Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Questions from Robert Goldberg Questions & Comments for 6/24/19 from Robert Goldberg Item C: Demands on Treasury Page 17, Ck 11304, $12,349 to Golden Touch Cleaning for May services. This contract, including optional year extensions, expired at the end of January 2019. Why was this contract not sent out to bid six months ago? When will it be sent to bid? Item D: Homeland Security Grant The staff report does not give any specifics on what "equipment,technology or services" that Orange County intends to transfer to us under this grant.The agreement states that these are described in Attachment D, but this is not included in the staff report. Please provide Attachment D to the public before Monday's meeting. Item G: Concrete Repairs The staff report states that the list of repaired locations was changed after adoption and approval by Council last August. However, the report does not include a listing of the revised locations. This had been provided to the public in prior years. Please provide a listing of the completed repair locations to the public before Monday's meeting. When the Council approved the plans for this project on 6/25/18, staff indicated that $25,000 of the approved $75,000 would be used to repair and replace pavers on Main Street. In Monday night's warrants (page 8) is Check 11204 to Golden State Constructors for$20,000 for broken paver repairs. Golden State Constructors had previously been awarded the concrete repair contract for$39,113. Therefore, this additional $20,000 in sidewalk work on Main St would require prior Council approval since the total paid to the same contractor for similar work exceeded the City Manager's$33,367 threshold. Why was the additional$20,000 in sidewalk/paver work for Golden State Constructors not brought to Council for approval? Item I: Extension of Agreement for Interim Police Chief The amendment changes the starting date of the original agreement from 1/1/19 to 1/1/18. Is this an error or intentional? The amendment eliminates the prior provision which terminated the agreement if the "Employee reaches 960 hours of service as a retired annuitant in a fiscal year for all PERS covered employers." What are the consequences for the City if Chief Miller now works more than 960 hours either between 1/1/19 and 6/30/19, or 7/1/19 and 12/31/19? Questions & Comments for Public Hearing on Budget and CIP From Robert Goldberg, 6/23/19 Budget Revenues-Charges for Services Page 20: The staff report for the proposed new fee schedule (Item K) states that the "financial impact of these changes is unknown at this time." This lack of clarity contrasts with recent years when increased fee revenue was estimated at $300,000 in June 2018, $400,000 in June 2017, and $95,000 in June 2016. Since staff has no estimate of the increased revenue from the increased fee rates, then does this mean that the impact of the increased fees is not included in the budget? City Council Pages 44-45: At the 6/10/19 workshop, I was left with the impression that most of the Council members agreed to not hire a Strategic Objectives consultant this year. If so, the Council's Contract Pro Services account needs to be cut from $10,000 to zero. Finance-Non Departmental Page 69: There is $20,000 budgeted for PERS Retirement. However, there are no employees on this "Non-Departmental" page. Please explain the nature and reason for this budget item. Senior Services Page 187: At the 6/10/19 workshop, City Engineer Lee stated that the budget increase to $224,400 from $183,400 was due to two factors: our resumption of the Thursday Shoppers Shuttle, and an assumed 8% inflation increase in the rebidding of the transportation contract with Keolis. However, she then added that we have an option to extend the Keolis contract for two more years with only a 2% annual increase. She stated that if we were to grant the extension, then instead of$224,400, all that would be needed is $206,000. However, in the revised budget the expenditure for Sr Services has only been reduced to $220,300. Why can't this appropriation be further reduced to the stated amount needed of $206,000? Traffic Impact Fund Pages 180-181: a. Use$20,000 of Traffic Impact Funds to partially fund Sr. Transportation. Traffic Impact Funds were previously appropriated in FY 15-16 ($170,000) and FY 16-17 ($180,000) to pay for Sr. Transportation. No Traffic Impact Fund money has been spent for any purpose since FY 16-17, and none is programmed in our CIP for the next 5 years. With currently $167,000 in cash, a small portion of this, say $20,000, could be budgeted for Sr. Transportation this year. The remaining funds would then be available to provide either a stable funding stream of$20,000 per year for several more years, or be available for any other future appropriate use. b. Use Traffic Impact Funds to pay for the$10,000 annual cost of the Long Beach bus services. This was previously done in FY 16-17. With currently $167,000 in cash, the Traffic Impact Fund could be used for this purpose for many years. Allocation of Reserves/Policy Page 259: At the budget workshop on 5/29/19, Finance Director Beatley indicated that due to the Council's failure to give a specific directive to staff, the City's reserves have not been allocated per the priorities ("waterfall") that were recommended to Council in July 2018 by our financial consultant and endorsed by Ms. Beatley at that time. Please pass a motion directing staff to revise the allocation table on page 259 to be consistent with priorities recommend last July (as shown below), and to change the various reserve amounts currently shown on pages 34 and 35 to be consistent with these priorities . Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Increase/ Ending Balance (Decrease) Balance General Fund Unassigned $ 6,158,180 $ 695,860 $ 6,854,040 Disaster/Hazard Mitigation $ 3,079,090 $ 347,930 $ 3,427,020 , General Fiscal Policy $ 3,941,721 $ (2,674,290) $ 1,267,431 Vehicle Replacement $ 368,657 $ (46,800) $ 321,857 Capital Improvement $ 44 $ - $ 44 Tidelands Improvement $ 1,850,479 $ - $ 1,850,479 Total $ 15,398,171 $ (1,677,300) $ 13,720,871 Part Time Salary Increases At the budget Workshop on 6/10/19, a current part-time Beach Lifeguard requested a pay increase. Staff has indicated that the budget includes 3% raises for full-time employees, but no mention was made regarding part-time employees. Does the budget include raise for part-timer employees? If so, will these only provide increases for workers in the lower Grades to comply with the January 1st increase in the minimum wage from $12 to $13/hour? Or have raises been budgeted for the workers in the middle and upper Grades? CIP BG2002 Citywide Technology—City Facilities: This $308,700 project includes a security update to the City's website, an IT Master Plan, and Marine Safety Tower Phone/CAD systems. The latter is expected to cost $150,000 ($50,000 for the phone system, $100,000 for the CAD). I would recommend that the Marine Safety component be removed,for now,from the project for the following reasons: a. Regarding the Tower phone system, at the 6/10/19 workshop, Chief Bailey indicated that "a lot more investigation was needed," and that he had not yet made a choice between a $50,000 annual leasing of a VoIP system vs. a $100,000 purchase of a hand-held radio system. These are very different systems with very different cost points. Additionally, leasing a system would be more accurately budgeted as an operating expense rather than a CIP project, with a resultant decrease in our budget surplus. For these reasons, this proposal should be developed in much greater detail before funding is approved by Council. b. Regarding the $100,000 CAD system, Chief Bailey indicated that he had not investigated the cost of this thoroughly. Also, the utility of the system to "know where the lifeguards are" seemed a bit unclear. I would recommend the Chief Bailey finish his research on both of these systems, and then agendize a future discussion and funding request. CIP projects can be added to the budget after the June adoption. To wit, this is what was done in August 2016 for the Parking Management Project after staff finished their research on the LPR and license- based parking kiosk systems. Two budget amendments added $675,000 to project ST1207. Similarly, Council could reduce the appropriation for BG2002 by$150,000 now, and consider increasing it a later time. ST2009 Main St Revitalization Program: This project budget has been reduced to $500,000 following the discussion on 6/10/19. However, to be fully consistent with Council's direction to reduce the project to three components (repaving of Main from PCH to Electric, upgrading of the street lights to LED and recoating, and hiring an architect to develop a concept for the "corridor"), I think the necessary funding would be in the ballpark of$322,500: As initially presented at 6/10/19 WS Following Council Discussion 1 Mobilize/Demobilize $15,000 Mobilize/Demobilize $15,000 2 Repave Main from PCH to $160,000 Repave Main from PCH to Electric $160,000 Electric 3 Streetlight Rehab $75,000 Streetlight Rehab $75,000 4 Furnishings (trashcans, news $50,000 Hold for"Phase II" after Conceptual $0 racks, benches) Design/Branding & Public Outreach for corridor completed 5 Engineering Design $100,000 Instead of hiring an engineer to do construction $50,000 (construction plans) for PCH plans for the crosswalks (Phase II), for now, hire to Ocean an architect to do Conceptual Design/Public Outreach 6 Construction Contingency $30,000 Should just be 10%of repaving/mobilization $17,500 total 7 Inspection $30,000 Should be much less than $30,000 for just one $5,000 block of Main St repaving Total $460,000 Revised Total $322,500 I would recommend decreasing the General Fund budget for this project from $200,000 to$125,000, and the M2 budget from $300,000 to$200,000.