Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsJuly 24, 2018, City Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the July 10, 2018 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in str°mutunderline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 63. Page 559, paragraph 2, last sentence: "He recommended requiring each fee be reviewed on an annual or bi-annual basis and requested including review of municipal code violation fines." [This could well be what was said, but if it was, it was likely a misstatement. Biannual means twice a year. I suspect the intended word was biennial, meaning every two years.] I didn't notice any other glaring spelling or grammar errors, but that is not to say I think the minutes are a clear or well-written record of the meeting. I don't. It is good we have a video. Item 8. Tentative Agreement with Newport Beach Fire Management Association (NBFMA) With just four members, is this the City's smallest bargaining unit? The redlining indicates many changes not mentioned in the staff report. Based on a quick reading of a few pages selected more or less at random: 1. Near bottom of page 8-5, although not a change, "All materials posted on bulletins boards" was presumably intended to read "All materials posted on bulletin boards." 2. On page 8-8, the removal of the current requirement that compensatory time must be used before retirement seems like it could be significant, unless it is already in the Standard Operating Procedure Manual (one might ask where the latter can be viewed?). 3. On pages 8-9 and 8-10, pay rates currently cited as "annually" and "monthly" have been newly and additionally restated in parenthesis as rates "per pay period." This duplication seems poor practice. Since the two rates are unlikely to match exactly, it would be better to choose one or the other, preferably the rate per pay period, which is a more precise and unambiguous measure. 4. On page 8-12, in the newly numbered part 1.a, it looks like "staff" employees are being given a benefit that formerly applied only to "line" employees. July 24, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 10. Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Report on City Council Discretionary Grants 1. It is good to see this annual reporting as required by City Council Policy A-12. 2. That said, I continue to believe the District Discretionary Grant Accounts portion of Policy A-12 is inconsistent with our City Charter. a. In particular, Charter Section 405 vests power in a Council (of seven members per Section 400). b. And Section 410 requires a quorum of four members for that Council to do business. c. I am unable to find anything in the Charter that authorizes the individual citizens who happen to be elected to the Council to make — as individual citizens without benefit of a Council quorum -- unilateral decisions about the expenditure of taxpayer money (or any other matter), even if a Council policy purports to allow them to do so. 3. Moreover, even if the City Charter allowed, such decisions, made privately by individuals with no pre -decision opportunity for public scrutiny, comment or contrary influence, seem fundamentally at odds with the concept of open government — a problem that after -the - fact (often long after -the -fact) reporting does little to alleviate. 4. In view of that, I feel the Council members who spent less than the policy purportedly allows them are to be commended. In particular, Council member Peotter is to be commended for, according to the report, spending none of the slush fund made available to him. 5. As to the reported expenses, the "identifiable public benefit" required by Policy A-12 is, in most cases, not clear. In particular: a. I do not see how "Donation" identifies a public benefit. In my view, some causes or entities one might make a donation to may provide a public benefit, but others may not. b. Likewise, "Event support' means little in way of public benefit if the event supported is a private or members -only one. c. And while I can understand that "Repair Broken Gangway" at the Balboa Angling Club will benefit the club members, I fail to see how it benefits the non-member public. Item 11. Appointment to the Finance Committee 1. The application indicates it has a cover letter and an Attachment "A," which might be of interest to the Council members and public, but which do not seem to be included in the agenda packet. 2. It would have also been good to know how many other applications were received and considered. July 24, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Item 12. Newport Beach & Company's Biennial Destination Business Plan, the Visit Newport Beach Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Budgets and the Newport Beach Tourism Business Improvement District Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual Report and Budget I think it is helpful to remember that as recently as 1987, the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (the predecessor of Visit Newport Beach/Newport Beach & Company) was an entirely voluntary chamber -of -commerce -like association promoting tourism through dues from its members. On February 9, 1987, by a bare majority of 4:3, the City Council voted, as Item 1.1, to subsidize the CVB with an involuntary tax added to visitor bills. Predictably, the voluntary dues disappeared, and the enterprise became an entirely taxpayer funded one, with visitors, oddly, being forced to pay to attract more visitors. Council member Strauss made a number of interesting comments preserved starting on Volume 41, Page 72 of the official minutes, as did Mayor Pro Tem Hart on page 53 (January 26, 1987). Based on a very quick and partial reading of the material provided in the staff report for this item, I have these comments: 1. For clarity, under "Funding Requirements" on page 12-2 of the staff report, the City retains 0.25% of the total TBID assessments collected, not "0.25% of 1%" (which would be 0.0025%). 2. As to the substance of the report, if the Council feels City -funded visitor marketing is desirable, I think it is a mistake to regard VNB as the sole -source organization capable of providing that function. I can think of no reason why there might not be other agencies who could do it better and at lower cost. Nor why competition would not be healthy. 3. Regarding the change to biennial reporting mentioned on staff report page 12-2, 1 believe the California Streets and Highways Code under which the TBID is organized requires VNB, as the designated "owners' association," to submit annual reports (see Section 36650) — as seems to be acknowledged in the following paragraphs on staff report page 12-3. 4. Regarding the statement on page 12-2 that "The Management District Plan ... was amended by the City Council at its June 12, 2018 meeting," I believe that was only the adoption of resolution of intention to amend it. The actual amendment, as many of the Council may recall, happened on July 10. 5. If, as staff report page 12-3 implies, the TBID Annual Report (of Attachments D and E) does not reflect the addition of the Lido House hotel, is the Council not obligated to order its modification to reflect the correct plan for Fiscal Year 2018- 2019 pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 36650(c)? Is there a plan for doing this? July 24, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 6. Regarding the Destination Business Plan of Attachment A, the city of fashion models that it portrays is not the Newport Beach I know. 7. Page 165 of that Plan (staff report page 12-170) identifies the members of the so-called TBID Board of Directors, all of whom appear to be members of the VNB (or NB&Co?) Board of Directors as listed on the preceding page. In my opinion that means that any meeting of the VNB Board is also a meeting of the TBID Board and should be noticed and open to the public.