The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18 - Civic Center & Park Project Close Out Accounting_Agreement_BA Correspondence"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" d b' Brown, Leilani From: Denys Oberman [dho @obermanassociates.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:30 AM To: Curry, Keith; Mike Henn; 'Edward D. Selich'; Gardner, Nancy; Daigle, Leslie; Petros, Tony; Hill, Rush Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani; 'Deepa Bharath' Subject: City Council Agenda - Proposal to Increase Civic Center Project Closeout Funding Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential PLEASE ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD Mayor and City Council: This letter addresses City Council Session, Agenda Section XVIII, Item 18- CIVIC CENTER AND PARK PROJECT CLOSE -OUT ACCOUNTING. Staff is recommending an Increase of Project Contingency from $1,623,000 to $6,500,000. It also authorizes the City Manager and Project Manager(CW Driver ?) to "negotiate additional project changes in amount NTE $4,877,000. We respectfully inquire as to what can be a legitimate rationale to: 1. Increase the Project Budget when the all project team members were already committed to a plan, design, and construction cost,and whereby the City and each Service Provider already had contingent fee built into their contracts? ? 2. Authorize an increase the professional service budget of one of the design firms,BCJ by $579,670 when their scope is already completed? 3. Authorize monies from an "unappropriated Civic Center fund balance "? There is NO MORE DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION TO BE DONE ON THIS PROJECT.... OTHER THAN POTENTIAL AS -YET UNDISCLOSED, UNVETTED "Special Projects ". We respectfully register our objection to the proposed Contingency Increase and Instead, we request that the Council: 1. Hold Staff accountable, and direct it to hold all Design and Construction and related project professionals retained in connection with this project, accountable, for fulfilling their already- authorized contracts WITHIN ALREADY APPROVED SCOPE AND BUDGET —which already included contingency factors. 2. If, in fact, there is "excess ", reallocate it to the City's many other needs which require attention, such as: - Adequate Public Health and Safety - -- Police presence,patrol,enforcement and response - Infrastructure, including safety signals near schools, street lights, and electric /water utilities - Funding to implement landscaping, roadway and other improvements in areas targeted for Revitalization and reuse , which have been identified but as yet funds not allocated by the City(most notable, the Lido Village area ) The City has already committed significant funds and incurred significant Debt, in connection with the Civic Center and Park project. There are other initiatives and projects which would provide much greater economic and other Public benefit —both to the city, and its constituents. Thank you for your consideration. Denys H. Oberman Resident and community stakeholder Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO NOB R A► Sr:atapq and SmftcV. AdvLmr, OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476 -0790 Cell (949) 230 -5868 Fax (949) 752 -8935 Email: dho(a)obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 94914760790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. Brown, Leilani From: Laura Curran [lauracurran @me.com] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 9:12 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: Please include in PUBLIC RECORD: Fwd: Comments on Staff REport Item #18: Civic Center Close Out Accounting Begin forwarded message: From: Laura Curran <lauracurran(a)me.com> Subject: Comments on Staff REport Item #18: Civic Center Close Out Accounting Date: June 10, 2013 9:10:56 PM PDT To: Dave Kiff <DKiff(a-)newportbeachca.gov >, CityCouncil(a)newportbeachca . gov Cc: Kim Brandt <KBrandt .newportbeachca.gov >, Steve Badum <S Bad um6Dnewportbeachca.gov> To City Council and Staff: Item #18 on Council Agenda for 6/11 requests an increase in the Project Contingency of 300 %, from $1.6M to $6.5M. Once again, it is difficult for a resident to understand why we should pay these fees, based on the Staff REport. To start with, the Staff Report Title "Close Out Accounting" does not clue the reader in that $6M in Contingency increases are on the table. Let's name reports so Readers know what's being covered. Questions 1. The original contract in June 2010 was "Construction Manager at Risk ". This is not referenced in the Staff Report, nor are the implications for Contingencies explained. Further, while the City in some cases, upscoped the project by adding a bridge with zinc covering for example, Unfortunately, the Report does not clarify which items led to the contingency increase vs. those that were covered in a separate scope of work. 2. Where's the Spreadsheet listing the specific items included in the $6M requested addition, and the Categories referenced, i.e. Building Code Requirements, Unforeseen Conditions, Design Enhancement, Design and Omissions? The Staff Report should include an accounting of expenses the 'ties', so that the line items included in each Category are clearly indicated and they all add up to $6.5M. For example, if Design Omission = $4.3 M, what items were Omitted? A list of Omissions is not included in the Staff Report so the public does not know what the referenced Omissions were. $4M is a big # to have 'omitted.' 3. $123K for Additional Architect Expenses: What are these charges? How much of this cost was travel vs. construction administration and Expenses? What were these specific items? Perhaps Staff could publish the General Ledger and Check Requests to provide clarity. 4. The BCJ Contract extension for $576K (On P. 5) appears to cover the period from January 2013 to June 2013. Have these costs already been incurred? If so, residents are being asked to approve the payment of costs which have already been incurred. If Council does not approve these costs, what will happen? WIll BCJ sue? 5. PWP - Person Trips: PWP Staff were required to travel in part during the planning phases because they made mistakes in the specification of plants for the project. The Landscape Architect specified Northern California plants when the City Council had directed PWP to use plants native to Southern California. This required Staff and residents to become involved to address and rectify the situation. On a side note, Staff responded quickly so that work was not done that would need to be reworked. If anything, PWP should reimburse the City for the cost of Staff Time incurred as a result of these discussions. If any of these trips were necessitated due to PWP's error, then costs for these trips should be paid for. by PWP, not the City. Further, PWP's Trip Costs specify a Hotel cost of $240 per night and $500 per flight (from SFO). Hotels rooms in Newport Beach are available at $125 -200 per night (Hyatt Regency - $150 in October, $95 on Hotwire in January 2013 - I booked it) by planning ahead. Where are PWP team members staying and how are they booking their flights - why would the City approve these trip costs at these rates? In closing, the Staff Report provides lots of justification for the increase but no clarification. Please request Staff to provide a better analysis of the Contingencies and why they are required in the amount of $6.5 M before approving this request. Sincerely, Laura C. Curran