HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-1117 Documents Submitted at Meeting
"fa" CC
` /4C& Il147l0
g
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Award of Engineering Services for the Jefferson Ave. Extension (Brammo) Project
(AMENDED November 16, 2009)
Meeting Date: November 17, 2009. Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412
Department: Public Works E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Mike Faught
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will the Council approve an engineering services contract with KAS & Associates, Inc. in the amount
of $28,425 to complete the preliminary engineering and provide construction engineering services for
the Jefferson Avenue Extension (Brammo) project?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve an engineering services contract with KAS & Associates,
Inc. in the amount of $28,425 to complete the preliminary engineering and provide construction
engineering services for the Jefferson Avenue Extension (Brammo) project.
Background:
Executive Summary
On February 7, 2007 a special public works fund of $900,000 was authorized through the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) to fund the construction of the
extension of Jefferson Avenue to provide services and access to the proposed Brammo Motorsport
facility. The fund is a $500,000 loan and a $400,000 grant and is detailed under Contract No. B06003,
a copy of which is attached. Under this agreement the City is listed as the borrower, but the economic
development is dependent upon the construction of the Brammo Motorsport facility owned by Craig
Bramscher.
The City's original contract with Craig Bramscher required that Mr. Bramscher deliver the fully
designed and permitted project to the City whereby the City would bid the work as a standard public
works construction project. All permits, plans, specifications and contract documents were to have
been provided by professional consultants under contract with Mr. Bramscher. Unfortunately, this
work is still not complete and since the OECDD agreement requires that the project proceed
expeditiously, there is concern that the funding might be lost if the project is not fast-tracked.
Prior to this date, the professional engineer and other consultants have been under the employ of Mr.
Bramscher and not the City of Ashland. In order to acquire the control needed to expedite this project
it is necessary that the City employ KAS & Associates directly. Other consultants including Polaris
Land Surveying LLC and Laurie Sager and Associates Landscape Architects, Inc. would be included
in the contract as sub-consultants to KAS & Associates, Inc., but would not be directly employed by
the City.
Page I of 5
GApub-wrks\eng\05- 10 Jefferson St Extension\adm\05-10 CC KAS Contract Brammo amended 11 16 09.doc
11FAW,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
History
The history of the Brammo,Motorsport LLC project is a long and includes the following milestones.
• February 26, 2007: Financial Assistance Award Contract No. B06003 for interim financing was
approved by OECDD.
• September 10. 2007: Contract No. B06003 was amended to revise the development schedule.
• April 11, 2006: The request for annexation, comprehensive plan and zoning map change for
the 8.43 acre parcel owned by Craig Bramscher was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission under Planning Action No. 2006-00366.
• May 16, 2006: The request for annexation, comprehensive plan and zoning map changes was
approved by the Council.
• December 12.2006: The Planning Commission approved a modification of the site review for
the industrial building under Planning Action No. 2006-02241.
• April 23.2008: Planning Action No. 2008-00599 approved a request for a partition of the
Bramscher property creating the Jefferson Avenue right of way and two lots.
• December 19.2008: An application was made to DEQ for a 12000 permit under the NPDES
requirements.
• April 24, 2009: The land partition plat creating the Jefferson Avenue right of way was
recorded.
• October 19, 2009: An application was made for a combined DSL/Corp of Engineers permit for
work within a riparian way.
Project Description
The project approved under the OCEDD agreement is for the extension of Jefferson Avenue. Currently
Jefferson Avenue exists as two "dead end" sections of street connecting to Washington Street. To
connect the two existing sections would require a 606 foot long extension which would necessitate .
crossing Knoll Creek. The proposed crossing will be accomplished through the construction of a large
multi-plate arch structure with an improved native bottom. The improvements will also include
concrete curbs and gutters, sidewalks, asphalt street surface, water and sewer mains, a storm drain
system with filtration treatment and electrical and related dry utilities including street lights.
Related City Policies:
The Council acts as the Local Contract Review Board, under authority granted by ORS 279A.025,
279C.335, 279A.060 and 279A.065 as well as AMC Ordinance No. 2933. Under AMC 2.52
Engineering Services are deemed personal services with contacts subject to formal competitive
selection procedures. Personal services providers are selected differently than for construction
contracts which are based solely on the lowest bid price. Although the cost of services can be
considered in the screening criteria for personal service providers, the following criteria bear equal or
greater weight:
A. Specialized experience in the type of work to be performed.
B. Capacity and capability to perform the work, including any specialized services within the
time limitations for the work.
Page 2 of 5
GApub-wrks\eng\05-10 Jefferson St Extension\adm\05-10 CC KAS Contract Brammo amended 11 16 09.doc
Ir,
s
CITY OF
ASHLAND
C. Educational and professional record, including past record of performance on contracts with
governmental agencies and private parties with respect to cost control, quality of work,
ability to meet schedules, and contract administration, where applicable.
D. Availability to perform the assignment and familiarity with the area in which the specific
work is located, including knowledge of designing or techniques peculiar to it, where
applicable.
E. Cost of the services.
F. Any other factors relevant to the particular contract.
The rules for the actual selection of personal service providers are found in 2.52.070 Selection Process:
A. For personal service contracts that exceed $5,000, but do not exceed $50,000, at least three
competitive written proposals from prospective contractors who shall appear to have at least
minimum qualifications for the proposed assignment, shall be solicited. Each solicited
contractor shall be notified in reasonable detail of the proposed assignment. Any or all
interested prospective contractors may be interviewed for the assignment by an appropriate
City employee or by an interview committee. The Department Head for the department that
needs the services shall award the contract to the prospective consultant whose proposal
will best serve the interests of the City, taking into account all relevant criteria found in
Section 2.52.060. The Department Head shall make written findings justifying the basis for
the award and retain such records as required by AMC 2.50.110.
B. For personal service contracts that will cost $50,000 or more, the Department Head shall
award the contract based on AMC 2.50.090.
C. The City official conducting the selection of a personal service contact shall negotiate a
contract with the best qualified offeror for the required services at a compensation
determined in writing to be fair and reasonable
It is not always possible to fit each contract into the standard contract mold and the proposed
acquisition of the KAS-contract is one that defies conventional programs. Exemptions to the standard
formal selection process are provided for these situations as set forth in AMC 2.52.050 as follows:
A. The contract has a total value of less than $5,000 provided it is memorialized by a formal
purchase order. A personal service contract awarded under this section may be amended to
exceed $5,000 only upon approval of the Public Contracting Officer, and in no case may exceed
$6,000. A personal service contract may not be artificially divided or fragmented.
B. Contract amendments, which in the aggregate change the original contract price or alters
the work to be performed, may be made with the contractor if such change or alteration is less
than twenty-five (25%) of the initial contract and are subject to the following conditions:
1. The original contract imposes binding obligation on the parties covering the terms and
conditions regarding changes in the work; or
2. The amended contract does not substantially alter the scope or nature of the project;
Page 3 of 5
G:\pub-wrks\eng\05-10 Jefferson St Extension\adm\05-10 CC KAS Contract Brammo amended 11 16 09.doc
!r,
r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
C. The Department Head finds, in writing and at his or her discretion, that there is only one
person or entity within a reasonable area that can provide services of the type and quality
required.
D. The contract is subject to selection procedures established by the State or Federal
government.
E. The contract is for non-routine or non-repetitive type legal services outside the Legal
Department.
F. The contract is for an emergency as defined in AMC 2.50.080 and the procurement
procedure set forth in AMC 2.50.080 is complied with for awarding an emergency contract.
Approving authority is found under Paragraph C above and is supported as follows:
• Working under contract with Craig Bramscher, KAS & Associates has developed plans
which are 95% compete and specifications that are approximately 75 % complete, but
the project is stalled.
• The OCEDD contract requires that the project be developed expeditiously and further
delay may put the grant and loan in jeopardy.
• Since KAS has developed the plans and specifications while under contract with
Bramscher, the City has no rights to the work completed thus far. It would not be
possible to seek another firm to complete the work that KAS has started as KAS has no
obligation to give the plans and specifications to another firm nor can the City require
i
them to do so.
0 The only way in which a new firm could be selected would be for that firm to start from
the beginning and design the project with their own staff. This would be fiscally
irresponsible as a contract for the full project would likely cost $75,000 or more.
• The most problematic outcome of starting the engineering over is the time factor. It is
estimated that it could take as much as six months to bring the project to a bid ready
state as opposed to 30 days under a contract with KAS.
To move this project forward in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost requires that the City enter
into a contract with KAS & Associates, Inc. The funding established through the OCEDD grant and
loan is sufficient to cover this additional cost and the City will seek reimbursement from the OCEDD
funds for all expenditures.
Council Options:
• Council may approve the attached contract with KAS & Associates, Inc. to complete the
preliminary engineering and provide engineering services for the Jefferson Avenue Extension
Project.
■ Council may revise the scope of services to be provided by KAS & Associates, Inc.
■ Council may reject the contract with KAS & Associates, Inc. and request proposals for the
required engineering services or continue to work under the existing Bramscher contracts.
Page 4 of 5
GApub-wrks\eng\05-10 Jefferson St Extension\adm\05-10 CC KAS Contract Brammo amended 11 16 09.doc .
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
• Move to approve the attached contract with KAS & Associates, Inc.
• Move to modify the contract with KAS & Associates, Inc.
• Move to reject the contract with KAS & Associates, Inc.
Attachments:
■ Site Map
• OCEDD Contract No. B06003
• Proposed City of Ashland contract with KAS & Associates, Inc.
Page 5 of 5
G:\pub-wrks\eng\05-10 Jefferson St Extension\adm\05-10 CC KAS Contract Brammo amended It 16 09.doc
ff7FlAFK
11 IN 11 11
11 11 k
rv °c
'Z E
c
a
c
Now
11 ol 11 INN]
n
a° o o`
a
1c 20 m
11 owl 11 11 11
25 3 am
0 c a m
c 9
c c
m
m E
c v` E
o ° °u
9 E ~
°m E °m m ~
3 ¢
9 a m~
m
O a 9 m
Em
o U U c ~ 4 ~ ~
q n Y U
v ri a a 0 u E m Em
E c
°q m
c W ^ a a 0. 0 e E E
c° i q
U$ U 3 a g E ^ Q
m> `n E g 0 D A Q o o Y U c j m
m W m E 3 c
oa u I m E
o 'u ^ ¢ W ' c m °m c W i
> 00
00
^ q ^ G .OC 0 9 mm Q p Y 9 E G W t Y y
°0 9 m 8° °u a °m ° m a ao 9 q L am : E o
Q E g E g c e L m E c o A u c o o o E
p 9 a y i E n o ^ e° n m- c ° o °a ^ °m
E a E q °m y@ m e u W ° ° c w s q t t 9 ° O n n
-^W a m a 8 m o a `m E a E °m £ ° 9 a_
q u a « o 'a
c S E c n m o o q Y m of
c c r 'O-
-0 n 3 E o1= ° 'o m c c E 5 c° c` a o E E CE 0
q m O E 3 r 2 K W V q Q o m C 9 m O O m q
CF > a E u ^ ^ 9m ; S m n u u E o E u m v m U. c E E
.8 E o m m p_ y°~ E c-1 V _ ° o E U E m E E
m G Q Y E ¢ L C pV O O V C r EE
O a C m 6 m Om q C q ° ^ m 'o' > 'J C L o m A 0 c m U
E m L° n °m E n C o m u L ^ « 0 y f
m o m o 3 0 ^ o e•^-a'. c y ? w ^ m a u E 3 ° E a
o U n
YC_ a c c° w u °c ° a o; ° c « E ` 5 a E o D y u oc
m ^ OiC q V= ° C O U Y O 9 i
« o Q
O C C C « O
p T 19 W C 6 9 9 p ^ O 6 L W m W V W O_
p0 V O y m C m a 0 L rm « C W Y
m t O° ^1 ° q° C c c O 9 p m O V c C > > c c c C q L
^ p g O C O 6 O q O O O O 9 O O ° 0 O O O O O e W K
0 u T T m T W U u 9 u L C O fl p ^ b u U u u u y L' C °
6 W p W O W g q D C C C m C O C C C C C ^ q p b
m o o a o u o o > o o o o 0 3 m
n 9 ; a c
W m 4 4 Y m g p u« m« a m r~ m m o~ «
r r a u m r ro m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ rv
Comprehensive Plan Process Sequencing and Timeline
(Version Oct. 23, 2009)
1) Cities prepare for initiation of formal legislative land use hearing process., Process will include all or some of
the following: preparation of comprehensive plan amendments and URAS, planning commission and city
council study sessions, 45-day notice of first evidentiary hearing, 30-day working day notice to affected
agencies, 20-day notice to affected property owners, preparation of planning commission staff report, and 10-
day notice in newspaper.
TIMELINE: Ongoing
2) Joint 45-Day notice (DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment) made by County to DLCD.
TIMELINE: Monday, October 26
3) Schedule of hearings, study sessions, open houses for both county and cities established, maintained on
RVCOG website.
TIMELINE: Ongoing, start date as information becomes available
4) Refined draft regional plan (without Jacksonville) completed.
TIMELINE: Refined plan is completed by Nov. 23, copies printed and submitted to County and cities by Dec. 1.
5) County Planning Commission (JACO PC) holds first evidentiary legislative land use hearing. Two goals: 1) to
formally introduce refined draft plan as the substitute for Participants' Agreement draft plan, and 2) to
outline process and timeline for the coordinated regional comprehensive plan amendments process.
TIMELINE: Dec. 10 (date of first county hearing).
6) City Planning Commissions hold first evidentiary hearings.
TIMELINE: Earliest start date is Dec. 11 (day after first County hearing).
7) City Councils hold study sessions as necessary.
TIMELINE: Throughout period during which Planning Commissions are considering the proposals.
8) Cities provide testimony (as if a staff report) to JACO PC on their initial proposals (those contained within the
refined draft plan).
TIMELINE: Presentations will occur during regular JACO PC hearings during January and February, 2010 (Jan 14
and 28, February it and 25).
9) Continued public hearings on JACO PC agendas to provide opportunity for cities to raise issues before the PC
that represent potential changes to base city proposals. Also presents opportunity for JACO PC to raise issues
the county may have with city plans. These opportunities for city participation in the public hearings are not
mandatory, but are recommended should changes to the draft plan be contemplated.
TIMELINE: Both March and first April 2010 regular JACO PC meetings (March 11 and 25, April 8)
10) City staff provide Councils with staff reports (including the cities' planning commission recommendations,
proposed comprehensive plan amendments, URMA, comments received, and draft findings), final draft
proposals developed by Councils.
TIMELINE: Between February and April, 2010
11) Cities proceed to the point of having a City Council land use hearing and voting on a council resolution
determining that their final draft proposals are in accordance with the Participants Agreement, but do not
vote on an ordinance adopting the urban reserves and plan and to sign URMA. Forward resolution, findings
with the record of testimony, and final draft city proposals to JACO PC.
TIMELINE: Resolution, findings with the record of testimony, and approved Comp Plan amendments and URMA
must be received by the JACO PC on April 12 (for April 22 JACO PC meeting) or May 3 (for the May 13, 2010
meeting).
12) Final draft city proposals formally presented to the JACO PC.
TIMELINE: City presentations occur at the April 22 and May 13, 2010 regular JACO PC meetings.
13) JACO PC transmits its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners (BOC) and the cities, noting any
unreconciled issues with city proposals.
TIMELINE: July 22, 2010
14) Measure 56 notice issued by County to all affected property owners, required 20-40 days before 1' BOC
evidentiary hearing.
TIMELINE: Notice issued between the week of July 5" and July 26`h 2010.
15) First BOC evidentiary hearing.
TIMELINE: 3rd week in August, 2010
16) County and cities reconcile any differences between BOC and cities.
TIMELINE: Between August and October, 2010
17) BOC takes final action, submits comprehensive plan amendment to LCDC.
TIMELINE: Final BOC action in October, 2010
18) Cities take final action via a legislative land use hearing before Council -after testimony, makes land use
decision & findings via ordinance, and votes to sign URMA. Submits products to (Jackson County and/or
LCDC).
TIMELINE: As appropriate following BOC final action
19) LCDC partially acknowledges Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment.
TIMELINE: As appropriate. DLCD has 120 days to make a decision. Action letter is sent at same time starting 21-
day period for objections to be raised. If appealed to LCDC, LCDC has 90 days to decide. If LCDC decision is
appealed, it is referred to the Court of Appeals, which is not obligated to hear the case.
20) DLCD Notice of Adoption filed by cities (and the county???), with signed ordinances, signed URMAs, adopted
documents, maps, and one set of findings.
TIMELINE: As appropriate.
Example City Process (Medford)
--Prepare proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and URMAs
--Hold PC and Council study sessions - agendas available 7 days in advance
45-day notice of first hearing sent with amendments
--30-working day notice to seek comments of affected agencies (especially County)
20-day notice to affected property owners - as a courtesy
--Prepare PC staff report w/ proposed Comp. Plan amendments, URMA, comments received, & draft findings
-10-day notice in newspaper
Agenda and staff report available 7 days in advance
--Land use hearing(s) before PC - after testimony, makes a recommendation to Council
--Hold Council study session if necessary - agendas available 7 days in advance
--Prepare Council staff report w/PC recommendations, proposed Comp. Plan amendments, URMA, and draft findings
addressing comments & testimony received
--Agenda and staff report completed 10 days in advance
--10-day notice in newspaper
--Legislative land use hearing(s) before Council - after testimony, votes on tentative land use decision via resolution
and votes to sign URMA (via ordinance??)
--Legislative land use hearing before Council - after testimony, makes land use decision & findings via ordinance (and
votes to sign URMA again?)
Agenda
Regional Problem Solving
Policy Committee
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Time: 7:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Location: RVCOG Jefferson Room corner of N. I" Street & Manzanita, Central
Point (155 N. 1b1 Street)
Contact: Michael Cavallaro. RVCOG, 423-1335
1. Call to Order/Introductions/Review Agenda Chair
2. Review/Approve Minutes ...............................................................................................Chair
3. Public Comment ..........................:...................................................................................Chair
4. Contract Oversight Committee (COC) Report Chair
5. Update on the Participants' Agreement ..........................................................................Staff
6. Update on the Background Findings and Regional Plan ...............................................Staff
7. Comprehensive Plan Process Sequencing and Timeline ................................................Staff
Background: The COC has been working for several months on finalizing a
timeline and work sequence for the upcoming year. The timeline has
been designed to allow Jackson County to complete its process and
submit its comprehensive plan amendment to LCDC by October
2010. For that to occur, all participating jurisdictions would have to
design their processes around this timeline and work sequence.
NOTE: The COC will be conducting a final review of the attached
draft just prior to the Policy Committee meeting, and any COC
recommended refinements will be distributed at this meeting.
Attachments: Final draft (dated Oct. 23) of the "Comprehensive Plan Process
Sequencing and Timeline".
Action Requested: Detailed discussion of steps in work sequence, approval of the
timeline and work sequence for dissemination to jurisdictions.
8. Agenda Build for Next Meeting Chair
9. Other Business Chair
10. Next Meeting ....................................................................................................................Chair
"The next Policy Committee meeting will be scheduled at the completion of
this meeting"
REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING-Policy Committee 1