Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRecieved After Agenda Printed November 27, 2017 Written Comments November 28, 2017, 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 September 26, 2017 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in c4r°�=:t underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 63. Page 390: Item SS3, paragraph 4: "Dennis Baker indicated he was on the 006 Gemmittee ami' asked if all the data and numbers from the past General Plan are up to date." [note: unless the video has been skillfully edited to suppress something, the origin of this statement in the draft minutes is a complete and total mystery. To the best of my knowledge, Dennis Baker was not on the 2006 GPAC or GPUC, and there is absolutely nothing in his September 26 comments discussing membership on those or any other committees.] Page 390: Item SS3, paragraph 5: "He noted that the Housing Element was not supposed to be updated yet and questioned what happens if new State mandates are enacted after the City adopts a new Housing Elemen+ General Plan. He suggested creating a blue ribbon ^ogee commission made up of citizens, businesses owners and other stakeholders, similar ie the farmer General Xan Update Gemmi+fee (GPUC), in errler to review why the General Plan needs to be updated and which parts should be updated." [Again, it is troubling to see the minutes attribute words to speakers that never left their lips. In this case, I quite purposefully used the word "commission" instead of "committee," because a "commission" is typically an entirely "outside" group appointed to investigate a problem and come back with recommendations, whereas a "committee" is typically a sub -group of the body making the appointments. I also made absolutely no mention of the "former GPUC." While it's true staff later discussed them as a kind of "blue ribbon committee" that existed prior to the previous GPAC appointments, I did not, and would not have thought of the 2000 GPUC as a "blue ribbon committee." On the contrary, the model I had in mind (but did not mention) was the 2010 Citizens Information Technology Task Force (see Item 25, Sept. 28, 2010).] Page 391: paragraph 1: "Dorothy Kraus, Vice President of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), requested that the City not rush the process, it make no final commitment to any type of process, and give SPON be givenanopportunity to provide input for how/what they would like changed." Page 391: paragraph 2: "Elaine Linhoff indicated that she was on Newport Tomorrow in the 1970's one of first General Plan nemmittees and felt the final resul 2006 General Plan Update process was staff and consultant driven, not completely reflecting the residents' wishes." Page 394: Item XII, Council Member O'Neill, bullet 1: "Attended the Civic Centerand Park Sculpture Garden Luncheon; ..." November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 10 Page 394: Item XII, Council Member Herdman, bullet 2: "Announced he and City Manager Kiff will host an informal community meeting to discuss John Wayne Airport (JWA) issues on November 17 and the v4at en Gomm ttee wiM meet ne:*t wee " or "Announced he and City Manager Kiff will host an informal community meeting to discuss John Wayne Airport (JWA) issues on November 17 and the Aviation Committee will meet next week the later announcement was in error)." [note: a meeting of the Aviation Committee was announced, as indicated, but to the best of my knowledge the announcement was erroneous. Should the approved minutes delete the erroneous comment, or include it with a clarifying note?] Page 394: Item XII, Council Member Herdman, bullet 3: "Attended the Balboa Island Merchants Association meeting, Irvine Terrace Homeowners Associationi;s annual meeting, and a workshop at OASIS Senior Center to ^►� at which Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee projects were discussed." [I believe the latter was a reference to the November 9 Improving Water Quality in Greater Newport Harbor workshop hosted by UCI Oceans, at which existing City WQ/CT projects may have been discussed, but were not its main reason for being - - UCI instead trying to create support for new programs they might provide.] Page 395: paragraph 1, line 4: "... cover the additional fees (Item 3 - ..." Item 3. Newport Banning Ranch - Set Aside and Vacate All Approvals 1. On staff report page 3-5, 1 would suggest the last "Whereas" be modified to read: "WHEREAS, with the exception of the ^^rtific-ation of the environmental impart repo and the .r.,.,ele pment agreement, au .,fh^r some of the Project approvals were not to become effective until the following ed:" Reason: of the three resolutions and two ordinances proposed for repeal, the effective date of only Ordinance No. 2012-16 appears to be contingent on the full set of three conditions stated. 2. To conform with the actual title of the resolution being repealed (Resolution No. 2012-58), the end of Section 1 on staff report page 3-6 should be modified to read: "... for the Newport Banning Ranch Project in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and Local Guidelines and Making Certain Findings and Determinations Thereto." 3. To conform with the actual title of the ordinance being repealed (Ordinance No. 2012-167 Section 5 on staff report page 3-7 should be modified to read: "The City Council hereby repeals, in its entirety, Ordinance No. 2012- 17, An Ordinance of the City CounGi► of th^ City of Newport Beach Approving Development Agreement No. DA2008-003 for Newport Banning Ranch Located at 5200 West Coast Highway (PA2008-114)." November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 10 Item 4. Proposed Specifications for Moorings in Newport Harbor Regarding the off -shore moorings (page 4-7): Spec. #1: 1 do not personally understand the requirement that weights must be made of metal. I would think concrete would work almost as effectively, and possibly at lower cost. Which might be more environmentally friendly is not clear to me. Spec. #3: There clearly appears to be a missing word: "All mooring buoys must be: (1) the "tube -style" type (tube down the center of the buoy) or of such type as approved by the Harbormaster; ..." Spec. #4: 1 have no idea why the word "exposed" appears in: "Vessels must be moored fore and aft except in exposed areas designated as single point areas." Must vessels be moored fore and aft even in areas designated for single point moorings unless the occupant can additionally demonstrate they are "exposed" (whatever that might mean)? I would suggest deleting "exposed." Spec. #8: 1 thought the idea was to empirically require weight increases if a mooring moves. As written, even if a mooring moves repeatedly, and even if that movement causes damage to neighboring vessels, no action at all would be required as long as the weight exceeds that in the table by 20%. Spec. #9: There are no words explaining the significance of the table of "Minimum Line Requirements" on page 4-8. That table appears to be part of off -shore moorings Specification #9, however it is inconsistent with it in that the table on page 4-7 provides specifications for moorings up to 95' in length, but the table on page 4-8 provides no line requirements for moorings longer than 70'. Regarding the on -shore moorings (page 4-8): 1. It is not clear why a chain grade specification is not regarded as important here, too. 2. It is not clear if the addition of a safety chain to existing ring -style buoys allows them to continue to be used here, too. Item 5. Balboa Island Water Main Replacement (Phase 1) - Award of Contract No. 7173-1 (16W11) From the staff report, it appears the Council is being asked to approve $31,700 of expenses (for geotechnical consulting and incidentals) not mentioned in the agenda announcement. November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 10 Item 6. Arterial Highway Pavement Repair Program - Award of Contract No. 7185-1 (18R03) The bid from Hardy and Harper, after correction of the $83,000 error, would seem to be $438,000, which is still the low bid by a substantial amount, and only slightly over the Engineer's Estimate. Was any mechanism missed that would have saved the City money by allowing Hardy and Harper to correct their bid, rather than withdraw it? More generally, the widespread need for patching might suggest to some that the results of earlier road surfacing contracts were not as durable as might have been hoped for. Is there any pattern to this in terms of who earlier road work was performed by and an unexpected need for repairs? If so, can the City consider that in awarding future contracts? Item 7. MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project - Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Civil Works Engineers (18R23) At the Council's August 8, 2017, meeting, Public Works staff asked permission to notify the California Transportation Commission, by resolution, of this project as one potentially eligible for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account ("RMRA") funding using the new "SB 1" state gas tax. The Council initially refused to adopt the resolution, but reversed itself by adopting Item 1 (Resolution 2017-54) at an August 31 Special Meeting. My understanding is the RMRA dollars are to be used to supplement, and not replace, the City's ongoing general fund roadway maintenance efforts, and also that many of the Council members continue to advocate, at least privately, for repeal of the SB 1 tax. Does the current design contract include "bonus" elements that would be funded if the RMRA money materializes, but could be eliminated if it does not? More generally, the City frequently justifies the use of outside consultants as a way to provide the staffing flexibility needed to address tasks for which a need arises only sporadically. The completion of roadway construction drawings seems to be something for which there is a near - continuous need with no endpoint ever expected. Would it not make sense for the City to periodically reconsider the cost effectiveness of making this an in-house function? Finally, the contract proposal contains a list of hourly billing rates for various positions, but no clear explanation I can find of how those were used to arrive at the requested contract total. November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 10 Item 8. Bay Crossing Water Main Replacement Project - Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Dudek (16W12) The staff report and contractor's proposal provide a remarkable lack of information about the proposed need to replace the Santa Ana River crossing, including where it is located and how old it is. As with Item 7, the contract proposal contains a list of hourly billing rates for various positions within the consulting firm, but no clear explanation I can find of how the contract total was arrived at. Regarding City staff's proposal to add a 10% contingency ($22,265) to the requested amount to cover additional work that may be needed to cover unforeseen conditions or additional environmental analysis, it might be noted that per staff report page 8-22, the $222,650 request itself includes a very generous $40,000 contingency to cover possible requests for "additional field investigations." Why is a contingency on top of the requested contingency required? And if it is, why wouldn't the City's 10% be based on what is apparently the consultant's best true project cost estimate of $182,650, rather than an estimate already inflated with contingencies? Finally, I thought the crossing at Central Avenue, paralleling Newport Blvd, had been worked on quite recently. Was the pipe replacement at that time confined to the land side of the connection? Item 10. Approval of a Cooperative Agreement with the Friends of Newport Beach Animal Shelter Clause 2.4: Although Wise Giving Alliance of the Council of Better Business Bureaus publishes what appear to be admirable guidelines for the operation of charities, in California their operations are overseen by the State Attorney General, and that agency would seem the better arbiter to look to for standards for reasonable costs for overhead and administration. Even better, the Agreement could simply state the limit the City feels is reasonable. Clause 3.2: "Friends is hereby permitted to promote and seek contributions for animal shelter funding needed to upplemen( meet City's unfunded needs and assist in the creation of a permanent City animal shelter facility." [The current grammar is inscrutable. The present suggestion may or may not express what was intended.] Clause 3.4: "... Friends is hereby exclusively permitted to promote and seek contributions for funding activities and campaign to supplement these unfunded needs and create a permanent City animal shelter facility." [As with Clause 3.2, 1 remain unclear what "supplementing unfunded needs" means, and I certainly don't understand "supplement ... a permanent facility." would guess the Friends is trying to fund needs at the present facility left unfunded by the City and separately to find funding for a permanent facility. If the idea in both cases is to say the Friends role is limited to supplying funds for services that would not otherwise be provided by the City, and not to pay for the core operations, why not simply say that?] November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 10 Clause 6.4: "The policy shall include the City (list the vesting being used on this contract) as loss payee." I don't know if this a note inadvertently left in the proposed text, or something else, but it would seem better to simply spell out the exact wording desired, and not rely on someone to decipher what "the vesting being used on this contract" means. Item 11. Approval for the Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles At least in my view, the staff report mischaracterizes the current intent of City Council Policy F- 9. At some time, some departments may have viewed F-9 as license to arbitrarily replace City equipment when it reached certain age or mileage milestones. However, I believe that at present it is viewed instead as a savings program, whereby departments are expected to set aside funding each year toward the prudent expectation that equipment may need replacement at those milestones, thereby avoiding a need for sudden, unplanned expenses. Depending on their condition, individual pieces of equipment may need replacement before or after the "scheduled" dates. Without mentioning ages or mileages, the staff report makes clear the department has four vehicles that have met the F-9 "replacement criteria." It is less clear they have been inspected and found in actual need of replacement (because of being unsuitable for continued service). The staff report also does not make clear if the four vehicles have resale value, and if so, how that factors into the requested replacement cost. It is also unclear if any post -purchase modifications will be required, and if so, at what cost. Finally, is this the model of police vehicle implicated in the suspected incident of in -cabin carbon monoxide poisoning in 2015? If so, will that problem have been corrected in the new vehicles being purchased? Item 12. Approval of Purchase Agreement with Haaker Equipment Company for One (1) Vactor 2110 "CNG" Sewer Cleaner I am not sure I understand the significance of the "NJPA" Purchasing Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the proposed City Purchase Agreement. Although I can't completely picture what the City does to cause such frequent clogging, I gather from the staff report this equipment is needed primarily to perform weekly clearing of clogged drains at the Corporation Yard. But I gather it will also be used on Balboa Island and the Balboa Peninsula, where we frequently hear specialized (and therefore more costly than normal) equipment is required to navigate narrow spaces. I also gather Exhibit B (staff report pages 12- 38 and 12-39) contains some of those specialized needs, but I can't tell if they were included in NJPA purchase, or at what cost. I am also unable to decipher what options the City might have through the NJPA, or otherwise. November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 10 In general, I believe "Vactor" has a reputation for marketing the highest priced equipment in the industry. Does the City have any comparative prices for similar equipment produced by one of the less glamorous brands, purchased via the NJPA or directly? If so, what are they? Item 13. Approval of a Purchase Agreement with Halcore Group, Inc. dba Leader Industries for the Purchase of Two (2) 2018 Freightliner M2 Custom Ambulances The comment on Item 11, above, regarding Council Policy F-9, applies here, as well. Again, although Policy F-9 may anticipate the possibility of a need for replacement, it is not clearly stated in the staff report that the vehicles have been inspected and found actually in need of replacement, especially for use as the reserve vehicles they currently are. Indeed, it does not appear to be "frontline" vehicles that are being proposed to be replaced per the policy, but rather the reserve vehicles, and when the last ambulance purchase was approved as Item 14 on April 12, 2016, the reserve vehicle identified then as the one most in need of replacement (the 2005 Ford E-450 #2634) does not seem to be the one actually replaced, and is, instead, still in the fleet and has logged another 3,587 miles. Additionally, and at least equally concerningly, I can find no explanation of why, if this is the same purchase as in 2016, the per unit cost of the new vehicles has increased roughly 12% in a year and a half (from $266,732.19 in 2016 to $599,918.06/2 = $299,959.03 in 2017). This far exceeds the expected 2% per year increase cited in the staff report. Moreover, if one believes the staff report assertion that "three vehicles are due for replacement," I don't understand the rationale for purchasing just two units at this time. The reasoning for purchasing two instead of the one budgeted would seem just as applicable to purchasing all three. Finally, as with Item 11, 1 can find no indication of how much resale value the vehicles being replaced may have, and how or if that will be used to offset the purchase price. Item 14. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Agreement with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape Services for Parks and Facilities Since the changes made to it by Amendment No. One, approved as Item 10 at the Council's October 10, 2017, meeting, I have found my efforts to understand the City's contract with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. (C-6375), to be an exercise in futility. The present staff report, asking the Council to outsource certain currently in-house landscape services to Mariposa, but lacking such basic information as whether doing so saves taxpayers money, only adds to that sense. Other than an immediate budget amendment amount, nothing about costs, current or expected, is revealed with any clarity in the Abstract, Recommendation or Funding Requirements portions November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 10 of the staff report. And within the Discussion, a single number of "$333,530.49 per year" is cited in the final paragraph — and that in such a way it's impossible to tell if that's the current City cost, the new contract cost or both. If it is the latter, it seems remarkable to me that the existing in- house and negotiated outsourced costs would be precisely the same. In the absence of clear information, a "forensic" comparison of the present "Amendment 2" contract not -to -exceed amounts, by calendar year, with the comparable numbers in the final revised "Amendment 1" approved in October, suggests $333,530.49 is the annual contract increase the Council is being asked to commit to starting in calendar year 2018, with 2% increases in the following three years. Year Amendment 1 2016 1,975,000.00 2017 2,400,000.00 2018 2,448,000.00 2019 2,496,960.00 2020 2,546,899.20 2021 2,597,837.18 Totals: 14,464,696.38 Amendment 2 Observed Increase 1,975,000.00 0.00 2,400,000.00 0.00 2,781,530.49 333,530.49 2,837,161.10 340,201.10 2,893,904.32 347,005.12 2,951,782.41 353,945.23 15,839,378.32 1,374,681.94 As I understand it, for those new costs, Mariposa is offering to add 6 employees and 3 vehicles to perform services currently provided by 2 City -employed Groundsworkers II. The staff report is not entirely clear, but apparently the three expected end -of -calendar -year - 2017 retirees consist of the two Groundsworkers II, whose positions will be eliminated, and one Parks Maintenance Supervisor, whose position will be fill by a Parks Maintenance Crew Chief. It is unclear if the proposed budget amendment reflects all of that, or just the amounts that need to be shifted to cover the increase to the Mariposa contact. It is also unclear why, in the new structure the City needs four Parks Maintenance Crew Chiefs to chief over a total parks maintenance crew of two. The proposed budget amendment at the suspiciously "round" amount of $165,000 appears intended to defray the increased contract costs for the period January 1 — June 30, 2018. But it is difficult to reconcile with the City's adopted budget, as per page D168 of the Budget Detail (page 217 of 446 in the PDF), the salary cost of Groundsworker II positions varies from $92,496 to $95,671 per year. That is difficult to correlate with a six months' "salary savings" of $110,000. And at least one of the current in-house functions ($13,000 for "Beach Trashcan Collection") does not seem like a typical landscaping function Mariposa would be expected to handle. Regarding the details of the proposed changes to the Mariposa contract, the recommended amendment will delete Appendix G ("Turfgrass Only Maintenance Locations & Acreage") and replace Appendix F ("Full Landscape Maintenance Locations & Acreage") in Exhibit A to the existing Agreement. However, those tables are repeated in Exhibit B ("Schedule of Billing Rates") and replacing the latter seems key to defining the new not -to -exceed amounts. Indeed, the proposed new Appendix F appears to insert billing rates where they don't currently exist. November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 10 I am unable to see how the contract can be effectively amended by replacing/deleting tables in Exhibit A without revising those in Exhibit B. As to the numbers in the revised Appendix F (and Exhibit B?), most of the newly added areas appear to be priced at the uniform rate of $7,537 per acre per year, with the exception of Marina Park, which, without explanation, is listed as costing $11,638 per acre per year. However, existing areas are now listed at varying amounts which match neither the original contract (which allowed $7,285 per acre for full landscaping) nor this new formula. For example, "Bayside Drive" is listed at $5,808.74 per acre and "Balboa Island Park" at $7,560.50 per acre, with no obvious rhyme or reason. Why is Marina Park maintenance so expensive? And why are the new areas (other than Marina Park) priced on a uniform, fixed per acre basis, but the existing areas not? More generally, why would a fixed per acre rate be applied to so many areas with quite different landscaping to maintain? Item 18. Community Programs Grants for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 This year's report seems unusual in that it mentions 17 applications were received, and recommends 12 awards (14 if one includes the two historical societies), but makes no mention of the 3 organizations whose requests were denied. Based on a quick review of the applications those appear to be: (1) Second Chance Orange County, a group that provides job training and placement services to addicts recovering in group homes, which asked for $7,500; (2) Stop Polluting Our Newport, which asked for $2,500 to support new community programming, and (3) the Newport Beach Library Foundation, which asked for $5,000 to support their Bunnies and Books program. Speak Up Newport, which was awarded $1,500 last year (Item 17, Nov. 22, 2016), does not appear to have applied. Of those programs for which support is recommended, I have to question the appropriateness of the new entrant: Amazing Grace Ministries. Newport Beach taxpayers are being asked to support their "Amazing Hour Program and Program Refuge" (note misspelling as "Reguge" in Attachment B, staff report page 18-7), which, based on the description I was able to find, consists of nothing more than weekly religious programming in assisted living homes, directed specifically to those sharing the Ministries' spiritual beliefs. However valuable that may be to those receiving this spiritual beneficence, I believe taxpayer support of any such program is contrary to the religious no -preference clause (Article 1, Sec. 4) and the non-support clause (Article XVI, Sec. 5) of the California Constitution, which the Council has sworn to uphold. November 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 10 Item 19. Request to Install Toshiba Classic Street Light Banners (N2017-0204) Since 1994, the City Council has had a policy (currently Policy L-16) proclaiming what appear to be sound public safety reasons for limiting the use of streetlight banners. Although it is good, per staff report page 19-12, to see staff has induced the applicant to reduce their request from 200 banners to 153, and to reduce the duration of hanging from 11 weeks to 4, the request is still in violation of the established Council policy. While noting other events that have been allowed use of the City streetlights in contradiction to the basic principles of the Council policy, the staff report is notably silent on the question of whether the Toshiba Classic was able to operate successfully in its previous 22 seasons without use of such banners. If nothing else, in view of the provision added to Policy L-16 on May 14, 2013, effectively making Council approvals of banner "variances" permanent (by allowing the City Manager to re -grant approval in future years without further Council direction) it would seem incumbent on the Council to question why 153 banners are needed — a number far in excess of the long-standing policy limit of 100, and with no prior precedent other than the presumably one -time -only BCS request in 2014. In that connection, it might also have been helpful for staff to provide a clearer list of exceptions that have been granted since the "evergreen" clause was added in 2013. Those I have been able to find include the Susan Komen race (Item 14, Aug. 13, 2013, approved for 89 banners), the 2014 Bowl Championship Series (Item 27, Nov. 26, 2013, for 176 banners promoted by Visit Newport Beach), Russo and Steele car shows (Item 15, May 13, 2014, for 100 banners — particularly problematic to me, since this event involves no charity component I'm aware of and was granted a waiver not only of the policy, but of the permit fee), and the Anaheim Ducks (Item 16, April 11, 2017, for 1 greatly oversized banner on the Newport Pier). The staff report is less than candid about the admission fee to this non -free event, which is apparently $25 per day in advance and $30 per day at the event. And it provides no explanation of why the Council should feel compelled to approve banner copy that includes (however small) commercial advertisements, when Policy L-16 clearly states (page 3, staff report page 19-15) "4. The banners shall contain only the name of the permittee and the date, time and the name of the event to be conducted by the permittee." One would have hoped the recommendation would have more clearly stated that the Council is being asked to waive (and allow the City Manager, in the future, to waive without further Council action), the number, free admission, and acceptable copy provisions of the present policy.