Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written Comments - Consent CalendarRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED MAY 9, 2017 May 9, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( ]immosher(a)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548- 6229) Item 1. Minutes for the April 25, 2017 City Council Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in st�At underline format. Efforts to compare the written minutes to the online video were frustrating, at best. Page 251: Item SS5, paragraph 1: "Oksana Yeyk Vovk, Ms. America, 2017, gave a brief presentation regarding the Ms. America program and her dedication to helping A-u-tistiautistic individuals." [note: I believe Ms. Vovk actually said her program was "to promote autism awareness and organic living."] Page 251: Item SS6, paragraph 1: "Municipal Operations Director Murdoch introduced the item and the representatives from the Orange County Water Basin District." Page 252: paragraph 1: "Dam, facilities in Anaheim, managing Santa Ana River, and the ,vreur dwater replenishment system Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). He displayed the video "OCWD and OCSD: Turning wastewater into drinking water" and discussed the expansion and success of G WRS." Page 252: paragraph 2: "Steve Sheldon, OCWD Director, discussed the Green Acres project, which will bring brings recycled water for landscaping to Newport Beach." Page 252: Item SS7, paragraph 2, last sentence: "She stated Council Members do not respond to emergenGies the Emergency Operations Center; therefore, do not need to be trained." Page 252: paragraph 3 from end: "Tom Colmer Callister, active CERT member, informed residents of the annual community drill on April 29, 2017, and invited residents to come to Irvine Terrace." Page 252: paragraph 2 from end, sentence 2: "Mr. Col�o.;;ster Callister suggested shutting off water to the home." Page 253: Item III, paragraph 4: "Saboohi Currim agreed with the existing policy revision for invocations and could not understand why it was bein_g redlined out in Item 6" [note: It is highly misleading to suggest Ms. Currim "agreed" with the revisions proposed in Item 6. On the contrary, she could not see why the existing provisions were being abandoned.] Page 253: last Closed Session item: "D. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (cancelled)" May 9, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Page 254: last paragraph: "Council Member Herdman discussed the tour of the City des Yard Utilities Yard.... He commented on attending the Oasis OASIS Volunteer Luncheon at which he spoke and discussed his participation at Chamber of Commerce meetings." Page 255: paragraph 2: "Council Member Avery thanked Municipal Operations Director Murdoch for the tour of the City utilities yard Utilities Yard and commended the graffiti removal crew." Page 256: paragraph 2 from end: "Council Member Avery recused himself from Item 7 due to a potential conflict with relation to his employer." [Item 7 was the "Newport Heights Sewer Improvements — Notice of Completion." I thought Council Member Avery was employed by Orange Coast College as the Director of their sailing program. I find it hard to perceive the connection between that and Newport Heights sewer improvements.] Page 258: paragraph 7, last two sentences: "He stated the separation of church and state was an important concept and explained the establishment clause. He stated the policy was being updated to er-,ror err on the side of freedom." Page 258: paragraph 9: "Mayor Muldoon invited anyone interested to be included on the list of invocation leaders." Page 259: paragraph 3, sentence 3: "He discussed the Coastal Commission denial and b, California Supreme Court reversal of the City's approval." Page 259: paragraph 4, sentence 2: "He stated the public was required to be allowed to comment on items prior to Council decisions ..." Page 259: paragraph 8: "George Schroeder stated rational a rationale for the statue was that Ronald Reagan was Governor of California and President of the United States." Page 259: paragraph 2 from end, sentence 3: "Recreation and Senior Services Director Detweiler stated there was adequate funding." Page 259: last paragraph: "In response to Council Member Dixon, Recreation and Senior Services Director Detweiler stated the San Joaquin courts would revert to tennis courts and discussed studies on tennis court usage." Page 260: paragraph 4 from end: "Motion by Council Member Avery, seconded by Council Member Dixon, to direct that this issue be reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission '-d to bring back a recommendation to the City Council at a future meeting." Page 261: paragraph 2: "Nancy Skinner urged the Council to follow the process. She suggested something in Bei Shore Bayshores be named after John Wayne." Page 261: paragraph T "Council Member O'Neill stated Roberts Rule Robert's Rules of Order allowed for two motions and he did not recall the policy determining the number of motions allowed." May 9, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Item 3. Establish a Trial Anchorage Area West of Lido Isle - Harbor Commission Recommendation In the previous trials, the Harbor Patrol administered and monitored the anchorage, reporting its experience and findings back to the Harbor Commission. That seems an integral part of the proposal for an additional trial, as explained in the staff report. However, subsequent to the Harbor Commission making the present proposal, the City Manager announced he would be terminating the City's contract with the Harbor Patrol, at least for mooring management, effective July 1. Does that change in harbor administration affect the present proposal? Item 8. Approval and Award of Agreement to EcoNomics, Inc. for Solid Waste Consultant Services In a report like this, which says a contractor was selected because they had provided similar services to other Orange County cities, it would seem helpful to disclose what their billing rates were to those other cities, so the public could see if we are getting a comparable (or better?) deal. Item 9. Approve Agreement with CathyJon Enterprises, Inc. dba HB Staffing for Temporary Laborer Services The agenda announcement and staff report seem deceptive in telling the public the Council will be considering an agreement with "a three-year term in the amount of $190,000." Given the announcement and description, it was a bit of a shock to turn to page 9-4 (page 2 of the contract) and discover that if approved on the consent calendar this item will actually obligate taxpayers to pay up to $570,000. It is evidently a contract for "a three-year term in the amount of $190,000 per year." The missing words "per year" seem important. This is especially confusing when the similar Item 11 on the present agenda is careful to say the cost in the public notice is the full cost: "Each on-call agreement is for a three-year term and carries a not to exceed expenditure amount of $350,000 for each contract's entire three-year term" — which, without reading the details of that item, I assume is correct, and the public doesn't need to multiply the noticed cost by three. A reasonable person might expect the costs of agenda items to be reported in a consistent way May 9, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Item 10. Amendment No. Three for the Upgrade of City Microwave Radio Infrastructure The staff report explains the value to the City of its microwave infrastructure. As best I can tell it does not identify or explain the purpose of the two remaining links for which funding is being sought, why they were not covered by the original contract price, or what cost savings are expected from them (by themselves — the $1 M over eight years apparently being for all the links, the number of which is also not disclosed). Item 11. On -Call Agreements for Building Maintenance and Repair Services The staff report says (on page 11-3) the City contemplates a competitive process in which the three companies may bid against each other for specific jobs. It is not immediately obvious that the proposed structure of three on-call contracts, each individually capped at $350,000 for the full three years, provides sufficient flexibility if one or two contractors proved the most competitive for most of the jobs. Item 13. Planning Commission Agenda for the May 4, 2017 Meeting The May 4 Planning Commission agenda included an item introducing changes to the Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program regarding "Accessory Dwelling Units." The Commission properly questioned both the need for and substance of this, and voted to continue the item until they understood it more thoroughly. The same agenda included a hearing on a separate highly flawed package of LCP amendments covering, it appears, 11 different, mutually unrelated matters. Among other flaws, the package includes: (1) a proposed Balboa Village parking program advantaging "normal" commercial uses over marine -dependent ones in contradiction to fundamental Coastal Act policy; (2) the addition of detailed rules implementing the issuance of permits for private beachfront encroachments in an area along Peninsula Point where the governing policy continues to say they are prohibited; (3) the deletion of the recently -enacted shoreline height policy exception that allowed construction of a 65 foot Lido House Hotel in a 35 foot zone, while retaining the detailed zoning, now in conflict with the superior policy. When asked if there were any problems with any of this, the Deputy City Attorney on duty made the rather extraordinary statement (at 1:51:07 in the video) that it was his "understanding" that the proposals had been drafted, presumably by the City planners, in a manner to ensure consistency and he would "largely defer to them" as to the "intricacies" of how the City's codes interact with one another — although he could help with clarifications, if any were needed. In other words, it appears we allow the City's laws to be written by non -legal staff with extremely limited "as needed" scrutiny from the City Attorney's Office. Planning Division staff assured the Commission that everything they proposed was in good order. May 9, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Rather than asking any further questions or making suggestions for revisions, a seemingly uninterested Commission voted 5:1 to pass the proposals on to the City Council exactly as submitted. To me it seems very poor practice to pass flawed legislation of uncertain provenance on to the next reviewing body without even a comment, apparently assuming someone else will notice the problems and fix them. Indeed, this seems to be exactly how bad laws get enacted. Item 14. Budget Amendment for Library Literacy Program I am unable to find in the staff report any explanation of why the $40,000 donation is being allocated in the proportions it is to the various Literacy sub -accounts for salaries, benefits and programming. As a result, I think this item may create considerable confusion with the public, and perhaps with the Council. My understanding is the City has made a push to provide services via part time employees because, whether fair to the employees or not, they receive fewer benefits than full time employees. However, if one assumes that in the present case the increased benefit allocations are a necessary part of the increased salary allocation, this item suggests that to pay part time literacy staff an additional $12,000, the City has to set aside $9,100 to cover added benefits. That seems an extremely hefty ratio, especially for a part time employee. For reference, when the FY17 budget was approved by Resolution No. 2016-77 on June 15, 2016, the amounts allocated to the accounts mentioned (which would have been helpful to include in the staff report) were: 01060604-711003 SALRY P/T $35,110.40 01060604-721002 CAF ALW PT $0.00 01060604-722001 PERS MBR M $3,658.50 01060604-841004 PROGRAMING $0.00 with a total City benefit obligation of $10,696.82 needed to pay the $35,110.40 of salaries. Is it possible the present adjustments are being made for some reason other than paying for additional part-time hours? Such as correcting the $0 budgeted for "CAF ALW PT"? If so, what is the current status of the accounts (immediately prior to the present request)? And why were the benefit accounts, as originally budgeted, short? And is this a problem affecting other departments with part time employees? May 9, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 15. June 30, 2016 Audit Results Although not clearly stated in the staff report, my understanding is that the things being audited under this topic are certain tables in the City's state -required (and "award winning") Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The CAFR is, at least in principle, a snapshot of the City's actual financial state at the end of the fiscal year, as opposed to the much -more -widely -discussed budget, which is largely no more than a set of guesses as to how much may be received and spent over the coming year. While it is good to see the auditors confirm that the numbers in the CAFR are being honestly, accurately and properly reported, it seems to me that the assumption of accuracy should be a given. It would seem the Council and public's interest should focus instead on what the CAFR actually says about the City and its financial habits. Yet I do not recall the content (as opposed to the accuracy) of the CAFR ever being agendized for discussion at any City meeting, including those of the Finance Committee and City Council. This might be due, in part, to much of the information in the CAFR being presented in a format best appreciated by accountants and auditors. But that limitation can be overcome by repackaging the key take-aways in a more popular and easily digestible form. Since 2003, the Orange County Auditor -Controller's office has highlighted selected County CAFR information in a helpful and more readable "Citizen's Report" along the lines of the "Popular Annual Financial Reports" promoted by the Government Finance Officers Association. And it's evidently possible even for smaller agencies to do this, since Huntington Beach has produced one since 2006, and even the Costa Mesa Sanitary District since 2015. Or there could be a study session on how to read the CAFR. Absent any of that in Newport Beach, I would suggest that a timely annual staff report to Council concisely highlighting in layman's language any significant conclusions that can be drawn from a reading of the CAFR would be more useful than placing the Auditor's letters on the Consent Calendar. Expecting the general public to feel good about the City's financial state based solely on the auditor's letters does not seem realistic. At a minimum, the present staff report could have encouraged the Council and public to read the "Letter of Transmittal" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis" sections of the CAFR. Instead, as best I can tell, the auditor's letters are presented without even mentioning the CAFR.