HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDcrossc3c4From :Brett Cross[SMTP :BRETTCROSS@YAHOO .COM]
Sent :Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4 :20 :55 P M
To :Council, SloCit y
Subject :Consent Items C-3 an d
Auto forwarded by a Rule
RECEIVE R
SEP 0 7 2010
SLO CITY CLER K
I have a birthday dinner I need to attend and it is probably is more fun than going to the
council meeting anyway, but I'd like to comment on two items on the consent agenda .
One, is item C-3 Issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds . Isn't there some old adage that
goes something like, "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is". I find it hard t o
believe that intelligent individuals could believe that the City could borrow funds fo r
somewhere around 6 3/4% and then get a guaranteed return of 7 3/4% therefore earnin g
1% on the "spread". The "markets" are much more efficient than that and if it was tha t
easy everyone would be doing it . I'm pretty concerned about how and why it took som e
more due diligence to find out that maybe, just maybe, Ca1PERS couldn't guarantee tha t
return. Who gave staff that information?.
Two is item C-4, Santa Rosa Park Restroom Replacement . How much was RRM pai d
for architectural and construction documents for the project?. Because I'm not sure .
Please tell me it wasn't $50,000 . Because if it was the City should ask the Federal
government for stimulus money because that is a lot of money to design a restroom . And
budgeting $60,000 for construction management . So far the budgeted costs for no n
construction related expenditures looks to 1/3 the total cost of the actual bricks an d
mortar project . There is some discussion later about not using all of the constructio n
management budget but regardless those cost both architecture and construction
management are obscene . And I know the staff provided an analysis of site built vs pre-
fab but that report lacked a lot- actual figures from prefab manufacturers . Mostly a
discussion about transporting the pieces and something about Federal standards- som e
hoowee like that . You as council members should have been much more suspect an d
critical of that report than you were .
Sincerely ,
Brett Cross
{f z~CbP~
E-4101-
''
1:1-eDD DI R
FILE I1exa ~SIN DI RREDAcfrt2-PIRE CHIE F
MEETING AGENDA Et-ATTORNEY Cr-PW DI R21-CLERK/ORIG ED-POLICE CH F
DATE 'ITEM #~3f 0 DEPT HEADS C2'REC DI RrPtt3D-0TH_ DI R
EN O llR DI R
rkl/td.qit)Z.-Co--WC d_
g
-
'C-ti ,t/5 — G~7f?n
f 6 ~~lG