Public Works director briefs new infrastructure commission on staffing, divisions and CIP delivery

Ted Gerber, director of public works for South Pasadena City, gave the commission a departmental overview and a status report on the city’s five‑year capital improvement program (CIP), explaining how City Council priorities, staffing levels and project funding shape what the department can deliver.

Gerber told commissioners the consolidated Public Works Infrastructure Commission combines responsibilities from two prior commissions and will develop a work plan aligned to Council goals. “Your role is an advisory body towards council,” Gerber said, describing how staff and the newly formed commission will coordinate work planning and agenda development.

Gerber outlined five divisions (transportation, engineering/CIP, operations and maintenance, environmental programs and sustainability, and water) plus two administrative teams. He described chronic vacancies in engineering — three engineering positions had been vacant for over a year until one new hire started — and said the department has used a temporarily contracted CIP program management team to help keep projects moving while recruitment continues.

Gerber presented fiscal figures for the current CIP year: the department reported a FY24–25 CIP budget in the presentation of about $18.2 million that the staff later corrected to $17.8 million. The department listed about 45 active projects in the current fiscal year and reported an encumbered/expenditure percentage in the mid‑30s; staff said they expect to reach roughly 60% encumbered or expended by June 30 as several projects enter construction.

Commissioners pressed staff on public reporting metrics. Gerber explained the department is developing a periodic CIP status report and a public‑facing CIP website; he and staff said the report will be refined to show project phase percentages (scoping, design, environmental review, construction, closeout) and to provide clearer narratives about status, funding and schedule where possible. Gerber cautioned that the city lacks an enterprise project control system and an asset‑management database; many current project records are maintained in office documents and cloud storage rather than a centralized ERP or project control tool.

Gerber summarized notable projects and contracts: the Grevillea/Berkshire pocket parks recently entered construction and are in grading, the fire station door replacement is underway, and an ADA ramp/sidewalk repair program — funded in part by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations — is installing roughly $500,000 to $600,000 of ramps and sidewalk work in locations including Meridian and Raymond Hill. Gerber described technical challenges that increase design needs in some locations (right‑of‑way constraints and historic street geometries) and explained why certain ramps required design work rather than standard Caltrans ramp templates.

Staff also discussed operational contracts and costs: the city’s tree‑trimming contract with West Coast Arborists is about $550,000 per year; traffic signal maintenance contracts were described as roughly $200,000; operations and maintenance staffing numbers were provided (one manager, supervisors and labor crews), and the water division was described as a small but 24/7 operation producing nearly all the city’s supply — about 6,200 service connections, roughly 80 miles of pipeline, eight storage tanks and six pump stations.

Commissioners asked how the CIP report would display total project cost, funding by phase and anticipated schedules. Staff said those fields are available internally but harder to publish reliably without a project control system; they agreed to explore adding construction schedule ranges or fiscal‑year delivery estimates for funded projects. Commissioners also raised the bicycle master plan and Mission Street road‑diet work; Gerber said the bicycle plan budget may be insufficient for a citywide implementation study and that the Mission Street design currently has conceptual funding for design but not full PS&E or construction funding.

Gerber and staff asked the commission for direction on community engagement for corridor and neighborhood projects and encouraged commissioners to use their community knowledge to help shape working‑group outreach (for example, Mission Street and Fair Oaks projects). He said staff will return with a refined CIP report and recommended work‑plan options for the commission to review at the next meeting.

The presentation prompted detailed commissioner feedback on how to make CIP reporting more useful to the public: commissioners requested clearer display of total project cost and per‑phase budgets, simpler public explanations of encumbrance versus expenditure, and better linkage between Council priorities and specific projects on the CIP list. Gerber acknowledged those requests and said staff would incorporate them where feasible. The department will also verify meeting dates and notify commissioners about scheduling conflicts for May.