HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Questions GoldbergDraft Questions & Comments for 4/22/19 from Robert Goldberg
Item J: Street Lighting Assessment District
Page 2 of the Willdan report discusses Prop 218. It states that the “District qualifies as an existing assessment with the District funding items that are considered exempt.” This conflicts
with the last paragraph that summarizes the City’s position.
Is Willdan possibly correct?
Item L: Pier Contracts and Budget Amendments
Page 2 of the staff report states that “The insurance Company will reimburse the City its due portion upon project completion.” However, staff had previous told the Council and public
last June that “The claims process for this project involves reimbursement to the City by the insurance company on a quarterly basis as the work is completed” and that “cost(s) will
be reimbursed back to the City as construction proceeds” (6/25/18, Item L).
Was the “claims process” changed since last June, and if so, why?
The first line in the Project Change Orders Summary Table on page 3 indicates the net impact of change orders was to decrease the construction cost by $280,836 (see far right hand column).
This was despite the examples given in the staff report of two change orders that increased costs-- $155,297 for additional water line replacements, and $15,000 for the Edison transformer
trenching. This means that specific change orders that decreased costs had to equal at least $451,133.
What were the major change orders that decreased construction costs?
The second line in Project Change Orders Summary Table on page 3 is for the “Per Bid Contract Construction Costs.” This shows the Total Cost at $7,124,788. However, Table 2 on page 2
shows the awarded “construction contract base bid” amount to John Meek Company at $7,178,648, which is the figure previously approved by Council.
Why is the figure on page 3 almost $54,000 less than what is shown on page 2?
The same line in the Project Change Orders Summary Table shows the insurance reimbursement amount for the “Per Bid Contract Construction Costs” at $3,941,942, or only 55.3% of the total
for this line item. However, Table 2 on page 2 shows a percentage of 57.2% for the awarded “construction contract base bid” amount to John Meek Company
Why did the insurance reimbursement percentage on page 3 for the construction contract “base bid” drop by almost 2 percentage points?
The third line in Project Change Orders Summary Table is for “Various Unit Bid Item Increases” which total $318,758. These are not explained in the staff report.
What are these and what caused them to be over $300,000 more than expected?
The fourth line in Project Change Orders Summary Table is for “Per Bid Contract Soft Costs” which total $685,129. These are not explained in the staff report.
What are these additional costs, and how did rise to a level of almost 10% of the awarded construction contract?
The staff report indicates that the project as a whole is still projected be completed within the current total budgeted amount of just over $8.4 million. However, this assessment is
not consistent with the cost figures presented in the staff report. A compilation of these figures in the table below indicates that the estimated total project cost is now slightly
over $8.8 million. Of more importance, almost all of this cost increase is the City’s responsibility to pay, with the City’s “chip-in” rising by over $368,000 from $3,730,000 to $4,098,287.
With the project only 5 weeks from completion, where does staff anticipate cost savings on the order of $350,000-$400,000 to support their assessment that the project total will end
up within budget?