Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council flags capacity limits as city unveils $7.99M new CIP; public works director asks for prioritization guidance
Summary
At a May 21 budget workshop, Carmel staff presented nearly $8 million in new capital projects and a roughly $3.8 million carryover; the council pressed staff to prioritize projects and address limited project‑management capacity.
Carmel-by-the-Sea staff presented a proposed capital improvement program (CIP) that would add roughly $7.99 million of new projects to a carryover list of about $3.8 million, producing a multi‑million dollar capital program for the coming year. Council members expressed concern about the city’s delivery capacity and asked staff for prioritized, phased options.
Ken Wysocki, who began as public works director earlier in May, said he is still unpacking the project list and asked council for clear guidance on what projects are “nonnegotiable” for the coming year so staff can allocate limited delivery capacity and consider contracting strategies. Wysocki said staff could pursue a mixed model: in‑house project managers for some projects plus consultants for specialized engineering or construction management where needed.
Council and staff discussed several large or complex projects on the packet, including the Fourth Avenue outfall design and repairs, a list of resurfacing road segments, forest and beach infrastructure repairs, the Eighth Avenue sand ramp, various ADA and storm‑drain projects, and the Piccadilly Park restroom expansion. Council members repeatedly raised the need to prioritize projects, create realistic multi‑year schedules, and ensure projects are matched to available project‑management resources.
Several council members suggested the city could either hire an additional project manager (at a market wage) or expand use of outside construction‑management consultants. Staff said they will prepare options showing the tradeoffs: (a) outsource more project management and buy short‑term delivery, or (b) invest in permanent in‑house capacity and phase projects over multiple years. Staff also committed to return with a more refined, prioritized CIP for the June adoption packet and to identify which items are likely to carry into the following year.
No CIP appropriation was adopted at the workshop; council members asked staff to return with a phased delivery plan, clear responsibilities and updated cost estimates before formal adoption in June.
