(December 7, 2004) -- At its December 7 meeting, the LB City Council voted 9-0 to increase by a total of $3 million dollars -- double the amount sought by management and approved by Councilmembers in June 2003 -- three contracts to three construction management firms already totaling $3 million that city management said 18 months ago would suffice until 2006.
Earlier in the day, LBReport.com reported on the agenda item, quoting extended portions of a city management memo by Public Works Director Christine Andersen accompanying the agendized item. LBReport.com also editorialized against the proposal, urging that the Council send the item to its Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for fact finding before a vote.
Near the end of the business day, LBReport.com received a second memo authored by Public Works Director Christine Andersen, sent to City Manager Jerry Miller for the Mayor and Councilmembers. Assistant City Manager Shippey forwarded the memo to LBReport.com [thank you, appreciated]. We post the second memo text verbatim below.
Date: December 7, 2004
To: Gerald R. Miller, City Manager
From: Christine F. Andersen, Director of Public Works
For: Mayor and Members of the City Council\
Subject: Agenda Item No. 42: First Amendment to Agreement No 28450 with 3D/International, Agreement No. 284224 with Concept Marine Associates, and Agreement No. 28361 with CBM Consulting, Inc., for As-Needed Construction Management Services
The following information is being provided to answer questions regarding the above-referenced agenda item.
Why did the original contract amount get used up so quickly?
The original contract amount was based on an anticipated multi-year project delivery schedule. Based on the Council's desire to have these projects delivered in a shorter time frame, project deliveries were accelerated, which resulted in the higher usage on the on-call contracts to perform construction management services.
Why do we continues to need these services?
These contracts provide expertise not available with our current inspection staff for facility construction. In addition, the current project inspection workload far exceeds existing City resources, which are currently fully committed on sidewalk, street, traffic signal and other related infrastructure projects.
From where will the additional funding come?
No new money is being appropriated; all of the dollars are already budgeted as anticipated expenditures in each of the individuals projects in the CIP [Capital Improvement Projects] for inspection, materials testing, survey work, contract compliance work, etc. Had in-house resources been utilized to undertake these activities, they would have charged their time to these funds. Since the City does not have the in-house staff, the funding will be used to pay for the outside contract on an as-needed basis. Should these services go unutilized, no payments will be made under these contracts
Councilwoman Gabelich: ...I asked questions, why are we doing this? Why are we having to go back for more money? And the answers that I got were that because of Council's desires to have these projects delivered in a shorter time frame, the deliveries were accelerated which resulted in a higher usage. Would you say that was accurate?
City Manager Miller: Yes, Madam.
Councilwoman Gabelich: And there really is no new money being appropriated?
City Manager Miller: That is correct.
Councilwoman Gabelich: OK. Thank you.