Part two of two.
Last week the City Council unanimously approved two contracts related to the Lampson Water Well improvement project. The following is a look at highlights from the discussion.
The City Council on Monday, Oct. 13, unanimously approved a new contract and an amendment to an existing contract for the Lampson Water Well Project.
The new contract would be with Bustier Engineering for construction management and inspections. The amended contract would be for Pacific Advanced Engineering to provide engineering services for the well improvement project.
The project is necessary because the well puts out a foul odor. The city does not use the well at full capacity because of the foul odor.
The project now has an estimated cost of more than $1.2 million, according to the staff report for the Oct. 13 meeting.
Public Comments
Due to space limits, the following is not a transcript but highlights from the discussion.
During the public comment period of the meeting, resident James Jensen said that city officials were aware in mid-July that the bids on the Lampson Well project had come in millions of dollars over what had been show for months. According to Jensen, the public would have had different comments on the water and sewer rate increase in August if they had known about the increased cost for the well project.
“Here’s project one and it’s gone completely off the rails. How do we trust that the next 12 aren’t in the same direction?” Jensen asked. He argued that the city committed “a lie of omission”.
“Council wasn’t informed. We weren’t informed. And later when asked about it, when Councilman [Ben] Wong asked Public Works, did you known on August 11th that this job was that way? Their answer was something to the effect of, well, it hadn’t been finalized at that point,” Jensen said.
“The bottom line is, if the city staff knew before the council vote that their CIP list or cost estimates were wrong and did not disclose that then the council’s decision was based on misleading information,” Jensen said.
He said like the public was cheated the night of the water and sewer rate vote.
“I see tonight we’ve got on the agenda voting for another half million dollars for the company to oversee this when we don’t even have the job assigned to anybody yet. The cart’s before the horse and we’re just, I think we’re operating recklessly,” Jensen said.
Daryl Stankov said he attended the previous council meeting where the city discussed hiring a consultant to assist with the preparation of requests for proposals and then hiring someone to manage outside projects. “I find it inconceivable that with all of the titles we have in this city, managers, assistant managers, directors, assistant directors, that we don’t have the wherewithal to create a solid request for proposal and to evaluate bids when we get them,” he said.
“But on the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised because I worked about a year ago for a couple of years with a number of people in this public works department on a sidewalk flooding issue for the Methodist church. And we went back and forth and talked about costs and sharing costs, etc., etc. And the compromise was about a $35, 24-inch drain that ties into their drain system. And guess what? They hired it done. We didn’t have the talent apparently to do that kind of work inside,” he said.
“So, I think you folks need to really take a look at what kind of capability does this Public Works Department have that would need to hire someone to perform those services.
Council comments
Kathryne Cho, deputy director of Public Works/city engineer, gave the staff report and answered council questions.
Cho said that since the city does not have a contractor, a constructability review will be done before the city re-bids the project.
According to Cho, at a previous council meeting, Mark Bustier of Bustier Engineering told the Seal Beach Council that re-evaluation was unlikely to reduce project costs to the original estimate of $4.35 million.
That night, staff was requesting council approval of a contract with Bustier Engineering to provide construction management for the water well project and Pacific Advanced Civil
Engineering to review and revise the bid documents based on Bustier Engineer’s findings.
“This project is supported by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Producer Well Construction Loan in the amount of $4.45 million, previously approved by City Council under Resolution 7328 on September 12, 2022,” according to the staff report.
District Five Councilman Nathan Steele asked if Seal Beach had anyone on staff who designs pump stations.
“We do not,” Cho said.
He said Seal Beach would not be able to do an RFP for a pump station. “Is that correct?” he asked.
“That is correct,” Cho said.
“These are skills that we just don’t have on board here,” Steele said.
“The first PACE bid came in at $4 and a quarter million. In what year was that done in?” Steele asked.
Public Works Director Iris Lee said it was last revisited about a year ago.
“And so we were surprised it went up from four and a quarter up to seven,” Steele said.
Lee said that was correct.
Steele asked what a project manager does.
“They take the project from beginning to end. They’re eyes on the field,” Cho said.
District Four Councilwoman Patty Senekal said the original engineering design was done in 2021 and the design estimate was the same in 2025. Cho said it was based on the city no longer providing vessels for the project and other items.
Cho said the engineer’s estimate was actually $4.35 million.
“But it was the same over these three years,” Senekal said.
“We did revisit it before we opened it up for construction bid,” Cho said.
“It was almost a 55% difference when those bids came in,” Senekal said.
Cho said staff was also surprised at how high the numbers came up.
“I was surprised for three years to go by and the estimate is still the same in an inflationary period in a supply chain issue and so forth,” Senekal said.
Senekal asked if the latest estimates and drawings were now current.
Public Works Director Lee said staff had not altered or changed the bid documents. “We have not altered or changed the bid documents,” Lee said.
“We are hoping to do so very soon so we could push this project out to bid again,” Lee said.
“I’m asking for how can we reassure ourselves, the public, um, and so forth that the RFP process will be as accurate as we can possibly make it,” Senekal said.
According to Lee, the city has contract experts that would be upgrading the project for Seal Beach.
“So we will constantly stay on top of that,” Lee said.
Senekal asked about the request for proposal process. “Who is revamping the RFP?” she asked.
According to Cho, Bustier and PACE would review the bid documents as a whole.
According to Lee, staff was not revamping the RFP process. She said they were looking at technical aspects of the documents to see if there are areas of improvement.
“The process needs to be clean,” Senekal said.
According to Lee, clarifications in bids were very common.
Senekal said the city was months behind and she wanted to make sure the product that the city puts out is clean.
District Five Councilman Ben Wong said he understood there was concern about transparency and confidence in the bid process.
“To borrow from other funds or extra projects would be extraordinary in my line of work,” Wong said.
District Three Councilwoman/Mayor Lisa Landau asked about trying to obtain a loan from the Orange County Water District.
Lee said that provided Seal Beach can go back out to bid in January 2026 and Seal Beach receives bids in February, staff would go back to OCWD for an update on the loan amount in March.
Later, Lee said that water projects were in high demand. According to Lee, the city would reach out to the contractors who originally bid on the project.
Wong expressed the fear that the cost of the project would increase even more.
Steele said Seal Beach would not make payments on the project loan until 12 months after the project is complete.
According to staff, the term on the loan is 20 years. Lee said the city would be reimbursed as often as the city submits an invoice.
Senekal said bids were good for 60 days. She proposed making them good for 90 days.
Lee said when you have a contractor hold their bids, they also have to hold their prices..
