HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Robert Goldberg Gloria Harper
From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 11:47 AM
To: Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt;Joe Kalmick
Cc: Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper; Steve Myrter;Iris Lee; Community Media Corporation
Subject: Re: Comments &Questions for Monday Night's Open Session
Attachments: 7.22.19.Questions.doc
Dear Council and Staff,
Please find attached my questions and comments on Monday's open agenda.
Thank you for your consideration and service,
Robert Goldberg
1
Questions & Comments for 6/24/19 (Open Session) from Robert Goldberg
Item D: Demands on Treasury FY 19-20
Page 13, Ck 11654, $3510 to UC Reagents for a four-day workshop at the end of September.
What was subject matter of this workshop and where was it held?
Who attended?
Item F: LED Agreement for St Lights
Section 2.2 of the agreement states that we are electing to finance the cost of replacement
lights "in lieu of an upfront, on-time payment of the replacement costs." However, the staff
report does not state what this one-time payment would be, nor the effective interest that the
City will pay during the proposed 20 years repayment period.
What is the "upfront, on-time payment of the replacement cost?"
What is the effective interest that the City will pay during the proposed 20 years
repayment period?
Item G: Contract for Water Meter Assessment
Why is this contract being back-dated to May 27th?
Item H: Engineering and Inspection On-Call Agreements
This proposal provides the City with multiple professional firms with overlapping engineering
expertise. While each has provided a fee proposal, these are primarily tables of hourly labor
rates for a broad range possible staff who could be assigned to work on any given project.
While staff has reviewed each firm's labor rates and found them to be "consistent with industry
standards," the actual costs to complete a given task/project will be highly dependent on the
firm's assessment of the total hours required and who among their staff will be assigned to do
the work. This discretionary assessment could reasonably be expected to create a wide range of
cost estimates if multiple firms were asked to price a given task/project. In future years,this
range would be expected to widen as some firms have aggressive annual cost increases (such as
Iteris at 4.5%/year) vs. others that have no increases at all (Zimmerman, Tait).
Will the City send a given task/project proposal to all of the firms within the relevant
service category for pricing before selecting a firm to do the work?
The contracts have start dates that vary from June 10th to June 24th
Why are not all of the start dates July 22nd?
Item K: Contract for Pavement Marking Services
My reading of the staff report is that this contract is for on-call, as needed work only.
Does staff intend to continue to go out to bid annually for our annual aggregated
stripping project(ST2005)?
If so, how did staff come up with the current proposed contract amounts which, on an
annualized basis, equal the budgeted and scheduled amounts for ST2005 over the next
three years? Under what circumstances would the cost of on-call work in a given year
even closely approach the budgeted amount for our annual aggregated project?
Item 0: Sand Berm Contract
The low bid price from Crew Inc. for two years of sand movement is$379.982. This is 38%
($104,616) higher than what we paid ($275,366) over the last two years for berms and a back-
pass.
Was any of this increase due to a change in the Scope of Services?
What is Crew's price of a backpass vs. non backpass year?