HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-20; City Council; 16112; Services For Encina Power Plant Air Pollution0 7
3-ao-01
AB# /b: //2
MTG. 3-13-01
DEPT. RM
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
TITLE: CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO DEPT HD.
ENCINA POWER PLANT AIR POLLUTION CITY All-Y. @ J
ISSUES CITY MGR. +L-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. Z@‘*&’ approving an agreement with Powers Engineering for consulting services
related to the Encina Power Plant air pollution issues.
ITEM EXPLANATION
In May of 1999, ownership of the Encina Power Plant was transferred from SDG&E to Cabrillo Power
I LLC (Cabrillo). In June of 1999, Cabrillo submitted a “formal request” to the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (District) to revise District Rule 69, which governs air emissions for power
plants. If Cabrillo’s request is granted, the Rule’s stringent air pollution reduction requirement will be
replaced with a significantly less restrictive standard. In September 1999, while continuing to work
with the District to relax Rule 69, Cabrillo applied for a variance to relax the Rule’s compliance
schedule for the installation of air pollution control equipment at Encina.
Rule 69: District Rule 69 requires that all boilers sold by SDG&E must not exceed a limit of emissions
of pollution that is significantly lower than what was required of SDG&E. The deadline for meeting
this new standard was January 1,200l. According to Bill Powers, P.E. of Powers Engineering, an air
pollution control technology consultant, all the major California air pollution control districts with
boilers like those at Encina require compliance with this same standard, and by approximately the same
date. Compliance with the standard requires the installation of the pollution control technology known
as SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction).
Under SDG&E ownership of Encina, Rule 69 required an annual cap on emissions of nitrogen oxides,
or NOX, a major contributor to ozone formation on hot summer days. This means emissions could be
high over certain periods of the year, such as the summer during “peak demand” for electricity, as long
as they were lower at other times so the total annual cap was not exceeded. This standard relied on
reduced power production to reduce plant emissions.
The sale of Encina triggered the new standard for Cabrillo under Rule 69, which places a strict limit on
emissions of NOx per hour of energy production. This standard results in the need for SCR, which
results in significantly reduced emissions during peak periods, as well as during periods of reduced
demand for electricity. According to Mr. Powers, under Rule 69 and the installation of SCR, emissions
of NOx from Encina would be reduced by 7580% on days of peak production.
Cabrillo is seeking revisions in Rule 69 to reduce its requirements to an annual NOX cap “to allow them
to operate, essentially under the same emission reduction scenario that would have been allowed
SDG&E had they retained ownership of the plant.” This would also mean that Cabrillo would not have
to install the SCRs that would be necessary to comply with Rule 69. According to Mr. Powers, without
SCR, emissions of NOx on peak energy production days are 4-5 times higher.
PAGE TWO OF AB # /k/ //%
Variance: To obtain the variance, Cabrillo argued that insufficient time was available to install
the SCR that is necessary to meet the reduced pollution limit in Rule 69. Cabrillo also offered, in
support of the variance, to reduce excess emissions to the maximum extent feasible by capping
emissions of pollution at 419 tons per year beginning January 1,200l and continuing through the
duration of the variance. In October of 1999, the variance was granted by the District Hearing
Board.
The variance was granted on the condition that SCR is phased in between February 2002 and
July 2003, on the five boilers at the plant, and an emissions cap of 419 tons per year is not
exceeded. This is a cap similar to what SDG&E had and was requested by Cabrillo on the
assumption that it would not operate its older and more polluting boilers continuously. Since the
granting of the variance, Cabrillo has continued to work with the District on revisions to Rule 69
that would eliminate the need for the SCR.
Relaxation of Rule 69:
The District’s formal process to change a rule includes a public workshop and public hearing
before the County Air Pollution Control Hearing Board. Prior to initiating this process in
response to Cabrillo’s request to revise Rule 69, the District held three “Interested Parties”
meetings, one in each of the months of May, July and August of 2,000, to review and discuss the
proposed revisions to relax the Rule. Participants included the City of Carlsbad, the
Environmental Health Coalition, the American Lung Association, Cabrillo, the California Energy
Commission, California Independent Systems Operator, and others. Prior to these meetings staff
retained Bill Powers, P.E. to advise us on the air pollution issues associated with the Encina
Power Plant.
At the “Interested Parties” meetings Cabrillo maintained that power shortages will be
exacerbated if their proposed revisions to Rule 69 are not adopted by the District, and the
investment in SCR that is necessary to comply with the Rule is not warranted because it is not
cost effective. However, Mr. Powers pointed out in these meetings that maintaining the existing
requirement for emission reductions in Rule 69 and providing for potential power shortages are
not mutually exclusive. A provision allowing for emergency measures can be added to Rule 69
while retaining the requirement that Cabrillo comply with the Rule’s existing provisions.
Furthermore, after extensive research and analysis conducted by Mr. Powers, including in-depth
meetings with the District and Cabrillo to discuss cost projections, he concluded that the SCR
pollution control technology is cost effective.
Staff has shared Mr. Powers’ analyses and conclusions with the District, and our concerns about
air emissions from Encina and any further dilution of a regulation designed to improve air
quality. Based on Mr. Powers’ work, the meetings of interested parties, and the fact that Cabrillo
has already received additional time to comply with Rule 69 through the variance, staff has
informed the District that we are not able to support Cabrillo’s proposed revisions to further relax
Rule 69. As staff stated in a letter to the District last June, “we are concerned that the proposed
PAGE THREE OF AB # //o,, 0/L/
revisions will have no other effect than to greatly increase emissions of NOX from Encina during
periods of high electricity demand.” Many of the other interested parties have expressed
concerns and reservations about the proposed revisions as well. To date, the District has not held
additional meetings for interested parties or started the formal process for District action on
Cabrillo’s request to revise Rule 69.
Amendment to the Variance: Encina has been operating at a rate such that Cabrillo is now close
to reaching the 419 tons per year emissions cap approved in the variance. As a result, on January
3 1,200 1, Cabrillo submitted an application for a variance amendment to allow them to exceed
the cap through December 3 1,200l. Cabrillo estimates the emissions cap will be exceeded by
380 to 620 tons of pollution. On March 15,2001, the County Air Pollution Control Hearing
Board will hold a public hearing on this application. While it is anticipated that this amendment
will be granted to ensure Cabrillo’s ability to continue to operate the plant at full capacity, staff
will attend the hearing and respectfully request that the Board require adequate mitigation
measures.
If Cabrillo had met the Rule 69 standard requiring the installation of SCR on all boilers by
January 1,200l there would be no NOX cap and Cabrillo would not be going to the Hearing
Board requesting relief from the cap. While both achieving a delay in the installation of SCR
and working to have the SCR requirement removed from Rule 69, Cabrillo has reaped
tremendous profits in a very short period of time due to the consistently high demand for power.
To obtain the variance to Rule 69 Cabrillo argued for the annual emissions cap as part of its
justification for receiving approval to postpone installation of SCR. Cabrillo received approval
for the delay in compliance on the condition of abiding by the cap, and now, must ask to “take
back” their commitment to do so. Requiring appropriate justification for the delay in compliance
with Rule 69 is as relevant now as it was when the cap on emissions was a condition of approval.
Requiring appropriate mitigation is an obligation to the community and an intrinsic part of
variance protocol.
Council Goals and Opposing Further Relaxation of Rule 69:
The Council’s goals surrounding the Encina Power Plant property include: a balance between
the uses of this site and the protection of the environment, elimination of blight, and uses more
compatible with the needs for the community, i.e, enhancement of public access to and use of the
coastline. Council’s interests in this property include minimizing industrial impacts to our
natural resources. As long as this site is necessary to meet the region’s power needs, Council
would like to see this plant replaced with a physically smaller and more aesthetically acceptable
facility so a substantial portion of the property can be redeveloped with an alternative use.
Council’s goals for this property are consistent with Rule 69, which was designed to reduce air
pollution from Encina once transfer of ownership from SDG&E occurred, and thereby improve
air quality. Cabrillo’s proposed revisions to Rule 69 are contradictory to Council goals for this
property. The cap on emissions proposed by Cabrillo is much greater than is allowed under the
PAGE FOUR OF Al3 # lb, U%
Rule. Furthermore, the weakness of a cap as a pollution control device is clearly evident, as it
assumes the plant will not be operated at full capacity. Since the District Hearing Board is about
to hold a hearing on Cabrillo’s application to lift the cap, it is clear that this assumption is no
longer valid, and the requirement for the pollution control technology, SCR, is even more
important than ever to reduce NOX pollution fi-om this plant. As a result of Cabrillo’s variance
allowing a delay of two and one-half years for full compliance, and the lifting of the cap in the
variance that will be necessary to meet energy needs, Cabrillo may very well exceed the pollution
levels from the plant that we experienced under SDG&E ownership.
Cabrillo’s request to revise Rule 69 to relax its existing pollution reduction requirements remains
under consideration by the District. If District staff determines that the proposed revisions
should be considered, a process will be initiated that will include a public workshop and a public
hearing before the District Board (Board of Supervisors). In support of Council goals staff will
continue to oppose further relaxation of Rule 69.
Consulting Services
Last year, in preparation for the “Interested Parties” meetings, other opportunities for input in the
District’s review process, and to adequately evaluate Cabrillo’s request for revisions to Rule 69,
the air quality issues and implications for the community, proposals from several air quality
consulting firms were requested and evaluated. Interviews were held and Powers Engineering
was selected based on Mr. Powers’ expertise and experience, and strong recommendations from
references. Two contracts for consulting services were executed for a combined total not to
exceed $25,000. We are now nearing this dollar limit. Based on performance to date this firm is
recommended for additional services not to exceed an additional $25,000. The agreement is for
one year with the ability to extend it for one year, two additional times. Mr. Powers will be
needed to represent the City at the March 15,200l District Hearing Board meeting, any future
forums for discussions about revisions to relax Rule 69, and for assistance in the review and
analysis of any additional proposals regarding Encina and air quality.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the agreement is up to $25,000. There are sufficient funds in the Administrative
Services Miscellaneous Professional Services Account to cover this amount.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. @Oa’-@
2. Agreement with Powers Engineering
/’ ‘:,,:A,
1
2
I
4
c c
E
7
. 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, Ta CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES RELATED TO ENCINA POWER PLANT AIR
POLLUTION ISSUES
WHEREAS, San Diego Air Pollution Control District (District) Rule 69
requires that by January 1,2001, all boilers sold by SDG&E must not exceed a limit of
emissions of pollution that is significantly lower than what was required of SDG&E; and
WHEREAS, Cabrillo Power I LLC (Cabrillo) submitted a “formal request” to
the District to revise District Rule 69 and relax its emissions limit requirement, and this request
is still pending formal action by the District; and
WHEREAS, Cabrillo has received a variance to Rule 69 to relax the Rule’s
zompliance schedule for Encina on the condition that an emissions cap of 419 tons per year is
lot exceeded; and
WHEREAS, Cabrillo has applied to the District for an amendment to the
variance to exceed the emissions cap of 419 tons per year; and
WHEREAS, on March 8,2001, the District will hold a public hearing on
Zabrillo’s request to exceed the cap, and this meeting as well as other District forums on Rule
59 will provide opportunities to the City to voice concerns about any further relaxation of the
Xule; and
WHEREAS, opposition to fk-ther relaxation of Rule 69 is consistent with
Jouncil goals surrounding the Encina Power Plant property; and
WHEREAS, the services of an air pollution control technology consultant are
leeded to evaluate proposals for revisions to Rule 69 and participate in District meetings
.egarding the Rule; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, Powers Engineering is highly qualified and has provided excellent
air pollution control technology consulting services to date.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute an agreement
with Powers Engineering for air pollution control technology consulting
services.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City
’ Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 20th day of March 2001, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, and Nygaard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Council M r Finnila and H
II ATTEST:
File: Agenda Bill Air Pollution Controls-Encina-contact 3-13-01 formatted 3 rev
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 23rd day of
March 1
corporation, hereinafter
2001, by and between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
referred to as “City”, and Powers Engineering, a sole
proprietorship hereinafter referred to as “Contractor.”
RECITALS
City requires the services of an air pollution consultant to provide the necessary
consulting services related to Encina Power Plant air pollution issues; and Contractor
possesses the necessary skills and qualifications to provide the services required by the
City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants
contained herein, City and Contractor agree as follows:
1. CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATIONS
l Advise the City on Encina Power Plant emissions and regulatory compliance,
including any potential changes to regulations that may impact the City;
l Advise the City on arenas for action and/or participation, including but not
limited to federal, state and regulatory and policy making processes, and
agencies and groups with which to work cooperatively on common goals;
l Attend and represent the City at San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District (District) hearings and Board meetings on issues pertinent to
emissions from the Encina Power Plant:
-1 -
rev. 4/24/00
l Attend staff and City Council meetings as necessary; and
l Provide written reports as necessary.
2. CITY OBLIGATIONS
The City shall provide staff assistance and necessary documents.
The City shall review Contractors work product and either provide approval for
proceeding to the next assignment or provide Contractor with specific changes or
alternatives required to complete the assignment.
3. PROGRESS AND COMPLETION
The work under this contract will begin within one (1) day after receipt of
notification to proceed by the City and be completed within one year of that date.
Extensions of time may be granted if requested by the Contractor and agreed to in
writing by the Risk Manager. The Risk Manager will give allowance for documented
and substantiated unforeseeable and unavoidable delays not caused by a lack of
foresight on the part of the Contractor, or delays caused by City inaction or other
agencies’ lack of timely action.
4. FEES TO BE PAID TO CONTRACTOR
The total fee payable for the services to be performed shall not exceed
$25,000.00. N o other compensation for services will be allowed except those items
covered by supplemental agreements per Paragraph 8, “Changes in Work.” The City
reserves the right to withhold a ten percent (10%) retention until the project has been
accepted by the City.
Incremental payments, if applicable, should be made as outlined in attached
Exhibit “A.”
-2 -
rev. 4/24/00
5. DURATION OF CONTRACT
This agreement shall extend for a period of one year from date thereof. The
contract may be extended by the City Manager for two additional one (1) year periods
or parts thereof, based upon a review of satisfactory performance and the City’s needs.
The parties shall prepare extensions in writing indicating effective date and length of the
extended contract.
6. PAYMENT OF FEES
Payment of approved items on the invoice shall be mailed to the Contractor
within 30 days of receipt of the invoice.
7. CHANGES IN WORK
If, in the course of the contract, changes seem merited by the Contractor or the
City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change in the
conditions of the contract is warranted, the Contractor or the City may request a change
in contract. Such changes shall be processed by the City in the following manner: A
letter outlining the required changes shall be forwarded to the City by Contractor to
inform them of the proposed changes along with a statement of estimated changes in
charges or time schedule. A Standard Amendment to Agreement shall be prepared by
the City and approved by the City according to the procedures described in Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 3.28.172. Such Amendment to Agreement shall not render
ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of the agreement.
6. COVENANTS AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
The Contractor warrants that their firm has not employed or retained any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Contractor, to
rev. 4/24/00
-3 -
solicit or secure this agreement, and that Contractor has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon, or resulting
from, the award or making of this agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty,
the City shall have the right to annul this agreement without liability, or, in its discretion,
to deduct from the agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full
amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fees, gift, or contingent fee.
9. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI-HARASSMENT CLAUSE
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws and
regulations prohibiting discrimination and harassment.
10. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
In the event of the Contractor’s failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the work
as provided for in this contract, the City Manager may terminate this contract for
nonperformance by notifying the Contractor by certified mail of the termination of the
Contractor. The Contractor, thereupon, has five (5) working days to deliver said
documents owned by the City and all work in progress to the Risk Manager. The Risk
Manager shall make a determination of fact based upon the documents delivered to
City of the percentage of work which the Contractor has performed which is usable and
of worth to the City in having the contract completed. Based upon that finding as
reported to the City Manager, the Manager shall determine the final payment of the
contract.
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon tendering thirty (30)
days written notice to the other party. In the event of such suspension or termination,
rev. 4/24/00
-4 -
upon request of the City, the Contractor shall assemble the work product and put same
in order for proper filing and closing and deliver said product to City. In the event of
termination, the Contractor shall be paid for work performed to the termination date;
however, the total shall not exceed the lump sum fee payable under paragraph 4. The
City Manager shall make the final determination as to the portions of tasks completed
and the compensation to be made.
11. CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS
The Contractor agrees that any contract claim submitted to the City must be
asserted as part of the contract process as set forth in this agreement and not in
anticipation of litigation or in conjunction with litigation. The Contractor acknowledges
that if a false claim is submitted to the City, it may be considered fraud and the
Contractor may be subject to criminal prosecution. The Contractor acknowledges that
California Government Code sections 12650 et seq., the False Claims Act, provides for
civil penalties where a person knowingly submits a false claim to a public entity. These
provisions include false claims made with deliberate ignorance of the false information
or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information. If the City of Carlsbad seeks
to recover penalties pursuant to the False Claims Act, it is entitled to recover its
litigation costs, including attorney’s fees. The Contractor acknowledges that the filing of
a false claim may subject the Contractor to an administrative debarment proceeding
wherein the Contractor may be prevented to act as a Contractor on any public work or
improvement for a period of up to five years. The Contractor acknowledges debarment
by another jurisdiction is grounds for the City of Carlsbad to disqualify the Contractor
from the selection process. JVff (Initial) (Initial)
-5 -
rev. 4/24/00
The provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code sections 3.32.025, 3.32.026,
3.32.027 and 3.32.028 pertaining to false claims are incorporated herein by reference.
BP (Initial) (Initial)
12. JURISDICTION
The Contractor agrees and hereby stipulates that the proper venue and
jurisdiction for resolution of any disputes between the parties arising out of this
agreement is San Diego County, California.
13. STATUS OF THE CONTRACTOR
The Contractor shall perform the services provided for herein in Contractor’s own
way as an independent Contractor and in pursuit of Contractor’s independent calling,
and not as an employee of the City. Contractor shall be under control of the City only
as to the result to be accomplished, but shall consult with the City as provided for in the
request for proposal. The persons used by the Contractor to provide services under this
agreement shall not be considered employees of the City for any purposes whatsoever.
The Contractor is an independent Contractor of the City. The payment made to
the Contractor pursuant to the contract shall be the full and complete compensation to
which the Contractor is entitled. The City shall not make any federal or state tax
withholdings on behalf of the Contractor or its employees or subcontractors. The City
shall not be required to pay any workers’ compensation insurance or unemployment
contributions on behalf of the Contractor or its employees or subcontractors. The
Contractor agrees to indemnify the City within 30 days for any tax, retirement
contribution, social security, overtime payment, unemployment payment or workers’
compensation payment which the City may be required to make on behalf of the
-6 -
rev. 4/24/00
Contractor or any employee or subcontractor of the Contractor for work done under this
agreement or such indemnification amount may be deducted by the City from any
balance owing to the Contractor.
The Contractor shall be aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986 and shall comply with those requirements, including, but not
limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees,
subcontractors and Consultants that are included in this agreement.
14. CONFORMITY TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
The Contractor shall cause all drawings and specifications to conform to all
applicable requirements of law: federal, state and local. Contractor shall provide all
necessary supporting documents, to be filed with any agencies whose approval is
necessary.
The City will provide copies of the approved plans to any other agencies.
15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All plans, studies, sketches, drawings, reports, and specifications as herein
required are the property of the City, whether the work for which they are made be
executed or not. In the event this contract is terminated, all documents, plans,
specifications, drawings, reports, and studies shall be delivered forthwith to the City.
Contractor shall have the right to make one (1) copy of the plans for its records.
16. REPRODUCTION RIGHTS
The Contractor agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work
pursuant to this contract shall be vested in City and hereby agrees to relinquish all
claims to such copyrights in favor of City.
-7 -
rev. 4/24/00
17. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad and its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all claims, damages,
losses and expenses including attorneys fees arising out of the performance of the
work described herein caused by any willful misconduct, or negligent act, or omission of
the contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them
or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable.
18. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
The Contractor shall not assign this contract or any part thereof or any monies
due thereunder without the prior written consent of the City.
19. SUBCONTRACTING
If the Contractor shall subcontract any of the work to be performed under this
contract by the Contractor, Contractor shall be fully responsible to the City for the acts
and omissions of Contractor’s subcontractor and of the persons either directly or
indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as Contractor is for the acts and omissions of
persons directly employed by Contractor. Nothing contained in this contract shall
create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor of Contractor and the
City. The Contractor shall bind every subcontractor and every subcontractor of a
subcontractor by the terms of this contract applicable to Contractor’s work unless
specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in question approved in writing by
the City.
-8 -
rev. 4/24/00
20. PROHIBITED INTEREST
No official of the City who is authorized in such capacity on behalf of the City to
negotiate, make, accept, or approve, or take part in negotiating, making, accepting, or
approving of this agreement, shall become directly or indirectly interested personally in
this contract or in any part thereof. No officer or employee of the City who is authorized
in such capacity and on behalf of the City to exercise any executive, supervisory, or
similar functions in connection with the performance of this contract shall become
directly or indirectly interested personally in this contract or any part thereof.
21. VERBAL AGREEMENT OR CONVERSATION
No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent, or employee of the
City, either before, during or after the execution of this contract, shall affect or modify
any of the terms or obligations herein contained nor entitle the Contractor to any
additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this contract.
22. SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 18, “Hold Harmless Agreement,” all
terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties
hereto, and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns.
23. EFFECTIVE DATE
This agreement shall be effective on and from the day and year first written
above.
-9 -
rev. 4/24/00
24. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Contractor shall file a conflict of interest statement with the City Clerk in
accordance with the requirements of the City’s conflict of interest code incorporating
Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation 18700 as it defines A consultant. The
disclosure category shall be categories 1, 2, 3 and 4.
25. INSURANCE
The Contractor shall obtain and maintain for the duration of the contract and any
and all amendments insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to
property which may arise out of or in connection with performance of the work
hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Said insurance shall be obtained from an insurance carrier admitted and authorized to
do business in the State of California. The insurance carrier is required to have a
current Best’s Key Rating of not less than “A-Y” and shall meet the City’s policy for
insurance as stated in Resolution No. 91-403.
A. Coverages and Limits.
Contractor shall maintain the types of coverages and minimum limits
indicated herein, unless a lower amount is approved by the City Attorney or City
Manager:
1. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. $1 ,OOO,OOO combined
single-limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the
submitted policies contain aggregate limits, general aggregate limits shall apply
separately to the work under this contract or the general aggregate shall be twice the
required per occurrence limit.
-10 -
rev. 4/24/00
2. Automobile Liability (if the use of an automobile is involved for
Contractor’s work for the City). $1 ,OOO,OOO combined single-limit per accident for bodily
injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability. Workers’
Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and
Employer’s Liability limits of $1 ,OOO,OOO per accident for bodily injury.
4. Professional Liability. Errors and omissions liability appropriate to
the contractor’s profession with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per claim. Coverage
shall be maintained for a period of five years following the date of completion of the
work.
B. Additional Provisions.
Contractor shall ensure that the policies of insurance required under this
agreement contain, or are endorsed to contain, the following provisions.
1. The City shall be named as an additional insured on all policies
excluding Workers’ Compensation and Professional Liability.
2. The Contractor shall furnish certificates of insurance to the City
before commencement of work.
3. The Contractor shall obtain occurrence coverage, excluding
Professional Liability which shall be written as claims-made coverage.
4. This insurance shall be in force during the life of the agreement
and any extension thereof and shall not be canceled without 30 days prior written notice
to the City sent by certified mail.
rev. 4/24/00
-11 -
5. If the Contractor fails to maintain any of the insurance coverages
required herein, then the City will have the option to declare the Contractor in breach, or
may purchase replacement insurance or pay the premiums that are due on existing
policies in order that the required coverages may be maintained. The Contractor is
responsible for any payments made by the City to obtain or maintain such insurance
and the City may collect the same from the Contractor or deduct the amount paid from
any sums due the Contractor under this agreement.
26. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
The name of the persons who are authorized to give written notices or to receive
written notice on behalf of the City and on behalf of the Contractor in connection with
For Contractor:
the foregoing are as follows:
For City: Title
Name
Address
Title
Name
Address
Engineer/License Number:
27. BUSINESS LICENSE
Risk Manager
Erin K. Letsch
1635 Faradav Ave.
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Principal, Powers Enaineerinn
Bill Powers, P. E.
4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209
San Dieno. CA 92 116
M24518
Contractor shall obtain and maintain a City of Carlsbad Business License for the
duration of the contract.
-12 -
rev. 4/24/00
28. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This agreement, together with any other written document referred to or
contemplated herein, along with the purchase order for this contract and its provisions,
embody the entire agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. In case of conflict, the terms of the agreement supersede the
purchase order. Neither this agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended,
modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party
against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
Executed by Contractor this
CONTRACTOR:
&Y 2$%v&& / 7?tc
(name of Contractor) ’
CITY OF CA
By: 7 c3745ri; &G~M~~w..~C
(sign here)
8 I& &&?s, 26 . Pz/JYc/P4L~
(print name/title) ’ / ATTEST. n
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Contrac$r must be attached.
Chairman, president or vice-president and secretary, assistant secretary, CFO or
assistant treasurer must sign for corporations. Otherwise, the corporation must attach a
resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal
empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
BY: &+&$Z& wm
Deputy City Attorney
rev. 4/24/00
-13 -
State of California .
f q C- &f proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
Place Notary Seal Above
to be the personti whose name&$@
subscribed to instrument and
acknowledged to me
the same
capacity(iw, an
signature(don
the entity upon behalf of which the person
acted, executed the instrument. P
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacityties) Claimed by Signer
Signer’s Name:
q Individual
0 Corporate Officer - l-Me(s):
0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General
0 Attorney in Fact
0 Trustee
0 Guardian or Conservator
0 Other:
Signer Is Representing:
m
Top of thumb here
0 1997 National Notary Association * 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 - Chatsworth. CA 91313.2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-600-876-6827