Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - email from Robert GoldbergRobin Roberts From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com> Sent: Sunday, February 11,2018 3:33 PM To: Sandra Massa -Levitt; }homes Moore; Mike Varipapa; Ellery A. Deaton; Schelly Sustarsic Cc: Jill Ingram; Robin Roberts; Vikki Beatley Subject: Re: Questions and Comments on Monday's Agenda Packet Attachments: 2.12.18.Questions l.doc Dear Council Members, For your consideration, I have attached a set of questions and comments on various staff reports for Monday night. I would very much appreciate if staff could address these. Thank you for your service, Robert Questions & Comments for 2/12/18 Item B: Checks Page 1, Top, #4623: $14,967 for a Stalker Message Trailer (road display sign). What account is this being paid from? Page 8, Middle, #4700: $70,402 to OCTA for Administrative Record Preparation What is this for and what account is this being paid from? Page 18, Top, #4800: $73 Finance Charge by a consultant, JCL Traffic Services Is this a penaltyfor late payment of on invoice? Item D: Beach Vehicle Replacement On 9/11/17, the Council approved Budget Amendment BA 18-03-02 for $10,300 to pay for a cost underestimation on the purchase of a beach tractor. That budget amendment established revised budget amounts for the three budgetary accounts in the table below. Revised Budget from Budget Amendment BA 18-03-02 Fund Description Account Page 9/11/17 Tidelands -Beach Vehicles 034-863-48075 205 $90,300 Maintenance $69,800 Maintenance Tidelands Transferin -Operation 034-00031502 23 $731,200 Vehicle Transfer in - Operation 034000-31502 23 $1,371,800 $640,600 Tnnsferout-Operation 1021-98047002 237 $90,300 Re Iacement Fund Staff is now proposing to purchase another beach vehicle and needs to amend these same accounts once again. However, the proposed budget amendment gives current "Revised/ Adopted Budget" figures that do not comport with those above adopted by Council on 9/11/17: Revised/Adopted Budget BudgetAmount in Difference from Fund Description Amount Pace Mondav's Staff Reoort Revised Budget Tidelands -Bead[ Vehicles 03486.3-48075 205 $160,100 $69,800 Maintenance Tidelands Transfer in - Operation 034000-31502 23 $1,371,800 $640,600 Vehicle Transfer out - Operation 021-960-47002 237 $80,000 -$10,300 Replacement Fund Comment: Staff should be asked to explain the reasons for these differences and how increases in adopted budgetary accounts of $69,000 -$640,000 can occur without a Council approved budget amendment. What are these increased budgetary amounts paying fort Item E: Parking Agreements In discussing the options for the Main Street lots (bottom of page 3), staff states that they would have preferred to install pay stations rather than meters, but the former would require a Coastal permit, so therefore, we will stay with meters. Is there a time urgency to replace the meters such that we should forgo (now and maybe forever) the preferred technology here? Regarding the beach pay stations, staff proposes to purchase five stations that accept credit cards and coinage, and one station that also accepts dollar bills. Section 3.0 of the Agreement seems to indicate that the capacity for "BNA" (bank note acceptance) is an extra $1700, so having only one station with this capacity saves capital costs. However, what is the deployment strategy? Where will the one with BNA be located? If an argument for purchasing one with BNA can be made, wouldn't the some argument apply to having one in each of the three lots so that visitors without credit cards could be accommodated? On 4/13/15, the City signed a contract renewal agreement with ABM Parking Services to manage and operate the beach lots (Item F). This included coin collections and cleaning the lots. ABM was to be paid $2500/month plus 10% of annual revenue (annual revenue was about $740,000 at that time). Will ABM continue to provide the same service with the new pay stations? If so, will ABM staff (rather than City staff) receive training on Parkeon maintenance procedures? During the same discussion on 4/13/15, staff told the Council the current use of solar power and cell connectivity was not working reliably in the beach lots resulting in down time. Thus, it was imperative that we install hard wiring for power and data transmission. Underground data and electrical lines were subsequently installed in the spring of 2016 at a cost of $51,000. The new Parkeon stations take us back to a cell -data system but can run on either solar or AC power. Are we going to use the AC power option? Are we sure of reliable cell data connectivity? The proposed parking meters from IPS are solar powered. How we evaluated whether there is adequate sunlight in all 78 locations? The IPS sales quote on pdf page 330/438 does not show any charges for the optional vehicle detention sensors. Are we not going to have this functionality? The quote also shows the purchase and shipping of 85 meters but the installation of only 78. The staff report states that we need 78 meters. Are we buying 7 extra meters or is the IPS price quote incorrect? Even with the extra 7 meters, the quote is for $44,319. However, the contract specifies expenditure up $46,319. Why is the contract maximum $2000 more than the IPS quote? As of 2014, we were paying the City of Long Beach about $14,000 to collect the Main St meter coinage. Our pilot project showed that 60% will use credit cards if given the option. Therefore, coin collection workload will drop proportionately. Are we going to continue paying LB $14,000 a year for this service? IPS offers a "Smart Collection System" device for collecting and counting coinage from the meters (pdf page 328/438). Could we buy a IPS collection device and do this in-house? [Do the IPS meters tell us when they need to be emptied?] If not does Long Beach need to buy one or can they continue to use their current collectors? Regarding the vehicle -mounted LPR devices from PCS/Genetec, there is nothing in the proposal about any functionality or auto -interface with electronic handheld devices used to issue citations. Do they have this capacity? If not what is the next step to issuance of a citation? Regarding hand-held devices, last August 10, the Council and public was told that the SBPD had obtained electronic ticket printers that feed data automatically into our citation processing contractor, Data Ticket. How many hand -fields were purchased, from what company, and at what cost? Do these download from the DMV in real-time? Are these capable of receiving violation information electronically from the Parkeon pay stations in the beach lots or the IPS parking meters? Regarding the Passport Mobile Payment app, the fee is 35 cents per transaction. Is the plan to have the City pay this charge or to have the porker" pay it? Can the Passport app interface with the Parkeon pay stations for beach parking? The Financial Impact section simply lists the first-year capital costs for the purchase and installation of equipment. However, there are potentially substantial associated on-going operational costs that should be analyzed and presented at this time. These include the following: - Monthly fees by Parkeon equal to $45 per station/month (total of $3240/year), plus fees of 3% of revenue, plus 15 cents per transaction. -Annual maintenance fees to PCS of $6500/year beginning in Year 2. -Credit card service charges to the City (?6% of transaction value) With the signing of these four contracts, the City's system for collecting parking revenue and processing citations will now involve these four contractors plus four more: ABM (maintenance of the beach lots and collection of coinage), the City of Long Beach (collection of coinage from meters), Data Ticket (citation processing and management), and the contractor (?) who is supplying our hand-held electronic ticket writers. From a systems perspective, l am concerned about the inherent challenges of integration and contract management posed by this 8 -contractor program. While perhaps there is no one contractor that can "do it all,"I was impressed that the IPS proposal included many functions (besides parking meters) that could reduce the number of needed contractors. For example, IPS also provides pay stations, hand-held ticket writers, a mobile payment app (with no convenience fees), parking permits, and an on-line citation management system that manages the entire citation cycle" including contesting of citations. IPS called this comprehensive system their Smart Parking Platform" (see page two of their Letter of Transmittal). While IPS may not be the low-cost provider of every "a la carte" component use of their Smart Parking Platform may yield some off -setting savings through their negotiated pricing with Visa and Mastercard on small charges. IPS claims that this results in 15-25% discountfor these charges. It would very interesting to compare the initial and annual anticipated cost of the proposed 8 -contractor model with one that was based an IPS's "Platform" as the primary core, supplemented as needed by perhaps one or two contractors. SUCCESSOR AGENCY Item 2: Checks Paid FY 2017 Check numbers 1001 through 1004 are used/listed twice. For example, 1001 is first listed as issued on 4/20/17 to Advantec Consulting, then this check number is listed again as written on 5/4/17 to Richards Watson Gershon (our law firm). Additionally, the first listing of these four checks appear to be payments for services unrelated to the Successor Agency. Was the first listing of these four checks in error? Should their total amount ($6,551) be deleted from the Successor Agency accounting? If not please explain why the Successor Agency is paying for construction engineering, uniform cleaning, and a phone bill. Item 3: Checks Paid FY 2018 Same issue here with check numbers 1006 through 1008, appearing twice with the first listing paying for things that do not appear to be Successor Agency related. For example, 1006 is first listed as payment for a credit card bill that includes lifeguard supplies, postage, and a conference fee for Ms. Beatley. Some questions as above.