HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Robert Golderberg questions Dana Engstrom
From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 8:51 AM
To: Schelly Sustarsic; Ellery A. Deaton;Thomas Moore; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Mike Varipapa
Cc: Dana Engstrom; Community Media Corporation;Jill Ingram; Patrick Gallegos; Steve
Myrter; Steve Bowles
Subject: Questions &Comments for 1/28/19 Council Meeting
Attachments: 1.28.19.Questions.doc
Dear Council Members and Staff,
Please see attached my questions and comments for tonight's meeting.
Thank you for your service,
Robert Goldberg
1
Questions & Comments for 1/28/19 from Robert Goldberg
Item E: City Clerk Employment Agreement
The proposed employment agreement would set the starting pay at $9,657/month. This is at
"Step 3" in our five Step pay scale for City Clerk that pays a maximum of$10,647/month. Based
on information available from the City of Huntington Beach website, Ms. Harper current makes
$7179/month as a Sr Deputy City Clerk, and pays 6.3% of her salary to CaIPERS. Our offer of
Step 3 with her contributing 7% of salary to CaIPERS represents a 33% increase in her net pay.
The City is not obligated to start Ms. Harper at Step 3. Offering her a Step 1 starting salary
would still provide a very generous 21% raise, and potentially save the City almost $12,000 in
her first year of employment:
Current HB Proposed SB Alternate Pay Alternate
Pay Pay at Step 3 at Step 2 Pay at Step 1
Monthly Pay $7,179 $9,657 $9,197 $8,759
Net after CaIPERS $6,728 $8,981 $8,553 $8,146
Increase in Net Pay 33% 27% 21%
Potential 1st Year Cost
Savings
Annual
Salary $5,518 $10,774
City CaIPERS $560 $1,094
Contribution
Total Savings $6,078 $11,867
Comment: Given Ms. Harper's current compensation level and that the City "had a lot of
interest (applicants)for the City Clerk position"per Mr. Gallegos (Sun 1/24/19), I would
recommend that she be offered a starting salary at Step 1.
Item F: Part Time Pay Increases for Minimum Wage
The increase in the minimum wage to $12.00 per hour effective 1/1/19 results in our
underpayment of part-time employees at Step 1 in Grades 1, 2, and 4, and at Step 2 at Grade 1.
Compliance with the "State Mandate" could be accomplished at the lowest cost and very
simply by raising the salary for these four Grade/Steps to $12.00. Instead, staff is
recommending that incumbents at all Step levels in Grades 1, 2 receive a pay raise of over 9%,
all incumbents in Grade 4 receive a raise of almost 13%, and those in Grades 6 and 7 receive a
raise of 7.5% or more. The cost of this enhanced alternative is not analyzed in the Financial
Impact section of the report.
Comment: I would recommend that the Council only approve raising the salary of the
non-compliant Grade/Steps to$12.00. If staff wants to offer pay broader raises than
mandated by the State, they can return at a later date with a cost analysis of their
proposal.
Item G: 6th St Alley Project
The staff report states the project will run from Electric Ave to Ocean Ave. However, the
description of the project in the approved CIP states the project is between Central Ave and
Ocean.
Which is correct?
My inspection of the 6th Street alley is that it is paved in concrete in excellent condition from
Electric to Ocean.
When was this paving done, and why was it done without replacing the utilities?
In the proposed contract, Exhibit A, Fee Schedule is not included in the online packet.
Please provide this to the public at the Council meeting.
In the proposed contract, Section 3.0, Consultant's Compensation, states that the "City
Manager may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved
at the time of award by the City Council. Payment for(emphasis added) additional work in
excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization."
Comment: The contract for LPR readers with Portable Computer Systems has an
identically worded section. Last summer, this parking management project ran into
unforeseen conditions, and staff authorized extra work which exceeded the amount
approved by Council at the time of award by$11,400. This violated the contract
language above. However, based on the 12/10/18 report to Council (Item "N"), staff
apparently believes they can authorize extra work (of any amount) as long as the
subsequent invoice is not paid until the cost overrun is approved by Council. This
interpretation undermines the Council's control of spending, since payment for work that
has already been provided to the City is a legal encumbrance and non-payment is not an
option for the Council. To prevent this from reoccurring, I would recommend that the
words "Payment for"in Section 3.0 simply be replaced with "Performance of" The full
sentence would then read "Performance of additional work in excess of this amount
requires prior City Council authorization."
Item I: Tree Trimming Contract
The staff report states that tree trimming services will be restored to previous standards
starting in FY 19-20.
Will the FY 19-20 pruning schedule then be consistent with the Street Tree Master Plan
adopted by the Council in 2011?
The contract scope of work includes performance of "tree inventory" of"all of the City's trees"
in the first year of the contract to collect information on tree size, condition, and maintenance
needs.
Will this inventory include all of the trees in Gum Grove Park?
A "trees-to-trees" comparison for annual tree trimming costs in the proposed Brightview
contract vs. the expired Great Scott contract from 2013 shows only a 3.7% increase:
Unit Price Annual Cost
Tree Type Tree Size Est QTY Brightview Great Scott Brightview Great Scott
2019 2013 2019 2013
1"- 6" 100 $25 $4 $2,500 $400
7"-12" 400 $40 $36 $16,000 $14,400
Various 13"-18" 550 $65 $59 $35,750 $32,450
Species 19"-24" 200 $100 $79 $20,000 $15,800
25"-30" 20 $175 $99 $3,500 $1,980
31"-36" 20 $250 $99 $5,000 $1,980
Queen
1"- 6" 10 35 4 $350 $40
7"-12" 140 35 29 $4,900 $4,060
Palms
13"-18" 400 35 39 $14,000 $15,600
19"-24" 10 60 65 $600 $650
Date 25"-30" 60 60 95 $3,600 $5,700
Palms 31"-36" 15 60 125 $900 $1,875
1"- 6" 10 35 15 $350 $150
Mexican
7"-12" 100 35 43 $3,500 $4,300
Fan
Palms 13"-18" 400 35 43 $14,000 $17,200
19"-24" 200 35 53 $7,000 $10,600
Annual Totals $131,950 $127,185
Comment: This small increase is quite remarkable since it is much less than inflation over
the same time period, and the current proposal includes a provision for paying prevailing
wages which was not in the 2013 contract.
In the contract, Section 2.0 Term indicates that the contract term is three years with two
additional one-year extensions at the discretion of the City. However, this section does not
authorize the City Manager to grant these extensions. This is also not authorized in the
Resolution.
Comment: For the record, it should be noted that the City Manager has not been given
the authority by the Council to extend this contract beyond FY 20-21.
Item J: Parking MC Changes
There are two completely new subsections that specifically regulate vehicle parking associated
with auto repair facilities (8.15.025 H & I). "H" prohibits parking of customer cars on public
streets, and "I" prohibits storage of vehicles on the premises for more than 30 days.
Is there some reason why these new regulations were not presented for discussion at
any previous workshop or Council meeting?
There are three affected businesses in Old Town alone. One owner informed me Saturday that
there was no outreach to him from the City regarding these new regulations.
Is there some reason that the City did not seek input from these business stakeholders?
Item K: Wireless 5 G Facilities
Is there any potential for a 5-G facility to cause frequency conflict or competition with the
Navy Base?If so, shouldn't an assessment be included in the application to install a facility?
Item L:Joint Land Use Study
The study and resolution calls for the establishment of a joint working group. However, the
latter is not specific regarding who would serve on the working group.
What are staff's recommendations regarding membership?
If this includes staff members, how will there be "no financial impact"for the costs of
their time involvement?
The study make no mention of the potential for joint recreational facilities (swimming pool).
Was this multi-million dollar joint project not within the scope of a Joint Land Use Study?