Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmailed Comments and Questions combined 091420201 Gloria Harper From:Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:14 AM To:Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Joe Kalmick Cc:Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper; Kelly Telford; Charles M. Kelly; Jeannette Andruss; Steve Myrter Subject:Questions and Comments for Monday's Open Session Attachments:9.14.20 Questions.doc; Water Rate.Payments Due from City.xls Dear Council and Staff,    Please see the attached questions and comments for Monday's open session meeting. Also attached is the  referenced spreadsheet. Due to time constraints, my questions and comments do not include the SBPD Item I.   Thank you for your consideration and service,    Robert Goldberg        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. Questions for 9/10/20 Open Session from Robert Goldberg Presentations Parking Project Update: Please see the three warrants below for recent expenditures of about $36,000. If staff does not provide details on the nature of these expenditure before the meeting, I would ask the Council to have the parking consultant do so. Item C: Demand on Treasury (Warrants) Page 6 top, continuation of check #16505 to “Business Card” (credit card), line item $250 for “CPA License Renewal- K Telford.” I could not find any provision in Kelly’s contract that commits the City to reimburse her for the annual cost of a professional license. Does the City have a written policy that authorizes reimbursement of professional licenses for certain or all employees? Page 6 check #16511 to Calantuono, Highsmith & Whatle for $376 for “Services for June 2020.” See also check 16726, page 29 for ““Services for July 2020” for $790. This vender is a law firm with no contract posted to the City Clerk’s webpage. What services is this law firm providing regarding which issue? Page 6 check #16514 to Data Ticket for $2604 for something related to the Comprehensive Parking Management Project What was this for? Page 12 check #16572 to Complete Paperless Solutions for $20,397 for annual (Laserfiche) services 9/7/20-9/6/21. Per the 1st amendment to this contract, the contract expired in September 2019. Thus, this check represents the second annual payment after contract expiration. Is there a contract amendment/extension that was not posted to the City Clerk’s contract database? When are we going to have an effective system for flagging contract expiration dates? Page 23 check #16674 to Axon Enterprise for $3523 for something related to the Comprehensive Parking Management Project What was this for? Page 35 check #16791 to Portable Computer Systems for $30,809 for something related to the Comprehensive Parking Management Project What was this for? Item F: Close Out of Slurry Seal Project The Financial Impact section does not indicate as funds spent for inspections/testing. Up to $15,000 had been budgeted for this per the staff report given to Council last February (Award of Construction Contract). Were no inspections/testing done, or was this done by in-house staff? Item G: Beach Yard Perimeter Wall The Financial Impact section states that the FY 2020 -21 CIP budget allocates $75,000 for this project (BP2002). However, I could find this project listed on the list of budgeted CIP projects on budget pages 214 or 218. While this project was included in the FY 2019-20 budget, I also could not find it on the listing on page 213 of Council -authorized carry-overs of projects authorized in prior years. Is the listing on page 213 of Council-authorized carry-overs of projects authorized in prior years incomplete? Was the Comprehensive Parking Management Project (ST1207) also erroneously omitted from the carry-over listing? If not, what will be the source of funds (almost $37,000) to pay the three Project-related warrants listed in Item C (see above)? The project as-bid will replace the existing fencing along the bike trail a new fence with a wind screen. To my recollection, the original project discussed in the 2019 budget process was going to install a masonry wall around the entire maintenance yard, including along the trail. As the original justification for this project stated (page 20 in FY 19-20 CIP), a wall will “provide better security…as well as improve aesthetics.” I think this applies equally to the wall facing the bike trail as well as the wall facing the new park. While the addition of a wind screen to the trail fencing will block the unsightly view into the storage yard, it will be subject to high wind stress and will likely need to be replaced regularly. Moreover, it is likely to get tagged by graffiti which will not be easily removed from the fabric. The trail wall of the maintenance building currently gets tagged once or twice a year. What would be the increased cost of “walling” the side facing the bike trail? Item H: Public Hearing Date for Water/Sewer Rate Changes Questions: Regarding the Prop 218 protest procedures, the staff report indicates that each parcel in the City may lodge a protest, or in effect, send in one “vote” against the rate changes. I would surmise that the vast majority, if not all, of SFR’s are one SFR per parcel. But what about non -SFR’s?: How many parcels are there in LW? How many parcels are there in the Riverbeach Townhomes and Seal Beach Shores? Is a typical MFR in town, one parcel? Are protests from renters not counted? In these locations, if one parcel has multiple owners, who gets to “cast” the (one) protest vote? Comments: In my previous missives to Council and Staff, I have raised two major issues: 1) Prior payments by the General Fund (GF) for its water and sewer, and 2) Pay-off of the 2011 Sewer bonds. Both issues have not been adequately addressed to date by staff, and both could have major impacts on the proposed rate increases. Update on Payment of Money Potentially Owned by the GF to Water and Sewer Funds: The staff presentation on 8/10/20 confirmed that the GF must pay for the water it uses and the wastewater it generates. As I mentioned in my email of 8/16/20, I was informed in late 2015 (CPRA 15-520) that no payments had been made by the GF in FY 2014-15. On 8/17/20, I submitted PRA’s 20-239 and 20-240 for any GF payments for water and sewer from FY 2015-16 through FY 2019-20. On 9/10/20, the City informed me that a response to these requests may not be forthcoming until 10/12/20. I have subsequently done a “what if” calculation of how much money the GF could potentially owe the Water and Sewer Funds if there has not been any payments since the 2010 Water Rate Study was adopted and implemented in July 2010. These calculations were based an annual GF water consumption of 63,996 HCF as projected by the 2010 Water Rate Study and the City having a total of 90 meters per the 2012 Water Master Plan (page 6-1). I conservatively assumed that all of these meters were only 5/8” in size except for one at 4” based on the 2003 Water Rate Study. Page 11 of this Study stated that “The City’s water meters vary in size from 5/8 inch to 4 inch.” The summary table below (full spreadsheet attached) indicates that the GF should have paid the Water Fund a minimum of $1.8 million and $740,000 to the Sewer Fund from July 2010 through December 2020. Calendar Year Water Fund Sewer Fund 2020 $176,729 $80,136 2019 $176,729 $80,136 2018 $176,729 $80,136 2017 $176,729 $80,136 2016 $176,729 $79,535 2015 $176,729 $66,236 2014 $176,729 $64,316 2013 $172,681 $63,425 2012 $164,923 $60,717 2011 $157,876 $55,781 2010 (1/2 Yr) $77,270 $31,589 Totals $1,809,854 $742,144 These are very significant amounts of money. In regards to the Water Fund, the proposed increased rates will generate just over $8.6 million in new money from January 2021 through June 2025. The figure above of $1.8 million, if unpaid and owed by the GF, would represent 21% of this new revenue. If $1.8 million is owed, payment by the GF could eliminate the need for the first two water rate increases (see spreadsheet for calculations). In regards to the Sewer Fund, potential payment now of $740,000 due would allow a rate decrease of 31% instead of 25% on 1/1/21 (see spreadsheet for calculations). Given the large potential size of the City’s non-payment and potential impact on both the proposed Water and Sewer rates, this issue should be addressed immediately, and certainly, before the Rate Study is finalized. Recommendations: Please ask staff publicly if all water/sewer volumetric and meter fees due since July 2010 for the GF consumption of metered water have been paid. If not, then please direct staff to analyze the amount of money past due, and delay the Public Hearing date. If staff states that all money due has been paid, please direct them to prioritize responses to my two PRA requests so that I may confirm this and lay this issue to rest. Early Pay-off of the 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds. I have corresponded twice before (August 10th and 16th) regarding the benefits of an early pay-off of this bond. To not repeat all of the detail that I previously sent, the bottom line is that we owe $1.94 million at annual interest rate of %4.8. If we do nothing, the last payment will be in 2029 and we will have paid a total of $472,560 in interest by then. At the same time, the Sewer Fund likely had over $9 million in cash reserves as of last June 30 th. That pile of money is currently making 0.72% interest (down from 0.80% a month ago) on depo sit with the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), or not much more with our investment advisor, PFM. By paying off this bond early, the Sewer Fund can effectively “make” the difference in these rates (3.5-4.1%) on the $1.94 million. Why wouldn’t we want to pay off this high interest loan? The only downside is that the payoff would reduce our projected cash reserves at the end of the study period (June 2025) from about $2.1 million to $1.5 million (per my calculations). However, $1.5 million is not bad compared to the target reserve level of $1.8 million. Going forward into FY 2025-26, the Sewer Fund will overall be in better shape not having the operating costs of four more years of principle and interest on this bond. This will reduce the magnitude of the sewer rate increase that will likely be necessary in July 2027. Recommendations: Please ask staff to confirm that a 25% sewer rate cut in January 2021 will likely necessitate a rate increase in July 2027. Direct staff now to do a financial analysis of a bond payoff so this can be scheduled for January and incorporated into the rate study. Postpone the scheduling of the rate hearing until this analysis has been incorporated into the rate study. Calendar Year 2020 Water Service @ $2.42/HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $154,870 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,642 $16,019 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $20,217 $25,237 Totals $154,870 $21,859 $38,880 $41,256 Calendar Year 2019 Water Service @ $2.42/HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $154,870 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,642 $16,019 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $20,217 $25,237 Totals $154,870 $21,859 $38,880 $41,256 Calendar Year 2018 Water Service @ $2.42/HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $154,870 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,642 $16,019 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $20,217 $25,237 Totals $154,870 $21,859 $38,880 $41,256 Calendar Year 2017 Water Service @ $2.42/HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $154,870 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,642 $16,019 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $20,217 $25,237 Totals $154,870 $21,859 $38,880 $41,256 $176,729 Water Sewer $80,136 $80,136 Sewer Water Sewer $80,136 Water Sewer $176,729 $176,729 Water Potential General Fund Money Due (if unpaid) to Water/Sewer Funds $176,729 $80,136 Calendar Year 2016 Water Service @ $2.42/HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $154,870 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,642 $15,786 Annual Meters: Assume remaining at 5/8"89 $20,217 $24,868 Totals $154,870 $21,859 $38,880 $40,654 Calendar Year 2015 Water Service @ $2.42 HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $154,870 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,642 $15,326 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $20,217 $12,030 Totals $154,870 $21,859 $38,880 $27,356 Calendar Year 2014 Water Service @ $2.42 HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $154,870 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,642 $14,311 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $20,217 $11,125 Totals $154,870 $21,859 $38,880 $25,435 Calendar Year 2013 Water Service @ $2.31/$2.42 HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $151,351 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,602 $14,311 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $19,729 $11,125 Totals $151,351 $21,331 $37,990 $25,435 $176,729 $79,535 Water Sewer $172,681 $63,425 Water Sewer $176,729 $64,316 Water Sewer $176,729 $66,236 Water Sewer Calendar Year 2012 Water Service @ $2.21/$2.31 HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $144,631 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,524 $13,327 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $18,767 $11,107 Totals $144,631 $20,292 $36,283 $24,434 Calendar Year 2011 Water Service @ $2.12/$2.21 HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 63,996 $138,551 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $1,451 $12,012 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $17,873 $9,035 Totals $138,551 $19,324 $34,733 $21,048 Half Calendar Year 2010 Water Service @ $2.12 HCF Meters Sewer Service Sewer Capital Half-Year Estimated Consumption from 2010 Water Rate Study 31,998 $67,836 Annual Meters: 1 @ 4"1 $708 $5,666 Annual Meters: Assume others at 5/8"89 $8,726 $8,923 Totals $67,836 $9,434 $16,999 $14,589 % of Proposed Cumulative Water Revenue Increase 21% Water Sewer $157,876 $55,781 Water Water $77,270 $31,589 Sewer $164,923 $60,717 Sewer Potential Amount Owed by the City from 7/10 -12/20 $1,809,854 $742,144 Proposed Water Revenue Increases Full-Year Percent Increase Increased Annual Revenue Annual Revenue Annual Increased Revenue vs. Current Revenue 1/1/2021 (half year)14%331,013$ $5,059,777 331,013$ 7/1/2021 12%646,895$ 6,037,685$ 1,308,922$ 7/1/2022 8%483,015$ 6,520,700$ 1,791,937$ 7/1/2023 8%521,656$ 7,042,356$ 2,313,593$ 7/1/2024 8%563,388$ 7,605,745$ 2,876,981$ Total Cumulative Revenue from Rate Increases:8,622,445$ Proposed Sewer Revenue Full-Year Percent Decrease Decreased Annual Revenue Annual Revenue 1/1/2021 (half year)-25%(342,561)$ 2,397,925$ 7/1/2021 0%(342,561)$ 2,055,365$ 7/1/2022 0%-$ 2,055,365$ 7/1/2023 0%-$ 2,055,365$ 7/1/2024 0%-$ 2,055,365$ Total Revenue:$10,619,383 If City Owes:$742,144 Then Full-Year Percent Decrease Could Be Decreased Annual Revenue Annual Revenue 1/1/2021 (half year)-31%(424,775)$ 2,315,711$ 7/1/2021 0%(424,775)$ 1,890,935$ 7/1/2022 0%-$ 1,890,935$ 7/1/2023 0%-$ 1,890,935$ 7/1/2024 0%-$ 1,890,935$ Total Revenue:$9,879,452 Revised 9/14/20 FY 20-21 Sewer Revenue per Staff Report 9/14/20 $2,740,486 $4,728,763 FY 20-21 Water Revenue per Staff Report 9/14/20 Potential General Fund Money Due (if unpaid) to Water/Sewer Funds Calendar Year Water Fund Sewer Fund 2020 $176,729 $80,136 2019 $176,729 $80,136 2018 $176,729 $80,136 2017 $176,729 $80,136 2016 $176,729 $79,535 2015 $176,729 $66,236 2014 $176,729 $64,316 2013 $172,681 $63,425 2012 $164,923 $60,717 2011 $157,876 $55,781 2010 (1/2 Yr)$77,270 $31,589 Totals $1,809,854 $742,144 21% 1 Gloria Harper From:Steven Collins <redcobra101@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 10:58 AM To:Gloria Harper Subject:Parking for residents living on Montecito Good day  I hope it’s not to late to ask a question for tonights Council meeting. Why has the owners of “The Shops of Rossmoor”  completely banned parking behind Sprouts, Home Goods and Khols. There is plenty of available space. It’s very difficult  to park on the streets in Rossmoor and disturbing to residents.  Thank you    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.  1 Gloria Harper From:Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:52 PM To:Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Joe Kalmick Cc:Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper; Kelly Telford; Charles M. Kelly; Jeannette Andruss; Phil Gonshak; Tom Moore; Schelly; Joe Kalmick Subject:Comments on SBPD Item I Attachments:9.14.20 Comments.SBPD Item I.doc Dear Council and Staff,    Please see the attached comments on the SBPD Item I. I apologize for the late submittal.     Thank you for your consideration and service,    Robert Goldberg        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. Item I: SBPD Detention Center Changes and Department Reorganization Plan From Robert Goldberg Before the Council is a very complex and multifaceted proposal. However, the key underlying budgetary support for all of its components appears to be replacement of inmate fees ($466,000) with enhanced parking revenue ($470,000). As such, I think the magnitude of the projected enhanced parking revenue should be viewed with considerable caution. The table below presents revenues from adopted budgets and the proje cted additional revenue from increased staffing presented in the Dixon power point (Attachment G). Revenues FY 17-18 Actual FY 18-19 Actual FY 19-20 Estimated FY 20-21 Adopted FY 20-21 with Proposed Additional Staff Percent Change Revenue Change Parking Meters & Beach Parking $ 961,313 $ 949,672 $ 937,900 $ 960,400 $ 954,281 -1% $ (6,119) Parking Citations $ 984,176 $ 818,894 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,521,636 38% $ 421,636 Total $ 1,945,489 $ 1,768,566 $ 1,937,900 $ 2,060,400 $ 2,475,917 20% $ 415,517 There are several key points here. Firstly, projected enhanced revenue is only $416,000, or 20% more, than the amount budgeted in FY 20-21, not $470,000. The difference in these figures may have occurred if Dixon was provided with updated revenue estimates for FY 20-21. However, this is a question to pose to the consultant. Secondly, the enhanced revenue appears to be derived entirely from increased citations. This is not surprising, but not consistent with the consultant’s presentation which states that there will be increases in paid parking. This is an important point, since if virtually all of the enhanced revenue derives from citation issuance, the chart above indicated that issuance will need to increase by at least 38% (or even higher to generate $470,000). I think the Council needs to question whether such a large increase is possible. During the budget process for FY 19-20, the Council approved a PD request to increase the number of part-time Parking Aides from 1.63 full-time equivalents to 3.95. We were told at the time that the increased staffing would expand enforcement to “after-hours.” This increase in person-power was further enhanced with the roll-out of vehicle mounted LPR and geo-tracking. Perhaps the subsequent increase in citation revenue in FY 19-20 and FY 20-21 can be attributed to these two enhancements of staffing and technology. But how much “more blood is there to squeeze out of this turnip?” Speaking of technology, the fiscal analysis (Attachment H) does not show funding for any additional parking enforcement vehicles. So we are going to add 4 CSO’s to parking enforcement and generate $470,000, all without adding to our existing fleet of four vehicles? This would imply that these vehicles, each with a $50,000 LPR system are grossly underutilized currently. The Council should also question whether a massive increase in parking enforcement is even desirable at the current time. How will visitors who we are being actively encouraging to come to town to support local businesses respond to increased ticketing? Citing visitors for being a few minutes over is not going to be well-received. And most importantly, what is the fallback plan if enhanced revenues come up short by several hundred thousand dollars? I appreciate the desirability of retaining the current Jail staff, but is the Council willing to raise taxes to do so? When the Council agreed in late 2007 to reopen the Jail, it was understood that the all of the nine CSO’s hired in December 2007 could be laid off if the Jail closed. Bottom line is that I would recommend a very cautious and step -wise approach: 1) Approve the closing of the jail and the proposed training and reclassificatio n of the current Jail staff. 2) Defer for now Reclassifications of sworn staff. This issue could be further addressed during the current negotiations on the expired Police Management Contract for possible offsetting savings, or during the next budget cycle. 3) Commit to a detailed review of parking revenues and expenses as early part of the next budget cycle. If parking revenue falls significantly short of Dixon’s projections, partial layoffs of Jail staff and/or part-time Parking Aides needs to be considered. 1 Gloria Harper From:Joyce Ross Parque <joyce10parque@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:24 PM To:Joe Kalmick; Mike Varipapa; Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper Subject:Where does the money go? I would also like to know the answers to Dr. Goldberg's questions. Do you think that changing the name of the Seal Beach Detention Center, changes the money that we, the taxpayers pay on that jail. We are still paying the Doctor, nurse, and telephone calls. Why did the taxpayer pay $2,679.00 for a yellow cab on 9/3/2020. I am sure someone called to tell you the fence was broken into park along the river trail. Now it is getting more dangerous with electric bikes, electric scooters, and bikers that like to race down that trail. Since the City has let a Protest walk down Main Street without a permit, can I have one also. Thanks,Joyce 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. 1 Gloria Harper From:Jill Ingram Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:45 PM Cc:Executive Team; Craig A. Steele; Dana Engstrom Subject:RE: questions for the meeting BCC:  CITY COUNCIL    Please see responses below to Councilman Moore's questions regarding tonight's agenda.  Also, I would appreciate it if  you would please let me know as soon as possible if you plan to pull any Consent Calendar items from the agenda to  ensure staff and the City Clerk are prepared for a Zoom presentation and there are hopefully no technical challenges on  Zoom tonight.    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: Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:22 PM  To: Jill Ingram  Subject: questions for the meeting      ITEM C:    Check No: 16502  2 •    Could we get a better description for the item that is $17, 946 please?     Ardurra provided inspection work primarily for (1) utility relocation inspection along Almond Avenue, which is related to  the I‐405 widening; and (2) OCSD Westminster Force main. In addition, the inspection would include, but not limited to,  traffic control, geotechnical conformance, utility placement and coordination, and pavement rehabilitation.      Check No: 16588  •    What is this bill for Granite Telecommunication for?    Provided phone service at various City facilities.    ITEM G:    I could not find BP2002 in the CIP under ongoing capital projects or the money allocated. Could you please point where  this is in the current CIP budget?      Staff will address this question during the presentation tonight since the item is being pulled by a Council member.    WATER STUDY:    There was a question about records the City pays for the water fund for City owned property for water. Can we see  previous years data regarding this ‐ 2014 through 2020?      Staff will address this question during the presentation tonight.     Sincerely,  Tom     Thomas Moore  Council Member, District 2  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.  1 Gloria Harper From:Jill Ingram Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:56 PM Cc:Executive Team; Craig A. Steele; Dana Engstrom Subject:RE: Questions for tonight's Council meeting Attachments:My Questions for Sept. 14. 2020 Council Meeting.Sustarsic_.pdf BCC:  CITY COUNCIL    Please see attached responses to Mayor Sustarsic's questions regarding the warrant listing on tonight's agenda.  Also, I  would appreciate it if you would please let me know as soon as possible if you plan to pull any Consent Calendar items  from the agenda to ensure staff and the City Clerk are prepared for a Zoom presentation and there are hopefully no  technical challenges on Zoom tonight.    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: Schelly Sustarsic  Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:32 AM  To: Jill Ingram  Subject: Questions for tonight's Council meeting    Jill,    2 My questions for tonight's meeting are attached.      In regard to Item G,  I am having some trouble visualizing exactly what this wall/fence will look like as there is no  diagram included.  I addressed some concern over graffiti when this item was added as a budget item, as we had just  had tagging in the area at that time.  I see that some questions on graffiti have been submitted by Robert Goldberg, so I  WOULD LIKE TO PULL THIS ITEM  in order to get a better understanding of what is being done and the materials being  used.    Thank you,  Schelly      Questions for September 14, 2020 City Council Meeting Sustarsic Warrants: 16514: Data Ticket Inc 2,604.22 SB Comprehensive Parking Management What is this for? Mobile Printer for Parking Enforcement 16524: Moffat & Nichol 10,147.45 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade Proj What is this for? Construction Support Services; final step in completing the project 16674: Axon Enterprise Inc 3,523.50 SB Comprehensive Parking Management What is this for? Fleet Router Antenna 16697: County of Orange 1,103.00 AFIS Services July 2020 What are these services? Automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) services for July 2020 16730: County of Orange 14,777.19 AFIS Services Aug. 2020; Annual fixed costs; Communications charges What are these services? AFIS Services for August 2020 - $1,103 NPDES water quality annual cost - $391.18 OCSD/800 MHz Annual Allocation - $13,283 16759: JCL Traffic Services 3,010.88 Emergency Declaration 2020/ Outdoor Din What do these services entail? Barricade rentals for parklets – CARES Act funding 1 Gloria Harper From:Gloria Harper Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:11 PM To:Gloria Harper Subject:FW: New message via your website, from semoorejoshua@gmail.com     Gloria Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach CA 90740 (562) 431-2527 Ext. 1305 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.   Robin Fort-Lincke, SBTV-3 On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM <no-reply@crm.wix.com> wrote: Joshua Semoore just submitted your form: https://www.sbtv3.org/ Message Details Name: Joshua Semoore Email: semoorejoshua@gmail.com Subject: Public Comments Message: Dear City Council, elected official, My name is Joshua Semoore. I'd like to let the City Council know that we should not pass Proposition 16 this November. Prop 16 is exactly what we saw on tv, the protesters on streets are protesting about-- inequality & injustice. 2 Single out Asians to punish them for hard-working, making the best out of life is simply evil. This country is a great land of opportunity for everyone. The people have said "NO!" to SCA5 in 2014, and we need to say "NO!" again this November to stop this racist proposition becoming law. To edit your email settings, go to your Inbox on desktop. Error! Filename not specified. 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.