Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed October 8, 2019 Consent Calendar Comments October 8, 2019, 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 24, 2019 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in s*r°�utunderline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 194, last line of Item SS2: "The With Council Member Duffield absent, the straw vote was unanimous." Page 195, paragraph 2: "Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill noted the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) reduced the number of buses being used and began utilizing subsidized Lyft rides, and recommended also looking into that model instead of investing into a new program." [It might help to indicate the program alluded to is (apparently) unique to San Clemente. However, since the extent of the existing OCTA program was not clearly stated at the meeting, it is probably unfair to add that to the minutes — even though the draft minutes add similar embellishments to what was said, elsewhere. Perhaps all such clarifications to words spoken at the meetings should be added parenthetically?] Page 196, paragraph 4 from end: "Patrick ^e%ter De Vusser noted that the homeless population travel between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach" Page 197, Item XII, first bullet: "Attended a California Coastal Commission meeting and heard Deputy Community Development Director Campbell and the Back Bay Conservancy receive accolades regarding the Big Canyon Restoration Project; ..." [This is what was said, but the correct name is "Newport Bay Conservancy."] Page 198, Council Member Herdman, first bullet: "Attended john Wayne Airport (J" nemmittee meetings; an Aviation Committee meeting;.. " [The remark, at 1:40:50 in the video, referred to a single committee and a single meeting. And since he is its Chair, it would also be more accurate to say the Council Member "held" rather than "attended" the meeting.] Page 198, Mayor Dixon, second bullet: "Attended a 944 9/11 event..." Page 202, paragraph 2: "The With Council Member Duffield absent, the motion carried unanimously." Page 202, Item XVI, paragraph 4: "Donna Wamisl4 Warwick requested the City's assistance with the issues at the Newport Aquatic Center, ..." Page 202, Item 18, paragraph 1, line 3 from end: "... and noted staff's recommendation to use Costa Mesa or Tustin's model, focusing on temporary use until the homeless individual can get stabilized to move onto on to a more permanent solution, .." Page 203, paragraph 4: "Mayor Dixon Damen thanked the Homeless Task Force members,..." Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 11 Page 204, paragraph 4: "Arthur Greenbaum ... asked the City to push the State to use the Fairview Development Center for a County homeless shelter." [The correct name is "Developmental" (appears on page 205, paragraph 3, as well).] Page 204, paragraph 5 from end: "Council Member Avery ... indicated that permanent suppert supportive housing is the long term solution." Page 206, paragraph 3 from end of public comment: "Jim Mosher ... noted Council approved that the Campus Drive site be considered for use as a shelter, ..." [This is a garbled rendering of my erroneous statement that the Council had recently approved a housing project ("Newport Crossings") near the Campus Drive site. The Council members, understandably, would not remember approving that because, in fact, they did not: the 350 -unit Newport Crossings project was approved by the Planning Commission on February 21. Although appealed to the Council, the appeal was withdrawn before a Council hearing was scheduled. So, the Council never "heard" or voted on Newport Crossings.] Page 207, paragraph 3 from end, last sentence: "Regarding the Airway Avenue site, he noted that it is not scheduled to open until April 2020, although and Costa Mesa has not started construction." Page 208, paragraph 2: "With Council Member Brenner voting no, anal Council Member Avery abstaining; and Council Member Duffield absent, the motion carried 4-1-1-1." Page 208, Item 19, last paragraph: "The With Council Member Duffield absent, the motion carried unanimously." Page 210, paragraph 7: "Jim Mosher expressed support for citizen involvement, however, expressed concern relative to how members will be appointed to MAPC, believed MAPC would not be an advisory committee since only Council could override their decisions, stated Council should appoint the members, and reviewed the purpose of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and City Arts Commission." [The minutes reflect what I said, but I realize I did not clearly articulate my reasons for opposing the creation of the Marine Avenue Preservation Committee as described in the proposed enabling resolution. My primary reason for opposition was that in my view, we should not pre -judge who is best able to advise the City. Opportunities for Council -created citizen service, just like opportunities for elective service, should be advertised, for fixed terms and equally open to all applicants. That is what the "Maddy Act' (Cal. Government Code Section 54970 et seq.) attempts to achieve, however, imperfectly. The MAPC proposal violated all three of those principles: there was no plan to advertise opportunities to serve on the MAPC, the terms were indefinite and membership was restricted to persons selected by outside parties through an undefined and completely non -transparent process with no Council oversight. In my view (and appreciating we already violate the last principle in several Council -created bodies), the Council, in considering the suitability of applicants for advisory committees, can give weight to their participation or membership in private organizations, but it should not Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 11 delegate the power of appointment to those organizations (especially without retaining a veto power over their selection) or make membership in them a requirement for appointment. As to my comment about the people of Newport Beach, through City Charter Section 712, having taken out of the City Council's hands the question of who has the power and duty to advise the Council on "ordinances, rules and regulations as it may deem necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts, performing arts, historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community' and placed that with a City Arts Commission, I believe advising the Council on the preservation of the character of the community (and not just commercial areas) is an important issue that has been totally neglected by the CAC in the 45 years since this provision was added to the Charter on June 6, 1974. That comment should, however, be tempered by an understanding that few of the voters who approved the creation of the CAC in 1974 likely understood they were creating one, or what powers they were assigning to it, for the measure set forth on the ballot read as follows: "PROPOSITION 1 - CHARTER AMENDMENT.- Shall Proposition 1, which amends, deletes and updates certain sections of the City Charter to bring it into conformity with existing laws and to eliminate duplication and conflict, be ratified? YES or NO" (see City Council Resolution No. 8161). While it is true that there had, for 11 years, been a City Arts Committee (see City Council Resolution No. 6900) its powers and duties were limited to selecting art for public buildings and promoting and representing the City at cultural events. In any event, given our current rules, and the supremacy of our Charter, in my view concerns about preserving the character of Marine Avenue should be presented to the CAC (and about the selection of City -owned street trees, to PB&R) rather than to a new committee. Such principles were ignored in 2011-2012 when the Council created Revitalization Committees to bypass the advisory roles of the Charter -created commissions; and in 2012- 2016 a Tidelands Management Committee to work without prior advice from the Harbor Commission, among others. But past errors don't justify a continued misreading of our laws.] Page 211, paragraph 6: "The motion failed 2-2-1-2 (no — Brenner & O'Neill, Abstain abstain — Avery, absent — Duffield, recused — Herdman).' [The reason this motion to create the MAPC failed deserves comment. Although not recorded in the minutes, at the September 24 meeting statements were made that although it was still short of the 4 votes needed to adopt a resolution, the Council has a rule whereby abstentions are counted as "yes" votes, giving this motion a 3-2 majority. The reference was to the "Failure to Vote" paragraph on page 11 of City Council Policy A-1, but there is, in fact, no rule counting abstentions as "yes" votes. Instead, the policy says "The vote of Council Member who abstains absent a disqualifying conflict of interest shall be counted with the majority vote of the quorum on the question vote upon." The Council has seven members and a quorum is four, this means that only if there are three or more "yes" or "no" votes (a "majority vote of the quorum") are the abstentions added to them. This seemingly pointless rule (why would one need a fictitious majority stronger than the actual one?) was added to the Policy on February 22, 2011, specifically on the then -City Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 11 Attorney's recommendation to pad the number of "yeses" so as make it easier to meet statutory requirements for a specified number of affirmative votes on certain measures (see the February 8, 2011, video explaining the intent of study session Item SS2 and page 19 of February 22 Item 13). For example, the City Charter has long required "four affirmative votes" to adopt ordinances, resolutions and orders for payment of money, as well as to remove (but not appoint) the Council's appointees, to amend (but, oddly, not adopt) the budget; and "five affirmative votes" to introduce and pass an emergency ordinance (without the usual noticing), to bypass the normal public works bidding procedures and most recently, but less clearly, five "votes" to place City -sponsored tax increases on the ballot (City Charter Sec. 1115). Padding the number of actual "yes" votes makes all these easier to achieve without requiring Council members to study the issues and take a position on them. Although the official minutes from February 8, 2011, (Vol. 60, page 45) say "It was the consensus of Council to amend the abstention issue as presented in communications from Jim Mosher," this change was the opposite of my suggestion (see page 26 of the archived Item SS2 staff report). I recommended deleting earlier language because it could be read as allowing this practice. In my view, counting non -votes as votes is very poor public policy. And to the extent the resolution adopting this rule was thought to have superseded the clear requirements for "affirmative votes" in the Charter (or in other ordinances or state law) — and it has no other obvious purpose — I would guess it is illegal. As examples, this reading would allow the Council to evade the intended member -by -member accountability by firing the City Manager or introducing a tax measure on a vote of 3 yes with 4 abstentions, when 5 yeses are clearly required. To avoid possible disputes and litigation about this in the future, and since Policy A-1 otherwise defers to Roberts Rules of Order, I would strongly recommend that Policy A-1 revert to the Roberts Rules of Order convention that the presence of abstaining members who are otherwise eligible to vote counts toward the quorum, but their abstentions do not count as votes one way or the other. I would also suggest clarification that the Council can take no action of any kind with less than three "yes" votes (a majority of the quorum). And I would suggest adding something to the "Failure to Vote" paragraph to not only discourage members from abstaining, but to require them to publicly explain their reason for not voting. Possible reasons might be they have a personal bias, they don't feel informed enough to vote (in which case they should be asking questions and informing themselves) or after considering the issue in depth they (and by extension, those they represent) are so totally ambivalent about it they want to let the other members decide. Incidentally, I don't believe the most frequently invoked reason for abstaining in Newport Beach — not voting on the approval of minutes because the member didn't attend the meeting — is a valid one. Roberts Rules does not require this, and part of a member's Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 11 obligations to inform themselves includes reading the minutes of any meetings they missed. If they are unable to decipher what happened based on that reading (and having not been there, they are probably in the best position to decide if a third party can make sense of the record), they have (in my view) a positive obligation to vote against their adoption until clarified. In that connection, the Council may want to know that some jurisdictions require Council members to vote on all matters that come before them, including minutes of meetings they didn't attend (see, for example, the San Diego City Attorney's March 13, 2019 memo on this subject). In any event, under the present rule abstentions can never be used to break ties (as was attempted on September 24) nor to allow any Council action to be taken with less than three actual "yes" votes, for in that case there is no "majority vote of the quorum." (see 23:46 in the Feb. 8, 2011, study session video for that specific issue)] Page 211, paragraph before Item 21: "With Council Member Muldoon recusing himself and Council Member Duffield absent, the motion carried." Page 211, Item 21 (Fire Station No. 2 Replacement Project), paragraph 1: "Pursuant to the previous vote, the item was continued to the October 2-2 8, 2019 City Council meeting." [The "previous vote" (on the motion listed just prior to this in the minutes) was to "continue" this item pursuant to Council Policy A-1, and at 6:31:30 in the video, Mayor Dixon clarified the continuation was to the next Council meeting. That is, to October 8. Given that, it is unclear why the Fire Station Conceptual Design is not on the current agenda (or if it is really coming back on October 22), but it casts doubt on the reliability of all the minutes to record the Council's action on September 24 as something other than it was.] Page 211, end of last motion: "...; and d) set the date of November 19, 2019 for the tabulation of protests and to conduct a public hearing of proposed rates pending the results of the protest." Page 211, last line: "With Council Member Muldoon voting no and Council Member Duffield absent, the motion carried 5-1-0-1." Page 212, Item XIX, last paragraph: "With Mayor Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill, Council Member Avery and Council Member Muldoon voting no and Council Member Duffield absent, the motion failed, 2-4-0-1." Page 212, last paragraph: "The agenda and amended agenda were posted on the City's website and on the City Hall electronic bulletin board located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive on September 19, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. and September 20, 2019, at 2:20 p.m., respectively." [Note: unless there has been some ruling to the contrary in recent years, it is unlikely the electronic bulletin board in the Council Chambers vestibule provides a valid means of fulfilling the Brown Act requirement for publicly posting meeting agendas. Although (barring power outages) it is accessible 24 hours a day, it still does not (after six years) allow individual pages to be viewed on demand. The binder containing paper copies of the City's agendas is closer to fulfilling the public posting requirement, although it is less visible than Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 11 the old-style glass -covered bulletin boards used by most agencies and there is no guarantee the binder won't be removed or altered.] Item 4. Resolution No. 2019-89: Approval and Award of Professional Services Agreement for Banking and Merchant Card Processing Services with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Paymentech, LLC Note: starting on page 4-7, parts of this item's staff report (including the proposed resolution and portions of the contracts) have been posted in a non -searchable format. That is, there is no computer -readable text supporting the page images. That is not compliant with California state standards for open data. According to the table on staff report page 4-3, the Council faces a choice between JP Morgan and US Bank. US Bank has a slightly lower Technical Score than JP Morgan, but a much lower cost (less than half). And its Technical Score is higher than two firms that would charge much more than either of these. It is not clear to me why staff is not recommending US Bank. I would be especially skeptical of the recommendation since I suspect that while the price is absolute, the technical scoring provides only an imperfect indicator of the quality of service to be delivered. I think the Council should ask to see more detail as to how the technical scores were arrived at, so that it can understand if there is some compelling reason for the City to pay more than twice what it could for card processing services. That said, this is an extremely confusing staff report and recommendation. 1. "FUNDING REQUIREMENTS" on page 4-2 refers to "The merchant card processing fees of approximately $460,000 per year." That must strike many (even those who assume banks routinely rip customers off through use of the money they hold) as an extraordinarily large amount. 2. Fortunately, the estimated cost is apparently closer to the $466,215 over fifteen years, or $31,081 per year cited in the in recommendation "c)" on page 4-1 that the Council is being asked to approve. However, that is cited as being for "banking and services," possibly in addition to the fees of recommendation "d)." 3. But that is, without explanation, different from the $39,579 per year cited in the table on page 4-3, which figures to a fifteen -year cost of $593,685. 4. Much more importantly, the Council is being to authorize the Finance Director to approve the contract starting on page 4-12, which on page 4-13 lists the $466,215 as the not -to - exceed amount for the five-year term ending August 31, 2024, with the "terms, conditions and pricing" of ten possible one-year extensions to be determined by mutual agreement (per Section 1 on page 4-12). 5. Assuming $31,081 is agreed to annual limit on the total of banking and card processing charges, I believe the amount on page 4-13 should be the $155,405 Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 11 agreed to for the initial five-year term, with the not -to -exceed amount increased when and if extensions are agreed to. Additional comments: 1. A resolution authorizing someone other than the Mayor to sign a large contract is unusual. Although City Charter Section 421 allows that, it is unexplained why the Council is being asked to do so in this case. 2. This resolution is said (in the first "Whereas" on page 4-7) to be necessary, not to authorize the Finance Manager to sign, but rather to fulfill the City Charter Section 605 requirement for the Council to designate by resolution the depository to be used by the Finance Director. City Charter Section 605(e) actually authorizes the City Manager to make that designation in the absence of a designation by the Council, so it is not clear why the resolution is needed. a. It would have been helpful for the staff report to identify who the City's current bank (and, if different, card processor) is and what fees they are charging. b. If the Council did previously designate a different bank or banks', is it not necessary for the resolution to indicate if it is superseding some previous Council resolution designating a different bank as the City's depository? c. If the resolution is intended to exercise the Council's Charter Section 605(e) option, shouldn't it state that it is not just authorizing the Finance Director to sign contracts (again, why not the Mayor?), but actually say it is designating JP Morgan as the City's depository? 3. It is also unclear precisely what the approved resolution will consist of. It refers (on page 4-9) to an "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B," but on pages 4-9 and 4-10, those exhibits refer readers to the staff report to find the "full text." a. It is as unusual for a resolution to incorporate a staff report as it is for a resolution to be used to approve a contract, let alone a pair of contracts, one of which seems to incorporate the other. b. It would seem simpler for the Council to approve the contracts (without the resolution) and the Finance Director to use his authority under Policy F-1 to use the banks the Council has contracted with. c. In any event, if Resolution 2019-89 is approved, it is unclear what recommendations "c)" and "d)" on page 4-1 add to it. Why not include everything in the resolution if it isn't already? ' An early resolution, No. 4963 from 1959, appeared to authorize deposits in multiple, unnamed banks of staff's selection. Resolution No. 86-16 approved an agreement designating City National Bank as the City's sole authorized depository, but only for three years. Section D ("Banking Services") on page 6 of the current City Council Policy F-1, also adopted by resolution, could be read as giving staff discretion to select banks. Is the present resolution intended to override that and exclude staff's use of any other bank for the term of the agreement? Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 11 4. After going through all this rigmarole to authorize the Finance Director to sign the agreements, the contract has been prepared for the Mayor's signature even though the Mayor has not been authorized to sign (see page 4-23; it is less clear who will be signing the Merchant Agreement on page 4-98 through 102 [nor where to find the "Section 10" referred to on page 4-102]). 5. The possible costs the Council is being asked to agree to for banking services (separate from card processing) is completely unclear from the staff report. a. The table on staff report page 4-3 sites an annual cost of $31,081, but assumes this will be offset by earnings from the money on deposit even though the preceding paragraphs say this is uncertain, the interest paid by banks is notoriously low and JP Morgan is apparently offering no guarantee the charges will be offset by earnings. b. The cited cost is extremely difficult to reconcile with the billing rates the City is agreeing to, starting on page 4-69 (which include charges for depositing money with the bank, including $0.70 per $1,000 to deposit cash, $2.50 to make a deposit in person, $0.02 electronically, plus an additional $0.10 to reconcile each). The agreed to estimated annual cost is tellingly left blank on page 4-71, but is followed by several unexplained pages (with line items impossible to correlate with the categories in the preceding billing rate tables) concluding on page 4-76 with a "Total Charge for Services" of $8,181.69 — apparently for general banking services, not counting charges for card processing. i. If that is a monthly estimate, it would compute to $98,180 per year or $490,901 over the five-year initial term of the contract. Is that what the Council is being asked to agree to on page 4-13, hoping it will be offset by earnings? 6. The footnote to the table on page 4-3 cautions that the expected $39,579 (or is it $31,081?) per year of card processing fees discussed in connection with the present action "Only reflects bank transaction fees. Does not include credit card interchange pass-through fees and other assessments." a. I assume this refers to the warnings one sees when paying such things as property taxes by credit card that an additional "service charge" will be added to the amount due. b. What is the City's policy on adding these charges to the bill as opposed to accepting a lesser amount, as many retailers do? How much does allowing these fees to be deducted from the amount received cost the City? And how does this agreement affect that? Are other options available? It might finally be noted that nothing about these agreements has been reviewed by the Council's Finance Committee. Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 11 Item 6. Contract with Arts Orange County to Manage Phase V of the Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park The proposed agreement (page 6-5) appears to have the wrong "effective date" in the first paragraph. If approved, the agreement would presumably be effective "October 8" rather than "September 24." On page 6-18, the agreement appears to place the responsibility for developing and conducting the online survey with the City Arts Commission rather than with the contractor. In the past two phases, I had the impression the contractor conducted the survey, and I believe the online survey should be included in the "project management" cost. Since there was, apparently, no competition for this contract, staff seems to regard it as a sole - source "product." In return for that consideration, one might hope the contract price to perform what becomes an increasingly routine operation would go down. Instead, it is going up this year to pay, we are told, for more concrete pad installations. Those pads are actually a possible criticism of Arts OC's performance, for while it has overseen the construction of pads at various locations in the park it does not seem to have required their removal when art works are removed, adding to clutter in what was originally conceived as a nature park, and the impression of some City Arts Commissioners that there are many more sites "designated" for manmade art than there ever were. In that connection, the staff report implies at the bottom of page 6-1 that the rotating sculpture exhibit is an implementation of the Peter Walker and Partners master plan for art in the park. It would be good to know, definitively, what the PWP vision was. What purports to be an Arts Master Plan from 2010, contained in an agreement with the Orange County Museum of Art (which was originally going to provide the sculptures, see page 17 of Item 12 from the June 22, 2010, City Council meeting), bears little resemblance to the present exhibit. Nor did a later (but still preceding the San Miguel bridge) Master Plan reproduced on page 10 of the Item 21 from May 13, 2014 (proposing the inaugural exhibit). It is also unclear to what the extent the evolving design and use of the park have been guided by recommendations of the City's Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, as would seem to be required by City Charter Section 709. Another criticism of Arts OC's performance of previous contracts (perhaps because it's not in the contract?) is the absence of any promotion of the City's Sculpture Exhibit as a signature event that artists would want to participate in. Rather than creating increased interest among artists, the number of applications has declined in recent years, with many of them being from artists who have already exhibited. 2 The original contract from 2014, C-5672, to select and install 10 sculptures (without de -installation) was for $118,730, so Arts OC's charges have gone down, although not as much as some Council members once hoped. Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 11 Much as it would be unfortunate for the management contract to be robotically assigned and executed by the same agent, it would be unfortunate for the park to become a venue for a small number of artists to exhibit year after year. Item 7. Benefits Broker Third Party Administrator - Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Burnham Benefits Insurance Services It is good to see staff making a recommendation well in advance of the expiration of an existing contract, and not presenting it to the Council at the last possible minute (as I would do), when there is no practical chance to reconsider. It is also good to see all the cost options available, not just the recommended one. Item 9. Budget Amendment to Accept a Check from the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation and Appropriate Funds to the Library's Fiscal Year 2019-20 Maintenance and Operation Budget Although the City should be grateful for the fundraising conducted by the Library Foundation, it would be good to see a summary of the Foundation's annual revenues over the years and the amount of that going to the City. The Board of Library Trustees is supposed to have been tracking this under agreements reached in 2000 (when things seemed to be going awry),' but I don't believe they have. My impression is the Foundation's revenues have been rising, but the amount going to the library has been declining, largely as the result of the Foundation using its revenue to conduct its own programming in, but independent of, the library4. Admittedly, I may be the only one who sees something vaguely improper in this delegation, without retaining any control, of essentially governmental functions to a privately -run entity with a self-appointed board. But I nonetheless do. In particular, I think the City should be requiring clearer accounting that donations the donors think are going to the library are truly going there. Finally, those who actually read the staff report and view Attachment A, on page 9-3, may be surprised to discover the Council is being asked to prospectively accept a donation only one- quarter of which is being offered at the present time, forcing the Finance Department to add some kind of new IOU line item for the Foundation to the already arcane accounting of library donations (with the money, like much of the budget, being allocated before it is received). ' See the Council's review of the pending agreement (which was later signed), Item SS03 from the January 25, 2000, meeting. Since this is a City contract, I believe it should be in the Clerk's archives, but I don't think it is. 4 Some past agreements, such as C-3664 having, possibly, been forgotten. Oct. 8, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 11 Item 10. Beacon Bay Ground Lease Finance Subcommittee Report This was last before the Council as Item SS2 on February 12. Put in its crudest terms, the Beacon Bay leaseholders, who have been allowed to develop private homes on public land, would like to enjoy that land rent free and, like the City's mooring holders, to have any future appreciation in the value of the land accrue to themselves rather than to the public. While they are willing to settle for paying a nominal rent, they do not want that rent to increase during their time of "ownership." Since much of this land is under the jurisdiction of the State Land Lands Commission, which is already uncomfortable with the idea that private residences are a good use for it, it seems unlikely any of these requests will go anywhere. Much of the report is written in a language I struggle to understand, but I suspect the "Additional Information" on pages 10-10 and 10-11 is intended to suggest that rather than overcharging the Beacon Bay lessees, the City is substantially undercharging them. It is unclear what the Council plans to do with this information. Item 11. Grants and Donations Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2019 Since it is not explained in the staff report, some Council members may be curious what the "Santiago Library System" (the only grantor in the current reporting period) is, and why the City is receiving money from it. SLS is a cooperative consortium of most, but not all, libraries in Orange County. The City has participated in the SLS at least since signing the very old Joint Powers Agreement filed as contract C-1218 (which may or may not still be valid due to City Charter restrictions on the duration of contracts in the days when it was signed). I do not know what the City did to qualify for the grant, nor do I recall its relationship with SLS having been discussed at a Board of Library Trustees meeting.