HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Questions/Comments Received from Robert Goldberg on 06/04/2019Gloria Harper
From:
Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 04, 2019 7:30 PM
To:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Mike Varipapa; Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Joe Kalmick; Jill
Ingram; Vikki Beatley; Steve Myrter, Patrick Gallegos; Joe Miller, Tim Kelsey
Cc:
Gloria Harper, Community Media Corporation; Jeannette Andruss; Bruce Bennett; Jerry
Moreland; Joyce Ross Parque; Elizbeth Kane
Subject:
Questions and Comments for CIP Workshop
Attachments:
CIP Questions.19.20.doc
Dear Council and Staff,
Please find attached my questions and comments on the CIP. These relate to seven of the projects.
Thank you all in advance for your consideration,
Robert Goldberg
CIP Workshop Questions & Comments
From Robert Goldberg, 6/4/19
Buildings and Facilities
BG1504 Citvwide Financial Information System (p 24): This project was originally approved five years
ago in the FY 14-15 budget for $100,000. All of this money was rolled into the FY 15-16 budget with
another $90,000 added for a total of $190,000. At that time the CIP showed the total 5 -year
estimated cost for this project at $790,000. However, it appears that no money was spent as the
approved $190,000 has just been rolled into subsequent budgets including this year's. Now staff is
requesting to add $10,000 to the project for a total of $200,000. The project description states that
the $200,000 is just for the "first step" -- a consultant to do a needs assessment and help select a
vendor. No 5 -year project total cost figure is provided.
Please provide an updated 5 -year cost estimate.
Given that this project has languished for five years, is it a "must have" or "nice to have"?
BG2002 Citywide IT Assessment (p 29): The description in the CIP is very short on details for a new
$1.2 M proposal.
Please provide details at the Workshop. Please include a discussion of how this proposal
dovetails with the proposed spending of $100's of thousands of dollars on the City's financial
info system (BG1504), and the proposed increase in our operational Information Systems
spending (p71 of Budget) to $807,100 this year.
Parks
PR2003 Pickle ball at Marina Park (p 35): The proposed funding of $10,000 is to "resurface" an
existing tennis court to be dual purpose. A very good example of this is at College Estates Park in
Long Beach at 808 Stevely Ave. There overlay line painting with a different color provides a center PB court
that utilizes the existing tennis net, and two other PB courts available for players with their own nets (which
cost less than $200). It appears that this dual purpose functionality was provided with just painting or however
surface colors are applied.
Why does this proposal call for a $10,000 "resurfacing"? Couldn't just "repainting" of lines be
done for a fraction of the cost?
Streets
ST1811 Lampson Ave Bicycle Lane (p 57): When this project was last presented to Council on
10/9/17, staff estimated the total cost at $1,265,000 with a required 50% match by the OCTA Active
Transport Program grant. The CIP shows an initial expenditure of $200,000 for design in FY 19-20 with the
1
required match coming from M2 funds. However, the financing and total cost in subsequent years raises
several questions:
Why has the total project cost estimate been reduced to $1.1 million?
Is the match for the entire project still 50%?
Where will the matching funds come from in future years? Page 9 shows $900,000 coming
from the M2 fund in FY 21-22. However, the information on Page 57 is different, showing the
$900,000 coming from the grant proceeds..
Water
Note to Council: The following three water projects are not scheduled to start until after this fiscal
year. However, your approval now of $4.7 M for these projects in our 5 -Year CIP will be factored into
the upcoming Water Rate Study. Please carefully question whether these projects are essential vs.
"nice to have," since your approval will increase our projected 5 -Year Water CIP costs by almost a
third to $19.4 M. By my estimation, $19.4 M is about $6.5 M more than our Water CIP Fund can
afford, unless we raise the Water Capital charge on our utility bills or issue a water bond and pay
interest charges. Therefore, your approval now of these future projects now may shortly force us to
choose one of these less than undesirable options.
WT1103 Lampson Ave East Transmission Main (p71): The project description states that this $1.7 M
project is to provide a redundant second line from the Lampson well (built in 2011) to the main
supply lines.
What is the consequences of a break in the existing single connection? Would the faucets run
dry, or would the homes in CPE just be temporarily supplied from another City well or
imported water?
WT2101 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (p 82): This is a $2 M project that is not in our 2012 Water
Master Plan which appears to offer the ability to eliminate in-person manual meter readings.
How many years will it take for potential cost savings to approach the capital cost of this
project?
Are there any consequences of not doing this project?
WT2301 CPW Water System Improvements (85): The purpose of this $1,000,000 project sounds
primarily to provide supply redundancy to the CPW area which apparently we never had.
Is there now just one supply line to CPW? If more than one now, why do another one?
If there is just one supply line, what is the consequences of a break? Would the faucets run
dry, or would we just have to temporarily purchase water from Long Beach?
2