Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2004 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session January 27, 2004 - 4:00 pan. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Heffernan requested clarification on whether the order of business on tonight's agenda would be modified. City Manager Bludau confirmed that the order of business will remain as is since the item addressing this is the last item to be considered on the evening agenda. He reported that he plans to pull Items 9, 11, 16 & 17. 2. EQUESTRIANS AND NEWPORT BEACH'S ANIMAL WASTE ORDINANCE. City Manager Bludau reported that this item has had a lot of play in the newspapers, however since it has not come to a Council meeting he felt the timing was right to have Assistant City Manager Kiff provide a PowerPoint presentation on the issue and what position staff has taken regarding the ordinance. Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation Assistant City Manager Kiff briefly reviewed what will be covered tonight: 1) why we're here; 2) what the municipal code says; 3) TMDL's; 4) why we're not just picking on horses; 5) what research tells us; 6) some going - forward options; and 7) where more information can be obtained. Mr. Kiff reported that a resident received an administrative citation on University Drive for not adequately picking up horse manure. He explained that on July 1, 2003 the City annexed east Santa Ana Heights (SAH) and subsequent to that staff received requests from residents along Cypress Avenue to appropriately sign and enforce the municipal code about animal nuisances. Staff believes it should be done as well, partly because of water quality protection. Subsequent to the issuance of the citation, members of the equestrian community from across the state and other states challenged the intent and practicality of the municipal code as it relates specifically to horses. Mr. Kiff reviewed Section 7.20.020 of the municipal code which states that if you have an animal it is unlawful to permit the animal to defecate on any public sidewalk, beach, park or on any other public property or on any private property that isn't yours. It also says that if you are carrying or have control of an animal on public property you should have in your possession a device to clean or Volume 56 - Page 614 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 U 15. remove any feces deposited by the animals. He noted the exceptions outlined in Section C — an animal enrolled in an obedience class or a show for which the City has issued a permit or specifically a guide dog while being used by a blind person. Mr. Kiff explained that the Fecal Coliform TMDL ( FCTMDL) was approved in December of 1999 and basically it says that the entire bay (upper and lower) needs to meet water contact recreation standards for swimming, wading and surfing by 2014 and that we have to meet even tougher standards for shellfish harvesting by 2020. He further explained that a TMDL is a "total maximum daily load" which can be both a daily limit on a pollutant and a plan to achieve a daily limit (it sets the number and describes how you're going to get to that number). TMDLs have their roots in the federal Clean Water Act and the Section 303(d) List, which dates back to the 1970s. A Section 303(d) Listed body is one that it has it's beneficial uses impaired by poor water quality. The US EPA creates TMDIA and they do so after a stakeholder involved process, which is typically a very slow process. The process was faster for Newport Bay and it came as a result of Defend the Bay's lawsuit against the US EPA in the mid 1990s, when Defend the Bay said that the bay is in bad shape and not enough is being done to clean it up so the tools in the Clean Water Act need to be used to get it cleaned up. As a result of that lawsuit Newport Bay was the lat California water body to have a TMDL, and in fact there are four of them. Using a map prepared in 1998, he showed where the impaired water bodies are in California, Nevada and Arizona, and noted that Newport Beach is 5 -10 years ahead of the curve in getting TMDLs. Newport Bay has four TMDLs because we are water quality limited for four things: 1) excessive nutrients; 2) excessive sediment; 3) fecal coliform (FC); and 4) toxic pollutants. He noted that we don't know that FC makes people sick, but the regulatory agencies use it as an indicator of human waste that may carry with it viruses, parasites, etc. that are much more difficult to test for. FC is easy to see in the water after a short inexpensive test and the viruses and parasites are much harder, so US EPA uses the easier testing mechanism. The standard for FCTMDL is 200 colony forming units (du) per 100 ml, which is used by the County when testing water. He indicated that most of the bay meets the standard today, but some parts don't. The parts that don't are all the tributaries (Santa Ana/Delhi Channel, San Diego Creek, and Big Canyon Wash), almost all the storm drains that were sampled, and the bay water around part of Newport Island. The challenge that the City has is that this is a very stringent standard and science is incapable of identifying the source of the bacteria, so the lack of specificity is problematic because it is difficult to enforce something that can't be traced. Mr. Kiff explained that the City is not just picking on horses, but picking on everybody and noted that the City believes that it must address as many possible sources of FC as possible. He noted that restaurant hose -downs are a crime; the City has an aggressive grease interceptor inspection program; business owners have to recover wash water; there are penalties under consideration for excessive irrigation; building and grading codes have been changed; street sweeping is occurring more often; a new closed circuit TV system has been enacted for the sewers; and additional positions have been added in the Code & Water Quality Enforcement division. He provided examples of what types of things the City has done (signage, doggie bag dispensers, catch basin combos, etc.) and the issuance of hundreds of enforcement actions for NPDES violations. He further explained the storm drain to sewer diversions, where the storm drain is intercepted and it is put into Volume 56 - Page 615 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 INDEX the sanitary sewer. He noted that the City has one in existence and another five are planned at a cost of $40,000 - $200,000 each. Mr. Kiff noted that there were 533 citations issued during the last 12 month period in the County and the City had 456 of those, which does not include what staff refers to as "knock & talks" where code enforcement tries to educate the people and change the behavior without an enforcement action. As far as what this costs the City, he noted that the Council has budgeted $2.2m to the NPDES program, which includes the alley sweeping, TMDL compliance and the Code & Water Quality Division; about $1.6m goes to comply with new regulations on the sewers to reduce sewer spills as a water quality contaminant; a Clean Beaches Initiative grant of $300,000 and $33.7m for habitat improvement. Without the habitat improvement money the City is roughly spending $4.75m annually to protect water quality. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question about how this compares to what was spent five years ago, City Manager Bludau estimated that at that time the City spent approximately $300,000., Mr. Kiff explained that as far as what is being spent by other cities, he said the information is only known anecdotally from reviewing reports that everyone is required to file. He noted that the coastal cities do spend more, but no one spends more per capita than Newport Beach because we have the TMDL obligation and also operate our own sewer system. In response to Council Member Nichols, Mr. Kiff indicated that if the City dropped the program the City would receive a letter from the regional board advising that we are out of compliance with the Storm Water Permit. The City was audited during the summer and received a fairly good audit review and a couple of items to work on. The consequence of being out of compliance can be upwards of fines of $25,000 per day. Council Member Nichols noted that it may be cheaper to go that way. Mayor Ridgeway explained that the perception that the City has dirty water would impact the City. He noted that the economic impact on the City of Huntington Beach when they were in violation of AB411 was tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue from the tourist trade during that summer. He noted that the impact on Newport Beach would be significant and the $25,000 /day fine would pale to the economic impact on the City. Mr. Kiff noted that the fines described are only State fines and the City would also be subject to federal fines and criminal violations. Mayor Ridgeway noted that Huntington Beach has eight diversion programs with the Sanitation District and Seal Beach has three and the capital improvement cost for each of those diversions is up to $300,000, and there will be an operational cost in the near future. Assistant City Manager Kiff said that if the City had it's druthers the FCTMDL would not be FC based since it is a poor indicator of human waste and it's almost impossible to effectively source it in a watershed. He noted that FC is also present in the intestinal tracts of many different species of animals. According to research, he noted that a horse can produce 230,000,000,000 du of FC bacteria in one day's worth of waste. He also noted that the University of Minnesota also says that E. coli (a type of FC) clearly comes from horses and another sources says it may contain bacteria of a fecal source. He noted that other research indicates that horse intestines don't contain the kinds of things that make people sick and that most viruses with zoonotic (animal -to -human transmission) are not in horse waste. Backcountry use of horses for recreational riding are unlikely to create a significant parasitic threat and another study says that a particular strain of E. coli is not significant in horse intestines. He noted that horse manure may be totally unlikely or very unlikely to threaten Volume 56 - Page 616 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 INDEX human health even in water, but the TMDL isn't a human health threat I not an E. coli O157 TMDL, or not a human virus TMDL — it is a FC TMDL. As far what the City has done, Mr. Kiff explained that the area has been "signed", has paid for waste can and shovels, corresponded about an "Adopt -A- Trail" program, and have issued one citation. From the staffs perspective, the main concern should be the removal of the waste from the hard surfaces so it doesn't get into the storm drain. He said there may be ways to do BMP's (best management practices) on the bridle trails, there could be an effective trail cleaning program, and the City clearly wants to send the message that the equestrian community is welcome in Newport Beach and Santa Ana Heights. Mr. Kiff noted that some of the things the City may want to consider are: 1) a licensing program for horses which would include a fee to cover increased trail maintenance and street sweeping; 2) a test period for the Adopt -A -Trail program; 3) continue with full enforcement of the ordinance; or 4) come back and decide if the letter of the ordinance should apply to street, sidewalk and driveways but a trail cleaning program for the bridle trails might suffice for that. He noted that the biggest concern from the City's perspective is the manure on the hard surface, especially right before a storm event that will be swept right into the storm drain and into the bay. Mayor Ridgeway explained that the NPDES permit is a master permit given to the County of Orange and then each of the 34 cities is a co- permittee with the County. He further noted that when SAH was part of the County, the County was not enforcing the permit in the east SAH area. Mr. Kiff said that it is his and staffs contention that the County should have been doing that in order to comply with the permit. He noted that the permit is very clear and says that a storm drains contribution to a waterway shall not cause or contribute to a water quality standard being exceeded and it's very clear that anything coming out of a storm drain can't adversely impact a waterway. Mayor Ridgeway noted that what is new to the community is not annexation but enforcement. In response to Council Member Webb's question regarding animal -based fertilizer, Mr. Kiff explained that it is usually comprised of waste from steers, chickens, bats, etc. and noted that the City now only uses synthetic fertilizers. He did note, however, that many people use horse manure for composting on a residential basis. Council Member Nichols said that from his perspective something that maybe the City should consider is that cities on the east coast were only putting in water treatment plants for their rivers in the 1970s and even today the City of Montreal does not have water treatment for sewage that goes into the St. Lawrence River. In most of the cities in Mexico there is not sewage treatment for the water that goes into the ocean. Now the City is talking about not only treatment of sewage but going way beyond that. He said that maybe the City needs to put a perspective on that and feed it back in and ask the people who are making up these laws to put it into perspective. He said that some of this has gone beyond the pale and if you look at the costs in the Back Bay if that liability falls on Newport Beach, the City would be bankrupt. He said maybe the City should get a big perspective on this and not just a little tiny one when some of these things are done. Council Member Webb said he feels the Council owes a clean bay to the citizens and as far as a perspective is concerned the City needs to do whatever is necessary to protect the water quality in the ocean and bays and he doesn't think that asking for regulations to be changed is the way to go. Council Member Bromberg noted that the City of Newport Beach has taken it upon themselves to Volume 56 - Page 617 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 INDEX become the textbook example of what water quality is supposed to be. He said that both sides of the issue need to recognize that we have a responsibility to the residents, future residents and people in all protocols, as well as recreational visitors to the City. He said the City has the largest pleasure yacht harbor in the U.S. and an incredible Back Bay, so this does have to be done. Council Member Nichols commented that there has been almost nothing proven and of the diseases animals carry very few of them are passed on to humans. He said there has to be some kind of reasonability and knowledge and we need to ask them to come up with some better standards. He noted that throughout the country there have always been waters that you can't fish in and basically that has always been the case. He said that just because we have a little money doesn't mean that it should all go into a cause that is ridiculous and some of this is ridiculous. Council Member Bromberg reported that there are other waterways in this country and in the world where you cannot swim or fish because of the pollution but it is how that pollution got there in the first place that is the issue - because of irresponsible actions by governments and individuals. Tom Grey distributed copies of his testimony and thanked Mr. Kiff for his fair and balanced presentation. He noted that all of the equestrians in SAH are willing to do whatever is necessary to help Newport Beach meet their water quality requirements that are imposed by the Regional Water Quality Board. He noted that he feels it is impractical to ask riders to dismount and clean up immediately after their horse poops on the trail and noted the differences between picking up after a dog and a horse. He noted that the task on horseback is complicated by many factors such as: 1) dismounting and mounting safely; 2) carrying cleaning equipment; 3) tying up the animal since it requires two hands to do the clean up; and 4) the horses instinct to flee from danger. He noted that for most riders complying with the pooper scooper law goes beyond inconvenience to impractical and unsafe. He said he is not aware of any other equestrian zoned property in California that has a pooper scooper law that applies to horses. He pointed out that eliminating all horses from SAH will not eliminate the water quality problem in the Delhi Channel, which consistently rates above the TMDL level regardless of rain or shine. He said he feels it is incumbent upon the residents to provide some types of solutions and noted that the Back Bay Equestrians have suggested a couple of solutions: 1) Adopt -A- Trail; and 2) if that doesn't work he would be willing to enroll his property in a special tax assessment district and be taxed to have clean -up service provided by the City. Mayor Ridgeway expressed his appreciation for Mr. Gey presenting solutions and noted that there are 80,000 residents downstream from SAH that the Council has a concern for, as well as the 100,000 visitors per day in the summer. Sheila Ferguson, member of the Back Bay Equestrians, explained how "ponying" works with a child being led on a horse and then being in charge of two horses which makes it more difficult to pick up manure at the same time. She reiterated that the Back Bay Equestrians want to work together and asked the Council to give the Adopt -A -Trail program a try. She further explained that the trails are made of DG (decomposed granite), which allows a filtering process prior to the manure getting to the dirt. She noted that they aren't allowed to ride on dirt and are limited just to DG trails. Volume 56 - Page 618 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 INDEX Jayne Jones indicated that the residents want to help the City and indicated that they can provide more educational resources for the Council. She said that one of the things that is very important to them is to feel wanted and noted that the signs posted in the neighborhood do not portray that and everyone believes the City wants to get rid of horses. She said that the Back Back Equestrians are asking that the City remove the signs as soon as possible and allow them to work with Mr. Kiff to make their neighborhood a friendly community for equestrians. She said if the signs stay up the equestrians will go away. She noted that to put references to an ordinance on a sign that don't pertain to horses is inappropriate. She referenced ordinances related to livestock and said that they need to be updated. She indicated that she has advised the code enforcement staff members to call her and she'll pick up after the horses rather have someone cited. She indicated that they have a lot of solutions and again requested that the signs come down while they work with staff on revised ordinances that pertain to their specific area. She offered to bring in outside people to provide information on legal aspects, safety issues, and water quality issues. She questioned the reasoning behind the replacement of animal based fertilizers with chemical based fertilizers and noted that she would think they would be more disastrous to wildlife than organic fertilizers. City Manager Bludau explained that signage is a key component to enforcement, so if the City is going to enforce and write citations, then the signage needs to be in place so there is a knowledge that they are disobeying a law. He said he is unclear about the Adopt -A -Trail program, however understands that the clean -up would occur at the end of the day and questioned who would be cited if that doesn't happen. In response to questions raised by Council Member Heffernan, it was reported that there are over 100 horses in SAH. Mr. Kiff reminded the Council that when the SAH area was pre -zoned prior to annexation the City adopted the specific plan which includes the equestrian zoning. The ordinance citation referenced earlier about livestock says "unless otherwise noted in Title 20", which is where the specific plan is located. Mr. Kiff noted that there are horses on approximately 50 -60 lots in SAH, and noted that boarding is specifically prohibited although it does occur. Holly Jarvis noted that this is a huge issue to the neighborhood and said that when the signs go up the property values are affected. She said they have been paying some people to clean up the trails once a week for the past two years which has been funded by donations from the equestrians in the neighborhood. She said it isn t that they are against picking up after the horses, but it is impractical and unsafe for probably 90% of the riders in the neighborhood. She said it is difficult for code enforcement to determine whose pile of manure is on the trail. She said a much better solution would be for a blanket type of clean- up and there needs to be a differentiation between the manure on the streets and the sidewalks that go straight to the storm drain and the manure that is on the established bridle trails. She indicated that they would like to work on a solution and noted that they know they are being held to a higher standard than other equestrian communities in the state and Newport Beach is the only city where riders are being asked to pick up after their horses as they ride. In response to the cost issue raised by Council Member Rosansky, she indicated that she thinks the person that cleans weekly is paid $10 -$20. Volume 56 - Page 619 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 Tom Anderson, President of the Equestrian Coalition of Orange County, said there are people all over the U.S. interested in this issue. He said they don't consider the back bay as being the purview of Newport Beach only but believe it is an estuary of prime interest to environmentalists, ecologists, equestrians, bikers, hikers, and many other people. He said he encourages riders to experience riding in Upper Newport Bay. Regarding the citation that was issued, he said he can think of no possible way that this woman with her clients, who was teaching an environmental class at the time, could have possibly known that she was going to be cited. She indicated that the signage was not within her view and she could not enter the staging area because the nature center was chained off at the time. She never saw the code enforcement official and she did clean up after her horses — she did everything she could possibly have done to be environmentally conscious and safe on this issue, yet she was issued a citation through the mail. He stated that she cleaned up with a pitchfork, which does leave residue. Stacey Phillips explained that the signage is a major issue for the equestrians because right now they can get citations and it is almost impossible to dismount immediately to clean up. She said a good solution which she thinks they're all willing to contribute to is to have someone daily come in and clean up the horse manure. She said the sign is basically saying don't ride because you can get a ticket. She reiterated that the trails are all DG and said that the manure on the hard surfaces wouldn't be much of an issue if there was a clean -up crew coming through daily. Council Member Bromberg said he would like to see something come back on this which will give the residents an opportunity to work on this and that we provide a reasonable period of time when they have the responsibility to pay $20 /day to clean it up and the City monitors the situation. If it turns out that this isn't feasible and won't work, then we'll be back to citations. Council Member Webb agreed that if the users can take care of the problems that are occurring it would be great. He noted that last summer in Charleston the horses pulling carriages through town were wearing diapers, and if everything else fails it may need to be looked into. Council Member Rosansky lauded the residents for their Adopt -A -Trail solution, however said he isn't sure it will be the solution to a long -term problem. If staff is going to come back with proposals to solve the problem, he would like to see information on a licensing fee, which would be allocated towards taking care of the problem. If this were done the City would not have to rely on volunteers to do it and it would spread the burden amongst all of them and maybe then the signs could be removed. Council Member Heffernan noted that he was raised on a farm and had horses and noted that unfortunately they are in the path of progress. He noted that he cant wash his car in his driveway either so he sympathizes with them and said the clean -up crew may be a step in the right direction, as long as it is a reliable program. Mayor Ridgeway said he thinks everyone agrees that it is impractical and unsafe to get off a horse and pick up after them. As far as the signage issue he said he's unsure whether the City can work with them on that issue, however will leave that to Mr. Kiff and the code enforcement staff. He said the signs may need to be toned down, however if the signs are removed, the City will not be able to do any enforcement and that doing nothing is not an option. Mayor Pro Tem Adams questioned whether the signs could be removed if the community agrees to the Adopt -A -Trail program for the short term until staff comes back Volume 56 - Page 620 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 with a proposal for licensure and the City taking over the responsibility for a fee. Council Member Bromberg said he doesn't feel like the signs need to come down, but if the City is going to try the Adopt -A -Trail program there is nothing wrong with suspending enforcement during the trial period. Staff indicated that they will work with the direction provided and will bring this back to Council in 6 -8 weeks. a. BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFFING LEVELS - CONTRACT PLAN CHECKERS VERSUS STAFF PLAN CHECKERS. City Manager Bludau introduced the item by stating that for a number of years the City of Newport Beach has conducted its plan check services partially by staff and partially by contracting out. It was done based on economic downturn in the early 90s and staff thinks it is time to revisit that issue based upon the number of plan checks done by staff and the number of plan checks that are sent to outside plan checkers. He said he is bringing this to the Council because he thinks it is a management and customer service issue that needs to be revisited. Mayor Ridgeway spoke in support of going in -house and hiring a couple of new staff members. Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation Building Director Elbettar explained that the presentation will explain the reasons why this is being brought before Council, will talk about the current staff, the historical review of construction activity and the current workload. Referring to an organizational chart in the presentation he indicated that staff is addressing the plan check function. Currently there are four engineers used for in -house plan check in addition to four outside consultants and one geotechnical consultant for a total of five outside consultants. As background he indicated that the economy took a downturn in the early 90s. He indicated that the construction activity is measured in many ways and one is the construction valuation, which is basically the cost of the value of construction permits issued in the city. In 1994 the Building Department assumed plan check and inspection of fire alarms and sprinkler systems from the Fire Department in lieu of laying off one person due to the cutbacks. In 1995 the grading engineer position was eliminated due to the budget cutbacks and that same year the construction valuation was $79m and increased to $220m in 2000. Showing a chart which depicts the current valuation from 1993 to the current year, he said that the average construction valuation for the last seven years is $216m per year. Mr. Elbettar clarified that the $215m projected for 2004 represents the construction valuation of permits issued based on a regional formula and it is not the actual cost. He said staff feels the actual cost or value is a lot higher in the City. In response to Mayor Ridgeway's questions, he indicated that the additional positions would be self - funded by fees paid by the people coming to plan check. Mr. Bludau reiterated that he never wants to add staff without Council buying into it and noted that the City could hire one more plan checker and one more counter technician for about $111,000 or could hire two plan checkers and still in an anticipated downturn probably still have $40 -50m plans checked by outside plan checkers. He said his recommendation is that the staffing level provided by the City should be increased and the number of consultants be reduced. He noted that with the appeals he receives from contractors there are far more from outside plan checkers than from staff. Mayor Ridgeway again noted that this is self- Volume 56 - Page 621 U 1 5'. (100/2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 INDEX funding, the outside plan checkers have to be checked by staff, there is duplicate effort, wasted money and poor service. Mayor Pro Tem Adams disagreed and indicated he has issues with the proposal. Council Member Bromberg stated that Council often receives complaints about Building or Planning, however when reviewed, the complaints have always been about an outside plan checker. He noted that if it is self funding it will give the City a higher quality of service and said he has no problem with doing it. Mayor Pro Tem Adams indicated that it may be true that there are problems with outside plan checking as it is being done, however he questioned whether it is being done properly, are the right people being hired, and are they being held to a high enough standard. He indicated that they could be hired and they could work in -house at City desks. He said one of his questions is the costs that are being attributed to in -house staffing and questioned whether benefits were included. Mr. Bludau confirmed that benefits were included and this would be the total cost to the City. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he made a promise a long time ago that he was going to resist adding City staff and he said his feeling is that if staff is added here then it has to be taken away somewhere else. He said he doesn't believe adding more people to the City payroll is the appropriate thing to do right now and he said he knows by his own experience that hiring consultants to work in- house does work. Mayor Ridgeway gave examples of his personal experience working with outside plan checkers and noted that he has also resisted the hiring of additional staff. He said the City has gone from an average of $95m to $216m per year and he doesn't see it decreasing, especially since the City has two new annexed areas and a potential third one. Mr. Elbettar reported that in Newport Coast the City does not provide plan checks, but does provide secondary permits for properties that have turned over, however in Santa Ana Heights, the City has seen heavy activities for commercial buildings in the past two to three months. He went on to explain that the nature of the outsourcing for building plan check is different than for other services. He said many of the consultants don't have full-time staff, however just staff up based on their needs and tend to hire moonlight people. He indicated that the quality is not there since it is a very competitive business and they run a shoestring operation. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stressed that consideration needs to be given to hiring outside services on a full -time basis with them housed internally. Mr. Elbettar indicated that the cost would be outrageous ($120/hr.) since they run their business in mass production. He said another issue they deal with is with the actual revisions later on that are made to plans. The revisions slow the construction and the customers demand that the revisions be approved instantaneously. The in -house staff then has to deal with the revisions and they're not familiar with the project since they haven't checked them. He added that the staffing level of four plan checkers is similar to the same staffing level in 1980. Council Member Heffernan reiterated that he receives complaints all the time about the high fees and the lousy service, which exacerbates issues like loan closings, loan rates, additional rental costs, etc. He said he feels this is a critical service since the residents can't go anywhere else to get the service. He said if we can't do a good job we should either get out of the business or correct the problem or tell the residents we can't do it. Providing the services outside creates a huge bottleneck because it forces outside people to make decisions and then staff has to deal with it at the counter. He indicated that there will be a downturn when interest rates go up, however at the same time there will be other issues dealing with remodels, tear- downs, that have previously been handled by the County. He reiterated that there is a problem and the City is Volume 56 - Page 622 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 INDEX not addressing the need and we're the only ones that can address it. Mayor Pro Tem Adams requested the courtesy of staff addressing his suggestion to see what the actual costs are for consultants providing personnel in- house. He said that the benefit of having consultants is that when they're not needed, they're gone and there is no question about it or the firing of City employees. He noted that for the privilege of that you pay some fee, which is maybe 8 %. Council Member Webb said he's watched the City grow over the years and watched the effort to maintain as low a level of staffing as possible, however we keep annexing and even though currently the building permits for Newport Coast are handled by the County, as those units are turned over there is going to be a tremendous demand for people to add facilities to their houses. The City is going to have to have staff to take care of it. He said he thinks Mr. Elbettar has done an excellent job of managing his staff. He said he can't quite figure out why that if we project that we're going to need a certain staffing level that we can't get that staffing level less expensively if they are hired City employees rather than paying for the employee, the benefits and the profit for the company. He questioned where the new staff members would be housed. Mr. Elbettar indicated that staff is looking for direction since currently staff is checking 31% of plans and the consultants are checking 69 %. He indicated that staff wanted to present Council with the facts — the current workload, what they're dealing with and then they can address other issues later. He indicated that all of the consultants services will not be traded off and outside consultants are usually used to address temporary needs and peaks in terms of construction and the economy. He said there has been a sustained construction activity over the last 7 -8 years that is way above what can be handled by the full-time staff. He said that if they wanted to eliminate consultants today, they would have to hire four engineers. He said that they need direction just to adjust the balance since it currently is not efficient to process all the permits and it isn't an effective service delivery for the customers. Council Member Webb questioned whether another trailer would be added if personnel is added. Mr. Elbettar pointed out that about 40 customers per day are assisted by an engineer, which is a full day's work, therefore they don't have time to check plans since they're at the counter all day. Council Member Heffernan noted that if there is all this construction activity, it increases the taxed assessed values as well, so if the City is doing this sort of volume then in fact revenue is not only received from the building permit but also revenue on an ongoing basis from increased property taxes. He indicated that this has nothing to do with a transfer of the property but has to do with a substantial construction activity triggering a re- assessment. He noted that the City is benefiting on a long -term basis as well as far as another revenue source. Mayor Pro Tem Adams questioned where new staff would be housed and what the cost would be until there is a new City Hall and questioned whether that cost has been included in the coat- benefit ratio. Mr. Bludau replied that it has not been and he thinks they could house one plan inspector and share a desk and if the Council goes with the recommendation of hiring two then space elsewhere will need to be considered. Mayor Pro Tem Adams reiterated that if the City is considering adding staff that the City take a very close and cautious examination of it and reiterated that he doesn't want to have to go through lay -offs at the City. Council Member Nichols said that the City also needs to look at quality and said he would hate to see another Getz issue arise again. Mayor Pro Tem Adams noted that the City could get creative and take the whole thing off -site and have a consultant provide a separate office to house a complete plan check operation and have a mix of consulting and City Volume 56 - Page 623 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 staff. He agreed that there is a quality problem and using consultants working in their own offices using moonlighting city employees from other cities is not good and if that is what is happening, it is unacceptable. Mr. Bludau confirmed that staff will bring this item back after the research has been completed. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None - at 5:45 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 21, 2004, at 3 :30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. i City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 56 - Page 624 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 27, 2004 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Volume 56 - Page 625