Speaker 3: And recommendation to award a one year contract with the option of four year extensions for an amount not to exceed 150,000 each for the following companies VF K Harrison, Engineering Shop and Wheeler or Uncle Civil Engineering.
Speaker 0: And I don't know who pulled the item.
Speaker 6: I did.
Speaker 0: Oh, all right, everybody. Did you want to go ahead? Sure.
Speaker 6: And I guess I kind of wonder if we can do CND kind of together, because I think the questions and answers are kind of the same. So.
Speaker 4: Do you want to call me? I mean, if.
Speaker 0: I could call five C and five G at the same time, then.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So we'll hear both of those at this time, and then you can go ahead.
Speaker 6: I mean, I guess I'm curious about trying to understand the numbers a little more clearly so we could have. One in $50,000 per year. Per contract. So on the first one, that's three contracts, right? So that's.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 6: So it could be up to 450 per year. And then times three. So that could be like 1.2 or 1.3 million or whatever it turns out to write.
Speaker 4: Actually, first of all, my name is Abdulhamid. I'm with Public Works Department and the estimate is really what we have. That 150,000 per contract per instrument.
Speaker 5: If you could be sure to speaking to the microphone, everyone will be able to hear.
Speaker 4: The contract amount. It's just an estimate. It will be a would actually be awarded based on as needed. So. So we don't anticipate using the contract amount, you know, the you know, the full contract amount per year. It just as, you know, as needed basis.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I got that. But I'm just trying to understand what our maximum exposure is. So, I mean, over the course of the five year. Contract or potential five year contract. What the exposure is for like Bcfe High Scharf and Wheeler. And then again on item five DX there's four contracts. So I mean to me if I run the numbers, you know, it's in the millions and I just wonder. You know, I just wonder if we have a better estimate on how much we're going to spend, because it seems awfully open ended. And then if we're spending, you know, four or five, $8 million on on call engineering, you know, why are we not doing that in house? Because that seems like a lot of money at worst case.
Speaker 4: Correct. You're right. But first of all, both items, item C and D are actually for two different professional services. One is for civil engineering, and then the other one is for structural engineering. And and then we have three consultants for item C, which is the professional services. And then four item D is for structural engineering. And we got we selected four consultants. So really they are kind of different services. But the amount, what we're asking for is 150 maximum per year. And so for the second year, for example, third year, fourth year, we will bring the contract back to the City Council for approval before we award or execute the contract.
Speaker 1: So, so most of these contracts, it only 10% is covered by the general fund from past practice and it's either covered by the project that has been done and funded by other sources or by developers. Correct. Correct. So it's as far as an impact to taxpayers or the general fund, it's minimal.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I guess my other question my last question would be, so we're doing I appreciate you clarifying that. C is for civil engineering and D is for structural engineering. So why are we going to three different firms? Is there some special expertize that we can't get from one particular firm or or in any other case for firms?
Speaker 4: Well, both actually, areas the civil engineering, professional, civil engineering and structural are two different fields in the engineering arena, let's say. So for the structural, it's really well defined and also the licensing, it's different than the civil engineer.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I get that. But within let's okay, let's just take civil first. We have three different contracts. So is there something that one of these firms does that the other one doesn't, that we have to have three contracts?
Speaker 4: It will give us more, I guess, a wide range of expertize. So if we're not happy with one, then we could actually not continue awarding the contract to them. You know, then we'll have more options with, you know, with different consultants. Okay. And usually that's also the standard practice with other, you know, cities.
Speaker 6: Okay. I appreciate your answers.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: So the minimal impact to the general fund is within the city budget, but we have a two year budget. And so why are we executing a five year contract? I mean, you said you're going to come back to us. So why is that? Why is the staff report for a five year contract?
Speaker 4: We're giving the range of five years, but actually will awarding, you know, with an option of renewing it on, you know, on a yearly basis up to five years, which also we bring back to city council for approval. Right.
Speaker 1: Okay. And what happens if we don't use their services? How much money do they get for being on zero?
Speaker 4: Nothing. Okay. Yeah, it's as the needed basis.
Speaker 1: So this is just that we would be using them as a service, but not that they're getting paid. Like some places you have to pay a retainer in order to correct.
Speaker 4: Correct. Actually, they will be like on a standby without using their services unless there's a need for it. So it will not touch the budget.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions from council? I have a question. How many engineers do we have on staff? Structural and civil.
Speaker 4: We don't have any structural engineers on staff, but we do have just civil engineers. And we have, if I'm not mistaken, I think we have only two licensed civil engineers.
Speaker 0: So this has been a question from the public in the past of why couldn't we have more engineers that are actually staff that would be possibly more available to the public when they come here to work with on getting their permits as opposed to having. My understanding is that the project and it could help possibly facilitate expediting the permits instead of having to wait for the documents to be sent to a consultant and then come back. That impacts the quality of service.
Speaker 4: That's a valid question, but I guess the answer really I will look at it is this way. If you look at it as like Kaiser, the health care, you know, it's a big health care center. You know, if you need a specific like if we need to see a heart surgeon and then we will go to a separate clinic just asking for that expertize. So. And the second thing is really for a full time employee, it's really kind of hard to get rid of versus if you have a consultant, if you're not happy with their services, you could just not renew their contract or eliminate their services.
Speaker 1: And by having a stable of civil engineers and structural engineers, we as the economy increases or we have a blip in our applications, we have that this contract already available. And it's quick to do just a cost estimate for the developer or for the project rather than having a full time permanent position. As Abdellah said of my specialty.
Speaker 5: That.
Speaker 0: I'd like I'd like to finish my question. I didn't realize you were you. So. Do you think it's possible to look into trying to expedite that submit? My understanding is that is a problem that I've heard complaints that it takes it adds days or if not weeks to of getting a permit by sending it off to a consultant. Is there is that something that we can look into in trying to expedite that turnaround time?
Speaker 1: We can look into that. It's community development and sort of. Correct. So. We can look into it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Member Ashcroft.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And the comment that I was going to make is that I think we always have to keep the bottom line in mind. And if we hire engineers for our staff for then paying purrs and benefits and all those things that we're trying to get a handle on, whereas I see this as the best of all worlds, these are very reputable engineering firms, two different specialties as as Mr. Abdullah has noted, and they're on call to us when we need them. We can certainly look at the turnaround time, but I think this is much more fiscally responsible and yet efficient for the city vice mayor.
Speaker 1: How much have we spent on outsourcing the engineering work over the past two fiscal years?
Speaker 4: I don't have an answer for that, but I could get that information.
Speaker 1: How did we get to the number of $150,000 per year for each engineering firm?
Speaker 4: I really. Unfortunately, our city engineer who worked on the staff report, you know, and also the interviewing the consultant is not available tonight to answer that.
Speaker 0: Do we need to have these approved tonight? Is there a reason that these but these have to be approved tonight? Well, we.
Speaker 1: Could delay if we don't have a contract coming in. It's it's also subject to budget approval. And so if this council wants to lower it in outgoing years, this says it's up to, you know, council approval. But I think it would be helpful to have where the estimates have come from and what we've spent there based on . It's a every five years we come back to council and it's 50,000 a year. This is a it's a renewal of what our past practices. I understand that. I'd just like to understand, I think, what the actual numbers are. So what's the pro forma in terms of what we've actually spent for each one of these firms over the past budget cycle, like over the last two year budget cycle? What if we could we could the council I mean, this is a full council decision, but if we need to get this approved tonight, can we do it for one year and come back as an option?
Speaker 0: I swear to you, I'm sorry. Member matter.
Speaker 4: My understanding is it's coming back every year anyway. Right. So I'm going to move approval of this. We're not spending 150,000. Correct. We're authorizing a contract up to. And if we don't approve this, we're going to stall public works projects and we will get a chance the budget time at the midyear and at the next cycle to also look at this and look at the run against that. So I move C and D.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? I second I have another question. Does this mean that we currently do not have engineers working for us, that their contracts have lapsed? In which case, but was.
Speaker 1: In anticipation of it lapsing.
Speaker 0: When and when does it lapse?
Speaker 4: It does not. I mean, there is no need right now for the special teams, luckily. So it just just in case if there's a need for a structural engineer or a civil engineer, then we will have the existing contract with these consultants. But luckily, we don't have any need right now.
Speaker 0: So we don't currently have a contract on a consulting basis with a structural engineer.
Speaker 1: This is for the stable of engineers to use as projects come in, development projects come in and capital projects.
Speaker 4: And that's the $57 million that we have. And then, you know, in the next two years.
Speaker 1: And again, this isn't general fund dollars.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I appreciate that. All right, Vice Mayor, I.
Speaker 1: Think the question is, and I would also like an answer to it is if a project comes in right now, is there a firm that we go to right now and when is that ability going to end?
Speaker 4: If we have a project right now, most of current consultants that we have and this is just a guess, you know, that we exhausted their contract, which there is a limit on their contract. So if there's any work, we have to come back to city council, you know, and award the contract to a consultant. But prior to that, we have to advertise and solicit proposals from consultants. So we're talking about three months delay.
Speaker 1: If we don't have this thing.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 1: Is there any reason we couldn't just pass this until the mid-year budget review and then have the contract expire then and look at this item again then.
Speaker 4: We're just again, just a reminder, this is a contract. There's no money involved in this contract.
Speaker 0: There is possibly if we use the services. All right. So that's the concern. I believe that's the concern is that, yes, at some point it does legally obligated us to paying money. That's why you're here, I believe. So I'm only.
Speaker 6: I just want clarification. I think the city manager made an excellent suggestion about maybe we just do it one year, but is that what we would do anyway because we have the option for or one year extensions or not. I'd like to have more information on this specifically like the vice mayor asked, you know, how much we've actually used for these services in the last couple of years so we can kind of judge it. But I also don't want to hold up, you know, the one year contract over that. So I don't know if there's some middle ground where we could do both. I don't know.
Speaker 4: And we'd be more than glad actually to provide that information.
Speaker 2: I swear.
Speaker 5: Looks like maybe the city attorney, acting city attorney might be coming up with something better.
Speaker 4: Mayor. Remember, just to clarify, if I'm understanding this correctly, this comes back every year for renewal. We will have the opportunity each time to look at this, correct?
Speaker 1: Well, we were actually we just pulled off the contract. Mm hmm. And the agreement may be mutually extended on a year by year basis, up to four additional years at the sole discretion of the public works director based on it, at a minimum, satisfactory performance and subject to Budget Council approval at the Budget.
Speaker 0: So come back to us.
Speaker 4: Okay. So in that case, I will modify my motion to say comes back to the council yearly.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 4: So in essence, you'd be authorizing a contract for just one year with no extensions? No to have five years. But it comes back to the council every year.
Speaker 5: For that approval. And I will second again the.
Speaker 6: Timely so at.
Speaker 1: The discretion of the city council instead of any discretion of the public. Thank you.
Speaker 5: I think so, yes.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor and I would also at the time if if we could have a friendly amendment at the time that this is presented to the Council, that the expenditures to date and also for the last fiscal cycle be included.
Speaker 4: Except in the report.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All those in favor I passed unanimously and member Ashcroft was a second on that I. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 4: You voted on five.
Speaker 0: D, five C and five. Yes. Thank you. All right. So then five E, that one's next.
Speaker 3: Recommendation. Authorize the city manager to enter into a one year agreement with bar architect.
Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option of Four One-Year Extensions, for an Amount Not to Exceed $150,000 Each, for a Total Five Year Expenditure Not to Exceed $750,000 Each, to the Following:  BKF, Harrison Engineering Inc. (HEI), and Schaaf & Wheeler for On-Call Civil Engineering Consulting Services. (Public Works 310)