May 24, 2022, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Joint Meeting with Finance Committee
Item 1. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Operating Budget I appreciate that City staff cannot accurately estimate how long this item may take, and that they want to allow Regular Meeting Item SS2 (Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program Budget) to begin as soon as this one ends.
Nonetheless, scheduling this item to begin after a series of presentations beginning at 4:00 p.m., and scheduling the following Regular Meeting Item SS2 to start at 4:30 p.m., creates, at least for the uninitiated, the impression staff believes 20 minutes will be sufficient time to educate the four Council members who are not on the Finance Committee about the proposed Operating Budget (which in all likelihood, according to Regular Meeting Item 9, will be voted on for adoption at the very next meeting, on June 14), and to entertain their questions, and the public’s, about it.
That, in turn, suggests staff does not consider the Operating Budget to be a very important document that merits much explanation or discussion (compared, for example, to the CIP Budget, for which 90 minutes appears to have been scheduled under Item SS2).
I assume this impression -- that understanding the Operating Budget is not a very important matter -- is incorrect. But that said, it would have seemed helpful to provide some supporting information (a staff report?) in advance of the meeting. And most importantly, a link to where the Council and public can view the document that is to be discussed.1 Regular Meeting
Item 1. Minutes for the May 10, 2022 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 65.
contract recall included required a new fleet to service Newport Beach and Deputy Public Works Director Martin discussed fleet optimization after the route changes.” [see video at 24:20. There was no mention of a “contract recall” clause. Instead, the Director invited Council to “recall” the contract they had approved.] 1 A link can be found, but only in the rather cryptic staff report for Regular Agenda Item 9 (setting the hearing date), which directs readers to the City’s City Budget & Salary Information page.
Received after Agenda Printed
May 24, 2022
Written Comments
May 24, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
valet service charges, noted discrepancies with the valet service, revised due billing start dates and WebPak account, and inquired about the goal of Senate Bill 1383 and which items are being missorted.”
Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed that the City has no evaluations on housing market price, STL permits are allowed by the City Council and not a property right, and moorings are the only other salable permit. Council Member Dixon indicated that as STLs increase, housing stock and population counts decrease as per the California Coastal Commission (CCC) comments, expressed concerns relative to the consequences and impact to the City on the affordability, sale, value, and market price of homes, …” Item 4. American Legion Bulkhead Wall Repair (Project No. 16H11) - Award of Contract No. 7659-1
The staff report suggests the City could obtain a better project (providing ADA access to what I assume is a population of aging veterans) with twice to three times the estimated life, by paying slightly more than twice bid price the Council is being asked to accept (an extra $1.0 million).
I appreciate significant effort has been put into permitting the lesser option, and future bid prices are unpredictable,2 but the description of choosing the lesser option as “value engineering” is not self-evident.
Item 5. Amendment No. Two to Temporary Employment Agreement with Rosalinh Ung
The staff report does not make clear if the supplemental income Ms. Ung has been receiving and will continue to receive from the City in any way affects the amount she is drawing from the City’s CalPERS retirement account.
Assuming the answer is “no,” this does not mean that hiring a retiree is less wise than hiring someone without any prior connection to the City. But it does seem to run the risk of creating a culture in which employees feel they can earn more for fewer hours by announcing their retirement with an expectation they will be hired back to fill the vacancy they have created.
I appreciate an unanticipated resignation has occurred, but three years is beginning to sound like a long time for a “temporary” agreement, and the contact address in Hemet (page 5-5) suggests much of the work provided may be remote.
2 Although the staff report says the low bid is 26% below the City’s pre-bid estimate, the fact it received a second bid close to the low one suggests the low one was not a fluke.
May 24, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Item 6. Lease Agreement with Newport Ridge Community Association to Develop, Operate and Maintain Pickleball Courts at Newport Ridge Park
The Council should be reminded, again, that the only reason Newport Ridge Community Association owns and controls this property is because a previous Council (see Item 17 from May 14, 2013) refused to accept it as a City park – a fact curiously not mentioned in the staff report.
The staff report also does not make any clear statement that I can find as to whether NRCA will be charging the City rent for use of the facility the City develops. I would hope not.
It is similarly unclear on what happens at the end of 30 years.
Does the City have any other public facilities it has developed on land it does not own? Item 10. Ordinance No. 2022-13: Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and Water Supply Shortage Program
I do not understand the proposed restriction of landscape watering hours to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (page 10-10).
Is this being proposed merely so City staff can monitor irrigation activity during their normal working hours? Or based on some other water conservation theory? And will the City itself comply?
I have a relatively large yard which I always try to water (entirely by hand, and therefore exempt from this new regulation) in the early morning or late evening, on the theory this will give the moisture applied a chance to soak in, thereby minimizing losses to a hot sun. Am I mistaken about this?
As to automated irrigation systems, my observation is that they (including those in City parks and parkways) are almost invariably set to operate outside the newly-prescribed hours so as not to interfere with normal daytime activities (and possibly to minimize evaporative losses). It does not seem realistic to me to expect all of those to change to 9 to 5 as a result of the Council adopting an ordinance.
For example, people are, at present, startled by sprinklers unexpectedly turning on during mid- day hours. Will it be the new normal for parks, golf courses and school playing fields to be watered while in use?
As to other features of the proposal, the following references are to the redline (Attachment B), which I am relying on to be an accurate representation of the ordinance (Attachment A) – something that is not always the case.
May 24, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Pages 10-27 to 10-29: Why are many definitions being deleted, even though they appear to be continue to be used in the ordinance? For example, is “potable water” defined elsewhere? If so, where and how would readers connect it to this chapter? Don’t “billing period” and others still need to be defined?
unenforceable?
anywhere between 75 and 0% of base usage is not very comforting. How would a reduction to 0% work when there seems to be an exemption for basic health and safety needs? Or is that exemption only applicable to City services? Would a reduction to 0% require all customers not specified in Sec. 14.16.120 to buy all the water they use from a source other than the City? Item 11. Resolution No. 2022-33: Seventh Amended and Restated Employment Agreement for City Clerk
I am not sure I fully understand the statement in the staff report that the proposed 4-year term “is designed to ensure a smooth transition of Council appointees over a period of time.” How does a 4-year term ensure something the current evergreen arrangement does not? And why is the term shorter than those recently granted to the Council’s other appointees – the City Manager (C-8568-4) and the City Attorney (C-7034-5)? I am pleased to see, on page 11-9, that the City is maintaining the maximum 6-months’ severance pay arrangement of all previous agreements with the City Clerk. But why was what is good for the City Clerk not good for the City Manager or City Attorney, who now have more generous severance arrangements?
Beyond that, the statement in the staff report (page 11-3) that “adopted, the annual salary range will be $111,202 to $166,789” seems a bit misleading.
$166,789 is actually the initial salary stated in the proposed contract, which will receive a cost of living adjustment on January 1, 2023, and each January 1 thereafter. And the proposed Resolution No. 2022-33 says the salary range will be bumped up 2% every July 1. So, the salary limit will soon increase to $170,125, and the actual salary may exceed that if the COLA on January 1 is anything more than 2%. Indeed, the Operating Budget the Council is proposing to adopt on June 14 anticipates (on page 62) an expense of $172,710 to cover the base salary for July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023 – a number that seems higher than the upper limit of the approved salary range.