HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Questions from Jim Brady1
Gloria Harper
From:Jill Ingram
Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 2:07 PM
To:Executive Team; csteele@rwglaw.com
Subject:FW: Disbursement of BB Revenue
Team, forwarding FYI.
Jill R. Ingram, ICMA-CM
City Manager
City of Seal Beach - 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 431-2527, Ext. 1300
Civility Principles:
1. Treat everyone courteously;
2. Listen to others respectfully;
3. Exercise self-control;
4. Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints;
5. Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; and,
6. Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for
forging sound decisions.
For Information about Seal Beach, please see our city website: www.sealbeachca.gov
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged 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 attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
From: Jim Brady <jbrady@dslextreme.com>
Date: June 8, 2019 at 2:22:28 PM PDT
To: Tom Moore <tjmoore5150@gmail.com>, Joe Kalmick <joekalmick@gmail.com>, Sandra Massa
<massalavit@icloud.com>, Sandra Massa‐Lavitt <massalavit@aol.com>, Michael Varipapa
<mikevaripapa@mac.com>, Mike@Varipapa.com, ssustarsic@sealbeachca.gov
Subject: Disbursement of BB Revenue
Dear Council Members,
I hate to bother you on the weekend but because of the time limit constraints on the budget I have no
choice. I would like to address the disbursement of BB funds as outlined by our Finance Director, Vikki
Beatley.
It is my opinion that BB funds are not going to be used as intended in the Measure. The intent of
Measure BB was to fund personnel and equipment for Public Safety that couldn’t be approved
previously due to a lack of funds. The additional revenue was not intended to fund City projects and
personnel that were previously unfunded throughout the City. The BB funds were primarily focused on
staffing a depleted Police Department. You might remember that a few years ago, under a former City
2
Manager, The Police Department was gutted in favor of balancing the City’s budget. The Department
never recovered from those cuts.
To digress for just a minute, I would like to reiterate how I got involved in Measure BB. Through a series
of events, I came to realize that the Police Department was woefully understaffed. I spoke with Chief
Miller, Vikki Beatley, Jill Ingram and my then City Council member, Ellery Deaton, among others. In
doing so, I discovered that the City did not have any funds to hire any new officers. I was told that I
needed to find a revenue source so that the Police Department could be properly staffed. The first thing
I explored was Oil Revenue. For over a couple of months, I pursued the Oil Revenue. I appeared in front
of the City Council and wrote articles for the Sun Newspaper in favor of exploring oil revenue to fund
police positions. I figured out pretty quickly that the Oil Revenue was politically charged and in the end
would not provide a steady revenue stream.
I then discussed with Council Member Deaton the viability of putting a tax measure on the
ballot. Further discussions involved the City Manager, Finance Director and City Clerk. It was decided
that the best approach was to put a Transaction and Use tax on the ballot instead of a parcel tax (which
would have unfairly placed the tax on property owners.) I worked with Council Member Deaton and
City personnel to get the measure on the ballot. The sole focus of the Measure was Public Safety and
primarily the Police Department. I was the advocate for the passage of this matter. I registered the
Committee with the State, I held Town Halls, raised donations for funding, established a website,
provided handouts, sent out numerous mailers and placed ads in local newspapers; Not to mention the
communications at City Council meetings and articles in the Sun Newspaper. For over 5 months this was
more than a full time job. Against the odds of getting a tax measure passed, Measure BB did pass.
I don’t want to give the impression that I was doing all the work on advocating for this measure. The
City Council endorsed BB, Ellery Deaton was invaluable in her guidance on the mechanics of the
Committee and strategy planning. The police department had off duty officers go door to door to talk to
residents. Some City Council members went door to door in their districts. This was a team effort.
I provide this background, so you understand my passion on getting the Police Department properly
staffed. I have not seen the Matrix police study, but I believe all of you have. I have my reservations on
the qualifications and methodology of Matrix, but that’s a discussion for another day. I know that the
RFP that Matrix received, stated, determine the “Minimum Staffing” level. This standard is not what
Matrix should have been charged with. Minimum staffing is not what the City should have been looking
for. I hope that you don’t confuse what Matrix determined to be “minimum staffing” versus properly
staffing the police department. I also want to remind you that the 2 “pool” officers and the three
officers assigned to the Jack Haley substation and leisure World (detective) were approved by the last
City Council. This was to get a head start on recruiting and training officers so there would be adequate
time before the next officers were hired. This was not the end of the road on hiring, but the beginning.
Now, back to my issue. At the 6‐5‐19 budget meeting, I raised the proposition that City Staff was using
BB funds to fund various unfunded or new positions other than Public Safety. I was told this by City Staff
when I met with them on 5‐22‐19. Subsequent to the first round of oral communications at the budget
meeting, Vikki Beatley said she was addressing my concerns that BB revenue was not going to Public
Safety. I suggest that these numbers were done on the fly during the budget meeting and break. In
other words, a midcourse adjustment to refute my concerns and to convince the City Council that BB
funds were being properly spent. The City just took any expenditure that was in any way related to
Public Safety and lumped them together until they reached 4 million dollars, plus. Interestingly, many
residents sent me missives, asking basically, do they (City) think we are that stupid. So, I’m not the only
one that feels this way. You may have felt the same way.
3
I am going to include the numbers that Ms. Beatley provided to the best of my ability. (Half way through
the meeting I suffered a severe dizzy spell. I get these periodically and they usually last about 8‐10
hours. I’m not sure how I made it to the lectern for the 2nd oral communications. I just kept thinking,
don’t fall down, people will think I’m some kind of drunk.)
$1.4 million: Marine Safety
$970K: IT Project
$136K: Police maintenance & Operations
$313K: Fire Authority (incremental change)
???: Mechanic
$25K: Westcom
$260K: Vehicles
$1.2 million: Police Salaries
At first glance, all of these items appear to be related to Public Safety. Ms. Beatley provided “face
validity” for everyone to see. However, when you examine the numbers it is easy to see that some of
the items aren’t expenditures within Measure BB’s intent. Measure BB revenue was supposed to be
expended on “new” positions and equipment that weren’t previously approved or funded. In other
words, if Measure BB had not passed, the City would have to pay these expenses anyway. It appears
that some of these expenditures have just been shifted over. As an example, the City could have put the
salaries of the Police Chief and the 2 Commanders on their list. (This way the City could free‐up money
from their salaries and spend that money somewhere else in the City.) It’s Public Safety so it has face
validity. Obviously, this is not the intent of Measure BB. However, that’s what has happened with some
of these items. I tried to get clarification by Ms. Beatley through an e‐mail sent on Thursday, but I
haven’t heard back. Time is of the essence because of the looming July 1, 2019 budget deadline and the
June 10, 2019 budget meeting. So, I can’t wait any longer in getting this information to you.
I don’t know what’s included in the Marine Safety’s $1.4 million. I’m not sure what the breakdown is for
the $970K IT Project, although I heard that some of it may be used for city wide cameras, which would
be appropriate under BB.. I don’t know what is covered in the $136K for Police Maintenance &
Operations. The $313K for Fire Authority is an expense that was due whether BB passed or not. (This is
an inappropriate use of BB funds.). I don’t know what the amount is for a mechanic, but Chief Miller
says he needs a full time mechanic to work on police cars and this would be an appropriate expense
under BB. I don’t know what the $25K is for Westcom. If this is an expense that the City would have
had to pay regardless of BB’s passage then it’s inappropriate. $260K for vehicles is appropriate if the
vehicles are for the new officers, if not, it’s inappropriate. $1.2 million for police salaries is appropriate if
this is solely for the new hires. However, I don’t think 5 police officer’s salaries amount to this much.
Voters are becoming very astute regarding new tax measures. You might remember when the California
State Lottery was being debated. The State assured everyone that 100’s of millions of additional dollars
would go to education in addition to what the State was contributing. Voters raised the possibility that
the State would just reduce the amount of money the State was contributing to education and spend it
someplace else. The State said they would not do that and the ballot measure passed. Guess
what? The State did exactly what they said they wouldn’t. They cut the amount of money they were
previously contributing and made up by using Lottery money. This is called “bait and switch”. The State
does it. The County does it. I hope the City of Seal Beach is not going to do it.
Some of you may have followed what happened to Measure EE in the City of Los Angeles last
week. This, again, was an education tax. The people weren’t fooled this time. It was resoundingly
defeated because people were aware that the money wasn’t going to the children’s education but to
teacher salaries and pension plan.
4
Measure BB would not have passed if people thought the revenue was going anyplace except Public
Safety. As I mentioned, at the last budget meeting, voters would not have favorably voted for BB if they
thought the money was going to bail out City Hall.
Unfortunately, the current format at the Budget Meetings doesn’t allow for an interactive discussion on
these issues. The public make comments and ask questions but then nothing is done about it. I
explained at the last budget meeting that each of you is responsible for what happens in the City. I was
very impressed with the questions the City Council asked. I have not observed this at past budget
meetings. In past budget meetings, the City would make a presentation and the Council rubber
stamped it. I, as well as many others, appreciate the efforts of the current City Council.
I apologize for the length of my e‐mail, but the public has very little input and this is an important
budget. I worked very hard on behalf of the City and its residents on Measure BB and I want to ensure
that the BB revenue is not dispersed improperly.
Thank you very much for bearing with me. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Best regards,
Jim Brady