HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmailed comments from Robert Goldberg1
Gloria Harper
From:Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To:Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Joe Kalmick
Cc:Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper; Charles M. Kelly; Jeannette Andruss; Les Johnson; Patrick
Gallegos; Steve Myrter
Subject:Questions and Comments for Monday's Open Session
Attachments:12.14.20 Questions & Comments.doc; Option 3.Min Wage.pdf
Dear Council and Staff,
Please see the attached questions and comments on Monday's open session meeting. Also attached is a
referenced table.
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 12/14/20 Open Session from Robert Goldberg
Item C: Demand on Treasury (Warrants)
Page 7 check #17626 to Cho Design Associates for $13,000 “CH Staircase Repair.”
What is this project?
Page 14 check #17695 to Passport Labs Inc for $500 “Services September 2020.” We signed a
contract with Passport in 2018 to provide software and operation of a mobi le phone parking pay
system. The contract fee schedule only provides for a $0.35 per transaction and license fee.
However, it appears that a new monthly service fee of $500 began in August 2020.
Do we have a new $6000/year parking management expense?
Is this monthly charge in addition to a $0.35 per transaction charge?
Page 20 check #17769 to Case Land Surveying for $3800 for “East Beach Survey”
What is this for?
Page 30 check #17865 to Versatile Information Products for $3010 for “PUMA Lite Management
Service Contract.” According to their website, this company provides police digital recording
devices. We have made several small one time purchases from Versatile in the recent past.
However, the City Clerk’s database does not include any contract for ongoing management
services
What is this Service Contract for?
Is the $3010 an annual or monthly charge?
Item K: Contract Amendment with Prosurface
In calendar year 2020, Prosurface was awarded and paid under three separate contracts to do
various court resurfacing projects:
Check #Date Amount
14939 3/19/2020 $8,350
15437 4/30/2020 $16,700
Marina Park Pickleball/
Tennis Court Resurfacing 10/2/2020 17832 11/25/2020 $23,300
Tennis Center Pickleball
Court Resurfacing 10/29/2020 17832 11/25/2020 $11,000
$59,350
Contract
Award Date
Contract Payments
Tennis Center and Heather
Park Court Resurfacing
2/21/2020
Contract
Total
None of these contracts or payments were previously presented to Council for prior approval even
though the cumulative amount for the work proposed and performed in 2020 totaled over
$59,000, far exceeding the City Manager’s approval authority of $34,476. This could have been
prevented by placing the second and third listed contracts on a prior Council agenda for approval.
While I appreciate staff’s good faith effort in Item K to get the Council’s approval to amend the
third listed contract’s amount from $11,000 to $13,200, as the saying goes, “the horse is already
out of the barn.”
Regarding this contracting issue as it applies to the resurfacing of courts, I will repeat the
recommendation that I made to Council and staff in my comments of 5/11/20 :
Given that the adopted 5-Year CIP continues to program $30,000 annually for Citywide Court
Rehabilitation, staff should issue an RFP and get formal bids for a 3-5 year contract. The
bidding process and subsequent Council approval should both save the City money and
prevent future inadvertent spending above staff’s authority.
Item M: Water Sewer Rate Update
At the last Council discussion on 9/14/20, staff acknowledged that the General Fund has not paid
for the water consumed by City parks and buildings “in recent years.” “Accumulating balances”
were “zeroed out” as a matter of practice.
Staff suggested that this was not of any budgetary significance, as it is effectively “just a transfer
between one fund and another.”
This may be true from the perspective of a Finance Director, but is not the case if you are a
taxpayer.
Under California law, local cities can raise money from local residents in either of two ways--
either through tax increases or increased charges for services.
Tax increases are always a challenge for a city since they must be put on the ballot and be
approved by at least 50% of voters. Examples in Seal Beach include an increase in sales tax by
Measure BB in 2018, and an increase in the Transient Occupancy (hotel bed) Tax in 2006.
On the other hand, raising the cost of services is relatively easy for a city. Under Prop 218, all that
is needed is a public hearing and a study showing that any proposed fee for service will be no
greater than the cost of providing that service.
In regards to water and sewer utility rates, Prop 218 further requires that each customer be
mailed a 45-day notice of the public hearing and informed of their option to mail in self-composed
“protests.” Unlike a general election which is determined by the majority of those who chose to
participate in the election, protests must be received from a majority of the utility customer
households (with one vote per household) in order to stop a rate increase. With 13,000
households in Seal Beach (per 2000 census, even if 6,000 protests are mailed in, they can be
legally ignored and the rate increases implemented.
So the bottom line is that a taxpayer has “two pockets.” One is protected the right to vote, while
the other is relatively open. Allowing the General Fund to not pay its water and sewer bills for
years in order to balance annual budgets is a big deal as it undermines the ability of taxpayers to
protect that first pocket via the ballot box.
To wit, now water rates must be raised, in part , to make up for the City being a “deadbeat”
customer for years, and our only recourse is a protest process that has little chance of success.
That is patently unfair.
It may also violate Prop 218. Specifically, without a commitment by staff to begin paying the City’s
water and sewer bills, one could argue that all other customers currently are, and will continue to
be, effectively being charged more than the cost of service—the cost of service plus a subsidy to
the City’s General Fund.
At the last discussion, I heard no such commitment from staff, nor any directive from Council for
payments to begin.
Recommendation: I implore the Council to take this timely opportunity to direct staff to
have the General Fund begin paying its fair share for water and sewer services.
Regarding the Notice of Public Hearing, Table C: Typical Impact for a Single Family Residence only
presents the costs for the first water rate increase. The impacts of subsequent four increases are
omitted. There is plenty of room in this Table to add four more columns. Doing so is essential for
full transparency, as the impact of the first water rate increase is more than offset by the drop in
sewer rates. This could easily lead the “typical” residential reader to be dismissive of the Notice,
when in fact, the proposed rate changes will result in their combined bill rising over 20% from
$130 to $157 in four years from the date of the public hearin g:
Revised Table C: Typical Impact for a Single Family Residence
Proposed Bills
May 2021 January 2022 January 2023 January 2024 January 2025
Water $71.31 $76.54 $85.72 $93.44 $100.92 $108.99
Wastewater $59.01 $48.04 $48.04 $48.04 $48.04 $48.04
Total $130.32 $124.58 $133.76 $141.48 $148.96 $157.03
Single Family
Residence
Current
Bill
Recommendation: I implore the Council to direct staff to revise Table C to include the
impact of all five water rate increases.
Item N: Pay Increases for PT Workers
Staff presents two options to comply with the required increase in the minimum wage t o $14/hr
effective 1/1/21. However, neither option represents the minimum required to meet this
“unfunded State mandate which only requires any hourly salary that is currently less than $14 be
increased to $14. I have attached a table showing “Option 3” which is the lowest cost approach to
meet the State mandate-- adjusting the salary upward for only six “boxes” (Grade/Steps).
It is curious that this “Option 3” was not included in the staff report given that it represents the
approach approved by Council by a 4-1 vote to comply with the last minimum wage increase
effective 1/1/20.
Additionally, I find it unacceptable that the staff report does not present the costs of the two
options presented. Stating only that “There are adequate funds in the approved FY 2 021-22
budget” does not lead to informed decision making.
For these reasons, I would recommend that the Council take the following actions:
1. Raise any hourly salary that is currently less than $14.00 to $14.00 effective 1/1/21.
2. Direct staff to return to Council at a later date with estimates of the additional, non-
mandated costs for increasing salaries further under Options 1 and 2.
city ot seal Beach
**w
Part-Time Employees Pay Structure ; : \
January 1,2€?e2oa I-.,pi-f oM -J \
Resolution 7017 1. v ' '
Crossino Guard $14.59 $15.32
l\,4aintenance Aide I I '/.oc
Recreaticn Facilitv Leader
E,.ach iileqrarci r=.aif ee
Police Aide $i16.03
Sv/im lnsirlretor
Assistant Pool Manaqer $16.08 $16.89
Senior Recreation Facilitv Leader
lntern $14.59 $16.89 $17.73
Fiecreation Soecialist $14.S5 $15.70 $17.31 $18.17
Hecreation Coordinator $17.31 $18.17 $19.03
Account Clgrk/Water Meter Reader $17.31 $18.17
uatics Coordinator
Beach Lifequard $18.17
Junior Liteouard Coordinator
uipment
Beach Operations Supervisoi'
Rescue Boat Operator
IVlechanic
Maintenance Worker PT
Executive Assistant PT
Crade ,,o1, Classiticaiidns .Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 steo 5
12'23 'a69
lU.cn
$_ta€9 $14.59 $15.32
{l $r 4.59 $15.32
t Ll,oo
$r 5.32 $1e.4€
al
ii $16.{t
Pool l\,4anaqer
10 15.7C i6.43
11
i2 $19.0t s20.c 921 04
19.0€20.01 2i .44 22.49
19.08 $20.0 21 23.2C
15 $20 21 .44 24.36
l6 21.04
fi22.$23.
174 22.78 25.11 26.37 27.6e
-B 28.19
'19 28.1I
?a 25.51 $26.31.0€
2i $26 2A.i a 29.5C 31.08
22 $28.1€31.08 34.2i
$29.31.08 $32.61