PCH speed camera project faces $1.25 million cost overrun
Malibu officials need nearly 50% more to install electric power for five automated radar enforcement cameras planned along Pacific Coast Highway.
By Hans Laetz
There appears to be a big cost blowout in the contract to install automatic speed ticket cameras on Pacific Coast Highway.
Officials say they need another $1.25 million to install electric power to the five installations planned to slow traffic on PCH by using automated radar enforcement. That would be almost 50 percent more than the $2.1 million that the project was supposed to cost.
Metro, the countywide transportation tax agency, put up the original money for the project. The city could go back to Metro to ask it to cover the cost overrun. But that would mean a one year delay in getting the cameras working.
The city would miss out on revenue from the citations, estimated to hit $4.5 million per year. Plus, the state law that allows the cameras is set to expire in six years, and city staff say Malibu should not miss out on the traffic enforcement and financial benefits of the cameras in the meantime.
A two-member city council subcommittee — Bruce Silverstein and Doug Stewart — will meet to consider the cost overrun. That meeting will be at 1:30 Wednesday afternoon at city hall.
Comments (1)
The departed Public Works Director may have something to do with this. Also, the Public Safety Department has poor performance in private contract selection for low bid costs; they just "like" the verbal performance of "interview" portion and go with a higher-priced bidder that's never done work with the City previously, i.e., "Covered6" in a "driving for dollars" private patrol after Palisades Fire. Contractor seems to have never arrested or caught the grafitti vandals and metals thieves, but the Sheriff did while driving PCH. City specified UNARMED guards, so many private patrol operators didn't want to place their employees -- already trained and State-certified to carry firearms -- at risk to approaching thieves that undoubtedly would be armed. The City chose not to reject bids and REBID as the City Council later voted for ARMED patrol officers, and simply gave the contract to one of the bidders that bid UNARMED but with contract modification to ARMED requirement. Who knows how many more bidders would have bid had the Notice properly identified the scope of work and City Council's after-the-fact requirement.