Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Posted May 13, 2014 Written Comments May 13, 2014, City Council Agenda Item 1 Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the April 22, 2014 Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 61. The passages in italics are from the draft minutes provided in the staff report, with suggested changes shown in strikeeut underline format. General comment: The draft minutes, as submitted, report the April 22, 2014, City Council Study Session and Regular Meeting as if they were separate meetings with separately posted and separately numbered agendas. However, starting with the April 8. 2014, meeting the agendas have been combined and the items sequentially numbered, leading to a disconnect not only between the minutes and the agenda topic numbering actually used at the meeting, but also with the video, which is inextricably linked to the original numbering. In view of the change, it would seem to me to be highly desirable to combine the Study Session — Closed Session — Regular Meeting minutes into a single document preserving the originally agendized topics and numbering. Specific suggestions: 1. Page 535, Item SS2, paragraph 3 from end: "Council Member Petros stated that he is pleased with removing some of the concrete off the islands and plant planting them. He is concerned that it the planting is not something that disrupts the natural setting that is already there but that blends in with it." 2. Page 536, paragraph 2 from end: "He commented on the sepyT4giatec4 copyrighting of the Schedules by an outside consultant, ..." 3. Page 536, last paragraph: "City Attorney Harp announced that Council will adjourn to Closed Session to discuss the items as item listed in the Closed Session agenda and read the title." 4. Page 537, line 1: " .' —no such topic was listed in the original agenda. Item IV was the Closed Session and 5:48 p.m. is presumably the time at which the Council went into closed session. In fact, everything on page 537 of the draft minutes should be deleted since it gives the false impression that a separate agenda for the Study Session segment of the Council meeting was posted, which, to the best of my knowledge, it was not. 5. Page 538: 1. STUDY cc €S -Sh-O --&00 p...." — again, no such topic was listed at this point in the original agenda, and if it were, it would be redundant what was already reported on page 534. 6. Page 538: "LL 1V CLOSED SESSION — 5:48 p.m." — to match the agenda, this and all subsequent Roman numerals need to be increased by two as illustrated here. 7. Page 538: "a. V RECESS" — this represents the time at which the Council ends its closed session. For the public's edification, the actual time at which the Closed Session ended and May 13, 2014, City Council agenda Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 the recess started should be reported in the minutes. It might be noted there is a Brown Act issue if a majority of the Council continues to congregate together after the discussion of the agendized Closed Session items concludes. 8. Page 539, paragraph 2: "She spoke on the a€fests effects of cancer ... 9. Page 540, paragraph 3: "... he announced the kick -off of the Newport Beach Film Festival 10. Page 544, line 1: "XK "IL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS (taken after Council Announcements)" It would seem to me that for correlation with the meeting video, the items should be listed in the minutes in the sequence in which they actually occurred —just as Consent Calendar items are listed in the minutes after the Consent Calendar if they were pulled for separate discussion. If this item (which, as indicated, is Item VII in the combined agenda) was heard out of sequence between Items "XI" and "XII" in the draft minutes (actually Items XIII and XIV), I feel it should be listed there (on page 540 of the current draft). 11. Page 544, Item "XVI," paragraph 2: "Council Member Curry commented on his service as the President of the Association of California Cities in Orange County (AGGO ACC -OC May 13, 20149 City Council Agenda Item Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosherta'�vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) SS2. Review of the FY 14 -15 Proposed Budget, Including CIP Update 1. I am puzzled by the agenda notice for this item which cites "encouraging an active lifestyle" as one of three "important community priorities" towards which budget expenditures should be directed. I have nothing against an active lifestyle, but as worthy as the end may be, I don't see imposing any lifestyle on a supposedly free populace as a key function of government, nor do I remember the meeting at which this particular lifestyle was raised to the level of a current City priority. 2. Slide 4 in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) PowerPoint presentation provided by the Publics Works Department in advance of the Study Session, shows what seems to be a disturbing trend in which CIP expenditures closely tracked the amounts budgeted through 2004, and again in the recession years of 2008 and 2009, but otherwise bear almost no relation to budget. Hopefully some explanation will be provided, since such a graph would not normally be the result of thoughtful management. 3. Slide 5 is also disturbing, illustrating an explosive growth in the number of outside consultants Public Works has hired to perform what one assumes were formerly in- house functions. The growth of this shadow government of people feeding at the public trough — which already seems to far outstrip the modest cutbacks in numbers of in- house employees -- is presumably much larger than it appears, not only because other departments have been encouraged to do the same, but because a single professional services agreement can allow the person contracted with to further subcontract the public's money to other persons or entities. As illustrated by Item 9 on the Regular Meeting agenda, the City appears to lack any clear standards to control the creation of such relationships. Item 1. Minutes for the April 22, 2014 Study Session and Regular Meeting Separate written comments were submitted regarding the draft minutes, which as separate documents for the Study Session and Regular Meeting do not correctly reflect the combined agenda that has been in use at City Council meetings since April 8`" Item 3. Adoption of Records Retention Schedule, Authorization for Destruction of Certain City Records, and Amendment to City Council Policy A -11 1. I continue to find it insane that the City allows its Records Retention Schedule to be copyrighted by an outside consultant, with the apparent consequence that what should be one of the most public of public records cannot be posted on the City's website without her continuing permission, and with every copy bearing an implied threat of prosecution for duplication of it. May 13, 2014, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 2. 1 would again point out that what is being considered is a records retention policy/ schedule, not a destruction one. Although it allows destruction it contains nothing I can find that compels destruction — which I think is a good thing. 3. 1 continue to think the copy of the current schedule being presented to Council misrepresents the current policy with regard to audio recordings of Charter Boards and Commissions. I am quite confident that a printed copy of the Schedule I was shown in the Clerk's Office last fall indicated a minimum retention time of 2 years for the audio recordings of the Planning Commission, and I believe for all Boards and Commissions. This is consonant with staff's preservation on the City website of links to Planning Commission recordings from 2012 and 2013 — which is already a substantial reduction from what it was when staff started removing links at about the same time. The City Council is being led to believe that the proposed retention of 1 year is a substantial increase over the current policy of 30 days. It is in fact a substantial decrease in retention time. 4. Section 4 of the proposed Resolution 2014 -35, which severely restricts the changes to the Schedule that staff can make without Council approval, is a substantial improvement over Section 3 of the existing Resolution 2011 -18, which contrary to what Council has been told has, since February 8, 2011, given staff free reign to change the Schedule without City Council approval or even knowledge. Item 4. Resolution of Intention to Renew the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in FY 2014 - 2015 1. It is good that those who will be assessed, as well as the public in general, are being given time to review the District Advisory Board's Annual Report and its planned activities for the coming year, since the public in general is being asked to contribute $40,000 towards them. 2. With regard to the various street improvements, I have never entirely understood why the business owners are self- assessing themselves for improvements that are elsewhere provided without the need for an additional assessment. The Marguerite Beautification Project is an example, for Slide 24 in the Public Works Departments presentation for Study Session Item SS2 shows what appears to be a very similar project proposed for the intersection of 15'" Street and Balboa Boulevard — an area where, to the best of my knowledge, no BID exists. 3. Nonetheless, it is good to see the formal and transparent renewal process. And although unrelated to the resolution at hand, the "Funding Issues" section of the staff report raises the specter of the two BID's which no longer exist, but to which taxpayers are still contributing $40,000 per year — the former Balboa Village BID and Marine Avenue BID. Apparently that public money is being offered on a first come, first served basis to whoever in those areas claims to be part of a merchants association, and unlike with a BID there is no requirement for any financial contribution on the part of the "members," and no requirement for any public discussion of what the public money will be spent on, or how. It sounds like a very good deal for those involved, and hopefully before additional funding is authorized City staff will be able to provide an explanation of the public benefit to the City that makes this not a gift of public funds. May 13, 2014, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Item 5. Resolution of Intention to Renew the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in FY 2014 — 2015 1. I continue to be uncertain why taxpayers should subsidize specific segments of the City's business community, but since we do, it has been very gratifying in the past year to hear the Advisory Board frankly acknowledge that many, if not most, of its activities provide little or no return to some of the businesses assessed under Section 6 of the proposed resolution (such as grocery stores, mini -marts and gas stations). 2. Unfortunately, unless I am missing something, I don't see what I believe is a sincere wish to correct that inequity expressed among the planned activities for 2014 -5. Item 9. Police Department Contract Psychologist I have several problems with this proposed Professional Services Agreement, perhaps borne out of ignorance due to details not provided in the staff report: 1. I can find no record of the City having issued a Request for Qualifications or a Request for Proposals for the services it says it has identified a need for. 2. No resume is provided to substantiate the claims in the staff report that the person chosen has relevant degrees or experience 3. In the statement "Her experience includes over six years as the Department Psychologist of a large police agency in Southern California," it would have taken little extra ink to identify the "agency' as the Long Beach Police Department -- a matter of possible relevance to the Council both because NBPD Chief Johnson was a Commander with the LBPD during at least part of those six years, and because Dr. Choe may still be a full time employee there, in which case one might wonder how she will find time to provide equal service to the NBPD? 4. The contract is unclear as to whether Dr. Choe, for whom I am unable to find any record of having a business license to work in Newport Beach, will be providing the services personally or subcontracting them to others. 5. 1 am also unable to understand Section 4 ( "Compensation to Consultant ") of the contract, which somehow calls for both a "flat rate basis" and a "not to exceed" amount based on invoices for which no permissible hourly or "per job" rate that I can find is specified. 6. Since the potential to use public funds to hire personal acquaintances has the potential to raise many questions in the public's mind, this professional services agreement, like other recent ones, suggests it might be wise for the Council to review the adequacy of City Council Policy F -14, which provides scant guidance as to how consultants can be selected. It also raises the question of whether those contracting with the City government, and subcontractors working for them, should be required to have business licenses here.