Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Information Received after Posting of Agenda - Item G (2)Robin Roberts From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg @live.com> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 4:24 PM To: Sandra Massa- Lavitt; Ellery Deaton; tom @sealbeachtom.com; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa Cc: Robin Roberts; Jill Ingram Subject: Comments on Agenda Item G Attachments: animal control.docx From: Cathy Goldberg <cathv.eoldbere@live.com> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 1:23 PM Subject: animal control Dear Council Members: Animal Control Contract from Cathy Goldberg I would like to comment on the agenda item regarding renewal of the contract Seal Beach has with Long Beach Animal Control. I have some concerns. 1. 1. Inability to respond promptly to loose dog complaints. While I have been aware of problems with response time through neighbors, I will share an egregious recent example. We had a situation here in 2016 where a large Shar Pei type dog was on the loose for weeks with sightings around town called in to Animal Control by neighbors. I was told when I called that they could not be proactive in patrolling for the dog, but would only respond to a sighting. However, the response time was ineffective; the dog would always be gone by the time they arrived. We finally had the poor dog cornered in the enclosed field behind the Marina tennis courts and a notice went out on Nextdoor for help. At least a dozen of us were trying to catch the dog who was clearly terrified and starving. Animal Control was contacted by more than one of us and we expressed our desperate need for help in catching this dog before the dog or one of us got hurt. We were told they had other priorities and could not give us any timeline for them to respond. We held out for at least a couple of hours and the dog ultimately got away again. At least one person I spoke to at Animal Control was condescending and clearly annoyed by our calls for help. She failed to at least empathize with our great concern for this dog. I will say one other woman I spoke to was at least more empathetic, though no more helpful. 2. 2. The process to report a chronic problem with dogs off leash is cumbersome. We have another situation here in Bridgeport. A man has 2 boxers that he willfully and routinely allows to run loose on our streets. I have encountered the dogs without the man nearby on at least 3 occasions - once with my own elderly dog. I was very worried the dogs might engage with my dog. I distracted them and one of them jumped on me. They fortunately did not harm either of us, but my dog and I have been the victim of a dog attack and I was prepared to pepper spray them. Another time they were roaming down my alley all alone. Many of us in the neighborhood have encountered this and some of us have complained directly to the owner who does not appear to care at all. I did call Animal Control on a 3rd occasion while out running and encountered the dogs. gave the date, time and address. Others I know have called as well. Finally another neighbor called after the dogs approached his small dog. He was advised he needs to download a petition and get signatures, scan it and email or fax it back. Why should he have to go through this cumbersome process to get help? Why don't the other calls with the same complaint count? Their website should simply have a link where you can provide all the information and then they can easily see if there are multiple complaints. They should then take action and notify anyone who complained regarding what was done. The bottom line is that LB Animal Control appears to be spread too thin to help Seal Beach animals and residents when we really need it and they have a cumbersome process for handling complaints. We really need a designated animal control officer or officers for Seal Beach. If Long Beach can't do it, we should consider bringing it back "in house" as it was when I first moved here. Cathy Goldberg 2/26/17 Dear Council Members: I would like to comment on the agenda item regarding renewal of the contract Seal Beach has with Long Beach Animal Control. I have some concerns 1. 1 have questions regarding their ability to respond promptly to loose dog complaints. While I have been aware of problems with response time through neighbors, I will share an egregious recent example. We had a situation here in 2016 where a large Shar Pei type dog was on the loose for weeks with sightings around town called in to Animal Control by neighbors. I was told when I called that they could not be proactive in patrolling for the dog, but would only respond to a sighting. However, the response time was ineffective; the dog would always be gone by the time they arrived. We finally had the poor dog cornered in the enclosed field behind the Marina tennis courts and a notice went out on Nextdoor for help. At least a dozen of us were trying to catch the dog who was clearly terrified and starving. Animal Control was contacted by more than one of us and we expressed our desperate need for help in catching this dog before the dog or one of us got hurt. We were told they had other priorities and could not give us any timeline for them to respond. We held out for at least a couple of hours and the dog ultimately got away again. At least one person I spoke to at Animal Control was condescending and clearly annoyed by our calls for help. She failed to at least empathize with our great concern for this dog. I will say one other woman I spoke to was at least more empathetic, though no more helpful. 2. The process to report a chronic problem with dogs off leash is cumbersome. We have another situation here in Bridgeport. A man has 2 boxers that he willfully and routinely allows to run loose on our streets. I have encountered the dogs without the man nearby on at least 3 occasions - once with my own elderly dog. I was very worried the dogs might engage with my dog. I distracted them and one of them jumped on me. They fortunately did not harm either of us, but my dog and I have been the victim of a dog attack and I was prepared to pepper spray them. Another time they were roaming down my alley all alone. Many of us in the neighborhood have encountered this and some of us have complained directly to the owner who does not appear to care at all. I did call Animal Control on a 3rd occasion while out running and encountered the dogs. I gave the date, time and address. Others I know have called as well. Finally another neighbor called after the dogs approached his small dog. He was advised he needs to download a petition and get signatures, scan it and email or fax it back. Why should he have to go through this cumbersome process to get help? Why don't the other calls with the same complaint count? Their website should simply have a link where you can provide all the information and then they can easily see if there are multiple complaints. They should then take action and notify anyone who complained regarding what was done. The bottom line is that LB Animal Control appears to be spread too thin to help Seal Beach animals and residents when we really need it and they have a cumbersome process for handling complaints. We really need a designated animal control officer or officers for Seal Beach. If Long Beach can't do it, we should consider bringing it back "in house" as it was when I first moved here. 3) Since the original Agreement began in July 2010, there have been six annual increases which have raised the annual cost from a base of $131,333 to $150,657 as of June 2016. Only two of these increases were based on the CPI (see attached spreadsheet). The six increases have resulted in a total cumulative increase of 14.7% over the life of the contract. This far exceeds the 10.6% rise in CPI (from 225.99 in July 2010 to 249.95 in June 2016) for the same time period. The Financial Impact section states that the FY 16 -17 Budget allocates $162,300 for Animal Services. However, page 68 of the Budget indicates that this dollar amount is for "Intergovernmental" which also includes payment to the LAUSD for a School Resource Officer. Last August, we made a payment to the LAUSD of $38,000. Thus, the remaining budgeted amount available for Animal Services is only $124,300. The projected revenue from Animal License Fees is $25,000 (Budget page 19) which will be deducted from what we owe LB. However, this still leaves a projected balance due of $158,190 - $25,000 = $133,190. Thus, there is a budgeting shortfall of $133,190 - $124,300 = $8890. Section 2.B.ii of the contract states that LB will patrol the streets and beaches of SB "whenever possible ". However, this term was intentionally deleted in the 2012 First Amendment at the direction of Council. Was it re- inserted as an oversight? During the Council discussion of the First Amendment on 8/13/12, the Council was told by Manager Ted Stevens that LB will provide a "full -time patrol officer" during the day. However, Section 2.B.ix still states that services provided will "average approximately 3 hours /day or 21 hours /week." How are these average service hours consistent with LB's previous assurance that we will have "a full -time patrol officer during the day ?" In a 2014 Sun article, it was reported that LB's goal was to respond to Priority 1 calls within an hour. However, in 2011, the Sun reported that goal was 20 minutes or less. What is the current response time goal for Priority 1 calls? I. Climatec The City is paying a 1% pre - payment penalty to transfer money from the custodian to the lender, Muni Finance. However, I can't find any provision in the original lease agreement with Muni Finance that would require this. In fact, Section 29 of the agreement states that "the City may exercise options to prepay" without any reference to a pre - payment penalty (see attached). Why does the City believe it is obligated to pay this? When this matter was last presented to Council on 11/14/16, staff indicated that State law regarding the borrowing of money for energy efficiency projects required that the energy savings generated by the project pay for the principal and interest on the loan. For this to pencil out with our failure to LED the Edison street lights, staff informed the Council that in addition to paying down the Climatec loan using the unspent $600,000 in escrowed funds, that the City was legally obligated pay down an additional $331,000 of the loan principal using General Funds (see below). Did staff change this assessment, or is further pay -off of principal with General Funds pending for a future meeting? From the 11/14/16 Staff Report: To comply with Resolution No 6456 findings and Government Code Section 4217: - -The total dollar amount projected to be used to repay the financing can be no more than the money that otherwise would have been used to purchase the energy if the proposed equipment was never purchased and - -All project costs must be paid through the reduction in anticipated utility costs over the life of the equipment financed through the program. Staff recommends that the City Council restructure the existing Loan to lower the outstanding balance to match the energy savings and not continue forward with any other additional energy savings projects. This will allow the City to prepay the restructured Loan. Per the Detailed Audit Report, the project cost would have been $1,551,333 which includes the Edison streets lights. Since the City did not purchase the Edison lights, there was a savings of $595,498 from the $1,551,333. This now leaves $955,835 as the current project expenditures, with interest not included. The total interest is $191,195. Combining both protect expenditures and interest is $1,147,030. Climatec has calculated the total estimated utility reduction cost over the useful life of the equipment (15 years), without the purchase of the Edison lights, would be $816,000. To comply with Resolution No. 6456 findings and Government Code Section 4217, all project costs ($955,835$1,147,030) need to be paid through the reduction in anticipated utility costs ($816,000) over the life (15 Years) of the equipment. Stopping the energy efficiency work at this stage results in a difference of $139,835331,030. This difference of $439,835 331 030 will not comply with Resolution No. 6456 findings and be financed under Government Code Section 4217. The City is required to remove $139,835$331,030 from the Loan and prepay it.