The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSupplemental Questions from Robert Goldberg Questions & Comments for 2/10/20 from Robert Goldberg Item C: Demand on Treasury (Warrants) Page 3, Check #14166 to the IPS Group for $744. The Council approved a contract with IPS on 2/12/18 to purchase and install 78 single-space “smart” parking meters in the Main Street lots. Besides the purchase of the meters, the contract also obligated the City to pay ongoing costs service fees for wireless access, management system access, and credit card fees. At the time of contract approval, I objected to the omission of any estimate of these ongoing costs in Financial Impact section of the staff report. The contract was approved for a five-year term with a not-to- exceed total of $46,319. In my written comments to Council and staff for the meeting on 12/9/19, I brought to the Council’s attention that monthly fees of over $700 began in December 2018, and had resulted in a cumulative contract cost overrun of almost $10,000. For this reason, I recommended that the Council direct the City Manager to calendar a contract amendment as soon as possible. Despite almost two months’ time and three Council meetings, staff had failed to do so. Now with the payment of two additional monthly fees, the total paid to IPS has risen to $57,650: Check # Check Date Warrant Comment Amount 6387 5/24/2018 Parking Management Program $ 46,831 8059 9/26/2018 Housing Assembly $ 812 9131 12/20/2018 Parking Management Program $ 732 13359 11/14/2019 Services Jan to Sept 2019 $ 7,065 13444 11/21/2019 Services Oct 2019 $ 719 13819 12/19/2019 Services Nov 2019 $ 747 14166 1/23/2020 Services Dec 2019 $ 744 Total $ 57,650 This total is now over $11,000 more than the maximum contract amount that the Council authorized in Resolution 6791 (see attachment). Comment: While staff has many contracts to monitor, I think it is a reasonable expectation that they would take appropriate action after being informed of a contract cost overrun that violates a Council resolution. Staff has failed to do so despite adequate time to calendar a contract amendment for Council consideration. Page 7, Check #14215 to the Dekra-lite for $150 for a “Custom Gift Box Light Switch.” What was this? Page 9, Check #14235 to the Mitchell for $1728 for “Prodemand Only Governmental” for an annual software subscription for a vehicle repair manual. The invoice date is 12/5/19. However, 1 Mitchell previously invoiced us for exactly same amount on 11/30/19 which was paid by check #13999. Did we get invoiced and pay twice in error? Page 10, Check #14247 to the Plumbers Depot for $26,890 for a “GraniteNet Software.” What is this? Is there an annual subscription cost for this software? Item D: Emergency Water System Repairs on 311 Main St The staff reports seeks Council approval of an emergency repair in excess of staff’s spending authority that was performed without bidding, and without Council’s prior approval. Resolution 7001 cites two sections of the Charter. The first section, 1010, has very clear and specific language requiring Council approval before the repair is done: “Contracts likewise may be let without advertising for bids, if such work, supplies or materials shall be deemed by the City Council to be of urgent necessity for the preservation of life, health, or property. In either event, the Council shall adopt a resolution with findings supporting the letting of a contract without advertising for bids by at least three (3) affirmative votes of the Council, after which the City may proceed to have such work done or said supplies and materials purchased” \[emphasis added} The repairs at 311 Main Street were indisputably “done” before there were “three affirmative votes of the Council.” Therefore, staff did not comply with requirements of Charter section 1010. Recommendation: Strike all references in the Resolution to Charter section 1010 The second Charter section referenced in the Resolution is Section 107-- Emergency Powers (full wording provided after my comments on the next page). This may be evoked by the City Council “in order to insure continuity of governmental operations in periods of emergency resulting from disasters of whatever nature.” However, the leaky water service connection at 311 Main Street did not result from a “disaster.” Similarly, it seems to be quite a stretch to assert that water saturated ground in an alley would threaten the “continuity of governmental operations in periods of emergency.” While questioning the applicability of Section 107, I will concede that the Charter does not seem to provide appropriate language in any section that would allow staff to proceed with making “non-disaster related,” but urgent repairs prior to Council approval. In this regard, it would appear that the Charter is deficient. 2 However, until the Charter is amended, I think staff should at least be required to make a strong case as to why repairs could not have been safely delayed until Council approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting (consistent with Charter section 1010). I think the staff report does not adequately make this case. The water leak at 311 Main Street became known in July 2019. At that time, “failed alley concrete panels were extremely saturated” which greatly reduced the alley’s ”ability to support traffic loading.” However, repairs were not done until three months later on October 30th. This was after five Council thth meetings were held between August 12 and October 28. Without further explanation, it would appear that a request to waive bidding and to exceed staff’s spending authority could have been presented at any of those five meetings for Council approval “after which the City may \[have\] proceed\[ed\] to have such work done” in compliance with Charter section 1010. It is also noteworthy that by the end of July, staff had likely already received two invoices from Valverde for $13,983 (per Warrant #12414) for the two separate unrelated repairs completed in July. Thus, staff would have been aware early on that they only had about $20,000 remaining under their spending authority for further projects by Valverde. Please explain why the repairs at 311 Main Street were delayed for three months, yet so considered so urgent that Council approval could not be sought beforehand? {For informational purposes, here is the full wording of Charter Section 107: “Notwithstanding any general or special provisions of this Charter, the Council, in order to insure continuity of governmental operations in periods of emergency resulting from disasters of whatever nature, shall have the power and immediate duty: a) To provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of all City officers, of whatever nature and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such offices, and b) To adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper for insuring the continuity of City operations, including, but not limited to the financing thereof. In the exercise of the powers herein conferred, the City Council, in all respects, shall conform to the requirements of this Charter except that at such times they may make purchases and enter into contracts without calling for bids or giving therefore; to the extent the emergency requires such action.”} Item G: OCTA Gas Line Easement The Financial Impact section of the staff report states the OCTA will “pay the City $114,000, plus reimburse $5000 in appraisal costs. There is no additional cost to the City.” This implies that the City will net $109,000. 3 However, the Financial Impact section fails to disclose the fees the City was charged for non-retainer City Attorney services. Charges related to this matter are listed as “Acq. City Property” in the detail of warrants paid to Richards, Watson & Gershon since July 2019. These sum to over $24,000 through November 2019: Check # Invoice Date Service Month Amount ?? -No Check 12246 7/31/2019 June 2019 Detail Provided 12734 8/31/2019 July $1,191 13034 9/23/2019 August $1,849 13467 10/28/2019 September $1,368 13734 11/19/2019 October $3,402 14251 12/16/2019 November $16,281 Pending Pending December ?? Pending Pending January 2020 ?? Pending Pending February ?? Minimum Total to Date: $24,090 The total amount of fees related to this matter is likely to be greater than $24,000 due to pending charges from December 2019 through February 2020. Additionally, there may have been charges prior to July 2019. The City received written notice of OCTA’s interest in the property in 2017. However, this cannot be ascertained easily, since the line item warrant detail was deleted from the City Attorney warrants beginning in August 2017. This detail was not restored until July 2019 following repeated requests by Mayor Moore. What is the total in legal fees from Richards, Watson & Gershon from 2017 through today? Do these legal fees include the $5000 appraisal fee as a pass-through, or was the appraiser (Riggs & Riggs) paid directly by the City? 4