April 21, 2011

 

REPORT OF THE BUILDING AND OPERATING COMMITTEE/
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

 

Honorable Board of Directors
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway
  and Transportation District

Honorable Members:

A meeting of the Building and Operating Committee/Committee of the Whole (Committee) was held in the Board Room, Administration Building, Toll Plaza, San Francisco, CA, on Thursday, April 21, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., Chair Eddie presiding.

Committee Members Present (6): Chair Eddie; Vice Chair Moylan; Directors Cochran, Renée and Stroeh; President Reilly (Ex Officio)
Committee Members Absent (2): Directors Rabbitt and Theriault
Other Directors Present (5): Directors Boro, Grosboll, Pahre, Snyder and Sobel

Committee of the Whole Members Present (11): Directors Boro, Cochran, Moylan, Pahre, Renée, Snyder, Sobel, and Stroeh; Second Vice President Grosboll; First Vice President Eddie; President Reilly (Ex Officio)
Committee of the Whole Members Absent (7): Directors Brown, Campos, Chu, Elsbernd, Mar, Rabbitt and Theriault

Staff Present: General Manager Denis Mulligan; District Engineer Ewa Bauer; Auditor-Controller Joseph Wire; Secretary of the District Janet Tarantino; Attorney Kim Manolius; Deputy General Manager/Bridge Division Kary Witt; Deputy General Manager/Ferry Transit Division James Swindler; Marine Projects Manager/Ferry Transit Division Christian N. Stark; Public Affairs Director Mary Currie; Executive Assistant to the General Manager Amorette Ko; Assistant Clerk of the Board Lona Franklin

Visitors Present: None

 

     
1.
Discussion and Possible Actions Relative to Further Enhancing Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety on the Golden Gate Bridge Sidewalks
     
  a.

Staff Report

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy General Manager/Bridge Division Kary Witt, District Engineer Ewa Bauer and General Manager Denis Mulligan reported on staff’s recommendation to enact an ordinance regarding use of Golden Gate Bridge (Bridge) sidewalks and other pathways leading to Bridge sidewalks.

The staff report stated that, over the years, the District has implemented a number of safety measures, among which was a 45 mile-per-hour speed limit for vehicles, and increased fines for speeding on the Bridge. The lower speed limit, vigorous enforcement and increased fines have reduced the motorized vehicle accident rate significantly. The staff report also indicated that the Board of Directors (Board), at its meeting of March 28, 2008, directed staff, in conjunction with its approval of Contract No. 2006-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon, to study the issue of a bicycle speed limit, other rules governing the use of bicycles on Bridge sidewalks and related enforcement issues. The Board also directed staff to report to the Building and Operating Committee with the results of these inquiries and any recommendations, and to inventory and review existing signage on Bridge sidewalks to determine whether safety might be enhanced with additional or alternative signage.

The staff report further stated that, pursuant to the findings and recommendations contained in a consultant’s report prepared pursuant to the Board’s March 28, 2008, direction, staff recommends the imposition of a 10 mile-per-hour speed limit for bicycles on both the east and west sidewalks, with a 5 mile-per-hour limit around Bridge towers, construction and maintenance zones. The study (Study), entitled “Bicycle Safety Study for the Golden Gate Bridge,” was undertaken by Alta Planning + Design (Alta), to determine the propriety of a bicycle speed limit, the adequacy of signage, and other operational considerations. The staff report briefly summarized the findings of this study.

In addition, the staff report stated that an analysis of accidents on Bridge sidewalks during a ten-year period shows that the most common type of accident on Bridge sidewalks was the solo bike accident, which happened most often on the west sidewalk. Speed was identified as a key factor in 39 percent of the reported accidents on Bridge sidewalks during this period. The staff report stated that speed was a factor in a significant number of solo bicycle accidents in other District locations as well. The staff report also considered operational aspects of the east and west sidewalks, traffic counts and collision data, and speed issues.

The staff report pointed out that the Study confirms that Bridge sidewalks are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. The same is true for the pathways that lead to Bridge sidewalks. Nonetheless, safety can be further enhanced by implementing the recommendations contained in the staff report.
Copies of the staff report, PowerPoint Presentation and the “Summary of Comments Regarding Enhancing Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety on the Golden Gate Bridge Sidewalks” are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

     
  b.

Remarks by General Manager

Mr. Mulligan reported that, today staff will present information regarding the Bridge sidewalks, specifically, information regarding their geometry, popularity and accident information. Coupled with this is a staff recommendation regarding modifying the District’s Master Ordinance to implement a speed limit as well as an enforcement mechanism for the proposed speed limit. This is the start of the conversation.

He stated that staff acknowledges that this proposal is controversial, yet the mere fact that it is controversial does not mean that we should not be here today having this conversation.

He stated that he wanted to offer some historical perspective to set the stage for this issue. In the 1980s the accident rate on the Bridge roadway was rising and many significant accidents occurred. At that juncture the Board took affirmative steps to enhance safety. The Board lowered the vehicle speed limit by 10 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour, and the District provided assistance to the California Highway Patrol to enforce the lower speed limit using Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR). At that time, many motorists objected to the imposition of a lower speed limit, stating that it would needlessly slow them down, but the passage of time has proven the wisdom of these actions. The accident rate today on the roadway is 3 times lower than it was in the 1980s when the speed limit was higher. Additionally, the severity of injuries is greatly reduced when an accident unfortunately occurs. This is due to the reduction in speed.

He stated that the speed limit on many highways in California is 55 or 65 miles per hour. The speed limit on the Golden Gate Bridge is appropriately lower because of the unique conditions that exist here. The lanes on a typical highway are 12 feet wide, while most of the lanes on the Bridge are only 10 feet wide. Most highways have medians, and shoulders off to the right side. The shoulder provides a recovery zone if a car inadvertently swerves out of its lane.

He continued that the Bridge sidewalks also have unusual conditions that warrant a speed limit lower than the typical mixed-use, bicycle-pedestrian trail. The Bridge sidewalks are narrower than a Class 1 bike path. Also, the sidewalks are boxed in with railings on both sides. There are no flat gravel shoulders off to the side for a pedestrian to step off the path or to allow for a runoff space for an errant bicycle. This is why the staff recommendation is for 10 miles per hour as opposed to the more common 15 miles per hour speed limit on wider multi-use paths.

He added that people who like to go fast do not like speed limits. Some individuals will advocate that there should be no speed limit on the west sidewalk. Arguably advocating that there should be no speed limit on the west sidewalk is akin to arguing that there should be no speed limit on Highway 280 when traffic is light (e.g. Sunday mornings). Some motorists feel that the wide open roadway of 280 on a Sunday morning feels comfortable to drive fast. Nonetheless, society has imposed a speed limit and enforces it on Highway 280, because it is a fact that as driver’s speed increases, the likelihood and severity of accidents increases.

He concluded by stating that, on average, each month someone leaves the Bridge sidewalks in an ambulance due to a bicycle accident. We want to reduce that number. Speed is a factor in the severity of accidents as well as the number of accidents. The most severe accidents have involved local residents who are regular riders across the Bridge. The most severe accidents have occurred on the west sidewalk when bicyclists, with no rental bikes in sight, feel comfortable travelling fast and, when travelling in opposite directions, “clip” each other. Speed contributes to the severity of these accidents. In the most extreme cases the injuries have been life changing.

He introduced Kary Witt, Bridge Division Manager, stating that Mr. Witt would present information regarding the Bridge sidewalks and the staff recommendation.

     
  c.

PowerPoint Presentation

Mr. Witt displayed a PowerPoint Presentation (PowerPoint) wherein statistics regarding weekday and weekend bicycle and pedestrian volume, bicycle collisions by number and location, accidents by type and location, and average bicycle speed were given. The PowerPoint also summarized the following staff recommendations: (1) enforcement of a bicycle speed limit of 10 miles per hour and 5 miles per hour around the Bridge towers and in construction and maintenance zones; (2) use of signage and pavement markings; (3) prohibition of unicycles and “tall” bicycles; (4) retention of existing physical configurations and operational policies; and, (5) continued monitoring, with reports to the Board. The PowerPoint concluded that, should the Board approve staff’s recommendations, an ordinance would be required, with outreach to the public and bicycle community.

Mr. Witt noted that bicycle versus pedestrian accidents are relatively rare. Speed is implicated in 39% of bicycle accidents, and is a direct cause in 30%. Higher speeds are correlated with greater severity of injuries, and both staff and Alta have concluded that decreasing speeds would reduce both the number and severity of bicycle accidents. In addition, an upward trend has been observed in the number of bicycle collisions, with 23 collisions in 2010, compared to 9 in 2000. Staff is of the opinion that the upward trend will continue, as usage increases.

Mr. Witt reported that, beginning May 9, 2011, the west sidewalk will be closed while the North Anchorage House and sidewalk are repaired. During construction, bicycles will use the east sidewalk, sharing it with pedestrians at all times, including evenings and weekends. He pointed out that bicycle speeds on the east sidewalk are slower than on the west sidewalk, due to the presence of pedestrians. Mr. Witt displayed a slide of the District’s multi-symbol sign, stating that the adequacy of current signage will be investigated as well, with a view to improvement.

     
  d.

Discussion by the Board

Discussion ensued, including the following comments and inquiries:

  • Director Boro made the following comments and inquiries:
    • He inquired as to the impact of having only the east sidewalk available for both pedestrians and bicycles once work on the North Anchorage House and sidewalk has begun. In response, Mr. Witt stated that, for approximately four months, the east sidewalk could be quite crowded, especially during weekends.
    • He inquired as to whether signage could be in place prior to beginning the above described work. In response, Mr. Witt stated that signage could be put into place before the work begins.
    • He commented that the Committee should consult with bicycle groups, including rental agencies, to be certain of their understanding before the work commences on the North Anchorage House/sidewalk on May 9, 2011.
  • Director Grosboll made the following comments and inquiries:
    • He inquired as to the reason a 10 mile-per-hour speed limit was chosen by staff, considering that the Study referenced only jurisdictions that have imposed 15 mile-per-hour speed limits on shared-use paths, and that only three bridges were listed, all of which have imposed a 15 mile-per-hour limit. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that most bicycle paths or trails have a different set of constraints than does the Bridge. For example, Bridge sidewalks are narrower than bicycle paths and there is no shoulder or recovery zone on either side. Instead, the Bridge has railings on either side of the sidewalk.
    • He inquired as to whether the Bicycle Coalition would be consulted prior to implementation. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that broad public outreach will be done, and that staff would report back to the Board on findings.
    • He inquired as to whether a lower fine than the recommended $100.00 fine per offense has been considered, for the first violation, and perhaps for subsequent violations of a certain number by implementing a graduated fine schedule, because bicycles do not have speedometers and bicyclists may not be aware of the speed at which they are traveling. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that it was found that generally, other jurisdictions have imposed higher fines than the one being proposed. However, the Board may wish to impose a graduated fine schedule. He concluded that the fine amount is a policy issue within the Board’s purview.
    • He commented that consideration should be given to having a reduced speed limit only during designated hours, adding that commuters should be permitted to ride faster than 10 miles per hour.
    • He commented that District representatives should communicate with all those who provided public comment at this meeting, and that the consultant should be included in future meetings. In response, Mr. Mulligan indicated that, initially, the matter was considered confidential, due to ongoing litigation at the time, but that his view is that now transparency in process is appropriate.
  • Director Snyder made the following comments and inquiries:
    • He inquired as to whether fees would be added to the fine amount for a bicyclist who is cited. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the courts have fees that would be imposed, in addition to the fine amount. He indicated that staff will provide the Board with that information.
    • He commented that enforcement could be capricious, indicating that 10 miles per hour, in his opinion, is too low a speed limit for bicycles.
    • He commented that, while speed is an important factor in accidents, he would like to have more in-depth information. For example, was there equipment failure in some cases, or was the cyclist impaired for some reason. He stated he would like to know all the factors that caused bicyclist accidents on the Bridge so that other methods, which could do more to increase safety, can be investigated. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the additional information will be provided.
    • He commented that banning unicycles may not accomplish the desired greater safety, or reduce District liability should an accident happen, because a unicycle accident would be very rare. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the District has no liability in the case of accidents that occur on Bridge sidewalks. The District has immunity, and cases are dismissed by summary judgment. He emphasized that the recommendations of staff are motivated solely by the opportunity to increase safety.
    • He inquired as to whether there is any reason litigation could become a factor in this proposal. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that, as General Manager, he has made the decision to be transparent regarding this proposal and that the District will continue to be. He stated that the consultant chosen by the District to perform the study is very experienced. He added that they will be included in future meetings.
  • Director Pahre made the following comments and inquiries:
    • She inquired as to whether the bicycle rental companies rent unicycles or tall bicycles. In response, Mr. Witt stated that, to the best of his knowledge, they do not.
    • She inquired as to whether the small “Go-Cars,” rented to tourists and others by a company in San Francisco, are allowed to use the Bridge. In response, Mr. Witt stated that no motored vehicles are allowed on the sidewalks, other than some types of motorized vehicles that are used by disabled persons.
    • She commented that an interim plan could be put into place prior to the beginning of construction on the North Anchorage House and sidewalk, and the period during construction used for public outreach.
    • She commented that, on public projects, consultants are often part of the outreach effort, and that she would encourage the consultant to take a leadership role in outreach meetings.
  • Director Renée inquired as to the speed at which bicycles travel and whether, pursuant to the Vehicle Code, pedestrians could be cited for crossing delineation lines into a bicycle lane. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that staff would research this matter and report the findings to the Board.
  • Director Sobel inquired as to the method anticipated for stopping a cyclist who is traveling at excessive speed. In response, Mr. Witt stated that the precise enforcement methodologies have not yet been determined; however, the California Highway Patrol will be primarily responsible for enforcement and they are expert in this topic.
  • Director Stroeh commented that waiting for one month before a decision is made is desirable. He expressed his opinion that Director Pahre’s suggestion to do outreach regarding this proposal during the period of construction of the North Anchorage House is a good one.
  • Chair Eddie reported that the Committee has directed staff to collect additional public comment and to go into the field to request additional input from people on this subject.
     
  e.

Public Comment

Dino Piacentini, San Francisco resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated that he is an avid cyclist and a member of the San Francisco Triathlon Club, as well as a past member of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. He stated his concern that cyclists had not been engaged earlier in discussions with District staff, given that the Study took a year to complete. He stated that he favors postponement of the ordinance regarding a bicycle speed limit, and reiterated that all stakeholders should be involved in the process from the beginning. He concluded by stating that there is anger and frustration in the bicycle community, with many being suspicious regarding the District’s motivation, and requested that District staff work collegially with cyclists.

David Hoffman, Director of Administration, Bike & Roll, San Francisco, CA, spoke in support of the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated that his company rents bicycles, and has 25% of the market in San Francisco. Many of those who rent bicycles from his company cross the Bridge on them. He indicated that the District should engage bicycle renters directly. He stated that his company cannot represent their interests because they depart when their rental periods are over. He stated he was disappointed that bicycle groups and companies had no earlier opportunity to discuss their position with District staff. He emphasized that engaging stakeholders is of utmost importance, and should be undertaken long before a consultant has completed and submitted a report.

Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC), spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated that MCBC members were shocked to discover that a consultant had already submitted a report and staff had already made recommendations to the Building and Operating Committee. He indicated that they expected they would be consulted for input prior to any recommendations being made. He stated that the MCBC’s mission statement is “safety is primary,” but that policies discouraging bicycling are not desirable. Instead, MCBC’s preference is for infrastructure to support bicycling. He stated that speed is a factor in every bicycle accident, in that accidents occur when bicycles are moving. He questioned the method that would be used to determine what the speed of travel was prior to the occurrence of an accident. He added that any prohibition of unicycles should be reviewed, as some regular bicycles have seats that are 48” or more from the ground. He noted that bicycles do not have speedometers and citing a bicyclist for 13 miles per hour in a 10 mile-per-hour zone could be problematic. He concluded that the MCBC wishes a safe and positive experience on the Bridge, and that they also wish to be a robust and significant contributor to this issue.

Neil Gehani, San Francisco, spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated he is an avid cyclist and also rides with Mission Cycling, although he does not represent that group. He stated that his main issue is that, when the number of riders on both east and west sidewalks is considered, the incidence of accidents involving bicycles is low. However, if one considers only the west sidewalk, comparing the number of bicyclists to the number of accidents, the percentage is even lower. He indicated that the number of bicycle trips is more important, because frequent riders ride more often, making statistics that show accidents by the number of trips more realistic. He indicated that he is in favor of safety, including wearing a helmet and teaching group riding skills such as single-file riding. He stated that most bicyclists wish to be as safe as possible and all wish to enjoy the Bridge.

Timothy Woudenberg, San Francisco Randonneurs, spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated that the collision rate does not justify imposing a 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated that many inexperienced bicyclists cross the Bridge, creating a bigger problem than that of excessive speed. He stated that 15 miles per hour is a typical speed for a bicyclist, whether riding alone or in a group. He indicated that 164 collisions in ten years calculates to 750,000 cyclists or 1.3 million cycling miles per year. Over ten years, this calculates to 1 collision per 81,000 miles ridden. He remarked that this rate is far lower than typical motor vehicle accident rates. He concluded that the proposal may be a solution in search of a problem.

Hunter Ziesing, 2 Team/Echelon, spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He questioned whether a study has been done about adding a lane for cyclists. He indicated that the average bicycle accident happens at 10 miles per hour or less, with speed rarely being a factor. He stated his hope is that the District will move away from a speed limit for bicycles and toward education of bicyclists. He stated that 10 miles per hour is too slow. He noted that conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians or other bicyclists occur near the towers when the Bridge is foggy. He requested that the District not impose fines. He concluded that the nation is experiencing an economic downturn and that education and signage is preferable. He requested that the District reconsider this proposal.

Paul Skilbeck, San Francisco Cyclists Meetup, spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He indicated that 1300 cyclists belong to this meet-up group. He stated he has organized cycling events in the Bay Area. He stated that cyclists’ opinions should have been sought earlier. The Board should involve experts, who are the cyclists, in the earliest stages of the project. He stated that he cycles across the Bridge eight times each week, normally travelling at more than 10 miles per hour and, generally, a line of cyclists is immediately behind him. He hypothesized that, if he were to be stopped for speeding, those cyclists would collide with him. He stated that he would prefer lane striping, and that education to increase awareness should be provided to all Bridge users, including pedestrians. He opined that people on holiday often do not pay attention, are busy taking photographs and may be walking backward or not looking. He concluded that bicyclists should be consulted on this matter.

Andy Thornley, Director, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated his belief that the proposal is based upon flawed premises. He stated that the SFBC is dedicated to safety on and off the Bridge for all users. He indicated that the SFBC had worked with Bridge staff at other times, and had plenty of advance notice. However, they were surprised to see the first notice of this proposal only a few days ago. He stated that earlier engagement would have helped avoid much of the public outcry. He stated that this proposal is not well thought out, and requested that staff bring forward a better one.

 

Russ Schmittou, Marin County resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed 10 mile-per-hour bicycle speed limit. He stated he is a bicyclist and has commuted across the Bridge every day for eight years. He stated his agreement with staff’s remark that the Bridge is safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. If that is so, then there is no problem to solve. He stated that the Bridge is meant for transportation, adding that he normally rides at more than 10 miles per hour. He stated that no evidence was presented that proves speed was a factor in 39% of accidents. He indicated his feeling that signage and striping are appropriate, but that staff should educate people who behave in an unsafe manner. He stated that the data presented are conflicting. There are more bicyclists now, cars have gotten safer and speeds have increased over the years. Many inexperienced bicyclists and pedestrians cross the Bridge, some wearing earphones. He suggested that prohibiting the wearing of earphones while walking or bicycling on the Bridge would make everyone safer. However, it is already safe to cross the Bridge on a bicycle.

     
 

f.

 

Action by the Committee

Directors BORO/STROEH moved and seconded to continue this item to a date uncertain.

Action by the Board at its meeting of April 22, 2011
None Required

AYES (11): Directors Boro, Cochran, Moylan, Pahre, Renée, Snyder, Sobel, and Stroeh; Second Vice President Grosboll; First Vice President Eddie; President Reilly (Ex Officio)
NOES (0): None

     
2.

Authorize Execution of Change Orders with Ice Floe, LLC, dba Nichols Brothers Boat Builders, Relative to Contract No. 2010-FT-1, Refurbishment of the M.V. Napa and the M.V. Chinook (M.V. Golden Gate) Ferries

In a memorandum to Committee, Marine Projects Manager/Ferry Transit Division Christian Stark, Deputy General Manager/Ferry Transit Division James Swindler and General Manager Denis Mulligan reported on staff’s recommendation to authorize execution of change orders with Ice Floe, LLC, dba Nichols Brothers Boat Builders (NBBB), in the amount of $359,537.43, for unexpected repairs to the M.V. Golden Gate’s wetdeck structure that was damaged by accelerated corrosion; and, approve all other related actions. The report provided details regarding the scope of work.

The staff report stated that Contract No. 2010-FT-1, was awarded to NBBB in the amount of $6,910,536.00, and a contingency fund of $414,632.00 was established. Change orders exceed the current contingency fund for this contract by $202,751.68. Staff also requests that the Board authorize a contingency fund for the refurbishment of the M.V. Napa. Staff estimates the change orders on the M.V. Napa will be approximately $520,000.00.

The report also stated that a budget increase in the FY 10/11 Ferry Transit Division Capital Budget, in the amount of $725,000.00 is required, to be funded with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant funds. The total project budget will be funded as follows: $8,566,469.00 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant funds, $10,645,000.00 FTA grant funds, $2,116,322.00 State I-Bond grant funds, and $2,807,209.00 District funds (35% ARRA / 44% FTA / 9% State / 12% District).

A copy of the staff report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/COCHRAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve actions relative to Contract No. 2010-FT-1, Refurbishment of the M.V. Napa and the M.V. Chinook (M.V. Golden Gate) Ferries, with Ice Floe, LLC, dba Nichols Brothers Boat Builders, as follows:

  a.
Authorize execution of change orders in the cumulative amount of $359,537.43;
  b.
Establish a total Project Budget of $24,135,000.00, to be funded with $8,566,469.00 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (35%), $10,645,000.00 Federal Transit Administration grant funds (44%), $2,116,322.00 California state I-Bond funds (9%), and $2,807,209.00 District funds (12%); and,
  c.
Authorize a budget increase in the FY 10/11 Ferry Transit Division Capital Budget, in the amount of $725,000.00, to be funded with Federal Transit Administration grant funds, to fully fund the refurbishment of the M.V. Golden Gate and the anticipated change orders for the refurbishment of the M.V. Napa;
 

subject to the concurrence of the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of April 21, 2011.

Action by the Board at its meeting of April 22, 2011 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (11): Directors Boro, Cochran, Moylan, Pahre, Renée, Snyder, Sobel, and Stroeh; Second Vice President Grosboll; First Vice President Eddie; President Reilly (Ex Officio)
NOES (0): None

     
3.

Authorize Execution of the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Fast Ferry Management, Inc., Relative to Request for Proposals No. 2007-FT-8, Consultant to Provide Project Management and Construction Oversight for New High-Speed Ferry Vessels

In a memorandum to Committee, Marine Projects Manager/Ferry Transit Division Christian Stark, Deputy General Manager/Ferry Transit Division James Swindler and General Manager Denis Mulligan reported on staff’s recommendation to authorize execution of the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Fast Ferry Management, Inc. (FFMI), in the amount of $74,697.78, relative to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2007-FT-8, Consultant to Provide Project Management and Construction Oversight for New High-Speed Ferry Vessels, to provide for an increase in the scope and effort in the project management services.

The staff report stated that the District entered into a PSA with FFMI to provide professional services relative to the construction and procurement of a new high-speed ferry. Subsequently, instead of constructing a new vessel, the District purchased two existing high-speed ferries, the M.V. Napa and M.V. Golden Gate, from Washington State Ferries. It is now necessary to increase the not-to-exceed amount of the PSA. FFMI’s estimate of the anticipated remaining level of effort is reasonable. FFMI’s hourly rates will remain unchanged. The staff report provided details regarding the scope of work.

A copy of the staff report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/COCHRAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize execution of the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement, with Fast Ferry Management, Inc., in the amount of $74,697.78, relative to Request for Proposals No. 2007-FT-8, Consultant to Provide Project Management and Construction Oversight for New High-Speed Ferry Vessels, for an increase in the scope and effort in project management services, with the understanding that requisite funds are available in the FY 10/11 Ferry Transit Division Capital Budget.

Action by the Board at its meeting of April 22, 2011 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (11): Directors Boro, Cochran, Moylan, Pahre, Renée, Snyder, Sobel, and Stroeh; Second Vice President Grosboll; First Vice President Eddie; President Reilly (Ex Officio)
NOES (0): None

 


4.

Approve Actions Relative to Contract No. 2010-FT-10, Installation of New Propulsion System for Re-Powering and Dry-Docking of the M.V. Del Norte, with Ice Floe, LLC, dba Nichols Brothers Boat Builders

In a memorandum to Committee, Marine Projects Manager/Ferry Transit Division Christian Stark, Deputy General Manager/Ferry Transit Division James Swindler and General Manager Denis Mulligan reported on staff’s recommendation to authorize change orders relative to a contract with Ice Floe, LLC, dba Nichols Brothers Boat Builders (NBBB), in the amount of $318,523.61, for waterjet hydraulic piping repair work to the M.V. Del Norte; and, approve all other related actions.

The report stated that, while the M.V. Del Norte was being delivered to Larkspur on July 20, 2010, the crew reported a loud noise emanating from the vessel’s waterjet hydraulic control system and that one of the vessel’s four waterjet hydraulic control systems blew a hose and had to be secured for the remainder of the delivery. The report provided details of the scope of work required for repair, and stated that the vessel has now passed all sea trials and has been operating successfully in District revenue service. In addition, the staff report stated that the District intends to endeavor to recover as much of the increased costs of the waterjet change order work as possible from those determined culpable, following further consultation with appropriate experts.

The staff report stated that Contract No. 2010-FT-10, was awarded to NBBB in the amount of $2,313,314.00, and a contingency fund of $375,000.00 was established. Cumulatively, change orders exceed the current contingency fund for this contract by a small amount. Therefore, staff recommends a total budget increase of $290,100.00 to the project budget.

The report also stated that a budget increase in the FY 10/11 Ferry Transit Division Capital Budget, in the amount of $290,100.00 is required, to be funded with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant funds. The total project budget of $6,365,100.00 will be funded as follows: $3,155,908.00 Carl Moyer grant funds, $2,927,192.00 FTA grant funds, and $282,000.00 District funds (50% Carl Moyer/46% FTA/4% District).

A copy of the staff report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/COCHRAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve actions relative to Contract No. 2010-FT-10, Installation of New Propulsion System for Re-Powering and Dry-Docking of the M.V. Del Norte, with Ice Floe, LLC, dba Nichols Brothers Boat Builders, as follows:

 

a.

Authorize execution of change orders in the total amount of $318,523.61;
  b.
Establish a total Project Budget of $6,365,100.00; and,
  c.
Authorize a budget increase in the FY 10/11 Ferry Transit Division Capital Budget, in the amount of $290,100.00, to be funded with Federal Transit Administration grant funds, for waterjet hydraulic piping repair work;
 

subject to the concurrence of the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of April 21, 2011.

Action by the Board at its meeting of April 22, 2011 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (11): Directors Boro, Cochran, Moylan, Pahre, Renée, Snyder, Sobel, and Stroeh; Second Vice President Grosboll; First Vice President Eddie; President Reilly (Ex Officio)
NOES (0):
None

 
5.

Status Report from District Appointees on Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Board

The Committee was provided with a copy of the agenda items and staff reports for the April 5, 2011, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Citizens Oversight Committee Meeting; April 6, 2011, SMART Real Estate/Project Development Committee Meeting; April 6, 2011, SMART Executive Committee Meeting; April 6, 2011, SMART Board of Directors Special Meeting; and, the April 13, 2011, Notice of Cancellation of SMART Operations Committee Meeting. Copies of these items are available in the Office of the District Secretary, as well as on the District’s web site.

The following District Directors, who are members of the SMART Board of Directors (SMART Board), made the following statements:

  • Director Eddie reported on the meeting of April 20, 2011, stating that action was taken to go forward with the bonds process.
  • Director Pahre reported that, in addition to approving bonding, cost saving measures of $88 million were implemented, and a list of those measures is available.

Discussion ensued, including the following comments and inquiries:

  • Director Sobel made the following inquiries:
    • He inquired as to the timeframe for re-establishing stops at Corona in Petaluma and Atherton in Novato, which were put on hold by the Board. In response, Director Pahre stated that the Board ranked the top three cost-cutting measures to reinstate as funds become available. Restoration of the Atherton stop is highest ranked, followed by fare collection vending machines and then the optical communication system. Other items that were cut will be reviewed in one year. She indicated that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) policies affected the decisions, as MTC defines requirements regarding availability of services in and around stations.
    • He inquired as to the net cost of the proposed repair facility at Petaluma. In response, Director Pahre stated that Director Renée had attended the two most recent SMART Board meetings representing Petaluma, and that residents of Petaluma do not wish a repair facility at the historic station site. She added that the SMART Board is seeking other land in the area. She indicated that the SMART Board is also seeking funds to restore other items cut from their budget.
  • Director Stroeh commented that a public/private partnership should be investigated, and mentioned an area developer as a possible partner. In response, Director Pahre stated that the SMART Board would be interested in entertaining a possible partnership and requested that Director Stroeh make contact with the developer and report back regarding the result.

Action by the Board – None Required

   
6.

Status Report on Engineering Projects

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer John Eberle, District Engineer Ewa Bauer and General Manager Denis Mulligan reported on current engineering projects. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site. Ms. Bauer stated that the District is preparing for closure of the west sidewalk, scheduled for the week of May 9, 2011. She stated that a 300-foot-long portion of the sidewalk over the north anchorage house will be replaced with a seamless sidewalk that will prevent water leakage over the main cable. During the four-month closure, bicycle traffic will be required to use the east sidewalk only. She stated that she, Public Affairs Director Mary Currie and other Engineering Department staff met with bicycle coalition groups and representatives of bicycle rental companies approximately six months ago to present information on the planned sidewalk closures. She added that the District will continue working closely with them as work progresses. She indicated that signage for the sidewalk closure is being prepared. She concluded by stating that the District intends that the 4-month closure to go as smoothly as possible.

Action by the Board – None Required

     
7.

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

     
8.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

     
     

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ James C. Eddie, Chair
Building and Operating Committee