Oversight More Than Doubles Cost of Bridge Over Freeway : Transportation: Due to overlooked state mandates, Kimball Road overpass is being rebuilt rather than widened. Price tag skyrockets to nearly $12 million.

Because of a design oversight, a project to widen Kimball Road over the Santa Paula Freeway will cost the city of Ventura $6.5 million more than originally estimated, officials said.

The project--which will end up costing nearly $12 million--was supposed to be entirely funded by four developers, but about $4.6 million will come from taxpayers, city officials said.

At the time the agreements were struck with developers in January, 1988, the City Council, the developers and city staff members thought that the project would only entail widening the existing Kimball Road bridge. Instead, they discovered later that state mandates called for the bridge to be raised or rebuilt, said Everett Millais, the city’s community development director.

That oversight--which was pointed out in a September, 1989, city report--added millions to the project’s price tag. By the time the mistake was discovered, contracts based on a $5.5-million estimate had already been signed with the four developers, Millais said.

In return for being allowed to build 721 houses north of Juanamaria School, the developers were required to pay for all the highway and road improvements, Millais said. Developers agreed to pay $7.4 million to the city, which officials thought would cover the costs of the road project.

Because pro-growth members of the City Council were eager to approve the development, the contracts with the four developers were approved too hastily, Millais said.

“The agreements should not have been finalized until we got through a preliminary review with Caltrans,” Millais acknowledged. “That’s hindsight, and we’re going to learn from that. We’re not going to do that again.”

The cost of the project in excess of the $7.4 million contribution from developers will be paid for with gas tax funds, a state grant and traffic mitigation fees from other development projects.

The project--one of the largest road construction jobs in city history--entails demolishing the existing bridge on Kimball and building a new bridge just west of it.

he new bridge will be about three times as wide. Kimball Road will be widened to six lanes between Telegraph Road and Thille Street. New traffic signals and taller sound walls will also be erected.

Construction officials estimate that the work--which began in August--will be completed in a year. Project engineer Mike McMillen said he has not encountered any major problems during the construction so far, and expects it to be finished on time and within budget.

There is no lack of finger-pointing for the $6.5-million design oversight. The developers say they are not at fault because they did not make the project cost estimates--the city did. Former council members blame each other and city staff members. City staff members said state Department of Transportation officials are partly responsible. Caltrans officials say they were involved in the negotiations with developers.

“We thought we would be covering the costs,” said Ron Hertel, whose development company has built 83 houses in the project so far. “The city hadn’t done a comprehensive study on it. I know they weren’t happy with the surprise.”

Former council members who opposed the development agreements for the Kimball bridge project said they had anticipated that the cost would rise.

“I thought it was obvious that the bridge would cost more than the original estimates,” former Mayor Richard Francis said. “It’s very dangerous when you cut deals with developers--you tend to give away the public purse.”

Francis said he had argued unsuccessfully for the four developers to be held responsible for the entire cost of the project, instead of imposing a fee of $10,000 per house that city officials assumed would cover the whole bill.

“If I had had my way, the document would have read, ‘The developers will pay for all costs,’ ” said Francis, a civil litigation attorney. “If that had been the case, being private business people, they would have been more careful to estimate the true costs. Government does business badly. It’s important to keep the profits and risks in the private sector.”

Francis and former Councilman Don Villeneuve fault the pro-growth council in 1988 for approving the development agreements with insufficient review.

“When you have a really pro-business council, they’ll buy anything,” Villeneuve said. “It was absolutely irresponsible.”

But council members who approved the project blame city staff members and Caltrans for not giving them accurate information at the time the development agreements were negotiated.

“We got some bad advice,” Councilman Jim Monahan said. “Staff should have looked into it. We were never informed that there was anything that would cause the costs to escalate out of sight.”

City staff members are reproaching Caltrans officials, who they say did not let them know about the height requirements until after the project was under way.

“We found out we would have to jack up the bridge, and it became cheaper to build a new bridge,” City Traffic Engineer Nazir Lalani said. “Caltrans did not make this apparent until we were far into the project.”

Caltrans officials said they were surprised to hear about the city’s complaints.

“I think it’s a situation where they were going by the old standards. The standards keep getting upgraded,” said Cindy Quon, Caltrans’ chief of project development in Ventura and Los Angeles counties. “We are not aware of any differences or concerns from the city about the scope of the project.”

Of the $7.4 million that the developers are obligated to pay, about $5.6 million has been submitted. The remaining $1.8 million will be paid in increments as the four developers apply for building permits. But those fees will trickle in slowly because the developers have had trouble selling the houses since the recession began.

The developers--Ron Hertel, Meeker Land & Development, Cherrie Construction and Hammer-Hewson Associates--all said the recession has slowed or halted their sales.

Former Councilwoman Cathy Bean, who opposed the project before her term on the council, said the road widening is unnecessary because the development is not finished and not enough residents have moved into the area yet.

“It is absolutely not needed,” Bean said. “I live by it. I use it every day. It wasn’t an overburdened overpass.”

Of the 721 houses scheduled to be built, only 145 homes have been constructed. But the developers said the housing project--which is expected to bring in more than 2,000 residents to the area--will need an improved road and bridge when building is eventually finished.

Depending on the housing market, it could be another four years before the project is done, said Gene Cherrie, owner of Ventura-based Cherrie Construction.

Monahan, who thinks that the developers were assessed too much for the road project, said it is appropriate that the taxpayers help fund construction of the new bridge and road widening.

“We all have the benefit of using that street,” Monahan said. “Some way or another, we always end up paying for it.”