Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED JUNE 26, 2018 CONSENT CALENDAR June 26, 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 June 12, 2018 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in cr°�4, �ut underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 63. Page 524, paragraph 2, line 4: "... their overhead cost cannot be passed onto on to specific projects ..." Page 526, Item IV.A, last line: "... Newport Beach Professional and Technical Epee Employees Association (NBPTEA)." [the draft minutes copy a misspelling in the agenda] Page 527, Item VIII: "Regarding Item IV.B, City Attorney Harp announced that the City Council directed staff to take no action." [It was refreshing to hear this announcement, but if the Council gave direction, the names of the Council members endorsing, or not endorsing, that action should probably have been announced.] Page 533, motion at top of page: "...; b) approve the Special Event Support recommendations for Fiscal Year 2018-2019 with the exception of the Newport Beach Wine and Food Festival; ..." [The staff recommendation included approval of funding for various events plus authorization for staff to execute grant agreements related to several of them. As presented in the draft minutes, the Wine and Food Festival has been removed from the list of authorized agreements, but not from the funding approval. I believe the motion was intended to remove it from both. Also in a later line of the draft minutes, there is a very long, and probably unintentional, gap between "the" ... and ... "Cure."] Page 536, Item 23, paragraph 2: "Council Member Herdman recused himself from discussion related to the quarterly steam cleaning of sidewalks on Balboa Island and Park Avenue bridge replacement due to real property interest conflicts." [Despite the City Attorney's statement to this effect, the reference to the "Park Avenue bridge replacement" seems strange to me, since, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing related to the bridge replacement in the FY 2018-2019 budget as proposed or adopted. There is a proposal in the CIP to fund "continued dredging of the middle and north side of Grand Canal, following the completion of Park Avenue Bridge" — which seems more apropos to conflicting with Council Member Herdman's real property interests.] Page 537, paragraph 4 from end: "Jim Mosher indicated the May 22, 2018 minutes do not reflect any changes to the budget checklist, compared the checklist from May 22, 2018 to tonight's checklist and noted changes, expressed difficulty with finding specific budget items, like CIP—or John Wayne Airport (JWA) items, unless they are placed on the checklist or CIP, and expressed concern with the institutional knowledge that will be lost with City Manager Kiff's departure." Page 538, Item 24, motion: "...; and b) approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the PSA with AmeriPark, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $7,303,420 for a five (5) year June 26, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 agreement." [The draft minutes copy the staff recommendation as listed in the June 12, 2018, agenda, and the Item 24 staff report. However, it would be highly unusual for a City Council motion to authorize the award of a contract without specifying which of several proposers the contract is being awarded to. In this case the otherwise unexplained term "PSA" refers back to the Abstract of the staff report, which identifies AmeriPark, LLC, as the recommended contractor. This, incidentally, highlights an endemic problem with Newport Beach staff reports: namely, the "Abstracts" frequently contain information not elaborated or even found at all in the body of the report. That is not, at least in my experience, what abstracts are supposed to do. I believe abstracts are supposed to highlight the takeaways from the body of the report, without ever adding anything that cannot be found in the body.] Item 3. Creation of a Harbor Department 1. The table that appears on pages 3-2 and 3-18 makes it appear that only the Harbor Services Worker positions are "Part -Time" ones. I believe the Lead Harbor Services Worker and Department Assistant ones should have that annotation as well. 2. Although the City Charter uses the term "department head" in the first paragraph of the proposed NBMC Section 2.12.120 (staff report page 3-9) it might be wise to say "The Harbor Department shall be under the supervision of the Harbormaster who shall serve as the head director of the Department." That what avoid confusion regarding the applicability of such things as NBMC Section 2.12.020: "All department directors, except the City Attorney and the City Clerk, shall be subject to the administrative authority and direction of the City Manager." 3. As shown on staff report page 3-11, some pains had been taken in the past to put the departments listed in NBMC Chapter 2.12 in alphabetical order. The recent introductions of the Utilities Department and the Harbor Department have destroyed that order (as well as creating departments of very disparate sizes). It would have seemed wise to place the Harbor Department in a Section 2.12.065, to put it between "Human Resources" and "Library Services" (and to put Utilities in Section 2.12.120). 4. On staff report page 3-15, it might be noticed that on the first line the new Utilities Department is assigned "D. Maintenance of the City's storm drain system." The same task is assigned to the Public Works Department under Item K on page 3-16. 5. Similarly, on page 3-17, the new Harbor Department is assigned "Management of the City's resources in Newport Harbor, including administration of Title 17 of this Municipal Code." But under H on page 3-16, the Public Works Department is assigned "management of the City's tidelands assets in Upper and Lower Newport Bay." According to the Definitions in Title 17, "The term "Newport Harbor" shall mean the water area within the Lower Newport Bay and within the Upper Newport Bay, exclusive of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park." So, as with storm drains, there appears to be a duplicative assignment of responsibilities. 6. With regard to the Resolution starting on page 3-18: a. As previously noted, the table in Section 1 should indicate all the positions other than "Harbormaster" are part-time (not just "Harbor Services Worker"). June 26, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 b. Section 3 appears to have a typo in the last sentence: "The Job Description/Classification Specification for the Lead Code PatroLead Harbor Services Worker is attached as Exhibit 'B" and incorporated herein by reference." The first sentence of Section 4 was probably intended to read: "A t -Three-quarters (. 75) FTE Department Assistant position shall be added to the Harbor Department staffing structure." d. The last sentence of Section 5 appears to have a typo similar to Section 3: "The Job Description/Classification Specification for the vast -Time Pat~^' Harbor Services Worker is attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference." e. On page 3-25, the ability to "Follow directions from a supervisor" maybe inappropriate for a department director who is "directed" (rather than "supervised") by the City Manager. f. On page 3-35, the word "Experience" is misspelled in the heading in the middle of the page ("EDUCATION AND EXPERIENC REQUIRED TO PERFORM ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS"). Item 5. Resolution No. 2018-42: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA) and Associated Salary Schedule 1. The summary of "salient provisions" on staff report page 5-2 does not appear to be entirely accurate. For example, per page 5-14, the 2.0% April 1, 2018, Wage adjustment applies only to the sworn officers. The non -sworn personnel received only a 0.92% raise. a. Regarding both retroactive pay increases, I continue to have difficulty understanding their compatibility with what I read as a California Constitutional prohibition against such after -the -fact payments (Article XI, Section 10(a)). b. They seem particularly problematic here since the terms of the existing MOU explicitly states (top of page 2) that its terms were supposed to continue through the meet and confer process, presumably until a new agreement is signed. 2. The last paragraph on staff report page 5-2 implies that by examining "Exhibit A" I should be able to verify that a majority of NBPA members voted to approve the Agreement "in accordance with NBPA ratification procedures" (whatever those may be). All I am able to find in "Exhibit A" is the undated signature of Alex Maslin, and a bit confusingly, that is not in the present staff report, but in the redline of the tentative agreement presented to the Council as Item 12 on June 12. 3. Without having read much of the MOU, I'm pretty sure it contains a number of typos. For example, on page 5-10, under C.1.c.iii, the reference to "subsection C.c.ii above" seems to be an attempt to refer to the immediately preceding paragraph, and was probably intended to read "C.1.c.if' or "1.c.if' or "1(c)(ii)" — although which is hard to tell given the many different forms used on the following page 5-11. June 26, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 4. Similarly, in paragraph C.2 on page 5-10, the use of the term "designate" for persons who have been designated seems strange. I was not aware "designate" could be used as noun in English. I assume the word intended was "designee." 5. More significantly, I thought safety employees had been lagging behind those in other departments with regard to the size of their contributions to their PERS accounts. I do not see that question addressed in the staff report even though there is an unexplained line about "Employee Pick Up of PERS Pension Costs" in "Attachment C" (the "Estimated Cost of Contract with NBPA"). Are all departments now the same with respect to pension contributions? Item 6. Update of Council Policy F-14 (Authority to Contract) I appreciate that the proposed amendment is needed by July 1 to make the policy adequate under federal law. But considering Policy F-14 is the implementation of City Charter Section 421 having to do with staff's authority to contract, without further direction from the Council, for "items included within the budget approved by the City Council," I believe this needs additional review in light of the hiring of a new City Manager. Aside from the CIP and the "checklist," the City budget is pretty vague as to most of the things that are "included within" it. A new City Manager could regard that, and this policy, as a blank check to spend as he or she wishes. I think the dollar limits should be lowered until the Council becomes comfortable with the new manager's management style. Item 16. Support for AB 448 - OC Housing Trust The agenda packet, as posted on June 22, includes a piece of unidentified "correspondence" received regarding this item. That correspondence appears to be the state's Legislative Analysis prepared for the (California) Senate Committee on Governance and Finance's hearing on June 20. The Council may wish to be aware that subsequent to that hearing, a more recent analysis has been prepared for the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing's hearing on June 26. The new analysis indicates (Item 7 on page 4 of 6) that the bill is expected to be amended, then, to change the name of the agency created to the "Orange County Housing Finance Trust," as well as "to add language clarifying that the OCFHT must comply with the regulatory guidelines of any state funding it receives." If that happens, the Mayor may wish to adjust the letter accordingly. Both analyses indicate that the purpose of AB 448 is to add to the normal powers of a joint powers authority the ability to directly issue bonds, including certificates of participation and, possibly, "social impact bonds," as well as to include unnamed non-governmental entities on the JPA's governing board. Apparently the bonds issued by the JPA would not have to be approved by voters, and, as the first analysis says, the exercise of public powers by non-government entities June 26, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 means "the [future] agreement will have to be carefully crafted to specify the fiduciary duties and responsibilities of these members" in ways not specified by AB 448. Item 17. Confirm Annual Appointments to the Finance Committee This item, in which Council member Diane Dixon is being moved off the Finance Committee, to be replaced by Council member Scott Peotter, with current Committee member Kevin Muldoon moving up to Chair (taking over from Dixon), comes as quite a surprise to me. It is a surprise both because at the Committee's last meeting on June 14 Chair Dixon showed no expectation of doing anything other than continuing as Chair. And because at the June 12 City Council meeting, although Council member Peotter's interest in the Finance Committee, and its composition, was known, Council member Muldoon offered his Committee seat to Council member Peotter if Peotter wanted it (see the draft minutes, page 536: "Council Member Muldoon indicated Council Member Peotter can take his seat on the Finance Committee if he feels he is not being represented enough."). Hence it was expected Peotter might replace Muldoon, not Dixon. And in addition, Committee member Will O'Neill would have seemed a more logical successor as Chair. Regarding the citizen appointments, I am not surprised to see the incumbents nominated for reappointment. I would note the staff report goes into great detail regarding how the opportunities to serve on the Finance Committee were advertised, but does not disclose how many applications were received, and hence if there are any alternatives to the names presented. Given the public interest in such things as a potential ballot measure related to debt financing, one would guess there would be considerable interest in serving the City on the Committee. If the only citizen applications received are the three presented, then, despite the advertising, it would seem to me the public does not see this as a very open or competitive process; and rather something in which one applies only if invited to do so by an appointing Council member. I would hope there is a larger pool of applicants, and the appointing Council members considered them, but I don't know.