HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Email from Robert GoldbergGloria Harper
From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent Monday, January 27, 2020 8:06 AM
To: Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Joe Kalmick
cr. Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper, Steve Myrter, Phil Gonshak; Charles M. Kelly
Subject: Questions and Comments for Monday Night's Open Session
Attachments: 1.27.20.Questions.doc; SCAG PO Disclosure.pdf, Dixon Invoices.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
,_Dear Council and Staffs
Please find my attached my comments and questions and referenced supporting documents for Monday's
open session meeting.
Thank you for your consideration and service,
Robert Goldberg
1
A
Questions & Comments for 1/27/20 (Open Session) from Robert Goldberg
Item B: Demand on Treasury (Warrants)
Page 15- Check #14056 for $2808 to Dixon Resources Unlimited.
Dixon Resources is our parking consultant who was formerly paid a monthly retainer of $8250 from
August 2017 through June 2019 (23 payments totaling $189,750). At the June 10, 2019 budget
workshop, staff stated that the proposed Police Parking Enforcement Division budget (page 93)
included another $45,000 Dixon to assist with parking challenges at the Montecito condos. On July
22nd, staff presented to Council a $45,000 agreement for "On -Call Parking Support Services" intended
to "assist the city with on-going parking challenges and provide on-call services." The staff report
made clear that unlike the previous agreement, "The new agreement is strictly a time and material
contract and wdl be billed accordingly."
An "on-call" agreement implies intermittent use and billing. However, monthly billing began
immediately in August and totals $14,554 through November:
Invoice Date Amount Check #
8/31/2019
$3,968
12853
9/30/2019
$4,856
13108
10/31/2019
$2,923
13530
11/30/2019
$2,808
14056
Total $14,554
With the implementation of our parking program having been completed last fiscal year, I was
curious as to the ongoing need to spend up to $225/hour and $3000-$5000 monthly for consultative
services. Therefore, I did a PRA request at the beginning of November and at the end of December
for invoices and "any supporting documentation of services provided and copies of any deliverables."
In response, I received invoices that simply stated "Parking Support" (see August & September
attached). The City had no documents providing any details regarding what "on-call" problems or
tasks were addressed by the consultant, nor any deliverables from the consultant.
Please provide details on the consultant's monthly activities since contract award last July.
Item D: City Manager and Dept Head Authorized Contracts
When this quarterly report was last presented to Council on 10/14/19, 1 requested that the Council
direct the City Manager to list not only the contracts that she personally authorizes, but also all
contracts authorized by Department Heads. The current quarterly report now does so, resulting in
listing a total of six contracts, all of which were authorized by the Director of Public Works. While
still a short listing, it equals the total number of contracts disclosed by the previous six reports.
Clearly, this is a very significant enhancement in transparency, and I thank all of the parties
involved in making this change happen.
I would now like to recommend an addition enhancement which will provide a similar step-up in
transparency—the inclusion of purchase orders valued between $5000 and $33,970 (staff's
spending authority without Council approval).
This is important because the City's purchasing system rules (M.C. 3.20) do not require formal
contracts to obtain services and goods from vendors. What is required is the issuance of purchase
orders (PO's). Thus, a full disclosure of the use of staff's spending authority must include PO's.
To illustrate this point, I am aware of three PO's in the final quarter of calendar 2019, the period of
time covered by Item D. All of these reveal staff encumbrances of public interest.
The first was for $20,000 (PO #16137, dated 10/10/19) to Fleldman, Rolapp, & Associates for
"General Financial Advisory Services." The Council may recall that I documented in my 12/9/19
Council meeting comments that this consultant had been paid over $58,000 since March 2017
without Council approval. That totalwas for services through September 2019. The subsequent
issuance of this P.O. in October raises concerns that staff intend to continue to exceed their
spending authority. Preventing such over spending from occurring was the original purpose of the
City Manager's quarterly reports. Clearly, this example demonstrates that to accomplish this
purpose, these reports must include PO's in addition to contracts.
The second PO was for $10,930 (PO #16269, dated 12/16/19) to Charles King Company for the
rental of four storm water pumps for eight days (11/27/19-12/4/19). These were deployed due to
the threat of heavy rain around Thanksgiving. Disclosure of this PO in the current quarterly report
would have served to inform the Council and public as to the cost of this approach to managing
flooding risk.
The third PO was for the purchase of a storm water pump for probably $20,000-$25,000 in
December (details are pending City response to PRA #20-20). This purchase is of significant public
interest since it represents an alternative approach. Of note is that the purchase of a pump was not
mentioned by staff during their "Winter Storm Update" presentation on 11/12/19. There was also
no mention of this equipment purchase during the budget workshop discussion of vehicle and
equipment purchases.
While I have not surveyed what other cities are doing regarding the disclosure of PO's, I am aware
that disclosure is done routinely by the Southern CA Association of Governments (SCAG) to their
Executive Committee and Regional Council. I have attached the first page of a staff report from
11/7/19 which lists all PO's of $5000-$199,000 (presumably, purchases of $200,000 or more
require Committee approval).
SCAG's annual budget is about $83 million vs. ours at about $68 million (General Fund plus Water,
Sewer, and special funds). Therefore, I think a similar $5000 threshold for reporting of our PO's
would be reasonable.
Recommendation: Please direct the City Manager to include in her next Quarterly Report all
PO's for amounts of $5000-$33,970
Item E: Lease Amendment
I have questions and comments regarding the following issues:
Delivery of Possession Date: Section 1.4 of the original lease states that "City shall deliver
possession of the premises to tenant promptly after completion of the City work." The proposed
amendment is silent on "Delivery of Possession," but does stipulate that the City's work is
completed (amendment paragraph 4). This would seem to mean that Delivery (and acceptance by
tenant) of Possession is to occur immediately upon signing of the amendment by both parties.
Is this the intent?
If not, then when will "Delivery of Possession" occur?
Section 1.4 of the original lease also defines the "Commencement Date" as being the same date
as the-"Defiver of -Possession." However, lin-the amendment, theierim "Cornin encement-Date" is
redefined in paragraph 1 to be 120 days after the issuance of either the Coastal per or City
permit, whichever is later.
With the amendment silent an the timing of the "Delivery of Possession," is its intent that
the "Delivery of Possession" date also lag the final permitting by 120 days?
If so, why would we want to delay the initiation of tenant improvements by four months?
Recommendation: Add language to the amendment that clearly states something like
"Tenant shall accept delivery of possession on the next business day following the issuance
of either the Coastal permit or City permit, whichever is later. This date shall be the
Commencement Date of the lease."
Security Deposit/Prepaid Rent Refund Date: I think there is now potential for confusion as to the
timing of when these will be refunded to the tenant. In the original contract, a one month
security deposit was refundable to the tenant simply upon the opening of the restaurant,
whenever that occurred. In the amendment paragraph 2, the refund date of security deposit and
3 months prepaid rent was changed to be at the "end of the first three months of the Term." The
definition of the word "Term" is found only in Section 3 the original lease, and is clearly stated as
the "Commencement Date until 20 years thereafter." With the "Commencement Date" redefined
in amendment paragraph 1 to be 120 days after the issuance of either the Coastal permit or City
permit whichever is later, then the effective refund date now equals the final permitting date
plus 120 days (Commencement Date) plus three months. Bottom line is that the refund has been
changed from the date when the restaurant opens to the final permitting plus 7 months,
regardless of when the restaurant opens.
is this what was intended?
Of note is that the amended refund date of final permit plus 7 months is not consistent with the
last sentence of the staff report's Financial Impact section. This states that deposited moneys will
become "liquidated damages for the City if the restaurant is not opened on time." However, to
my reading, neither original lease nor the amendment specify any required opening time.
Where in the lease or amendment is a required opening date specified?
First Rent Increase CPI Calculation: In Section 2.2 of the original lease, the first rent adjustment
date is 30 months after a to -be -determined "Rent Commencement Date." In the amendment,
paragraph 3 changes this date to be specifically April 1, 2020. This date is not dependent on the
status/progress of any permitting.
While the amendment provides clarity on adjustment date, the methodology for calculating the
first inflation (CPI) adjustment is now confusing. The CPI adjustment methodology was originally
specified in Section 2.2 of the original lease and is unchanged by the amendment:
"...the percentcW increase in the CPI {is} determined by -comparing the latest CPl
published at least one month prior to the applicable Adjustment Date to the latest CPI
published at least one month prior to the previous Adjustment Date (or in the case of
the first adjustment, published at least one month prior to the Rent Commencement
Date)
However, the problem now is that the Rent Commencement Date is re -defined in paragraph 1
of the amendment to be 120 days after all permits are issued which will obviously be after the
revised first Rent Adjustment Date -of this April 1n. Thus the methodology for the first increase
in the original lease no longer works.
Precisely how will the CPl increase in rent be determined for this coming April 1t?
Or was the intent of the amendment to, by default, have no rent increase on April 1s`?
[Note: this would contradict the statement found at the bottom of the current staff
report that "the first CPI rent adjustment will be in April of 2020."]
Recommendation: Add the following language to amendment paragraph 3 to increase
the rent on April 15` by one year's worth of inflation—'The first increase in Base rent
shall be determined by comparing the CP/ published in February 2020 to February 2019."
Item G: CDBG Grant Application
The Financial Impact section of the staff report states that project application includes a funding
match of $69,000 from the General Fund. Our program administration consultant contract with
CivicStone is for a max of $60,000/year.
Please explain what the additional $9000/year will be spent on?
mu—JIM-1,
11
AGENDA ITEM 13
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90017
November 7, 2019
To: Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S
APPROVAL
Regional Council (RC)
From: Basil Panas, Chief Financial Officer, Finance, 213-236-1817,
panas@scag.ca:gov
Subject: Purchase Orders $5,000 - $199,999; Contracts $25,000 -
$19%999and Amendments $5,000 -. $74,499 - -
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
For Information Only - No Action Required
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item supports the following Strategic Plan Goal 7: Secure funding to support agency priorities
to effectively and efficiently deliver work products.
BACKGROUND:
SCAG executed the following Purchase Orders (PO's) more than $5,000 but less than $200,000
Vendor
Public Agency Retirement Services
JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort &
Spa
CALCOG
ENO Transportation Foundation
City Fare, Inc.
Futureports
Info USA Marketing, Inc.
Thomson West
Politico
County Of Ventura- Assessor
American Public Transportation Assoc.
Citilabs Inc.
Mobility 21
PO Purpose PO Amount
FY20 PARS Retirement Plan $100,000
Deposit For 2020 General Assembly $50,000
FY20 CALCOG Membership
$42,750
FY20 ENO Transportation Membership
$10,500
FY20 Regional Council Meeting Provisions
$10,000
FY20 Future Membership
$10,000
FY20 US Historical Business Data
$9,800
FY20 Legal Subscription
$9,600
FY20 Subscription
$8,190
Ventura County Parcel Attributes
$7,706
F20 APTA Membership
$5,772
F20 Citilabs Software Renewal
$5,490
2019 Mobility 21 Summit Sponsorship
$5,000
OUR vis:cv i
OUR CORE Vt',_USS
Packet Pg. 169
ees
X( -)Dann ResrnrUnlimited
639 Midway Drive, Suite B345
an Diego, CA 92110 US
213 716 6933
i
BILL TO J
City of Seal Beach
211 8th street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Attn: Steven Bowles
INVOICE # / DATE ! TOTAL DUE
2335 08131/2019 13,967.50
DATE DESCRIPTION
08'312019 Parking Support_Amgm p 19
Please remit to above address.
Invoice
RECEIVED `` '1 U 2019
TERMS ENCLOSED
Net 30
QTY RATE / AMOUNT
3,967.-- - - 3,967.50
BALANCE DUE
$3,967.50
POSTED
�`p 3 0 n19
a
POSTED
2 4 2-u?^b
7-1
V --
4
4
J
I xo1 Doran Dr Unlimited
3639 Midwayidwayy Drive Suite B345 Invoice
San Diego, CA 92110 US
213 716 6933
BILL TO
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Attn: Steven Bowles
INVOICE# DATE TOTAL DUE TERMS ENCLOSED
2360 / 09/30/2019 -0/ $4,855.54 Net 30
DATE. DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT
-
'0'9/3(W2019 Patting Support September 2019 - - 1 4,572.50 4,572.50
09/30/2019 Travel (September) 1 283.04 283.04
Please remit to above address. BALANCE DUE
PO #15919 $43,855:54
OS-TF.D
Accounts Payable
OCT 2 4 2019
ReCeived
0VED U
ACCT
J OCT 31 2019 J11)
uil
By -
�r
r
OCT 3 12,319
Z t L
u u u
4e A
d w m
o
m m m
io io iv
0 0
Nn V1 N
0 w 0)
00 0V 00
f0 N f0
w O1 0
O N N
ki N
M
epi t►1 e/f
� -
.� VO
N
In j$
ri
N
O
M
6-
cu OJ
�C
C
Q
OJ
H
O
a+
-
�-f
O
N
-
ri
L
N
G
d
V
CL
d
N
U v u
L
NA VI
3 O O
1 � �
a a a
v � �
c c c
0 > >
N
O O O
w OC
di
O
4
_d 1 d
C
O C tT
VN
N N
w m
vi
H
000
C
W y N
�0
N
_Z
t
V
4
e-1 Ql
N N
m
O
N
N N
O!
t\C
N
m a% cl
�r
r
OCT 3 12,319