25A - Laserfiche WebLink

utilized for the water reservoir project (thus providing some economy-of-scale to the City with Tetra Tech managing two projects at once here in the City), their familiarity with the project details (they also designed this new reservoir), and recent competitive design and construction management proposals Tetra Tech has provided to the City, staff recommends that Tetra Tech Inc. be selected to provide the construction management and specialty inspection services for this reservoir project. The Tetra Tech proposal also includes, as a subconsultant, a geotechnical consultant (soils engineering and testing) that will be supervising the earthwork required for the reservoir and access road. The geotechnical work was bid and we received two proposals for this project. The City did choose to include the geotechnical firm with the most responsive and competitive proposal for this work. Staff therefore recommends that the City enter into an amendment to the existing construction management contract with Tetra Tech, Inc. to provide $85,600 of construction management services, $307,500 in specialty inspection services and $111,900 in geotechncial services (totaling $505,(00) and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment to provide these services to construct the new reservoir and rough-graded access road. Budj:(et A VCSP Financing Program was approved by City Council on March 7, 2000. The Financing Program envisioned that the first VCSP developers would .fund the realigned Vineyard A venue, as well as the core sewer system facilities and core water pipelines in the new road, and that the City would provide the fInancing (as a loan from its Water Expansion and/or Replacement Funds) to construct the remaining water facilities within the Vineyard Corridor. The Financing Program envisioned that as development occurred (either residential, the planned school site or the planned City park site), the first developers within the SpecifIc Plan area would either build infrastructure or pay fees for the cost to construct infrastructure, and to the extent the cost of infrastructure exceeded a developer's pro rata share, reimbursement to that developer would come from later developers. The Financing Program states, however, that the City-fInanced portions of infrastructure -- the water facilities (which even at that time were envisioned to be signifIcant due to the water needs of the planned City park site within the VCSP) -- would be the last to be reimbursed from SpecifIc Plan fees. Consequently, the Financing Program recognized that for the City to be fully reimbursed for its expenditures beyond its pro-rata share of its SpecifIc Plan obligation, all anticipated development within the Corridor would have to occur. The development of the VCSP area, however, did not proceed as the Financing Program envisioned. Residential development was delayed and the Pleasanton Unified School District and the City (by funding Signature Properties' share of roadway costs since Signature's SR 06:152 Page 7 of 13