ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS: Sunset Center Landscaping Project Phase II: Completed July-August 2007

ABSTRACT: The Sunset Center Landscaping Project Phase II was through competitive bids. The City Administrator is the “City’s purchasing agent” and the criteria are set forth in the Municipal Code, 3.12.180 Lowest Responsible Bidder – Determining. Since the “City” has not articulated a reserve policy and a rationale for a reserve policy, it is a mystery why the City Council hasn’t used reserve funds for ever increasing and costly deferred maintenance requirements, especially given these “essential services” are the attributes which have made Carmel-by-the-Sea legendary.

QUESTION: Was this work contracted by competitive bids or sole source?

ANSWER: Competitive Bids, as follows:
Company Name Bid Amount
A.E.S. Landscaping $ 59,847.00*
George Di Peso Landscape $155,851.00
Craven Landscaping $159,709.65
Granite Construction Co. $209,902.00
Lone Star Landscape $237,300.00
*Disqualified bid – required bid bond not submitted.

Additional Information, as follows:
• The City Council approved the Phase II Landscape Plan in October 2003; the City accepted two grants from the State of California.

• Grant funds are received after project completion; ergo, the project required a transfer of $171,436 from the capital improvement reserve account to implement the contract and contingency.

• The lowest complete bid was received from George Di Peso Landscape at $155,851.00

• Resolution adopted at February 6, 2007 City Council meeting; Resolution awarded a contract to George Di Peso Landscape in the amount of $155,851, authorizing a 10% contingency of $15,585, and authorizing a transfer of $171,436 from the capital improvement reserve account for construction of the San Carlos St. and Carpenter Hall elements in Phase II of the Sunset Center Landscaping Project.

(Source: City Council Agenda Item Summary, Mike Branson, February 6, 2007)

QUESTION: Who besides the city council determines the mode of contracting and what criteria are used?

ANSWERS: The City Administrator is the “City’s purchasing agent,” per Municipal Code.
3.12.020 Purchasing Procedures by City Administrator.
The City Administrator or her/his designee is the City’s purchasing agent. She/he shall establish the procedure and forms to carry out such duty in accordance with the procedures set forth herein. (Ord. 2003-02 § 1, 2003).

The criteria used, per Municipal Code, as follows:
3.12.180 Lowest Responsible Bidder – Determining.
For the purpose of this chapter, in addition to price, the “lowest responsible bidder” will be determined after the following factors have been considered:
A. Whether the bidder has the capability, capacity, and skill to perform the contract or provide the service promptly, or within the time specified, without delay or interference;
B. Character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder;
C. Bidder’s record of performance of previous contracts or services;
D. Previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances related to the contract or service;
E. Sufficiency of the financial resources and ability of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service;
F. Quality, availability and adaptability of the supplies, materials, equipment, or services to the particular use required;
G. Bidder’s ability to provide future maintenance and service for the use of the subject of the contract;
H. Number and scope of conditions attached to the bid. In the event the lowest bidder is rejected, the purchasing agent or City Council (as the case may be) shall provide the lowest bidder with a written explanation or findings regarding the rejection;
I. In the case of a bid received from a bidder, a portion of whose sales tax is paid to the City, the purchasing agent shall calculate the actual cost to the City of accepting such bid. Said actual cost shall be the bid amount less sales tax revenue which would be received by the City were the City to accept such bid. Said actual cost shall be the price utilized by the City, in addition to the other factors set out in this section, in determining the lowest responsible bidder. (Ord. 2003-02 § 1, 2003).

Additional Information: The City’s Municipal Code guides the City Council in addressing the process for contracting for Public Projects; for public projects exceeding $25,000, the City is to accept the “lowest responsible bidder,” unless deemed “emergencies,” where contracts can be let without bids.

Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code

Chapter 3.12
PURCHASING SYSTEM*

Article V. Public Projects
3.12.420 Written Contract.
Every public project involving an expenditure of more than $25,000 for the construction, improvement, maintenance, painting or repair of public buildings and works, in all sewers, storm drains, streets, sidewalks, beaches, parks, tree maintenance, and open space projects, and in furnishing materials or supplies for same shall be let by formal written contract, approved by resolution of the City Council, with the lowest responsible bidder in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this article. Article IV of this chapter and this article notwithstanding, dispensation of bid procedures for projects described in this article shall be made only as allowed in this article. (Ord. 2003-02 § 1, 2003).

3.12.510 Emergencies – Contracts Let Without Bids.
Public works project contracts governed by this article may be let without advertising for bids if such work shall be deemed by the City Council to be of urgent necessity for the preservation of life, health or property, and shall be authorized by resolution passed by an affirmative vote of at least three of its members and containing a declaration of the facts constituting such urgency. (Ord. 2003-02 § 1, 2003).

QUESTION: And why isn't more of the reserve funds earmarked and used for the other infrastructure (residential) needs, such a roads, the urban forest, Scout House, Flanders Mansion, etc?

ANSWER: Most well managed cities have articulated reserve policies; for examples of California cities and their respective reserve policies, click on Post title above, pages 35-62.

An excerpt from the above referenced comprehensive article on Reserve Policies in California Cities is telling, as follows:

“Taxpayers expect government to use taxes to provide essential services, not to create huge savings accounts.”

With a revised fiscal year 2007/08 budget of $13,094,894, $9.6 million in reserve funds and deferred maintenance in the form of a closed community center (Scout House), closed National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion, dilapidated and deteriorating Forest Theater, senescent and dying urbanized forest, poor road, street and avenue conditions, et cetera (“essential services”), the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is unique in not having an outraged citizenry unanimously calling upon their elected officials to rectify the imbalance between reserve fund amounts and deferred maintenance requirements.

Since the “City” has not articulated a reserve policy and a rationale for a reserve policy, it is a mystery why the City Council hasn’t used reserve funds for ever increasing and costly deferred maintenance requirements, especially given these “essential services” are the attributes which have made Carmel-by-the-Sea legendary.

REFERENCE:
THE ADOPTION OF RESERVE POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA CITIES, Anita Lawrence
http://www.csmfo.org/download/index.cfm?fuseaction=download&cid=1456