions (please refer to the attached report for more details). 10.A Packet Pg. 159 Local Regulations and Considerations for Deployment With limited regulations and processes at the federal and state levels, local agencies are tasked with the fundamental responsibility to ensure safe passage on public rights- of-way to protect public health; safety and welfare; and to govern commerce for these PTDs. Since the technology and demand for PTDs are fairly new, cities are reacting to these new services as they appear. As of February 2019, few organizations have published draft policy guidelines for regulating the services. As this field is evolving and lessons are learned, new guidelines and best management practices will become available. The following policy discussions are a result of collaborations between NACTO, NLC, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA): 1. Authorization of Vendors According to NACTO, PTD service providers should only be allowed to operate in the public-right-of-way with legal permission from the city or relevant local government. This legal permission can be in the form of a permit, ordinance, or a contract initiated through a formal request for proposal (RFP) process. In the Bay Area, there is a trend toward operating licensing/permitting as opposed to a negotiated contract through an RFP process. Currently it appears that the City of Sunnyvale is the only city in the San Francisco Bay Area to use the RFP process for their dockless bike share program. Furthermore, NLC recommends that cities utilize pilot programs to consider right-of-way policies, cost structures, sustainability, and opportunities to work with different companies. These programs allow cities to experiment with many aspects of these services before moving on to full deployment or committing to working with certain companies. These aspects include:  Right-of-Way Policy: Since each city is unique in their operation and goals, exploring and amending their right-of-way policy through a pilot program is highly recommended. This allows for discussion and experimentation of service boundaries, curb space management, and law enforcement practices.  Cost Recovery Mechanism: Developing a clear plan for what the city will charge providers and how revenue will be distributed should be a key part of any pilot program. For instance, the City of Kansas City, Missouri is depositing revenue collected from PTD services to a dedicated account to fund alternative transportation infrastructures.  Sustainability: Cities may require service providers to submit data which helps the city understand the ridership, trip generation and demand, and other indicators that might be important to the city. This data could help shape more customized regulations and processes for f uture full deployments and policies. 10.A Packet Pg. 160  Working with Different Providers: A pilot program is an opportunity to explore many options, and determine which companies might be the best partners to meet the community’s specific mobility needs. Though many of these companies provide similar services, the way they cooperate and interact with cities can vary dramatically. 2. Scooter Management With a multitude of devices and providers available, managing the parking locations and enforcement demands can be challenging.  Parking Restrictions o In their guidelines, NACTO describes three policies: unrestricted parking (scooters can be left anywhere that does not block ADA-required sidewalk space), encouraged placement (scooters can be left most places with some limitations and can depend on the geographic area), and lock-to (scooters are required to be locked to a fixed object). o Regardless of the parking policy, blocking sidewalk access is prohibited per the CVC.  In Santa Clara County, the City of Mountain View is restricting parking to geo-fenced areas in the central business district and at transit stations. They are also experimenting with delineated parking areas. Other cities are not restricting parking beyond the requirements not to block sidewalk access. o Many cities also require parking to only occur on hard surfaces within the furniture zone (i.e., parking strip) of sidewalks. This delineation of specific parking zones may be more important in areas with high pedestrian volumes such as commercial business districts and transit centers. o Some cities have demarcated areas on streets (e.g., a car parking space) as parking areas for shared mobility devices.  Enforcing Parking Restrictions o According to NACTO, most cities rely on reported problems and spot- checks to assess compliance. Unfortunately, the limitations of GPS and geo-fencing technologies mean that there is not a comprehensive, remote/data-based way to enforce parking locations. Typically, GPS can determine locations within about five to ten feet, but not to the finer degree of accuracy needed for enforcement. 10.A Packet Pg. 161  Damaged or Stagnant Devices o Permits typically include a requirement to remove unsafe or damaged vehicles within a set period of time after notification. Removal within 24 hours appears to be the most common increment, but it can be as brief as 2 hours and as long as 48 hours. Some permits limit the response to weekdays only or business hours only. Some cities require vendors to move devices that have been parked in the same place for a long time. The most common time limit is 7 days, but the City of Palo Alto, for example, requires a 72-hour time limit. 3. Fleet Size Restrictions  Since shared PTDs are still new to the market, there is no set standard for determining the appropriate fleet size. Therefore, an initia l pilot program and study period is recommended.  In Santa Monica, the four companies are allowed to deploy a combined 2,000 scooters and 1,000 bikes within city limits.  In general, many cities have established maximum fleet size requirements, and developed a process for expansion based on meeting performance indicators (e.g., trips per bike per day). o It is worth noting that a provider, in a conversation with VTA staff, indicated that they prefer the flexibility to deploy a fleet size that responds to customer demand. As shared scooters are still new, the “right” fleet size is hard to calculate, and the company likes the flexibility to expand or reduce fleet size quickly. If a city chooses a fleet minimum or maximum, requirements based on utilization rate are preferred in comparison to numeric requirements. 4. Permit Fees, Pricing and Duration As there is no one-size-fits-all formula, some common practices are discussed below:  Cities use a combination of permit/license fees, application review fees, per bike fees, performance bonds, and relocation/removal fees.  Some cities also require vendors to provide infrastructure and costs of right-of way, maintenance, and repair.  According to a survey by VTA, cities either use a limited pilot permit with a specified end date or required permits to be reviewed every six months or annually. 5. Data 10.A Packet Pg. 162 Unlike previous devices, today’s electric scooters have the capability to record and share important data with service providers. This data includes but is not limited to ridership, demographics, device location, and trip information. This information is a crucial aspect of these devices. For instance, the City of Los Angeles recognized this early and developed its open source Mobility Data Specification (MDS) for any city to use. This is a way to implement real-time data sharing, measurement, and regulation for PTDs with service providers. City officials can make more informed decisions and create policies for specific purposes based on the data available. 6. Equity Requirements One of the biggest strengths for PTDs like electric scooters is their potential for providing equitable transportation options for underserved areas. Many cities like Washington, D.C. and Columbus, Ohio are already requiring service providers to deploy devices in underserved areas to ensure these services are aligned with the cities’ goals around equity. In addition, through pilot programs, some cities are requiring that service providers consider preferential employment opportunities for local firms and residents. There are also guidelines that request service providers to offer an affordable non- smartphone option for customers with an income level at or below the federal poverty level. The City of Los Angeles, for instance, has a policy that requires service provi ders to offer a one-year low-income customer plan that waives any e-scooter deposits and offers an affordable cash payment option and unlimited trips under 30 minutes to any customer with an income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. 7. Safety Safety is one of the major hurdles for PTDs. Unfortunately, safety standards have fallen under the responsibility of cities, whether it is in part or as a whole. According to NLC, safety means reevaluating the city’s entire transportation ecosystem, examining rider interaction with city infrastructure and existing modes of transportation, and creating new regulations to safeguard the community against known safety issues. CONCLUSION In the past few years, there has been a tremendous increase in the availability and use of alternative modes of transportation and micromobility devices such as bicycles and electric scooters (also known as e-scooters). Due to the availability and advancement of smartphones and web-based micromobility applications, as well as robust wireless networks, electric scooters have become more prevalent on many cities in the United States, accounting for more than a third of all micromobility trips. Currently there are more than 15 companies who operate electric scooters in the United States. While these devices provide a great deal of promise as part of the solution to the ever growing transportation needs, there are also challenges and concerns associated with the deployment, storage, and operation of these devices. In many cases, scooters were introduced to cities overnight which resulted in several safety issues and complaints from residents; in response, many cities in California have entered into pilot programs 10.A Packet Pg. 163 that limit the deployment of electric scooters to only one or two operators, during a defined period of time. Some of the challenges posed by motorized scooters include preventable accidents to riders, blockage of accessible travel ways and entries, lack of timely removal of defective or improperly placed scooters, and undue burden on city resources which deal with these problems. In order to ensure a safe deployment and use of electronic scooters, it is important to develop a policy that addresses the type, location and number of scooters allowed in a city. In addition, the policy needs to include a process to authorize vendors, and have provisions that deal with parking, cost recovery, and access to vendor data. In addition, it is a good idea to start with a pilot program with one or more vendors that identifies the fleet size for each vendor, permit process/fees, equitable distribution and most importantly safety considerations. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE There are no financial impacts associated with receiving this report. However, any future deployment and implementation of a motorized scooter program would require both direct and indirect expenses which will be categorized and quantified based on the council discussion and direction, and presented in a future report. Attachments: 1. Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 10.A Packet Pg. 164 City of Gilroy 8/1/2019 Report on the Current State of Motorized Scooters and Important Considerations for Deployment Prepared by: City of Gilroy Public Works Department 10.A.a Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 1 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction/Background ................................................................................................................ 3 History ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Scooter Usage .............................................................................................................................. 4 Scooter Companies ...................................................................................................................... 5 Scooter Challenges.......................................................................................................................... 6 1. Safety Standards and Regulations: ....................................................................................... 6 2. Violations: ............................................................................................................................ 7 3. Device Management ............................................................................................................ 8 4. Education and Outreach ....................................................................................................... 8 5. City Resources ..................................................................................................................... 9 Current and Recommended Regulations ........................................................................................ 9 Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................. 9 State Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 9 Local Regulations and Considerations for Deployment ........................................................ 11 Summary/Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 15 References ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 17 10.A.a Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 2 Executive Summary The availability and advancement of smartphones and web-based applications, coupled with robust wireless networks, has stimulated the introduction and wide spread use of electric scooters across the Country. Currently, there are more than 15 companies operating electric scooters in the United States, and scooter trips accounted for more than a third of all micro-mobility (a term commonly used to describe a category of transportation modes which include docked and dockless bike-share systems, electric bikes, and electric scooters) trips in 2018. In many cases, electric scooters were introduced to cities without proper planning and coordination which in some cities has resulted in the loss of life, bodily and/or property damage. Some of the challenges posed by motorized scooters include preventable accidents to riders, blockage of accessible travel ways and entries, lack of timely removal of defective or improperly placed scooters, and undue burden on city resources that deal with these problems. In response to public outcry and complaints from residents, many cities in California have launched pilot programs that limit the deployment of electric scooters to only one or two operators, over a defined period of time. In addition to a pilot program that allows one or more vendors with a predetermined fleet size and mode of operation, it is also important to develop a comprehensive policy that addresses the permit process/fees, equitable distribution of devices, and most importantly safety provisions and considerations. In order to ensure a safe deployment and use of electronic scooters, it is also important to develop a policy that addresses the type, location and number of scooters allowed to operate in a city. In addition, the policy needs to include a process to authorize vendors, and have provisions that deal with parking, cost recovery, and access to vendor data. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 3 Introduction/Background While automobiles are still the predominant mode of transportation in the United States, a new wave of transportation options have emerged in the wake of new technologies and application- based mobility services. According to the National League of Cities (NLC), the past 12-18 months have been marked by a race toward shared micro-mobility modes of transportation such as bicycles and electric scooters (also known as e-scooters). Along with providing a great deal of promise for transportation solutions, there are also challenges and concerns that decision-makers should consider in order to make the right decisions for their communities. The purpose of this report is to provide in-depth information on micro-mobility, particularly electric scooters, and explore the best management practices of other jurisdictions regarding regulation, enforcement, and use of these devices. History Micro-mobility has become a well-known term describing a category of transportation modes. These include docked and dockless bike-share systems, electric bikes, and electric scooters. These devices are also referred to as personal transportation devices (PTDs). Many of these modes are flexible, accessible, and easy-to-use with the emergence of web-based applications available on smartphones. In addition, these modes allow for shared usage at multiple times a day with different customers through the use of dockless systems. This versatility has boosted the demand and popularity of these devices throughout many communities. In general, micro-mobility devices are not new to transportation. For example, electric scooters were invented in 1913 by a New York manufacturer named Autoped Company of America. Although described as a “freak” vehicle by the press at the time, Autoped was essentially the predecessor of the modern day electric scooter. It was intended for short distance commutes and was marketed as a way to save money, time, and fuel. Similar to today’s electric scooter, the Autoped was also popular for recreational use, and for a time, was used by couriers for the United States Postal Service in New York City. Unfortunately, the Autoped did not achieve commercial success like today’s electric scooter. This was due, in part, to its high cost and the financial hardships brought on by the Great Depression. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 4 Figure 1: Four postmen for the U.S. Postal Service try out new scooters in the mid-1910s (Source: Smithsonian) In recent years, due to the availability of smartphones and web-based micro-mobility applications, electric scooters have started to appear on city streets in the United States. These devices are similar to the Autoped and modern day kick-scooters. They are equipped with battery powered motors that can be activated with a smartphone. This platform allows for shared use of the scooter and eliminates the high upfront cost that was associated with its predecessor, the Autoped. According to research by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and San Jose State University, the scooters have proven popular with riders, attracting investment capital and allowing the service to expand into additional cities. This popularity is not without challenges. The rapid deployment of these devices has put pressure on city transportation networks that were not designed to accommodate these devices. Furthermore, cities face challenges associated with regulating these devices and ensuring the operational safety of existing modes of transportation such as pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and passenger vehicles. Early adopters of these electric scooters include the cities of Santa Monica, California (where one of the prominent scooter companies started operations and where there are currently four licensed contractors for electric scooters), and Austin, Texas (where currently there are ten providers renting out more than 14,000 scooters). Scooter Usage According to data collected by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) in 2018, after being in service for less than 18 months, electric scooters had already overtaken existing station-based bike-shares and boosted the total number of micro-mobility trips from 35 million in 2017 to 84 million in 2018. Of the 84 million trips, 38.5 million were by electric scooters. As of the end of 2018, over 85,000 electric scooters were available for public use in over 100 U.S. cities. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 5 Figure 2: Breakdown of 2018 Micro-mobility Trip (Source: NACTO) Data from Washington, DC and Portland, Oregon suggests that electric scooter ridership is closely related to social, shopping and other recreational activities. The average peak usage for these devices begins between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., and continues throughout the afternoon. Although these devices are used throughout the week, the highest usage is on weekends. This supports the suggestion that ridership for electric scooters is closely related to social, shopping and other recreational activities. Scooter Companies Currently there are more than 15 companies who operate electric scooters in the United States. These companies are Lyft, Skip, Lime, Bird, Jump, Hopr, Drop, Spin, Gotcha, Scoot, Razor, Cloud, Ofo, Ridecell, and Uscooter. Bird, Lime, and Spin are currently the main scooter operators in the San Francisco Bay Area. Despite the high number of scooter operators, many cities in California have entered into pilot programs that limit the deployment of electric scooters to only one or two operators during a defined period of time. This limitation was in direct response to scooter operators deploying their scooters in cities without entering into any agreements or obtaining any permits from the city in which they were operating. Some cities have taken a different approach and have temporarily banned electric scooters in order to allow time for better regulation and equitable deployment of these devices. For example, San Francisco temporarily banned scooter operations in June 2018. This was in response to the city receiving over 2,000 citizen complaints about unpermitted electric scooters. After a 10.A.a Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 6 comprehensive permitting process was developed, the city permitted two companies to deploy a limited number of electric scooters in the city. This deployment was evaluated based on 12 criteria and included a strict cost recovery system to shield taxpayers from the implementation costs of a new mode of transportation. This approach has been replicated in other cities like San Jose and Washington, D.C. Scooter Challenges With new modes of transportation, there are new challenges. There is no exception with electric scooters. The primary challenges associated with electric scooters are discussed below. 1. Safety Standards and Regulations: Due to limited regulations and processes at the federal and state level, safety standards for these devices have largely been left up to cities. With the rapid deployment of these devices in the past 18 months, many jurisdictions have adopted pilot programs to further study the effects of PTDs on their communities. Due to the experimental nature of the regulations, there are many concerns regarding safety and injuries. In 2018, the Public Health Department in Austin, Texas conducted a scooter-related injuries study and the results were as follows:  Out of the 192 scooter-related injuries studied, 48 percent involved head injuries. Seventy percent sustained injuries to the upper limbs and 55 percent involved injuries to the lower limbs. In addition, 35 percent of riders sustained bone fractures. Almost half of the injuries (80) were considered severe. Less than one percent of the riders were wearing a helmet at the time of injury. In the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, studies found that only 4 percent of riders wore helmets, which means 96 percent of all riders were not wearing helmets. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 7 Figure 3: Bone Fracture Locations (Source: Austin Public Health)  As for where the injuries occurred, more than half (55 percent) of the interviewed riders were injured in the street and one-third (33 percent) were injured on the sidewalk. No studies were identified that provided data regarding injuries to pedestrians due to collisions with scooters. It is worth noting that the City of Austin allows scooters to operate on sidewalks. Similarly, results of the electric scooter pilot program in the City of Portland, Oregon found that hospital visits for scooter-related injuries accounted for about 5 percent of the total injuries from traffic collisions. 2. Violations: In an effort to combat scooter-related injuries and collisions, cities have implemented experimental regulations and enforcement practices to protect communities. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the City of San Diego saw a dramatic increase in scooter-related citations issued in 2018. There were a total of 11 citations issued from 2014 to 2017 and over 10.A.a Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 8 1,500 in 2018. It is worth noting that, while the State of California gives adults 18 and older the option of wearing helmets while riding scooters, the City of San Diego requires adults to wear helmets while riding scooters. For this reason, 90 percent of the citations were issued to adults riding without a helmet. 3. Device Management  Fleet size: In order to ensure a safe and smooth transition for electric scooters into communities, many cities have adopted pilot programs that limit the total number of scooters that can operate in the city at one time. As of September 2018, the City of San Jose allows approximately 1,700 electric scooters to operate within the downtown area and central San Jose.  Parking: According to a study by Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) in downtown San Jose, the vast majority of scooters (72 percent) were parked on sidewalks. However, 90 percent of the scooters parked on sidewalks did not overtly disrupt pedestrian traffic. In most cases, only a small portion of the scooter was within one foot of the edge of the sidewalk. As a result, the study found that only 2 percent of the scooters blocked access for the disabled and, for the most part, the scooters were well parked and in compliance with the permits. Given the MTI study was time and location specific, more research (and data) is needed to determine the actual extent of blockage of access and travel way by scooters. 4. Education and Outreach Given the sudden launch of e-scooter in many cities around the country, time was of the essence in developing permit programs. The rapid rollout of electric scooters also necessitated a significant amount of public education and engagement. To share information about the pilot program and e-scooter rules of the road, the City of Portland developed educational materials on e-scooter laws and proper riding and parking techniques in five languages, and distributed over 5,000 copies to residents. The Portland Bureau of Transportation also created a project website that was viewed more than 50,000 times. In addition, as the pilot period proceeded, the city and participating companies developed new educational materials and approaches to address emerging challenges. City staff solicited community input and hosted safety events and a “helmet giveaway” campaign. E-scooter companies were also directed to include riding rules in their application interfaces and posted them physically on the scooters. In short, this new mode of transportation triggers the need for enormous education and outreach efforts. In the case of Portland, the city held eight community events, placed warning signs at all main entry points to trails, responded to over 2,860 comments and complaints, and distributed handbills and flyers to educate riders on the street. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 9 These kinds of community outreach and educational campaigns demand a lot of resources from cities and require a tremendous amount of cooperation between communities and service providers. 5. City Resources In an effort to better integrate electric scooters into their communities, many cities have found themselves creating new staff positions in order to administer permits; monitor and respond to permit compliance issues; and educate riders, partners, and the public. In addition, the introduction of these devices also increases the demand for enforcement from police departments that are often already strapped for resources. For this reason, cities are currently evaluating cost recovery measures to help with offsetting these costs. For example, in the City of Santa Monica, each company must pay $20,000 annually, $130 per device annually, and $1 per device each day, which amounts to a total revenue of approximately $1,000,000 per year. These permitting costs are similar to what Los Angeles and other neighboring cities charge micro-mobility companies to use the public right-of-way. In December 2018, the City of San Jose proposed a regulatory framework that included a permit fee for services to cover additional staffing to address cost neutrality of implementation an e- scooter program. The fees associated with the proposal were expected to generate revenue to fund a new Transportation Specialist assigned to administer, manage and monitor the e-scooter permitting program, and partially fund a Senor and Associate Transportation Specialist position. Current and Recommended Regulations Federal Regulations Although the federal government is concerned with the safety of PTDs, they are not currently governed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Instead, the safety of these devices is left to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who regulates a broad range of products from bicycles and baby pacifiers to wallpaper steamers and fondue pots. Although revisions were made in 2003, the CPSC has no specific requirements for throttles, motors, or batteries on PTDs. In addition, the CPSC’s Consumer Protection Safety Act does not explicitly cover renters of devices from shared fleets. The CPSC’s purview is limited only to the manufacturers and importers of these devices. Therefore, the CPSC in its current form is ill-equipped to regulate the full spectrum of micro-mobility technology. State Regulations According to MTI, state regulations on micro-mobility devices, especially electric scooters, vary widely from state to state. Specific regulations for PTDs like electric scooters are rare. For example, only four states (California, Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia) specifically address 10.A.a Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 10 motorized skateboards and only six states (California, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) specifically address electric scooters. An example of the variability of electric scooter regulations between states can be seen with Nebraska, which considers them to be vehicles and Idaho, which considers them to be pedestrians. State regulations also vary in terms of where PTDs are allowed. For example, in California, users of motorized scooters must ride on roads, unless there is a bicycle lane, in which case they must ride in the bicycle lane. While in Virginia, users of electric scooters can choose whether to ride on streets or sidewalks, but the rules are different for each location. If riding on sidewalks, riders have the same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians. If riding on roads, PTD users must yield to pedestrians. Currently, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) does not require registration or license plates for electric scooters. However, the state does not prohibit local authorities from regulating the registration and permitting of these scooters. There are also provisions in the vehicle code that prohibit an individual from operating a motorized scooter under certain conditions. Per CVC 21235: The operator of a motorized scooter shall not do any of the following: (a) Operate a motorized scooter unless it is equipped with a brake that will enable the operator to make a braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement. (b) Operate a motorized scooter on a highway with a speed limit in excess of 25 miles per hour unless the motorized scooter is operated within a Class II or Class IV bikeway, except that a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, authorize the operation of a motorized scooter outside of a Class II or Class IV bikeway on a highway with a speed limit of up to 35 miles per hour. The 15 mile per hour maximum speed limit for the operation of a motorized scooter specified in Section 22411 applies to the operation of a motorized scooter on all highways, including bikeways, regardless of a higher speed limit applicable to the highway. (c) Operate a motorized scooter without wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards described in Section 21212, if the operator is under 18 years of age. (d) Operate a motorized scooter without a valid driver’s license or instruction permit. (e) Operate a motorized scooter with any passengers in addition to the operator. (f) Operate a motorized scooter carrying any package, bundle, or article that prevents the operator from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars. (g) Operate a motorized scooter upon a sidewalk, except as may be necessary to enter or leave adjacent property. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 11 (h) Operate a motorized scooter on the highway with the handlebars raised so that the operator must elevate his or her hands above the level of his or her shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area. (i) Leave a motorized scooter lying on its side on any sidewalk, or park a motorized scooter on a sidewalk in any other position, so that there is not an adequate path for pedestrian traffic. (j) Attach the motorized scooter or himself or herself while on the roadway, by any means, to any other vehicle on the roadway. (Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 552, Sec. 1. (AB 2989) Effective January 1, 2019.) Local Regulations and Considerations for Deployment With limited regulations and processes at the federal and state levels, local agencies are tasked with the fundamental responsibility to ensure safe passage on public rights-of-way to protect public health; safety and welfare; and to govern commerce for these PTDs. Since the technology and demand for PTDs are fairly new, cities are reacting to these new services as they appear. As of February 2019, few organizations have published draft policy guidelines for regulating the services. As this field is evolving and lessons are learned, new guidelines and best management practices will become available. The following policy discussions are a result of collaborations between NACTO, NLC, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA): 1. Authorization of Vendors According to NACTO, PTD service providers should only be allowed to operate in the public- right-of-way with legal permission from the city or relevant local government. This legal permission can be in the form of a permit, ordinance, or a contract initiated through a formal request for proposal (RFP) process. In the Bay Area, there is a trend toward operating licensing/permitting as opposed to a negotiated contract through an RFP process. Currently it appears that the City of Sunnyvale is the only city in the San Francisco Bay Area to use the RFP process for their dockless bike share program. Furthermore, NLC recommends that cities utilize pilot programs to consider right-of-way policies, cost structures, sustainability, and opportunities to work with different companies. These programs allow cities to experiment with many aspects of these services before moving on to full deployment or committing to working with certain companies. These aspects include:  Right-of-Way Policy: Since each city is unique in their operation and goals, exploring and amending their right-of-way policy through a pilot program is highly recommended. This allows for discussion and experimentation of service boundaries, curb space management, and law enforcement practices.  Cost Recovery Mechanism: Developing a clear plan for what the city will charge providers and how revenue will be distributed should be a key part of any pilot program. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 12 For instance, the City of Kansas City, Missouri is depositing revenue collected from PTD services to a dedicated account to fund alternative transportation infrastructures.  Sustainability: Cities may require service providers to submit data which helps the city understand the ridership, trip generation and demand, and other indicators that might be important to the city. This data could help shape more customized regulations and processes for future full deployments and policies.  Working with Different Providers: A pilot program is an opportunity to explore many options, and determine which companies might be the best partners to meet the community’s specific mobility needs. Though many of these companies provide similar services, the way they cooperate and interact with cities can vary dramatically. 2. Scooter Management With a multitude of devices and providers available, managing the parking locations and enforcement demands can be challenging.  Parking Restrictions o In their guidelines, NACTO describes three policies: unrestricted parking (Scooters can be left anywhere that doesn’t block ADA-required sidewalk space), encouraged placement (scooters can be left most places with some limitations and can depend on the geographic area), and lock-to (scooters are required to be locked to a fixed object). o Regardless of the parking policy, blocking sidewalk access is prohibited per the CVC.  In Santa Clara County, the City of Mountain View is restricting parking to geo-fenced areas in the central business district and at transit stations. They are also experimenting with delineated parking areas. Other cities are not restricting parking beyond the requirements not to block sidewalk access. o Many cities also require parking to only occur on hard surfaces within the furniture zone (i.e., parking strip) of sidewalks. This delineation of specific parking zones may be more important in areas with high pedestrian volumes such as commercial business districts and transit centers. o Some cities have demarcated areas on streets (e.g., a car parking space) as parking areas for shared mobility devices.  Enforcing Parking Restrictions o According to NACTO, most cities rely on reported problems and spot-checks to assess compliance. Unfortunately, the limitations of GPS and geo-fencing technologies mean that there is not a comprehensive, remote/data-based way to 10.A.a Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 13 enforce parking locations. Typically, GPS can determine locations within about five to ten feet, but not to the finer degree of accuracy needed for enforcement.  Damaged or Stagnant Devices o Permits typically include a requirement to remove unsafe or damaged vehicles within a set period of time after notification. Removal within 24 hours appears to be the most common increment, but it can be as brief as 2 hours and as long as 48 hours. Some permits limit the response to weekdays only or business hours only. Some cities require vendors to move devices that have been parked in the same place for a long time. The most common time limit is 7 days, but the City of Palo Alto, for example, requires a 72-hour time limit. 3. Fleet Size Restrictions  Common practices are shown in Appendix A in regard to typical fleet size requirements.  Since shared PTDs are still new to the market, there is no set standard for determining the appropriate fleet size. Therefore, an initial pilot program and study period is recommended.  In Santa Monica, the four companies are allowed to deploy a combined 2,000 scooters and 1,000 bikes within city limits.  In general, many cities have established minimum fleet size requirements, and developed a process for expansion based on meeting performance indicators (e.g., trips per bike per day). o It is worth noting that a provider, in a conversation with VTA staff, indicated that they prefer the flexibility to deploy a fleet size that responds to customer demand. As shared scooters are still new, the “right” fleet size is hard to calculate, and the company likes the flexibility to expand or reduce fleet size quickly. If a city chooses a fleet minimum or maximum, requirements based on utilization rate are preferred in comparison to numeric requirements. 4. Permit Fees, Pricing and Duration As there is no one-size-fits-all formula, some common practices are discussed below:  Cities use a combination of permit/license fees, application review fees, per bike fees, performance bonds, and relocation/removal fees.  Some cities also require vendors to provide infrastructure and costs of right-of way, maintenance, and repair.  According to a survey by VTA, cities either use a limited pilot permit with a specified end date or required permits to be reviewed every six months or annually. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 14 5. Data Unlike previous devices, today’s electric scooters have the capability to record and share important data with service providers. This data includes, but is not limited to, ridership, demographics, device location, and trip information. This information is a crucial aspect of these devices. For instance, the City of Los Angeles recognized this early and developed its open source Mobility Data Specification (MDS) for any city to use. This is a way to implement real- time data sharing, measurement, and regulation for PTDs with service providers. City officials can make more informed decisions and create policies for specific purposes based on the data available. 6. Equity Requirements One of the biggest strengths for PTDs like electric scooters is their potential for providing equitable transportation options for underserved areas. Many cities like Washington, D.C. and Columbus, Ohio are already requiring service providers to deploy devices in underserved areas to ensure these services are aligned with the cities’ goals around equity. In addition, through pilot programs, some cities are requiring that service providers consider preferential employment opportunities for local firms and residents. There are also guidelines that request service providers to offer an affordable non-smartphone option for customers with an income level at or below the federal poverty level. The City of Los Angeles, for instance, has a policy that requires service providers to offer a one-year low-income customer plan that waives any e-scooter deposits and offers an affordable cash payment option and unlimited trips under 30 minutes to any customer with an income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. 7. Safety Safety is one of the major hurdles for PTDs. Unfortunately, safety standards have fallen under the responsibility of cities, whether it is in part or as a whole. According to NLC, safety means reevaluating the city’s entire transportation ecosystem, examining rider interaction with city infrastructure and existing modes of transportation, and creating new regulations to safeguard the community against known safety issues. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 15 Summary/Conclusion In the past few years, there has been a tremendous increase in the availability and use of alternative modes of transportation and micro-mobility devices such as bicycles and electric scooters (also known as e-scooters). Due to the availability and advancement of smartphones and web-based micro-mobility applications, as well as robust wireless networks, electric scooters have become more prevalent on many cities in the United States, accounting for more than a third of all micro-mobility trips. Currently there are more than 15 companies who operate electric scooters in the United States. While these devices provide a great deal of promise as part of the solution to the ever growing transportation needs, there are also challenges and concerns associated with the deployment, storage, and operation of these devices. In many cases, scooters were introduced to cities overnight which resulted in several safety issues and complaints from residents; in response, many cities in California have entered into pilot programs that limit the deployment of electric scooters to only one or two operators, during a defined period of time. Some of the challenges posed by motorized scooters include preventable accidents to riders, blockage of accessible travel ways and entries, lack of timely removal of defective or improperly placed scooters, and undue burden on city resources which deal with these problems. In order to ensure a safe deployment and use of electronic scooters, it is important to develop a policy that addresses the type, location and number of scooters allowed in a city. In addition, the policy needs to include a process to authorize vendors, and have provisions that deal with parking, cost recovery, and access to vendor data. In addition, it is a good idea to start with a pilot program with one or more vendors that identifies the fleet size for each vendor, permit process/fees, equitable distribution and most importantly safety considerations. 10.A.a Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 16 References 1. DuPuis, Nicole. 2019. “Micromobility in Cities: A History and Policy Overview”. National League of Cities. https://www.nlc.org/resource/micromobility-in-cities-a- history-and-policy-overview 2. Fang, Kevin. 2018.”Where Do Riders Park Dockless, Shared Electric Scooters? Findings from San Jose, California”. Mineta Transportation Institute. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/1713-Rules-Personal-Transportation-Devices 3. Fang, Kevin. 2018. “How and Where Should I Ride This Thing? ‘Rules of the Road’ for Personal Transportation Devices”. Mineta Transportation Institute. https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/1713-Rules-Personal-Transportation-Devices 4. Portland Bureau of Transportation. 2018. “2018 E-Scooter Findings Report”. PBOT. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719 5. Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance Unit. 2018. “Dockless Electric Scooter-Related Injuries Study”. Epidemiology and Public Health Preparedness Divisions Austin Public Health. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless _Electric_Scooter_Study_5-2-19.pdf 6. Smith, C. Scott. 2018. “E-Scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless Scooters in Chicago”. Chaddick Institute Policy Series. https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan- development/research-and-publications/Documents/E- ScooterScenariosMicroMobilityStudy_FINAL_20181212.pdf 7. California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2019. “Motorized Scooter”. CA DMV. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/vr/s cooters 8. National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2018. “Shared Micromobility in the U.S.: 2018”. NACTO. https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2018/ 9. Bay City News. 2019. “Oakland Issues Permit to 4 E-Scooter Operator”. NBC Bay Area. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Oakland-Issues-Permits-to-4-E-Scooter- Operators-512154362.html 10. McCahan, Margaret. 2018. “Shared Micro-Mobility Program and Regulatory Framework”. City of San Jose. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/82494 10.A.a Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) The current state of motorized scooters and important considerations for deployment (08/2019) 17 Appendix A 10.A.a Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Report on motorized scooters - Gilroy PW August 2019 (2378 : Motorized Scooters) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Policy Discussion and Direction Concerning the City's Unfunded Pension Liabilities and Establishment of a IRS Section 115 Trust Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Finance Department Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis Strategic Plan Goals  Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ W orkforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Receive report and provide direction to staff. POLICY DISCUSSION 1. Should the City increase its retirement system funded level (ratio) and if so to what percentage? 2. If the City seeks to increase the funding ratio, how does it intend to fund it? 3. Should the City create an IRS Section 115 Trust to deposit funds for either increasing the funded ratio or to use as a pension contribution smoothing mechanism ? BACKGROUND The City Council has conducted study sessions concerning the City’s unfunded liabilities including pensions and infrastructure improvements. As part of the Fiscal Year 10.B Packet Pg. 183 2020 (FY20) and Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget process, staff was directed to return to Council with information concerning the City’s unfunded pension liabilities and possible establishment of an IRS Section 115 Trust (Trust). As shown below the City is currently experiencing increased pension plan contribution s due to several actuarial assumption adjustments including: reduction in the assumed investment rate of return, changes in life expectancy for retirees, and a reduction in the amortization period for investment gains and losses. In order reduce long-term interest costs and smooth fluctuations in annual employer contributions many communities are prepaying their CalPERS contributions. There are significant benefits to prepaying CalPERS obligations and as seen in the chart below, prepayments significantly reduce the amount of interest charges that are assessed by CalPERS. A prepayment of $5 million can net $4.7 million in savings for a 30-year amortization period or $2 million over 10 years. 10.B Packet Pg. 184 Contribution smoothing enables City’s to have some consistency from year-to-year, thus minimizing operational financial impacts. ANALYSIS Policy Question 1 - Should the City increase its retirement system funded level (ratio) and if so to what percentage? The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) retains assets on behalf of the City to fund pension payments – payments that are due now and into the future. As of the last measurement date of June 30, 2017, Gilroy ha d approximately $262 million in pension liabilities and approximately $180 million in assets leaving $82 million in unfunded liabilities. Ratio-wise, the City’s pension fund was approximately 68.4% funded as of the valuation date July 1, 2018. 10.B Packet Pg. 185 2016 %2017 %2018 % Safety Plan Assets 96,693,210$ 106,053,987$ 113,589,955$ Liabilities 146,479,707 66.0%155,429,033 68.2%166,875,721 68.1% Miscellaneous Assets 67,937,479 74,065,540 78,514,090 Liabilities 97,485,401 69.7%104,232,395 71.1%114,142,332 68.8% Total Assets 164,630,689 180,119,527 192,104,045 Liabilites 243,965,108 259,661,428 281,018,053 Unfunded Liabilities 79,334,419$ 67.48%79,541,901$ 69.4%88,914,008$ 68.4% CalPERS Unfunded Liability Ratio CalPERS calculates future contribution levels to reduce the $82 million in unfunded liabilities and adjust member contributions with the goal of a chieving a 100% funding level, meaning that the City would possess adequate financial assets for pension payments that may not be due for 30 to 40 years. It is correct to phrase the delta between pension assets and liabilities, as “unfunded liabilities”, however those liabilities are not currently due and the City’s annual contributions to CalPERS include funds to increase the funding level ratio. CalPERS current funding approach is to achieve 100% over a 20-year amortization schedule. As explained in the Public Fund Survey Summary of Findings by Keith Brainard (research director at the National Association of State Retirement Administrators): Funded status is a single-point measure of the degree to which a plan is on course to meet a distant goal. … The fact that a plan is underfunded is not necessarily a sign of fiscal or actuarial distress; many pension plans remain underfunded for decades without causing fiscal stress for the plan sponsor or requiring benefits to be reduced. The critical factor in assessing the current and future health of a pension plan is whether or not funding its liabilities creates fiscal stress for the pension plan sponsor. Although a pension plan that is fully funded is preferable to one that is underfunded, other factors held equal, a plan’s funded status is simply a snapshot in a long-term, continuous financial and actuarial process, akin to a single frame of a movie that spans decades. There is no universal standard for an appropriate funding ratio level. Fitch ratings considers 70% and above to be adequate. The Government Finance Officers’ Association (GFOA) Recommendation outlines that all defined benefit plans should attempt to achieve 100% funding levels which should be amortized over 25 years – the same approach that is currently utilized by CalPERS. 10.B Packet Pg. 186 Policy Question 2 - If the City seeks to increase the funding ratio, how does it intend to fund it? A League of California Cities’ Retirement System Sustainability Study and Findings (January 2018) revealed the following: 1. Rising pension costs will require cities over the next seven years to nearly double the percentage of their General Fund dollars they pay to CalPERS. Between FY 2018-19 and FY 2024-25, cities’ dollar contributions will increase by more than 50 percent. 2. For many cities, pension costs will dramatically increase to unsustainable levels; 3. Many cities face difficult choices that will be compounded in the next recession. 4. Tangible savings resulting from PEPRA will not have a substantial effect on city budgets for decades. According to the League, some things cities can do today are the following: 1. Develop and implement a plan to pay down the city’s Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL). Possible methods include shorter amortization periods and pre-payment of cities UAL. 2. Consider local ballot measures to enhance revenues. 3. Create a pension rate stabilization program: Establishing and funding a local Section Trust Fund can help offset unanticipated spikes in employer contributions. 4. Change service delivery methods and levels of certain public services. 5. Use procedures and transparent bargaining to increase employee pension contributions. 6. Issue a pension obligation bond (POB). However, financial experts including the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) strongly discourage local agencies from issuing POBs. Moreover, this approach only delays and compounds the inevitable financial impacts. The aforementioned solutions require a policy decisions by Council which may include allocating either additional operational expenditures or some portion of its current unassigned fund balance to be used as seed money for whatever program the City chooses. The City currently has approximately $9 million in excess reserve funds, however as was noted at the August 26th City Council study session, there are numerous capital projects that the City must prioritize the use of these one -time funds. 10.B Packet Pg. 187 Policy Question 3 - Should the City create an IRS Section 115 Trust to deposit funds for either increasing the funded ratio or to use as a pension contribution smoothing mechanism? Until recently, the City’s only option for reducing the unfunded actuarial accrued liability was to commit additional funds to CalPERS. Unfortunately, these funds would be subject to the same market volatility as the CalPERS investment policy, and the funds are not accessible to the City for other pension-related expenses. In the last couple of years, a private letter ruling was received from the IRS that establishes that , under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code, public agencies or municipalities could create a separate trust to “pre-fund” its CalPERS unfunded liability. This provides an alternative to sending the funds to CalPERS, and also provides greater local control over the assets and investment portfolio management. The Trust can be used for two purposes – 1) an alternative to CalPERS in which the City will attempt to out-perform their investment rate of return, or 2) the trust could be used for pension contribution smoothing by sending trust funds to CalPERS to minimize the impact of contribution increases. It should be noted, that regardless of how the Trust is to be used, the Trust itself does not directly reduce the City’s unfunded pension liabilities. Only when funds are transferred to CalPERS is the liability reduced and reflected in the City’s financial statements. 10.B Packet Pg. 188 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding and Adoption of a Resolution Approving Associated Salary Schedules for the Period of July 1, 2019 Through June 30, 2021 Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Human Resources Department Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips Prepared By: LeeAnn McPhillips Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety  Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION a) Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Gilroy Management Association for the period July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021. b) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 salary schedules associated with the Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Gilroy is a public employer. As such, and consistent with the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act (MMBA), the City engages in a collective bargaining process with 10.C Packet Pg. 189 represented employees through bargaining units. The process typically occurs over a three to four month period bef ore the expiration of the existing labor contract. City employees (except executives and certain others) are organized into five different bargaining units and are represented by unions. The product of the collective bargaining process is an MOU (“memorandum of understanding”). MOUs specify the terms and conditions of employment. The Gilroy Management Association (GMA) represents most of the exempt, management-level employees of the city. BACKGROUND Staff recently concluded negotiations with Gilroy Management Association (GMA) bargaining unit (approximately 33 employees) for a successor Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) including salary schedules for the time period of July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2021, in conformance with Council direction. A final copy of the MOU and the corresponding salary schedules are attached for Council’s review and approval. Staff worked with bargaining team members to prepare the changes to the MOU documents. The final draft of the MOU has been reviewed by representatives of the bargaining unit and a designated representative from the negotiating team has signed-off on the final document. The remaining members of the GMA negotiations team and the City negotiating team will sign the document following Council approval. The main areas of change for the GMA MOU are summarized below:  Two year contract (July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2021)  Salary increases as follows:  Market study equity adjustments to salary ranges implemented 50% in FY 20 and 50% in FY 21  3% salary increase effective July 1, 2019  3% salary increase effective July 1, 2020  Continue the current cost share program for health care  In FY21, implement city contribution of $30 per employee per month to a city deferred compensation plan  Minor increases to Police Captain and Fire Division Chief uniform allowance consistent with GPOA and IAFF, Local 2805 uniform allowances  Minor increase to city-paid long-term disability insurance premium for public safety managers  Re-establish uniform allowance for Fire Marshal; uniform provided for FY20; un iform allowance to begin FY21  Other minor clean-up and/or clarification language to update MOU – no cost associated with these updates 10.C Packet Pg. 190 FISCAL IMPACT The FY20 cost for the new MOU changes is estimated to be approximately:  $268,000 (approximately $157,760 is General Fund) The FY21 cost for the new MOU changes is estimated to be approximately:  $302,000 (approximately $172,140 is General Fund) The majority of these costs were included in the FY20 and FY21 adopted budget. At this time, it is anticipated that any remaining costs can be absorbed within the current appropriation level. Attachments: 1. Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 2. GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 10.C Packet Pg. 191 10.C.a Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.a Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Gilroy Management Association Memorandum of Understanding July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management 10.C.b Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association 10.C.b Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: GMA Salary Resolution and Salary Schedules for July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2021 (2398 : Gilroy Management Association City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Consideration of a Potential Firearms Buyback Event Meeting Date: September 16, 2019 From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Department: Administration Submitted By: Gabriel Gonzalez Prepared By: Gabriel Gonzalez Trevin Barber Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Receive report and provide direction to staff POLICY DISCUSSION Should the City Council direct staff to research preliminary program parameters for a voluntary gun turn-in event with possible coordination with the County District Attorney and Gilroy Police Foundation? BACKGROUND During the City Council’s Regular Meeting on September 9, 2019 a group of citizens submitted for the consideration of the City Council a request to help organize a voluntary gun turn-in event. 10.D Packet Pg. 229 City Council directed staff to agendize a discussion item for Council to consider creating a voluntary gun turn-in event. As such, the item is coming back during this meeting in order to allow the City Council to have a more robust policy discussion and to provide direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE At this time the fiscal impact would be contained to staff time. The fiscal impact of any potential future event would be considered along with the program proposal to City Council. NEXT STEPS Staff will determine next steps after preliminary feedback and direction is received from Council at this meeting. 10.D Packet Pg. 230