HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEIJ:�_
MEETING DATE: November 6, 1996 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Jennifer Britton,. Assisti
Kanager
SUBJECT: Request by TCI to Amend Cable TV Transfer Agreement to
Allow up to Four Years to Rebuild Sunland Park Area
ecommended Motionfs
It is recommended that Council approve the amendment to Cable TV
Transfer Agreement to allow up to four years to rebuild the Sunland
Park Area and authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment on behalf of
the City.
Report Summary;
Council took action at the meeting of February 21, 1996 to approve a
transfer agreement between the City of Saratoga, Southbay Cable
(Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P.) and TCI Cablevision of California, Inc.
Paragraph 14 of the agreement specifically addresses concerns the City
had with respect to the provision of cable to the Sunland Park area of
the City. Specifically Section 14 of the agreement requires TCI to
either submit a plan for extension of the Saratoga system in the area,
or apply for an amendment to the transfer agreement which would
eliminate the obligation of GRANTEE to extend services to the Sunland
Park area and which shall approve a franchise for the provision of
services to the Sunland Park area by the San Jose system.
The City Manager and the Counsel for TCI met recently regarding this
issue. Attachment I to this report is a letter summarizing TCI's intent
to apply for an amendment to the transfer agreement. In the letter TCI
explains that after looking into the possibility of service extension to
that area, they have found it to be economically impractical to do so.
Were they to pursue a service extension, it would require that present
facilities which form a part of the San Jose system be dismantled and a
new system constructed. The area in question is comprised of 168 homes,
90 of which are presently customers of the San Jose system. They make
a case that the rates and programming delivered to the Sunland Park area
by the San Jose system are "substantially equivalent to the services and
rates provided throughout Saratoga." They further attest that
construction costs would be substantial and would "greatly outweigh any
marginal benefits which would be achieved by extending the Saratoga
system."
The City's concern about system compatibility has had to do with the
residents' ability to access P.E.G. programming- public, education and
government access programming. Such programming originates in the City
of Saratoga's system. TCI informs us that to provide Saratoga P.E.G.
programming through the San Jose system would require the delivery of
the programming from the origination sites in Saratoga to the San Jose
headend and the dedication of channel capacity on the San Jose system
solely for delivery of the programs to the 90 Sunland Park customers.
Amendment to CATV Transfer Agreement
Page2
They further state that dedication of complete channel capacity for this
number of customers is not practical for the company. In addition, the
San Jose system doesn't have the channel capacity available for this
use.
TCI desires to exercise the option of amending the Transfer Agreement to
allow TCI to provide services to the Sunland Park area via the Saratoga
system at the same time it completes a rebuild of the San Jose system.
They inform us that a rebuild is likely to occur within the next three
to four years. TCI states that they are prepared to agree with the City
that services will be extended to the Sunland Park area whether or not
a rebuild of the San Jose system proceeds by a date certain;
specifically, four years from the date of the proposed amendment.
Paragraph 14 of the Transfer Agreement also states that:
In any event, commencing on April 1, 1996, BRENMORE (prior to the
close of the transfer) and GRANTEE subsequent to the close of the
transaction) shall pay to the CITY an amount equal to the franchise
fee which would be payable under the terms and conditions of this
FRANCHISE for any revenue derived by the San Jose system for
services within Sunland Park.
To that end, TCI has stated that in the interim, that the calculation of
franchise fees payable to the City of Saratoga shall include revenues
from cable services delivered to the Sunland Park residents by the San
Jose system.
Attachment II to this report is the proposed amendment to the CATV
Franchise Transfer Agreement which would amend Paragraph 14 of the
Transfer Agreement which will do the following:
1. Require TCI to extend services to the Sunland Park area on the
earlier of two dates: at the time that TCI completes a rebuild of
the cable facilities in the immediately adjacent San Jose City
system, or four years from the date of this Amendment;
2. Effective April 1, 1996 and through the term of the franchise, TCI
will pay to the City an amount equal to the Franchise fee which
would have been payable under the terms and conditions of the
Franchise on any revenue derived by the San Jose system owned by
TCI for Cable services to Sunland Park residents.
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached amendment to the
February 27, 1996 CATV Transfer Agreement covering these issues.
Fiscal. Impacts:
The City of Saratoga will receive an increase in the cable franchise
fees based on the number of affected residents in the area,
approximately 90, and the level of service for each of those residents.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Amendment to CATV Transfer Agreement
Page3
Posting of the agenda. A copy of the report has been sent to TCI.
Consesxuences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions-,
The issue of cable service to Sunland Park residents would be
unresolved. In addition, we would fail to realize the revenues resulting
from the franchise fees owed the City from.the residents in the Sunland
Park area.
Follow W Actions:
Staff will forward a co
that the City wishes t
monthly schedule as is
for the first six months
of the amendment to the
affected neighborhood
installation of service
Attachments:
py of the signed agreement to TCI and alert TCI
o receive the franchise fees owed on the same
currently the practice,.with the first payment
payable to the City within 30 days of signature
Transfer Agreement. Staff will also alert the
association as to the four year plan for
to their area originating in Saratoga.
I. Letter from Richard R. Patch, Counsel to TCI
II. Amendment to CATV Franchise Transfer Agreement
JONATHAN R. BASS
JEFFRY A. BERNSTEIN
CHARLES R. BREYER
ALLEN E. BROUSSARD
WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ
VIRGINIA A. CRISP
PAMELA S. DUFFY
PAUL ESCOBOSA
PHILIP B. FELDMAN
LOUIS J. GIRAUDO
SUSAN K. JAMISON
ANN E. JOHNSTON
JEFFREY G. KNOWLES
STEPHEN T. LANCTOT
MICHAEL L. MEYERS
BARBARA A. MILANOVICH
JAMES P. MITCHELL
HARRY 0 BRIEN
COBLENTZ, CAHEN, MCCABE & BREYER, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, III
SUSAN PASSOVOY
RICHARD R PATCH
BARRY REDER
JOSEPH C. SPERO
JACQUELINE S. CORLEY
J KEITH EVANS- ORVILLE
EDWARD J. FINLEY II
ALAN C. GENNIS
AUDREY R. OGAWA
CYNTHIA R. ROWLAND
HOWARD A. SLAVITT
DANIEL J. STROMBERG
SUSAN L. SULLIVAN
RENE L TODD'
TAY C. VIA
CLIFFORD E. YIN
222 KEARNY STREET, 7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108-4510
TELEPHONE: (415) 391 -4800
FACSIMILE: (415) 989 -1663
September 27, 1996
By Fax and Federal Express- Monday a.m. delivery
Harry R. Peacock
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: CATV Franchise Transfer Agreement
Dear Mr. Peacock:
ATTACH= I
OF COUNSEL
DONALD M. CAHEN
WILLIAM T. HUTTON
SPECIAL COUNSEL
JEFFREY B. MASO
TEVIS JACOBS 11 906 -1 9 7 41
WILLIAM F, MCCABE 11939 -19831
ADMITTED IN PENSYLVANIA ONLY
I am writing to follow up on our recent meeting concerning the provisions of paragraph
14 of the CATV Franchise Transfer Agreement ( "Transfer Agreement ") dated February 27, 1996
defined between the City of Saratoga and TCI of Cleveland, Inc. ( "TCI" ).
Paragraph 14 of the Transfer Agreement addresses the area of Saratoga commonly known
as Sunland Park which is located adjacent to and east of Quito Road. The Sunland Park area is
not presently served by the Saratoga system but, instead, is served by the system, also owned by
TCI, in the City of San Jose. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14, this shall
constitute TCI's formal application for an amendment to the Transfer Agreement.
TCI has thoroughly investigated the issues surrounding Sunland Park and has confirmed
that it is economically impractical to extend the Saratoga system to the Sunland Park. The
service extension would require that the present facilities which form a part of the San Jose
system be dismantled, and a new system constructed. The area is comprised of 168 homes of
which approximately 90 are presently customers of the San Jose system. Given that rates and
programming delivered to the Sunland Park area by the San Jose system are substantially
equivalent to the services and rates provided throughout Saratoga, we request your concurrence,
at least in the short term, that the substantial construction costs greatly outweigh any marginal
benefits which would be achieved by extending the Saratoga system.
We are also keenly aware, however, of the City's desire that the Sunland Park residents
receive the benefit of P.E.G. programming which originates on the Saratoga system. At the
present time, delivery of such programming is technically impossible. To provide Saratoga
P.E.G. programming via the San Jose system would require the delivery of the programming
from the origination sites in Saratoga to the San Jose headend and the dedication of channel
COBLENTZ. CAHEN, McCABE & BREYER, LLP
Harry R. Peacock
September 27, 1996
Page 2
capacity on the San Jose system solely for delivery of these programs to the 90 Sunland Park
customers. Dedication of complete channel capacity for such a limited number of customers is
impractical. In any event, the San Jose system does not have channel capacity available for this
use.
In light of the foregoing, we solicit the City's favorable consideration of our request that
paragraph 14 of the Transfer Agreement be amended to allow TCI to provide services to the
Sunland Park area via the Saratoga system at the same time it completes a rebuild of the San Jose
system. A rebuild is likely to occur within the next three to four years. In addition, TCI is
prepared to agree with the City that services will be extended to the Sunland Park area whether
or not a rebuild of the San Jose system proceeds by a date certain; specifically, four years from
the date of the proposed amendment.
Finally, in the interim, TCI confirms that the calculation of franchise fees payable to the
City of Saratoga shall include revenues received from cable services delivered to the Sunland
Park residents by the San Jose system.
I've taken the liberty of preparing a proposed amendment to the CATV Franchise Transfer
Agreement reflecting these terms, a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Please advise
me if the form of the proposed amendment is acceptable and the schedule for presenting the
amendment for City Council review and approval.
Very truly yours,
COBLENTZ, CAHEN, McCABE & BREYER, LLP
Richard R. Patch
RRP:cjs
cc: Valerie Castellana
Kathy Noe
Madie Gustafson
n:\user\cjs\72 3 3 \007\peacock. Itr
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL F F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a� 1 ^� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Recommendation from the Public Safety Commission to
perform a Traffic Calming Study for Baylor Avenue
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to accept the proposal from CCS Planning & Engineering, Inc.
to perform a Traffic Calming Study for Baylor Avenue for a not to
exceed amount of $4,000.
Report Summ
At their October 21 meeting, the Public Safety Commission voted
unanimously to recommend that the City Council accept the
attached proposal from CCS Planning & Engineering, Inc. to
perform a Traffic Calming Study for Baylor Avenue. The study
would cost not more than $4,000 and would identify and evaluate
up to three alternative schemes for alleviating primarily
speeding, and to a lesser degree cut through traffic, on Baylor
Avenue. The study would be spearheaded by the residents of
Baylor Avenue themselves, but would also reflect input from an
appointed sub - committee of the Sunland Park HOA. CCS Planning &
Engineering, Inc. was selected to prepare this study because of
their recent experience working for the City developing the TETAP
Traffic Report, and designing the Saratoga Avenue traffic signal.
If approved by the Council, this would mark the first formal
attempt by the City to utilize traffic calming as a means of
resolving the typical kinds of traffic complaints lodged by
residents of local streets. The ultimate objective of traffic
calming is to restore some of the residential qualities of local
streets lost to the impacts of motor vehicle traffic. If traffic
calming proves successful for Baylor Avenue, I believe the
technique can be applied to other situations throughout the City
where traditional engineering and enforcement methods are no
longer adequate. For this reason, I support experimenting with
the concept and concur with the Commission s recommendation.
The proposed work scope envisions a five week time frame to
complete the study. Assuming the weekend kickoff meeting were
held before the Thanksgiving holiday, the draft study would
likely be complete in time for the January meeting of the PSC.
The final report with recommendations could then be presented to
the City Council most likely in February.
Fiscal Impacts:
The recommended $4,000 study is an unanticipated expenditure for
the current fiscal year. However, available funding for the
study exists in the adopted budget in Activity 27 (Congestion
Management), Account No. 5610 (Grants to Other Agencies). This
is because the City will only be invoiced for the first
installment of its annual Congestion Management Program dues in
FY 96 -97. The CMA recently notified the City that they will not
be invoicing for the second installment of the dues next spring
as a result of a surplus of funds which have built up in the
Congestion Management Program trust account over the past year
due to lower than projected CMP expenditures.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
The President of the Sunland Park HOA, as well as the Baylor
Avenue representative to the traffic sub - committee, have both
been routinely apprised of the progress on this issue. The HOA
circulates a newsletter to all its members keeping them informed
as well.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The consultant's proposal would not be accepted and the Traffic
Calming Study would not be performed. Staff will follow whatever
other direction the Council provides.
Follow Up Actions:
The Consultant will be instructed to proceed with the study.
Attachments:
1. Proposal from CCS Planning & Engineering dated October 16.
2. Staff report to Public Safety Commission dated October 17.
3. Letter to Sunland Park homeowners dated October 19.
October 16, 1996
CCS201 -96
Larry Perlin
Public Works Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Baylor Avenue T mf c Calming Projed
Dear Larry:
AL. CCS
IFPLANNING AND ENGINEERING
I N C 0 R? 0 R
Corporate Heaaquarter;
42080 Osgood Road, Saile One
Fremont, California 94539
510/656 -7091 • Fax 5101656 -38?5
This letter presents CCS's proposal, to prepare a traffic calming study for the Baylor Avenue
neighborhood. Per our discussion in the September 9 Traffic Safety Committee meeting, the study will
include a brief evaluation of alternatives for traffic calming, recommendation of an alternative, estimate
of possible traffic diversion patterns, and cost estimates. We do not anticipate the need for extensive
public meetings because two or more meetings have already been held. The following sections present
a scope of work, fee, and schedule for the study.
The proposed CCS staff is Steve Fitzsimons, Mike Aronson, David Kobayashi, and support staff. The
project manager will attend all project meetings and supply most of the labor. Mike will provide senior
review, David will assess possible traffic diversions by comparing travel times.
Scope of Work
CCS will develop and present three traffic calming alternatives for the Baylor Avenue committee through
the following tasks.
Task 1- Define Need for Project: CCS will document existing and historical traffic volumes, current
travel speeds compared to posted speed limits, accident records, and resident requests. As part of a field
review, CCS will invite residents to participate in a weekend neighborhood walk to describe potential
elements of a traffic calming project and suggest ideas for alternatives.
Task 2 - Prepare Alternatives: CCS will sketch up to three alternative traffic calming plans and evaluate
the expected effectiveness of each. The evaluations will be summarized in a consumer reports styled
table. A column of the table will also report estimated construction costs. This letter assumes the City
can furnish copies of the aerial photograph of the neighborhood to use as a base map for sketching
alternatives.
Task 3 - Estimate Traffic Diversion Patterns: CCS will use a travel time comparison to estimate the
potential for traffic diversions as a result of the traffic calming alternatives. This process will compare
travel times on Baylor, Bucknall, and McCoy to estimate likely diversions.
Q\PR0P0SAL\201- % \C0VER.W60
T R A N S P 0 R T A T 1 0 N • T R A F F I C • P A R K I N G • I T
Task 4 - Present Recommendations: CCS will prepare a letter report summarizing the findings of the
study, attend one meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee or neighborhood meeting to present the draft
recommendations, respond to comments and attend a second meeting to present the final report.
Fee
CCS Planning and Engineering will complete the study for a lump sum fee of $4,000.00. This fee
assumes a level of effort of about 44 person hours; including engineering and support staff.
Schedule
The proposed schedule for this project is presented in Table 1 below. Exact dates can be filled once the
dates for Traffic Safety Committee meetings are known. We expect to be able to schedule the weekend
neighborhood walk at the October 21 meeting (tentatively Saturday, November 2). The draft
recommendations could be presented at the December meeting, and the final report presented in January.
Table 1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Please give me a call if you need any additional information or detail to evaluate this proposal.
Sincerely,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
��4
Steve Fitzsimons, P.E.
Senior Engineer
CAPROPOMB201 -W CO V ER. W 60
TASK
NUMBER OF WEEKS FROM
AUTHORIZATION TO
PROCEED
1.
Define Need for Project
2
2.
Prepare Alternatives
3
3.
Estimate Traffic Diversion
Patterns
4
4.
Present Recommendations
$
Please give me a call if you need any additional information or detail to evaluate this proposal.
Sincerely,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
��4
Steve Fitzsimons, P.E.
Senior Engineer
CAPROPOMB201 -W CO V ER. W 60
'�
I A
U �:
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) S67 -3435
TO: Public Safety Commission
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Baylor Avenue Traffic Issues
DATE: October 17, 1996
RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL AIEN BERS:
A�n - +A� • e � ce
Recommend to the City Council that a Traffic Calming Study for
Baylor Avenue be performed by the firm of CCs Planning &
Engineering for a not -to- exceed amount of $4,000.
DISCUSSION:
On September 9, the same evening as your previous meeting, a
second public meeting to continue discussions about the Baylor
Avenue traffic issues was held. In attendance were a number of
the Baylor Avenue residents, representatives from most of the
other streets in the Sunland Park neighborhood, the City's
traffic consultant, and myself. A copy of the attendance roster
is attached.
Recall that at your August meeting, when this item first came
before you, the Commission deferred taking any action until the
Sunland Park HOA's input could be solicited, and additional speed
data for Baylor Ave. could be obtained by the City. Since then,
-the HOA has set up a traffic working group composed of one
representative from each of the streets in the neighborhood,
several of whom were at the September 9 meeting, and staff has
ordered a speed survey of Baylor Ave. to be conducted by the same
firm which will be updating a number of other traffic counts on
streets throughout town.
Printed on recycled paper.
As of today, I have yet to receive the results of the speed
survey and am not certain if I will have them in time for
Monday's meeting. Nevertheless, I believe the clear consensus
from the September 9 meeting was to proceed with a Traffic
Calming study for Baylor Avenue so that potential solutions to
the identified traffic problems could be developed, along with an
evaluation of the pros and cons, of each solution. Further, there
was general agreement that the Baylor residents should be allowed
to spearhead the work with the consultant, and that cycling back
to the HOA traffic committee would only need to occur as various
milestones throughout the process are reached.
CCS Planning & Engineering, the firm I have selected to work on
this project, and which facilitated the September 9 meeting, has
developed the attached proposal and scope of services to prepare
the traffic calming study. The proposal suggests a five week
time frame to complete the project, which includes an analysis of
current traffic statistics, a weekend field meeting with the
Baylor residents and other interested parties, the development of
up to three alternative traffic calming schemes including
effectiveness and cost evaluations, estimates of travel time and
corresponding traffic diversion patterns for each scheme, and
attendance at two additional public meetings to present the study
and respond to comments. The proposed fee for the proposed scope
is $4,000.
For the same reasons I stated to you in August, I am recommending
that the consultant's proposal to prepare a traffic calming study
for Baylor Ave. be accepted even with the increased cost to
$4,000, (in August, the study was estimated to cost between
$2,000 and $3,000). The real issue now is not what solutions
should be considered, but rather how the City handles these
issues. At this point, there is little more that me or my staff
can do to address the Baylor residents' concerns without
additional.professional assistance. So, I guess what really
needs to be decided is whether the Baylor residents have
sufficiently demonstrated a need for the City to provide such
professional assistance or not. From what I have observed during
my participation in this issue thus far, I believe they have and
that the next step is to proceed with the traffic calming study.
If the Commission disagrees, then I believe it will be necessary
to clearly explain why the retention of a consultant is not
warranted, or what additional input is necessary to justify the
need, in effect establishing a framework for making similar
decisions in the future, e.g. Miller Avenue, Seagull Way, etc.
41111,
Larry I. er in
attachments: 1. September 9 meeting attendance roster.
2. Traffic Calming study proposal.
loo�ile
C�
Ci o �444zo
-5 Alden- 19"t3 7 aI'q 14,6R 4f1E-
ro Br
Cc c
sAn 14t) (I s / �� (7 Qay o2 Ave -
7 v�
Rfw r ��dQ
C r A
5 �1f2.t�► -b.�s CCS ��gMNiry� Q�� Ey�y;11LLr:✓ll�
7t4on� °
f6 I-
5'7 7
3��?- �/9s
279 - AA07
36cc--;�S 3
-7,- 77
Z
3 -7y - 860S
37'�
375-07!5'7
7 o 7
Sunland Park Neighbc
Sunland Party
October 19, 1996
PAGE 01
Post -W Fax NOW 7671
oa%
0�
#01 .,,,�► �
To f
From
XtAt
Codoept.
Co.
Phone a
Phone #
73o-7177
Fax Y Jf G i
Fax #
1341- 1
Dear Sunland Park Resident: r�
�i ffL�itrkC
Subject: Baylor Avenue Traffic Problems
The residents on Baylor Avenue (Baylor) are experiencing traffic problems. Speedin
and increased traffic is making their street unsafe for children, pedestrians and
motorist. The City of Saratoga (City) is interested in finding a solution to solve or
reduce these traffic problems. This coming Monday, the City staff will be
recommending to the Public Safety Commission that a traffic consultant be hired. The
consultant would study the Baylor traffic problems and present alternatives in dealing
with these problems. This letter is to inform you of the problems Baylor residents are
experiencing, what actions are being taken and what role Sunland Park residents can
take to help in this project.
Background
On July 16, City staff met with residents of Baylor to discuss traffic problems on the
street. The meeting defined the nature of the traffic problems needing to be solved and
ideas for solving them. The primary problem expressed is speeding traffic.
Consistently, traffic travels well above the posted speed limit. Additional problems
include increased traffic volumes since the opening of Route 85, commuter traffic using
Baylor as a convenient cut - through street to get to and from Quito Road, the lack of
traffic control on V Ilanova Avenue at its intersection with Baylor, and the width of
Baylor that invites vehicles to drive faster. Based on this information, the City staff
feels that by focusing on controlling speeding that the other problems could be
sufficiently reduced.
City staff then presented a recommendation to the City's Public Safety Commission that
a consultant be hired to develop a plan for Baylor. Instead, the Commission voted to
seek the participation of the Sunland Park Neighborhood Association (SPNA) before
working on a plan, and obtain statistics on vehicular speeds.
The SPNA formed a Working Group that includes a representative from each street.
The objective of the group is to review the Baylor residents' traffic problems, evaluate
the City's recommendation to solve their traffic problems, and provide support for this
project with the input of neighborhood residents. Since the City's recommendation
offered no specific plan on how to solve the Baylor problem, the Working Group
notified the City that City staff should work with the residents on Baylor and develop a
plan that presents solutions while identifying and considering impacts to the
surrounding streets. This can be best accomplished by the staff recommendation to
hire a traffic consultant.
PAGE 02
Traffic Calming
Early last month, members of the Working Group and residents from Baylor met with
the City and a traffic Consultant to continue discussing the Baylor problems. At this
meeting we were introduced to the concept of Traffic Calming, an idea that may work
for Baylor and possibly serve as a model for other streets in Saratoga. Traffic Calming
is making roadways less efficient for commuter traffic through such items as
landscaping, narrowing of the roads and striping. The idea is to calm the commuter
traffic by making it move more slowly through a residential area or redirecting it to more
efficient thoroughfares like Bucknall and McCoy. The contractor identified types of
traffic calming solutions that have worked in other cities and what might be possible on
Baylor. Based on this meeting the SPNA Working Group continues to support the
City's proposal to have a consultant study the problems and develop alternate
solutions.
What is Next?
�oVWb4A
Monday, October 21, City staff will ask the City's Public Safety C mission to
recommend to the City Council that a Traffic Calming Study for aylor be conducted. If
accepted, the City Council will receive the proposal at the 6 City Council
meeting and decide if the project should continue. If the City Council accepts the
project, the consultant will begin his work that will include a neighborhood walk. The
neighborhood walk will be a visit by the consultant and City staff' to Baylor residents to
discuss possible solutions that could include physical changes to the street. It will also
offer an opportunity for residents of Sunland Park to ask how these changes could
�-' affect traffic on other streets and if these changes can work in other areas of the
neighborhood. Anyone interested in this project is invited. Notices will be delivered
before the neighborhood walk.
Finally, the more unified outside support that Baylor residents receive to solving these
traffic problems, the more the City Will be willing to help them. All of Sunland Park
should work together to restore and maintain a neighborhood quality to our residential
area. The SPNA Working Group will review the alternative solutions, evaluate what
impacts diverted traffic will have on other streets, and see if any of the solution could
be applied to any other areas in the neighborhood. We will keep you informed as the
project continues however, you need to help! The Working Group can only express the
interest of the residents in the neighborhood. Keep the Working Group informed of
your interest and comments on this project. If you have any comments, or you are
interested in receiving information on traffic calming, call me at 374 -8817. The Working
Group may need to survey residents as this project continues. If you receive a survey,
please return it as quickly as possible.
U44A '-"'
Richard Gurney
Sunland Park Neighborh od Association President
a
i1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a'� 5 L AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 6, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. Finance
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Municipal Information System
Recommended Motion(s): Authorize the City Manager to execute contract with HTE -SMI, Inc.
for municipal information system hardware and software.
Report Summary:
Background - In December 1995, to address problems associated with an aging, inadequate and
unreliable information system, City Council commissioned preparation of a Technology Master
Plan (TMP). The TMP was based upon an exhaustive needs assessment study and included a short
and long range (5 year) plan, recommendations for procurement of necessary additional
hardware /software and implementation plans and schedules. More specifically, the TMP
recommended selection and implementation of a comprehensive municipal information system to
gain productivity improvements and replace the current ad hoc system which is no longer
supported. City Council adopted the TMP and funded the first two program years in its Budget.
In carrying out TMP recommendations, staff, with assistance from WISE Consulting, embarked on
a process of identifying potential solution providers. Based on several recent publications and
references, the field of qualified vendors was quickly narrowed to five candidates. In April and
May, staff representing all City department's attended an in -house demonstration of the various
vendors product line. Staff rated the vendors using a point system. From that exercise, two
finalists, HTE -SMI, Inc. and Eden Systems, were selected for further consideration.
In August, staff visited two HTE clients and two Eden clients. The purpose of the visits was to
objectively evaluate the software in operation. Staff also performed background investigations on
the vendors, determined the degree of difficulty in converting to the vendor's software/hardware
and assessed the extent of ongoing support provided.
In September, armed with information obtained from our site visits, staff prepared and distributed a
detailed (100+ page) Request For Proposal that spelled out our application software, hardware,
installation, training and support requirements. HTE and Eden responded to the RFP.
Discussion- Following the site visits and review of proposals provided by HTE and Eden, staff
concluded that both firms could perform most of the requested work. However, the similarities in
firms ends there. HTE and Eden follow two distinctly different approaches in addressing solutions
for cities information needs (you may recall your October 22, 1996 Quarterly Review Meeting,
when staff presented an Executive Summary highlighting the firms differences - see Exhibit 1).
The HTE Solution: HTE's approach is turn key. They provide a vast array of software, hardware,
training and project management services as a basic package for all new installations. Their support
is intensive and extends to both software and hardware. They are committed to ongoing product
improvements based upon input from their national and regional user groups. HTE has roughly $17
million in assets, several hundred employees, 800+ clients and has been in business since 1981.
Their approach emphasizes a total solution, provided by a single vendor, in a stable processing
environment.
HTE is proposing a software/hardware package consisting of their applications running on an E3M
AS /400 (central computer) with IBM's proprietary operating system. The AS /400 is recognized for
its reliability and minimal manpower requirements. However, due to its proprietary nature, HTE
and the City will, to some degree, be dependent upon IBM's future. The computer and software
are transparent to the end user. The central computer is connected directly to the network interface.
HTE's software applications are intuitive (easy to learn and use), comprehensive (meets our
requirements), integrated (eliminates duplication of effort), written (available for immediate use)
and enjoy a good reputation from other end users. HTE's product line up is extensive and this
provides the City with the option to implement additional modules, should it be warranted and
funding available. An example of this is in the area of CNG /petroleum fuel usage control/billing
system.
Consistent with the TMP, HTE's proposal envisions a file server running office automation
applications such as Microsoft Windows NT, sharing data between end users, and connecting the
IBM AS /400 to the rest of the computers. This combination of software and hardware allows frill
use of the IBM AS /400's capabilities and ensures end users are productive in the event the central
computer has to go down for any reason.
As for training and installation services, HTE's proposal is very complete with double the hours of
their competitor.
An active user group is in place for discussing problems, identifying solutions and working closely
with company representatives on future product enhancements.
Staff was favorably impressed by HTE after the site visits and reference checks with existing
customers were positive.
The Eden Solution: Eden follows a different approach. They focus on their software line and
leave the hardware solution, and whatever operating software is required to run the hardware, up to
the customer. At the customer's request, they will sell hardware, however, they do not support it
after the sale. This approach requires coordination and cooperation amongst several vendors. They
too are committed to ongoing product improvements, but their direction appears to be driven
primarily by their marketing department. Eden did not disclose their financial information. They
have under 50 employees, 200+ clients and have been in business since 1981. Their approach
emphasizes independence from hardware.
Eden is also proposing a comprehensive software/hardware package consisting of their developed
and in- development software running on a Compaq Quad 200MHz Intel Pentium Pro (file
server /central computer) with SCO UNIXWARE and INFORMIX open software. The computer
and software are semi - transparent to the end user because UNIX can be tricky to operate. This
software/hardware configuration will more likely result in finger pointing amongst the vendors if a
piece fails to function as intended. Since the central computer and the file server are one in the
same machine, integration with the City's local area network is straight forward. However, this
configuration may require an additional file server for the following reasons: ensure end users are
productive in the event the central computer goes down; reduce competition for system resources
on the central computer; and eliminate complex setup and maintenance operations. It is important
to point out that this is a fairly new design configuration and that some debugging and refining is
expected.
Like HTE, Eden's software applications are intuitive and run well. As was the case with most of
the vendors the City reviewed, Eden's product line did not match all our needed requirements.
Regrettably, many applications are still on the drawing board, in the process of being written or
require special programming (paid at our expense) to interface with one another.
With respect to file server and end user operations, Eden's proposal is also consistent with the
TMP.
As for training and installation services, Eden proposes roughly half the hours of their competitor.
No project management services are envisioned, leaving this responsibility up to the City.
Staff was informed of a user group, but inquiries with existing clients could not confirm the active
presence of such group.
Reference checks with existing customers were favorable.
The Point Comparison: Both firms were evaluated using an objective point system developed by
the Western Governmental Audit Forum. The evaluation has four sections: mandatory criteria;
product, service and cost criteria; site visit and reference checks; and additional services. Out of a
possible 100 points, 90 points are awarded based on product, service and cost and 10 points are
awarded based on site visit and reference checks. Staff awarded HTE 80 points; Eden 57. A
summary of the results follows (see Exhibit 2 for details):
Criteria
HTE
Eden
• Mandatory Elements
Yes
Yes
• Product, Service and Cost
1. Financial Applications
1. Software
51
38
2. Hardware
16
10
3. Active/Local End User Network
4
2
• Site Visit and Reference Checks
115,899.00
4. Support
4. Site Visit
5
3
5. Reference Checks
4
4
• Additional Services
5. Equipment
75,000.00
6. Programming
Yes
Yes
7. Project Management
Yes
No
Total Points 80 57
The Cost Comparison: The overall cost differential between the two firms is dramatic. HTE
came in at $278,953.92 (17% under budget) versus $327,029.96 (2% under budget) for Eden. The
City's budget was $334,000.00. Furthermore, the allocation of costs was significant between the
two firms. The summary below highlights those differences (see Exhibit 2 for details):
Component
Budget
HTE
Eden
• Software
1. Financial Applications
$125,000.00
$47,872.00
$104,500.00
2. Other Applications
90,000.00
74,381.00
45,185.00
3. Installation and Training
Included
60,800.00
115,899.00
4. Support
36,000.00
20,700.00
29,177.00
• Hardware
5. Equipment
75,000.00
62,574.92
32,268.96
6. Installation and Training
Included
9,000.00
Not Included
7. Support
8,000.00
3,626.00
Not Included
• Additional Services
8. Programming
No Budget
125.00/hr
100.00/hr
Total Cost $334,000.00 $278,953.92 $327,029.96
A complete cost breakdown is provided by each vendor (see Exhibits 3 and 4).
Staff independently rebid the hardware pricing offered by HTE. Using government contract
pricing, IBM quoted the City a price of $63,924.00 versus HTE at $62,574.92. HTE's lower price
is not unusual given their business partner relationship with IBM and the quantity discount HTE
obtains (see Exhibit 5 for IBM pricing).
The Technology Steering Committee Decision: After completion of the site visits, reference
checks, review of the proposals and costs, the Technology Steering Committee unanimously voted
in favor of HTE as the preferred municipal information system solution vendor. Their solution
addresses staff s immediate concern of replacing the 10+ year old, unsupported financial and
community development software which is in jeopardy of crashing again. The Committee believes
HTE's turn key approach is superior to Eden because it is balanced, comprehensive and most likely
to succeed in Saratoga's limited resource environment. Copies of both proposals are available for
review in the Technology Coordinator's office.
The Other Related Projects: Staff is working on two other technology related projects. The first
project involves replacing the cabling and routers/bridges that provide the "backbone" to our local
area network. This project is critical to the overall success of our technology program. The City
has experienced repeated failures with our network due to faulty cabling and hubs. The result has
been frequent and complete breakdowns in our ability to transact information. Staff is currently in
the process of completing the design phase of this project. The second project involves replacing
our aging PC fleet. Council awarded this contract earlier and the project is well under way. Staff
anticipates phasing out the oldest of the City's PC inventory by the end of the second quarter.
Fiscal Impacts: The cost of executing the agreement with HTE is $278,953.92, which is $55
thousand less than budget. Favorable contract payment terms were requested and agreed to by HTE
on the software: 25% on contract execution, 25% on installation completion, 25% on
training/conversion completion, and 25% on final system acceptance. This funding scenario works
within the parameters of the TMP. Sufficient funds are available within the existing Management
Information Systems budget (Program 8085) to cover the expenditure. No additional appropriation
is required at this time.
Follow Up Actions: Execute contract with HTE. Coordinate implementation schedule.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: TMP can not be implemented as
planned. Significant risk of total financial and community development system failure left
unresolved. Immediate productivity opportunities will be forfeited. Compliance with current and
proposed state and federal rules, regulations, legislation and mandates may not be meet.
Exhibits
1. Municipal Information System Executive Summary
2. Municipal Information System Proposal Evaluation Worksheet
3. HTE Detail Cost Proposal
4. Eden Detail Cost Proposal
5. IBM AS /400 Pricing
Munici
Exhibit 1
+: , ;J
nation System
HTEINCf,, w a EDEN
Approach IBM Proprietary UNIX
Single Vendor Multiple Vendor
Total Solution Partial Solution
Software
Comprehensive
Incomplete
In Place, Proven
Under development
Single Platform Required
Multiple Platform Required
User Friendly
Intuitive;
Technical (UNIX)
Hardware
AS /4.O0
Quad Intel Pentium
RISC 64 bit Processor
Pentium Pro 32 bit Processor
Excellent Reliability
Unknown Reliability
Limited to IBM Expansion
Open Market Expansion
Training /Support
486 Hours of Training
284 Hour of Training
Single Vendor Support
Multiple Vendor Support
Software and Hardware
Software Only
Project Management
No Project Management
24 Hour Toll Fee Support Line
8 Hour Toll Free Support
Line
Price
17% Under Budget at $278k
2% Under Budget at $327k
56k Favorable
7k Favorable
Steerine Committee
Yes
No
Recommended
CITY OF SARATOGA
MUNICIPAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Proposal Evaluation Worksheet
I. MANDATORY CRITERIA
a. Provide required software
b. Previously installed products at similar entities
c. Provide onsite training and installation services
d. Provide comprehensive support for products sold
e. Provide ongoing maintenance and updates for products sold
I. Financially stable with proven track record
g. All elements requested are included in proposal
PRODUCT, SERVICE AND COST CRITERIA
a. Software (Note 1)
1. Financial applications
General Ledger /Building
Job /Project Accounting
Purchasing/Accounts Payable /Cash Disbursement
Accounts Receivable
Cash Receipts
Asset Management
Cash /Investment Management
Extended Reporting
Payroll /Human Resources
Public Employee's Retirement System (PERS)
Applicant Tracking
Business Licenses
2, Other Applications
Parcel Management/Planning
Building Permit
Code Enforcement
Service Request System
Engineering/Public Works Systems
Maintenance Management/Work Order System
Parts /Supplies Inventory System
Fleet Management
Parks and Recreation System
Planning and Zoning
Citations /Parking Tickets
General Application Software Requirements
Other Applications
3. Software installation and training
Installation
Training
Software support
Annual
Toll free technical support line
24 hour telephone support
b. Hardware (Note 2)
1. Hardware equipment
Central processor and operating system
Printer and peripherals
2. Hardware installation and training
Installation
Training
Hardware support
Annual
Toll free technical support line
24 hour telephone support
c. Active /Local end —user network
TOTAL PRODUCT. SERVICE AND COST POINTS
III. SITE VISIT & REFERENCE CHECKS
a. Site visit points awarded
b. Reference check points awarded
TOTAL SITE VISIT & REFERENCE POINTS
IV. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
a. Programming services
b. Project management
TOTAL POINTS
Exhibit 2
NOTES:
1. HTE provides unlimited user access to software. Eden has several limitations on user access. Points are based on
weighted average cost of similar applications.
2. HTE hardware costs include printer, modem and power backup supply valued at $10,933.28. This amount plus annual
maintenance costs were excluded in calculating the weighted average cost comparison for determining points.
c: \sam \miseval
HITE.INC.
EDEN.SYSTEMS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Technology
Master
Plan
Point
Range
:Points:
Amount
Points!
Amount
Estimate
0 -20
20
$47,872.00
8
$104,500.00
$125,000.00
10, 472.00
S5,000.00
Included
11,500.00
7,480.00
;
Included
4,488.00
?:;;' '
Included
2, 992.00
., ;. ;;
10, 000.00
2,992. 00
: :;:: > ::
10, 500.00
Included
!' i':i?5
Not available
4, 468.00
:::::
Included
7,480.00
30, 000.00
Included
Included
4,48800
Not included
2,992.00
7,500.00
0 -20
' :!.116
$74,381.00
20
$45,185.00
$90,000.00
Included
8,000.00
5,984.00
Included
3, 740.00
'
Included
Included
:':::<:>:<::<:
Included
Notavailable
Notavailable
10, 472.00
:::: '> <
17, 000.00
Included
Included
10, 472.00
Not included
3,995.00
4,750.00
4,48800
Included
7,480.00
Not available
Included
Included
27, 750.00
15, 435.00
0 -5
5:
$60,800.00
3:
$115,899.00
Included
Included
87, 499.00
60,80000::.::::::.. .28,
400.00
0 -10
10'
$20,700.00
7
$29,177.00
$36,000.00
20, 700.00
29,17700
Included
> `.:::'
Included
Included
:. :.
Not included
0 -10
6:
$62,574.92
10
$32,268.96
$75,000.00
51, 641.64.
::
32, 268.96
10, 933.28
Not included
0 -5
. ;>5;
$9,000.00
0:
Not included
Included
9,000.00
Not included
Included
Not included
0 -5
5'
$3,626.00
0
Not included
$8,000.00
3, 626.00.
Not included
Included
Not included
Included
Not included
0 -5
.4
Available
2i
Not active
0 -90
71'
$278,953.92.
50.
$327,029.96,
$334,000.00.
0 -5
5'
3
0 -5
4
$125.001hr
4
$100.00/hr
0 -10
: : :'.9'.
7.
None
0'
0.
None
0
Included
0
Notavailab /e
0 -100:
80
:57'
NOTES:
1. HTE provides unlimited user access to software. Eden has several limitations on user access. Points are based on
weighted average cost of similar applications.
2. HTE hardware costs include printer, modem and power backup supply valued at $10,933.28. This amount plus annual
maintenance costs were excluded in calculating the weighted average cost comparison for determining points.
c: \sam \miseval
r-I
M
r.
City ol'Saratoga, CA Sollware - ,.plicalion Pricing Worksheet
APPLICATIONS/ SERVICE
DESCRIPTION
LICENSE
FEES
TRAINING
HOURS
TRAINING
COSTS
ANNUAL
SUPPORT
TRAINING
TRIPS
DAYS
PER TRIP
COMMENTS
Building Permits- BP
7,040
64
4,800
960
3
3,3,2
Server Code resides on AS 400
Code Enforcement - CE
4,400
48
3,600
480
2
3,3
Add 4 hours il'using MR to bill Ices
Crash Receipts - CR
3,520
16
1,200
480
1
2
Trip usually hooked to PR or PI training
Citations - PT
8,800
48
3,600
1,200
2
3,3
Fixed Assets - FA
3,520
16
1,200
480
1
2
Trip usually hooked to PI second visit
Fleet Management - FM
12,320
56
4,200
1,680
3
2,3,2
GMBA-GM
12,320
72
5,400
1,680
3
3,4,2
See Note 2 GMBA
Extended Reporting - ER
5,280
16
1,200
720
1
2
Recommended alter GMBA live
Land Management - LX
0
0
0
0
0
0
See note 9- LX
Land File Conversion
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
Accounts Receivable - MR
5,280
56
4,200
720
3
2,3,2
Occupational License - OL
3,520
32
2,400
480
2
2,2
Trips usually hooked to BP 2nd and 3rd visit
Purchasing /Inventory /Bids - PI
8,800
88
6,600
1,200
3
3,3,5
See Note 3- Purchasing
Payroll /Personnel - PR
8,800
88
6,600
1,200
3
4,4,3
See Note 4 Payroll
Applicant Tracking - AT
5,280
16
1,200
720
1
2
Planning & Zoning - PZ
5,280
44
3,300
720
3
2,2,1
One day live will be hooked to another trip
Facility Management - WF
12,320
48
3,600
1,680
2
3,3
See Note 7 - WF
Level 1 Project Mgmt
SUB - TOTALS
120,428
708
1 53,100
14,400
1 33
Less Package Discount (15 %)
1 708 53,100 14,400 33
TOTALS
102,364
Special One -time offer for GUI for 15 applications.
APPLICATIONS/ SERVICE,
DESCRIPTION
1.ICE,NSE
FEES
TRAINING
IIOURS
TRAINING
COST'S
ANNUAL
SUPPORT
TRAINING
'TRIPS
TTtAININC
DAYS
COMMENT'S
Graphical User I/F - Server
30,000
0
0
0
0
0
Server Code resides on AS 400
Graphical User I /F- Client(30 user)
Client Code resides on PC workstations
SUIt- 'T'OT'ALS
42,750
1,000
6,300
1
1
Less 50% discount of GUI Server
8 1,000 1 6,300 1
TOTALS
27,750
Note : GUI server prices are based on H of applications at S2,000 ($1,000) discount. ie. if the number of
applications is reduced by 1 then reduce the total amount by $1,000.
9/23/96
Page
SARA2.XLS
City of Saratoga, CA Soliware Application Pricing Worksheet
Note I : System Training is required on every new installation. Code will be loaded for customers as well as
basic system, security, and menu training. 24 hour system hw /sw Supportline is required to guarantee
pricing. Basic Query training and menu driver training is also part of the installation. However,
additional advanced Query and advanced menu driver training is available upon request. Pricing for
these advanced classes have been quoted as optional items on the pricing form.
N
c 1 Note 2 : GMBA - An additional 2 day visit is recommended during first quarter of use.
I.. Note 3 : Purchasing - A separate 2 day visit for Bids training is more beneficial after Purchasing has been
live for 30 days. The Bids system makes heavy use of history and Commodity /Sub- Commodity files.
If end user departments are to be trained by SMI for requisition entry, a 4 hour class per department
is recommended. Maximum recommended class size is 12 students.
Note 4 : Payroll - A 2 day follow up visit for Payroll is recommended. Specific issues; Month -end, Budgeting,
integration to general ledger. If user departments are to be trained for "time- entry" a 4 hour class is
recommended for each department to he trained. Up to 12 students per 4 hour session.
Note 6 : WF - An additional visit of 2 days per department, over 4 departments is recommended.
Note 7 : LX - While LM training is substantially included in the associated application, a customer may choose
to purchase training for LX only. This is typically desirable if one department or area will be responsible
for the maintenance of the LX systems.
Note 9 : Annual support is for 8 hour a day, 5 days a week application support via the telephone. 24 hour
a day support for the system hardware and software is provided via HTE Supportline (see hardware
pricing. Annual support includes any changes to the code resulting from law changes etc, and annual
updates.
9/23/96 Page 2 SARA2.XLS
M
A
.,4
we
I
Options
H.T.E. DirectTalk/2 System
HTE System Hardware / Software
$0.00
$30,088.00
Investment Summary
Cash Receipt Stations
$6,140.00
$0.00
City of Saratoga, California
$0.00
MicroSlate Pen Based Unit
$8,185.00
9/23/96
$7,530.20
Description
Extended
Discount Net Maintenance"
$0.00
$2,000.00
Cost
Cost
Annual
AS /400 System Hardware
$55,001.00
$4,400.08 $50,600.92
$3,126.00
AS /400 System Software
$12,902.00
$928.08 $11,974.00
$500.00
Workstations
$40,855.20
$0.00 $40,855.20
$1,303.00
Network
$120.00
$0.00 $120.00
N/A
Installation and Training
$13,800.00
$0.00 $13,800.00
N/A
HTE AS /400 Support Line Services
$3,500.00
HTE Network Support Line Services
$1,500.00
................. ............................... .............................
................................................. ...............................
S stem Total
Y ........................... ...............................
2 I............................................
........ .. ..... ...................
.......... ...............................
$5;32:8:16 :::::::$X22;350:12:::::::
...............................
..............
..............
$4;929:00
Options
H.T.E. DirectTalk/2 System
$30,088.00
$0.00
$30,088.00
$4,797.60
Cash Receipt Stations
$6,140.00
$0.00
$6,140.00
$0.00
MicroSlate Pen Based Unit
$8,185.00
$654.80
$7,530.20
$769.86
Pen Based Software
$2,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$400.00
• Note / : System configurations and sizing are based on information contained in the RFP. IiTE reserves the right to make changes
to the final configuration based on further discussion and/or an on -site analysis. Prices stated are valid for 90 days from the
proposal submission date. If applicable, the prices for IBM products and services are subject to change and are submitted for
your information only. The terms and policies of the IBM Corporation govern any portion of this proposal relating to
IBM products and services.
SARATOGA.XLS
H.T.E., Inc. CONFIDENTIAL
Time 5:45 PM
SUMMARY
M
1-)
•ri
rte.,
HTE System Hardware / Software
Investment Summary
City of Saratoga, California
9/23/96
Installation and/or training prices do not include travel and living expenses. Actual travel and living expenses for
installation and/or training trips will be re- billed to the customer.
' • Note 2: The Maintenance Fees shown are for informational purposes only. Maintenance fees are payable directly to the Manufacturer
or other party providing the maintenance services. Please do not include these maintenance fees in any purchase orders or payments
sent to HTE.
SARATOGA.XLS
H.T.E., Inc. CONFIDENTIAL
Time 5:45 PM
SUMMARY
M
a...l
.rq
we
I
HTE System Hardware / Software
Financing Summary
City of Saratoga, California
9/23/96
Description Net Financing .
Cost 36 -Month 60 -Month
AS /400 System Hardware
$50,600.92
$1,514.49
$999.87
AS /400 System Software
$11,974.00
$358.38
$236.61
Workstations
$40,855.20
$1,222.80
$807.30
Network
$120.00
$3.59
$2.37
Installation and Training
$13,800.00
$413.03
$272.69
HTE AS /400 Support Line Services
$3,500.00
$104.76
$69.16
HTE Network Support Line Services
$1,500.00
$44.90
$29.64
....... ... ............. ................ ... .
.S..... X .5 ..t...e.....m....
.....: .T.....o... .t. ...I.. ..:...:..:...:...:..:..:...:..:....:...: ...:...:....:.:...:...:...:..:. ..:...:...:...:...:...:..:...:..:...:...:...:...:....:..:...:...:..:...
..........................................................................................................
.�.., .......... . ......
. ................... ..... ...
...1.:.�. .
3
..............
: .... ... . .....
� 4 ...............................
.......:..:...::..:..:.$.2...4.1.
... ....... .1...... .
:::
764::::::
Options
H.T.E. DirectTalk/2 System
$30,088.00
$900.53
$594.54
Cash Receipt Stations
$6,140.00
$183.77
$121.33
MicroSlate Pen Based Unit
$7,530.20
$225.38
$148.80
Pen Based Software
$2,000.00
$59.86
$39.52
..............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
:S:.s....._:
Y ........................... .........................$....a
,�
45 758.20 .�:::::::: *::::::::
.............................
.................
...............................
...............................
�::::::::::: 1* 69: 54::'::: ::::::::::::::::::':
.. �................ .....................�Q4...1...
...
::::::::: . . .
......
'Note: This is a preliminary Financing Analysis to be used for planning purposes only. The financing estimates utilize rates provided by
IBM Credit Corporation and in no way should be construed as an actual contract for same. An actual quote can be provided based on
the City's credit rating.
SARATOGA.XLS
H.T.E., Inc. CONFIDENTIAL
5:46 PM
FINANCING
Sep -27 -96 12:33P
Exhibit 4 -1
City of Saratoga, California- 1nForum Bid Quotation
1321 Concurrent Users
Products, Services and Equipment Pubfitbed installation, Training Total
License Fee Setup,
(support Basis) Configuration
Products:
Phase One Applications
$146185.00
-I-
$2400.00
T $2400.00
Financials (G1,AP. attwrd wing end R0goiAW,1ning,
Dudgd PrgwAim Job Caging)
$35000.00
$14400.00
SS()<1).00
$57400.00
Payroll/Benefits/Position Control
$30000.00
$9600.00
$4000.00
$43600.00
$12100.00
Fi xod Asscts
$10500.00
_
$1600.00
Business Licensing
$5500.00
$1790.00
$1650.00
$1500.00
$1600.00
$7100.00
Cash Reccipling (single station)
$10000.00
$7500.00
included
$800.00
_
$1600.00
$1600.00
$10000.00
Business Licensing
Phase 2 Applications
Work Orden, Inventory/Maintenanoe
Management, Complaints
$9100.()0
$19400.00
$13900.00
$15200.(X)
$170W.00
$11500.00
Capital Project Acoounting
$800.00
$3200.00
$1600.00
$4000.00
Permits and lnspections/Parccl Managcr
(Code Enforcement, 3 users estimated)
$8000.00
Parks and Recreation Management
$4750.00
$1600.00
. $6350.00
Services: _
Data File Conversion Services -Est LVIUM $15000. $ I SU00.00
Equipment, Third Party Applications,
Database Software, Tools:
System Admin, Setup,
$146185.00
-I-
$2400.00
T $2400.00
Informix, tools
S28400.00
$50299.00
51600.00
$51899.00
Acucobol Runtime (required for Business
Licensing and Parks application only, 8 user)
51300.00
,Informix/Tools Annual Support
$6469.W
$1300.(x)
IQ Rcport Writer (1 Administrator License,
$995 per seat) 1 Seat
$995.00
$1390.00
_
$400.00
$400,0)
$1395.00
IQ Report Writer
(Enterprise License, $695 per seat) 2 Seats
IQ Report Writer
(Personal Licensc, 5250 per scat) 5 Seats
$1790.00
$1650.00
$1500.00
$1250.00
00
$15.00
5400.00
IQ Data Dictionaries _
Other:
Travcl, Expenses -Est. -�
$146185.00
-I-
$6000.00
$102499.00
$6000.00
$277064.00
Total ^�
S28400.00
Edcn SystcrosAnnual Support @,) 15%
$21733.00
,Informix/Tools Annual Support
$6469.W
ITotal Annual Support (Approx)
I S28202.00
F- . 04
a
A
Informix Pricing
Eden Systems, by— Prepared for the City of Saratoga, California
N
Wormix Software Products
•
Intormix Software Products
Informbc Onitne Dynamic Server RT
27
1,125.00
30,375.00
Informix Onknme Dynamic Server RT
27
135.00
3,64570
-3
Informix Onlirm Dynamic Server Dev.
5
1,5.00
00
7,500.00
Informix OnWw Dynamic Server Dev.
5
180.00
900.00
�p
Informix 4GL RT
29
300.00
8,700.00
Informix RT
29
35.00
1,015.00
•�
Informix 4GL-C Dev.
3
2, 700.00
8,100.00
Informix 4GL-C Dev.
3
110.00
330.00
Informix 4GL RIDS Dav
3
900.00
2,700.00
Irrforrniz 4GL RD6 Dev
3
110.00
330.00
I?;cj
fnforrnbc 4GL- Debugger Development
1
300.00
300.00
Informix 4GL- Debugger Developmerd
1
99.00
99.00
Informbc -Net
15
100.00
1,500.00
Informix -Net
15
10.00
150.00
68,175.00
6,489.00
15% Discount
8,876
TOTAL
350296
Reflection Suite (25 Users @ $260 per user)
$6,500
Anrwal Support $975 (15 %)
ODBC Driven (25 Users @ $100 per user)
12,500
Al prices are approximate and may vary due to spacffic hardware configuration and mix of components. When final hardware configuratign is selected, I will be happy to provide you with firm oasts.
Page
Hdw & OS Exhibit 4 -3
SCO Unixware 2.1 Application Server
1
671.76
671.76
185911 -001
SCO Open Server Development Kit
1
205.00
205.00
185911 -010
SCO Unixware 2.1 25 -user license
2
516.00
1,032.00
185911 -003
SCO Unixware SMP Upgrade (3rd CPU)
1
516.00
516.00
185911 -007
SCO Unixware SMP Upgrade (4th CPU)
1
516.00
516.00
185911 -.008
128-MB Memory Expansion Kit
1
3,537.00
2,940.76
219283 -001
Hardware
Compaq 5000 Model 6/200 -1 S 200MHz
Pentium Pro CPU, 64Mb RAM, 10/100
Ethernet, CD -ROM, 256K cache, SmartArray
Controller /P,etc.
1
13,046.00
13,046.00
219200 -004
64 -MB Memory Expansion Kit
1
1,663.20
1,663.20
219282 -001
128-MB Memory Expansion Kit
1
3,537.00
3,537.00
219283 -001
Pentium Pro 200/256K kit
3
1,053.00
3,159.00
228411 -001
Dual Pentium Pro Processor Board
1
864.00
864.00
219420 -001
Compaq 4.3Gb pluggable F/W SCSI -2 disk
4
1,306.00
5,224.00
146742 -006
Compaq 171 FS Color Monitor LE, ES
1
787.00
787.00
190901 -601
4 /16- Gigabyte TurboDAT Drive
1
1,048.00
1,048.00
142181 -001
29,328.20
Grand Total 32,268.96
Page 1
OCT 1, 1996
19:03 CITY OF SARATOGA
- 7918049
PAGE 1
MONTHLY
UNIT MOL /FC
DESCRIPTION
QTY
RENTAL
PURCHASE
MAINT.
9402 -400
'LIC' SYSTEM UNIT
1 N/0
900010011
MONTHLY
95.00
i 2130
MODEL 400 PROCESSOR (32 MB)
1 NC
NO
NC
'n 2609
EIA 232/V.24,TWO -LINE ADPT
1 N/0
978.0OP
N/0
1J 2617
ETHERNET /IEEE 802.3 ADP /HP
1 N/0
2500.00P
N/0
2644
INTEGRATED FAX ADAPTER
1 N/0
3200.001,
N/0
2960
120 VOLT POWER CORD
1 NC
NO
NO
3110
64MB MAIN STORAGE
2 N/0
8320.60P
N/0
5000
TSP SPECIFY
1 HC
NO
NO
5135
FEATURE POWER SUPPLY
1 N/0
700.00P
N/0
5514
ALT IPL SPECIFY FOR 7208
1 NO
NO
NO
5590
r-ONPl FTE SYSTEM SPECIFY
! NC
NC
1;C
6390
7.OGB 8NM CART TAPE UNIT
1 N/0
6200.00P
N/0
6606
1.96GB DISK UNIT /A
3 N/0
6600.00P
N/0
7000
PANEL KEYLOCK FEATURE
1 N/0
150.00P
N/0
7108
EXPANSION GATE
1 N/0
250.0OP
N/0
9023
EIA 232/V.24 ENHANCED CABLE
3 NO
NO
NO
9172
STD MFIOP /TWINAX 14 -WS
1 NO
NO
NO
9319
STANDARD DASD PACKAGE
1 NO
NO
NO
9520
BASE CD -ROM
1 NO
NO
NO
9606
BASE DISK UNIT (1.96CB)
1 NO
NO
NO
9612
STD RS232 ONE -LINE
1 NO
NO
NO
--«
37898.00+
95.00*
9910 -867
BEST FORTRESS EXT 750 LV
1 N/0
1094.00P
MONTHLY
N/0
5000
TSP SPECIFY
1. NC
NO
NO
6610
BATTERY PACK 863/864/867/1368
1 N/0
496.00P
N10
- -*
1590.00*
- -*
7852 -40Z
7852 -400 (AS /400 TSP MODEL)
/ N/0
446.00P
MULTIPLE
5000
AS /400 TSP SPECIFY
1 NC
NO
NO
--*
446.00*
- -«
I----------------------------------------------------------------------
(UNIT MDL /FC
MAINTENANCE
PLANS
- - - - -I
IIOR
CHARGE IOE CHARGE COE
CHARGE
CCE CHARGE
OCR CHARGEI
17852 40Z
N/A 46.00A,
N/A
N/A
N/A I
I ------ - - - - --
4600-
----------------- _ ---------------------
_----------
- - - --I
OCT 1, 1996 19:03 CITY OF SARATOGA - 7918049 PAGE 2
UNIT NDL /FC DESCRIPTION
MONTHLY
QTY RENTAL
PURCHASE MAINT.
3487 -HA3
AMBER -GOLD 3 -YR WARRANTY
1
N/0
1150.00P
MULTIPLE
N
9101
122 -KEY QUIET TYPWRTR KBD
1
NC
NC
NC
9201
TILT /SWIVEL STAND
1
NC
NC
MULTIPLE
1150.006
_
______________________
________
__ ____ ______
______I
T
MDL /FC MAINTENANCE
PLANS
IOR CHARGE IOE CHARGE COE
CHARGE
CCE CHARGE
CCR CHARGEI
3:1x7
ue.i
9201
70.041! 1:: %I
N/A
N"A
I
soli A i
NC N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A j
----------------------------------------------------------------------
78.00«
- - - - -I
MONTHLY
6400 -OSZ
TSP 6400 -008 AS /400 MATRIX PRT
1
N/0
7196.00P
109.00
4830
COAX /TWINAX ATTACHMENT
1
N/0
1449.00P
N10
4860
IPDS - TWINAX ONLY
1
N/0
995.00P
N/0
5000
AS /400 TSP SPECIFY
1
NC
NC
NC
5900
AS /400 T'WINAXIAL ATT CABLE
1
NC
NC
NC
--«
9640.00«
109.00«
HARDWARE TOTALS
- -«
50724.00«
--------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- TOTALS-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
HARDWARE PURCHASE TOTAL 50724.00«
MONTHLY MAINTENANCE CHARGE TOTAL 204.00«
IOR MAINTENANCE CHARGE TOTAL 78.00«
IOE MAINTENANCE CHARGE TOTAL 46.00«
OCT 1, 1996
19:03 CITY OF SARATOGA -
7918049
PACE 4
PROGRAM FEAT
DESCRIPTION
QTY
ONE TIME
CHARGE
INITIAL
CHARGE
MONTHLY PLC ANNUAL /ALC
CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE
5716 -661
OPERATING SYSTEM /400 (R) V3
1
cn 2278
NC ENTITLED USERS IN BASE
. 1
2279
OTC U -8 (PER USER) TO 250
4
1600.00
2289
BASIC OTC PSF FAX FEAT ONLY
1
495.00
2300
PC P05 BASIC OTC
1
400.00
.n 3100
BASIC OTC PSF FEAT 1 -19 IPM
1
1995.00
3455
ISMS SERIAL NO ASCN ROC SHIP
1
3560
SHIP V3R6
5000
ROCH MFG TSP PRELOAD
1
5011
NATIVE EXECUTION ENVIRONMENT
1
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
** *PROGRAM TOTAL * **
4490.00*
5799 -XCR
P84270 PREINSTL PLANNG MANUAL
1
3440
EARLY PUBLICATIONS
1
4001
BASIC OTC
1
7504
PUBLICATION KIT
1
7589
SHIP RTF DOC SPMEM0689U
1
9001
ASSET REGISTRATION
1
*" *PROGRAM TOTAL * "*
5798 -TAY
FACSIMILE SUPPORT OS /400 V3
1
1833
PG P05 BASIC OTC
1
630.00
2924
PRIMARY ENGLISH U/L SBCS
1
3560
SHIP VERSION 3 RELEASE 6
1
5809
CD -ROM
1
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
** *PROGRAM TOTAL * **
630.00"
5716 -XA1
CLIENT ACCESS FOR OS /400 V3
1
2630
BASIC BASE OTC
1
300.00
2636
NC ENTITLED USERS IN BASE
1
2637
OTC (PER USER)
4
1200.00
2642
P05 MACHINE CROUP
1
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
"* *PROGRAM TOTAL * **
1500.00"
5716 -PM1
APP DEV TOOLSET 03/400 V3
1
1920
PG P05 BASIC OTC
1
995.00
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
** *PROGRAM TOTAL * **
995.00"
-•*
- -" -_* -."
OCT 1, 1996
19:03 CITY OF SARATOGA.-
7918049
PAGE 5
PROGRAM FEAT
DESCRIPTION
QTY
ONE TIME
CHARGE
INITIAL
CHARGE
MONTHLY
CHARGE
5716 -OCT
LANG DICTIONARIES OS /400 V3
1
0720
PC P05 BASIC OTC
I
i 9001
ASSET REGISTRATION
495.00
Lo
4.-J
*'" *PROGRAM TOTAL * "*
495.00*
- -�
- -�
.r4
16 -MP1
OFFICEVISION(TM) FOR OS /400 V3
1
2521
NC ENTITLED USERS IN BASE
1
2522
OTC U -B (PER USER)
4
1200.00
2540
PO P05 BASIC OTC
1
1295.00
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
** "PROGRAM TOTAL **"
2495.00*
- -*
- -*
5716 -QU1
QUERY FOR OS /400 V3
1
2140
PC P05 BASIC OTC
1
800.00
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
** *PROGRAM TOTAL " **
800.00*
- -*
- -«
5716 -ST1
DB2 (R) QURY MGR SQL DEV KT V3
1
2380
PC P05 BASIC OTC
1
800.00
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
** *PROGRAM TOTAL * **
800.00*
- -*
- -"
5716 -RG1
INT LANG ENV (R) RPG OS /400 V3
1
2200
PG P05 BASIC OTC
1
995.00
9001
BASIC ASSET REGISTRATION
1
** *PROGRAM TOTAL ***
995.00*
- -"
- -"
PLC ANNUAL /ALC
CHARGE CHARGE
0
--1
r
T
D
M
m
m
m
m
PLC ANNUAL /ALC
CHARGE CHARGE
---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SOFTWARE TOTALS---------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SOFTWARE TOTALS
13200.00%
MONTHLY SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE (SUPPORT LINE) TOTAL: 105.00
AS /400 Support Line (Voice /Electronic, Monthly Charge, Prime Shirt)
S
OCT
1, 1996
19:03 CITY OF SARATOGA - 7918049
PAGE 6
PROGRAM FEAT
DESCRIPTION
ONE TIME-
QTY CHARGE
INITIAL MONTHLY
CHARGE CHARGE
5755 -AS4
SYSTEM PROGRAM ORDER
1
2101
OPERATING SYSTEM /400 (SS1)
1
`n
2104
OFFICEVISION FOR 0S /400(WP1J
1
A
2105
LANG DICTNRIES 03/400 (DCT)
1
_w
2108
QUERY FOR OS /400 (QU1)
1
S DV KT s 1)
2112
IL E RPCFOROS /400(11011)
;
2126
APP DEV TOOLST OS /400 (PW1)
1
2129
TCP /IP UTILITIES (SS1)
1
2156
PERF MANAGER FOR 03 /400(SS1)
1
2180
CLNT ACC FOR OS /400 (XA1)
1
n e
a..v.
v
n0S . -' n � cYt . � YEI' . ( X i
2182
OS /2 1.3 (XA1)
1
2183
DOS (XA1)
1
2184
WINDOWS 3.1 (XA1)
1
2186
OPTIMIZED FOR OS /2 (XA1)
1
2196
WINDOWS 95 CLIENT (XA1)
1
2291
PSF /400 Al (SS1)
1
2924
PRIMARY ENGLISH U/L SBCS
1
3410
CD -ROM
1
3455
ISMS S/N ASGND; ROCH MFG SHP
1
3560
SHIP VERSION 3 RELEASE 6
1
5000
ROCH MFG TSP PRELOAD
1
5011
NATIVE EXECUTION ENVIRONMENT
1
7501
INST PUB DOS W /EXT MEM (XA1)
1
7502
INST PUB OS /2 1.3 5716 -XA1
1
7504
INST PUB WINDOWS 3.1 (XA1)
1
7507
INST PUB OPTIMZD OS /2 (XA1)
1
7523
INSTL PUB WIN95 (XA1)
1
9001
ASSET REGISTRATION
1
***PROGRAM TOTAL * **
PLC ANNUAL /ALC
CHARGE CHARGE
---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SOFTWARE TOTALS---------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SOFTWARE TOTALS
13200.00%
MONTHLY SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE (SUPPORT LINE) TOTAL: 105.00
AS /400 Support Line (Voice /Electronic, Monthly Charge, Prime Shirt)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.��
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.
DEPT. HEAD i
PREPARED BY iZJAd adQf7
SUBJECT: Award of contract for citywide street sweeping services
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to declare Green Valley Recycling of Los Gatos to be
the lowest responsible bidder for the work.
2. Move to award a contract to Green Valley Recycling in the
amount of $45,000 to provide citywide street sweeping
services through June 30, 1997.
Report Summary:
Under the provisions of the City's NPDES (Stormwater) Permit, the
City is required to perform various "Public Agency" activities to
reduce stormwater pollution from the City's public street system.
The primary activity which the City can perform to meet this
objective is street sweeping. Over the past two years, a pilot
street sweeping program has been developed by staff and gradually
expanded to a citywide program utilizing two contractors on an
interim basis. Initially, weekly sweeping of approximately 60
curb miles of major arterial and collector streets was performed.
This was then expanded to include approximately 205 curb miles of
residential streets on a quarterly basis. Based on the
experience and results obtained during the pilot program, staff
believes we are now ready to proceed with the comprehensive
program originally envisioned which continues the weekly arterial
and collector street sweeping, and increases the residential
sweeping to a monthly frequency.
In preparation for the comprehensive program, staff solicitated
proposals from interested vendors to provide the range of street
sweeping and related service needed. A copy of the solicitation
for proposals is attached (Attachment I). Four firms responded
with proposals, the comparative costs of which can be summarized
as follows:
1. Green Valley Recycling
2. Universal Sweeping Services
3. Piazza Mobil Sweeping
4. Van Herrick's
* Prices are based on unit rates for
street sweeping, monthly residential
for parking lot and other sweeping.
$63,763*
$78,936*
$85,056*
$107,414*
weekly arterial /collector
sweeping, and estimated cost
Attachment II summarizes the complete proposals received.
Attachment III includes the four proposals in their entirety.
Green Valley Recycling, the lowest bidder, is the same contractor
who provides garbage and recycling services in Saratoga. Since
Green Valley Recycling has well established routes for garbage
and recycling collection, they can schedule the street sweeping
in Saratoga to complement rather than conflict with the solid
waste collection services they are providing, thus potentially
resulting in a better coordinated, more effective, and economical
program. In addition, Green Valley Recycling has a complaint
tracking and resolution system in place which can be extended to
the street sweeping program. Lastly, Green Valley Recycling has
the ability to disseminate street sweeping information along with
information about garbage and recycling programs via inserts in
the garbage bills and through other direct mailers. In staff's
opinion, these benefits outweigh the fact that this potential
contract would be their first venture into municipal street
sweeping. However, the relative similarities between solid waste
collection operations and street sweeping lead staff to believe
that Green Valley Recycling can do the job well, particularly
given their reputation for providing high quality solid waste
collection services.
Attachment IV is the proposed street sweeping contract developed
by staff and the City Attorney. There are six exhibits to the
contract. Exhibit A defines terms, specifies the scope of
service, provides customer service guidelines, and documentation
requirements. Exhibit B summarizes the unit price for services
and payment schedule. The combined contract unit price for
sweeping is $11.15 per curb mile for arterial and residential
streets. Parking lot sweeping is included at no additional cost.
Unscheduled sweeping is $55 per hour and leaf sweeping is $85 per
hour. Exhibit C defines equipment specifications which require
the Contractor to have at least one (1) primary sweeper and one
(1) back -up sweeper in the event of mechanical failure to the
primary machine or for any additional services needed. Exhibit D
defines general provisions addressing service standards, labor
and equipment guidelines, holiday service, subcontracting,
permits and licenses, contractor's records, insurance
requirements, hold harmless, and performance bond.
Exhibit E sets forth terms for contract renewal. Exhibit F sets
forth the general standards of performance.
As stated above, staff feels confident in Green Valley's ability
and desire to provide high quality street sweeping services for
the City. Consequently, staff recommends declaring Green Valley
Recycling to be the lowest responsible bidder for the work and
awarding a standard street sweeping contract to them in the
amount of $45,000 which staff believes will be sufficient to
provide the range of services needed through June 30, 1997.
Assuming the Council concurs with the above recommendations, the
contractor has indicated that work could begin within a month.
Fiscal Impacts•
Sufficient funding for the recommended contract amount exists in
the adopted budget in Activity 28 (Stormwater Management),
Account No. 4510 (Contract Services).
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Depending on Council's action, Green Valley Recycling may not be
declared the lowest responsible bidder and the recommended
contract may not be awarded. The City Council may make specific
findings to declare another bidder to be the lowest responsible
bidder or it may reject all of the bids and direct staff
accordingly.
Follow Up Actions: The attached street sweeping contract will be
executed and Green Valley Recycling will be authorized to
proceed.
Attachments:
1. Copy of Request for Proposals (RFP).
2. Summary of Bid Proposals.
3. Original Bid Proposals.
4. Street Sweeping Contract.
Attachment I
Price Quotes needed for Street Cleaning Request for Proposal (RFP)
for the City of Saratoga:
Page 1 of 2
1. How much does it cost to sweep weekly main arteries (60 curb
miles) in Saratoga by curb miles?
2. How much does it cost to sweep quarterly city -wide residential
areas (205 curb miles)?
3. How much does it cost to sweep monthly city -wide residential
areas (205 curb miles)?
4. How much does it cost to sweep 8 times annually city -wide
residential areas (205 curb miles)?
5. How much does it cost (in lump sum) to sweep weekly 4 Village
Parking Lots (see attached map)?
6. How much does it cost to sweep once a month the Hakone Gardens
Parking Lot (please inspect parking lot to determine space - see
attached map for location)?
7. How much does it cost to sweep weekly the Hakone Gardens
Parking Lot (please inspect parking lot to determine space - see
attached map for location)?
8. How much does it cost to sweep once a month the Congress
Springs Park Parking Lot (please inspect parking lot to determine
space - see attached map for location)?
9. How much does it cost to sweep weekly the Congress Springs Park
Parking Lot (please inspect parking lot to determine space - see
attached map for location)?
10. How much does it cost to sweep weekly Saratoga City Hall
Parking Lots (please inspect parking lot to determine space - see
attached map for location)?
11. How much does it cost to sweep once a month Saratoga City Hall
Parking Lots (please inspect parking lot to determine space - see
attached map for location)?
12. How much does it cost to sweep unscheduled /emergency /special
events?
13. How much does it cost to sweep the leaf drop (once during
Fall)?
Price Quotes needed for Street Cleaning Request for Proposal (RFP)
for the City of Saratoga:
2 of 2
14. How much does it cost to have your sweeping company do public
information, i.e.: distribute sweeping calendar schedules or
newspaper advertisements (not including graphics)?
15. Please make sure that all prices include reports/ documentation
of work performed.
16. What is the age of your equipment for this job?
17. Do you have vacuum or broom equipment?
18. What speed do your machines operate at to sweep streets /parking
lots?
19. Do you have alternative fuel sweeping machines?
Attachment II
Quarterly
8 TlmesfYr.
Month)
Contractor
Total
Total
Total
Green Valley
$50,376 wee main arteries b city-wide residential total
$56,290 Ymeldy main arteries b c -wide residential total
$62,203 weekly main arteries d -wide residential total
$880 emergenc ies d
$880 emergencies 2
$880 emergencies 2 days)
$680 per day Leaf d
$680 per day leaf d
$680 per day leaf drop
$51,936 Total Annual) + ? for public Information
$67,860 Total Annually + ? for public information
$63,783 Total Armuall + ? for public Information
Piazza Mobil
$42,900 vveeldy main arteries
$42,900 weeldy main arteries
$42,900 vveeMy main arteries
$11,892 residential
$23,784 city-wide residential
$35,676 c' -wide residential
$1,600 averaged at $100 4x parldng lots 4
$3,200 averaged at $100 8x paricing lots 4
$4,800 averaged at $10012x parWng lots 4
$1,120 emergencies days)
$1,120 emergencies d
$1,120 emergencies
$560 per day leaf drop
$560 per day leaf dro
$580 per day leaf drop
$68,072 Total Annually + ? for public Information
$71,064 Total Annually + 7 public Information
$85,088 Total Annual) + ? for public Information
Universal Sweeping
$42,120 vneldy main arteries
$42,120 weeldy main arteries
$42,120 weeldy main arteries
$11,480 c' wide residential
$22,550 c' 'de residential
$33,216 c' -wide residential
$720 averaged at $45 4x parldng lots 4
$1,440 averaged at $45 8x parldng lots 4
$2,160 averaged at $4512x parldng lots 4
$980 emergencies 2 d
$960 emerg encies 2 d
$960 eme encies 2 d
$480 per leaf dro
$480 r leaf d
$480 per leaf drop
$1511,760 Total Mnuall + ? for public Information
$67,650 Total Annually + ? for public Information
$78,936 Total Annually + ? for public information
Van HerrlcWs
$49,036 weeldy main arteries
$49,036 weeldy main arteries
$49,036 weeldy main arteries
$16,828 cijWy ide residential
$34,656 -wide residential
$39,852 c' -wide residential
$2,032 averaged $127 4x parldng lots 4
$4,064 averaged at $127 8x parldng lots 4
$6,096 averaged at $127 12x parldng Iota 4
$1,664 emerge ies d
$1,664 emerg encies d
$1,664 emergencies days)
$10,766 per leaf dro
$10,766 per leaf drop
$10,766 per leaf drop
$80,328 Total Annually + ? for public Information
$100,186 Total Annually + ? for public Information
1$107,414 Total Annually + ? for public Information
Attachment III
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC.
573 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1227 • LOS GATOS, CA 95031 -1227 • PHONE (408) 354 -2100
August 16, 1996
Jennie Hwang Loft
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Re: Saratoga Street Sweeping
Dear Ms. Loft:
Thank you for the opportunity to bid the street sweeping project for the City of Saratoga. Green Valley has
proudly provided the City of Saratoga with solid waste and recycling services for the last 30 plus years. Green
Valley knows Saratoga's residents, their needs, and their expectations. We have a proven record of
outstanding customer satisfaction in all the services we provide.
Though street sweeping will be a new venture for us, we are confident we will provide the level of service the
residents and the City have come to expect from Green Valley. Having garbage, recycling, yardwaste, and
street sweeping performed by Green Valley will provide the City with the advantage of one -stop shopping, in
order to facilitate efficient contract management.
Residential and Arterial Swee *
The following matrix will provide you with all the prices asked for in your list of questions #1 thru 12.
Please note that the overall price includes once a week sweeping of all the parking lots listed in your request
for proposal (Congress Springs Park, Hakone Gardens, Saratoga City Hall, and the four Villiage parking lots).
All reports /documentation required by the City of Saratoga are included in the listed prices.
As we discussed on the telephone, the costs per mile varies within the type of service, depending on the
frequency of residential sweeping. Our costs assume that the contract awarded will contain both residential
and arterial curb miles, at a selected frequency for residential curb miles. Therefore, the significant cost is the
overall cost per mile, and the total cost of the program.
Cost per curb mile/ Overall cost of program:
RESIDENTIAL SWEEPING
TYPE OF SERVICE QUARTERLY 8 TIMES/YR MONTHLY
60 curb miles arterial (weekly)
$11.64
$10.24
$9.22
205 curb miles residential (as listed)
$17.14
$14.84
$13.60
Overall combined cost per mile
$12.79
$11.83
$11.15
Total annual cost of program
$50,376
$56,290
$62,203
Leaf Drop Collection and Swee -g
Because of the unspecified number of curb miles to be cleaned and swept for leaf drop season, Green Valley
proposes to charge a per day fee of $675.00. This fee is based upon Green Valley using two pieces of
equipment, a tractor to push and collect leaves, and a sweeper to follow. Green Valley experience indicates
that this method increases the quality of service and creates efficiencies, allowing more curb miles to be done
in one day.
Public Information
Green Valley will distribute information to the public (sweeping schedules) as a supplement in the quarterly
solid waste bills, along with information about garbage and recycling.
Should the City desire a direct mailer, the cost will be $0.50 per piece. Green Valley's data base has
Approximately 9,250 homes.
Because advertisements in the newspaper are based on the size and frequency, Green Valley will pass through
any costs associated with newspaper advertisements.
Equipment
Green Valley will purchase a new, or like -new, regenerative air sweeper for the City of Saratoga. The
operator will sweep at a speed which is safe for the conditions (time of day, weather, traffic, etc. all dictate the
rate at which the operator will travel).
Green Valley will evaluate the possibility of using an alternative fuel sweeping machine.
Green Valley looks forward to working with the City of Saratoga in creating a high quality, efficient, and cost
effective street sweeping program.
Please give me a call at (408) 354 -2100 with any questions.
Sincerely,
�A� -A2
Phil Couchee
8 •� k4 _
oe '} A GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC.
573 UNIVERSITY AVE. • P.O. BOX 1227 • LOS GATOS, CA 95031 -1227 • PH: (4081354-2100 FAX: (4081 354-2101
o�sp°sP`' FaX
Memorandum
Date: August 29, 1996
To: Jennie Loft
From: Phil Couch
Re: Street Sweeping
Pages: Including cover sheet
The following are answers to your questions:
1) Cost of Parking Lots - As I mentioned to you on the telephone, although there is some cost of
providing service to the designated parking lots, Green Valley will provide that service as part of
the cost given in the initial bid. There will be no additional cost for providing this parking lot
service, however, there will be no reduction in price should the City choose not to provide this
service.
2) Documentation- I have reviewed the Universal Sweeping Services report for the City of San
Jose sent to me. Green Valley will provide similar information regarding volumes and weights (if
a box at the corporation yard is designated for street sweeping), public education, field conditions,
and other pertinent information.
3) Emergency Services - Green Valley will provide emergency services to the City of Saratoga for
$55.00 per hour.
4) Start Date - As I indicated in our proposal, Green Valley will be purchasing a piece of
equipment to serve Saratoga. Knowing that it will. take time to. formafte'a contract, Green Valley
will need 4 weeks to obtain equipment from the time The City of Saratoga gives us some type of
commitment, or mutual understanding that a signed contract is being developed.
I hope I have answered your questions.
MPrimed on Recycled Paper
TOTAL P.01
Universal Sweeping Services
1 of 2
CITY OF SARATOGA
PRICE QUOTES FOR RSS AND PARKING LOT
1 - COST TO SWEEP WEEKLY THE MAIN ARTERIES [ 60 MILES ]
MONTHLY COST = $ 3,483.00
13.50 @ 60 @ 4.3 WEEKS
2- COST TO SWEEP QUARTERLY RESIDENTIAL [ 205 MILES ]
MONTHLY COST = $ 956.66
14.00 @ 205 = $ 2870.00 DIVIDED BY THREE
3 - COST TO SWEEP MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL [ 205 MILES ]
MONTHLY COST = $ 2767.50
13.50 @ 205=
4- COST TO SWEEP RESIDENTIAL 8 TIMES PER YEAR [ 205 ]
MONTHLY COST = $ 1879.16
13.75 @ 205 = 2818.75 @ 8 = 22,550.00 DIVIDED @ 12
5- COST TO SWEEP 4 VILLAGE PARKING LOTS
MONTHLY COST $ 301.00
6- COST TO SWEEP HAKONE GARDENS 1TM
MONTHLY COST $ 52.50
7- COST TO SWEEP HAKONE GARDENS WEEKLY
MONTHLY COST $ 150.50
8- COST TO SWEEP CONGRESS SPRINGS 1TM
MONTHLY COST $ 20.00
9- COST TO SWEEP CONGRESS SPRINGS WEEKLY
MONTHLY COST $ 86.00
10- COST TO SWEEP CITY HALL WEEKLY
MONTHLY COST $ 193.50
11- COST TO SWEEP CITY HALL 1TM
MONTHLY COST $ 52.50
universal Sweeping Services
2 of 2
12 - COST FOR EMERGENCY /SPECIAL/UNSCHEDULED
HOURLY COST $ 60.00 WITH A 3 HOUR MINIMUM
13 - COST FOR LEAF DROP ONCE PER YEAR
COST 1TY = $ 60.00 per hour
14 - PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED RE: PUBLIC INFORMATION
15 - PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED RE: PUBLIC INFORMATION
16 - AGE OF EQUIPMENT
1992 SWEEPRITE BROOM
1991 AAPLEX AIR STREET SWEEPER
1987 MOBILE STREET SWEEPER
1988 TEMCO AIR STREET SWEEPER
17 - AS NOTED ABOVE WE HAVE ALL TYPES OF EQUIPMENT
18 - DEPENDS ON THE TERRAIN BUT THE AVERAGE IS BETWEEN 5 AND
7 MILES PER HOUR
19- YES WE ALSO HAVE MOBIL EQUIPMENT SETUP WITH PROPANE
■v
//lOWG s
P&ffa admapzwf
P.O. BOX 418
SAN MAKnN, CA 95046
(408) 683 -2488
TO: CITY OF SARATOGA 8/16/96
FROM:PIAZZA MOBIL SWEEPING
SUBJ:PROPOSAL REQUEST
CITY OF SARATOGA;
LISTED BELOW IS THE ANSWERS TO THE 19 QUESTIONS ASKED
OF US IN YOUR REQUEST DATED 8/5/96.
1. $13.75 PER CURB MILE
2. $14.50 PER CURB MILE
3. $14.50 PER CURB MILE
4. $14.50 PER CURB MILE
5. $255.00 AIR BACK PACK OR $115.00 SWEEP ONLY
6. $145.00 AIR BACK PACK OR $100.00 SWEEP ONLY
7. $145.00 AIR BACK PACK OR $100.00 SWEEP ONLY
8. $130.00 AIR BACK PACK OR $100.00 SWEEP ONLY
9. $130.00 AIR BACK PACK OR $100.00 SWEEP ONLY
10. $145.00 AIR BACK PACK OR $100.00 SWEEP ONLY
11. $145.00 AIR BACK PACK OR $100.00 SWEEP ONLY
12. $70.00 PER HOUR
13. $70.00 PER HOUR
P.O. BOX 418
SAN MARTIN, CA 95046
(408) 683 -2488
1/ ' z
INTIA101, 1)<r14104 LANDSCAII
AND COMM ICIAL SW1111N0
PRICE SHEET FOR THF. CITY OF SARATOGA STREET CLEANING
1. To sweep main arteries weekly in Saratoga, $15,72 per curb mile.
2. To sweep city wide residential areas quarterly, $20.52 per curb mile.
3. To sweep city wide residential areas monthly, $16.20 per curb mile.
4. To sweep city wide residential areas eight times annually, $21.13 per curb mile.
5. To sweep four Village Parking Lots weekly, $232.37 per time.
6. To sweep the Hakone Gardens Parking Lot once a month, S 126.75 per time.
7. To sweep Hakone Gardens Lot weekly, $84.50 per time.
8. To sweep the Congress Springs Parking Lot once a month, $84.50 per time.
9. To sweep the Congress Springs Parking Lot weekly, $63.37 per time.
10. To sweep Saratoga City Hall Parking Lots weekly, $84.50 per time.
11. To sweep Saratoga City Hall Parking Lot once a month, $106.27 per time.
12. To sweep unscheduled/emerrgency /special events, $104.00 per hour.
13. To sweep the leaf drop once during Fall, $10,765.62 per time.
14. To distribute public information, i.e., sweeping calendar schedules or newspaper
advertisements, $ 0,46 per Residence/Business.
15. Prices include reports and documentation.
854 Williarns Street • San Leandro, Califomia 94577 • 510.667.3700 • Fax 510.667.3711
Mem1wm of, Interior I'lantxape Assoelatlon. Msmiared 13nd%calx Conlmdors or America and Building owners. Managers and Associmes AssrKialion
M aldquartem in Gardena. CA 800.924.5329 • Sacramento 916.649.9996
G SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� l� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 6, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described
Property to be a Public Nuisance and Setting Public Hearing
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution.
Report Summary:
The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's
annual weed abatement program administered by the County Fire Marshal.
The County has determined that the parcels in Saratoga on the attached list
have excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious or
dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the public
hearing for weed -- December 4 this year.
Fiscal Impacts:
None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion
of fee charged to property owners.
Follow Up Actions:
The County sends the owners of the parcels notices informing them that the
weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County; when County
abatement will commence; and how they may present any objections at the
public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspapers as well.
After the public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering
abatement on properties whose owners did not object or whose objections the
Council felt were invalid. The final steps take place next summer, when
the County presents the Council with a list of properties whose abatement
bills have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections,
passes a resolution declaring liens on those properties.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Weed abatement could not be performed by the County. It would be necessary
to depend upon property owners to take care of their own abatement.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
_^ p 21
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. c2' I / J
AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing placement of stop
signs at Bohlman Rd. /Oak St. /Sixth St. intersection and
on St Charles St. at Oak St.
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution designating the
intersection of Bohlman Rd. /Oak St. /Sixth St. as a three -way stop
intersection.
2. Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing the
installation of a stop sign on St. Charles St. at Oak St.
Report Summary:
Attached are two Motor Vehicle Resolutions which, if adopted,
would authorize the placement of stop signs at two intersections
near one another.
The first Resolution designates the intersection of Bohlman
Rd. /Oak St. /Sixth St. as a three way stop intersection.
Presently, only traffic on Sixth St. is required to stop when
approaching the intersection. During the recent Pavement
Management Program work, the intersection was improved and
realigned to enhance its overall safety. Stop signs were added
on Bohlman Rd. and Oak St. to extend right -of -way control to all
three approaches to primarily counter the tendency of motorists
to accelerate on the Bohlman Rd. approach, and to improve safety
for residents in the immediate vicinity of the intersection to
get into and out of their driveways and for visitors entering and
exiting Madronia Cemetery.
The second Resolution authorizes the placement of a stop sign on
St. Charles St. at its intersection with Oak St. to assign right -
of -way control for the minor street intersecting with the major
street. The unusual horizontal and vertical alignment of the
intersection, its proximity to the Saratoga Elementary School,
and the fact that a stop sign already exists at the opposite end
of St. Charles St. at its intersection with Sixth St., all
justify the placement of this stop sign.
i
The above stop signs were installed on an interim basis
approximately one month ago. Reaction from the public has been
favorable and both staff and the Sheriff's deputies believe the
signs are working well, serving their intended purposes, and
should be retained on a permanent basis. Adoption of the two
Motor Vehicle Resolutions is necessary to authorize this, and to
validate enforcement of the stop signs.
Fiscal Impacts:
Approximately $500 was expended in labor and materials to install
the new stop signs.
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact:
The residents in the immediate vicinity of the Bohlman /Oak /Sixth
intersection were consulted with during the re- design of the
intersection. Nothing additional was done for the St. Charles
St. stop sign.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Either or both of the Resolutions would not be adopted which
would result in the removal of some or all of the new stop signs.
Follow Up Actions:
Nothing required.
Attachments:
1. MV Resolution designating Bohlman /Oak /Sixth intersection as a
three -way stop intersection.
2. MV Resolution authorizing placement.of stop sign on St.
Charles St. at Oak St.
e
r
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITE
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Report on emergency purchase - $11,800 construction
contract to L & L Construction Co. of Antioch, CA for
repair of Damon Lane retaining wall
Recommended Motion(s):
Receive report as information.
Report Summary:
Section 2- 45.070(c) of the Municipal Code requires emergency
purchases in excess of $5,000 to be reported at the next regular
City Council meeting after the purchase is made.
On October 18, Purchase Order No. 17358 in the amount of $11,800
was issued to L & L Construction of Antioch, CA, to complete
emergency repairs of a retaining wall along Damon Lane in Tract
No. 6701 below the property at 13970 Albar Court. The wall had
become stressed beyond its original design due to activation of a
landslide above the wall and was in imminent danger of collapse.
As a precautionary measure, Damon Lane was closed to traffic and
will remain closed until completion of the repairs.
Prior to issuance of the Purchase Order, staff solicited bids
from three qualified contractors to perform the work. A summary
of the bids received is as follows:
L & L Construction $ 11,800
Alpha -Geo Services, Inc. $ 12,900
Sunstone Construction $ 70,000 to replace the entire
wall with a Helix pier wall
The decision to issue the Purchase Order to L & L Construction
was made after careful review of their proposed repair scheme by
the City's Plan Check Engineer. A no fee building permit was
issued to the contractor on October 21. As of October 31, the
repair is roughly half finished, and should be complete by
November 15. Simultaneously with the repair of the wall, the
owner of the property above the wall has initiated a repair of
the landslide on his property. This too should be complete by
mid - November.
IV
Fiscal Impacts:
Sufficient funds for the repair exist in Capital Project No. 9703
(Emergency Hillside Road Repair). Recall that Tract No. 6701 is
one of the four hillside subdivisions in which the property
owners participated in the establishment of the Hillside Road
Repair Fund, (Fund 16).
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
N /A.
Follow Up Actions:
None.
Attachments:
1. Municipal Code Section 2- 45.070(c).
2. Proposal from L & L Construction.
2- 45.060
The appropriate account and funds shall be encumbered
immediately after the issuance of the purchase order.
2- 45.070 Authorization for purchase orders
and contracts; emergencies.
(a) The Purchasing Officer is hereby authorized to
issue purchase orders and award contracts for supplies
or services where the cost thereof does not exceed Five
Thousand Dollars.
(b) Contracts or purchase orders for supplies or servic-
es involving a cost in excess of Five Thousand Dollars
must be approved or awarded by the City Council.
(c) Notwithstanding Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
Section or any other provision of this Article, the Pur-
chasing Officer may purchase supplies or services having
a cost in excess of Five Thousand Dollars in the event
of emergency requiring the immediate preservation of
the public peace, health or safety, and precluding action
by the City Council. In such instances, the Purchasing
Officer shall submit to the City Council at its next suc-
ceeding meeting a written report describing the circum-
stances of the emergency, the supplies or services pur-
chased, and the cost thereof.
2- 45.080 Use of brand names.
(a) Brand name or equal specifications may be used
when the Purchasing Officer determines that:
(1) No other design or performance specification or
products list is available; or
(2) Time does not permit the preparation of another
form of purchase description which does not include a
brand name specification; or
(3) The nature of the product or the nature of the City's
requirements makes use of a brand name or equal specifi-
cation suitable for the procurement; or
(4) Use of a brand name or equal specification is in
the City's best interests.
(b) Brand name or equal specifications shall state that
substantially equivalent products to those designated will
be considered for award.
(c) Where a brand name or equal specification is used
in a solicitation, the solicitation shall contain explanatory
language that the use of a brand name is for the purpose
of describing the standard of quality, performance and
characteristics desired and is not intended to limit or
restrict competition.
2- 45.090 Basis of award.
(a) Purchases of supplies or services will be made
on the basis of the bid or bids most advantageous to the
City. In addition to price, the criteria for determining the
24
most advantageous bid shall include, but not be limited
to the following:
(1) Compliance with the bid specifications.
(2) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to
perform the contract or provide the supplies or services
required.
(3) The ability of the bidder to perform the contract
or provide the supplies or services promptly, or within
the time specified, without delay or interference.
(4) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment,
experience, and efficiency of the bidder.
(5) The quality of the bidder's performance on previous
purchases or contracts with the City.
(6) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder
with the ordinances of the City.
(7) The sufficiency of the bidder's financial resources
to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services
required.
(8) The quality, availability and adaptability of the
supplies or services to the particular use required.
(9) The ability of the bidder to provide future main-
tenance, repair parts and services for the use of the sup-
plies purchased.
(10) The number and scope of conditions attached
to the bid.
(b) Where a formal competitive bidding procedure
is required and the contract is not awarded to the bidder
offering the lowest price, the Purchasing Officer shall
prepare and place on file with the records of such contract
a written statement of the reasons for the award. Such
statement shall be open to public inspection.
245.095 Recycled paper.
(a) The Purchasing Officer shall establish and maintain
procedures and specifications for the purchase of paper
and paper products which give preference, whenever
feasible, to the purchase of recycled paper, and paper
products containing recycled paper.
(b) The Purchasing Officer shall purchase recycled
paper and paper products, instead of unrecycled paper
and paper products, whenever such recycled paper and
paper products are available at no more than the total
cost of unrecycled paper and paper products, and when
fitness and quality are equal.
(c) The Purchasing Officer may provide a preference
to the suppliers of recycled paper or paper products equal
to five percent of the lowest bid or price quoted by
suppliers offering unrecycled paper or paper products.
(d) The term "recycled paper," as used in this Section,
shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 10391
of the State Public Contract Code.
I
L, � L ('UN I'1 f;L C T ION
P.U.13OX 1 -1 -1
ANTIOCH. CALIFORNIA
91509
OCT. 01. 1996
' 1. '. -•.. '��. ... -
.r
1, N' L CONSTRUCTION WILL SUPPLY LABOR, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL
SPECIFIED TO DO THE TASK AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSION
AT ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 94509.
11,800.00
IIh1:;:11�DUli \ OF PAYMENTS.
TWIT :NTY FIVF PERCENT: MOBILIZATION NET START OF WORK:
"'Y PERCENT: ON COMPLETION OF 25% OF WORK:
SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT: ON COMPLETIQN OF 75% OF WORK:
1) ATE : /0- - 9�_ DATE: Ay I& l9&
L & L CONSTRUCTION
#%0lNSTR.
1) MASONRY INTERLOCKING BLOCK AT A
HEIGHT OF NOT MORE THAN FOUR FEET.
2) REBAR WILL BE # 4 ( V2
A) VERTICAL REBAR ON 32" CENTERS.
B) HORIZONTAL REBAR ON 12" CENTERS.
3) CONCRETE WILL BE FOUR SACK MIX.
4) BASE (FOOTING) AS PER DRAWING.
5) PERFORATED DRAINPIPE WITH DRAIN ROCK
WILL BE PLACED BEHIND WALL.
y 04%02/19 05:35 a 2805222
e *4
wa
(to rE)e L-o v Nv
i
GONT ,
-� :.
I
ell
I �Z°
{2 rcTP� I N t N G j\A pA S DN `( U-, L L—
F.01
{
J
o' t
I
12
t
N,TS•.