Laserfiche WebLink
January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 <br />"fog' is changed to "as the," then "Administration" would need to be changed to "Administrator." <br />However, the Nov. 25 agenda said "for."] <br />11. Page 130, last long paragraph, last sentence: "Me Finance Director Matusiewicz added <br />that a pension primer was completed and is currently located in the back of the City's <br />budget." <br />12. Page 131, paragraph 3 from end: "Council Member Daigle commented on the <br />accomplishments of the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, noting that major, <br />quality of life issues for the community has have been addressed successfully." <br />13. Page 131, motion (starting at bottom of page): the phrase "subject to those terms and <br />conditions approved by the City Council," which appears three times in the recommendation <br />printed in the November 25`h agenda, seems inappropriate in the minutes, since the minute: <br />are intended to memorialize what the Council did approve. Since the actual motion at 10:45 <br />in the video was to approve the redlined contracts, I would suggest changing "subject to <br />those terms and conditions approved by the City Councir' to something like "with the <br />redlined changes as discussed." <br />Item 3. Junior Guard Nonresident Fee Reduction <br />I don't think this item, subsidizing non-resident participation in the Junior Lifeguards program, <br />should be on the Consent Calendar because it alters a previous publicly discussed decision of <br />the Council with no compelling reason I can detect offered for making such a change. <br />The current cost recovery structure was established by Ordinance 2013-18, which originated in <br />agenda Item 16 at the Council's October 22, 2013, meeting. As indicated in that staff report, the <br />fact that local residents were offered a 15% discount relative to the program's true cost had <br />never been properly codified, and in addition, the Finance Committee recommended holding the <br />line at $700 for residents even though a recent analysis suggested the true cost had increased <br />from $809 to $853, hence the rather obscure cost recovery percentage of 82.1 % (0.821 *$853 = <br />$700). <br />Although a larger subsidy for City residents was suggested, my recollection is it was the <br />Finance Committee's explicit recommendation (Item 5.0 at their June 24, 2013, meeting) not to <br />offer even this $153 subsidy to non-residents,. <br />In addition, the cost recovery table of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 3.36.030, which <br />had originally allowed only percentages to be indicated, had earlier been modified to allow dollar <br />amounts to be entered. If the Council's intent in 2013, and now, is to freeze the Junior Guard <br />user fee at $700, that number should be used, rather than an artificial percentage that will have <br />to be modified the next time a true cost analysis is performed. <br />As the staff report indicates, the program is already very popular, which seems to argue against <br />reducing the fee. And "teaching youths.. the importance of healthy activities through physical <br />exercise" would not seem to me a valid reason that Newport Beach taxpayers should subsidize <br />the education of youths in other communities. Increasing ocean safety awareness does seem <br />something a beach city might be interested in subsidizing, however I suspect even $700 is <br />much too high a barrier for participation by youths from many communities. <br />