Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed June 9, 2020 Consent Calendar Comments June 9, 2020, Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosher(a)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the May 26, 2020 Special Joint Meeting with the Finance Committee, and May 26, 2020 City Council Meeting Suggested corrections: The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in strut underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 404, Item 1, paragraph 4: "In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Finance Director Matusiewicz reported reserves are the contingency reserve is currently at about 24 % of the General Fund operatin_g budget, close to the 25% policy target." [see video at 19:25 and page 6 of Council Reserve Policy F-2. Council Member Dixon did not say "contingency," but mentioned "the $50 million" which is the contingency reserve. Likewise, Director Matusiewicz did not say "operating budget" but gave a more technical definition. However, the essence of the dialog was as shown versus the draft minutes which appear to ominously announce that all the City's reserves have been drawn down to a fraction of their target levels.] Page 405, paragraph 2: "In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Manager Leung advised that the maintenance service level for Balboa Village beac-he will continue at its current level." [The question was prefaced by a comment about City services being distracted by beach issues, but it was about the "enhanced maintenance" program in the commercial area of Balboa, not about beaches.] Page 405, paragraph 3 from end: "In response to Council Member Muldoon's questions, Senior Accountant Schweitzer reported the City's consultant, MGT America, conducts a fee study every year, and the study c--ests cost about $30,000 for the Community Development Department, Police Department, and Fire Department." Page 405, paragraph 2 from end: "In response to Mayor Pro Tem Avery's question, Senior Accountant Schweitzer indicated the Community Development Department's fees reflect building and #inane planning fees." [see video at 57:55. Nothing was said about "finance fees"] Page 406, paragraph 2: "Council Member Muldoon indicated he will be voting against the item as he did on expenditures for repavin_g well -paved roads. He believed now is the time for Council to be wise with spending and limit the burden on residents and taxpayers. Mayor O'Neill advised that these reference iJ the funds for road pavinq were restricted funds, not General Fund." [see video at 1:02:00. Without clarify it was related to road paving, the Mayor's comment is impossible to decipher in the context of the Fee Study item: I believe most of the fees studied do go into the General Fund.] June 9, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Page 406, paragraph 7: "Mayor O'Neill conducted a straw polls for (1) bringing the item back..." [delete "a"] Page 408, Brenner, bullet 3: "Attended a meeting with Hoag Hospital's consultant regarding changes at Hoag Hospital and noted a meeting with Karen Ames who has started a shopping for senior seniors service" Page 412, Item 1, paragraph 1: "Council Member Brenner reported that the Ad Hoc Committee on Local Business Advancement Committee has worked diligently with the Business Improvement Districts (BID) and merchant associations." Page 413, paragraph 3 from end: "Council Member Dixon indicated Balboa Village is the oldest part of the City, ..." [This accurately reflects what was said, but it is difficult to reconcile with the City's Centennial Legacy Prosect being located in McFadden Square, on the still earlier historic Wharf marker describing that area as having "provided the nucleus from which developed the city of Newport Beach."] Item Xll. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA These items are routinely voted on without any invitation for discussion by either the public or the Council. First bullet: Resolution in support of the County's action determining houses of worship to be essential services From its title, doesn't this item appear to conflict with Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution, ensuring that in this state "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed"? While it could be argued that those words, and a similar passage in the US Constitution, ensures the government cannot close churches (an argument that has recently been rejected by the US Supreme Court), this request appears to me to express a preference for belief over non - belief, that is "worship" over non -worship, and to be an attempt to thumb the City's nose at that decision. It seems like political grandstanding. I don't see how it relates to the Council's legislative platform or is a proper matter for a body representing a community with a diverse views. Item 4. Resolution No. 2020-54: Authorization to Apply for the Department of Housing and Community Development Department's LEAP Grant Page 4-16 of the staff report lists September 8, 2016, as the date of certification of the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. That was actually the date of the hearing in the Council Chambers in which the Coastal Commission considered and modified the plan submitted by the City. As the CCC staff report from that day indicates, certification occurred only June 9, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 when the City reported back its acceptance of that modified plan, which happened on January 13, 2017. Item 5. Resolution No. 2020-55: Authorizing the Temporary Closure of Selected Streets for the July 4th Holiday Period Since this annual proposal clearly impacts public access to the coast, it seems curious the staff report does not mention what Coastal Act review, if any, it has ever received. Item 11. Resolution No. 2020-56: Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Adoption; City Budget Hearing; Recommendations from the Finance Committee; and Proposed Budget Revision Items Call me slow (which I most certainly am), but I am more confused than ever about this year's budget adoption process and what the Council is being asked to approve with item. As required by City Charter Section 1102, and as affirmed by an undated published notice,' the City Manager made a proposed budget available for public inspection. It consists of a Proposed Budget Book and a separate Proposed CIP. Neither document contains any publication date that I can find, but the internal file settings indicate the currently -posted Budget Book was last revised on May 20 and the CIP on April 30 (confirmed in the PDF file name). The Council is now, apparently, being asked to approve those two documents subject only to the relatively minor Proposed Budget Revisions of Attachment A to the present staff report. The CIP budget part of that recommendation is the most obviously puzzling part to me. The Council and public first had an early look at that proposal as Item SS3 on March 10, at which time, before the impact of COVID-19 was suspected, we were told to expect a roughly $113.3 million program. Next, as Item 18 on May 12, City staff sought direction on adjustments to the CIP budget, including projects that could be deferred, which, according to the minutes, included moving $7.34 million for the Library Lecture Hall and $3.05 million for the Junior Lifeguards Building to FY 21-22. The agreed -to project adjustments were highlighted in Item 1 at the joint meeting with the Finance Committee on May 26. ' The notice was published on page A5 of the Daily Pilot for Saturday, May 30, 2020. It announced the availability of the budget documents for inspection online, in the City Clerk's office and at the Central Library. The present staff report says (page11-6) these documents were "first submitted to the City Council and made available to the public on May 21, 2020." Although the Clerk's office opened on June 1, the Central Library remains closed to the public. In addition, it is unclear if Section 1102 requires notice of the impending budget 10 calendar days before its adoption (as is the case here), or 10 business days (as seems more reasonable, since it involves the possibility of in-person inspection at a specified location). June 9, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 Despite the assurances on page 11-6 of the present staff report that we now have "new CIP appropriations of $29.6 million" and "re -appropriated CIPs of $55.7 million," none of this is reflected in the published CIP budget up for approval, which, since it was last revised on April 30, continues to show a $113,009,092 plan (including full expenditures on the Library Lecture Hall and Junior Lifeguards Building). Indeed, rather than correcting this, Attachment A appears to recommend adding more than $1.8 million in new CIP expenditures to that (and only $1.4 million to anticipated new CIP revenues). The detailed Budget Book, last revised on May 20, only adds to my confusion, since the CIP section (starting on page 185) says simply "FORTHCOMING". It does, to be sure and in keeping with the "new" number quoted in the staff report, assure us on page 39 that the Capital Improvements budget is $29,597,224, but I have no idea how this can be reconciled with the $113,009,092 of specific capital expenditures the Council is being asked to approve. Regarding the overall budget, we were told at the joint meeting that there was an initial 2020-21 budgetary gap of $33.2 million, but it has been brought into balance through a number of short- term "tiered budgetary solutions." I had naively assumed those solutions would be applied to the published budget via the Proposed Budget Revisions. I'm still not sure, but it now appears I misunderstood, and some of the tiered corrections have been applied to the Budget Book, while the CIP book has been, inadvertently, left unchanged. All I know for sure is that when the published budget projects the City's total revenues for FY21 (page 33) as $308,152,176 and its total expenses (page 41) as $337,356,248, it is hard for the layman to see that as a "balanced" budget in which projected revenues equal or exceed projected expenses. It looks unbalanced to me. It is also disturbing that the calculations in the Budget Book do not appear to be entirely reliable. As an example, on page 47, the City's starting total fund balance of $213,027,539 is shown diminishing to $183,473,467 over the course of FY21, a result obtained by adding two numbers to the City's starting balance and subtract three numbers from it. While this confirms that the City, despite its "balanced" budget, is projected to be operating at an overall deficit, it is disturbing that when I add and subtract the stated numbers, I get $183,823,467 for the ending balance, a result differing by $350,000 from that stated in the Budget Book. Shouldn't the math be accurate? The same page has an unidentified $9,480,186 under "2019-20 Estimated Fund Balance" on the otherwise blank line at the top of the page. And it includes unidentified lines at the end of "Water Enterprise Fund" and "Wastewater Enterprise Fund 112 which appear to be totals for those funds — but the totals are shown in the final column at the right as if they are being duplicatively added to the total at the bottom (which I suspect they are not). Such unexplained entries and apparent math discrepancies do not inspire confidence in the process. 2 It is disturbing to see the Wastewater Enterprise Fund operating, again, at a large deficit, with its $2.4 million current balance poised to go well below zero in FY22 if the current rate of spending is maintained. I thought a previous Council had bit the bullet and increased rates to fix this. June 9, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 It is also not clear what the significance is of the City Manager's "Recommended List of City Position Classifications and Salary Ranges" in Attachment C. The recommendation (on page 11-1) is only for the Council to "Review and consider" them. Is the Council not supposed to approve them per City Charter Section 601? It is also unclear why on the last few pages additional schedules are provided for ocean lifeguards and part-time employees, and only them. For the part-time employees this could be because salary adjustments are anticipated during the year, but are none of the other classes subject to further adjustments? And why are some of the currently effective Step 1 salaries for part-timers crossed out? Finally, on a somewhat trivial note, the staff report refers repeatedly, especially on page 11-2, to the impact of COVID-19 "shelter in place" orders. I do not believe California has ever been under such an order. It is currently under a stay at home order. According to the National League of Cities, the two are not the same. The City's helpful COVID-19 Q&A uses the correct terminology. Item 12. Approval of the Fee Study Update I commented on this item when it was originally presented to the Council on March 24, 2020. Since little, if anything, appears to have changed, those comments still stand. Item 13. Resolution No. 2020-57: Amend City Council Policy K-3 to Incorporate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology Since the language used in stating regulations matters, and since the Council is relying on a recommendation from its Planning Commission, it is a bit troublesome that the language being proposed for adoption differs substantially (and without explanation) from that considered by the PC on May 7. As I attempted to point out at the May 7 hearing, the wording of the paragraph shown at the top of 13-32 was problematic in that it exempts from further analysis projects "within 0.5 mile of a Transit Priority Area," but a Transit Priority Area is itself the "area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop." Thus it exempts a full mile around a major stop, such as the Transportation Center in Newport Center, when I believe the law requires exempting only the 0.5 mile radius of the priority area itself. The PC did not request any changes, but the Council is being asked to adopt the unreviewed modified language at the bottom of page 13-20, which perpetuates that problem. Whoever made the revision presumably intended to delete the words "Transit Priority Area, "but failed to do so. Many other portions of the policy have also been extensively modified, as can be seen by comparing the two versions. I have not attempted to read or understand the long Implementation Guide of Attachment C, which is evidently also recommended for approval as a City policy document. The printed version distributed as part of the agenda packet suffers from an odd typography in which the letter "s" frequently appears as a large capital and other letters are garbled, as well. The PDF does not seem to show this disease. June 9, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 I also understand there may have been some last-minute changes to that Guide. If so, they do not seem to have been posted for review prior to the meeting. Item 16. Annual Appointments to Boards and Commissions First, on page 16-1 of the staff report, Rolly Pulaski's name is misspelled. Second, as I attempted to point out at the May 26 Council meeting, I continue to believe there would be a problem with the Council making an appointment to the Civil Service Board at the present time. The CSB positions to be filled are those for which Section 710 of our City Charter says "two members shall be appointed by the City Council from a list of five persons to be nominated by vote of the employees in the Classified Service." Yet the Council has been given only four names to consider. As indicated at the top of page 409 of the draft minutes, when I raised this point on May 26, "Mayor O'Neill reported only four applications were submitted for the Civil Service Board, and they cannot conscript a volunteer to add a fifth nominee." The receipt of only four applications is confirmed by a footnote to the present staff report. I respectfully disagree that the Council is free to so blithely disregard our Charter. In particular, I fail to see how the fact that the Clerk advertised for applications (likely without consulting the Classified Service), and that she received only four by some deadline she or the Council set excuses non-compliance with the Charter requirement. The Classified Service (essentially the City's fulltime fire and police employees] could, and still can, wait for additional applications or can solicit them on their own. Indeed, the Charter Section 702 anticipates this possibility by allowing the incumbents to continue in office until the conditions for naming their successors have been met. Additionally, did the Classified Service employees actually vote to formally endorse the nominations of all four persons who happened to apply? Or has that Charter requirement also been dispensed with? The absence of the required number of names to choose from among is especially disturbing in view of the fact that when the last CSB position was filled in 2019, it was for a set nominated by the CSB itself, and of that seat Charter Section 710 says it "shall be appointed by the City Council from a list of three persons nominated by a majority of the [other] four [CSB members]." Yet the CSB provided only one name for consideration by the Council, and that a former Council -nominated CSB member who had termed out two years before. In that case, as perhaps here, the other CSB members were told a single application had been received by the Clerk's deadline, but they were not told the Charter required three names. Again, had they known, they could easily have corrected the defect by extending the deadline for applications, and perhaps doing some solicitation of their own. I was not paying close enough attention to catch this error in 2019, but I am watching more carefully, now. When the Charter requirements are clear, I do not believe the City is free to ignore them. June 9, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 Beyond this, it might be noted that neither of the CSB incumbents has a stellar attendance record — not that anything happens at most CSB meetings requiring the members' to be there (most meetings consist simply of routine news updates from the Police, Fire and Human Resources Departments). That said, a large number of CSB meetings are canceled, and if the cancellation is due to a lack of quorum, the public never knows the names of the members who did not think it important to make themselves available. Third, I have trouble with the secretive application screening process that leads to the limited number of names being presented for the Council's consideration for other positions. In a number of other cities, all applicants are interviewed in public, often by the full council. That gives both their council and the public a chance to see who is being voted on, and, to a limited extent, how they handle themselves in a public meeting setting. That may be time consuming, but it is much better, as well as more respectful to the applicants, than the system used in Newport Beach. From personal experience, I know I have applied, continuously, for membership on the Library Board since 2009 and the Planning Commission since 2011 and, to the best of my recollection, have never been suggested as a candidate to the full Council, having been continuously dismissed as unqualified by the selection panels, in all cases but possibly one without even the courtesy of an interview. I suspect the fate of many others is similar, and they have given up bothering to apply.' Instead of having a selection committee, I would suggest that on the night of the appointments, the Council invite all applicants to appear before them and make their case for appointment, after which the Council could ask questions and make their selections based on that. That is the procedure used when there is a vacancy on the Council, itself, and it should be applied to the boards, commissions and committees, as well. ' When last year's appointments were made, there seemed to be a consensus on Council that the City Clerk should end Policy A -2's practice ("Applications shall be retained in the active file for two (2) full years; thereafter they will be destroyed") of annually discarding applications more than two years old, and replace it with one of not discarding applications unless the candidate asks it to be removed from future consideration. The fact that the Appointments Committee was able to find only one qualified applicant for the Planning Commission suggests nothing came of this, and older applications continue to be discarded without asking candidates if they remain interested.