HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013Jun24_FinanceCommittee_AgendaItem_Comments_JimMosherJune 24, 2013 Finance Committee Agenda Item Comments
These comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council Finance Committee agenda are submitted
by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 4. Approval of May 13, 2013, Minutes
The draft minutes submitted are well written, and provide, in my view, an excellent and very
readable record of what happened at the May 13 meeting. I might offer the following two
suggested corrections to the content on page 1:
1. Under “1. CALL TO ORDER”: “The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Newport Coast Conference Room, Bay 2E, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport
Beach, California 92660.”
2. Under “2. ROLL CALL -- Members of the public:” Although members of the public are
not required to identify themselves as a condition of attendance, my recollection is that in
addition to the person listed, Water Quality / Coastal Tidelands Committee member Carl
Cassidy was present for the entire meeting, and Harbor Commissioner Ralph Rodheim
was present for part of it. They might (or might not?) wish their names to appear in the
minutes.
Item 5.B. City Insurance Renewals:
Having read this staff report, and the additional information in the one being presented to the full
Council with Item 21 on Tuesday’s agenda, the following questions come to the mind of one not
versed in insurance matters or terminology:
1. The “excess” in “excess general liability,” etc., appears to mean the policy will pay only
after the City has paid the specified self-insured retention (SIR) amount. Is it correct to
assume the SIR is applied separately to each individual claim, rather than treated as a
cumulative annual “deductible”? If so, who determines how claims are separated?
2. Similarly, is the $50 million limit referred to in the table the limit applied to each individual
claim (“per occurrence”), or a cumulative total for the year?
3. “Ironshore, Arch and AWAC [Allied World Assurance Company]” seem to be three
separate companies located by our broker, Alliant Insurance Services, and not the name
of a single firm. Yet the table in the staff report treats them like a single name and
suggests we are currently paying a single premium of $539,276 for excess general
liability. This remains confusing to me. Do we actually have multiple general liability
policies with the three companies? If so, how do they interact with one another when a
claim is presented?
June 24, 2013 Finance Committee agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
4. Have the Haeyoon Miller death claim(s ?) been settled? If so, for how much? What
other large claims has the City received or settled that are making carriers hesitant to
write a policy?
5. Would it be appropriate to consult a different broker to see if lower quotes could be
obtained?
Item 5.C. Fire Fee Schedule
As a general comment, I would say that although the proliferation of very specific fees, and the
alignment of fee titles with the OC Fire and CFC designations will undoubtedly be helpful for the
administrative staff, the number of fees listed in the City’s Master Fee Schedule is already
daunting to the public, and these additions will make them seem even more so. Even with the
current smaller number, the purpose and application of many of the fire-related charges has
been an ongoing mystery for me, and the following questions remain after reading the staff
report:
1. Who is on the “Ad Hoc Architectural Committee” mentioned on page 2?
2. Regarding the Fire Medics program (page 3), the residential rate is proposed to go up
25%, but the rate for groups of more than 10 business employees, including the
maximum, will roughly double. What is the basis of the difference?
3. How do the Fire Medics revenues compare to the revenues that would be received if the
services actually provided were billed according to the non-subscriber fee schedule?
4. A more than two year old message on the City’s Fire Medics program webpage says the
City is replacing the Aculert system with something better for providing the paramedics
with the caller’s medical history. How is that panning out, and will it increase the cost
efficiency of the program? The current brochure being handed out at City Hall (which
differs from the version linked on on-line), suggests applicants are asked to complete a
questionnaire. The old brochure, on the other hand, includes a disclaimer that
“Paramedic services will be rendered regardless of ability to pay or membership in Fire
Medics.” Is that still the City policy?
5. Also regarding the Fire Medics program:
a. Do subscribers receive a clear contract clarifying such things as how “members
of the household” (who are apparently covered even if not at home) are
distinguished from “guests” (who are in the program only when physically at a
covered property) and whether workers are “guests”?
b. Is there, or should there be, an option for business owners, such as contractors,
without a definite “business site”?
c. Should there be an option for non-residents? Or portability to other jurisdictions
with similar programs?
d. Are paramedic services provided by lifeguards included?
e. Are victims of an accident not of their causing billed? Does it matter if they
asked/called for help?
June 24, 2013 Finance Committee agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
6. With regard to the changes to the subsidy levels listed in NBMC Section 3.36, I find it
difficult to verify how the proposed elimination of the 80% subsidy for basic and
advanced life support and transport is reflected in the new fee schedule. I would have
expected a 5X increase in what I assume are the fees charged to Fire Medics non-
subscribers, but I don’t see that. Page 19 of the proposed fee schedule (page 31 of the
40 page PDF agenda packet) lists a "Basic - Response & Transport" fee of $732 and an
"Advanced - Response & Transport" fee of $879. Those might be compared to the
subsidized fees set on March 8, 2011, which were $237 and $349; but at that time there
was also a $704 plus $17 per mile transport charge, which seems to have been deleted
or absorbed into the new fees. What exactly would the charges be for a typical medical
incident under the old (80% subsidized) and new (unsubsidized) systems?
7. I likewise have trouble deciphering the proposed changes in day care inspection fees,
and many others, because the designations have changed.
8. On page 1 of the proposed fee schedule, hourly Lifeguard and Lifeguard Supervisor fees
have been moved under the “Junior Guards” heading. What are these fees for and
when are they charged?
9. Also on page 1, under “Fire Response Services” I have never understood the fees listed
for equipment and personnel:
a. If I have a fire at my house, am I charged at these rates for all the trucks and
personnel who show up? What other items might I be billed for?
b. Does it make a difference if I call or not?
c. Am I charged if trucks other than the paramedics respond to a medical
emergency call?
10. What happened to the “Candle permit” fee that appears in current Master Fee
Schedule?
Item 5.D. Third Review of Facilities Financial Planning Tool
1. I think the separation of Tidelands from General Fund projects is going to continue to be
difficult to convey. One would think Marina Park and the Lifeguard Headquarters
Remodel would be at least partially Tidelands funded, yet that is not immediately evident
from the FFPT.
2. In the “Dashboard,” under “Policy” it might be helpful to identify the Council Policy from
which the numbers listed derive. For example, what policy gives the dollar amount
target for “Minimum FFP Reserve Balance”?
3. The staff report (page 1) lists $729,459 of anticipated developer fees deferred from
FY12-13 to FY13-14. I have difficulty identifying items totaling that in the chart on the
final page of the FFPT.