HomeMy WebLinkAboutGHD, Inc. 2024-10-07COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 1 OF 7
AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
This Agreement, made and entered into this 7th day of October, 2024 (“Effective Date”),
by and between CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter referred to as "City" and GHD, Inc.,
a Corporation organized and in good standing under the laws of the state of California,
hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".
RECITALS
This Agreement is predicated on the following facts:
a.City requires consulting services related to School Street Multimodal Transportation
Study.
b.Consultant represents that it has the qualifications, skills, experience and properly
licensed to provide these services, and is willing to provide them according to the terms
of this Agreement.
c.City and Consultant agree upon the Scope-of-Work and Work Schedule attached hereto
as Attachment "A", describing contract provisions for the project and setting forth the
completion dates for the various services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1.1 The Project is described in detail in the attached Scope-of-Work (Attachment "A").
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.1 As set forth in Attachment "A".
2.2. Additional Services. Additional services, if any, shall only proceed upon written
agreement between City and Consultant. The written Agreement shall be in the form of
an Amendment to this Agreement.
3.0 CONDUCT OF WORK
3.1 Time of Completion. Consultant shall commence performance of services as required
by the Scope-of-Work upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed from City and shall complete
such services within fifty eight (58) days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed.
Consultant shall complete the work to the City's reasonable satisfaction, even if contract
disputes arise or Consultant contends it is entitled to further compensation.
4.0 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
4.1 Basis for Compensation. For the performance of the professional services of this
Agreement, Consultant shall be compensated on a time and expense basis not to
exceed a guaranteed maximum dollar amount of $238,999.99. Labor charges shall be
based upon hourly billing rates for the various classifications of personnel employed by
Consultant to perform the Scope of Work as set forth in the attached Attachment A,
COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 2 OF 7
which shall include all indirect costs and expenses of every kind or nature, except direct
expenses. The direct expenses and the fees to be charged for same shall be as set
forth in Attachment A. Consultant shall complete the Scope of Work for the not-to-
exceed guaranteed maximum, even if actual time and expenses exceed that amount.
4.2 Changes. Should changes in compensation be required because of changes to the
Scope-of-Work of this Agreement, the parties shall agree in writing to any changes in
compensation. "Changes to the Scope-of-Work" means different activities than those
described in Attachment "A" and not additional time to complete those activities than the
parties anticipated on the date they entered this Agreement.
4.3 Sub-contractor Payment. The use of sub-consultants or other services to perform a
portion of the work of this Agreement shall be approved by City prior to commencement
of work. The cost of sub-consultants shall be included within guaranteed not-to-exceed
amount set forth in Section 4.1.
4.4 Terms of Payment. Payment to Consultant for services rendered in accordance with this
contract shall be based upon submission of monthly invoices for the work satisfactorily
performed prior to the date of the invoice less any amount already paid to Consultant,
which amounts shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after receipt by City. The
invoices shall provide a description of each item of work performed, the time expended
to perform each task, the fees charged for that task, and the direct expenses incurred
and billed for. Invoices shall be accompanied by documentation sufficient to enable City
to determine progress made and to support the expenses claimed.
5.0 ASSURANCES OF CONSULTANT
5.1 Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and is solely
responsible for its acts or omissions. Consultant (including its agents, servants, and
employees) is not the City's agent, employee, or representative for any purpose.
It is the express intention of the parties hereto that Consultant is an independent
contractor and not an employee, joint venturer, or partner of City for any purpose
whatsoever. City shall have no right to, and shall not control the manner or prescribe the
method of accomplishing those services contracted to and performed by Consultant
under this Agreement, and the general public and all governmental agencies regulating
such activity shall be so informed.
Those provisions of this Agreement that reserve ultimate authority in City have been
inserted solely to achieve compliance with federal and state laws, rules, regulations, and
interpretations thereof. No such provisions and no other provisions of this Agreement
shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer
and employee between Consultant and City.
Consultant shall pay all estimated and actual federal and state income and self-
employment taxes that are due the state and federal government and shall furnish and
pay worker's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance and any other benefits
required by law for himself and his employees, if any. Consultant agrees to indemnify
and hold City and its officers, agents and employees harmless from and against any
claims or demands by federal, state or local government agencies for any such taxes or
benefits due but not paid by Consultant, including the legal costs associated with
defending against any audit, claim, demand or law suit.
COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 3 OF 7
Consultant warrants and represents that it is a properly licensed professional or
professional organization with a substantial investment in its business and that it
maintains its own offices and staff which it will use in performing under this Agreement.
5.2 Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibility is solely
to City. Consultant has no interest and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest that
would conflict with its performance of the Agreement. Consultant shall not in the
performance of this Agreement employ a person having such an interest. If the City
Manager determines that the Consultant has a disclosure obligation under the City’s
local conflict of interest code, the Consultant shall file the required disclosure form with
the City Clerk within 10 days of being notified of the City Manager’s determination.
6.0 INDEMNIFICATION
6.1 Insurance Liability. Without limiting Consultant's obligations arising under Paragraph 6.2
Consultant shall not begin work under this Agreement until it procures and maintains for
the full period of time allowed by law, surviving the termination of this Agreement
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise
from or in connection with its performance under this Agreement.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office ("ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage
Form No. CG 20 10 10 01 and Commercial General Liability Coverage –
Completed Operations Form No. CG 20 37 10 01.
2. ISO Form No. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, Code 1
"any auto" or Code 8, 9 if no owned autos and endorsement CA 0025.
3. Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the
State of California and Employers Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions liability insurance appropriate to the consultant’s
profession. Architects’ and engineers’ coverage is to be endorsed to
include contractual liability.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury, personal injury and property damage including operations,
products and completed operations. If Commercial General Liability
Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, the
general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work performed
under this Agreement, or the aggregate limit shall be twice the prescribed
per occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 4 OF 7
3.Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's compensation
limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and
Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4.Errors and Omissions liability: $1,000,000 per claim.
C.Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by
the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate
such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects to the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
D.Other Insurance Provisions
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1.General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages
a.The City, it officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as additional insureds as respects; liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, products
and completed operations of the Consultant, premises owned,
occupied or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant for the full period of time allowed by
law, surviving the termination of this Agreement. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope-of-protection
afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
b.The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects to the City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the
City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in
excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with
it.
c.Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
d.The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
2.Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage
The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City,
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from
Consultant's performance of the work, pursuant to this Agreement.
COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 5 OF 7
3.Professional Liability Coverage
If written on a claims-made basis, the retroactivity date shall be the
effective date of this Agreement. The policy period shall extend one (1)
year from the date of final approved invoice.
4.All Coverages
Each Insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state
that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party,
reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the
City.
E.Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with admitted California insurers with an A.M. Best's
rating of no less than A- for financial strength, AA for long-term credit rating and
AMB-1 for short-term credit rating.
F.Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with Certificates of Insurance and with original
Endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement. The Certificates
and Endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The Certificates and
Endorsements are to be on forms provided or approved by the City. Where by
statute, the City's Workers' Compensation - related forms cannot be used,
equivalent forms approved by the Insurance Commissioner are to be substituted.
All Certificates and Endorsements are to be received and approved by the City
before Consultant begins the work of this Agreement. The City reserves the right
to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies that do not
violate confidential agreement between Consultant and its insurers, at any time.
If Consultant fails to provide the coverages required herein, the City shall have
the right, but not the obligation, to purchase any or all of them. In that event, the
cost of insurance becomes part of the compensation due the contractor after
notice to Consultant that City has paid the premium.
G.Subcontractors
Consultant shall include all subcontractors or sub-consultants as insured under
its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub-
contractor or sub-consultant. All coverage for sub-contractors or sub-consultants
shall be subject to all insurance requirements set forth in this Paragraph 6.1.
6.2 Indemnification. Notwithstanding the foregoing insurance requirements, and in addition
thereto, Consultant agrees, for the full period of time allowed by law, surviving the
termination of this Agreement, to indemnify the City for any claim, cost or liability that
arises out of, or pertains to, or relates to any negligent act or omission or the willful
misconduct of Consultant in the performance of services under this contract by
Consultant, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages for death or bodily
injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, arising from the sole negligence, willful
misconduct or defects in design by the City, or arising from the active negligence of the
COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 6 OF 7
City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that this Agreement includes design
professional services under California Civil Code Section 2782.8, as may be amended
from time to time, such duties of Consultant to indemnify shall only be to the full extent
permitted by California Civil Code Section 2782.8.
“Indemnify,” as used herein includes the expenses of defending against a claim and the
payment of any settlement or judgment arising out of the claim. Defense costs include
all costs associated with defending the claim, including, but not limited to, the fees of
attorneys, investigators, consultants, experts and expert witnesses, and litigation
expenses.
References in this paragraph to City or Consultant, include their officers, employees,
agents, and subcontractors.
7.0 CONTRACT PROVISIONS
7.1 Ownership of Work. All documents furnished to Consultant by City and all documents or
reports and supportive data prepared by Consultant under this Agreement are owned
and become the property of the City upon their creation and shall be given to City
immediately upon demand and at the completion of Consultant's services at no
additional cost to City. Deliverables are identified in the Scope-of-Work, Attachment "A".
All documents produced by Consultant shall be furnished to City in digital format and
hardcopy. Consultant shall produce the digital format, using software and media
approved by City.
7.2 Governing Law. Consultant shall comply with the laws and regulations of the United
States, the State of California, and all local governments having jurisdiction over this
Agreement. The interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by
California law and any action arising under or in connection with this Agreement must be
filed in a Court of competent jurisdiction in Mendocino County.
7.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement plus its Attachment(s) and executed Amendments
set forth the entire understanding between the parties.
7.4 Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.
7.5 Modification. No modification of this Agreement is valid unless made with the agreement
of both parties in writing.
7.6 Assignment. Consultant's services are considered unique and personal. Consultant
shall not assign, transfer, or sub-contract its interest or obligation under all or any portion
of this Agreement without City's prior written consent.
7.7 Waiver. No waiver of a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement
shall be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach of the same or any other covenant,
term or condition or a waiver of the covenant, term or condition itself.
7.8 Termination. This Agreement may only be terminated by either party: 1) for breach of
the Agreement; 2) because funds are no longer available to pay Consultant for services
provided under this Agreement; or 3) City has abandoned and does not wish to complete
the project for which Consultant was retained. A party shall notify the other party of any
alleged breach of the Agreement and of the action required to cure the breach. If the
COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 7 OF 7
breaching party fails to cure the breach within the time specified in the notice, the
contract shall be terminated as of that time. If terminated for lack of funds or
abandonment of the project, the contract shall terminate on the date notice of
termination is given to Consultant. City shall pay the Consultant only for services
performed and expenses incurred as of the effective termination date. In such event, as
a condition to payment, Consultant shall provide to City all finished or unfinished
documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports
prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall be entitled to
receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed
hereunder, subject to off-set for any direct or consequential damages City may incur as
a result of Consultant's breach of contract.
7.9 Execution of Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals, each
bearing the original signature of the parties. Alternatively, this Agreement may be
executed and delivered by facsimile or other electronic transmission, and in more than
one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument. When executed using either alternative,
the executed agreement shall be deemed an original admissible as evidence in any
administrative or judicial proceeding to prove the terms and content of this Agreement.
8.0 NOTICES
Any notice given under this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed given when
personally delivered or deposited in the mail (certified or registered) addressed to the
parties as follows:
CITY OF UKIAH GHD INC.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS PO BOX 7967
300 SEMINARY AVENUE SANTA ROSA, CA 95407
UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
9.0 SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the Effective Date:
CONSULTANT
BY: __________________________ ____________________
Date
PRINT NAME: _________________
__________________
IRS IDN Number
CITY OF UKIAH
BY: ____________________
Date
CITY MANAGER
ATTEST
Todd Tregenza
10/23/2024
98-0425935
11/08/2024
COU No. 2425-118
PAGE 8 OF 7
____________________
CITY CLERK Date
Kristine Lawler (Nov 8, 2024 15:57 PST)
Kristine Lawler 11/08/2024
COST PROPOSAL FOR
SCHOOL STREET MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
CITY OF
UKIAH
June 3, 2024
In Partnership with
ATTACHMENT A
Task 1: Public Participation Line Item Totals
Personnel 14,956.17$
Sub-consultant(s)40,672.50$
Sub-consultant mark-up -$
Travel 9,800.00$
Supplies and Expenses 2,109.48$
Subtotal of proposed hours 260.00
Subtotal of proposed fees 55,628.67$
Subtotal Cost for Task 1:67,538.15$
Task 2: Existing Conditions/Needs Assessment Line Item Totals
Personnel 16,141.75$
Sub-consultant(s)7,507.50$
Sub-consultant mark-up -$
Travel -$
Supplies and Expenses -$
Subtotal of proposed hours 158.00
Subtotal of proposed fees 23,649.25$
Subtotal Cost for Task 2:23,649.25$
Task 3: Research and Analysis Line Item Totals
Personnel 54,204.14$
Sub-consultant(s)3,630.00$
Sub-consultant mark-up -$
Travel -$
Supplies and Expenses -$
Subtotal of proposed hours 420.00
Subtotal of proposed fees 57,834.14$
Subtotal Cost for Task 3:57,834.14$
Task 4: Recommendations and Draft Study/Plan Line Item Totals
Personnel 57,025.66$
Sub-consultant(s)8,745.00$
Sub-consultant mark-up -$
Travel -$
Supplies and Expenses -$
Subtotal of proposed hours 394.00
Subtotal of proposed fees 65,770.66$
Subtotal for Task 4:65,770.66$
Task 5: Final Study/Plan and City Council Approval Line Item Totals
Personnel 23,052.79$
Sub-consultant(s)1,155.00$
Sub-consultant mark-up -$
Travel -$
Supplies and Expenses -$
Subtotal of proposed hours 160.00
Subtotal of proposed fees 24,207.79$
Subtotal for Task 4:24,207.79$
Personnel 165,380.51$
Sub-consultant(s)61,710.00$
Sub-consultant mark-up -$
Travel 9,800.00$
Supplies and Expenses 2,109.48$
Total proposed hours 1392.00
Total proposed fees 227,090.51$
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED COST:238,999.99$
TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY
COST PROPOSAL FORM
Design and Engineering Services
School Street Multimodal Transportation Study
Submitted by (Name of Firm): _GHD _________________________________________
(Please include full cost proposal breakdown worksheet as backup.)
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 1
hours cost hours cost HOURS COST
1.0 102 $14,956.17 158 $40,672.50 260 $55,628.67
102 $14,956.17 158 $40,672.50 260 $55,628.67
2.0 126 $16,141.75 32 $7,507.50 158 $23,649.25
126 $16,141.75 32 $7,507.50 158 $23,649.25
3.0 404 $54,204.14 16 $3,630.00 420 $57,834.14
404 $54,204.14 16 $3,630.00 420 $57,834.14
4.0 356 $57,025.66 38 $8,745.00 394 $65,770.66
356 $57,025.66 38 $8,745.00 394 $65,770.66
5.0 156 $23,052.79 4 $1,155.00 160 $24,207.79
156 $23,052.79 4 $1,155.00 160 $24,207.79
1,144 $165,380.51 248 $61,710.00 1392 $227,090.51
$4,129.48 $7,780.00 $11,909.48
$169,509.99 $69,490.00 $238,999.99
BLUE ZONES
COST PROPOSAL:
Primary Consultant Subconsultant #1 TOTAL
Research and Analysis
Total Task 3
Recommendations & Draft Study/Plan
Total Task 4
TOTAL OTHER INDIRECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR HOURS/COST
Total Task 5
Total Task 2
Exiting Condtions Needs Assessment
Public Participation - Community Outreach &
Total Task 1
Final Study/Plan and City Council Approval
GHD Inc.
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 2
A. PROJECT Primary
NAME OF FIRM:
ROLE IN THE PROJECT:
Todd
Tregenza
Rosanna
Southern
Paige
Peel
Emily Shandy Holly
Murphy
Colin Burgett Kristin Orth-
Gordinier
Frank
Penry
Matt Wargula Lucas Piper Jennifer
Richards
Heather Medina
Project Director Project
Manager
Senior
Transportation
Planner
Active
Transportation
Transportation
Planner
Senior
Transportation
Planner
Outreach
Coordination
Senior Design
Engineer
Design Engineer Senior
Landscape
Architect
Senior Finance Senior Admin
hourly wage: 84.84 54.32 43.27 52.25 36.54 86.54 43.27 95.13 88.94 69.71 51.97 38.69
fringe: 29.68%25.18 16.12 12.84 15.51 10.85 25.69 12.84 28.23 26.40 20.69 15.42 11.48
overhead: 153.06%129.86 83.14 66.23 79.97 55.93 132.46 66.23 145.61 136.13 106.70 79.55 59.22
G&A: 0.0%- - - - - - - - - - - -
fee: 10.0%23.99 15.36 12.23 14.77 10.33 24.47 12.23 26.90 25.15 19.71 14.69 10.94
hourly rate: 263.86 168.94 134.58 162.50 113.64 269.15 134.58 295.87 276.62 216.81 161.63 120.33
Todd
Tregenza
Rosanna
Southern
Paige
Peel
Emily Shandy Holly
Murphy
Colin Burgett Kristin Orth-
Gordinier
Frank
Penry
Matt Wargula Lucas Piper Jennifer
Richards
Heather
Medina
TASKS
Project
Director
Project
Manager
Senior
Transportation
Active
Transportation
Transportation
Planner
Senior
Transportation
Outreach
Coordination
Senior Design
Engineer
Design
Engineer
Senior
Landscape
Senior
Finance
Senior Admin
1.0 6 40 4 0 44 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 102.00 $14,956.17
6 40 4 0 44 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 102.00 $14,956.17
2.0 2 16 20 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 126.00 $16,141.75
2 16 20 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 126.00 $16,141.75
3.0 4 50 118 12 200 10 0 0 0 0 6 4 404.00 $54,204.14
4 50 118 12 200 10 0 0 0 0 6 4 404.00 $54,204.14
4.0 4 74 30 4 160 4 0 6 34 34 6 0 356.00 $57,025.66
4 74 30 4 160 4 0 6 34 34 6 0 356.00 $57,025.66
5.0 2 58 12 4 70 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 156.00 $23,052.79
2 58 12 4 70 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 156.00 $23,052.79
18 238 184 20 554 18 8 6 38 34 18 8 1,144.00
Total Primary Tasks Cost $165,380.51
Total Task 1
Recommendations & Draft Study/Plan
Total Task 4
Public Participation - Community Outreach & Stakeholder
Involvement
Final Study/Plan and City Council Approval
Total Task 5
Exiting Condtions Needs Assessment
Total Task 2
Research and Analysis
Total Task 3
TOTAL LABOR HOURS
COST PROPOSAL: TASK EFFORT RATE SHEET
assigned staff:
classification:
TASK
HOURS TASK COSTS
TASK HOURS ASSIGNED TO STAFF:
GHD Inc.
Primary Consultant
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 3
Note: Caltrans policy and business practice does not permit markup on Other Direct Cost items.
Define a unit cost and assign a dollar value for each item.
Item:Unit Description #units unit price cost
Mileage 0.670$ -$
Equipment Rental
Event Printing 3 203.16$ 609.48$
Reproduction/printing - rate 1 0 200.00$ -$
Postage/delivery - rate 1 $0.00
Rental Car 8 180.00$ 1,440.00$
Other (specify)8 200.00$ 1,600.00$
Other (specify)8 60.00$ 480.00$
OTHER DIRECT COSTS 4,129.48$
Detail: Equipment Rental Worksheet brief description - rate basis day/week/job; estimate rental fee for each iterental fee
item 1 -$
item 2 -$
item 3 -$
item 4 -$
item 5 -$
item 6 -$
item 7 -$
item 8 -$
item 9 -$
item 10 -$
item 11 -$
item 12 -$
item 13 -$
item 14 -$
item 15 -$
item 16 -$
last item -$
$-
SUBTL TASK EFFORT COST $165,380.51
GHD Inc.SUBTL OTHER DIRECT COST 4,129.48$
TOTAL COST $169,509.99
Detail: Reproduction/printing Detail: Postage/delivery
subtotal reproduction/printing $0.00 subtotal postage/delivery $0.00
At cost
Per Diem (Lodging)
Average cost
COST PROPOSAL: OTHER DIRECT COSTS
See detail attached
At cost
See detail attached
Per Diem (M&IE)
Overnight delivery 10 @$25 = $250 First class USPS 50 @$5.00 = $250.
UPS Ground 10@15 = 150
subtotal equipment rental
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
GHD Inc.
Primary Consultant
IRS mileage rate.
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 4
B. PROJECT Subconsultant #1
NAME OF FIRM:
ROLE IN THE PROJECT:
Dan Burden Sarah Bowman
Public
Engagement
Lead
Public Engagement
Communication Lead
hourly wage: 175.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
fringe: 25.00%43.75 25.00 - - - - -
overhead: 20.00%35.00 20.00 - - - - -
G&A: 5.00%8.75 5.00 - - - - -
fee: 10.00%26.25 15.00 - - - - -
hourly rate: 288.75 165.00 - - - - -
Dan Burden Sarah Bowman 0 0 0 0 0
TASKS
Public
Engagement
Lead
Public Engagement
Communication
Lead
00000
1.0 118 40 0 0 0 0 0 158.00 $40,672.50
118 40 0 0 0 0 0 158.00 $40,672.50
2.0 18 14 0 0 0 0 0 32.00 $7,507.50
18 14 0 0 0 0 0 32.00 $7,507.50
3.0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 16.00 $3,630.00
8 8 0 0 0 0 0 16.00 $3,630.00
4.0 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 38.00 $8,745.00
20 18 0 0 0 0 0 38.00 $8,745.00
5.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.00 $1,155.00
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.00 $1,155.00
168 80 0 0 0 0 0 248.00
Total Primary Tasks Cost $61,710.00
classification:
COST PROPOSAL: TASK EFFORT RATE SHEET
assigned staff:
BLUE ZONES
Subconsultant #1
TASK
HOURS TASK COSTS
TASK HOURS ASSIGNED TO STAFF:
Total Task 3
Public Participation - Community Outreach & Stakeholder
Involvement
Total Task 1
Exiting Condtions Needs Assessment
Total Task 2
Research and Analysis
Recommendations & Draft Study/Plan
Total Task 4
Final Study/Plan and City Council Approval
Total Task 5
TOTAL LABOR HOURS
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 5
Note: Caltrans policy and business practice does not permit markup on Other Direct Cost items.
Define a unit cost and assign a dollar value for each item.
Item:Unit Description #units unit price cost
Mileage - 0.670$ -$
Event Venue 0 500.00$ -$
Event Printing (Posters, Lawn Signs)3 300.00$ 900.00$
Event Catering (30-50 ppl)3 200.00$ 600.00$
Rental Car 8 125.00$ 1,000.00$
Flight 4 800.00$ 3,200.00$
Hotel 8 200.00$ 1,600.00$
Meals 8 60.00$ 480.00$
OTHER DIRECT COSTS 7,780.00$
Detail: Equipment Rental Worksheet brief description - rate basis day/week/job; estimate rental fee for each item rental fee
itme 1 -$
item 2 -$
item 3 -$
item 4 -$
item 5 -$
item 6 -$
item 7 -$
item 8 -$
item 9 -$
item 10 -$
item 11 -$
item 12 -$
item 13 -$
item 14 -$
item 15 -$
item 16 -$
last item -$
$ -
SUBTL TASK EFFORT COST $61,710.00
BLUE ZONES SUBTL OTHER DIRECT COST 7,780.00$
TOTAL COST $69,490.00
Detail: Reproduction/printing Detail: Postage/delivery
subtotal reproduction/printing $0.00
BLUE ZONES
COST PROPOSAL: OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Subconsultant #1
IRS mileage rate.
At cost
At cost
At cost
At cost
At cost
Per Diem (Lodging)
Per Diem (M&IE)
subtotal equipment rental
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Overnight delivery 10 @$25 = $250 First class USPS 50 @$5.00 = $250.
UPS Ground 10@15 = 150
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 6
C. BASE PROJECT BUDGET
Wages
Assigned Staff hours @rate cost
Todd Tregenza 18.00 84.84 1,527.12
Rosanna Southern 238.00 54.32 12,928.16
Paige Peel 184.00 43.27 7,961.68
Emily Shandy 20.00 52.25 1,045.00
Holly Murphy 554.00 36.54 20,243.16
Colin Burgett 18.00 86.54 1,557.72
Kristin Orth-Gordinier 8.00 43.27 346.16
Frank Penry 6.00 95.13 570.78
Matt Wargula 38.00 88.94 3,379.72
Lucas Piper 34.00 69.71 2,370.14
Jennifer Richards 18.00 51.97 935.46
Heather Medina 8.00 38.69 309.52
0 0.00 - -
0 0.00 - -
0 0.00 - -
0 0.00 - -
Wages = $53,174.62
Fringe Benefits:
Wages base @rate cost
$53,174.62 0.2968 15,782.23
Benefits = $15,782.23
Indirect costs:
Wages base @rate cost
Overhead = $53,174.62 1.5306 81,389.07
G&A = $53,174.62 0 -
Indirect = $81,389.07
Fee:
Fee base @rate cost
Wages+Benefits+Indirect =$150,345.92 0.10 15,034.59
Fee = $15,034.59
SUBTOTAL wages+benefits+indirect,+fees = $165,380.51
Senior Admin
Outreach Coordination
0
0
0
Senior Design Engineer
Design Engineer
Senior Landscape Architect
Senior Finance
COST PROPOSAL: BUDGET
Classification
Project Director
Project Manager
Senior Transportation Planner
Active Transportation
Senior Transportation Planner
Transportation Planner
0
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 7
Other Direct:
item # units price cost
Mileage - 0.670 -
Equipment Rental - --
Event Printing 3.00 203.160 609.48
Reproduction/printing - rate
1
- 200.000 -
Postage/delivery - rate 1 - - -
Rental Car 8.00 180.000 1,440.00
Other (specify)8.00 200.000 1,600.00
Other (specify)8.00 60.000 480.00
SUBTOTAL Other Direct = 4,129.48$
TOTAL PRIMARY CONSULTANT COSTS 169,509.99$
Subconsultants:Cost
Sub 1 69,490.00$
Sub 2 -$
Sub 3
Sub 4
Sub 6
$69,490.00
$238,999.99
Additional Subconsultant #
Average cost
See detail attached
Per Diem (Lodging)
TOTAL CONSULTANT + SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
BLUE ZONES
FIRM NAME
Last Additional Subconsultant
Additional Subconsultant #
TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
Additional Subconsultant #
Firm
See detail attached
Per Diem (M&IE)
unit description
At cost
At cost
IRS mileage rate.
GHD | City of Ukiah | School Street Multimodal Transportation Study | FEE - 8
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study FEE - 9
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
Consultant
Project No.Contract No.
$90.00 $150.00 $$$70.00 $130.00 $$$60.00 $120.00 $$$30.00 $80.00 $$$15.00 $30.00 $$$50.00 $130.00 $$$15.00 $60.00 $$
1 106.00 106.00107.00
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL Page 1 of 3
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS
(PLANNING, DESIGN AND STUDIES)
GHD
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant
Total
DIRECT LABOR
Name/Classification Name Hours
Actual/
Average Hourly Rate
Date
Technical Director 1- 2 1 102.00
Senior Professional 1 - 2 1 103.00 103.00102.00101.00Senior Technical Director 1 - 3 1 101.00
104.00104.00
Project Support 1 - 6 1 107.00
GHD
GHD
Professional 1 - 3 1InternGHD1 105.00 105.00
Project Support Manager/Senior GHD
Average Range of Rates
GHDGHDGHD
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study 4
B. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND
PROPOSED APPROACH
The combined GHD and Blue Zones team sees all our projects
as an opportunity to help our clients and their communities
achieve their vision. GHD understands the City’s goal of
developing a complete street and multimodal plan that will be a
foundation for positive changes for the School Street corridor
in downtown Ukiah from Clay Street to Henry Street. Building
off the recent success of the Downtown Streetscape Plan along
State Street, the adjacent School Street Multimodal Plan will
identify streetscape recommendations improving walkability and
bikeability, amenities, ADA access compliance with PROWAG1,
and traffic calming to improve the quality of life for Ukiah
residents, business owners, and visitors alike. Robust, diverse, and
engaging community and stakeholder outreach and involvement
throughout the entire process of the plan’s development will be
paramount to the success of the plan.
The plan will provide the residents, business owners, and visitors
of downtown Ukiah with an opportunity to:
−Enhance and introduce safe, accessible, and comfortable
multimodal mobility choices for all ages and abilities
− Improve economic resiliency and environmental sustainability
through good design
− Bridge gaps in the multimodal infrastructure for local
destinations and connect to existing and planned facilities
− Support a variety of community events and uses
− Create a stronger sense of place, and enhance the social life
of School Street
The successful plan will be actionable to implement complete
street features with the goal to transform the existing system to
one that is designed to prioritize the comfort, access, and safety
of active transportation modes for people of all ages and abilities
and promote a livable, sustainable community and reduce the
impacts of climate change.
GHD and Blue Zones have extensive experience with developing
complete street plans, as well as assisting local agencies
with seeking and obtaining grant funding for the design
and construction of such projects throughout California.
Collaborating with our engineers, GHD can provide the City
with preliminary cost estimates of proposed improvements and
identify an implementation plan that prioritizes near-term or
quick-build projects and how the implementation may be phased
for construction.
GHD has successfully delivered complete street and multimodal
plans for many communities which have subsequently been
awarded state grant funding from various programs such as the
Active Transportation Program (ATP), Safe Routes to School
(SRTS), and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), to
name a few. We understand that identification of viable funding
sources will be one of the several pieces that will lead to success
of the plan. Additionally, the plan will be developed with the
requirements of competitive state grand funding in mind.
GHD has composed a proven team of experts that will set the
City up with a successful plan for implementation of feasible
streetscape improvements.
1 Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study 5
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
APPROACH
Our Commitment to YOU
The combined GHD and Blue Zones team are dedicated to
understanding and helping the City of Ukiah achieve its goals on
this project. We are committed to making active transportation
natural activities again, and to advance sustainable development,
safety, and innovation. We care for the well-being of people,
assist communities in need, and conduct business in an ethical
and environmentally responsible manner. We also offer our clients
the confidence and peace of mind of quality and performance
that comes from the fact that GHD is ranked 26th in the top 500
design firms by Engineering News-Record in 2020.
The cornerstone of our business is our client-centered culture
and teamwork-based approach known as “One GHD.” We are
proud of our long tradition of repeat, local government clients.
A full 90% of our clients are municipal agencies or government
entities, and 75% of our work comes from repeat clients. We
believe this illustrates not only our knowledge of specialized
engineering disciplines, but also our willingness to listen and
respond to individual client needs. Each of our project managers
is an advocate for his or her client throughout the entire project’s
process.
The successful management of project scope, budget, schedule,
quality, and risk over the course of the project is of utmost
importance to the GHD team. As skilled, professional project
managers who also guide and advise clients on their practices,
we stake our reputation on it. Therefore, we use best practices
for project monitoring and control that are fit for purpose, with
the goal of demonstrating to the City what the benefits are of
adopting a consistent, systematic, professional approach to
project management. Elements of this approach are described
below.
Project Management Plan
We will create and use a Project Management Plan to guide the
work. This plan would typically include a clear statement of the
project’s purpose and goals, critical success factors, task and
deliverable schedule, and descriptions of how project quality,
communications, changes, documentation, and risks will be
monitored and controlled. Rosanna Southern, Project Manager,
will continuously monitor and control the project, confirming that
project requirements are met using the appropriate methods.
Rosanna will oversee task execution, quality control and submittal
of deliverables, document management, identify and manage
risks, and track costs and progress relative to schedule.
Critical Path Method of Schedule
Management
Starting with the proposed high-level schedule included with
our proposal, Rosanna will build upon that and devise a detailed
schedule. The GHD and Blue Zones team will identify the Critical
Path, the longest sequence of dependent tasks, which must
be managed with extra care to meet the City’s deadline for
completing the Project.
Earned Value Management of Scope,
Budget, and Schedule
In line with best practices, Rosanna will use Earned Value
Management to monitor and compare progress on tasks with
the costs expended, to check for ongoing alignment between
scope, budget, and schedule. She will begin by preparing a work
breakdown structure, dividing tasks, and allocating budgets into
units of work to be completed on the defined project schedule.
On a weekly basis, the Project Manager will assess progress in
terms of task completion and schedule expended and compare it
to the costs incurred to-date.
Contract Changes to Scope, Budget, and
Schedule
Any potential changes identified by GHD will be recorded in
a Contract Change Log and communicated to the City for
discussion. Potential changes to scope will be evaluated for
impacts on budget and schedule; changes to budget will be
evaluated for impacts on scope and schedule; and changes to
schedule will be evaluated for impacts to scope and budget.
Results of the discussion between GHD and the City of Ukiah will
be tracked on the log and the City’s procedures for executing
change orders will be followed for those changes approved by the
City.
Our proven project management approach is key to delivering
projects on schedule and within budget.
Communication Protocols
Project Documentation
Tools
WorkshopDecision Logs
Project Risk and Change Management
Project Budget and Schedule Control
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Project
Management
Plan
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study 6
Quality Management
GHD operates under a company Quality Management System
that is certified to AS/NZS ISO 9001:2015 and was initially
certified more than 25 years ago. The GHD Group Quality
Policy commits the company to the continual improvement and
effectiveness of our management system.
Our quality manual, procedures and Project Delivery portals
provide a structured approach to quality management covering:
−Project establishment and planning
−Contract review
−Document control
−Document review
−Verification of deliverables
−Project records
−Internal project compliance audits, peer review of
deliverables, and multidisciplinary workshops
On receipt of a commission, the GHD Project Manager creates
a project plan in GHD’s Global Projects Portal that details the
planning activities for quality and project management. Project
planning is approved Online by the Project Director, Todd
Tregenza, before being implemented by the Project Manager and
monitored by the Project Director.
Risk Management
As part of our approach, a project risk register is created and
maintained by the GHD Project Manager. The risk register will
include both project-based risks and opportunities that may
impact overall project success. The project risk and opportunities
will be shared with the City’s Project Manager on a regular basis.
While the overall project risk management accountability resides
with GHD’s Project Manager, every participant of the project
including the client, shares the responsibility to identify, assess,
and manage risk.
Communications Management
Effective communication is critical to the success of any
project. There will be multiple forms of communication used
over the course of this Project, including written documents
and deliverables, interviews, workshops, meetings, emails, web
conferences, and phone calls. The Project Management Plan
includes coverage of communications, including preferred
methods, lines of communications, and frequency. The role of
the Project Manager includes facilitating communication and
document management.
Bi-Weekly Progress Meetings
GHD will schedule and confirm a series of bi-weekly progress
meetings for the GHD, Blue Zones, and City Project Managers.
These will be supported with weekly progress flash reports or
short-term action lists. The GHD Project Manager will provide a
brief overview of recent progress, upcoming activities and action
items, and risks or issues identified. Other team members from
the City, Blue Zones, and GHD will be invited as needed, based
on activities underway, with the goal of making the best use of
everyone’s time, while providing the City with confidence that it
understands the current state of the project on an ongoing basis.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
We are committed to the scope of work attached in the RFP.
Below, we highlight our approach to your scope and how our team
hopes to enhance the outcomes to this project. Our proposed
approach to this project is one that emphasizes:
−A data-driven planning process
−Solutions sensitive to local context
−Outreach designed to hear from a wide range of voices
−A plan that results in successfully funded projects
This is a proven, effective approach that our team continues to
refine as we apply lessons learned from past efforts, optimize plan
outputs to best align with evolving grants and funding strategies,
and strengthen community buy-in by increasing depth and
breadth of engagement, including successfully reaching under-
served people.
Our team applies the extensive knowledge and expertise gained
on similar projects to put the City of Ukiah in the best possible
position to receive competitive funds. Below, we highlight
elements of our approach that we believe are particularly unique
to our team:
−We bring a committed team that knows the City of Ukiah
−Unmatched downtown road diet expertise along the former
Highway 101 corridor.
−Unmatched comprehensive planning and engineering
services, including GIS capabilities.
−Experienced Team that will listen to the community’s needs to
deliver a comprehensive plan
−Integrated Equity and Environmental Justice Analysis
−Targeted and inclusive approach to community engagement
−An emphasis on health and placemaking, and a thriving
business and social life given to School Street
−Application of GHD’s “Loveable Places” Framework
−Data-driven Suitability and Prioritization “PlaceMix” Process
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study 7
The “Loveable Places” Framework
For the Public engagement, GHD has developed a framework
called “Loveable Places” that seeks to help us plan and design
places that people want to live in, visit, spend time in, and travel to
— places people love, and return to often. This goes beyond new
bike facilities, sidewalks, crossings, traffic calming, storefronts,
or landscaping — this approach seeks to understand how people
experience getting between places they love, how safe they feel,
their social interactions, and developing a plan that aligns with a
community’s “place identity” and “personal experience.”
“Place identity” celebrates the uniqueness of each place. Just
like how our culture shapes who we are as individuals, our public
places are shaped by their unique heritage and history. Place
identity is an association, the image that springs to mind when
thinking of somewhere. Whether that is a desire to maintain a
small-town aesthetic, a unique destination like the Ukiah Farmers
Market, or Alex Thomas Plaza, or a culture that celebrates art,
recreation, and tourism in Ukiah.
“Personal experience” celebrates the lived reality of a place.
We are all different, experiencing our towns in dynamic and
contrasting ways depending on the time of day, the season, or our
reason for being there. Our experience also changes with time.
What we experience in a place as a year-round resident is different
to how we experience it visiting as tourists with a family.
GHD’s “Loveable Places” framework applies various indicators
and dimensions that measure “lovability.” These are applied in
a multi-criteria analysis to help select and prioritize projects in
the plan. These are also used to generate positive community
energy from the start of a project. We start with a community
engagement strategy that asks the following questions:
I love...
−What do you value about School Street?
−What other places and streets do you love in Ukiah, and why?
I wish...
−How would you change School Street?
−How could School Street improve Ukiah?
I wonder...
−What are your wildest transformative ideas for School Street
or Ukiah?
−What are your concerns about this street’s future?
This approach stands in stark contrast to traditional outreach
efforts that often begin by asking people where their “pain points”
are — where they have concerns about comfort, safety, traffic, or
connectivity. By starting our conversation with the community in a
positive manner, we initiate a constructive self-reflection on what
people love about the City of Ukiah’s downtown area already,
what they would like to see more of, and then reflect on what the
future could look like.
Critical to the success of the plan is a thorough, interactive, and
inclusive community engagement strategy including a hybrid
of in-person and online outreach opportunities, and a mix of
community-wide events, walking audits, and pop-up events
that effectively build consensus among diverse community
and business groups. With this in mind, GHD has partnered with
Blue Zones to facilitate and lead the public engagement and
stakeholder outreach process. Dan Burden (Blue Zones) brings
40+ years of unique multi-modal, community-building and street
conversion planning and engagement experience with diverse
communities with a specialty in bringing people together around
commonly held values. The Lovable Places Framework integrates
well into the outreach process including via an online interactive
comment map, surveys, workshops, and walking audits.
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study 8
Project Kick-off Meeting
GHD will organize and host an initial kick-off meeting with
City staff, Blue Zones, and other concerned organizations
and stakeholders determined in coordination with City staff
(if needed), within two (2) weeks of the Notice to Proceed.
The Project Kick-Off Meeting will review the Scope of
Work, Approach, Schedule, and identify any refinements
or clarifications. A key goal of this meeting will be to come
to agreement on the details of the project’s Scope of Work
and Schedule and identify project priorities and anticipated
challenges. This meeting will also establish communication and file
sharing protocols, review data requests and published materials,
and identify critical project delivery milestones, including
tentative Community Workshops, and Stakeholder meetings.
Existing Conditions and Needs
Assessment
Establishing Existing Conditions is key to identifying barriers
to active transportation modes, areas of safety concern,
demographics, land uses and key destinations that define the
area’s context.
Bike LTS Analysis performed for City General Plan Update
GHD will evaluate mobility and access conditions, constraints,
and opportunities, including an inventory of existing bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure, on-street and off-street parking
supply, management and operations, amenities, the social life of
the street, and key destinations along the School Street corridor.
GHD will utilize the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis
that was performed during the update of the General Plan and
perform a safety analysis based on historical collision data along
the corridor. The inventory and needs analysis, along with a series
of walk audits and community and stakeholder input, will be used
to identify mobility barriers, access priorities, levels of comfort
and engagement, and needed street and community-building
changes.
GHD will also utilize current regional and local planning documents
including MCOG’s Pedestrian Needs Assessment, MCOG’s
Active Transportation Plan, the City of Ukiah Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan, and the Ukiah General Plan, to determine existing and
planned land use and multimodal circulation within the downtown
area. GHD will coordinate with City staff to obtain available files
for preliminary base mapping including any readily available utility
easement data, surveys, parcel boundaries, and right-of-way
(ROW) maps to confirm how much public ROW is available for the
conceptual development. This information will be used in Task 4
for the concept recommendations development.
Research and Analysis – Best Practices
This plan presents an opportunity to transform a vehicle-centric
community into a more vibrant and human-oriented downtown
through implementation of sustainable multimodal and complete
street elements that promote active transportation modes.
GHD and Blue Zones will research and compile best practices
for context-sensitive complete streets design including, but not
limited to:
−Main Street, California Guide
−FHWAs Small Town and Rural Mobility Networks
− NACTOs Urban Bikeway Design Guide
−NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
−Caltrans DIB 94
The GHD and Blue Zones team will compile the standards and best
practices into a customized Complete Streets Toolkit for the plan
to identify potential elements for application along School Street
which enhance pedestrian and bicycle comfort, safety, amenities
and streetscape elements such as compact intersections,
flashing beacons, curb extensions, raised crosswalks or raised
intersections, mini-roundabouts, benches, pedestrian-level
lighting, bike boulevards, Woonerfs (or shared street), etc. to
promote safe pedestrian and bicycle access and improve the
near- and long-term quality of life. We will work closely with
City staff and stakeholders to explore streetscape concepts
and elements that work within the context of the community
and address the community’s vision. The plan’s circulation
concepts will identify where the complete street elements are
appropriate based on the performance metrics analysis, current
planning documents, community input, and how they best fit with
environmental and utility considerations.
Blue Zones Buffalo Mobile Study walk audit
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study 9
Bringing it All Together with “PlaceMix”
GHD proposes to leverage a GIS-based tool we call “PlaceMix”
to help bring the results of the existing conditions and needs
analysis, “Loveable Places” analysis, and transportation
analysis together. The foundation of “PlaceMix” is land use
data (jobs, housing) and a transportation connectivity analysis.
The tool measures the likelihood of people using active
transportation instead of vehicular trips based on the proximity
of complementary origins and destinations, the walkability of
places, and the presence of low-stress bike routes. In addition,
GHD proposes to incorporate factors identified in the “Loveable
Places” engagement effort that go beyond land use and
transportation.
GHD plans to leverage GIS work already completed for the City
of Ukiah that is a precedent to PlaceMix. This work will help us
measure anticipated mode shift through investments in active
transportation.
Fortunately for this project, “PlaceMix” is is to help demonstrate
how improvements to School Street will enhance the City’s overall
connectivity and PlaceMix score. This will build on the GP update
analysis that found School Street to be a barrier to bicycling
based on its LTS 3 score. GHD will work with the City to apply this
model to this project to not only show potential for mode shift
(and VMT reduction), but to help identify suitable locations to
prioritize multimodal investments.
The goal of applying “PlaceMix” is to help the project team
assess where projects will have the highest return on investment.
Return on investment is a unifying holistic metric that guides
infrastructure funding investments on the federal and state
level, including competitive grants. Ensuring equity concerns
are integrated from start to finish in the plan will ensure that
the School Street Multimodal Plan competes favorably in an
increasingly competitive funding environment. We are committed
to tailoring this tool to meet the needs and desires of the
community and maximize implementation potential of the plan’s
priority projects.
Conceptual Design Recommendations
Exhibits will be developed to show renderings and photomorphs
of specific design recommendations at locations throughout
School Street, for up to two (2) alternatives. The plan concepts
will include exhibits with typical cross-sections, intersection
layouts at no more than three (3) locations, and 3D renderings
and photomorphs of up to two (2) alternatives. Since cost
estimates will be needed, GHD proposes to utilize AutoCAD to
develop the complete streets plan concept. The conceptual
design recommendations will incorporate the existing needs
from Task 2, the research and analysis from Task 3, and input
from the City, stakeholders, and the community. Additionally, the
concept options will incorporate low-impact development (LID)
best management practices such as street trees, landscaping
with native drought-tolerant species, or impervious area
disconnection, and identify where these may be applicable.
The plan will identify high-level preliminary cost estimates for
the draft improvement recommendations. The GHD and Blue
Zones team will coordinate with City staff , stakeholders, and the
community to identify priority projects based the equity and
PlaceMix analysis, Lovable Places Framework, and if projects
can be implemented in the near-term. This list of prioritized
components of the plan will be used to identify phased funding
for implementation. The plan will identify funding strategies such
as state and federal grant programs like the ATP which the plan
may qualify for, and different ways the plan may be implemented,
including a draft project schedule.
Preparation of a Draft Plan
This step will document the above analyses and outreach
conducted and identify the proposed improvement
recommendations along School Street that enhance and bridge
gaps in multimodal connectivity which prioritize safety and
mobility of active transportation modes for all ages and abilities.
Recommendations will be consistent with the Smart Mobility
Framework and consider the near- and long-term shift in climate
change to implement a sustainable plan that promotes active
transportation modes. The Draft Plan will include a summary of
next steps towards implementation and include proper crediting
for the Caltrans Sustainable Communities Planning Grant on the
cover or title page. The draft plan will be in an ADA accessible
format to comply with the Caltrans grant requirements. The draft
plan will be reviewed by City staff prior to presentation to the
public for final input.
Final Plan and City Council Approval
The GHD and Blue Zones team will prepare a proposed final plan
based on feedback received on the draft plan, incorporating
feedback as appropriate and coordinated with City staff. The
GHD and Blue Zones team will present the Final “School Street
Multimodal Transportation Study” for acceptance by the City
Council at a public meeting.
GHD City of Ukiah School Street Multimodal Transportation Study 23
F. PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
GHD proposes an 18-month schedule in the detailed schedule below.
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Text1
1 Notice to Proceed 1 day Wed 7/3/24 Wed 7/3/24
2 Kick-Off Meeting 1 day Fri 7/19/24 Fri 7/19/24
3 Task 1 - Public
Participation - Community Outreach & Stakeholder
Involvement
280 days Thu 8/1/24 Mon 9/22/25
4 Workshops & Walk Audits 260 days Wed 8/28/24 Mon 9/22/25
5 Workshop #1 0 days Wed
8/28/24
Wed
8/28/24
6 Workshop #2 0 days Wed 4/2/25 Wed 4/2/25
7 Workshop #3 0 days Mon
9/22/25
Mon
9/22/25
8 Walking Audit #1 0 days Tue 8/27/24 Tue 8/27/24
9 Walking Audit #2 0 days Tue 4/1/25 Tue 4/1/25
10 Stakeholder Meetings 260 days Fri 8/23/24 Wed 9/17/25
11 Meeting #1 0 days Fri 8/23/24 Fri 8/23/24
12 Meeting #2 0 days Fri 3/28/25 Fri 3/28/25
13 Meeting #3 0 days Wed
9/17/25
Wed
9/17/25
14 Online Engagement 13.3 mons Thu 8/1/24 Sun 8/31/25
15 Task 2 - Existing
Conditions and Needs
Assessment
40 days Mon 7/22/24 Mon 9/16/24
16 Identify Barriers 8 wks Mon 7/22/24 Mon 9/16/24
17 Review Existing Plans 3 wks Mon 7/29/24 Fri 8/16/24
18 Task 3 - Research and Analysis 75 days Thu 8/29/24 Wed 12/18/24
19 Research Best Practices 20 days Thu 8/29/24 Thu 9/26/24
20 Analysis 55 days Fri 9/27/24 Wed
12/18/24
21 Existing Conditions
Report
0 days Wed
12/18/24
Wed
12/18/24
22 Task 4 - Recommendations and
Draft Plan
175 days Thu 12/19/24 Fri 9/5/25
23 Draft Recommendations 50 days Thu 12/19/24 Wed 3/12/25
24 Draft
Recommendations and
Alternatvies
0 days Wed
3/12/25
Wed
3/12/25
25 Cost Estimates 4 wks Thu 4/3/25 Wed
4/30/25
26 Draft Cost Estimates 0 days Thu 4/17/25 Thu 4/17/25
27 Funding Mechanisms 4 wks Thu 4/24/25 Wed 5/21/25
28 Implementation 4 wks Thu 5/22/25 Thu 6/19/25
29 Prioritization 5 wks Fri 6/20/25 Fri 7/25/25
30 Draft Funding,
Implementation, and
Prioritization
0 days Mon
7/14/25
Mon
7/14/25
31 Recommendations Summary and Draft Plan
8 wks Mon 7/14/25 Fri 9/5/25
32 Draft Report and
Recommendations
0 days Fri 9/5/25 Fri 9/5/25
33 Task 5 - Final Plan and City Council Approval 50 days Tue 9/23/25 Fri 12/5/25
34 Develop Final Plan 30 days Tue 9/23/25 Tue 11/4/25
35 Final Plan 0 days Tue 11/4/25 Tue 11/4/25
36 Presentation to City
Council
0 days Fri 12/5/25 Fri 12/5/25
NTP
Kick-Off
Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Walk Audit
Walk Audit
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
Research and Analysis
Ex. Cond. Report
Recommendation Concepts and Draft Plan
Draft Alternatives
Cost Estimates
Funding,Implementation,Prioritization
Draft Report
Final Plan and Approval
Fina Plan
30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30Jul '24 Aug '24 Sep '24 Oct '24 Nov '24 Dec '24 Jan '25 Feb '25 Mar '25 Apr '25 May '25 Jun '25 Jul '25 Aug '25 Sep '25 Oct '25 Nov '25 Dec '
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Page 1
Project: 12642688_UkiahSchooDate: Thu 5/30/24