Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency
Board of Directors Agenda – Regular Meeting, February 14, 2018, 1 p.m.
City of Yuba City Council Chambers - 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA
The agenda is posted in the building of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency at 1130 Civic Center Blvd. Suite B, Yuba City, and at the Sutter County Library, 750 Forbes Avenue, Yuba City. The agenda summary, backup materials, and approved minutes are also posted on the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency website at sutterbutteflood.org. Materials related to an item on this agenda and submitted to the Board of Directors after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the office of the Board Clerk at 1130 Civic Center Blvd, Suite B, Yuba City, during normal business hours. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available. If you have a disability and need, disability related modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the SBFCA office at 530-755-9859 or [email protected]. Requests must be made one full business day before the start of the meeting.
County of Sutter County of Butte City of Yuba City City of Live Oak Mat Conant Bill Connelly John Buckland Jason Banks Larry Munger Steve Lambert Stan Cleveland Alt. Lakhvir Ghag Alt. Ron Sullenger Alt. Manny Cardoza Alt. Jim Whiteaker Alt. Shon Harris
City of Gridley City of Biggs Levee District 1 Levee District 9 Frank Hall Bo Sheppard Francis Silva Mike Morris Alt. Gary Davidson Alt. Roger Firth Charlie Hoppin Chris Schmidl Alt. Sally Serger Alt. David Schmidl Alt. Drew Stresser
Persons wishing to address the Board during consideration of matters listed on the agenda will be allowed to do so. Testimony should always begin with the speaker giving his or her name and place of residence. Requests for assistive listening devices or other accommodations, such as interpretive services, should be made through the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency office at 530-755-9859. Requests should be made at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible.
AGENDA SUMMARY
REGULAR MEETING/CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance
CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar groups together those items which are considered noncontroversial or for which prior policy direction has been given to staff and that require only routine action by the Board. The Chair will advise the audience that the matters may be adopted in total by one motion; however, the Board may, at its option or upon request of a member of the public, consider any matter separately.
1. Approval of the Minutes for the December 13, 2017 Board Meeting
SBFCA Board Agenda Page 1 February 14, 2018 2. Approve and Authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment 9 to the Master Services Agreement with HDR Engineering to extend the term of the agreement to December 31, 2018
3. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with Strategic Value Solutions (SVS Consultants) for a Value Engineering Analysis for the Federal Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (Cypress to Tudor Road)
4. Approval of Task Order Amendments to Task Orders 4, 6, 7 and 8, under the Master Services Agreement with WSP (formally Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.) to provide construction management services
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION & ACTION ITEMS
5. Presentation of Agency audited financial statements and related reports for fiscal year ending June 30, 2017
6. Receive and File Monthly Financial Report
7. Native American Burial and Participation Cost Policy
INFORMATIONAL AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL ITEMS
8. Receive and File Program/Project Update
9. Other Reports from Agency Staff and Consultants
10. Report by Member and Partner Agencies
CORRESPONDENCE
11. Report on Correspondence Sent by and Received by the Board
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public will be allowed to address the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency’s Board of Directors on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. Any member of the audience who may wish to bring a matter before the Board that has not been placed on the agenda may do so at this time; however, State law provides that no action may be taken on any item not appearing on the posted Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT The next regularly scheduled Board of Directors meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 1 p.m., Yuba City Council Chambers – 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993
SBFCA Board Agenda Page 2 February 14, 2018
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency
Board of Directors Minutes Regular Meeting, December 13, 2017, 1p.m. City of Yuba City Council Chambers - 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA
The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (Agency) Board of Directors (Board), State of California, met on the above date at 1 p.m. at the City of Yuba City Council Chambers - 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA.
These minutes do not represent a transcript of the meeting and are intended to be a summary of the most important points. For a complete record, please refer to the video recording of the meeting, which is posted on SBFCA’s website: http:/sutterbutteflood.org/board/meetings-agendas/
MEMBERS PRESENT County of Sutter: Larry Munger, Mat Conant County of Butte: Steve Lambert City of Yuba City: Stan Cleveland, John Buckland City of Live Oak: Jason Banks Levee District 9: Mike Morris, Chris Schmidl Levee District 1: Francis Silva, Charlie Hoppin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Connelly, Dan Flores, Frank Hall, Bo Sheppard
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Inamine, Executive Director; Michael Bessette, Director of Engineering; Scott Shapiro, Agency Counsel; and Terra Yaney, Board Clerk
MEETING/CALL TO ORDER At 1 p.m., Director Larry Munger opened the meeting and led the group in the pledge of allegiance.
CLOSED SESSION Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Govt. Code section 54956.8. Agency negotiator(s): McElhern/O'Regan Properties and negotiating parties: STA 1374-1392 (Sutter County) STA 522-532 (Sutter County) APN 024-220-030 (Butte County)
Nothing to report. No Board Action
CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes for the November 8, 2017 Board Meeting 2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute Task Order 3 Amendment 1 with ECORP Consulting, Inc. for Environmental Compliance and Biological Permitting for the Federal Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (Cypress Avenue to the Star Bend Setback Levee) 3. Authorize the Executive Director to execute Task Order 4 with ECORP Consulting, Inc. for Environmental Compliance and Permitting Support for the Regional Conservation Investment Strategy 4. Authorize the Executive Director to execute Task Order 5 with ECORP Consulting, Inc. for Environmental Compliance and Permitting Support for the Oroville Wildlife Area Flood Stage Reduction Project 5. Approval of the Resolution Establishing the Regular SBFCA Meetings for the 2018 Calendar Year 6. Consideration of Continuing Emergency Action Associated with Levee Reaches 14-16
December 13, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Item 1 Items 2, 3 and 4 were pulled from Consent Calendar for further discussion. Item 6 was pulled due to lack of quorum for the required 4/5 vote.
Yuba City resident Elaine Miles provided public comment.
Executive Director Mike Inamine provided background on items two, three, and four as explained in the staff reports provided.
A motion to approve items one through five of the Consent Calendar was made by Director Mat Conant and seconded by Director Mike Morris. The motion passed with no objection. The Consent Calendar was approved as follows:
Jason Banks - yes Steve Lambert - yes John Buckland – yes Mike Morris - yes Stan Cleveland - yes Larry Munger - yes Mat Conant- yes Chris Schmidl - yes Charlie Hoppin - yes Francis Silva - yes
RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY HEARING
7. Consider Adopting Resolutions of Necessity for Acquisition of Property Interests from Parcels with Unknown Owners and/or No Assessor’s Parcel Numbers.
A portion of the real property in Sutter County identified as STA 522-532, the owner of which is currently unknown.
Board Chair Larry Munger noted that the property resolution of necessity for parcel numbers: STA 1374-1392 (Sutter County), APN 024-220-030 (Butte County) would not be heard at this meeting.
Agency Counsel Scott McElhern covered the procedures for the resolution of necessity process: Property owner, if known, receives notice of the hearing and requirement is waived if no known owner Staff provides a presentation to the SBFCA Board of Directors SBFCA Board question and answer period Presentation by property owners, if known Public comment period Board votes on proposed resolutions of necessity - an affirmative vote of 2/3rds of all Board members is required for adoption
The required findings for the adoption of a resolution of necessity include: The public interest and necessity require the project The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury The property interests are necessary for the proposed project The offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of the record of property--SBFCA is exempt from making such offer because there is no known owner
Finding 1 – The Project is Necessary Because Of Levee Deficiencies Existing levee vulnerable to through-seepage and under-seepage Levee slope stability issues Encroachments into and on the levee Lack of protection from 100-year and 200-year floods
Insufficient right of way to maintain levees
Finding 2 – Compatible with Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury The proposed acquisition from this parcel is limited in scope to what is necessary for the construction of the project and the long-term operation and maintenance of the levee system Acquiring fee title to the levee and the maintenance corridors is necessary to give SBFCA the control over the levee and the O&M corridors it needs in order to maintain levee stability and decrease maintenance costs There is no known owner of the parcel
Finding 3 – Proposed Fee Acquisition is Necessary for the Project Ownership of this parcel is necessary to: – Meet minimum standards for 200-year flood protection as set forth in Urban Levee Design Criteria – Provide adequate room for construction, maintenance, repairs, inspection, patrolling during high water, and flood fighting – Prohibit excavations and modifications that would endanger the integrity of the levee
Finding 4 – SBFCA Exempt from Making an Offer under Government Code Section 7267.2 SBFCA is exempt from making the offer of just compensation required by Government Code Section 7267.2 because the owner cannot be located with reasonable diligence
Director Charlie Hoppin asked how the parcel value is determined.
Mr. McElhern answered that an appraisal is performed.
Yuba City resident Elaine Miles provided public comment on behalf of Pat Miller, Sutter County Tax Payers Association.
A motion to approve the Resolution of Necessity was made by Director Jason Banks and seconded by Director Mike Morris. The motion passed with no objection. The Resolution of Necessity was approved as follows:
Jason Banks - yes Steve Lambert - yes John Buckland – yes Mike Morris - yes Stan Cleveland - yes Larry Munger - yes Mat Conant- yes Chris Schmidl - yes Charlie Hoppin - yes Francis Silva - yes
The entire report, along with a PowerPoint presentation is available on the SBFCA website at: http://sutterbutterflood.org/board/meetings-agendas/
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION & ACTION ITEMS
8. Receive and File Monthly Financial Report Budget Manager Seth Wurzel presented the monthly financial report for October and answered questions regarding operating revenue of advanced funding. The entire report, along with a PowerPoint presentation is available on the SBFCA website at: http://sutterbutterflood.org/board/meetings-agendas/
No public comment.
9. Selection of 2018 SBFCA Board Chair and Vice Chair
December 13, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Item 1
A motion to nominate Steve Lambert to serve as the 2018 SBFCA Board Chair was made by Director Larry Munger and seconded by Director Chris Schmidl. The motion passed with no objection. The nomination was approved as follows:
Jason Banks - yes Steve Lambert - yes John Buckland – yes Mike Morris - yes Stan Cleveland - yes Larry Munger - yes Mat Conant- yes Chris Schmidl - yes Charlie Hoppin - yes Francis Silva - yes
A motion to nominate John Buckland to serve as the 2018 SBFCA Board Vice Chair was made by Director Stan Cleveland and seconded by Director Mike Morris. The motion passed with no objection. The nomination was approved as follows:
Jason Banks - yes Steve Lambert - yes John Buckland – yes Mike Morris - yes Stan Cleveland - yes Larry Munger - yes Mat Conant- yes Chris Schmidl - yes Charlie Hoppin - yes Francis Silva - yes
INFORMATIONAL AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL ITEMS
10. Program/Project Update Director of Engineering Michael Bessette gave a presentation outlining the recent and ongoing activities. He reported that closeout work on the Completion Projects continues. The construction work is mostly complete with minor punch list items ongoing. He reported that the Laurel Avenue slurry wall placement and levee embankment reconstruction is complete. Mr. Bessette provided an update on the emergency levee repairs on Reaches 14-16 in Yuba City. He reported that levee regrade operations are complete and the levee was topped out yesterday. The remaining work to be completed is the installation of the new Gilsizer drainage detention pond pipes and the levee crown paving. In addition to the active construction work, Mr. Bessette reported on the additional project activities, Oroville Wildlife Area Flood Stage Reduction Project, DWR Small Communities Grant and the Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project
Mr. Bessette reported that the public levee tour held on December 2 was well attended and received positive feedback.
The entire report, along with the presentation, is available on the SBFCA website at: http://sutterbutterflood.org/board/meetings-agendas/
11. Requests from Levee Districts 1 and 9 for Technical and Financial Assistance regarding Long-Term Operations, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement & Rehabilitation Agency Counsel Scott Shapiro gave a presentation on the history of OMRR&R Obligations. The entire presentation, is available on the SBFCA website at: http://sutterbutterflood.org/board/meetings-agendas/
12. Other Reports from Agency Staff and Consultants Nothing to report.
13. Report by Member and Partner Agencies Nothing to report. December 13, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Item 1
CORRESPONDENCE 14. Report on Correspondence Sent by and Received by the Board Nothing to report.
PUBLIC COMMENT None
ADJOURNMENT With no further business coming before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
______ATTEST BY: ______Larry Munger, Board Chair Terra Yaney, Board Clerk
December 13, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Item 1
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2018
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Michael Bessette, Director of Engineering
SUBJECT: Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment 9 to the Master Services Agreement with HDR Engineering to extend the term of the agreement to December 31, 2018 and approve Amendment 1 to Task Order 21 for Final Design of the Federal Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (Cypress Avenue to Tudor Road)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment 9 to the Master Services Agreement with HDR Engineering modifying the termination date to December 31, 2018 and execute Amendment 1 to Task Order 21 in the amount of $612,077 for design and engineering services associated with the Federal Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management (SBFRM) Project.
Background / Discussion
MSA Amendment In June 2010, the SBFCA Board approved a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with HDR to provide a contract mechanism to allow for the subsequent approval of various task orders with specified scopes, schedules and budgets for design and support services related to the Feather River West Levee Project. The MSA set an overall contract limit and term for the services. The MSA has been amended eight times since June 2010 to increase the overall compensation limit to allow for additional task orders to be authorized under the agreement, and the term was extended once. The current termination date of the agreement is December 31, 2017. The agreement is structured to automatically extend from the termination date for 90 days “to allow for continuation of services, and to allow SBFCA time in which to complete a novation or renewal contract for Contractor and SBFCA approval.” We are currently in this 90-day period.
In order to provide sufficient time to complete additional work, staff recommends amending the MSA to have a termination date of December 31, 2018.
Amendment 1 to Task Order 21 In order to advance the Federal SBRFM Project, in May 2017, the Board approved Task Order 21 with HDR to advance the previously completed 65% design for the Project through final design.
This original scope of work included the following efforts; Project Management Geotechnical Evaluations for Final Design Design Engineering for Final Design (95%, 100% and Final Designs, and Bid Support) SBFCA Program Team Coordination Independent Panel of Experts (IPE) and Agency Coordination
Page 1 of 3 Item 2
Since the approval of the original Task Order, the team has completed the majority of the work and coordinated with the USACE and IPE on the design efforts. Through this coordination, additional design effort has been identified that was not previously scoped as part of the original Task Order. This work includes additional geotechnical borings and the preparation of additional associated reports, drawings, plans and specifications. The additional work also includes associated coordination with the Independent Panel of Experts and the Right of Way team. The budget for this additional work totals $612,077.
Fiscal Impact The recommended action requests the approval of Amendment 9 to the MSA with HDR. This amendment only changes the term of the MSA. The recommendation does not obligate the Agency to pay any additional costs therefore, there is no net budgetary impact associated with the approval of this portion of the recommended action.
The recommended action also requests the approval of Amendment 1 to Task Order 21. This action will obligate SBFCA to pay for the associated services delivered on a time and materials basis up to the respective Amended Task Order No 21 budget (a total not to exceed budget of $612,077). These costs are included in the Final Amended 3-Year Budget approved by the Board at the May 2017 meeting. The budget includes, within the USACE SBFRM Project program (731-94-1064), two accounts where funds have been budgeted for the implementation of the SBFRM by the USACE. These accounts include 731-94-1064-65635 and 731-94- 1064-65634 where funds have been included for the following:
Account Purpose Amount 731-1064-65635 SBFCA Cash to USACE for PED / NED / LERDDs $2,354,261 731-1064-65634 Federal Project Consultant Costs $1,300,000 Total Federal Project Appropriations $3,654,261
To date, the SBFCA Board has approved the following:
Contractor Task Order No. Scope of Work Amount HDR TO No. 21 Design $1,022,592 BRI TO No. 6 Right of Way Support $345,215 Strategic Value Solutions (SVS) N/A Value Engineering $86,388 Safety Assurance Review Panel N/A (No Longer Needed) $0* ECORP Task Order 3 & AM1 Section 106 Compliance $507,635 Total Obligations $1,961,830 *Reference Item 3 on this Board Agenda
The remaining available budget within the two available accounts is $1,692,431
The scope of work included within the HDR Task Order 21 Amendment 1 described above falls within the remaining budget appropriations within the Final Amended 3-Year Budget. It should be noted that the Final Amended 3-Year Budget includes funds for these activities within Fiscal Year’s 2017-18 and 2018 - 19. Because of the opportunities to accelerate this work, SBFCA’s appropriations would need to be accelerated to meet the timing requirements of the USACE appropriations. The Board’s approval of the recommended action would accelerate these expenditures but in total, would have no net budgetary impact to the Final Amended 3-Year Budget.
Page 2 of 3 Item 2 Attachments:
Attachments - Amendment 9 to the HDR Master Services Agreement HDR Task Order 21 Amendment 1 Scope and Budget
Page 3 of 3 Item 2 HDR Engineering Inc. Task Order 21 Amendment 1 Feather River West Levee Project 2
This Task Order amendment is associated with the Master Agreement between the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and HDR Engineering Inc., dated July 14, 2010. Scope of Work See attached scope dated January 26, 2018. Schedule April 1, 2018 to November 1, 2018. Budget The budget for this amendment is not-to-exceed $612,077 based on the provisions of the Master Agreement. An assumed breakdown of work effort is provided in the attached Fee Summary table dated January 31, 2018. Special Provisions None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first written above.
SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY HDR ENGINEERING INC.
By: By:
______
DATED: DATED:
HDR Task Order 21 Amendment 1 1 SCOPE AND FEE ESTIMATE FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES TASK ORDER 21 Amendment 1
Feather River West Levee Cypress Avenue to Star Bend Site – Supplemental Services for Final Design
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California
January 26, 2018
2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300 Folsom, CA 95630 Scope of Work
Contents Introduction ...... 1 Scope of Work ...... 2 1. Project Management ...... 3 1.1. Project Management ...... 3 1.2. Invoicing and Progress Reports ...... 3 2. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations ...... 4 2.1. Updated GDRR Analyses for 95% Design ...... 4 2.2. Prepare Supplemental GDRR ...... 5 3. Design Engineering – Final Design ...... 6 3.1. Prepare 95-percent Design ...... 6 3.2. 100 % PS&E ...... 6 3.2.1. 100% Plans ...... 7 3.2.2. 100% Specifications ...... 7 3.2.3. 100% Cost Estimate ...... 7 3.3. Final PS&E ...... 7 3.3.1. Final Plans and Specifications (Ready to Advertise) ...... 7 3.3.2. Final Cost Estimate ...... 8 3.3.3. Final Design Documentation Report ...... 8 3.4. Borrow Site Assessment and Report ...... 8 3.5. Engineering Considerations and Instructions for Field Personnel...... 9 3.6. Bidding Support ...... 9 4. SBFCA Program Team Coordination ...... 9 4.1. Coordination with Environmental, ROW, Public Outreach teams ...... 9 4.2. Additional ROW Support ...... 9 5. IPE and Agency Coordination ...... 10 5.1. IPE Meetings and Coordination ...... 10 5.2. Coordination and Meetings with USACE, DWR, CVFPB ...... 10 Fee Estimate ...... 11 Schedule ...... 11
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements i C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
Introduction The Feather River West Levee (FRWL) project encompasses roughly 44 miles of levee from the Sutter Bypass to Thermalito Afterbay through Sutter and Butte Counties. The HDR design team (HDR) has been issued Task Orders by the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) for execution of the project work as follows:
Task Order 1: Perform geotechnical and civil analyses, generate a Pre-Design Formulation Report (PFR) for the west bank of the FRWL as well as 30% designs (July 14, 2010).
Task Order 2: Complete additional geotechnical explorations for design.
Task Order 3: Prepare survey base mapping to support SBFCA’s Right of Way team.
Task Order 4: Prepare 65 percent construction documents for the FRWL Project between Station 461+00 and 2368+00.
Task Order 5: Prepare 65 percent construction documents for the FRWL Project between Station 202+00 and 461+00.
Task Order 6: Perform additional borrow assessments, right of way support and design activities.
Task Order 7: Prepare Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments for the non-urban portion of Project Area C.
Task Order 8: Prepare groundwater assessments in support of the project EIR/EIS.
Task Order 9: Complete additional Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments and Surveys as part of on-going Right of Way support.
Task Order 10: Prepare final design for 2013 and 2014 construction packages.
Amendment 1 was issued for additional explorations and analyses in Reach 13, providing Surface Mine and Reclamation Act (SMARA) permitting activities, and construction representation and support.
Amendment 2 was issued for the completion of additional geotechnical investigations and analyses in Reaches 22, 23, 24, 31, and 34.
Amendment 3 was issued to supplement borrow investigations and the Borrow Assessment Report for Project Area C
Amendment 4 was issued to inventory and test groundwater wells.
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 1 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
Amendment 5 was issued for supplemental geotechnical investigations and reporting relating to end around effects.
Amendment 6 was issued for additional utility designs and right of way support.
Amendment 7 was issued for additional borrow investigations, testing and reporting.
Amendment 8 was issued for cobble material delineation in Project Area C.
Task Order 11 was issued for design services during construction of Project Area C.
Task Order 12 was issued for design services during construction of Project Area B and D.
Based on the various scope items in the above noted Task Orders, the HDR team prepared construction documents for Project Areas B, C and D of the FRWL. These project elements have now been successfully bid and constructed. Task Orders 14 to 20 have been used for completion of the Laurel Avenue FSRP project and Oroville Wildlife Area restoration project.
Project Background A 65-percent design was completed for this Cypress to Star Bend area of the FRWL Project and submitted in March of 2012 (Agency review version). Alternatives analyses were prepared for this area within the HDR Team’s Pre-design Formulation Report (PFR), dated August 2011. In February of 2012, the HDR team prepared 65-percent plans for the project area.
SBFCA has coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on advancing the 65% designs for the Cypress Avenue to South Star Bend project though final design and construction. The scope of work for the design of the project includes advancing the 65- percent plans completed in February of 2012 to final design. The work will be done by the SBFCA Design Team on behalf of USACE. 95-percent, 100-percent, and Final Design (Ready to Advertise) submittal packages are planned as a part of the project.
Amendment 1 to this scope of work is for additional geotechnical investigations, compilation of a comprehensive Design Documentation Report and coordination with SBFCA and USACE.
Scope of Work The work outlined in this scope has been divided into tasks in accordance with the work break down structure (WBS) shown on the attached overall design schedule and consistent with our previously approved contract. The additional work outlined in this scope includes activities that fall within the following tasks:
Project Management Geotechnical Evaluations for Final Design
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 2 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
Design Engineering for Final Design (95%, 100% and Final Designs, and Bid Support) SBFCA Program Team Coordination Independent Panel of Experts (IPE) and Agency Coordination Supplemental work that is part of Amendment 1 is described herein.
1. Project Management 1.1. Project Management HDR's project manager will manage the design contract scope, schedule and budget for all HDR Team project activities outlined for Task Order 21. Project management will also occur at the task level for each team member as shown on the attached breakdown of hours. In addition, the project manager will coordinate with the Client, the subconsultant teams, agencies and stakeholders throughout the duration of the project.
The original scope includes project management activities from May 7, 2017 to April 1, 2018. This amendment extends that period to November 2018.
Deliverables: Project Management Plan Monthly QA tracking summaries (Included in Progress Report)
Assumptions: Contract extension is from April 1, 2018 to November 1, 2018. Weekly 1 hour design management meetings are required.
1.2. Invoicing and Progress Reports HDR will prepare separate monthly progress reports that document project activities and update the project schedule and budget status. Items that the progress report will include are:
Financial status summary including an earned value analysis by task. Project schedule and deliverables Current activities list QA/QC review status Decision log
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 3 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
HDR will provide design schedule updates to the Director of Engineering for the overall program schedule.
Deliverables: Monthly progress reports and schedule updates.
2. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations 2.1. Updated GDRR Analyses for 95% Design As part of the original Task Order 21 scope, AECOM reviewed analyses and designs developed as part of the 65% design submittal developed in 2012 for the area north of the proposed Laurel Avenue repair (approximately SBFCA Station 230+00) to the south of the Star Bend setback levee (approximately SBFCA Station 479+00). Additionally, Evaluation Reports prepared by HDR for the area around Cypress Avenue and south of Star Bend were reviewed.
For analysis and assessment, the design water surface elevation was assumed to be the 100 year plus 1 foot south of SBFCA Station 461+00 and 200 year plus 1 foot north of SBFCA Station 461+00.
A review of the existing analysis and design recommendations for the 65% design identified that the proposed 65% design remediation between Station 230+00 and 457+00 are still appropriate. Between Station 457+00 and the upstream end of the project at Station 475+86, a shallow cutoff wall and a 300 feet wide seepage berm were proposed as part of the 65% design. However, the Client wishes to eliminate the seepage berm if possible. Therefore, an additional 23 deep explorations to a depth of 160 feet are proposed to investigate the subsurface conditions in this area (Ten sonic explorations and 13 cone penetration test (CPT) soundings). This assumes a spacing of approximately 100 feet between explorations along the levee crown plus 4 explorations along the landside levee toe.
Three sonic borings have already been completed and confirm that a fine grained key-in layer is present at a depth of approximately 145 feet below the levee crown and that a deep cutoff wall installed using deep mixed methods is feasible. This would eliminate the need for a seepage berm.
Task Order Amendment 1 is to cover the cost of additional subsurface explorations needed to confirm the depth and lateral persistence of the key-in layer in this location and finalization of analysis and supporting design documentation.
Based on this approach, the HDR Team proposes to perform the following:
Perform an additional 7 sonic borings along the levee crown to a depth of 160 feet below the existing ground surface.
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 4 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
Perform an additional 9 CPTs along the levee crown to a depth of 160 feet below the existing ground surface.
Perform an additional 4 CPTs landward of the levee toe to a depth of 135 feet below the existing ground surface.
Due to the proposed depth of CPT soundings and presence of dense sands and gravels there may be a problem with rod deflection near the ground surface. For this reason, a provision for installing steel support casing has been included in the cost estimate. If it is not possible to reach the full exploration depth using CPT techniques additional sonic borings will be required to maintain overall 100 feet center-to-center spacing of explorations along the levee crown.
Perform additional laboratory testing to confirm properties of the subsurface soils.
Review exploration data and finalize analysis for representative cross section for the deep cutoff wall option.
Assumptions:
All work under Task 2.1 will be completed in 2018.
The topographic, and bathymetric data used will be the same as those used in the 65% Design.
Design water surface elevations used during the 65% design will be reviewed against updated information provided by the hydraulics team.
Deliverables: None
2.2. Prepare Supplemental GDRR The HDR Team will prepare a Supplemental Geotechnical Design Recommendations Report Technical Memorandum for the 95% Design, which will present seepage and stability analyses in support of the 95% design recommendations. The Technical Memorandum will reference the FWRL Segment 7 Geotechnical Design Recommendations Report (GDRR) for the 65% Design (October, 2012) prepared by Blackburn Consulting Incorporated. The Technical Memorandum will also respond to outstanding geotechnical comments on the FWRL Segment 7 GDRR by reviewers.
In developing the Supplemental GDRR, the HDR Team will:
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 5 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
To the extent possible, use previous figures from the FWRL Segment 7 GDRR by BCI as base plans, modifying and updating them as appropriate. Present additional field explorations data to confirm subsurface conditions at transitions in cutoff wall depths and where data is currently lacking. Prepare an internal review draft Supplemental GDRR Technical memorandum for internal HDR Team review and update based on internal HDR Team review. Prepare and submit for SBFCA and Agency review a Draft Supplemental GDRR Technical Memorandum. Deliverables: Draft Supplemental Geotechnical Design Recommendations Report Technical Memorandum. Responses to SBFCA and Agency comments including the backcheck process as described in the Quality Assurance Plan. Final Supplemental Geotechnical Design Recommendations Report, in support of 95% Design.
3. Design Engineering – Final Design HDR will prepare finished construction drawings, specifications, and estimates of probable construction cost for the grant project suitable for bidding and construction. Under this Task Order, the HDR Team will advance the design to a construction bid-ready package. The 95% and 100% PS&E will be reviewed by SBFCA, the IPE, and other agencies (including USACE, the CVFPB and DWR). The final PS&E will be distributed for back checking and closing comments. The preparation of PS&E will include plans, details, cross sections, general and technical specifications, quantity calculations, and final estimates of probable construction costs.
3.1. Prepare 95-percent Design No changes.
3.2. 100 % PS&E The additional scope for Amendment 1 includes compiling previous engineering analyses and reports into a comprehensive Design Documentation report. In additional, additional design effort is required for plans, specifications and cost estimating based on USACE comments received on the 95% design.
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 6 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
3.2.1. 100% Plans HDR will complete 100% designs and associated drawings and specifications. The 95% drawings will be converted to USACE format for the 100% submittal. Drawings will be prepared using AutoCad software. These plans will include general layouts, updated topographic survey and mapping data, a levee profile, cross-sections, typical sections of repair methods, details and survey control.
Deliverables: 100% Plans and Specifications. (Half-size drawings only). Comments/Assumptions: None
3.2.2. 100% Specifications Technical specifications will include specifications for all design features. General specifications (front-end documents) and Special Provisions will also be prepared.
Deliverables: 100% General Conditions, Special Provisions and Technical Specifications. 3.2.3. 100% Cost Estimate HDR will prepare a detailed cost estimate. Quantity take-off calculations and cost estimates will be prepared in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the 100% submittal. A draft bid schedule with updated quantities will be included. Cost estimates at the 100% level of design will include a contingency of 10 to 20%.
Deliverables: 100% Cost Estimate. Comments/Assumptions: All required environmental mitigation and real estate acquisition costs will be provided by other SBFCA consultants. 3.3. Final PS&E The additional scope for Amendment 1 is required for plans, specifications and cost estimating based on USACE comments received on the 95% design.
3.3.1. Final Plans and Specifications (Ready to Advertise) HDR will complete final designs and associated drawings and specifications. Final plans will generally incorporate any final comments received during backcheck of the 100% plans and specifications.
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 7 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
Deliverables: 100% Plans and Specifications. (Half-size drawings only). Comments/Assumptions: None.
3.3.2. Final Cost Estimate HDR will prepare a final cost estimate. Quantity take-off calculations and cost estimates will be prepared in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the final design submittal. A final bid schedule with final quantities will be included. Cost estimates at the Final Design level of design will include a contingency of 10%.
Deliverables: Final Design Cost Estimate. Comments/Assumptions: All required environmental mitigation and real estate acquisition costs will be provided by other SBFCA consultants. Any opinions of probable project costs or probable construction cost provided by HDR are made on the basis of information available to HDR and on the basis of HDR's experience and qualifications, and represents its judgment as an experienced and qualified engineer. However, since HDR has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the contractor methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or marked conditions, HDR does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable costs HDR prepares. 3.3.3. Final Design Documentation Report HDR will prepare written documentation of engineering design. Documentation will consist of a binder containing design calculations, quantity take-offs and geometric calculations, utility information, quality control reviews and meeting notes. The Engineer's report will focus on materials prepared following completion of 90% design.
Deliverables: Final Design Documentation Report.
3.4. Borrow Site Assessment and Report No changes.
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 8 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
3.5. Engineering Considerations and Instructions for Field Personnel No changes.
3.6. Bidding Support No changes.
4. SBFCA Program Team Coordination 4.1. Coordination with Environmental, ROW, Public Outreach teams The HDR Team will coordinate with other members of the SBFCA team (including the environmental, public outreach and real estate teams) as needed and as directed by SBFCA to discuss design issues, meet program needs and to help facilitate project approvals. The HDR design team will attend monthly coordination meetings with the environmental team and SBFCA’s Director of Engineering. HDR will provide design support and help facilitate coordination between design elements of the project and the EIR/EIS, key regulatory and environmental permits and related activities. The HDR design team will also attend weekly coordination meetings with the right of way team and SBFCA’s Director of Engineering
Assumptions: Attendance at monthly environmental coordination meetings will be extended from April 1, 2018 to November 1, 2018. Attendance at 50 Right of Way coordination calls will be extended from April 1, 2018 to November 1, 2018. 4.2. Additional ROW Support The HDR team will provide additional ROW support during the fee take of the parcels required for this project. An APN list of the 20 parcels needed for the Cypress Avenue to Star Bend site (STA 225+00 to 479+00) will be provided at the start of this task.
The Scope of Work assumes that the approach for acquiring land from these parcels under the DWR FSRP Program will be similar to that employed by SBFCA on FRWL Project 1. At each of the parcels, Wood Rodgers will provide Right-of-Way support including base mapping services, development of appraisal exhibits and area calculations, show me staking, and preparation of plat and legal descriptions for lands obtained from each parcel.
Amendment 1 is for additional ROW support that will be required per discussions with USACE and SBFCA. This task includes Right-of-Way support for ongoing land acquisition assistance on the Project, including preparing Plat and Legal Descriptions and on-call field surveying for ROW “show me” staking. As discussed with the Right-of-Way team, DWR Geodetic Branch Coordination for the properties included in the Project area will occur at a future date under a
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 9 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
different Task Order. Therefore, budget for coordination with the DWR Geodetic Branch is not included in this task item.
5. IPE and Agency Coordination 5.1. IPE Meetings and Coordination No changes.
5.2. Coordination and Meetings with USACE, DWR, CVFPB The HDR Team will coordinate with agencies and local organizations (USACE, DWR, CVFPB, Sutter County, Yuba City, canal operators, Levee Districts, Maintenance Areas, etc.) as needed and as directed by SBFCA to discuss design issues, meet program needs and to help facilitate project approvals.
Amendment 1 scope of work is for additional coordination that will be required with USACE for the duration of Final Design.
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 10 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 Scope of Work
Fee Estimate Attached please find HDR’s fee estimate for the scope of work described herein for Task Order 21 Amendment 1. The rates used in the individual fee tables correspond to the 2018 rates as established in our Master Services Agreement with SBFCA, dated July 14, 2010. Note that this is for a budgetary estimate only and that actual rates will be used. See the attached fee estimate for details.
Schedule The schedule of Task Order 21 assumes the following general schedule milestones when preparing this scope of work and fee estimate:
Notice to Proceed – May 8, 2017
95% Design – June 2, 2017 December 2018
Supplemental Geotechnical Design Recommendations Report and 100% Design – October 1, 2017 April 2018
Final Design and Bid Start – December 15, 2017 September 2018
Bid Opening – February 15, 2018 December 2018
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Feather River West Levee Improvements 11 C:\Users\djabbour\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ULX91239\SBFCA - FRWL TO21 Amend 1 - Scope v2018.01.26.docx January 26, 2018 HDR Geotechnical and Engineering Design Services Cypress Avenue to Tudor Site TOTAL FEE SUMMARY - TASK ORDER 21 Amendment 1
No. Task Description
HDR WR MHM AECOM Total Costs GEOTECHNICAL, SURVEYING, AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES 1 Project Management and Coordination 1.1 Project Management $ 13,621 $ - $ 5,321 $ 1,630 $ 20,572 1.2 Invoicing and Progress Reports $ 6,184 $ - $ 4,381 $ 3,852 $ 14,417 Subtotal Project Management and Coordination $ 19,805 $ - $ 9,702 $ 5,482 $ 34,989 2 Geotechnical Design 2.1 Update GDRR Geotechnical Analyses $ - $ - $ - $ 140,621 $ 140,621 2.2 Prepare GDRR Supplemental Report $ - $ - $ - $ 26,000 $ 26,000 Subtotal Geotechnical Design $ - $ - $ - $ 166,621 $ 166,621 3 Final Design 3.1 95% PS&E and DDR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.2 100% PS&E and DDR $ 43,752 $ - $ 41,575 $ 73,600 $ 158,927 3.3 Final PS&E and DDR $ 31,299 $ 25,403 $ 18,286 $ - $ 74,988 3.4 Borrow Assessment and Report $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.5 ECIFP $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.6 Bidding support $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal Final Design $ 75,051 $ 25,403 $ 59,861 $ 73,600 $ 233,915 4 SBFCA Team Coordination 4.1 SBFCA Team Coordination$ 19,830 $ - $ 5,333 $ 5,434 $ 30,597 4.2 ROW Support $ - $ 26,666 $ - $ - $ 26,666 Subtotal SBFCA Team Coordination $ 19,830 $ 26,666 $ 5,333 $ 5,434 $ 57,263 5 IPE and Agency Coordination 5.1 IPE and Agency Coordination $ 52,929 $ 47,369 $ - $ 8,151 $ 108,449 Subtotal IPE and Agency Coordination $ 52,929 $ 47,369 $ - $ 8,151 $ 108,449 Subconsultant Markup (2.5%) $10,841 $10,841 TOTAL EFFORT $178,455 $99,438 $74,896 $259,289 $612,077 HDR Geotechnical and Engineering Design Services Cypress Avenue to Tudor Site TOTAL FEE SUMMARY - TASK ORDER 21 Amendment 1
Labor No. Task Description Total Labor Expenses Total Acct Clerical Total E7 E6 E5 E4 E3 E2 E1 T4 T3 T2 T1 Survey ($) Hours Rates 281.80 232.83 210.15 186.28 146.87 125.38 106.28 138.51 120.60 111.04 84.78 125.38 106.28 5% GEOTECHNICAL, SURVEYING, AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES - FEATHER RIVER WEST LEVEE REHABILITATION EARLY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1 Project Management and Coordination 1.1 Project Management 40 16 56$ 12,972 $ 649 $ 13,621 1.2 Invoicing and Progress Reports 12 20 32$ 5,889 $ 294 $ 6,184 Subtotal Project Management and Coordination 5200000000000201688$ 18,862 $ 943 $ 19,805 2 Geotechnical Design 2.1 Update GDRR Geotechnical Analyses 0-$ $ - $ - 2.2 Prepare GDRR Supplemental Report 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Geotechnical Design 0000000000000 0 0$ -$ - $ - 3 Final Design 3.1 95% PS&E and DDR 0-$ $ - $ - 3.2 100% PS&E and DDR 104 16 60 16 196$ 41,668 $ 2,083 $ 43,752 3.3 Final PS&E and DDR 44 40 12 40 16 152$ 29,809 $ 1,490 $ 31,299 3.4 Borrow Assessment and Report 0-$ $ - $ - 3.5 ECIFP 0-$ $ - $ - 3.6 Bidding support 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Final Design 148040028001000000032348$ 71,477 $ 3,574 $ 75,051 4 SBFCA Team Coordination 4.1 SBFCA Team Coordination 64 8 72$ 18,885 $ 944 $ 19,830 4.2 ROW Support 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal SBFCA Team Coordination 64000000000000 8 72$ 18,885 $ 944 $ 19,830 5 IPE and Agency Coordination 5.1 IPE and Agency Coordination 140 40 24 204$ 50,409 $ 2,520 $ 52,929 Subtotal IPE and Agency Coordination 140 0 40 0000000000 24204$ 50,409 $ 2,520 $ 52,929 TOTAL EFFORT 404 0 80 0 28 0 0 100 00002080712 159,633 7,982 167,614 Wood Rodgers Geotechnical and Engineering Design Services Cypress Avenue to Tudor Site TOTAL FEE SUMMARY - TASK ORDER 21 Amendment 1
Labor No. Task Description Total Labor Expenses Total Acct Clerical Total E7 E6 E5 E4 E3 E2 E1 T4 T3 T2 T1 Survey ($) Hours Rates 250.75 220.90 208.95 197.02 179.11 155.23 143.29 137.31 119.40 95.52 78.08 270.00 115.00 95.00 2.5% GEOTECHNICAL, SURVEYING, AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES - FEATHER RIVER WEST LEVEE REHABILITATION EARLY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1 Project Management and Coordination 1.1 Project Management 0-$ $ - $ - 1.2 Invoicing and Progress Reports 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Project Management and Coordination 0000000000000 0 0$ -$ - $ - 2 Geotechnical Design 2.1 Update GDRR Geotechnical Analyses 0-$ $ - $ - 2.2 Prepare GDRR Supplemental Report 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Geotechnical Design 0000000000000 0 0$ -$ - $ - 3 Final Design 3.1 95% PS&E and DDR 0-$ $ - $ - 3.2 100% PS&E and DDR 0-$ $ - $ - 3.3 Final PS&E and DDR 12 48 80 8 148$ 24,783 $ 620 $ 25,403 3.4 Borrow Assessment and Report 0-$ $ - $ - 3.5 ECIFP 0-$ $ - $ - 3.6 Bidding support 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Final Design 1204800008000000 8 148$ 24,783 $ 620 $ 25,403 4 SBFCA Team Coordination 4.1 SBFCA Team Coordination 0-$ $ - $ - 4.2 ROW Support 12 48 80 140$ 24,023 $ 2,643 $ 26,666 Subtotal SBFCA Team Coordination 140$ 24,023 $ 2,643 $ 26,666 5 IPE and Agency Coordination 5.1 IPE and Agency Coordination 18 116 120 8 262$ 45,989 $ 1,380 $ 47,369 Subtotal IPE and Agency Coordination 18 0 116 0000120000008 262$ 45,989 $ 1,380 $ 47,369 TOTAL EFFORT 30 0 164 0000200000001655094,796 4,642 99,438 MHM Geotechnical and Engineering Design Services Cypress Avenue to Tudor Site TOTAL FEE SUMMARY - TASK ORDER 21 Amendment 1
Labor No. Task Description Total Labor Expenses Total Acct Clerical Total E7 E6 E5 E4 E3 E2 E1 T4 T3 T2 T1 Survey ($) Hours Rates 215.76 178.76 160.27 147.94 141.78 123.29 117.12 123.29 110.96 98.63 86.30 265.23 98.63 80.14 3.00% GEOTECHNICAL, SURVEYING, AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES - FEATHER RIVER WEST LEVEE REHABILITATION EARLY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1 Project Management and Coordination 1.1 Project Management 18 16 34$ 5,166 $ 155 $ 5,321 1.2 Invoicing and Progress Reports 12 12 6 30$ 4,253 $ 128 $ 4,381 Subtotal Project Management and Coordination 3000000000000122264$ 9,419 $ 283 $ 9,702 2 Geotechnical Design 2.1 Update GDRR Geotechnical Analyses 0-$ $ - $ - 2.2 Prepare GDRR Supplemental Report 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Geotechnical Design 0000000000000 0 0$ -$ - $ - 3 Final Design 3.1 95% PS&E and DDR 0-$ $ - $ - 3.2 100% PS&E and DDR 60 48 24 64 48 244$ 40,364 $ 1,211 $ 41,575 3.3 Final PS&E and DDR 40 24 16 16 96$ 17,753 $ 533 $ 18,286 3.4 Borrow Assessment and Report 0-$ $ - $ - 3.5 ECIFP 0-$ $ - $ - 3.6 Bidding support 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Final Design 1007240080004800000 0 340$ 58,117 $ 1,744 $ 59,861 4 SBFCA Team Coordination 4.1 SBFCA Team Coordination 24 24$ 5,178 $ 155 $ 5,333 4.2 ROW Support 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal SBFCA Team Coordination 24000000000000 0 24$ 5,178 $ 155 $ 5,333 5 IPE and Agency Coordination 5.1 IPE and Agency Coordination 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal IPE and Agency Coordination 0000000000000 0 0$ -$ - $ - TOTAL EFFORT 154 72 40 0 80 0 0 48 0000122242872,715 2,181 74,896 AECOM Geotechnical and Engineering Design Services Cypress Avenue to Tudor Site TOTAL FEE SUMMARY - TASK ORDER 21 Amendment 1
Labor No. Task Description Total Labor Expenses Total Acct Clerical Total E7 E6 E5 E4 E3 E2 E1 T4 T3 T2 T1 Survey ($) Hours Rates 265.08 197.05 179.04 143.90 125.79 110.17 103.49 125.24 106.17 89.60 64.51 108.37 83.29 2.50% GEOTECHNICAL, SURVEYING, AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES - FEATHER RIVER WEST LEVEE REHABILITATION EARLY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1 Project Management and Coordination 1.1 Project Management 6 6$ 1,590 $ 40 $ 1,630 1.2 Invoicing and Progress Reports 6 20 26$ 3,758 $ 94 $ 3,852 Subtotal Project Management and Coordination 1200000000000200 32$ 5,348 $ 134 $ 5,482 2 Geotechnical Design 2.1 Update GDRR Geotechnical Analyses 15 25 40$ 7,121 $ 133,500 $ 140,621 2.2 Prepare GDRR Supplemental Report 0-$ $ 26,000 $ 26,000 Subtotal Geotechnical Design 15 0 0 0 25 00000000 0 40$ 7,121 $ 159,500 $ 166,621 3 Final Design 3.1 95% PS&E and DDR 0-$ $ - $ - 3.2 100% PS&E and DDR 75 376 42 493$ 71,805 $ 1,795 $ 73,600 3.3 Final PS&E and DDR 0-$ $ - $ - 3.4 Borrow Assessment and Report 0-$ $ - $ - 3.5 ECIFP 0-$ $ - $ - 3.6 Bidding support 0-$ $ - $ - Subtotal Final Design 75000376420000000 0 493$ 71,805 $ 1,795 $ 73,600 4 SBFCA Team Coordination 4.1 SBFCA Team Coordination 20 20$ 5,302 $ 133 $ 5,434 4.2 ROW Support 0-$ $ - Subtotal SBFCA Team Coordination 20000000000000 0 20$ 5,302 $ 133 $ 5,434 5 IPE and Agency Coordination 5.1 IPE and Agency Coordination 30 30$ 7,952 $ 199 $ 8,151 Subtotal IPE and Agency Coordination 30 000000000000 0 30$ 7,952 $ 199 $ 8,151 TOTAL EFFORT 152 0 0 0 401 42 000000200 61597,528 161,760 259,289 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2018
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director Michael Bessette, Director of Engineering
SUBJECT: Authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with Strategic Value Solutions (SVS Consultants) for a Value Engineering Analysis for the Federal Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (Cypress Avenue to Tudor Road)
Recommendation Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute a Contract with SVS Consultants to perform a Value Engineering Analysis not to exceed $86,388 for the Federal Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (Cypress to Tudor Road) subject to Counsel’s review and approval of the final contracting documentation.
Background The federal Sutter Basin Feasibility Study was completed in 2013. It assessed the risk of flooding in the Sutter Basin, formulated and evaluated a range of potential alternatives to reduce the risk, identified a recommended plan for implementation, and included a joint Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act. The Sutter Basin Feasibility Study was authorized by the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) and as amended in 2016 under Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. WRRDA is strictly an authorizing legislation and does not include funding; funding was secured for the initiation of design—not construction--under the USACE Civil Works Fiscal Year 2017 Work Plan.
In October 2017 the Board authorized the Executive Director to execute a contract with SVS Consultants up to $75,000, however subsequent to that date through coordination with USACE on the requirement for the study and negotiations with SVS Consultants, the cost of the required services rose above the granted authority by $11,388. This increase in cost will be offset by the elimination of the Safety Assurance Review Panel previously approved and authorized in the amount of $75,000. This panel will now be contracted directly by USACE.
Value Engineering Analysis Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-131, titled Value Engineering, was originally issued in 1988 and requires all federal agencies to apply Value Engineering (VE) procedures to projects and programs with a project cost estimate greater than $5 million. These requirements include both federal projects and non-federal agencies that utilize federal funding. The USACE has adopted the industry standard practice for VE (ASTM E 1699) with program objectives to (1) reduce program and acquisition costs, (2) improve project performance, (3) enhance project quality, and, (4) foster the use of innovation.
The USACE approach to VE utilizes a multidisciplinary workshop format performed by agency or contract personnel qualified to assess the project in a specific technical discipline. Current policy requires that the VE process for a project, including facilitation of the workshop, is led by a Certified Value Specialist (CVS). A CVS is certified by SAVE International based on extensive experience applying continuous function analysis and utilization of the Standard Value Methodology. The workshop format is intended to result in the following: Item 3 Validating key project decisions Keeping the project within budget Reducing operation and maintenance activities and their costs Improving project performance, function, and quality Reducing design and construction problems Insuring that client needs are given top priority throughout the project
The Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (SBFRMP) is required to complete a VE Study prior to advertising a contract for construction. Based on resource limitations at USACE related to multiple disaster response missions, the VE Study for the SBFRMP needs to be executed by a qualified consultant. The USACE requested that SBFCA execute a contract with SVS Consultants from Independence, Missouri to conduct the VE Study. Execution of this contract by SBFCA results in an estimated 45-day reduction in the project schedule, thus maintaining the project’s competitiveness for a construction New Start. SVS Consultants regularly conducts VE Studies under contract to the USACE.
Fiscal Impact These actions will obligate SBFCA to pay for the associated services delivered on a time and materials basis up to the respective contract amount not-to-exceed budget of $86,388. These costs are included in the Final Amended 3-Year Budget approved by the Board at the May 2017 meeting. The budget includes, within the USACE SBFRM Project program (731-94-1064), two accounts where funds have been budgeted for the implementation of the SBFRM by the USACE. These accounts include 731-94-1064-65635 and 731-94-1064-65634 where funds have been included for the following:
Account Purpose Amount 731-1064-65635 SBFCA Cash to USACE for PED / NED / LERDDs $2,354,261 731-1064-65634 Federal Project Consultant Costs $1,300,000 Total Federal Project Appropriations $3,654,261
As noted previously within Item 2 of this Board Agenda, the Board has authorized the following work related to the Federal Project.
Contractor Task Order No. Scope of Work Amount HDR TO No. 22 Design $1,022,592 HDR TO No. 22 Am 1 Additional Design $612,077* BRI TO No. 6 Right of Way Support $345,215 Strategic Value Solutions (SVS) N/A Value Engineering $86,388 Safety Assurance Review Panel N/A (No Longer Needed) $0 ECORP Task Order 3 & AM1 Section 106 Compliance $507,635 Total Obligations $2,573,907 *Reflective of the additional funding included within Item No. 2.
When taking into consideration prior authorizations and this amended authorization, there is $1,080,354 in remaining funding within the 3-Year budget.
Typically the State would cost share on a 70/30 basis on the non-federal share (35 percent of total project cost) of authorized federal projects.
The scope of work included within the services described above falls within the budget appropriations within the Final Amended 3-Year Budget. It should be noted that the Final Amended 3-Year Budget includes funds for these activities within Fiscal Year’s 2017-18 and 2018 - 19. Because of the opportunities to accelerate this work, SBFCA’s appropriations would need to be accelerated to meet the timing requirements of the USACE
Item 3 appropriations. The Board’s approval of the recommended action would accelerate these expenditures but in total, would have no net budgetary impact to the Final Amended 3-Year Budget.
Attachments: Contract with SVS for SBFRM Value Engineering Services
Item 3 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of January, 2018, by and between Sutter-Butte Flood Control Agency ("SBFCA"), and Strategic Value Solutions, Inc., (“Contractor”) (each a “party” and collectively “the parties”).
RECITALS:
A. SBFCA has determined that it is desirable to retain a contractor for value engineering services; and
B. Contractor represents that it possesses the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to perform the services contemplated herein and has proposed to provide those services; and
C. SBFCA desires to retain Contractor to perform the proposed services.
AGREEMENT:
SBFCA and Contractor agree as follows:
1. Scope of Services. Contractor shall provide the value engineering services as described in Exhibit ‘A’, during the term described in Section 2, and for the compensation described in Section 3.
2. Term of Agreement. Contractor shall begin performance of its services as of the date of execution of this Agreement and shall continue until the project is completed as agreed or the Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 17, below.
3. Compensation.
A. The compensation to be paid by SBFCA to Contractor for services as described in Exhibit ‘A’ shall be in accordance with the Contractor’s Fee Proposal provided in Exhibit ‘B’. The total compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed the dollar amount indicated in this agreement, or the amount authorized by amendments and/or notices to proceed, whichever is lesser. Compensation for these services shall be Lump Sum in the amount of $86,388.00.
B. SBFCA shall make no payment to Contractor in any greater amount for any extra, further, or additional services, unless such services and payment therefore have been mutually agreed to and this Agreement has been formally amended in accordance with Section 21 of this Agreement.
C. Contractor agrees to testify at SBFCA’s request if litigation is brought against SBFCA in connection with Contractor’s work. Unless the action is brought by Contractor or is based upon Contractor’s negligence or intentional tortious conduct, SBFCA will compensate
1077958.1 Page 1 Contractor for the testimony at at a mutually agreeable rate. Contractor shall be reimbursed for travel expenses as required for said testimony.
4. Invoice, Payments, Notices. Contractor shall submit monthly invoices for services rendered during the preceding month and expenses incurred. SBFCA shall pay invoices that are undisputed within thirty (30) days of receipt and approval. The parties agree to exercise good faith and diligence in the resolution of any disputed invoice amounts.
All invoices, notices, or other documents concerning this Agreement shall be served as follows:
If to SBFCA:
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Attn: Terra Yanny Administrative Analyst PO Box M Yuba City, CA 95992
If to Contractor:
Strategic Value Solutions, Inc. Attn: Ryan Robinson 19201 East Valley View Parkway, Suite H Independence, MO 64055
5. Independent Contractor.
A. Contractor (including Contractor’s employees) is an independent contractor and no relationship of employer-employee exists between the parties. SBFCA is not required to make any deductions or withholdings from the compensation payable to Contractor under the provisions of this Agreement, and as an independent contractor, Contractor indemnifies and holds SBFCA harmless from any and all claims that may be made against SBFCA based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this agreement.
B. Contractor, in the performance of its obligation hereunder, is subject to the control or direction of SBFCA as to the designation of tasks to be performed and the results to be accomplished but not as to the means and methods used by Contractor for accomplishing the results.
C. If, in the performance of this Agreement, any third persons are employed by Contractor, such person shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Contractor. All terms of employment, including hours, wages, working conditions, discipline, hiring and discharging, or any other terms of employment or requirements of law, shall be determined by Contractor.
1077958.1 Page 2 D. As an independent contractor and not an employee of SBFCA, Contractor shall have no right to act on behalf of SBFCA as its agent or have the authority to bind SBFCA to any obligation.
6. Authority of Contractor. It is understood that Contractor is to provide information, research, advice, recommendations, and consultation services to SBFCA. Contractor shall possess no authority with respect to any SBFCA decision. SBFCA is responsible for and shall make all governmental decisions related to work of Contractor.
7. Subcontracting and Assignment. Contractor shall not subcontract or assign any portion of the work to be performed under this agreement without the prior written consent of SBFCA.
8. Ownership of Work Product. All technical data, evaluations, plans, specifications, reports, documents, or other work products of Contractor shall become the property of SBFCA and shall be delivered to SBFCA upon completion of services. Contractor may retain copies for its files and internal use, however, Contractor shall not disclose any of the work product of this Agreement to any third party, person, or entity, without prior written consent of SBFCA. Upon reasonable notice, SBFCA representatives shall have access to the work for purposes of inspecting same and determining that the work is being performed in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Contractor may not publish information obtained in connection with services rendered under this Agreement.
9. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SBFCA, its officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, costs, expenses (including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees and costs incurred by SBFCA), injury, or damage caused by the recklessness, negligent acts or omissions, or intentional misconduct of Contractor, its employees, officers, or agents, or any of its contractors or subcontractors used in performance of this Agreement.
10. Insurance. Without limiting Contractor’s indemnification of SBFCA, Contractor shall provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement the following insurance coverages and provisions:
A. Prior to commencement of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide certificates of insurance certifying that all coverage as required herein has been obtained and remains in force for the period required by this Agreement. Any required endorsement shall be attached to the Certificate or certified as issued on the Certificate. All Certificates of Insurance shall be sent to the following address:
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Attn: Terra Yanny Administrative Analyst PO Box M Yuba City, CA 95992
1077958.1 Page 3 Contractor shall not proceed with the work under this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required and Certificates of Insurance have been provided to SBFCA. All Certificates of Insurance shall provide that SBFCA shall receive thirty (30) days advance written notice of cancellation or major modification before the expiration date.
B. Should, consistent with the terms of this Agreement, any of the work under this Agreement be subcontracted, Contractor shall require each of its subcontractors to provide the insurance required herein, or Contractor may name the subcontractors as additional insureds under its own policies.
C. Insurance Required:
(i) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance or Commercial General Liability Insurance for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides limits of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence and written on an occurrence basis. If the insurance has a General Aggregate it must be no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000). Each type of insurance shall include coverage for premises/operations, products/completed operations, contractual liability, broad form property damage, and personal injury.
For either type of general liability insurance, coverage shall include the following endorsements:
a. Additional Insured Endorsement: Insurance afforded by this policy shall also apply to SBFCA, and members of the Board of Directors of SBFCA, the officers, agents and employees of SBFCA, individually and collectively, as additional insureds.
b. Primary Insurance Endorsement: Insurance afforded by the Additional Insured Endorsement shall apply as primary insurance, and other insurance maintained by SBFCA, its officers, agents and employees shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance provided under this policy.
c. Notice of Cancellation or Change of Coverage Endorsement: Insurance provided by this policy shall not be cancelled or changed so as to no longer meet the specified SBFCA insurance requirements without thirty (30) days prior written notice of such cancellation or change being delivered to SBFCA at the address as specified above.
d. Severability of Interest Endorsement: Insurance provided by this policy shall apply separately to each insured who is seeking coverage or against whom a claim is made or a suit brought, except with respect to the policy's limits of liability.
(ii) Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides total limits of not less than one million dollars
1077958.1 Page 4 ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence applicable to all owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles.
(iii) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance with statutory California Workers’ Compensation coverage and Employer’s Liability coverage of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for all employees engaged in services or operations under this Agreement. Coverage shall include an endorsement whereby the insurer agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against SBFCA, Board of Directors, and officers, officials, employees and volunteers of SBFCA for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor under this Agreement.
11. Professional Services: The work shall be performed and completed in a professional manner. All services shall be performed in the manner and according to the professional standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Contractor and any subcontractors are engaged.
12. Responsibility of Contractor.
A. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality and accuracy of its work and the work of its Contractors performed in connection with this Agreement. Any review, approval, or concurrence therewith by SBFCA shall not be deemed to constitute acceptance or waiver by SBFCA of any error or omission as to such work.
B. Contractor shall coordinate the activities of all sub-Contractors and is responsible to ensure that all work products are consistent with one another to produce a unified, workable, and acceptable whole functional product.
C. SBFCA shall promptly notify Contractor of any defect in Contractor’s performance.
13. Audit. The following audit requirements apply from the effective date of this Agreement until three years after SBFCA’s final payment:
A. Contractor shall allow SBFCA’s authorized representatives’ reasonable access during normal business hours to inspect, audit, and copy Contractor’s records as needed to evaluate and verify any invoices, payments, and claims that Contractor submits to SBFCA or that any payee of Contractor submits to Contractor in connection with this Agreement. ‘Records’ includes, but is not limited to, correspondence, accounting records, sub-Contractor files, change order files, and any other supporting evidence relevant to the invoices, payments, or claims.
B. SBFCA and Contractor shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of SBFCA or as part of any audit of SBFCA. Such examinations and audits shall be confined to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement including but not limited to administration costs.
1077958.1 Page 5 C. The provisions of Section 13 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
14. Publication of Documents and Data. Contractor shall not publish or disclose to any third party documents or data without the prior written consent of SBFCA. However, submission or distribution to meet official regulatory requirements, or for other purposes authorized by this agreement, shall not be construed as publication in derogation of the rights of either SBFCA or Contractor.
15. Interest of Contractor. Contractor covenants that it has, at the time of the execution of this Agreement, no interest, and that it shall not acquire any interest in the future, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services required to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this work, no person having any such interest shall be employed.
16. Employment Practices. Contractor, by execution of this Agreement, certifies that it does not discriminate against any person upon the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, disability, or marital status in its employment practices.
17. Termination. Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by serving upon the other party thirty (30) days advance written notice of termination. The notice shall be deemed served and effective for all purposes on the date it is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to SBFCA or Contractor at the address indicated in Section 4. In the event of termination:
A. Contractor shall immediately cease rendering services pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Contractor shall deliver to SBFCA copies of all writings prepared pursuant to this Agreement. The term “writings” shall be construed to mean and include: handwriting, typewriting, drawings, blueprints, printing, photostating, photographing, electronic messages or other documents and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols or combinations thereof. All materials provided to SBFCA upon termination become the property of SBFCA.
C. Contractor shall be paid for any required services satisfactorily completed prior to the date of termination less compensation, if any, to SBFCA for damages suffered as a result of Contractor's failure to comply with the terms of this agreement.
18. Jurisdiction. This agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California.
19. Conflict with Laws or Regulations/Severability. This agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision of this agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing its subject, the conflicting provision shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any
1077958.1 Page 6
SBFRMP – VE Study SOW 1/18/18
EXHIBIT A VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY – SCOPE OF WORK
18 January 2018
1. PROJECT TITLE
Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project –Cypress Avenue to Tudor Road, CA ‐ Pre‐ Construction Engineering & Design (PED) VE Study
2. STUDY OVERVIEW
Facilitate Value Engineering workshop, provide VE team members, and prepare Value Engineering report.
A. Location of Workshops: Sacramento, CA B. Workshop Date: 29 January 2018 C. Workshop Duration: 5 Days (40 hours) D. Workshop Materials: 95% Design Submittal
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (Project), authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2014 (P.L.113-121, § 7002(2)(8)), reduces flood risk to the communities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, Yuba City and portions of unincorporated Sutter County through constructed improvements to existing Federally-authorized levees. The levees selected for improvement are located along the west bank of the Feather River in Sutter County downstream of Yuba City between Laurel Avenue and Star Bend Road.
The Project consists of approximately 5-miles of improvements to existing levees through the installation of both seepage cutoff barriers and earth berms. Cutoff walls are required along the entire Project reach with wall depths expected to range between 40 and 100-feet. Cutoff wall installation may require both conventional trench excavation and a deep mixing method depending on the final design depths selected. Seepage berm construction is only expected along less than 1-mile of the Project reach. Construction is also expected to include the related abandonment and/or relocation of agricultural irrigation facilities impacted by the Project. These facilities include water supply and drainage ditches, water supply wells, and gravity and pressure pipe penetrations of the levee.
This VE study will be based on the 95% design submittal for the Project. This includes the construction plans, contract specifications, current project cost estimate, and Design Documentation Report.
4. DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The goal of VE workshop is to document and verify functions, goals, and objectives as defined by the project. Evaluate the project documents and cost estimate to insure they comply with functions, goals, and objectives. The Consultant (Strategic Value Solutions) shall name and assign mid-level and senior engineers as Value Engineering team members.
1 SBFRMP – VE Study SOW 1/18/18
a. Value Engineering (VE) Study. The intent of VE study is to apply Value Methodology to the project development process to optimize the overall value of the project and to ensure that the functional requirements of the project are appropriately addressed.
b. Value Methodology Process: The SAVE International 6 step process shall be used: Information Phase, Function Analysis Phase, Creative Phase, Evaluation Phase, Development Phase and Presentation Phase. VE workshop to be lead be a Certified Value Specialist (CVS). For this Problem Resolution Study, the team will analyze various components of the project. Each component will have defined functions and brainstorming ideas.
c. Risk Assessment: The Value team shall perform a risk analysis to determine what risk is associated with Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental and Sustainability. The team will evaluate ways to Avoid and/or minimize adverse impact to the design and construction, focus efforts to discover and act on risk and opportunities that can affect the project’s scope, schedule, budget and quality throughout the project life cycle. Review all technical and contractual risk. The team will conduct a limited cost and schedule analysis to review discrepancy of the cost estimates and impacts and evaluate the schedule impacts.
d. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA): The intent of LCCA is to provide a relative monetary comparison of alternatives when including operations and maintenance expenses over a defined economic life for the project. LCCA is an integral part of VE. Include in proposals as appropriate and/or provide an explanation for its exclusion. Prepare separate tables for comparison of first costs between options and first cost plus life cycle costs between options.
e. Workshop Team Composition & Qualifications: The Consultant shall provide the VE team that will conduct the workshop. Team members shall be expert to senior members in each discipline and experienced in the planning and design of similar facilities or structures and shall not have been associated with the original design. The following technical disciplines are required: Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Construction Engineer/Manager, and Cost Engineer.
f. Workshop Participants: US Army Corps of Engineers - Project Manager (PM), Technical Lead (TL), Project Engineer, and Value Engineering Officer (VEO); Non- Federal Sponsors – Representatives from Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and California Department of Water Resources; Consultant – Facilitator and VE Workshop Team members.
5. SERVICES REQUIRED The Consultant shall provide the VE team to participate in the VE study and finalize the report in accordance with the scope of work as follows:
A. Pre-Workshop: (1) The VEO will provide project documents to the Facilitator in a timely manner (10 business days before workshop) and identify information that will be available at the start of the study, during the study or not at all.
2 SBFRMP – VE Study SOW 1/18/18
(2) The Facilitator shall coordinate with VEO to develop the agenda, roles and responsibilities prior to the meeting. Electronic copy of the agenda will be provided to the workshop participants and others as designated by the VEO.
(3) The team members shall be familiar with workshop materials. The Facilitator shall coordinate the dissemination and review of these documents provided prior to the workshop with the VE workshop team. Provide a list of additional information desired for the workshop to the VEO. Prepare a cost model or histogram.
(4) Facilitator shall coordinate team member’s attendance for the entire workshop phase.
(5) The Facilitator shall provide the workshop agenda within seven (7) calendar days of the VE workshop start date.
B. Workshop:
(1) The Facilitator shall lead and manage the workshop, in-brief and out-brief presentation.
(2) The Facilitator shall coordinate the site visit with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency.
(3) The Facilitator shall work with the workshop participants to establish and maintain the following information during the Workshop (at a minimum): i. Action Items ii. Key Agreements/Critical Assumptions/Critical Constraints iii. Risks (both threats and opportunities) with management strategies iv. Quality Objectives v. VE Proposals vi. Proposal Summary, including identified list of optimum reasonable cost avoidance vii. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (if applicable)
(4) At the conclusion of workshop, the VE recommendations are briefed to the workshop participants as well as other interested representatives from the USACE, non-Federal sponsors, and other stakeholders. The out-briefing shall be a PowerPoint presentation and will be sent electronically to off-site interested parties prior to the out-brief.
C. Post-Workshop
(1) The Facilitator shall review the proposals for accuracy and completeness, revise as necessary. Submit revised versions of documents including: i. Summary of Proposals ii. Quantitative and Qualitative Proposals iii. Other revised documents
3 SBFRMP – VE Study SOW 1/18/18
(2) The VEO and Facilitator shall schedule, lead and manage the implementation meeting, and include results in final report. Schedule meeting in coordination with SPK VEO preferably after submitting Draft VE report. Results shall include specific reasons why each proposal is accepted/accepted conditional/under review/rejected and the following information shall be included in the report: i. Study Date ii. VE Control # iii. P2 # and Project Name iv. Workshop Team Leader(s) v. Workshop Team Members and Participants vi. Number of VE Proposals vii. Number of Accepted VE Proposals viii. Number of Qualitative Proposals ix. Number of Accepted Qualitative Proposals x. Maximum Cost Avoidance Proposed (Gross) xi. Accepted Cost Avoidance (Gross) xii. Study Cost to government xiii. Calculated Return on Investment xiv. Summary of Proposals xv. Implementation Results
(3) The VE Firm shall prepare a report of pre-workshop, workshop and post- workshop tasks. Documentation included in the Final Workshop Report will include and is not limited to:
i. The Cover shall include the, VE Control # P2#, Project Title, Project Location, Level of Design (Feasibility, Draft RFP, 30%, 60%, etc., do not use ambiguous terms like ‘interim’), Date of Study, Project Design Firm, Value Engineering Firm. ii. The Executive Summary shall include the information in 5B (3)(i-vii) and 5C above as well as function analysis discussion. iii. Project Description, Background, Results of Functional Analysis, list of VE workshop participants. iv. Summary of Recommended Ideas, Proposals, Comments and applicable cost avoidance. v. Summary of Gross Cost Avoidance of the optimum realistic proposals and identify which proposals are included. vi. Create hyperlink between “Summary of Recommendations” and individual proposal descriptions in the electronic, searchable version, if possible. vii. Complete description explaining the recommended proposal, the rationale for the recommended proposal, advantages/disadvantages of incorporating the proposal, any appropriate sketches/calculations, and cost analysis including life cycle cost analysis, if appropriate. viii. Discussion of proposals that deviate from the project as designed, agency guidance or local requirements. ix. Implementation meeting findings and results (3b above).
4 SBFRMP – VE Study SOW 1/18/18
x. Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) Diagram or other technique to verify that Function Analysis has been performed. xi. Creative idea list, a complete list of brainstorming ideas, not just those analyzed/developed. xii. Cost Model or Histogram.
(4) Quality Control shall be conducted on all VE products submitted for review and approval. Documentation of the QC process shall be presented to the VEO but also the results of the QC efforts as well as a signed certification that documents that the QC process was executed.
6. PERIOD OF SERVICE
The Consultant shall perform the work and services in the time allowed as follows:
Value Engineering Workshop Within forty-five (45) calendar days of contract award.
Draft (90%) VE Study Report Within ten (10) calendar days from final day of the VE Workshop.
Implementation Meeting (Teleconference) Within thirty (30) calendar days from submittal of draft VE study report.
Approved Final VE Study Report Within twenty (20) calendar days after Implementation Meeting.
7. COORDINATION
(1) This VE study is under contract by SBFCA as a non-Federal sponsor for the Project. SBFCA shall assign a Project Manager (PM) to serve as the Consultant’s POC.
(2) The USACE Sacramento District VEO and SBFCA PM shall jointly direct the activities outlined in the SOW.
(3) The Consultant shall submit all work products to the VEO and SBFCA PM for review and comment. Work products are considered complete upon receiving approval from both the VEO and SBFCA PM.
(4) The Consultant shall submit all pay requests to the SBFCA PM.
8. REVIEWS AND SUBMITTALS
The USACE review team will perform a quality assurance review of each submittal and provide written comments to the Consultant via the VEO. For each review, the Consultant
5 SBFRMP – VE Study SOW 1/18/18
shall examine all comments and contact the VEO to clarify comments as needed. All comments and responses shall also be provided to the SBFCA PM.
a. Draft VE Study Report
(1) The A-E shall submit one electronic (PDF) file of the Draft VE Report. Reproduced photographs shall be clear and legible.
b. Implementation Meeting (Teleconference)
(1) An Implementation Meeting will be scheduled after submittal of draft report. After completion of Implementation teleconference, all finding and results must be documented for accepted/rejected recommendations and included in the final VE report.
c. Approved Final (100%) VE Report
(1) When the Final VE Report review has been completed, review comments have been documented, and all comments and issues have been resolved, the Final VE Report becomes the approved VE Report.
(2) Upon final approval, the A-E shall submit two (2) copies of the approved Value Engineering Study Report and one electronic (PDF) file of the approved VE Report.
d. Mailing Address Consultant shall officially forward all required submittals through a letter of submittal. The VEO and a representative from SBFCA are identified below:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: Rene McGaugh (CESPK-ED-SC) Value Engineering Officer 1325 J St Sacramento, CA 95758
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency ATTN: Michael Bessette Director of Engineering P.O. Box M Yuba City, CA 95991
9. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR DESIGN The Consultant shall be responsible for notifying the SBFCA PM of any missing criteria needed for his work.
a. Criteria:
(1) ER 11-1-321 change 1 January 2011, Army Programs Value Engineering, U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, 01 January 2011.
6 SBFRMP – VE Study SOW 1/18/18
(2) EM 1110-2-1150, Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 31 August 1999. ASTM E 833-00, Standard Terminology of Building Economics, presents a definitive glossary of terms used in value engineering and cost analyses of construction alternatives.
(3) Value Methodology Standard, published by SAVE International, presents detailed illustration of the Value Engineering process.
10. ITEMS AND DATA TO BE FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT
a. Pertinent Data The Government shall make available to the Consultant relevant information from related studies, the Final Feasibility Report, conceptual design drawings, and other pertinent available data which may contribute to the preparation of the VE Study.
b. Returning Items All material shall be discarded or returned to the VEO or to the SBFCA PM upon completion of the contract.
11. DEVIATION FROM OR SERVICES BEYOND THE ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant is advised not to perform any extra services under this contract requested by any person in the USACE, orally or in writing, which the Consultant considers to be a change in work or services required and which necessitates an adjustment in the contract fee. Only an official from the SBFCA can approve changes to this contract which require an adjustment in fee. Any such extra services executed by the Consultant without the appropriate written notice by the SBFCA is undertaken at the Consultant’s own risk.
12. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
a. Release of Data All data, reports, and materials relative to this Scope of Work are the property of the SBFCA and will not be released by the Consultant, subcontractors, or employees without written approval of the SBFCA.
7 Strategic Value Solutions, Inc. Basis for Proposal
Project Title: Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project Location: Sacramento, CA Workshop Location: Sacramento, CA Workshop Start Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 Workshop Duration: 5 days, (40 hours) Project Manager John Robinson CVS Team Leader: Ryan Robinson Assistant Team Leader: None SVS Provided Cost Estimator Cecil Stegman Administrative Assistant at Workshop? Yes Full Time? Yes Total Number of Team Members? 4 Number of SVS Provided Team Members: 5 SVS Profit on Labor 10.00% SVS Mark-Up on Subconsultants: 5.00% SVS Mark-Up on Expenses: 0.00% Compensation Basis Firm Fixed Price SVS Providing Conference Room: Yes SVS Providing Refreshments for Breaks: No SVS Providing Lunches: No Online Conference for Kick-Off Presentations: No Online Conference for Presentation of Results: No SVS Providing Copy Machine in Conference Room: No Implementation Meeting at Client's Office? No Implementation Meeting using Online Conference? Yes
Reports Via FTP Hard Copies CD's Preliminary no 0 0 Draft-Final (Standard) yes via email 0 0 Final (Standard) yes via email 2 0
Page 1 of 3 Strategic Value Solutions, Inc. Value Study Cost Proposal
Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Sacramento, CA
Strategic Value Solutions, Inc. Total
Labor $36,211 Expenses $8,391 Profit on SVS Labor 10.0% $3,621 Subconsultant Administration 5.0% $1,817
Subtotal SVS $50,041
% of MBE/ SVS Subconsultants Total Total WBE
Water Resources Solutions, LLC $11,871 13.7% 0 Independent $12,852 14.9% 0 VCI $11,624 13.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal SVS Subconsultants $36,347 42.1%
TOTAL FIRM-FIXED PRICE $86,388 (Lump Sum)
Total Percentage for MBEs $0 0.0% Total Percentage for WBEs $0 0.0%
Workshop Start Date: January 29, 2018
Page 2 of 3 Strategic Value Solutions, Inc. Cost Proposal Worksheet Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Sacramento, CA
Workshop Location: Sacramento, CA Workshop Date: 1/29/2018 Duration: 5 days Study Management Pre-Workshop Workshop Post Workshop Total Team Member Discipline Hours Rate Total Cost Hours Ryan Robinson CVS Team Leader 10 48 28 86 $ 203.94 $ 17,539 John Robinson Project Manager 8 8 $ 223.56 $ 1,788 Korene Robinson Principal (QA/QC Manager) 2 4 6 $ 223.56 $ 1,341 Robert Prager Geotechnical Engineer 4 52 56 $ 164.40 $ 9,206 $ - Breanna Kinzel Project Administrator 12 8 48 28 96 $ 66.00 $ 6,336
Total Labor $ 36,211
Total Item Quantity Rate Total Cost Expenses Quantity CVS Team Leader Airfare from: Kansas City, MO 1 1 $ 700.00 $ 700 Geotechnical Engineer Airfare from: Jacksonville, FL 1 1 $ 800.00 $ 800 Cost Estimator Airfare from: 0 $ - $ - Administrative AssistantAirfare from: Kansas City, MO 1 1 $ 700.00 $ 700 Rental Car 6 6 $ 95.00 $ 570 Airport Parking 22 22 $ 23.00 $ 506 Personal Mileage 300 300 $ 0.535 $ 161 Airport Transportation 0 $ 60.00 $ - Local Transportation 0 $ 20.00 $ - Local Parking 0 $ 20.00 $ - Lodging 19 19 $ 128.00 $ 2,432 Lodging Taxes15% 19 19 $ 19.20 $ 365 Meals 19 19 $ 64.00 $ 1,216 General Copying 100 1000 0 500 1600 $ 0.12 $ 192 Reproduce Project Docs 0 $ 0.12 $ - Copy Machine Rental 0 $ - $ - Conference Room 0 $ 500.00 $ - Online Conference 0 $ 100.00 $ - Team Refreshments 0 $ - $ - Team Lunches 0 $ - $ - Conf Room Internet 0 $ - $ -
Shipping and Express Mail $ - $ 50 $ 250 $ 50 $ 350 Supplies & Miscellaneous $ - $ 50 $ 100 $ 100 $ 250
Total Prelim Draft Final Rate Total Cost Quantity Reports- Hardcopies 0 0 2 2 $ 75.00 $ 150 Reports- CDs 0 0 0 0 $ 10.00 $ -
$ 8,391 Mark-up on Expenses 0% $ -
Total Expenses $ 8,391
Total Cost $ 44,602
1/18/2018
Page 3 of 3 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2018
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director Michael Bessette, Director of Engineering
SUBJECT: Approval of Task Order Amendments to Task Orders 4, 6, 7 and 8, under the Master Services Agreement with WSP (formally Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.) to provide construction management services
Recommendation Authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendments to Task Orders 4, 6, 7 and 8 re-distributing the remaining budgets between the Task Orders in order to allocate the remaining budgets from completed projects to the remaining efforts associated with the Laurel Avenue Flood System Repair Project.
Background In August and September of 2012, SBFCA conducted a solicitation and interview process to identify a qualified construction management services company (CM) to provide constructability review, resident engineer, project inspection, and construction management services for the Feather River West Levee Project. SBFCA received Statements of Qualifications from four CM firms and interviewed all four. The interview panel unanimously selected WSP (formerly known as Parsons Brinckerhoff, or PB) as the most qualified firm. SBFCA subsequently entered into a contract with WSP for Project Area C CM services, which began construction in the summer of 2013, and also a contract for Project Area B and D CM services in early 2014. On November 18, 2015, SBFCA entered into a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with WSP to provide constructability reviews for Feather River West Levee Gaps Projects (now called Completion Projects), Gridley Bridge Erosion Repair Project, and the Laurel Avenue Flood System Repair Project as Task Orders 1 through 3, respectively, under the MSA. Task Orders 4 through 6 under the MSA were approved in July 2016 to provide for the needed CM services to implement these projects.
Additional Task Orders, No’s. 7, 8 and 9 were approved to provide additional budget for the construction field office (TO 7 approved in October 2016), construction management services for the emergency work during the February Storm event (TO 8 approved in February 2017 as part of the authorized emergency work) and construction management services for the Reaches 14 – 16 emergency work (TO 9 approved in July 2017 as part of the authorized emergency work).
Task Order 10 (previously noted as TO 7 in error) was authorized in November 2017 in order to provide construction management services for the Oroville Wildlife Area Project Flood Stage Reduction Project.
The following summarizes the executed task orders authorized under WSP’s MSA.
WSP (PB) MSA Board Description Task Order Authorization 1 Completion Contracts Constructability Review $37,822 2 Gridley Bridge Project Constructability Review $37,822 3 Laurel Avenue Project Constructability Review $42,505
Item 4 WSP (PB) MSA Board Description Task Order Authorization 4 (as Amended) Completion Contracts Construction Management Services $1,577,312 5 Gridley Bridge Project Construction Management Services $187,238 6 Laurel Avenue Project Construction Management Services $856,705 Laurel Avenue Project Construction Management Services 6 Am 1 $0 (proposed – time only) 7 CM Field Office through December 2017 $97,125 8 Advanced Measures Work (Emergency Work February 2017) $300,733 9 Reach 14 - 16 Levee Repair $2,368,464 10 (noted as 7 Oroville Wildlife Area Project Construction Management Services $342,726 previously in error) Total $5,848,450
The recommended action would be to re-allocate budget from Task Orders 4, 7 and 8 to Task Order 6 as follows:
Authorized Project Balance to Proposed Revised TO Description Budget Complete Modification Budget 4 Completion Contracts $1,577,312 $85,414 -$50,000 $1,527,312 6 Laurel Avenue $856,705 -$114,544 $117,000 $973,705 7 CM Field Office $97,125 $6,123 -$6,000 $91,125 8 Advance Measures $300,733 $63,082 -$61,000 $239,733
The projected balance to complete represents the remaining budget of the task order through the projected completion of the scope of work after taking into consideration all costs incurred to date and the projected cost to complete. The above recommendation does not increase the total costs of construction management services.
Fiscal Impact The Board’s approval of this action will obligate SBFCA to pay for the associated services delivered up to the authorized Task Order amounts noted on a time and materials basis. This authorization is within the appropriated expenditure limits of the current Board Approved Final Amended 3-Year budget. The recommended action would not increase the total amount of any expenditures and the proposed Task Order services are within the current appropriations and planned cost estimates for all SBFCA projects. There is no net budgetary impact for Board’s approval of the recommended action.
Attachments: 1. WSP Task Order 4 AM2 2. WSP Task Order 6 AM1 3. WSP Task Order 7 AM1 4. WSP Task Order 8 AM1
Item 4
WSP Construction Management Contract 187267 Task Order 4 Amendment 2
Feather River West Levee Project Completion Contract
This Amendment No. 2 of Task Order 4 amends the Task Order between the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and WSP Americas, Inc. dated August 3, 2016.
Scope of Work This task order eliminates the Stoplog Structure work from this task.
Schedule The services under this Amendment will be performed between January 1, 2018 and November 15, 2018.
Budget Expected Cost Reductions on Task Order No. 4, Task Order No. 7 and Task Order No. 8, aggregate to $117,000 and will be transferred to Task Order No. 6 by this amendment. Task order 4 will be reduced by $50,000.00.
Special Provisions None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first written above.
SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY WSP Americas, INC.
By:______By:______
______
DATED:______DATED:______
WSP Americas, Inc. – Task Order No. 4, Amendment 2 (Completion Contract)
WSP Construction Management Contract 187267 Task Order 8 Amendment 1
Feather River West Levee Project Completion Contract
This Amendment No. 1 of Task Order 6 amends the Task Order between the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and WSP Americas, Inc. dated August 3, 2016.
Scope of Work This amendment increases the budget for this task orders due to the changes in the contractor’s schedule.
Schedule The services under this Amendment will be performed between January 1, 2018 and November 15, 2018.
Budget Expected Cost Reductions on Task Order No. 4, Task Order No. 7 and Task Order No. 8, aggregate to $117,000 and will be transferred to Task Order No. 6 by this amendment. Task order 6 will be increased by $117,000.00.
Special Provisions None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first written above.
SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY WSP Americas, INC.
By:______By:______
______
DATED:______DATED:______
WSP Americas, Inc. – Task Order No. 6 Amendment 1 (Completion Contract)
WSP Construction Management Contract 187267 Task Order 7 Amendment 1
Feather River West Levee Project Completion Contract
This Amendment No. 1 of Task Order 7 amends the Task Order between the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and WSP Americas, Inc. dated August 3, 2016.
Scope of Work This amendment utilizes unspent funds.
Schedule The services under this Amendment will be performed between January 1, 2018 and November 15, 2018.
Budget Expected Cost Reductions on Task Order No. 4, Task Order No. 7 and Task Order No. 8, aggregate to $117,000 and will be transferred to Task Order No. 6 by this amendment. Task order 7 will be reduced by $6,000.00.
Special Provisions None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first written above.
SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY WSP Americas, INC.
By:______By:______
______
DATED:______DATED:______
WSP Americas, Inc. – Task Order No. 7 Amendment 1 (Completion Contract)
WSP Construction Management Contract 187267 Task Order 8 Amendment 1
Feather River West Levee Project Completion Contract
This Amendment No. 1 of Task Order 8 amends the Task Order between the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and WSP Americas, Inc. dated August 3, 2016.
Scope of Work This amendment utilizes unspent funds.
Schedule The services under this Amendment will be performed between January 1, 2018 and November 15, 2018.
Budget Expected Cost Reductions on Task Order No. 4, Task Order No. 7 and Task Order No. 8, aggregate to $117,000 and will be transferred to Task Order No. 6 by this amendment. Task order 8 will be reduced by $61,000.00.
Special Provisions None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first written above.
SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY WSP Americas, INC.
By:______By:______
______
DATED:______DATED:______
WSP Americas, Inc. – Task Order No. 8 Amendment 1 (Completion Contract)
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2018
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director Seth Wurzel, Budget Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation of Agency Audited Financial Statements and Related Reports for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2017
Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board accept the attached financial statements and related audit reports for filing.
Background In accordance with the Agency’s Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, the Agency’s Board of Directors is to have an independent audit of its financial statements conducted on an annual basis. The purpose of this item is to present the resulting financial statements and related audit results and management report to the Board for its review and acceptance.
As has been the practice in the past, the Agency has engaged the same Auditor as the City of Yuba City. This year, the City engaged a new Audit firm, Badawi & Associates.
The two documents provided to the Board’s for its review and acceptance include:
Annual Financial Report – Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2017 Management Report and Auditor’s Communication Letter, June 30, 2017
Analysis The Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) included within the Annual Financial Report provides an analysis of the financial activities that took place during Fiscal Year 2016-17 and a review of the accompanying financial statements. The MD&A also lists the major financial highlights of the year. The Board adopted the Agency’s Strategic Plan in February 2016. Fiscal Year 2016-17 reflected the first full fiscal year with that plan in place and the Board’s adopted budget for the year was geared toward the Plan’s implementation. In addition to the Board’s efforts to implement the Strategic Plan, fiscal year 2016-17 also included the Agency’s response to the disastrous storm events of February 2017. The following reflects SBFCA’s financial activities consistent with the Strategic Plan and the significant emergency response efforts: As of November 2017, full Closeout of the Project Areas B & D Construction Contract with the Nordic- Magnus Pacific JV Award of the Completion Contract work with Tiechert and, as of November 2017, the significant completion of the work Significant advancement of the design and review of the Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project Execution of agreements securing $3.3 million for the advancement of Oroville Wildlife Area Flood Stage Reduction Project
Item 5 Commitment from the Department of Water Resources of more than $29 million for repairs and protective measures along the Feather River West Levee in downtown Yuba City and South of Laurel Avenue and the significant completion of this work Commitment from the Department of Water Resource for an additional $2.7 million for the Laurel Avenue FSRP Project
The major financial highlight of the year for SBFCA continues to be the significant investment in the Feather River West Levee Project. SBFCA’s Construction in progress increased by $30.7 million during the fiscal year. This is a direct reflection of the amount of money that continues to be invested in the levee system by SBFCA. While’s SBFCA financial activities decreased relative to Fiscal Year 2015-16, SBFCA has still been very active as evident with completion of more than 29 miles of levee construction to date.
Audit SBFCA again has received an unqualified opinion, otherwise known as a “clean audit,” from the independent auditor for its Fiscal Year 2016-17 audited financial statements.
With regard to the Management Report covering the auditor’s review of internal controls covering the fiscal year audited, the auditor made no findings. There were no prior year findings made by our prior Audit firm for our new Auditor to address.
The Audited Financial Report will be incorporated into the Agency’s Continuing Disclosure report filed as part of our ongoing obligations associated with our outstanding Assessment Bonds.
Fiscal Impact This is an informational item only, there is no net budgetary impact as a result of the Board’s approval of staff’s recommendation.
Attachments 1. Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Basic Financial Statements and Independent Auditors’ Reports for the year ended June 30, 2017 2. Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Auditor’s Communication with Those Charged with Governance for the year ended June 30, 2017 3. Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Auditors’ Communication of No Material Weaknesses for the year ended June 30, 2017
Item 5 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Sutter and Butte Counties, California
Basic Financial Statements and Independent Auditors’ Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2017
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency
Table of Contents
Page
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditors’ Report...... 1
Management’s Discussion and Analysis ...... 3
Basic Financial Statements
Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ...... 12 Statement of Activities ...... 13
Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds...... 16 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position...... 17 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds...... 18 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities...... 19
Notes to Basic Financial Statements...... 21
Required Supplementary Information
Note to Required Supplementary Information...... 36 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual – General Fund...... 37
Other Supplementary Information
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual – Capital Projects Fund ...... 40 This page intentionally left blank
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
To the Board of Directors of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (Agency), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2017, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the Agency’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors’ Responsibility Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities and each major fund of the Agency, as of June 30, 2017, and the respective changes in financial position thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Address: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone: 510.768.8251 • Fax: 510.768.8249
To the Board of Directors of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California Page 2
Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the General Fund on pages 3–8 and 37, respectively, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Agency’s basic financial statements. The Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the Capital Projects Fund, as listed in the table of contents, is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. The Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the Capital Projects Fund is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the Capital Projects Fund is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Badawi and Associates, CPAs Oakland, California February 6, 2018
2 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017
Management's Discussion and Analysis
This document provides a narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the SBFCA for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017. This document has been prepared by SBFCA management as required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB No. 34). We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with the basic financial statements and accompanying notes to those financial statements.
I. Financial Highlights
Major Milestones This fiscal year was SBFCA’s seventh year of collecting assessments associated with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Assessment District (the “Assessment District”). The Agency has received nearly 100% of the levied assessments as of the date of this financial report. As of the completion of the construction season ending in November 2017, SBFCA has completed major construction for Project Areas C, B & D of the Feather River West Levee Phase 1 Project (the “FRWLP1”) and commenced construction on the remaining contracts primarily representing work at levee / bridge and utility crossings. SBFCA fully closed out construction in Areas B and D in the Spring of FY 2016-17, and had closed out construction on Area C the previous fiscal year. The completed work to date represents the construction of approximately 34 miles of slurry wall and berm construction as well as numerous minor structures and activities. As of the date of this report, SBFCA has also completed major construction associated with an additional 3-mile of slurry wall through Yuba City to replace an existing slurry wall constructed by the Corps in 1999-2001. Through various agreements and associated amendments to agreements between SBFCA and the State of California, Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), SBFCA has secured grant funding from Proposition 1E totaling $223,143,589 for the Feather River West Levee Project and $7,225,000 for the Laurel Avenue FSRP Project. SBFCA has a pending commitment from DWR for an additional $2,695,000 for the Laurel Avenue FSRP Project. SBFCA has also received commitments and entered into agreements for additional work within the Oroville Wildlife Area totaling $3,302,222. In response to volatile conditions at Oroville Dam where both the service and emergency spillways had lost functionality, SBFCA sought and received emergency repair funding from DWR in November 2017. SBFCA declared a state of emergency and approved emergency levee repair and protection work at various locations along the Feather River. Emergency response was swift and through an amendment to SBFCA’s DWR Funding Agreement for the Feather River West Levee Project, SBFCA secured an additional $29,201,000 million in funding for these efforts. In January 2016, the SBFCA Board of Directors adopted the SBFCA Strategic Plan which laid out the near and long-term Goals and Objectives of the Agency. Building upon the adoption of the Strategic Plan, in June 2016 the SBFCA Board adopted an amended 2015/16 Budget and forward looking 3-Year budget covering the agency’s activities through 2018-19. This three-year budget lays the groundwork for the implementation of the Strategic plan and investment of available resources in the flood protection system protecting the basin. Consistent with the adopted Strategic Plan, during the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017, SBFCA; o Developed and approved the supporting documentation needed for the land use agencies in the basin to adopt findings of Adequate Progress toward Urban Level of Protection (ULOP). SBFCA’s 3-Year Budget also created a Compliance & Accreditation program which funds efforts to maintain ULOP Compliance and advance FEMA accreditation for the urban portion of the basin. o Received funding through the Wildlife Conservation Board for Oroville Wildlife Area Project. o Received a commitment for an additional $2.3 million under DWR’s Flood System Repair Project for the Laurel Avenue Seepage Repair Project.
3 SBFCA’s Sutter Basin Project received Federal Funding as part of the USACE’s 2015 work allowing SBFCA to execute a Preconstruction Engineering and Design phase agreement; this agreement affords SBFCA the opportunity to advance a significant reach of the FRWLP not currently covered through design and construction agreements with State of California in coordination with the USACE. During 2017, SBFCA advanced the design and permitting of the project for construction by the USACE, and pending a new start designation in the Corps 2018 Workplan. In total, during the fiscal year, SBFCA received nearly $48.4 million of funding through Funding Agreements with the State. During the fiscal year, SBFCA spent nearly $35 million advancing the FRWLP and a total of $41.4 million on all capital project work.
This fiscal year saw a decrease in financial activities for SBFCA, as expenditures decreased by more than 38% and revenues increased by nearly 100% over last fiscal year. Fiscal year 2016-17 has been another very active year for the Agency as evidenced by the number of different projects, emergency repair and response work, and flood risk reduction efforts advanced by the Agency.
Financial Activities Primarily as a result of the grant awards, collection of assessment revenues and the investment of those resources in the FRWLP, SBFCA’s net position increased by $43,484,951 in fiscal year 2016-17. Until the completion and full transfer of a project to the ultimate owner and maintainer, SBFCA is capitalizing its investments in the FRWLP as Construction in progress. Total assets increased by $31,480,676 mostly due to an increase in Construction in progress. Total liabilities decreased by $12,004,275 primarily due to a decrease in payables pending at the end of the fiscal year. SBFCA’s fiscal year end came after completion of major construction for Areas B and D. Most payments owed to contractors had been finalized by the end of the fiscal year.
II. Overview of the Basic Financial Statements
This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to SBFCA’s Basic Financial Statements. SBFCA’s Basic Financial Statements are composed of three components: 1) Government-wide Financial Statements, 2) Fund Financial Statements, and 3) Notes to the Basic Financial Statements. This report also contains required supplementary information and other supplemental information in addition to the Basic Financial Statements themselves.
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The Government-Wide Financial Statements provide a longer-term view of SBFCA’s activities as a whole, and comprise the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities.
The Statement of Net Position provides information about the financial position of SBFCA as a whole, including all capital assets and liabilities on a full accrual basis of accounting. Over time, increases or decreases in SBFCA’s net position may serve as one useful indicator of the Agency’s overall financial position. In the case of SBFCA, total assets exceeded liabilities by $195,958,815 as of the close of the fiscal year. When comparing SBFCA’s Net Position to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, there has been an increase of $43,484,951 which primarily represents the amount of construction activity that has taken place over the year primarily funded by California Department of Water Resources grant programs.
The Statement of Activities provides information about how SBFCA’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Thus, the revenues and all of the expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods. The Government-Wide Financial Statements are prepared on the full accrual basis of accounting, which is similar to the accounting used by most private-sector companies.
4 In the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities, all of SBFCA’s activities are considered to be governmental activities.
Fund Financial Statements
A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. SBFCA, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements, particularly those conditions related to its grants. All of the funds of SBFCA are governmental funds and the Fund Financial Statements provide detailed information about all of SBFCA’s funds.
Governmental Funds - All of SBFCA’s services are reported in governmental funds, which focus on how money flows into and out of those funds and the balances left at fiscal year-end that are available for spending. These funds are reported using an accounting method called the modified accrual basis of accounting, which measures cash and all other financial assets that can readily be converted to cash. The governmental fund statements provide a detailed short-term view of SBFCA’s general operations. Governmental fund information helps determine whether there are more or less financial resources that can be spent in the near future to finance SBFCA’s activities. Capital assets and other long-lived assets are not presented in the Governmental Fund Financial Statements. The relationship (or differences) between governmental activities (reported in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities) and Governmental Funds Financial Statements are explained in a reconciliation schedule following each Governmental Fund financial statement.
SBFCA currently maintains two major governmental funds: The General Fund and Capital Projects Fund. Information is presented separately for each of the funds in the governmental funds balance sheet and in the governmental funds statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances.
SBFCA adopts an annual appropriated budget for both of its funds. A budgetary comparison schedule has been provided for the General Fund and the Capital Projects Fund to demonstrate compliance with this budget and is included within the Required Supplementary Information and Other Supplemental Information, respectively.
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements.
Other Information
In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also presents certain Required Supplementary Information and Other Supplemental Information with budgetary comparisons to demonstrate compliance with approved budgets.
III. Government-Wide Financial Analysis
As noted earlier, SBFCA’s assets exceed liabilities by $195,958,815 at the end of fiscal year 2016-17. This amount is a significant increase from the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 balance of $152,473,864. The key element to this increase is related to SBFCA’s Capital Asset Policy and the significant receipt of funds from California Department of Water Resources through funding agreements and the associated investments made by SBFCA in the FRWLP over the past fiscal year.
In fiscal year 2011-12, SBFCA implemented a policy to capitalize the work completed for its FRWLP in accordance with its Capital Asset policy implemented during that fiscal year. The vast majority of SBFCA’s Net Position is invested in this capital project as Construction in progress. Construction in progress increased by $30,734,078 during the fiscal year. The significant increase in Net Position from fiscal year 2015-16 represents the continued accomplishment of SBFCA’s immediate primary goal, which is the construction of the FRWLP.
5 In the future, SBFCA’s Net Position is expected to increase as emergency work is completed and other construction activities continue with the investment of grant revenues from DWR. However, SBFCA’s Net Position is expected to be offset when SBFCA transfers maintenance responsibility of the completed works to local maintaining agencies and improved facilities to the State of California (specifically the Sacramento San Joaquin Drainage District). While there are certain regulatory and compliance hurdles to overcome, the full acceptance and transfer process can begin as early as fiscal year 2017-18.
IV. Fund Financial Statements Analysis
SBFCA uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and grant requirements.
Governmental Funds - The focus of the SBFCA’s Governmental Fund Financial Statements is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing SBFCA’s financing requirements. In particular, any unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year.
On June 30, 2016, SBFCA’s governmental funds reported combined fund balances of $24,747,023, an increase of $12,336,003 in comparison to the fund balance as of June 30, 2016. This increase is primarily due to the receipt of two large payments at the end of the fiscal year. The first payment received from DWR related to portions of Project Area D that were deemed eligible for State funding after finalization of a fourth amendment to SBFCA’s Funding Agreement with the State. SBFCA received a lump sum payment for the State’s cost share after these portions of Project Area D were completed. The amount received from DWR for these project areas totaled $10,874,296. The second large payment received was State-held retention in the amount of $4,448,651 for various work performed related to Project Area C.
The General Fund is the main operating fund of SBFCA. On June 30, 2017, the Fund Balance was $3,707,880 and almost all of this was unassigned fund balance. A useful measurement of the fund liquidity is a comparison between total expenditures and the ending fund balance. Expenditures for the fiscal year were $385,435, approximately 10.4% of the ending fund balance. The Unassigned fund balance was 962% of current fiscal year expenditures.
The Capital Projects Fund is the main project fund of SBFCA and supports SBFCA’s capital programs. These programs include the US Army Corps of Engineers Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project, the FRWLP, the Feather River Regional Flood Management Planning Effort, the Oroville Wildlife Area Flood Stage Reduction project, the Gridley Bridge Erosion Repair project, and the Laurel Avenue Seepage Repair project. As part of the implementation of SBFCA’s Strategic Plan, new Capital Programs were added that include the Small Community Grant program and a Compliance & Accreditation Program. SBFCA’s existing programs are expected to expand to the extent funding is secured and made available.
The Capital Project’s Fund Balance on June 30, 2017 was $21,039,143. The total expenditures of the fund were $45,544,323. These represent 216% of the ending fund balance, indicating that liquidity is very low. This is to be expected, as by far the largest effort for SBFCA continues to be the FRWLP. FRWLP expenditures represented over 84.8% of the total expenditures in the Capital Fund. With SBFCA’s latest amendment to its funding agreement with the State for the FRWLP1 project, the agreement now provides funding for more than 76% of this effort. The State advances a portion of its share of projected expenditures on a quarterly basis. This provides the cash flow for the project, while at the same time protecting the State’s interests in the project and not advancing too much funding without SBFCA substantiating expenditures on a monthly basis. In order to meet the cash flow requirements for the local share of the FRWLP during the fiscal year, SBFCA relied on the proceeds of its two series of Assessment Revenue Bonds.
6 V. Budgetary Highlights
A budgetary to actual comparison for the General Fund is included in the Required Supplementary Information. Total Expenditures were $384,451 (36%) under the final budget. SBFCA is able to allocate some of its costs for Salaries and benefits to its Capital Projects Fund and receive reimbursement for these costs. Throughout the fiscal year, this allocation was greater than originally budgeted resulting in less General Fund expenditures than original budgeted. Actual revenues were in excess of the final budgeted revenues by $37,748 solely as a result of unbudgeted interest income.
A budgetary to actual comparison for the Capital Fund is also included as Other Supplemental Information. Total Capital revenues were $3,343,665, (6.2%) under the final budget of $54,134,348. This difference can be attributed to delays in reimbursement from the State for work performed for the two latter quarters of the fiscal year. Likewise, total expenditures were $10,635,854 (less than 19%) lower than the final budget due to construction and design contractor delays in submitting requests for final payments as they related to Areas B and D.
VI. Capital Asset and Long-Term Obligations
Capital Assets – During fiscal year 2011-12, SBFCA implemented its capital asset policy. This fiscal year SBFCA continued its significant levee improvement investments and increased its capital assets by $35,472,319. As previously discussed, the majority of these capital assets represent Construction in progress. Through June 30, 2017, SBFCA was in the middle of a construction season and had finalized major construction for Areas B and D.
Long-Term Obligations – In May 2013, SBFCA issued its first series of Assessment Revenue Bonds in the amount of $41,035,000 for capital improvements. As of June 30, 2017 the outstanding balance of the bonds payable was $40,535,000. During the fiscal year SBFCA made interest payments on the outstanding debt amount totaling $1,729,437.
In June 2015, SBFCA issued its second series of Assessment Revenue Bonds in the amount of $47,070,000 for capital improvements. As of June 30, 2017 the outstanding balance of the bonds payable remained $47,070,000. During the fiscal year SBFCA made interest payments on the outstanding debt amount totaling $2,065,618.
VII. Economic Factors and Next Year's Budget
The sole local source of funding for SBFCA’s efforts is the Assessment District. As this property assessment is not tied to property values, it is a direct charge on the property tax roll, and assessment revenue is somewhat insulated from local economic factors that might impact home values. To the extent local economic factors impact a property owner’s ability to pay the assessment, SBFCA’s revenues and future ability to service this debt could be impacted. The property assessment non-collection rate for this seventh year of collection is extremely low, approximately 0.33% for the assessment collected on the secured property tax rolls of Sutter and Butte Counties.
As previously noted, as part of SBFCA’s implementation of its Strategic Plan, SBFCA has adopted a 3-Year budget that continues the primary goal of completing the FRWLP project while at the same time prioritizing the remaining work needed to provide flood protection to the basin with the remaining resources available. The budget for fiscal year 2017-18 was developed assuming that SBFCA completes the remaining FRWLP construction and Emergency Repair Work, advances the Oroville Wildlife Area Project and works to advance the closeout efforts of the DWR Urban Flood Risk Reduction Grant. These activities are expected to extend into 2018-19. In addition, SBFCA will work to advance additional flood risk reduction projects in the rural portions of the basin. This work will include the Laurel Avenue Seepage Repair project which will complete construction in 2017-18 as well as advancing efforts to secure additional funding for the remainder of the Federally authorized Sutter Basin project through State DWR programs and the USACE. SBFCA management expects to continue to work with its Board of Directors to implement the Strategic Plan and advance additional work related to the Feather River West Levee and the rural portion of the basin.
7 VIII. Requests for Information
This financial report is designed to provide a general overview for all those with an interest in SBFCA’s finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Executive Director, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, Post Office Box M, Yuba City, CA 95991.
8 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
9 This page intentionally left blank.
10 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
11 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Statement of Net Position June 30, 2017
ASSETS
Current assets: Cash and investments $ 8,582,945 Cash and investments with fiscal agent 1,524,250 Receivables: Accounts 18,478,422 Interest 905 Prepaid items 17,513
Total current assets 28,604,035
Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Construction in progress 263,665,064
Total capital assets, net 263,665,064
Total noncurrent assets 263,665,064
Total assets 292,269,099
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities: Accounts payable 3,694,039 Accrued liabilities 162,973 Interest payable 942,661 Conpensated absences, due within one year 14,683 Bonds payable, due within one year 320,000
Total current liabilities . 5,134,356
Noncurrent liabilities: Conpensated absences, due in more than one year 8,227 Bonds payable, due in more than one year 91,167,701
Total noncurrent liabilities 91,175,928
Total liabilities 96,310,284
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 172,177,363 Unrestricted 23,781,452
Net position $ 195,958,815
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
12 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Statement of Activities For the year ended June 30, 2017
Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes Program Revenues in Net Position
Operating Capital Grants Grants and and Governmental Expenses Contributions Contributions Total Activities
Governmental activities
Flood protection$ 11,185,436 $ 750,000 $ 57,442,307 $ 58,192,307 $ 47,006,871 Interest on long-term debt 3,559,668 - - - (3,559,668)
Total governmental activities $ 14,745,104 $ 750,000 $ 57,442,307 $ 58,192,307 43,447,203
General Revenues:
Investment earnings 37,748
Total general revenues 37,748
Change in net position 43,484,951
Net position - beginning of year 152,473,864
Net position - end of year $ 195,958,815
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
13 This page intentionally left blank.
14 FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
15 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds June 30, 2017
Capital General Projects Fund Fund Total
ASSETS
Cash and investments$ 3,741,666 $ 4,841,279 $ 8,582,945 Cash and investments with fiscal agent - 1,524,250 1,524,250 Receivables: Accounts - 18,478,422 18,478,422 Interest - 905 905 Prepaid items 876 16,637 17,513
Total assets $ 3,742,542 $ 24,861,493 $ 28,604,035
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities: Accounts payable 30,618 3,663,421 3,694,039 Accrued liabilities 4,044 158,929 162,973
Total liabilities 34,662 3,822,350 3,857,012
Fund Balances: Nonspendable: prepaid items 876 16,637 17,513 Restricted for capital projects - 21,022,506 21,022,506 Unassigned 3,707,004 - 3,707,004
Total fund balances 3,707,880 21,039,143 24,747,023
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances $ 3,742,542 $ 24,861,493 $ 28,604,035
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
16 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Net Position For the year ended June 30, 2017
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds $ 24,747,023
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are different because:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in governmental funds. 263,665,064
In the governmental funds balance sheet, interest on long-term debt is not recognized until the period in which it matures and is paid. In the government-wide statement of net position, it is recognized in the period that it is incurred. (942,661)
Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and therefore they are not reported in the funds. Compensated absences (22,910) Long term debt due within one year (320,000) Long term debt due in more than one year (91,167,701)
Net Position of Governmental Activities $ 195,958,815
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
17 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the year ended June 30, 2017
Capital General Projects Fund Fund Total
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental$ - $ 51,555,793 $ 51,555,793 Assessment revenue 750,000 5,922,220 6,672,220 Investment earnings 37,748 - 37,748
Total revenues 787,748 57,478,013 58,265,761
EXPENDITURES:
Current: Operational: Telephone 269 - 269 Postage and freight 412 - 412 Forms and supplies 233 - 233 Printing and binding 215 - 215 Professional services 215,705 94 215,799 Salaries and benefits 165,911 - 165,911 Dues and subscribtions 1,526 - 1,526 Rentals 180 - 180 Insurance 984 - 984 Capital: USACE Feasiblity Study - 373,362 373,362 State EIP Funded - 1,275,097 1,275,097 Local EIP Funded - 406,935 406,935 Regional Flood Management Planning - State Funded - 176,742 176,742 Emergency Flood Fighting - 3,716,254 3,716,254 Flood Systems Repair Project - State Funded - 48,184 48,184 ULOP - Local Funded - 6,132 6,132 Stakeholder Management - 19,698 19,698 Oroville Wildlife Area Planning - 36,506 36,506 Grindley Bridge Project - 3,987 3,987 Capital outlay - 35,472,319 35,472,319 Debt service: Principal - 305,000 305,000 Interest and fiscal charges - 3,704,013 3,704,013
Total expenditures 385,435 45,544,323 45,929,758
Net change in fund balances 402,313 11,933,690 12,336,003
FUND BALANCES:
Beginning of year 3,305,567 9,105,453 12,411,020
End of year$ 3,707,880 $ 21,039,143 $ 24,747,023
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
18 Sutter Butte County Flood Control Agency Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities For the year ended June 30, 2017
Net Change in Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds $ 12,336,003
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because:
Governmental funds report capital outlay as expenditures. In the statement of activities, however, the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives as depreciation expense, or are allocated to the appropriate functional expense when the cost is below the capitalization threshold. This activity is reconciled as follows: Capital outlay 35,472,319 Expenses for future projects that do not meet capitalization criteria (4,738,241)
In the governmental funds balance sheet, interest on long-term debt is not recognized until the period in which it matures and is paid. In the government-wide statement of net position, it is recognized in the period that it is incurred. This amount represents the change in interest payable. 3,217
The issuance of long-term debt provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however has any effect on net position. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long-term debt related items: Repayment of debt principal 305,000
Original issue premiums on long-term debt issuances increases the proceeds and are reported as other financing sources in the governmental funds, but are deferred and amortized throughout the period during which the related debt is outstanding in the statement of net position. Amortization of original issue premium 141,128
Some revenues reported in the statement of activities do not represent current financial resources and therefore are not reported as revenue in the governmental funds. This amount represents the change in deferred inflows. (35,706)
Compensated absences expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds. Increase in compensated absences payable 1,231
Change in Net Position of Governmental Activities $ 43,484,951
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
19 This page intentionally left blank.
20 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (Agency) is a joint powers agency formed in December 2007 by the Counties of Butte and Sutter, the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, and Yuba City, and Levee Districts No. 1 and No. 9. The Agency has the power and authority to plan, finance, acquire, construct, and improve regional facilities for the purpose of providing flood protection to the Yuba City/Sutter Basin. The Agency is governed by a 13-member Board comprised of elected officials from the member cities, counties, and levee districts.
The Agency’s Boundaries encompass approximately 34,200 properties in Butte and Sutter Counties.
B. Basis of Presentation and Accounting Measurement Focus
The accounts of the Agency are organized and operated on the basis of funds, each of which is defined as a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self- balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenue, and expenditures. Agency resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purpose for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.
Government-wide Financial Statements – The Agency’s Government-wide Financial Statements include a Statement of Net Position and a Statement of Activities. These statements present summaries of Governmental Activities for the Agency. The Agency has no Business-type or Fiduciary Activities.
The Government-wide financial statements are presented on an “economic resources” measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all the Agency’s assets and liabilities, including capital assets and long-term debt, are included in the accompanying Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Activities presents changes in net position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. Certain eliminations have been made as prescribed by GASB Statement No. 34 in regards to interfund activities, payables, and receivables. In the Statement of Activities, interfund transfers have been eliminated.
Major Funds – An emphasis is placed on major funds within the governmental category. A fund is considered major if it is the primary operating fund of the Agency or meets the following criteria:
1. Total assets, liabilities, revenues or expenditures/expenses of that individual fund are at least 10 percent of the corresponding total for all funds of that category or type; and
2. Total assets, liabilities, revenues, or expenditures/expenses of the individual governmental fund are at least 5 percent of the corresponding total for all governmental and enterprise funds combined.
The Agency has no enterprise funds as of June 30, 2017.
21 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued
B. Basis of Presentation and Accounting Measurement Focus, Continued
Governmental Fund Financial Statements – Governmental Fund Financial Statements include a Balance Sheet, and a Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for all major governmental funds. An accompanying schedule is presented to reconcile and explain the difference in fund balances as presented in these statements to the net position presented in the Government-wide financial statements. The Agency has presented all funds as major funds.
The following are descriptions of the major governmental funds:
The General Fund is used to account for all revenues and expenditures necessary to carry out the basic governmental activities of the Agency that are not accounted for through other funds.
The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for capital project activities of the Agency.
All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or “current financial sources” measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, only current assets and current liabilities are included on the Balance Sheet. The Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances presents increases (revenue and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. Accordingly, revenues are recorded when received in cash, except that revenues subject to accrual (generally 60 days after year-end, except for grant revenues which are 9 months) are recognized when due. Expenditures are recorded in the accounting period in which the related fund liability is incurred except for principal and interest on long-term debt, claims and judgments, and compensated absences, which are recognized as expenditures to the extent that they have matured. Proceeds of long-term debt and acquisitions under capital leases are reported as other financing sources.
A reconciliation of the Fund Financial Statements to the Government-wide Financial Statements is provided to explain the difference created by the integrated approach.
C. Use of Restricted/Unrestricted Net Position
When an expense is incurred for a purpose for which both restricted and unrestricted net position are available, the Agency’s policy is to apply restricted net position first.
D. Cash and Investments
The Agency pools cash resources from all funds with the City of Yuba City’s cash in order to facilitate the management of cash. The balance in the pooled cash account is available to meet current operating requirements. The Agency also has two bank accounts with Wells Fargo Bank which are used for payroll and payroll taxes, and a state grant.
22 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued
E. Investment Valuation
The Agency has implemented GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and External Investment Pools. Highly liquid market investments with maturities of one year or less at time of purchase are stated at amortized cost. All other investments are stated at fair value. Market value is used as fair value for those securities for which market quotations are readily available.
Interest earned on investments is allocated to all funds on the basis of quarterly cash and investment balances.
F. Capital Assets
Capital assets are those assets acquired for general governmental purposes and are reported in the governmental activities in the Government-wide Financial Statements. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets is not included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. All purchased capital assets are recorded at historical or estimated historical cost if actual cost is not available. Donated capital assets are valued at their estimated fair value on the date received. Capital assets are defined by the Agency as assets with an estimated useful life of more than one year and a cost according to the table below:
Class Capitalization Threshold Land $ - Land Improvements $ 100,000 Buildings $ 100,000 Building Improvements $ 100,000 Infrastructure: Pavement, Bridges, All Other $ 100,000 Equipment, Furniture, & Vehicles $ 5,000 Intangible Assets $ 5,000 Capital Lease Property $ 5,000 Leasehold Improvements $ 100,000 Works of Art/Historical Treasures $ - Construction in Progress for Year End Reporting Projects to exceed $100,000 at completion
The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend asset lives are not capitalized.
G. Compensated Absences
As of June 30, 2017, there are two employees of the Agency and $22,910 has been accrued as debt. This debt represents the balance of the employees’ vacation leaves as of June 30, 2017.
The Agency also leases an employee from the City of Yuba City. The leases employee’s compensatory time has not been accrued as of June 30, 2017.
23 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued
H. Net Position and Fund Equity
In the Government-wide Financial Statements, net position are classified in the following categories:
Net investment in capital assets – This amount is the portion of net position, which is represented by the current net book value of the Agency’s capital assets, less the outstanding balance of any debt issued to finance these assets.
Restricted Net Position – This amount is restricted by external creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of governments.
Unrestricted Net Position – This amount is all net position that do not meet the definition of “net investment in capital assets” or “restricted net position” as defined above.
I. Fund Balances
Fund balances are divided into five classifications based primarily on the extent to which the Agency is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources in the governmental funds. The classifications are as follows:
Nonspendable - The nonspendable fund balance category includes amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in spendable form, or legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash. It also includes the long-term amount of interfund loans.
Restricted - Fund balance is reported as restricted when constraints placed on the use of resources are either externally imposed by creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or is imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation (Agency ordinances).
Enabling legislation authorizes the Agency to assess, levy, charge, or otherwise mandate payment of resources (from external resource providers) and includes a legally enforceable requirement that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation. Legal enforceability means that the Agency can be compelled by an external party-such as citizens, public interest groups, or the judiciary to use resources created by enabling legislation only for the purposes specified by the legislation.
Committed - The committed fund balance classification includes amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes imposed by formal action (resolution) of the Board of Directors. Those committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the Board of Directors removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action (resolution) it employed to previously commit those amounts. In contrast to fund balance that is restricted by enabling legislation, committed fund balance classification may be redeployed for other purposes with appropriate due process.
24 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued
I. Fund Balances, Continued
Constraints imposed on the use of committed amounts are imposed by the Board of Directors, separate from the authorization to raise the underlying revenue; therefore, compliance with these constraints are not considered to be legally enforceable. Committed fund balance also incorporates contractual obligations to the extent that existing resources in the fund have been specifically committed for use in satisfying those contractual requirements.
Assigned - Amounts in the assigned fund balance classification are intended to be used by the Agency for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. In governmental funds other than the General Fund, assigned fund balance represents the remaining amount that is not restricted or committed. In the General Fund, assigned amounts represent intended uses established by the Board of Directors or an Agency official delegated that authority by Agency ordinance.
Unassigned - Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the General Fund and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the other classifications. In other governmental funds, the unassigned classification is used only to report a deficit balance resulting from overspending for specific purposes for which amounts had been restricted, committed, or assigned.
The Agency applies restricted resources first when expenditures are incurred for purposes for which either restricted or unrestricted (committed, assigned, and unassigned) amounts are available. Similarly, within unrestricted fund balance, committed amounts are reduced first followed by assigned, and then unassigned amounts when expenditures are incurred for purposes for which amounts in any of the unrestricted fund balance classifications could be used.
J. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
K. Interfund Transactions
Quasi-external transactions are accounted for as revenues or expenditures (governmental fund types). Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund are recovered as a reduction in expenditures in the user fund. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers.
25 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The Agency maintains a cash and investment pool with the City of Yuba City (City) for all funds. In addition, the Agency has two accounts with Wells Fargo Bank for payroll and payroll taxes and a state grant.
The investments made by the City are limited to those allowable under State statutes as incorporated into the Agency’s Joint Powers Agreement, which is more conservative than that allowed by State statute.
See the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for disclosures related to the pooled cash and investments and the related interest rate risk, credit risk, custodial risk, and concentration of risk.
Summary of Cash and Investments
The cash and investments are classified in the financial statements as shown below:
Cash and investments $ 8,582,945 Cash and investments with fiscal agent 1,524,250 Total cash and investments $ 10,107,195
Cash and investments held by the Agency at June 30, 2017 consisted of the following:
Deposits with financial instituations $ 207,399 Deposits with City of Yuba City 8,375,546 Investments 1,524,250 Total cash and investments $ 10,107,195
The Agency categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure the fair value of the asset. These principles recognize the three- tiered fair value hierarchy. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs. The Agency had investments in the City’s Investment Pool, however, this external pool is not measured under Level 1, 2, or 3.
26 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
Investments Authorized by the California Government Code
The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized for the Agency by the California Government Code. The table also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk. The Agency has not adopted a formal investment policy. Maximum Maximum Maximum Percentage Investment Authorized Investment Type Maturity of Portfolio in One Issuer City Cash Pool None None None
Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements
Investment of debt proceeds held by bond trustees are governed by provisions of the debt agreements, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the Agency’s investment policy. The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized for investments held by bond trustee. The table also identifies certain provisions of these debt agreements that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk. Maximum Maximum Maximum Percentage Investment Authorized Investment Type Maturity of Portfolio in One Issuer Money Market Funds N/A None None State Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None None
Disclosures Relating to Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. One of the ways that the Agency manages its exposure to interest rate risk is by purchasing a combination of shorter term and longer term investments and by timing cash flows from maturities so that a portion of the portfolio is maturing or coming close to maturity evenly over time as necessary to provide the cash flows and liquidity needed for operations.
27 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
Disclosures Relating to Interest Rate Risk, Continued
Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the Agency’s investments (including investments held by bond trustees) to market interest rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the distribution of the Agency’s investments by maturity:
Remaining Maturity (in Months) 12 Months More Than Investment Type Amount or Less 12 Months
City Cash Pool $ 8,375,546 $ 8,375,546 $ - Held by Bond Trustees: Money Market Funds 1,731,649 1,731,649 - Total $ 10,107,195 $ 10,107,195 $ -
Investments with Fair Values Highly Sensitive to Interest Rate Fluctuations
The Agency’s investments (including investments held by bond trustees) do not include any investments that are highly sensitive to interest rate fluctuations.
Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk
Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Presented below is the minimum rating required by (where applicable) the California Government Code, the Agency’s investment policy, or debt agreements, and the actual rating as of fiscal year end for each investment type.
Ratings as of Fiscal Year End Exempt Minimum from Investment Type Amount Legal Rating Disclosure AAA AA A Not Rated
City Cash Pool $ 8,375,546 N/A $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,375,546 Held by Bond Trustees: Money Market Funds 1,731,649 N/A - 1,731,649 - - -
Total $ 10,107,195 $ - $ 1,731,649 $ - $ - $ 8,375,546
28 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
Concentration of Credit Risk
The California Government Code contains limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer. There are no investments (other than the money market funds) that represent 5% or more of total Agency investments.
Custodial Credit Risk
Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty (e.g. broker-dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party. The California Government Code does not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision for deposits. The California Government Code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state or local governmental units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law (unless so waived by the governmental unit). The fair value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must equal at least 110% of the total amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions to secure Agency deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured public deposits.
The District had no deposits with financial institutions in excess of federal depository insurance limits as of June 30, 2017.
3. RISK MANAGEMENT
Custodial Credit Risk
Coverage is maintained with the Special District Risk Management Authority with coverage limits of $10,000,000 per occurrence.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance
Coverage is maintained with Special District Risk Management Authority.
29 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
4. CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital asset activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, was as follows:
Balance Balance July 1, 2016 Additions Deletions June 30, 2017
Capital assets, not depreciated Construction in progress $ 232,930,986 $ 30,734,078 $ - $ 263,665,064
Total capital assets, not depreciated 232,930,986 30,734,078 - 263,665,064
Capital assets, net $ 232,930,986 $ 30,734,078 $ - $ 263,665,064
5. LONG-TERM DEBT
Bonds Payable
Assessment Revenue Bonds Series 2013
On May 16, 2013, the Agency issued $41,035,000 of Assessment Revenue Bonds bearing interest between 3.0% and 5.0% and payable semi-annually on October 1 and April 1, maturing on October 1, 2043. These bonds were used to finance the construction of certain public capital improvements related to levee improvements and flood control, to provide funds for a reserve fund for the bonds, to provide capitalized interest through October 1, 2013, and to pay costs of issuance of the bonds. The outstanding principal balance of the 2013 Assessment Revenue Bonds at June 30, 2017 was $40,535,000.
The scheduled annual minimum debt service requirements at June 30, 2017 are as follows:
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Principal Interest Total
2018 $ 320,000 $ 1,718,462 $ 2,038,462 2019 330,000 1,705,462 2,035,462 2020 605,000 1,686,763 2,291,763 2021 630,000 1,662,063 2,292,063 2022 655,000 1,636,363 2,291,363 2023 - 2027 3,765,000 7,664,440 11,429,440 2028 - 2032 7,710,000 6,248,815 13,958,815 2033 - 2037 9,605,000 4,362,445 13,967,445 2038 - 2042 11,600,000 2,259,400 13,859,400 2043 - 2044 5,315,000 214,700 5,529,700
$ 40,535,000 $ 29,158,913 $ 69,693,913
30 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
5. LONG-TERM DEBT, Continued
Bonds Payable, Continued
Assessment Revenue Bonds Series 2015
On May 28, 2015, the Agency issued $47,070,000 of Assessment Revenue Bonds bearing interest between 3.375% and 5.000% and payable semi-annually on October 1 and April 1, maturing on October 1, 2045. These bonds were used to refund the Rabobank loan, finance the construction of certain public capital improvements related to levee improvements and flood control, to provide funds for a reserve fund for the bonds in the form of a debt service reserve surety, to pay capitalized interest on the bonds through October 1, 2015, and to pay costs of issuance of the bonds. The bonds are secured on parity with the 2013 Bonds. The outstanding principal balance of the 2015 Assessment Revenue Bonds at June 30, 2017 was $47,070,000.
The scheduled annual minimum debt service requirements at June 30, 2017 are as follows:
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Principal Interest Total
2018 $ - $ - $ - 2019 1,395,000 2,037,719 3,432,719 2020 1,190,000 1,986,019 3,176,019 2021 1,235,000 1,931,344 3,166,344 2022 1,300,000 1,867,969 3,167,969 2023 - 2027 7,530,000 8,272,345 15,802,345 2028 - 2032 6,645,000 6,586,983 13,231,983 2033 - 2037 7,990,000 5,214,886 13,204,886 2038 - 2042 10,035,000 3,154,175 13,189,175 2043 - 2046 9,750,000 799,400 10,549,400
$ 47,070,000 $ 31,850,840 $ 78,920,840
31 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
5. LONG-TERM DEBT, Continued
Changes in Long-Term Liabilities
Long-term liability activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 was as follows:
Balance Balance Due Within July 1, 2016 Additions Reductions June 30, 2017 One Year
Governmental activities: Bonds payable $ 87,910,000 $ - $ (305,000) $ 87,605,000 $ 320,000 Original issue premium 4,023,829 - (141,128) 3,882,701 141,128 Compensated absences 24,141 - (1,231) 22,910 14,683 Governmental activities Long-term liabilities $ 91,957,970 $ - $ (447,359) $ 91,510,611 $ 475,811
6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES, Continued
A. Lawsuits
The agency is not a defendant in any lawsuits as of June 30, 2017.
B. Federal and State Grant Programs
The Agency participates in a number of State programs that are fully or partially funded by grants received from other governmental units. Expenditures financed by grants are subject to audit by the appropriate grantor government. If expenditures are disallowed due to noncompliance with grantor program regulations, the Agency may be required to reimburse the grantor government. As of June 30, 2017 the Agency believes that disallowed expenditures, if any, based on subsequent audits will not have a material effect on any individual governmental funds or the overall financial condition of the Agency.
As of June 30, 2017, in the opinion of Agency management and legal counsel, there were no additional outstanding matters that would have a significant effect on the financial position of the funds of the Agency.
C. Construction Commitments
In May 2013, the Agency entered into a construction contract with Nordic/Magnus Pacific Joint Venture for $51,606,600. As of February 25, 2016, due to additional change orders and field instructions, the contract amount has increased $6,237,323 to $57,843,923. In February 2016, a final payment was made on all work completed under the contract. In December 2016, the Agency authorized the release of all retention held within the third party retention escrow held for the benefit of the Contractor.
32 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Notes to Basic Financial Statements June 30, 2017
6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES, Continued
C. Construction Commitments, Continued
In March 2014, the Agency entered into a second construction contract with Nordic/Magnus Pacific Joint Venture for $98,897,740. As of June 30, 2017, due to additional change orders and field instructions, the contract amount had increased to $104,239,493.34. In May 2017, a final payment was made on all work completed under the contract. In October 2017, the Agency released all retention.
In June 2016, the Agency entered into a third contract with Nordic/Magnus Pacific Joint Venture for $5,968,943.00.As of June 30, 2017, approximately $5,653,860 of this contract was still outstanding.
7. OPERATING LEASE
As of June 30, 2017, the Agency co-located with its Construction Manager, Parsons Brinkerhoff, at 1441 Garden Highway, Yuba City, CA. As of June 30, 2017, the Agency had no operating lease agreements.
8. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS
The Agency offers its employees a deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plan is available to all eligible employees, as defined by the Board of Directors. As of June 30, 2017, the Executive Director and the Administrative Analyst are the only eligible employees. The Agency does not match the employees’ contribution. The plan permits employees to defer a portion of their salary until future years. The deferred compensation is not available to employees until termination, retirement, death, specific in-service distributions, or unforeseeable emergency.
The Agency also provides its employees a defined contribution plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a). The plan is available to all eligible employees, as defined by the plan. The Agency makes contributions to the plan on behalf of each participant pursuant to terms of the plan and employment agreements specifying the amount of contribution. The balance in each employee’s account is not available to the employee until normal retirement age, late retirement, disability retirement, death, or termination.
All amounts of compensation deferred under the plans, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, property, or rights are (until paid or made available to the employee or other beneficiary) held in trust. For the deferred compensation plan, this is the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust. For the profit sharing plan, this is the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Profit Sharing Plan and Trust. The assets in these trusts are held by TD Ameritrade and are for the exclusive benefit of the plan participants and their beneficiaries as prescribed by Internal Revenue Code Sections 457 and 401 (a). The third-party administrator is Bidwell Consulting. Accordingly, these assets have been excluded from the accompanying financial statements.
33 This page intentionally left blank.
34 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
35 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Note to Required Supplementary Information June 30, 2017
1. BUDGETARY CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING
The Agency follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements:
1. In May and/or June of each year, the Executive Director submits to the Board of Directors a proposed operating budget for the following fiscal year. This budget includes proposed expenditures by fund and the revenues expected to finance them.
2. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution before July 1.
3. The Executive Director is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts; however, any revisions which alter total expenditures of any fund must be approved by the Board of Directors
4. Formal budgetary integration is employed as management control device during the year for the General Fund.
5. Budgeted revenue amounts represent the original budget modified by adjustments authorized during the fiscal year. Budgeted expenditure amounts represent original appropriations adjusted for supplemental appropriations during the year which were contingent upon new or additional revenue sources and reappropriated amounts for prior year encumbrances. The Executive Director must approve any adjustments to the budget.
6. Operating Fund appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year. Capital Fund appropriations carry-over at the end of the fiscal year per the budget resolution.
7. Budgeted appropriations for the various governmental funds become effective each July 1. The Board of Directors may amend the budget during the fiscal year. The legal level of budgetary control has been established at the fund level.
The accompanying Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual for the General Fund presents comparisons of the legally-adopted budget with actual data on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
36 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Required Supplementary Information For the year ended June 30, 2017
1. BUDGETARY CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING, Continued
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual for the General Fund Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Positive Original Final Actual (Negative)
REVENUES:
Assessment revenue$ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ - Investment earnings - - 37,748 37,748
Total revenues 750,000 750,000 787,748 37,748
EXPENDITURES:
Current: Operational: Telephone 2,400 229 269 (40) Postage and freight 720 505 412 93 Forms and supplies 39,718 446 233 213 Printing and binding 2,400 107 215 (108) Professional services 281,950 152,721 215,705 (62,984) Salaries and benefits 639,880 417,041 165,911 251,130 Dues and subscribtions 15,000 16,256 1,526 14,730 Rentals - - 180 (180) Insurance 15,918 14,444 984 13,460
Total expenditures 997,986 601,749 385,435 216,314
Net change in fund balances (247,986) 148,251 402,313 254,062
FUND BALANCES:
Beginning of year 3,305,567 3,305,567 3,305,567 -
End of year$ 3,057,581 $ 3,453,818 $ 3,707,880 $ 254,062
37 This page intentionally left blank.
38 OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
39 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Other Supplementary Information For the year ended June 30, 2017
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Positive Original Final Actual (Negative)
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental$ 52,355,333 $ 48,384,348 $ 51,555,793 $ 3,171,445 Assessment revenues 6,500,000 5,750,000 5,922,220 172,220
Total revenues 58,855,333 54,134,348 57,478,013 3,343,665
EXPENDITURES:
Current: Professional services - - 94 (94) Capital: USACE Feasiblity Study - 13,556 373,362 (359,806) State EIP Funded 2,757,283 2,938,252 1,275,097 1,663,155 Local EIP Funded 1,215,981 933,628 406,935 526,693 Regional Flood Management Planning - State Funded 239,591 194,445 176,742 17,703 Emergency Flood Fighting - 5,500,000 3,716,254 1,783,746 Emergency Response Plan - 94 - 94 Flood Systems Repair Project - State Funded 296,982 140,378 48,184 92,194 ULOP - Local Funded 275,604 66,000 6,132 59,868 Stakeholder Management 38,794 38,794 19,698 19,096 Oroville Wildlife Area Planning 18,939 39,866 36,506 3,360 Grindley Bridge Project - 3,987 3,987 - Capital outlay 47,686,018 43,108,816 35,472,319 7,636,497 Debt service: Principal 305,000 305,000 305,000 - Interest and fiscal charges 3,795,056 2,849,178 3,704,013 (854,835)
Total expenditures 56,629,248 56,131,994 45,544,323 10,587,671
Net change in fund balances 2,226,085 (1,997,646) 11,933,690 13,931,336
FUND BALANCES:
Beginning of year 9,105,453 9,105,453 9,105,453 -
End of year$ 11,331,538 $ 7,107,807 $ 21,039,143 $ 13,931,336
40
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Sutter and Butte Counties, California
Auditors’ Communication with Those Charged with Governance
For the year ended June 30, 2017
February 6, 2018
To the Board of Directors of Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (Agency) for the year ended June 30, 2017. Professional standards require that we provide you with the following information related to our audit. Our Responsibility under U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards As stated in our engagement letter dated April 3, 2017, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to express opinions about whether the financial statements prepared by management with your oversight are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your responsibilities. Generally accepted accounting principles provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI) to supplement the basic financial statements. Our responsibility with respect to management’s discussion and analysis, and budgetary comparison information, which supplement the basic financial statements, is to apply certain limited procedures in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the RSI was not audited and, because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance, we did not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We have been engaged to report on the capital projects budgetary comparison schedule which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Our responsibility for this supplementary information, as described by professional standards, is to evaluate the presentation of the supplementary information in relation to the financial statements as a whole and to report on whether the supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit involved judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. Material misstatements may result from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity. We performed the audit according to the timing previously communicated to you on the engagement letter.
Address: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone: 510.768.8251 • Fax: 510.768.8249 To the Board of Directors of Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California Page 2
Significant Audit Findings
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the Agency are described in Note 1 to the financial statements.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the Agency’s financial statements were: • Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were:
• Summary of Significant Accounting Policies • Cash and Investments • Long Term Debt
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. We did not identify any material misstatements during our audit.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
To the Board of Directors of Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California Page 3
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated February 6, 2018.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the governmental unit’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the governmental unit’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to management’s discussion and analysis, and budgetary comparison information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We were engaged to report on the capital project fund budgetary schedule, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
To the Board of Directors of Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California Page 4
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the use of the Board and management of the Agency and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
Badawi & Associates, Certified Public Accountants Oakland, California February 6, 2018
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Sutter and Butte Counties, California
Auditors’ Communication of No Material Weaknesses
For the year ended June 30, 2017
To the Board of Directors of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Yuba City, California
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund, of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (Agency) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2017, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered Agency’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Agency’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Agency’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses. Given these limitations during our audit, we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management, Board of Directors, others within the Agency, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Badawi and Associates, CPAs Oakland, California February 6, 2018
Address: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone: 510.768.8251 • Fax: 510.768.8249
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2018
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director Seth Wurzel, Budget Manager
SUBJECT: Receive and File Monthly Financial Reports (November and December 2017)
Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board receive and file the November and December 2017 Financial Report and receive staff’s monthly financial report update.
Background Staff will provide a brief presentation of SBFCA’s current financial position and financial activities at the Board meeting and will be prepared to answer any questions. For this report, staff is presenting financial information for the last two months of 2017 due to the cancellation of the Board’s January 2018 regular meeting. Staff’s oral presentation will cover the financial activities of the Agency through December 2017.
The monthly financial reports include the following information: Current Working Capital Position: The reports provide an update as to the liquidity of the Agency and ability to cover current obligations. This information is presented within the monthly financial report prepared in coordination with Yuba City finance staff. The current and past months’ financial reports reflects the financial information as of November 2017 and December 2017 respectively. The information presented is compared to the Final Amended Final Budgets for FY 2017/18.
Fiscal Impact This is an informational item with no fiscal impact.
Attachments (To be provided at the Board Meeting) Yuba City Finance Department Memorandum, January 10, 2018 re: Monthly Financial Report: November 2017 Yuba City Finance Department Memorandum, February 14, 2018 re: Monthly Financial Report: December 2017
Item 6 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2018
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Native American Burial and Participation Cost Policy
Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Native American Burial and Participation Cost Policy.
Background In May 2015, SBFCA adopted a formal Tribal Consultation Policy to guide consultation efforts with California Native American Tribes in its levee repair work. In April 2016, SBFCA adopted an addendum to the Tribal Consultation Policy intended to ensure that the United Auburn Indian Community has the opportunity to participate in the early planning stages of SBFCA projects. Under these policies, tribes have requested payment of public funds for their participation in the early planning stages of SBFCA’s projects, for monitoring during construction, and for carrying out culturally-appropriate treatment of human remains and associated artifacts encountered during construction. The purpose of this policy is to clarify what costs SBFCA will pay in the event SBFCA either receives a request for payment for participation in a project planning process or accepts a Most Likely Descendant’s recommendation for treatment of human remains encountered during SBFCA work.
Fiscal Impact Existing policy and applicable law commit the Agency to engage with tribes during the early phases of project planning and implementation; this policy will commit the Agency to pay for specific (but capped) costs related to tribal participation and the repatriation of Native American remains and burial associated goods. This Policy does not commit the Agency to incur additional costs beyond budgeted costs associated with a project. As a result, there would be no net impact to the SBFCA Budget if the Board approves staff’s recommended action.
Attachment Native American Burial and Participation Cost Policy
Item 7 Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Native American Reburial and Participation Cost Policy February 14, 2018
In May 2015, SBFCA adopted a formal Tribal Consultation Policy to guide consultation efforts with California Native American Tribes in its levee repair work. In April 2016, SBFCA adopted an addendum to the Tribal Consultation Policy intended to ensure that the United Auburn Indian Community has the opportunity to participate in the early planning stages of SBFCA projects. Under these policies, tribes have requested payment of public funds for both their participation in the early planning stages of SBFCA’s projects and for carrying out culturally-appropriate treatment of human remains and associated artifacts encountered during construction. The purpose of this policy is to clarify what costs SBFCA will pay in the event SBFCA either receives a request for payment for participation in a project planning process or accepts an MLD’s recommendation for treatment of human remains encountered during SBFCA work.
Project Participation
Currently, there are no laws or regulations that require payment to either consulting parties or tribes during project planning activities, consultation, or construction. In fact, “consultation” is defined by the Government Code 65352.4 as “the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance.” It is SBFCA’s view that meaningful consultation cannot take place if such discussions are couched in financial or contractual relationships between the consulting parties. Additionally, although historically SBFCA has consulted with the United Auburn Indian Community and Enterprise Rancheria, there are other California Native American tribes in the region that may ascribe cultural affiliation to the SBFCA area and may request consultation or participation in the future. It is SBFCA’s intent to consult meaningfully with all California Native American tribes who wish to do so, and therefore, it is SBFCA’s policy to not compensate tribes for consultation during SBFCA’s project planning process, for information that any consulting tribe wishes SBFCA to take into consideration during project planning, or for tribes to visit or survey project areas to make recommendations to SBFCA.
However, in practice, when a mitigation measure in a certified environmental document or a condition of a permit or approval requires an action to be taken for which only a tribe can perform, then a reasonable payment for that service is expected. Given the limitations on the use and amount of public funds with which SBFCA executes its project activities, however, the SBFCA board wishes to define the direct costs and set maximum labor rates associated with tribal representatives in carrying out such activities. These activities fall into two general categories: (1) tribal monitoring of ground-disturbing activities and (2) reburial of cultural material subject to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Each is described below.
Monitoring
1
When a mitigation measure of a certified environmental document or a condition of a permit or approval requires tribal monitoring of construction-related activities, SBFCA shall retain the specified number tribal monitor(s) under contract for the purpose expressed in the mitigation measure using the payment schedule provided further below. SBFCA considers “monitoring” within the context of this payment policy to be exclusively related to the observation of vegetation removal and initial excavation of earth during project construction (collectively, “initial ground disturbing activities”) and does not pertain to: professional cultural or biological surveys or technical studies; levee reconstruction; excavation of soils previously disturbed and monitored during the same project activities; paving; hydroseeding; or other activities that do not cause ground disturbance.
In the event that the mitigation measure does not specify the scope of monitoring, then SBFCA shall only compensate for monitoring of initial ground disturbing activities during construction. In the event that the mitigation measure does not specify the number of monitors required, then SBFCA shall retain no more than one tribal monitor each from up to two culturally-affiliated tribes (as determined by the NAHC, if in question). SBFCA will compensate tribal monitors only for the time present monitoring at the assigned location.
Should more than two culturally-affiliated tribe request to provide paid tribal monitors for a single monitoring position, then SBFCA shall use its discretion in selecting the monitoring tribes based on experience. SBFCA reserves the exclusive right to select the monitoring tribe based on cost, value, previous experience, or other factors. SBFCA shall not, for any purpose, compensate any tribes that are not determined to be culturally-affiliated with the project area.
Pay rates for tribal monitoring shall be consistent with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) North Region Native American Monitoring Procedures (2017), unless specified otherwise in a separate legally-binding agreement between SBFCA and the monitoring tribe:
Tribal Representative: Maximum Actual Hourly Rate of $27.00 per hour Specific Requirements of a Monitor 2: has Tribe’s authority to make daily decisions on Native American beliefs, wishes or policy, but may consult with other tribal members with authority and/or experience when it does not delay project progress; and has Tribe’s authority to consult on their behalf with the Project Archaeologist on the archaeological investigations; and is required to report to the appropriate tribal members on project progress, activities, finds, problems by whatever methods are appropriate; is required to report to SBFCA’s designated job supervisor on a daily basis; and has Tribe’s authority to lodge a formal complaint.
Tribal Monitor: Maximum Actual Hourly Rate of $19.50 per hour Specific Requirements of a Monitor 1:
2
does not have Tribe’s official authority to make decisions on beliefs, wishes or policy and must consult with other tribal or organization members with authority and experience; and does not have Tribe’s authority to consult on their behalf with the Project Archaeologist on the archaeological investigations; and is required to present a regular report, either in writing or verbally to the tribe; and where the frequency of reporting is based on scope and duration of the project and requirements of the tribe; is required to report to SBFCA’s designated job supervisor on a daily basis; and does not have the Tribe’s official authority to lodge a formal complaint.
SBFCA shall not compensate trainees or interns for tribal monitoring. Payment shall occur through a third-party temporary employment service, and all monitors shall be subject to federal and state labor laws and documentation requirements. Private property owners reserve the right to prohibit entry to private lands.
Reburial
Under state law, where human remains are encountered and the Native American Heritage Commission identifies a Most Likely Descendant tribe (MLD), the MLD “may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.” Public Resources Code section 5097.98(b). The landowner must next discuss and confer with the MLD “all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.” Id.
The Public Resources Code further provides: “Whenever the commission is unable to identify a descendant, or the descendants identified fail to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendants and the mediation provided for in subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.” PRC section 5097.98(e).
The Addendum to SBFCA’s Tribal Consultation Policy recognizes that under state law, the preferences of Most Likely Descendant tribes are given great weight in the determination and treatment of ancestral burial and grave goods in a respectful and culturally-appropriate manner.
SBFCA prefers in most cases that the MLD will treat or reinter Native American remains according to its preferences. The Public Resources Code requires that under limited circumstances (e.g., when the MLD fails to make a recommendation, or SBFCA rejects the recommendation) SBFCA must itself reinter remains and associated items. It is therefore
3
SBFCA’s policy to cover the reasonable cost of that reinterment, whether performed by SBFCA or by an MLD.
Specifically, in a circumstance in which an MLD tribe is reinterring remains and associated goods according to its preferences, SBFCA will fund the following reasonable costs, with or without mutual agreement in advance:
securing a reburial location and right-of-way from a willing participating agency, with the exception of land acquisition or purchase; a backhoe and operator (or laborers and shovels) to excavate the reburial trench and backfill soil if required; temporary storage not to exceed one standard 10x10 locked storage unit in the municipality closest to the project location from the time of discovery to a point no later than 30 days following the completion of ground-disturbing activities; and up to $500 in miscellaneous materials that facilitate reburial.
Other related costs, such as monitoring and labor, or processing and reburial of materials not subject to state laws as described above, will not be covered or reimbursed by SBFCA; however, SBFCA will not willfully interfere with religious expression by Native American tribes.
4
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2017
Item 8 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director Michael Bessette, Director of Engineering SUBJECT: Program/Project Update
This time has been set aside on the agenda for a report and discussion (if necessary) by member and partner agency representatives.
Item 9 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director SUBJECT: Other Reports by Agency Staff and Consultants
This time has been set aside on the agenda for Board discussion and staff response regarding correspondence received by the Agency.
Item 10 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director SUBJECT: Report by Member Partner Agencies
This time has been set aside on the agenda for Board discussion and staff response regarding correspondence received by the Agency.
Item 11 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mike Inamine, Executive Director SUBJECT: Report on Correspondence Sent by and Received by the Board
Fiscal Impact The above items are informational only with no fiscal impact to the Agency.
Items: 8-11
Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency A Partnership for Flood Safety
February 14, 2018
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mike Inamine - Executive Director Michael Bessette - Director of Engineering
SUBJECT: Receive and File Program/Project Update Report
Recommendation Receive and file the February 2018 Program/Project update report.
Background The purpose of this report is to provide a regular, monthly update on SBFCA program and project activities:
Engineering Design The design team completed the additional geotechnical investigations south of Star Bend setback levee and around the 5th Street Bridge area as requested by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as part of the federal project and Reaches 14-16 emergency repairs project, respectively. The information gathered from the field investigations was used to refine the slurry cutoff wall design south of Star Bend and confirm the adequacy of the cutoff wall constructed around the 5th Street Bridge area levee. The design team also completed the investigation of a riverbank seepage site near Bishop Avenue in Live Oak. This seepage location is immediately downstream from a recently completed USACE riverbank erosion repair. The seepage investigation and analysis showed that the slurry cutoff wall constructed in that area in 2014 is performing as designed and that the seepage is caused from deep groundwater aquifer flows and is not a public safety concern.
The design team continues to provide services during construction on the Completion Projects (Gaps), which will soon be completed, and also the Laurel Avenue Critical Repair Project which has now concluded construction activities. The team is assisting the construction management team to produce the record drawings and construction documentation reports for both projects.
The design team continues to support right-of-way acquisition efforts, provide appraisal exhibits, plats and legal descriptions, real estate plan geodetics information, and coordinating with landowners on utility crossings and relocations. The survey team completed the installation of survey monuments in Project Area D (Butte County) intended to physically identify the property acquisition areas which will assist the levee maintenance agency with regard to property rights and boundaries. Now that Project Area D is completed, monuments are starting to be installed in Project Area C (Sutter County).
Construction Management (Project Areas B, C & D, and Completion Projects) Close-out work on the Completion Projects continues. The construction work is mostly complete with minor punch list items ongoing. The construction project was substantially completed in December and the project completion report, along with record drawings, will be completed in February.
Over the past month, the CM and engineering design teams held construction coordination meetings with the contractor to coordinate and manage the ongoing Laurel Avenue Project and the Reaches 14-16 Project on an as-needed basis. The CM team continued construction management and administrative duties related to schedule evaluation, pay estimates, requests for pricing, and reviewed and negotiated costs submitted for
Item 8 changed work. The CM team has now concluded the weekly coordination meetings with affected tribes since actual construction work in the field has mostly concluded.
Environmental Documentation/Permitting Biological and cultural monitoring has substantially ramped down due to the slowdown in construction work. However, monitoring will continue in active sites when required for Reaches 14-16 in Yuba City. Permitting for the Oroville Wildlife Area Project is ongoing (see below). The coordination with the Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust regarding the Star Bend setback area mitigation site and associated conservation easement has been put on hold due to a lack of progress. Staff has since contacted the Sacramento Valley Conservancy who has great expertise in this type of project and will now pursue working out an agreement with this group. The elderberry mitigation plantings damaged at the Star Bend site by the high water events last winter are planned to be restored this winter. SBFCA staff is including the restoration of this site in the CalOES/FEMA funding request authorized under the President’s emergency declaration DR-4308. Staff continues to coordinate with FEMA representatives to advance the reimbursement requests and complete the application.
Right of Way The SBFCA right of way team and DWR continue to conduct monthly coordination meetings to streamline the real estate acquisition reimbursement process and ultimate transfer of property to the State. The recently approved real estate plan for Project Areas B and D now allow SBFCA to be reimbursed by the State for land acquisition costs in those project areas. The right-of-way team continues to work on the land acquisition necessary for the federal project (between Star Bend setback levee and Cypress Avenue). Meetings have been held with property owners (22 property owners) individually to discuss the project and the land acquisition process. The first offers to purchase property have been made and the real estate agents continue to coordinate with the affected property owners to conclude the purchase agreements.
State & Local Funding and Coordination EIP / UFRR Agreement The last funding agreement amendment (Amendment No. 5) has been approved by DWR and the California Department of General Services. This final amendment is fully effective, and the authorized funding is already flowing as further detailed below. The approval of the 5th Amendment, provides funding for the emergency work: 1) up to $25 million for the emergency work in Reaches 14-16 and, 2) and up to $4.201 million reimbursement for any previously completed emergency work that is not funded by FEMA through the Public Assistance Program. SBFCA continues to coordinate with LD1 and LD9 for eventual OMRR&R turnover and to demonstrate financial capability for the long-term; this is required for DWR to release FRWLP retention and to fulfill Corps 408 permitting requirements.
SBFCA staff has been working with, and pushing DWR to process several payment and reimbursement requests for various items of work. These payment requests and their status are summarized in the following table. The table below reflects recent payments received and pending payments/recent requests submitted by SBFCA.
Payment Item (UFRR Agreement) Amount Status Pmt #14A - True-Up for work through 3/31/17 $3,593,536.46 Payment received November 3, 2017 Pmt #14B – True-Up for work through 6/30/17 $3,844,026.37 Payment received November 3, 2017 Pmt #15 - Advance for work through 12/31/17 $23,700,719.00 Payment received November 29, 2017 Area C ROW Payments (various) $251,595.24 Payment received February 1, 2018 Total Payments Received November, 2017 $31,389,877.10
Pmt #16 – Partial Retention Release for B & D $9,064,199.79 Payment Request Submitted to DWR Pmt #17 – True-Up through 9/30/2017 $1,215,179.24 Revised & pending re-submittal to DWR Pmt #18 – Advance through 3/31/2018 $3,107,635.81 Payment Request Submitted to DWR Total Pending Payments $13,387,015.84
Item 8
The following table summarizes SBFCA’s EIP/UFRR grant funding committed, in process and received to date.
FRWLP DWR EIP/UFRR Funding Agreement
Design Construction Total Agreement No. #4600009480 #4600010296 Capital Outlay Amount $9,000,000 $56,780,000 $65,780,000 Amendment 1 $0 [1] $0 [2] $0 Amendment 2 $14,869,280 [3] $57,803,791 [4] $72,673,071 Amendment 3 $0 $43,861,587 $43,861,587 Amendment 4 $0 $40,828,931 $40,828,931 Amendment 5 -$2,529,451 [5] $31,730,451 [5] $29,201,000 TOTAL FUNDING $21,339,829 $231,004,760 $252,344,589
Receipts PMT 1 $2,328,141 $14,103,457 $16,431,597 PMT 2 $1,160,580 $18,447,722 $19,608,302 PMT 3 $4,842,366 $19,469,632 $24,311,998 PMT 4 $8,704,665 $15,358,844 $24,063,509 PMT 5 $2,709,411 $13,846,991 $16,556,402 PMT 6 $0 $14,479,664 $14,479,664 PMT 7 $0 $13,168,126 $13,168,126 PMT 8 $0 $26,429,866 $26,429,866 PMT 9 $0 $181,266 $181,266 PMT 10 $0 $2,928,803 $2,928,803 PMT 11 $0 $7,898,917 $7,898,917 PMT 12 $0 $4,448,651 $4,448,651 PMT 13 $0 $10,874,296 $10,874,296 PMT 14 $0 $7,437,563 $7,437,563 PMT 15 $0 $23,700,719 $23,700,719 RET. & FINAL PMT $1,594,667 $0 $1,594,667 ROW Payment $0 $251,595 $251,595 Pending $0 $13,387,015 [6] $13,387,015
TOTAL PAYMENTS $21,339,829 $206,413,126 $227,752,955
GRANT BALANCE $0 $24,591,634 $24,591,634
Notes on following Page
Item 8
[1] Amendment 1 to the Design Agreement amended the term of the agreement. [2] Amendment 1 to the Construction Agreement amended the scope agreement to include the closure of gaps (at reaches 13 and 24) in Area C. [3] Amendment 2 to the Design Agreement increased the cost share from 50% to 76% State Cost Share and increased the State funding limit. [4] Amendment 2 to the Construction Agreement increased the scope to include Areas B & D2A and increased the State funding limit. It also incorporated many of the guideline provisions of the UFRR Program. [5] Reflects pending transfer of remaining design funding to the CFA and additional funding from DWR for emergency work ($25,000,000 for R 14 – 16 and $4,201,000 for emergency storm response). [6] Pending Payments per above listing.
Laurel Avenue Agreement SBFCA is currently working to amend the State funding limit for its Laurel Avenue FSRP Agreement with DWR. This amendment would add an additional $2.7 million to the agreement to cover additional costs of the Project. The following table summarizes SBFCA’s FSRP grant funding committed, in process and received to date for the Laurel Avenue Project. SBFCA has a pending payment of $1,135,013 currently under review by DWR.
LAUREL AVE DWR FSRP Funding
Agreement No. #4600011319 Agreement Amount $7,225,000 Amendment 1 $2,695,000 [1] TOTAL FUNDING $9,920,000
Receipts PMT 1 - Advance $4,188,375 PMT 2 - Q4 Reim. & Retention $1,395,573 RET. & FINAL PMT $0 Pending [2] $1,135,013
TOTAL PAYMENTS $6,718,961
GRANT BALANCE $3,201,039
[1] Amendment 1 to the Agreement pending approval by DWR. [2] Pending Payments for work through 9/31/2017
Laurel Avenue Repair Project (DWR Flood System Repair Program Grant) The contractor has completed all construction related activities except for the installation of the fence for the Audubon property. The design team continues to coordinate with PG&E to provide power to the new underground service for the Shen irrigation pump. Installation of the power service is anticipated to be completed soon. Lastly, DWR is processing an amendment to increase the funding to cover additional construction related expenses.
Emergency Levee Repair of Reaches 14-16 in Yuba City The contractor has completed all levee improvements except for the Gilsizer drainage pipe replacements and tree stump removals, which are both weather dependent items. Once those work items are completed the construction project will be complete and project closeout documentation activities will be conducted.
Item 8
Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement (OMRR&R) A requirement of SBFCA’s Construction Funding Agreement with the State of California is to complete OMRR&R manuals for the levee improvements completed as part of the Feather River West Levee Project. Another requirement is for SBFCA and the local levee maintaining agencies (LMA’s), Levee District 1 and Levee District 9, sign OMRR&R Agreements with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board to insure the levee improvements will be properly cared for. SBFCA is assisting the LMA’s to define RR&R from both a practical and budgetary standpoint to facilitate OMRR&R Agreements with LD1 and LD9.. Responsibility for OMRR&R will be codified in a State version of the OMRR&R manual. Ideally SBFCA would like this process completed within the next several months so that retention withheld by the State of California on the Construction Funding Agreement can be reimbursed to SBFCA. New OMRRR requirements and associated funding needs have become a major issue throughout the Central Valley, particularly as large urban projects such as FRWLP are turned over to local and State O&M agencies. To this end, the CVFPB held a Coordinating Committee meeting that was widely attended by Central Valley Flood Control agencies, Resource agencies, USACE, DWR, environmental NGO’s and other interested parties to discuss the new O&M requirements and authorities. SBFCA presented a local perspective of how LMA’s propose to define and address this issue. An important outcome of this meeting is that the ongoing LD1/LD9 development and documentation of OMRR&R authority and responsibility (facilitated by SBFCA) will serve as a model for the Central Valley.
FEMA/Cal OES Public Assistance Request for 2017 Storm Damage SBFCA staff submitted a request for funding from FEMA under the FEMA Public Assistance Program administered by CalOES in coordination with Sutter County OES. SBFCA would be a sub-grantee to CalOES. The submission of the request for funding is the start of the process. SBFCA staff has met with CalOES and FEMA to finalize the list of projects for FEMA’s approval, submit technical and financial information, and conducted a site visit to all damage locations. SBFCA continues to coordinate with CalOES and FEMA on their review and approval for funding. SBFCA is also working with DWR to fund the remaining non-federal share of the costs (reference State & Local Funding and Coordination above).
Oroville Wildlife Area (OWA) Flood Stage Reduction Project The project team continues to work on the design and permitting efforts. Design efforts and bid documents for the flood control improvements are complete with construction planned for summer 2018. Design efforts for the restoration improvements have kicked off and the 30% design is scheduled to be complete by the end of January. SBFCA recently received the Biological Opinion from National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as the Encroachment Permit from DWR. Work continues on obtaining the USACE Section 404, Section 408, and FERC approvals. The Oroville Coalition (including Executive Director Mike Inamine) met with DWR Director Karla Nemeth regarding DWR’s reluctance to submit a FERC request to start construction this year. Ms. Nemeth confirmed her support for the project and shortly thereafter DWR staff and a FERC legal consultant reached out to SBFCA to arrange a call/meeting with FERC and SBFCA. American Rivers and the Golden Gate Salmon Association have also weighed in on SBFCA’s behalf with the Resources Agency. Separately, the Corps 408 process for this relatively small project has been frustrating, having expended 27 months thus far. Last week, we were informed that the application is under final review and should not hold up construction. In regards to funding, SBFCA just received news that one of the applications submitted to the Wildlife Conservation Board in 2017 was successful. The grant is in the amount of $484k and will fund construction of the recreation related improvements. The team is still waiting to hear back on one more grant application submitted to the Wildlife Conservation Board in 2017. In addition, SBFCA staff continues to coordinate with both American Rivers and River Partners to implement the recent grants, which they received from the Wildlife Conservation Board and CDFW. The team also continues to research additional opportunities to fund the construction of the remaining restoration related work, including recent bond proposals.
Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project (federal project) USACE staff reviewing the design plans and specifications for the project submitted their comments late October and the SBFCA design team recently held a meeting to address and close out the comments. The 95% design package was submitted to USACE on December 15 and comments are due back on January 26. Staff continues to meet with Corps Project Management staff regarding engineering (including cost engineering), economics, Right-of-Way, cultural and environmental issues with the target of the 2018 Corps’ Workplan for federal Item 8 appropriations. At the request of the Corps, SBFCA contracted with a Value Engineering Analysis firm and the workshop will be held the week of January 29. SBFCA is also assisting with Section 106 Compliance Documentation, Environmental Compliance and Permitting, and real estate acquisition. Real estate acquisition offers for property required for the project were made in November, December, and January..
Federal Advocacy Executive Director Mike Inamine testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee on Thursday January 18th. This is the same committee Mr. Inamine testified before in March 2017. Essentially, this committee runs the Corps and will play a key role in the Administration’s Infrastructure plan. The hearing was entitled “America’s Water Resources Infrastructure: Approaches to Enhanced Project Delivery.” Mr. Inamine’s full testimony is posted on the SBFCA website. Committee members were particularly interested in the apparent time/cost savings of project execution by a local agency, regulatory streamlining and a new start for the federal project. Both Congressmen LaMalfa and Garamendi sit on this committee. Follow-up actions included evaluation of the large difference between FRWLP As-built costs and federal estimates, and a debrief of Mr. Inamine by the Congressional Research Service regarding regulatory hurdles.
In addition to Congressional testimony, Mr. Inamine and SBFCA lobbyist Julie Minerva met with the new leadership of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army including David Leach, Deputy ASA for Project Planning and Review, and Joseph Bentz, Deputy ASA for Management and Budget. Both were briefed on the federal project and SBFCA’s efforts to advance appropriations for a new start construction—they will be key decision makers in a new start designation. Mr. Inamine and Ms. Minerva also spoke very briefly with acting ASA Ryan Fisher, Major General Donald E. Jackson, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations and Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Chief of Engineers, and attended the Senate Environment and Public Works hearing on water infrastructure needs and challenges. Meetings were also held with Congressman Doug LaMalfa, staff of Congressman John Garamendi, as well as House T&I member Jeff Denham (R-Turlock).
State Advocacy SBFCA continues to work with the Central Valley Flood Control Association to advance annual appropriations of $100 million for deferred maintenance and levee repairs, as well as the non-federal cost share for Corps projects, such as the authorized SBFRMP on the Feather River. Senator Nielsen and Assemblyman James Gallagher have been particularly supportive of this effort. The Governor’s office is unwilling to act on this request despite support within the Administration and the reported budget revenue surplus.
Resource Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS) As described in last month’s update, a new State law, Assembly Bill (AB) 2087, establishes a conservation planning tool called a Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS). As formulated, the RCIS will reduce the time and cost of mitigation for flood projects, and is voluntary and non-binding. SBFCA was requested to participate given the Agency’s interest in rehabilitating the Sutter Bypass, improving O&M of the Sutter Bypass and providing flood protection for small communities in the southern Sutter Basin. SBFCA staff and consultants are participating on the RCIS steering committee.
Fiscal Impact This is an informational item only with no fiscal impact to SBFCA.
Item 8