Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Questions from Mayor Moore1 Gloria Harper From:Jill Ingram Sent:Monday, September 09, 2019 3:59 PM Cc:Executive Team; csteele@rwglaw.com Subject:FW: Questions & Comments for Monday Night's Open Session Attachments:9.09.19.Questions.doc; volute.PNG; kpff.PNG; lawyerbreakdown.PNG BCC:  CITY COUNCIL    Please see staff's responses below to Mayor Moore's agenda questions.  As always, please call if you have any additional  questions and/or if you plan to pull any items from the Consent Calendar.    Thank you,  Jill    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.         ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Thomas Moore  Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 2:36 PM  To: Jill Ingram; Patrick Gallegos  Subject: FW: Questions & Comments for Monday Night's Open Session    Here are a few questions on tonight's agenda:      2 ITEM B:     What is a volute? (see attached volute.PNG ‐ Check no 12062)  Response:  a volute is part of a pump (the casing).    What is KPFF?  (see kpff attached)  This is the name of an engineering firm that the City used in connection to the Pier  project.    Would still like to see lawyer breakdown of charges as discussed previously. (see lawyerbreakdown attached)  The  attachment is for Accela (aka Springbrook) for the annual maintenance for the City's financial management system.  In  response to the comment, the description changes have been implemented and will show when a check is issued to  RWG.      ITEM H:    Can you expand on Item H: question #2 from this?    The actuarial valuation update and the resulting increase in OPEB costs was discussed during the budget process.  Staff  would be more than happy to review the report with Council members again if any of you would like.      Could we get an overview of GovInvest and what they do?      GovInvest provides two separate services to the City.  One of the services is GASB 75 assistance which is an accounting  requirement.  Most recently GovInvest provided the required actuarial valuation update which provided an updated  valuation for the Other Post‐Employment Benefits (OPEB) otherwise known as Retiree health benefits.  The item this  evening is to take advantage of a multi‐year discount being offered for both the full actuarial valuation that is required  every two years and an interim valuation refreshing of the number in the off years.    Additionally, the City uses GovInvest's cloud‐based software to evaluate both the pension and OPEB liabilities.  This is a  service that is used separately with a separate cost.  The data in the software is used to provide the basis for the  actuarial valuation on OPEB.    ITEM K:    How much time will get allocated towards enforcement?      The PD will be providing the "normal" every day enforcement measures in Leisure World as they currently conduct  throughout the city.  The only difference is, the PD will now be able to cite for actual vehicle code violations observed by  our patrol officers.  However, golf carts as defined in the Vehicle Code, under 1300 lbs, can't go more than a certain  speed, driving within a mile of a golf course, and are not required to be DMV registered.  Therefore, registration on golf  carts will not be enforced.    This does not include parking enforcement in LW, correct?      The ordinance does not include parking enforcement as it was not included in the request from the Golden Rain  Foundation.      Sincerely,   Tom    Thomas Moore  3 Mayor  City of Seal Beach ‐ 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740  (562) 431‐2527 x1502    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:  http://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: Robert Goldberg [rgoldberg@live.com]  Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2019 3:45 PM  To: Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa‐Lavitt; Joe Kalmick  Cc: Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper; Community Media Corporation; Jeannette Andruss; Joe Miller; Vikki Beatley; Steve Myrter Subject: Questions & Comments for Monday Night's Open Session    Dear Council and Staff,    Please find attached my comments and recommendations related to Monday's open agenda.    Thank you for your consideration and service,    Robert Goldberg        Questions & Comments for 9/09/19 (Open Session) from Robert Goldberg Item B : Demands on Treasury FY 19-20 Page 20, Check #12281, $14,124 to the CA Insurance Pool Authority for “Assessment-Liability.” What is this payment for? Are we one of the 12 member agencies of this JPA? We recently paid (check #11508) the full budgeted amount of $ 1,944,100 on page 67 of the budget to the CJPIA. Where in the budget is the money for this additional insurance payment? Item E: Police Grant The second paragraph of the Background section states that the grant will only provide “partial financial reimbursement for overtime personnel.” However, the Financial Impact section states that there is “no financial obligation associated with this grant.” Please explain what appear to be contradictory statements. Item H: GovInvest Contract This contract is for the preparation of actuarial reports on present and future retiree health benefit costs (“OPEB”). There are several issues of note: 1) “Although the total contact amount is well within the City Manager’s contract authority, staff is recommending Council approval given that the contract is for a five-year term.” I applaud this recommendation, and hope that staff will continue to bring all five-year term contracts to Council regardless of dollar amount. 2) GovInvest prepared a “GASB 75 OPEB Valuation Report” in July 2018. Unlike prior retiree health cost reports (see 10/24/16 “F”), this update was never presented to Council and the public on an open agenda. This was despite the 2018 report’s recommendation to increase our annual retiree health payments from $449,709 to $720,364 (FY 18-19). Why wasn’t the 2018-issued report publicly presented? 3) The second paragraph of the Background section states that “the City has access to a cloud- based software program which can be used to calculate the total liability of both OPEB and pension.” A review of past warrants indicates that the City paid $22,515 for this program in the summer of 2017. 4) The Financial Impact section of the staff report states that $15,000 was included in the budget for GovInvest. However, even without the 5-year contract discount, the cost of the more expensive “Actuarial Valuations and ADC Report” (due at the end of this FY) would be expected to be less than $6800, or less than half of the budgeted amount. The staff report also notes that the additional $8,500 needed to pre -pay the full $23,500 5-year contract can covered by existing funds in account 001-019-44000 (Contract Pro, Finance Non- Departmental, pp 68-69). How could so much extra money ($23,500 - $6800 = $16,700) be included in this budget account if we have “zero-based” budgeting? Why was the proposed budget for this account of $125,300 not reduced in response to the Council’s repeated pleadings to increase the surplus during this year’s budget meetings? 5) The contract is backdated to July 1, 2019. Why isn’t the effective date September 9th? Item I: Janitorial Contract This contract differs from the one from 2013 that expired last January in several ways: 1) The scope of work (Exhibit B) now includes full cleaning services and year-round porter services for the 1st St beach restrooms. The listing of “Janitorial Tasks and Frequencies” for 1st St restrooms shown on page 13 in Exhibit B is identical to that of the pier restrooms shown on page 10. The prior contract only included “Locking” of the 1st Street restrooms (with the restaurant lessee provided the cleaning.) Exhibit D, Price Proposal, does not display a line item for the cost of servicing the 1 st St restrooms, and therefore, this new cost does not appear to be included in the bid total. Is this an oversight? Is “porter service” defined anywhere in the contract? Why was porter service deemed necessary for the 1st restrooms when it had never been provided at this location before? 2) When the contract was awarded in 2013, the annual authorized amount included $20,000 for “supplemental janitorial services needed for special events and facility rentals held throughout the year as well as for paper and soap pro ducts used in restrooms which are provided by the contractor and billed to the City.” The current contract does not include any authorized money for special events and restroom supplies. Consequently, it appears that extra charges for special events would potentially represent “additional work in excess” of the “amount approved at the time of award,” and therefore, need pre-approval by Council for payment per Section 3.3 of the contract. Is this what staff intended? So who is now restocking and paying for restroom consumables? 3) The 2013 contract scope of work and bid included daily porter service year round at the pier restrooms. The current scope of work in Exhibit B, page 10, shows daily porter service for four summer months, with weekend only porter service for the rest of the year. What is our current porter schedule? If it is not 365 days/year, when was it reduced from the 2013 specification? Finally, several years ago, city staff began pressure washing the pier restrooms, as this was deemed necessary while not part of the 2013 contract. Is pressure washing currently being done by staff? If so, will this continue to be a staff responsibility? Item K: LW Traffic Enforcement My understanding is that radar-enforcement of speed limits requires road speed surveys to determine speed limits. This sometimes results in an increase in permissible speeds. Is enforcement of speed limits planned for LW? Have travel speed surveys been completed by LW to support the use of radar? From the Public Safety town hall meeting in August, I gleaned from one of the slides that our current Traffic staffing is a Corporal and two Officers. Is this correct? Approximately what percentage of available time for these three staff members will be dedicated to LW? The staff report makes no mention of parking enforcement in LW. Are City police staff currently doing parking enforcement in LW? If so, when did this start, and what is the approximate annual F.T.E. commitment to this effort? The existing M.C. refers to a “Phillips Avenue.” However, google maps only shows a Phillips Street in Surfside. Is the reference to “Avenue” incorrect?