Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED JUNE 13, 2017 June 13, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( Iimmoshe1Dyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the May 23, 2017 Special Joint Meeting with the Finance Committee and the May 23, 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 strikeout underline format. Note: pages 278-281 are in the electronic copy of the draft minutes linked to above. They were not in the paper copy I picked up from the Clerk's Office on Friday, June 9. Page 278: Item II.A, paragraph 4, sentence 2: "City Manager Kiff stated Rage page R1 of the budget d Budget Detail included the amount provided to Me VNB." ["Budget Detaif' is the title of the main, thick budget document. As such, it should probably be capitalized and in italics. Similarly, "page" should probably be lower case.] Page 278: same paragraph, sentence 4: "He reported the City collected a 2.5% 0.25% administrative fee." [To the best of my knowledge, the administrative fee the City collects for acting as a conduit for the TBID money is one-quarter of one percent. The video shows that City Manager Kiff (relaying information from Budget Manager Susan Giangrande) correctly stated "point two five" percent. However, Council member Peotter misunderstood this, and repeated it as "two and a half percent," noting it was "a very hefty fee." The minutes say they are indicating what the City Manager said, which is 0.25%.] Page 278: paragraph 2 from end: "Finance Committee Member Collopy asked why the property tax increase was less than the assessed valuation increase." [note: the response that the City conservatively estimates property tax revenue was not an entirely satisfactory explanation of the charts as a whole, making the minutes a bit confusing to read even with this suggested correction. The claim is that property tax revenue to the City is a fixed percentage of assessed valuation, yet the charts (mostly of "actuals" rather than projections) show several years in which property tax revenues went down even though assessed valuation always went up. Possible explanations for these deviations are: (1) the City's share of the total 1 % of assessed valuation property tax varies widely from parcel to parcel, so sale and re -valuation of properties in different parts of the city will affect revenues different, or (2) which seems more likely, there may have been delinquencies in payments in some years made up by late payments received in later years. It might be noted that for the longest interval for which "actuals" are shown, FY07-FY16, both valuation and revenue show a fairly consistent total increase in the range of 45-50%. It appears that based on this experience the City is confident the total valuation will grow, but is less confident it will receive the full tax due on that valuation in any given year. On the other hand, if revenues have been lagging in recent years, it might reasonably expect to receive make-up payments giving revenues exceeding what might have been expected based on the current valuation.] June 13, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Page 279: paragraph 1: "In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, City Manager Kiff stated it was necessary to watch decreasing property taxes tax increases." Page 279: paragraph 6, sentence 2: "He also discussed miscellaneous supplemental budget enhancements, the Fostering Interest in Nature (FIN FiiN program, salaries and benefits, and typical non -safety employee pension costs." Page 279: paragraph 7: "In response to Council Member Peotter's questions, City Manager Kiff explained that unfunded liability data from PERS was at least 18 -months in arrears, the normal cost started to accommodate the actual experience of the unfunded liability, and 70% of the unfunded liability was due to already retired employees." Page 282: Item SS3, paragraph 1, last line: "... addressed including electric bikes (e -bikes), hover boards, Segway Se_pways and future technology." Page 282: Item SS3, paragraph 2, last line: "E Street to G Street, andbiGyc-Ic and bicycle trail comparison." Page 283: paragraph 6, last sentence: "She discussed concerns with the Pier to Pier group using electric vehicles and urged banning Class 1, 2 and 3 uses on the Boardwalk." [A link to the video of this meeting does not seem presently available on the City website, but it seems unlikely this was a reference to abuse of electric bikes by members of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, which uses "Pier to Pier" as a kind of trademark. Could this have been a statement of concerns raised by CNBCA?] Page 285: last paragraph, last sentence: "She commended staff on its recognition by the Government Finance F nancnial Officers Association on the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Page 290: paragraph 2, last sentence: "Public Works Director Webb stated the plant pallet mimicked the recent installation at on San Joaquin Hills Road near Jamboree." Page 291: Item XVI, paragraph 3, sentence 1: "Mike Glenn discussed the City Council's previous support of dog beach, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission's direction to codify the amenity for the community, and City Manager Kiff's statement regarding bringing the matter to the City Council for discussion." Page 291: Item XVI, paragraph 6, sentence 1: "Victor Leipzig, representing the Orange County Autobahn Audubon Society, thanked the City for meeting with representatives regarding the snowy plover habitat site near D and E Streets." Page 291: paragraph 3 from end: "George Schroeder stated dogs were current currently allowed on the beach on leashes but believed the dog beach was not safe." Item 3. Adoption of Fiscal Year 2017-18 Appropriations Limit 1. The staff report is confusing in that the Gann Limit is presumably a limit on governmental spending, yet the report mentions only "tax proceeds" (that is, revenue rather than June 13, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 spending). Apparently the idea is that the City cannot exceed the spending limit if its total proceeds are less than the spending limit? 2. The table on page 3-2 of the staff report, and the unnumbered attachment to proposed Resolution 2017-39 (page 3-7), indicate the FY18 limit was computed using a Population Adjustment Factor of 0.99, whereas the body of the report (paragraph below the table on page 3-2) indicates the City had a choice of -0.15 or +0.69 (the "factors" apparently representing the allowable percent increase in the limit). Despite the tables in the staff report and resolution, it appears 0.69 is the factor that was actually used (not 0.99): $178,325,103 x (1.0369) x (1.0069) = $186,181,146 3. It might be noted a slightly lower new limit is obtained if the adjustment factors are applied separately, rather than successively, to the old limit, but I assume the City is doing the computation correctly. That is $178,325,103 x (1 + 0.0369 + 0.0069) _ $186,135,742. 4. Whatever the correct method of computation, since the result imposes a restraint on future taxation and spending by the City, one might wonder why a fiscally conservative Council, seeking to restrain spending, would approve the larger allowable Population Adjustment Factor (0.69%) over the smaller one (-0.15%) 5. The notice published in the Daily Pilot listed the result of the computation as the "Appropriation" — omitting the word "limit" and possibly giving readers the impression this was announcing a gift ("appropriation") the City received from the state and was free to spend. Item 6. Median Landscape Turf Replacement — Award of Contract No. 8151-1 (16L02) It is good to see a City Council ostensibly committed to keeping Newport Beach looking "special," is veering away from achieving the opposite by cheapening the medians. It is less good to see the change in course resulting from private conversations between staff and individual Council members, rather than questions and answers presented for all to hear in the public forum. Item 7. Professional Services Agreement with MetaSource, LLC for Document Archiving Services 1. Page 7-2 of the staff report tells us the City charges residents "$2.00 per plan sheet." Yet the maximum amount paid to this contractor will be $0.59 according to the schedule on page 7-19. What other "Records Management" costs cause the fee to be so much higher than the cost of reproduction? 2. Regarding the choice of vendors, it was pointed out at a recent JWA Airport Commission meeting that rankings of the sort shown in the table on page 7-2 are essentially useless for the decision makers to whom the report is presented. It does not tell them who made the rankings or what concerns they had causing them to rank them as they did. If the June 13, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 decision maker wanted to evaluate the factors differently, and make a different decision, they have absolutely nothing to go by — and are left rubberstamping staff's recommendation with no understanding of whether it is one they would agree with, or not. This particular ranking is particularly useless since it doesn't even disclose points, making it impossible to know if the choice between 1 and 2, or 2 and 3, was a close one, or not. Item 8. Amendment No. One to Lease Agreement with Lighthouse Cafe The staff report does not make clear how the new alcohol license affects the lessee's catering rights. Is that still limited to beer and wine? If so, where is that specified in the amendments? 2. 1 have it on good authority that what the Cafe needs to make a financial success of itself is not a more liberal liquor license, but rather better, quicker service and a more familiar, less exotic menu. Item 11. Board and Commission Scheduled Vacancies - Confirmation of Nominees 1. 1 am not aware of the Mayor's choice of a "Council Ad Hoc Appointments Committee" to screen the applications ever having been publicly announced or ratified by the full Council. As such, I question their authority to winnow the applications. 2. Irrespective of how the screening was done, I think it would be helpful to list the total number of applications received for each position. And better, the full list of names, indicating the Committee's preferences, whatever significance those might have.