Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2008 0116 CC REG ITEM 09Fq. F. C1TV OF M S .?oRf'MirZK, Cais..6t`Ok, -,. City Council Meeting of / —/G -aM 8 AC110N: ud, .Lltn BY: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Deputy City Manage DATE: January 3, 2008 (CC Meeting of 1/1 08) SUBJECT: Consider Approval of an Agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to Conduct a Wastewater (Sewer) Study and Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2007/08 Budget to Fund the Study BACKGROUND As part of the City's continual goal of providing efficient, quality and affordable services to the residents of Moorpark, the City has considered assuming control and responsibility for providing wastewater services to City customers. In 1988 a similar comprehensive study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of taking over wastewater services in Moorpark. At that time, the subsequent professional report prepared by Arthur Young and Company, did not support assuming control of sewer services in the City. However, in the intervening years, Moorpark has changed substantially. The population alone has increased over a third since that period and a number of other factors support reevaluating the feasibility of assuming control of sewer services in Moorpark. With this in mind, the City released a Request For Proposal (RFP) on October 8, 2007 to prepare the related study (a copy of the RFP is attached). Furthermore, Staff sent the RFP to seven related environmental consultants: • AAE, Inc. • Citygate Associates • HFH Consultants • Matrix Consulting Group • Maximus • MuniFinancial • Raftelis Financial Consultants Honorable City Council January 16, 2008 Page 2 A pre - proposal meeting was held on October 25, 2007. At that time four of the seven consultants attended. Subsequently, the City received three proposals on or prior to the deadline for submittal of November 19, 2007. DISCUSSION Each consultant is well qualified to perform the scope of work outlined in the attached RFP. Two major issues are expected to be Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requirements and financial analysis (especially with respect to operating costs and revenues and future project funding). It is anticipated that the wastewater study will take three to six months to complete. Below is a table comparing the proposed cost from each of the firms: Consultant Proposed Cost AAE, Inc. $89,202.00 Matrix CG $65,000.00 RFC, Inc. $38,340.00 A committee comprised of the Deputy City Manager, City Engineer and the Senior Management Analyst for Community Development met to review the proposals. The Committee felt that the Matrix CG proposal presents the best combination of financial analysis, consideration of LAFCO requirements and understanding of related concerns that will impact an analysis of the City's wastewater infrastructure and financials. The recommended firm is a consulting agency with a strong background in analyzing sewer services for cities and counties nationally. As part of this study, Matrix CG plans on utilizing Bureau Veritas, a professional services consulting firm with substantive experience in utility operations, sewer operations and directly related analysis. The City has previously used Matrix CG to perform its Finance Department Organization Study. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of assuming responsibility of Wastewater services for the City would be determined as part of the Study. Funds have not been budgeted and a budget amendment would be needed. A budget amendment, with funding from the General Fund Reserve, is attached for Council consideration. U,- ()111.110 SACommunity Development\ADMIN\AGMTS \RFP's \SEWER \080116 Wastewater Study cc rpts.doc Honorable City Council January 16, 2008 Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Roll Call Vote) Select Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix CG) to conduct and prepare a sewer study as outlined and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement, subject to final language approval of the City Manager and City Attorney. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008- to fund the Sewer Study. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Budget Resolution 2. Request for Proposals ,4A'a . SACommunity Development\ADMIN\AGMTS \RFP's \SEWER \080116 Wastewater Study cc rpts.doc � �� I I RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FY 2007/2008 BUDGET BY ALLOCATING $65,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE BALANCE (1000) TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO A WASTEWATER STUDY WHEREAS, on June 20, 2007, the City Council adopted the budget for Fiscal Year 2007/2008; and WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to said Council requesting a budget amendment allocating $65,000.00 to the Community Development Department from the General Fund Reserve Balance for professional services associated with a proposed wastewater study; and WHEREAS, a budget amendment is required to fully fund the proposed study. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a budget amendment in the amount of $65,000.00 in General Funds as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is hereby approved. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2008. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A- Budget Amendment CC ATTACHMENT 1 > Cis i 2 Resolution No. 2008 - Page 2 EXHIBIT A Budget Revision A. Fund Allocation: Fund No. Fund Name Amount 1000.5500 General Fund Reserve Balance $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Budget Appropriations: BUDGET NUMBER BUDGETED REVISION NEW BUDGET 1000.6100.0000.9102 $0.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Approved as to form: -- (1,1010:1.1113 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES REGARDING THE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE ASSUMPTION OF SEWER SERVICES FROM THE VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 FOR THE CITY OF MOORPARK CONTACT: BARRY K. HOGAN DEPUTY CITY MANAGER CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA. 93021 805 -517 -6258 CC ATTACHMENT 2 G 0 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I BACKGROUND 3 II STUDY 3 III LIMITATIONS 4 IV PROPOSAL CONTENT & FORMAT 5 VI DUE DATE 6 VII PROPOSAL EVALUATION & SELECTION 6 Exhibits: 1. Professional Service Agreement Form 2 � U i) �t Zi's I. BACKGROUND Moorpark is a city of approximately 36,000 people located in the eastern portion of Ventura County, adjacent to Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley. Moorpark operates primarily as a contract city, utilizing professional consultant services for Building and Safety, Engineering, Fire (service is through the Ventura County Fire Protection District) and Police (service is through the Ventura County Sheriffs Department). Due to the SOAR (Save Our Agricultural Resources) initiative that has been adopted for Moorpark, all urban development has occurred within the boundaries of the City and therefore, all sewer services lie within the City limits. Water and sewer services are provide by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1, governed by the Board of Supervisors of Ventura County. It provides sanitation services and water services within the City of Moorpark and water services in the adjacent unincorporated areas. It has long been a stated objective of the City Council of the City of Moorpark to enhance the delivery of services and expand program efficiencies. As a part of that enhancement it has been the City's desire to provide sewer services as a city operation. In 1988 the City looked at the feasibility of transferring water and sewer services from the County of Ventura to the City of Moorpark. At that time, a joint study was prepared for the City and the County, entitled "Feasibility Study for Transferring Water and Wastewater Utilities from the County of Ventura to Moorpark" by Arthur Young and Company. This joint study addressed a variety of alternatives. The conclusion, at that time, was no change to the service provider. Now, almost 20 years later, Moorpark is a substantially different community and the City Council is desirous of re- examining this issue. II. STUDY The purpose of this Study is to assess the feasibility, costs and process for the City to assume control and responsibility for the sewer service within the City of Moorpark. The results of the Study should give the City Council facts upon which to make a decision regarding the provision of sewer service for the City. The Study would include, but not be limited to an examination of the legal, financial, accounting, operational and organizational aspects of the District. Ultimately, the City wants to know the cost to transfer the sewer portion of the District's responsibilities to the City, what the process for transfer would be and how long would it take to accomplish? The study must cover the following items: Detail the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requirements for the transfer of sewer service from the District to the City of Moorpark, including the time frames and cost involved for the both City and the District; • Indicate the operational costs and revenues for the new service as well as for the reconfigured District; • Indicate the current and projected funding sources, projections for increases for those sources and potential additional sources for funding the sewer operation; • Indicate what likely debt, if any, that the City may have to fund and how that debt would need to be managed on an annual basis; • Provide an assessment of the status of existing infrastructure, indicating what capital improvement projects would have to be funded, the cost of those capital improvement projects and when those improvements would need to be installed or constructed; • Indicate any current and anticipated state and federal requirements that would become the City's responsibility and the financial demands, if any upon the City; • Provide an estimate on the appropriate staffing, facilities, and equipment needed to maintain the current level of services for sewer; • Detail the impact(s) of the transfer on the existing District and provide recommendations on how to resolve such impact, including the costs for the resolution of such impacts; • Provide an analysis on the impact(s), if any, of the transfer on the sewer rates; The City recognizes that there may be questions prior to a qualified firm preparing its proposal. A mandatory pre - proposal meeting is scheduled at 2:00 pm, on Thursday, October 25, 2007, at Moorpark City Hall, Development and Community Services Building, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark California, 93021. Please contact Joyce Figueroa, ifi ueroa ci.moorpark.ca.us or 805 - 517 -6233 to confirm your attendance at the meeting. Barry K. Hogan, Deputy City Manager and Yugal K. Lail, City Engineer /Public Works Director, will be available to answer questions related to this request for proposal. The City's objective is to insure an appropriate exchange of information to facilitate proposal submittals that meet the City's requirements. III. LIMITATIONS A. All files, plans, reports and pertinent data or materials shall be the sole property of the City of Moorpark and may not be used or reproduced in any form without the explicit written permission of the City. All files shall be stored on -site or in a City approved location and shall not be used for the private purposes of the consultant. B. The proponent should expect to have access only to the public records and public files of local government agencies in preparing the proposals or reports. No compilation, tabulation, or analysis of data, definition or opinion, etc., should be anticipated by the proponent from the agencies, unless volunteered by a responsible official of those agencies. C. This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal to this request, or to procure or contract for services or supplies. The City reserves the right at its sole discretion to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel in part or in its entirely, this RFP, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so. The City may require the selected consultant to participate in negotiations, and to submit such price, technical or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. D. Responses to this RFP should contain a statement as to what contractual arrangements, if any, exist or have any time in the past existed between the responding firm and the applicant. E. The City is not liable for any costs incurred by the Consultant or their sub - consultants in preparing the proposal. IV. PROPOSAL CONTENT /FORMAT The organization of the proposal shall follow this general outline: A. Introduction- An overall introduction to the proposal, the contents of which be determined by the particular requirements of the consultant. B. Qualifications — The following information shall be included in identifying the proposed project team that will work on the scope of services: 1. Principal(s) of firm, the project team leader who will be responsible for the overall administration of the contract and supervision of consultant's project team members, project team members. 2. Experience of firm in providing requested scope of services, specifically referencing similar consulting services to other agencies, particularly in Ventura County, along with contact person for an agency that may provide information regarding the firm's work. 3. A listing of the firm's current projects and clients. Please note that the City's contract requirements do not allow the firm to have clients that currently are processing development projects in the City of Moorpark or have had projects in the City of Moorpark processed within the last year. 4. A listing of all consultants /sub - consultants the firm proposes to utilize for these services. The City reserves the right to approve or reject any member of the consultant team, including sub - consultants proposed for these services. After the proposal deadline, substitution of members of the project team, including sub - consultants, may only be made by permission of the City. Experience of each member of the project team, including sub - consultants, should be identified, along with a list of relevant services /projects /references demonstrating their qualifications for this work. 5. A listing of any pending or previous litigation over the past five years related to firm's work in this area. 6. A statement that neither firm nor any officer or principal of the firm have any interests, nor shall they acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their services; that they shall employ no person having such interest as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor; that firm has not contracted with nor is performing any services directly or indirectly, with the developer(s) and /or property owner(s) and /or firm(s) and /or partnerships and /or public agency(ies) owning property and /or processing an entitlement application for property in the City or its Area of Interest, now or within the past one (1) year; and that firm and /or its subcontractors shall provide no service or enter into any contract with any developer(s) and /or property owner(s) and /or firm(s) and /or partnership(s) and /or public agency(ies) owning property and /or processing an entitlement application for property in the City or its Area of Interest, while under contract with the City of Moorpark and for a one -year time period following termination of this Agreement. C. Cost for Services — Indicate what the total cost for the services that are proposed and the cost for the completion of each task. Please include any direct costs that may be involved. City payment for services requires submittal of an invoice for the work performed, approval by the project manager for the project, approval by the City Council of the warrant (check) and then the mailing of the check to the consultant. The City Council meets on the first and third Wednesdays of each month and there is a three week lead time to get on a Council agenda. D. Statement of Offer and Signature The proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the proponent, and shall contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a firm offer for a 60 -day (or more) period. 2. The proposal shall also provide the following information: name, title, address and telephone number of individuals(s) with authority to negotiate, and contractually bind the company and also who may be contacted during the period of proposal evaluations. VI. DUE DATE The Consultant shall submit three (3) copies of the Qualifications and Proposal to: Barry K. Hogan, Deputy City Manager Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA. 93021 TO BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2007 6 VI1. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION Each proposal shall be dated and time stamped by the City. All proposals properly received will be evaluated by a Review Committee. The consultants will be ranked. Interviews may be scheduled with the top- ranked consultants, if determined necessary. The consultant(s) ranked as the most qualified to provide the requested services may be invited to negotiate a final agreement. If an agreement is not reached, negotiations may be terminated and commenced with the next most qualified consultant. 7