City Council on 2024-08-20 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 08-20-24 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2024-08-20 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
08-20-24
18:00
76 6 1 4 1
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2024-08-20 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 08-20-24 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
N.3. 24-1418 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
CONSIDERATION OF A SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR THE ELECTED
CITY ATTORNEY POSITION IN ADVANCE OF THE MARCH 2025
MUNICIPAL ELECTION
RECEIVE AND FILE THE LETTER PROVIDED BY THE BUDGET AND
FINANCE COMMISSION REGARDING THE SALARY FOR THE CITY
ATTORNEY POSITION
4 0 4 0
J.1. 24-1433 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 2 1 0 1 Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for N.3. 24-1418 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF A SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR THE ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY POSITION IN ADVANCE OF THE MARCH 2025 MUNICIPAL ELECTION
RECEIVE AND FILE THE LETTER PROVIDED BY THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION REGARDING THE SALARY FOR
THE CITY ATTORNEY POSITION
Overall Sentiment
Linda Marr
Location:
Submitted At: 10:39am 08-19-24
Nothing against our City Attorney but... wow. He already makes a great deal of money while many of us are still trying to even catch up after Covid, etc. The City Council really needs to allocate money elsewhere. (I disagree that the City Attorney should be appointed, electing an attorney but having the council oversee his pay seems a good checks-and-balance)
Nainsi Skiba
Location:
Submitted At: 2:05am 08-19-24
(1) I oppose any salary adjustment for the city attorney position before the March 2025 municipal election. Mike Webb presently enjoys generous compensation as it is. By seeking a sizable salary adjustment shortly before his term ends, it would force the city to pay him a considerably higher pension when he retires from this job. (2) In addition, the position of city attorney must be returned to an appointed position before the March election, so his replacement must be appointed and not elected. Currently the city attorney is basically accountable to no one, and that is detrimental to our city.
Cheryl Abazia
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 08-18-24
He's already paid $325k. A raise seems unreasonable.
Jill Klausen
Location:
Submitted At: 12:52pm 08-18-24
HA HA No. People making that kind of money can figure out a way to live within their means in this community.
He ain't struggling and I ain't paying him more.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 24-1433 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Chris Page
Location:
Submitted At: 5:04pm 08-20-24
As you may be aware, tomorrow is the first day of school in Redondo Beach.
With just 1 day before school starts, there are still hundreds of kids on the waitlist for the Rec Dept Afterschool program, leaving many parents without needed after school care.
This is now the 4th year in a row with hundreds of kids on the waitlist. The city has been unable to increase capacity due to the inability to hire and retain enough staff because of low pay.
Afterschool had 955 children enrolled in 2019, but still struggles to enroll even half that - this year's registration was capped at 480 kids.
Yet, the cost of the program has nearly tripled in that time. In 2019, if parents pre-paid for two months at a time, 1 child cost $116/mo. Today, just 5 years later, it costs $300/mo for 1 child.
The city has finally made some progress on this issue: this years budget included (another) fee increase to support a higher part-time staff hourly pay range.
The Afterschool position previously paid $16 - $17 per hour. The Council approved an increase to $17-$20 per hour.
It's been 9 weeks since the Council approved this pay raise, but the position is still posted at the old rate of $16- 17 per hour.
It appears the higher pay range hasn't gone into effect because the Council has not passed a pay resolution.
This Summer was the time when the Rec Dept could have advertised, recruited and retained staff at this higher rate.
Because of this lost opportunity, many parents face the same dilemma as the past 4 years: no space because there isn't enough staff to increase capacity and clear long waitlists.
Not only are we failing to meet the needs of Redondo Beach families, but this is also a huge burden on the Rec Dept administrative staff: they spend countless hours trying to recruit qualified staff to watch our children, staff that must go through a relatively lengthy hiring process, work short 3.5 hr shifts, and can only be offered a starting pay of minimum wage.
I ask that the Council pass a pay resolution as soon as possible, so the position can be advertised and recruited at the approved higher pay range.
Brandee Keith
Location:
Submitted At: 8:51am 08-20-24
This month the South Coast AQMD Governing Board adopted Rule 2306 - Freight Rail Yards. Rule 2306 is part of the suite of Facility Based Mobile Source Measures included in the 2016 and 2022 Air Quality Management Plans, aimed at collectively addressing emissions related to goods movement and to assist in meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5 and improving public health, especially for communities located near freight hubs including freight rail yards.
Rule 2306 establishes emission reductions targets to ensure that NOx reductions from freight rail yards within the South Coast AQMD jurisdiction will be achieved at levels that are proportional or more-than-proportional to reductions throughout California from implementation of state regulations affecting freight rail yard emission sources. Adopted Rule 2306 further requires facility-reporting on zero emission infrastructure, and for non-federal public agencies to include compliance requirements in contracting with a freight rail yard owner or operator.
Freight rail yards that are owned or operated by the ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles are exempt from complying with PR 2306, including all intermodal on-dock rail facilities at the two ports, as well as non-intermodal rail facilities whose operations are limited to moving railcars to and/or from marine terminals for the purpose of on-port switching.
Adopted Rule 2306 will become effective when U.S. EPA has approved the inclusion of the rule in the California State Implementation Plan, granted an authorization for CARB’s In-Use Locomotive Regulation, and granted a waiver and/or an authorization for CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation either as a whole or in part for its drayage truck requirements.
For more information, visit www.aqmd.gov or follow South Coast AQMD on social media.