HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - email from MooreRobin Roberts
From:
Jill Ingram
Sent:
Monday, February 12, 2018 3:49 PM
Cc:
Craig A. Steele; Executive Team
Subject:
RE: questions for tomorrow's meeting
Attachments:
CM-02-12-2018questions.pdf
BCC: CITY COUNCIL
Please see attached in response to Councilman Moore's questions on the agenda tonight. As always, please call if you
have any additional questions.
JIII R. Ingram, City Manager
City of Seal Beach - 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 431-2527, Ext. 1300
if -
For Information about Seal Beach, please we our city website: http://www.sealbeachca.gov
NOTICE: This communication may contain pnvlleged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the Intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and Immediately
delete the message and any atllchmem Wihout copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
From: timoore5150(cbamail com fmailto:timoore5l50(a)gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 8:13 PM
To: Jill Ingram
Subject: questions for tomorrow's meeting
BII!
Here are my questions for tomorrow's meeting
Thank you I
-Tom
Questions for 2/12/2018 Councilman Moore
Item B:
Page 4
Check#4653 GTT Communications 924.94
As I understand it, they were responsible for the recent phone outages the City had. Have we
asked for a credit on a future bill for this down-time? The phone services are intermittently
down which would make it difficult to ascertain a value for the down time; however, staff will
discuss with Synoptek the potential of requesting a credit for significant outages in the future.
Page 8
Check #4700 OCTA $70,402.93
Would like to understand what this is. This check is for 50% of the cost of the Administrative
Record relating to the OCTA/405 litigation.
Item D
Explain difference in amounts in current item from 9/11/17 revised budget please. Finance staff
tracks amendments through resolutions as adopted. Resolution 6766, approved 9/11/17
inadvertently didn't include the budget amendment. The item was brought back to the 09/25/2017
City Council meeting for approval in the form of Resolution 6769. The reason that there is a large
difference between the adopted budget and the dollar amount in the proposed Budget Amendment is
that the City Council authorizes staff to rollover purchase orders from the prior fiscal year as part of
the budget adoption process. The purchase order rollover occurred after the adoptions of Resolutions
6766 and 6769.
ITEM E
Were the units tested in the beach lot so we know they will have enough connectivity / sun light
to operate effectively? The Parkeon units were tested in the lot on Main Street. There are
many Parkeon pay stations deployed throughout the State in beach lots and they operate
with minimal downtime.
What was the reasoning for not using IPS Group for all units including the beach lots when they
have software/etc. that works together similarly? In the pilot test and through the public
process, the IPS pay station was determined to be less user friendly. Because six of the unit
will be deployed in the Beach Lots staff wanted to ensure that the most user friendly
equipment is deployed.
Is there any estimate of additional revenue gained from this new system vs. the system we have
now? Staff's focus with the project team has been on equipment deployment and efficiency
in addition to increased compliance. The project manager will be providing a presentation
this evening and may be able to better respond to your question based upon her experience
with this kind of equipment deployment.