Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Communication from Council Member Moore1 CC- Questions 6/10/2024 Tom Moore Could we get an explanation of what this is for in more detail? Angelica Zarco is an IT consultant. The first invoice is to set up Solar App Plus, a State mandate to have 100% human-free permitting for small solar installations. We have a grant that will reimburse up to $40,000 of these costs, which we expect to be adequate. The second invoice is technical work related to implementation of EPL, the permitting software, including data conversion, testing, and verification. These costs are paid from our building permit technology fee charge. Please note that Tyler (the EPL vendor) supports only portions of software implementation, the City is required to support the rest, which is the role Angelica is filling. Post go-live, Tyler support is very minimal, so additional costs from a third party IT professional should be expected into perpetuity, though the costs should not be as intense as they are currently. Should we pause this a year if it is not going to be addressed this year? This Raftelis payment is for services already rendered for the Water and Wastewater Financial Planning Services. We cannot pause this effort for a year, as Water and Wastewater infrastructure is failing, if not already failed. Rate adjustments must continue to sustain water and wastewater services for the City. Why are these all getting invoiced on the same month? 2 We contract with The Standard to manage our Long-Term Disability and Life Insurance, and both are part of the full-time employees’ benefits package and billed monthly. The Standard has made modifications to their billing process that has required additional work, in addition to increasing staff workload. This has unfortunately resulted in some delays in issuing invoice payments. To improve efficiency and streamline billing processes, we have temporarily implemented a batching system. This allows us to consolidate invoices for a specific period and submit them collectively. While it may appear that all invoices are being sent at once, they reflect charges incurred over a specific timeframe. Is it necessary to have different carriers? Are these for internet access only? It’s important to differentiate between the services associated with these bills, as three different categories are included in these payments: Internet connectivity, TV service, and analog lines. The only bill in this report associated with connectivity is the Time Warner/ Spectrum circuit. All other bills are associated with TV service or legacy telephones. Internet Connectivity: 1. Time Warner / Spectrum Fiber – The primary internet connection for central city facilities (City Hall, Public Works, Police Department). We’ve terminated the secondary Frontier VOIP circuit and consolidated all internet traffic onto the Time Warner/Spectrum fiber line as a cost saving measure. 3 TV Service: 1. Time Warner Cable – The primary cable television provided for all city facilities. 2. Direct TV – The secondary satellite TV provider for the Emergency Operations Center. We are aware of the costs associated with maintaining TV service and are in the process of auditing, consolidating, and deploying an inexpensive alternative. Legacy Analog lines: 1. Frontier – In rare instances, when a VOIP line was not a viable option, we maintain analog lines. These lines are maintained until infrastructure is built out, or a viable alternative is deployed. ITEM H: What happens if we say “no” to this state mandate? California Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) outlines regulations for reducing organic waste disposal in landfills. While there's no single, definitive penalty for non-compliance, there can be consequences for cities that fall short of the established goals. Here's a breakdown of the potential repercussions: • Financial Penalties: The most likely consequence of non-compliance is incurring financial penalties which will be specified by CalRecycle’s Jurisdiction and Agency Compliance and Enforcement Branch (JACE). The City has so far not been sighted but further delays could mean that we receive a notice of non- compliance. • Listing on Noncompliance Inventory: CalRecycle, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, maintains an Organic Waste Recovery Noncompliance Inventory. Cities that fail to comply with SB 1383 may be listed on this inventory, which can negatively impact public perception and potentially hinder grant opportunities. • Loss of Funding: Some state funding programs prioritize entities that demonstrate environmental responsibility. Non-compliance with SB 1383 could jeopardize a city's eligibility for grants or other funding related to waste management. The City recently received two grants from CalRecycle and the bulk of these grants can be used to hire contractors to provide assistance to reach compliance. • Lawsuits: While less common, environmental groups or concerned citizens may file lawsuits against cities deemed to be in violation of SB 1383. These lawsuits could result in court-ordered actions and additional financial penalties. 4 It's important to note that SB 1383 places the primary responsibility for compliance on individual generators of organic waste, including residents and businesses. However, cities play a crucial role in providing the infrastructure and resources necessary for compliance, such as establishing collection programs and educational initiatives. By failing to meet these responsibilities, cities expose themselves to the potential consequences outlined above. Why do we need a consultant to negotiate this with Republic Services? The Republic Services contract is a complex legal document with significant financial implications for the City. Negotiating waste management agreements involves intricate details beyond basic waste collection services. Factors such as: • Compliance with SB 1383: The contract needs to ensure the City meets the organic waste diversion mandates outlined in SB 1383. This involves incorporating new service elements or adjusting existing ones, requiring a thorough understanding of the legislation and its implementation strategies. • Cost Optimization: Securing the most cost-effective terms for the City is paramount. HF&H consultants possess expertise in analyzing service models, identifying cost-saving opportunities, and negotiating competitive rates. • Future Considerations: The ideal contract should anticipate future needs and technological advancements in the waste management industry. HF&H's experience with modern contracts for other California cities provides valuable insights for crafting a long-term, adaptable agreement. Given the complexities involved, partnering with HF&H offers several advantages: • Expertise in SB 1383: HF&H consultants stay current on evolving waste management regulations like SB 1383. Their knowledge will ensure the new contract aligns with the legislation and avoids potential non-compliance issues. • Negotiation Skills: Negotiating waste management contracts requires specialized skills and experience. HF&H consultants have a proven track record of securing favorable terms for municipalities in California. • Market Knowledge: Their familiarity with current market trends and industry best practices allows them to benchmark our current contract and identify areas for improvement. • Time Efficiency: Negotiating a comprehensive contract can be a time- consuming process for City staff. HF&H can handle the negotiations efficiently, freeing up City staff resources. The fact that the current contract dates back to 1997 further underscores the need for expert involvement. The waste management landscape has undergone significant changes since then, and the current contract likely doesn't reflect these advancements or address the demands of SB 1383. We believe that partnering with HF&H consultants will ensure the City secures a future-proof contract that meets our waste management needs, complies with SB 1383, and delivers the best possible value for our residents. 5 ITEM J: • What is the projected revenue from implementing this? • Is Data Ticket used by other agencies and how effective has it been? • Is there any analysis of non-compliance and would this apply to any new types of enforcement like dogs on the beach, etc.? If so, could we see a list of all types of enforcement this would be used for? Staff will respond to all these questions during tonight’s presentation at the Council meeting. Preparation for Next Meeting on Budget Staff is reviewing these questions relative to the FY 2024-25 budget adoption at the June 24th Council meeting and will respond to these questions as soon as possible. 1) Since 2022, we should have been increasing the charges for cell towers based on the contracts. Can we verify that is the case. Amounts in green are the differences that we should have seen. If we have not increased these, it is an additional $60K 2) Five Year Forecast: Last year, 5 year forecast was about $15M deficit and this year it is $10M. What changed to reduce the forecast $5M? 6 3) Contractors: a. Do we categorize contracts that have annual changes to get reviewed every year to make sure we are adjusting the contracts appropriately for additional revenue? b. As discussed, an excel sheet of all contracts with minimally the start date and end dates that can be sorted so council and the public can see upcoming contracts for renewal, optimally extracted by a LaserFiche module / update to limit staff time. c. Categorizing contractors from 1-5 where absolutely necessary is a 5, it would be helpful to see the importance of the contractors from the City’s perspective.