HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Communications from Robert Goldberg1
Gloria Harper
From:Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 1:54 PM
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; Phil Gonshak
Subject:Questions and Comments for Monday's Open Session
Attachments:1.141.21 Questions & Comments.doc; CC Res 5906 2009-08-10.pdf; CC Res 6384
2013-06-24.pdf
Dear Council and Staff,
Please see the attached questions and comments on Monday's open session meeting. Also attached are two
referenced Council Resolutions
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 1/11/21 Open Session from Robert Goldberg
Item C: Demand on Treasury (Warrants)
Page 1 check #17945 to Alliant Insurance Services for $8358 for “20-21 OM Renewal.” I could not
find any contract for Alliant in the City Clerk’s database.
What is this for?
Page 6 check #18005 to Passport Labs for $500 “Permit Services October 2020.” See also check
#18199 on page 23 for $500 for November. We signed a contract with Passport in 2018 to provide
software and operation of a mobile 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 9 check #18031 to The Counseling Team International for $1000 “Services October.” See also
check #18224 on page 23 for $1000 for November. This vendor has provided counseling to City
employees on an hourly, pay-as-you-go basis since 2012. So, for example, searching the City
Clerk’s Laserfiche database reveals four checks issued in calendar 2018 for amounts that varied
from $300 to $975 with a total of $2700 for the calendar year. However, it appears that our
financial arrangement changed as of July 2020 with a new monthly flat fee of $1000 (per check
#17048). As far as I can find, no contract with this vendor has ever been approved by the City
Council. Additionally, the City Manager’s quarterly report of sta ff-authorized contracts do not
mention a newly made $12,000 per year commitment to this vendor.
Comment: Given that the change in reimbursement structure will result in payments
exceeding the City Manager’s spending authority within 3 years, a contract should have
been presented for Council approval before the change was implemented. This should be
done as soon as possible. [See related discussion below on Item H]
Page 23 check #18206 to Rain for Rent for $3669 for “Ramplox and firehose for assisting Old
Ranch...” Ramplox is plastic ramping that fits over temporary hoses and piping that crosses streets
or driveways.
What project was this rental related to?
Item F: Traffic Signal Upgrades
This contract proposes to upgrade 4 of the 22 City-owned traffic signals using M2 funding at a cost
of about $60,000-$72,000 per signal. If all of the 22 signals were to undergo the same upgrade,
the total cumulative cost for 22 signals would be $1.3-$1.6 million. The current 5-year CIP shows
the total proposed funding for this project (ST 2106) from FY 20-21 through FY 24-25 to be
$950,000 ($800,000 plus $150,000 carry-over from FY 19-20).
Why is the upgrade needed? How will the operation of the upgraded intersections change?
How many of the remaining 18 signals will need a similar upgrade?
How does this CIP project relate to, compare to, or interface with project ST2109, SB Blvd
Traffic Signal Synchronization (budgeted for $800,000 in FY 20-21)?
Item G: Contract Renewal with CivicStone for LW Bathroom Remodel Administrati on
The staff reports states the renewed contract contains essentially the same terms as the 2019
agreement that inadvertently expired last June. However, Section 3 Consultant’s Compensation,
now provides for annual compensation of up to $69,000 vs. $60,000 in the expired contract. Of
not though is that the hourly rates for contract staff in the Fee Schedule (Exhibit A) have not
increased.
Please explain why the estimated annual program administration costs have gone up by
15% while the hourly compensation rates are unchanged.
Item H: Approval of Emergency Water System Repairs
The last paragraph of the Background and Analysis section of the staff report states in part:
“Payment of these invoices would exceed the cumulative total of $34,476 for emergency work
invoiced within the fiscal year by Valverde and thus exceed the Public Works Department
Director's signing authority limit of $ 34,476.” [Emphasis added]
To my knowledge, this is the first public assertion by staff that the dollar limit on the City
Manager/Dept Heads’ authority to purchase services or goods from a given vendor without
Council approval “resets” every fiscal year.
If this practice is not questioned by the Council and allowed to stand, it means that staff will now
be free to sign multi-year contracts for substantial sums without Council approval. For example,
five-year contracts of up to $172,375 would no longer require Council approval as long as they had
a clause limiting expenditures to no more than $34,475 per fiscal year. Allowing staff to proceed
with this practice will greatly decrease the Council’s ability to control expenditures.
While these contracts would be included in the City Managers’ Quarterly Report of staff
authorized contracts, that would be after the fact. Furthermore, the Quarterly Report does not
include purchase orders. Thus, the public and the Council could be unaware that these were being
repeatedly issued each fiscal year in an amount up to $34,475 to the same vendor for the same
service or goods.
Beyond the important issues of Council control and transparency is the issue of bidding. Both
Council Resolutions 5906 and 6384 (attached) specifically link the amount of staff’s signing
authority to the bidding threshold. Therefore, if the Council does not question the use of a “fiscal
year reset” to staffs’ signing authority, then by extension, staff will also be empowered to forgo
bidding on multi-year contracts for goods or non-professional services.
Does the Council really want to give its acquiescence to no -bid $172,000 5-year contracts or
recurring purchase orders for goods or non-professional services? I don’t think this was the intent
or understanding of the prior Councils or public in 2009 and 2013 when Resolutions 5906 and
6384 were approved.
Recommendation: I would urge the Council to agendize as soon as possible a discussion of
the above issues regarding the City Manager/Dept Heads’ signing authority limit.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 5906
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH CONFIRMING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE BIDDING
THRESHOLD ON PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1010 OF THE CITY CHARTER
WHEREAS, the City Charter requires the City Engineer to adjust the bidding
threshold by computing the percentage difference between the current
Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index - 20 City Average and
the ENR for the previous June 1;
J
WHEREAS, the City Charter requires the City Council to review such
adjustment at a public hearing and upon Council confirmation, the bidding
threshold amount shall be the adjusted figure;
WHEREAS, the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index was 8293 for
July 2008 and the bidding threshold was set at $25,000; and
WHEREAS, the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index is 8578 for
June 2009 representing a 3.4% increase.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby confirms the adjustment to the bidding
threshold amount to $25,850 as required by City Charter Section 1010 and
authorize the City Manager on behalf of the City to execute said contracts.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Seal Beach, at a
meeting hereof held on the 10th day of August , 2009 by the following
vote:
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS___~~(Q~
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS ~,~/
ATTEST:
ity Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
Mayor
SEAS 6
v~ ~~'~'oRPO~4TFF~~y
o ~
Qyc~ 1 ~
y ~~
FCDUNTY Ga~~
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 5906 on
file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting held on the 10th day
of Auaust, , 2009.
Cl~rk
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6384
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO BIND THE CITY FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES,
LABOR, SERVICES OR OTHER ITEMS INCLUDED WITHIN THE
BUDGET PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER SECTION 420
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. Section 420 of the City Charter states the City Council may
authorize the City Manager by resolution or ordinance to bind the City, with or
without a written contract, for the acquisition of equipment, materials, supplies,
labor, services or other items included within the budget approved by the City
Council, and may impose a monetary limit upon such authority.
Section 2. Section 1010 of the City Charter establishes a bidding threshold
amount for the construction or improvement of public works or for the purchase
of supplies or materials for any such project. Section 1010 further provides a
formula and method for annually adjusting the bidding threshold amount. The
current bidding threshold amount is $25,850.
Section 3. Pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 420 of the City
Charter, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to bind the City,
with or without a written contract, for the acquisition of equipment, materials,
supplies, labor, services or other items included within the budget approved by
the City Council up to an amount for each acquisition equal to the bidding
threshold amount for public works projects then applicable under Section 1010 of
the Charter.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 24th day of June , 2013 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members . ..', L. .I//./ / I, 4 44,6 14
7-77411:
cJ742n
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members c 0
ABSTAIN: Council Members 4,
pE_SEA! ;A v1`.
ATTEST: NOavoaefF9 Mayor
City Clerk I'ZG'
c 4 19,`?*=0 '•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }11NTY.Cp
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6384 on file
in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of June , 2013.
Avis -
nil .4_ IP LI
City Clerk