Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2004 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 - 7 :00 p.m. STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m. INDEX CLOSED SESSION - None A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway (left at 10:20 p.m.) Absent: Adams (excused; arrived at 9:25 p.m.) C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Rosansky E. INVOCATION - Reverend Peter D. Haynes, Saint Michael and All Angels Episcopal Parish Church F. PRESENTATIONS Presentation on the 2004 Tommy Bahama Newport to Ensenada Race by Peter Bretschger of the Newport Ocean Sailing Association (NOSA). Mr. Bretschger announced that this year's race would take place at 12:00 noon on April 23, 2004. He stated that this is the 570 year that the race has been held, and that over 500 boats and 3500 crew members are expected to participate. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Bretschger provided some history and facts on the race, listed the sponsors, and noted some of the impacts on the community, as well as highlights of the race. Mr. Bretschger thanked the City for its support. G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC H. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): Council Member Bromberg announced that this year's Relay for Life event will be taking place on May 14 and 15, 2004, beginning at 6:00 p.m. and continuing over a 24 -hour period. The fundraising and awareness event is put on by the American Cancer Society. More information can be obtained by contacting Stephanie Taylor at 949- 567 -0611. Volume 56 - Page 706 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 • Council Member Rosansky announced that a second meeting regarding the Newport Heights traffic calming study will take place on February 26, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. at Ensign School. • Council Member Heffernan stated that he has received a list of the projects in the City being handled by Mr. Goetz. Council Member Heffernan asked why Mr. Goetz is still conducting business in the City and what can be done about it. • Council Member Heffernan announced that he is appealing the modification permit that was approved for 1807 Port Tiffin Place. • Council Member Heffernan announced that the application deadline for the City Attorney's position is March 15, 2004. • Council Member Heffernan stated that he has been provided with more information regarding the Port Street traffic study since the City Council meeting of February 10, 2004, and is now in support of the study. • Mayor Ridgeway announced that members of the community are invited to apply for openings on the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). • Council Member Nichols asked if a date has been set for the hearing on the relinquishment of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. City Manager Bludau stated that it has tentatively been set for the City Council meeting on March 23, 2004. I. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTESIORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 3. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 4. PRE -TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTION PLAN FOR CALPERS SERVICE CREDIT PURCHASES. Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -15 that will allow employees to make PERS redeposits and service credit purchases on a pre -tax basis. 5. CORRECTION TO RESOLUTION REVISING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE. Volume 56 - Page 707 IA1179// (100 -2004) (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -16 which revises the EDC membership structure and rescinds Resolution Nos. 93 -3, 95.27, 98 -17; Attachment `B' of Resolution No. 2001 -80; Resolution No. 2004 -14; and any other prior resolutions related to the EDC. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 6. FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTA- TIONS OF THE UNIFIED PROGRAM ELEMENT REQUIRE- MENTS BETWEEN COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement for Implementation for Unwed Program Element Requirements between the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 7. JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GRACE BUILDING MAINTENANCE. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Grace Building Maintenance of Los Angeles for janitorial services at a contract price of $4,643 per month and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. 8. BAYSHORES WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT (C- 3512). 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance 9. SAN MIGUEL /SPYGLASS HILL ROAD -EAST GATE DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AND MISCELLANEOUS UPGRADES - AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3678). 1) Approve the plans and specifications; 2) award the contract (C -3678) to Steiny and Company, Inc. for the total bid price of $235,649 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; and 3) establish an amount of $23,565 to cover the cost of unforeseen work. 10. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH BAYSHORES COMMUNITY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, AND SBC REGARDING ALLEY PAVING. Approve a MOU with Bayshores Community Association Regarding Alley Paving. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 11. BUDGET AMENDMENT - TENNIS RESERVE ACCOUNT. Approve a budget amendment. (BA -033) in the amount of $14,917 from the Tennis Reserve account into various funds to enhance the City's recreational programs. 12. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. Volume 56 - Page 708 C -2531 Unified Program Element Requirements/ CUPA (38/100 -2004) C -3687 Janitorial Services/ Libraries (381100 -2004) C -3512 Bayshores Water Main Replacement (38/100 -2004) C -3678 Traffic Signal Installation & Upgrades (38/100 -2004) C -3688 Bayshores Alley Paving (38/100 -2004) (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 13. APPOINTMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS CITIZENS. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Confirm Mayor Ridgeway's appointment of Kenneth Drellishak as the District 1 at -large representative to the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC). 14. PROPERTY INSURANCE RENEWAL. Approve the property insurance coverage for a twelve month policy period beginning 3/1/04 to 3/1/05 for a premium of approximately $586,674. 15. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Ridgeway. 16. REQUEST FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH WORK DEMAND IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Approve a budget amendment (BA -034) to appropriate $193,000 from unanticipated General Fund revenue to the Building Department's Professional and Technical expenditure account #2930- 8080. S24. COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT EIR FOR SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM. Approve and authorize Mayor to sign comment letter. Motion by Council Member Bromber¢ to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (1, 3, 12 andl5). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams J. PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 81 — RIVER AVENUE AND CHANNEL PLACE AND DESIGNATION OF THIS AREA AS AN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT. Mayor Ridgeway announced that this public hearing is being held to hear protests or objections to the Resolution of Intention, Assessment Engineer's Report, proposed assessments and all other matters relating to Assessment District No. 81, and for designation of the area as an underground utilities district. He noted that all written protests and ballots must be received by the City Clerk prior to the close of the public hearing. Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing. City Clerk Harkless announced that the notice of public hearing was Volume 56 - Page 709 INDEX (100 -2004) (100 -2004) (100 -2004) (100 -2004) Assessment District No. 811 River Avenue and Channel Place (89/100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX given in the manner and form as required by law. John Friedrich, Assessment Engineer, announced that a modified front footage was used for the method of spread. Council Member Webb confirmed with Mr. Friedrich that the largest parcel in the district is owned by the City, indicating the City's financial contribution to the district. Council Member Rosansky asked why the assessment for this district is so high. Mr. Friedrich explained that the area is what is known as a "single loaded street ", which means that only the homes on one side of the street face the street and are, therefore, being assessed. Public Works Director Badum added that districts are typically formed by resident requests and that the residents are also involved in determining its boundaries. Jim Hildreth reminded the residences in the proposed assessment district that the undergrounding of the utilities is not being done to their benefit and that the City will not be held liable. He stated that the residents should have some type of assurance that the work will be done properly. City Manager Bludau noted that there is no financial benefit to the City from the formation of the proposed assessment district. Geneva Ryan stated that the assessment cost is outrageous and that it won't result in that great of a benefit to the residents in the area. Rose Perez Justin stated that when the petition for the district was circulated, the residents were told that the assessment would be approximately $6,000 to $8,000, but that it's ended up being closer to $30,000. She stated that it's an unfair assessment since only one side of the street is being assessed, and the other side will realize benefits too. Ms. Justin suggested that the district be expanded to include other streets in the area. Council Member Heffernan asked what the City has spent, to date, on the formation of the district. Council Member Webb referred to the staff report, which indicated that the City Council appropriated $47,775 In 1998 to facilitate the undergrounding of the utilities. He further noted that 78.5% of the residents signed a petition in support of forming the district. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the assessment estimate was approximately $10,000 per household, and that it's ended up being $25,000. Rocco Tarantello stated that it isn't worth it to him to spend $25,000 to get rid of a pole in front of his home. Bob Jessen stated that he signed the petition with the understanding that the assessment would be between $3,000 and $6,000. Mr. Jessen Volume 56 - Page 710 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX stated that it has ended up being $32,000. He briefly mentioned some problems at Channel Place Park, specifically the telephone poles in the middle of the sidewalks and the elimination of some of the park's benefits. He expressed his opposition to the assessment district. Gary Fuller stated that he was originally in favor of undergrounding the utilities when the assessment estimate was approximately $10,000, but at $25,000 to $30,000, it's not worth it. He suggested that the City's investment in the district could be recovered by encompassing other streets in the area, He expressed his opposition to the cost of the assessment. Mayor Ridgeway asked why the assessments ended up being so expensive. Mr. Friedrich stated that it is a result of the boundaries that were set and the higher costs charged by the utility companies. Public Works Director Badum added that the boundaries were chosen by the original proponents and that the district has been around since the early, or mid, 1990's when costs were less. He further noted that the street is concrete which is more expensive to replace. Mayor Ridgeway asked why saw cutting couldn't be used. Public Works Director Badum stated that the City has adopted new standards in pavement management and won't do small sliver cuts in the streets anymore. He noted, however, that if the district fails, it might be possible to look at expanding it. Mayor Ridgeway agreed that adding homes might make the district more acceptable. Council Member Rosansky asked how much the cost per parcel might be reduced by adding homes, noting that he realizes that some costs are fixed costs. Public Works Director Badum stated that it wouldn't be known until the design of the system is done, but that the cost would certainly spread out a bit. Council Member Rosansky asked if there was any assessment district activity in the surrounding areas. Public Works Director Badum stated that Assessment District No. 69, across Balboa Boulevard, is already well underway. He stressed that it's the proponents that select the district boundaries and that the formation of the district is dependent on the interest of the residents in the area. Council Member Bromberg noted that the undergrounding of utilities on Little Balboa Island is similar to the proposed district because both districts were started a long time ago and both have streets that are concrete. He stated, however, that the assessment costs for Little Balboa Island didn't increase like they did for the proposed district. He asked if it's possible that there's an error in the computations. Public Works Director Badum stated that the costs are quoted by Southern California Edison (SCE) and that they are not present at the current meeting. He stated, however, that one explanation could be that there's a major distribution line in the proposed district. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the proposed assessment is pursuant to Rule 20B, and explained that Rule 20A is when SCE would pay for the major line component. He suggested that the item be continued for sixty days to allow SCE to review their quoted costs. Volume 56 - Page 711 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 Council Member Webb explained that Rule 20A funds are given to the City and the City chooses the priorities of where they are spent. They are supposed to be spent in areas where the aesthetics of major arterials are being improved. Council Member Rosansky asked if the ballots would be returned if the item is continued. City Clerk Harkless stated that the ballots are sealed and that return addresses are not provided on the envelopes. Bob Hessell, Bond Counsel, stated that the hearing could be continued, but the ballots still need to be counted at the current meeting. He stated that it would be best to begin the ballot proceedings again if the assessment is going to be changed. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he's still confused by the amount of the assessments. City Manager Bludau suggested that a meeting could be scheduled with the utility companies to have them justify the cost. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would seem to be more appropriate to continue the item to verify the assessment amounts, and then count the ballots. He expressed his concern for the ballot total supporting the assessment and then there not being the opportunity for the verification. Mr. Hessell stated that lowering the assessment wouldn't invalidate the ballots. City Attorney Burnham confirmed with Mr. Hessell that the City Council would still have the discretion to cancel the formation of the district even if the protests are not more than 50 %. City Clerk Harkless submitted the ballots to Associate Engineer Arciniega for counting. 18. VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF ORANGE AVENUE, LOCATED IN THE NEWPORT HEIGHTS AREA. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to continue the hearing to March 23, 2004. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams 19. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -010 (PA2003 -259) — PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20.65.070 OF THE NBMC TO ALLOW ELEVATOR SHAFTS IN EXCESS OF 25 SQUARE FEET IN AREA TO EXCEED APPLICABLE HEIGHT LIMITS, BY NO MORE THAN 5 FEET, WHEN MANDATED BY THE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT. Volume 56 - Page 712 INDEX (100 -2004) (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing. Jim Hildreth stated that an elevator shaft is not a mandatory element in a residential structure. He stated that if it's for a business, he can understand it. Mr. Hildreth stated that height limitations have already been established in the City and he asked if this was a way to circumvent them. He stated that the reasoning for the proposal should be more fully explained. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to introduce Ordinance No. 2004 -3 approving Code Amendment No. 2003 -020; and pass to second reading on March 9, 2004. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams K. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ridgeway asked for a clarification on the order of business on the agenda. City Clerk Harkless explained that the City Council's recent action moved the Public Hearings section to before the discussion of the items removed from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Ridgeway expressed his understanding that all sections of the agenda were to be moved to before the discussion of the items removed from the Consent Calendar. After a brief discussion, Mayor Ridgeway requested that a change to the policy be agendized for a future City Council meeting. 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2004. Jim Hildreth stated that the periodicals of the articles he spoke of during Public Comments at the regular meeting of February 10, 2004, weren't mentioned in the minutes, and that a clarification of his comments needs to be made. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams, Webb Volume 56 - Page 713 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING USE OF FRANCHISED SOLID WASTE HAULERS FOR DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. Plazi Miller, Shellmaker, Inc., stated that after the City Council meeting of December 9, 2003, he submitted a letter expressing his concern that the amendments will make it difficult for businesses, such as his, to compete with the recyclers. He stated that he received a response from the City Manager explaining the amendments and also spoke with the General Services Director and Management Assistant Hammond. Mr. Miller stated that he's receiving inconsistent information, but that it appears that the code wouldn't apply since demolition permits aren't needed for the work that he does. He concluded his comments by stating that there are some flaws to the proposed ordinance. Mayor Ridgeway stated that it's not possible for a franchised hauler to remove the debris from the water, as is done by Shellmaker, Inc. Mayor Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Miller that a demolition permit is not obtained for the type of work that he does. Mr. Miller explained that he was later told by Management Assistant Hammond that everyone has to abide by the code. Mr. Miller stated that he's a proponent of recycling, but that the code makes it too expensive and fosters bootlegging. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the concerns of Mr. Miller should be addressed. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that in order for the City to meet the State's recycling mandate, it was decided to address heavier materials, which primarily come from full demolitions of single - family dwellings and businesses. He stated that the proposed ordinance addresses this Construction and Demolition (C &D) debris, and that the demolition contractors and franchised haulers have cooperated and agreed to assist the City with its recycling efforts. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the City has made sure that the proper entities are working to help the City meet its goals. In regard to the comments made by Mr. Miller, he stated that Shellmaker, Inc., and another similar business in the City, demolish and rebuild docks. The problem is that the debris is taken directly to a landfill without any recycling occurring. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the City has attempted to work with both businesses, by providing them with information on where the debris can be taken so that it can be recycled. They have also been encouraged to utilize franchised haulers. Council Member Heffernan asked what the difference is between the debris from a home demolition and the debris from a dock demolition. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that there's no reason why the debris from the dock demolition shouldn't be hauled away by a franchised hauler, as is done for a home demolition. Ile stated that the 16% franchise fee would be passed on to the customer. In response to Mayor Ridgeway's question, General Services Director Neiderhaus stated that the average weight of a home demolition is approximately 250 tons. City Manager Bludau confirmed that about 70% Volume 56 - Page 714 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX of it is recyclable, and General Services Director Niederhaus added that there are facilities, such as concrete grinding facilities, that allow the City to receive 100% recycling credit. Council Member Webb asked what happens when a franchised hauler takes debris to a recycling facility, but the material is not recyclable. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that it is considered a contaminated load and ends up in the landfill. Council Member Webb asked what happens to chemically treated wood that is often found in docks. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that such wood is being phased out, but that it does need to be declared when taken to a facility. Council Member Webb suggested that possibly marine related demolition and the feasibility of recycling should be looked at further. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the proposed ordinance is only an amendment requiring notification to the General Services Department prior to commencement of demolition. City Manager BIudau referred to the staff report and pointed out the changes to the ordinance that are being proposed. Council Member Webb asked if a demolition permit will be required for marine related demolitions. In response to Council Member Nichols' question, City Manager Bludau stated that material that goes to the landfill would be counted against the City's recycling efforts. Motion by Council Member Brombers to continue the item for one month. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams 17. UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 81 - RIVER AVENUE AND CHANNEL PLACE AND DESIGNATION OF THIS AREA AS AN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT [continued from earlier in the meeting]. City Clerk Harkless announced that a total of 9 ballots were received in favor of the proposed assessment, representing an assessment amount of $270,059.85 or 45.4 %, and 12 ballots were received in opposition to the proposed assessment, representing an assessment amount of $324,772.19 or 54.6 %. [Editor's Note: Due to two unsigned ballots, which invalidated them, the following represents the correct tabulation of ballots received: a total of 8 ballots were received in favor of the proposed assessment, representing Volume 56 - Page 715 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 an assessment amount of $191,643.69 or 39 %, and 11 ballots were received in opposition to the proposed assessment, representing an assessment amount of $299,219.70 or 61 %.] Mayor Ridgeway announced that the assessment district failed, and requested that the Public Works Director schedule a meeting for him and Council Member Rosansky to meet with SCE and the phone company. He stated that in lieu of a meeting, it could be requested of both utility companies to reevaluate their costs and provide the information to the City. 12. UNDERGROUND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 75 (BALBOA BUSINESS DISTRICT) — STATUS REPORT. Jim Hildreth stated that this item is coming back too quickly. He asked for an explanation Motion by Council Member Webb to proceed with placing Assessment District No. 75 Balboa Business District on the Council agenda for Resolution of Intention for March 9, 2004 meeting. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: Nichols Absent: Adams 15. EXCESS GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE RENEWAL. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the staff report provides two options regarding the premiums for insurance and the amount of insurance. City Manager Bludau reported that staff recommends Option 2, which would be Self- Insured Retention (SIR) of $500,000, coverage limit of $26 million with three layers of coverage and an annual premium of $797,895. Option 1 has less coverage with two layers of coverage. City Manager Bludau stated that the question is if an additional $70,000 is worth the additional $5 million in insurance. Council Member Rosansky stated that the extra money provides for a significant increase in the amount of protection. Council Member Heffernan stated that Option 2 is consistent with the City's prior policy on insurance coverage amounts. Motion by Council Member Brombere to approve the renewal of the excess general liability insurance coverage for a twelve month policy with a self- insured retention (SIR) of $500,000 and a $1 million SIR for Employment Practices Liability Insurance — EPLI as follows: [SIR - $500,000; Coverage limits - $26 million; Annual premium - $795,895 ($1 million for EPLI). Volume 56 - Page 716 INDEX Assessment District No. 75/ Balboa Business District (89/38 -2004) (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 L. 0 .NN The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams PUBLIC COMMENTS Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Jim Hildreth stated that he'll be discussing the City's webpage on him in future meetings. Additionally, he expressed his curiosity over the way the streets and boardwalks were replaced on Little Balboa Island. He stated that he spoke with some of the workers and expressed his support for California. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Status report - Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). No report. Status report - Local Coastal Program Certification Committee. No report. Status report - Newport Coast Advisory Commnittee. Council Member Heffernan reported that the NCAC issues would be discussed later at the current meeting. Status report - Mariners Joint Use Library Ad Hoc Steering Committee. No report. Status report - Other Committee Activities. Council Member Heffernan reported that progress is being made on the cable franchise ordinance and the right -of -way ordinance, which deals with both cable franchises and utility companies. In regard to the Finance Committee, Council Member Heffernan reported that the department heads are in the process of meeting with the City Manager about their 2004 -2005 budgets. CURRENT BUSINESS 20. THE PROPOSED NEWPORT COAST COMMUNITY CENTER. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the pre- annexation agreement with Newport Coast required that the City would set aside $7 million to either build a community center or provide rebates for eligible residents for assessment district debt. He stated that the community center was expected to be up to 22,000 square feet, owned and staffed by the City, and preference given to Newport Coast residents for reservations. The Newport Coast Advisory Committee (NCAC) looked at sites for the community center and chose Volume 56 - Page 717 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX the edge of Newport Ridge Park as the preferred site. Assistant City Manager Kiff displayed some of the alternative sites and pointed out that the preferred site is at the corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Coast Drive. He also displayed preliminary designs of the community center. Assistant City Manager Kiff listed the outreach efforts by the NCAC to work with the community in determining if there was support for a community center. They found that there was and pointed to the support of the two master associations in Newport Coast, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that petitions have been received by the City, both in favor and in opposition to the community center, and that additional information can be found in the staff report. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that if the $7 million is not spent on a community center, it would be used for assessment district relief and would be spread out over a period of three years. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the options that could be considered by the City Council include deeming the outreach appropriate and moving forward with building the center, asking for more outreach, requesting that the site be "story poled ", asking for a vote of the residents, or any combination of these options. He stated that the staff recommendation is to conduct a vote and "story pole' the site. Al Willinger stated that between 1997 and 2001, the budget for the community center was established, but that costs have risen since that time. He stated that the NCAC has been conscientious in following the provisions of the pre- annexation and annexation agreements, and in conducting the public outreach program. He noted that during the outreach, it was consistently reported that 80% to 90% of the residents supported a community center. The NCAC unanimously voted in support of proceeding with the project. Mr. Willinger asked the City Council to support the work of the committee and to not delay the project. Council Member Bromberg asked if Mr. Willinger had heard of any opposition to the community center. Mr. Willinger stated that 10% to 15% of the residents are not in support of the project. He stated that some of the homeowners feel that the views from their homes may be impacted and others feel that there isn't enough green space in Newport Coast. Mayor Ridgeway read from page 8 of the staff report, and noted that the majority of those in the survey opposed, or were leaning towards opposition of, the center. Mr. Willinger stated that he was not aware of the particular survey outlined in the staff report. He stated that Gerry Ross detailed the responses from the Town Hall meeting and reported that the majority who attended the meeting supported the project. Assistant City Manager Kiff explained that the City provided some feedback forms and cards at the Town Hall meeting and at Pavilions. The results outlined in the staff report represent those forms and cards received back. Mayor Ridgeway asked if an explanation of how the project would be funded was included in the questionnaire. Assistant Volume 56 - Page 718 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX City Manager Kiff stated that the intent of the questionnaire was to get immediate feedback after a presentation was made. Mr. Willinger stated that he has the signatures of 83 individuals who are in support of the community center. He noted again the two master associations who are also in support of the community center, and stated that he's not aware of any of the approximately twenty homeowners associations in Newport Coast being opposed to the community center. City Manager Bludau asked Mr. Willinger if residents were asked if they would prefer the assessment relief over a community center. Mr, Willinger responded in the negative, but stated that it was a part of some of the presentations. Council Member Nichols asked Mr. Willinger why be would be opposed to conducting a vote of the residents of Newport Coast. Mr. Willinger stated that the NCAC has done its job and followed the provisions of the pre - annexation agreement, which does not allude to a vote of the residents being taken. Council Member Nichols confirmed with Mr. Willinger that it was the NCAC that also negotiated the pre - annexation with the City. Mr. Willinger added that four of the current members were on the committee that negotiated the agreement, but that the steering committee represented a larger group. Mayor Ridgeway asked what the lanquage in the agreement is regarding the community's desire for a center, as indicated on page 4 of the staff report. Assistant City Manager Kiff referred to attachment F of the staff report, which includes the language of Section 7 of the pre- annexation agreement. He specifically noted Section 7(f), which states that the NCAC will hold meetings to consider the residents' interest in a community center, and if deemed desirable, will recommend to the City Council an appropriate location. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that he and some others question if the full community has been reached. Mayor Ridgeway asked how the vote would be conducted. Assistant City Manager Kiff explained that a quick turnaround would be desired, so something in the mail would probably be the most appropriate. Mayor Ridgeway stated that if a vote is conducted, the NCAC should take part in the drafting of the document. Regarding the "story poles ", Mayor Ridgeway stated that poles cannot be put up that represent a $10 million facility, because the City will not contribute the $3 million needed above the $7 million agreed upon. He stated that it's premature to put up "story poles" when the project still needs to be scaled down. Additionally, he stated that the placement of the buildings on the site should be reconsidered. [Mayor Pro Tern Adams arrived at the meeting.] Gary Wright stated that the soccer association in the area has no place to meet and the community center is a facility that could be utilized. Additionally, he stated that the basketball court at the community center is also needed, and that the additional parking will provide a safety advantage. He stated that the residents are fully aware of the project and there should not be any further delays. Neal Steinbrenner stated that those in opposition to the community Volume 56 - Page 719 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX center were opposed prior to learning that the assessment relief was not as great as they had expected, the access to the community center wouldn't be just off of Newport Ridge Drive East and that much of the green space at the park would remain. Mr. Steinbrenner stated that there are possible alternatives to the project's elevation and design. Council Member Heffernan stated that in the pre- annexation agreement, it states that the NCAC can recommend the site for the community center, but that it is up to the City Council to implement the design. Additionally, Council Member Heffernan stated that the NCAC is a strong advocate for the center and he questioned if they could fairly access the community's opinion. He further noted their opposition to conducting a vote or "story poling ". Council Member Heffernan stated that the NCAC is determined to have the community center built, and that they know the risks of the money that is available and the opinions of the residents. Motion by Council Member Heffernan to approve the NCAC's recommendation to move forward with the planning and construction of the Newport Coast Community Center at the selected site and that it be redesigned to stay within the $7 million budget. Council Member Nichols stated that the community center is only a small part of the pre- annexation agreement, which the City has already undertaken. Council Member Webb expressed his support for the placement of the buildings on the site and the driveway on San Joaquin Hills Road, and added that the parking lot will serve both the community center and the athletic fields. He stated that the remaining issue is that the project will need to be scaled down to keep it within $7 million. He felt that if a community center is not built and the assessment relief alternative is chosen, the residents will still want a community center at some time in the future. He pointed out that any outreach program will never reach everybody, but that there has been enough to realize that there isn't a great deal of opposition to the project. Council Member Webb stated that the City Council should move forward with the project, but keep it at $7 million. Council Member Bromberg stated that the City does an outstanding job of public outreach, even though some people will always be missed. He, additionally, noted the importance of the support by the master and homeowners associations. Council Member Rosansky referred to page 8 of the staff report and the reasons given by the opponents for why they opposed the project. He stated that one of the reasons was that there isn't the need for a community center because many of the homeowners associations have their own gathering areas. Council Member Rosansky stated that most of these gathering areas are within gated communities and it means to him that the need for a central area is even more important because it provides an area where the whole community can come together. He also Volume 56 - Page 720 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 referenced the disagreement over whether a library component should be included in the project and stated that a redesign of the project will be necessary anyway, and the library component can be decided on at that time. In response to the opposition stating that the community center will take away turf and open space, which would adversely impact the quality of life, Council Member Rosansky stated that he feels a community center would improve the quality of life for the area. In response to the traffic that the community center would generate, Council Member Rosansky stated that he hopes the community center and athletic fields are well used and that the nearby intersection currently has little traffic. In regard to the alternate use of the $7 million for assessment district relief, he stated that a community center is needed and that it is a better use of the money. Finally, Council Member Rosansky agreed with earlier comments that the outreach effort was extensive. He felt that the City Council should take a leadership role and make a decision on the community center, based on the information provided. He did not feel that a vote of the residents should be taken. Mayor Ridgeway confirmed that the motion included a redesign of the community center to keep it within the $7 million. Council Member Heffernan stated that it should be made clear that the NCAC did their job and made a recommendation, and it should be supported pursuant to the pre- annexation agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Adams confirmed that staff will work with the architect and come back to the City Council prior to going out for Requests for Proposals (RFP) for the final design. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 21. CONFERENCE AND VISITOR'S BUREAU AGREEMENT Revenue Manager Everroad stated that the proposed changes to the agreement include the term of the agreement and the funding mechanism of the agreement. Historically, the Conference and Visitors Bureau (CVB) has received all of the Visitor Service Fees (VSF), which is 1% of the 10% rate imposed by the hotels, and a portion of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). During the past five years, the CVB has received between 13.5% and 17% of the total TOT/VSF collected. He stated that staffs recommendation has simplified the funding mechanism. Specifically, it recommends that 16.5% of the total collected and remitted by hotels to the City be provided to the CAB. He stated that the CVB proposal includes a formula of 17% for the first eighteen months of the agreement, 18.5% for the next eighteen months and no less than 18.5% for the remaining two years. He noted that the staff report outlines both Volume 56 - Page 721 C -2638 Conference & Visitor's Bureau (38/100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 proposals. INDEX Council Member Webb asked for a clarification on the length of the agreement. Revenue Manager Everroad stated that the current agreement expired in August of 2003, and was extended through February of 2004, The proposed agreement would commence March 1, 2004, for a five -year period. He added that the proposed agreement would require that the City and the CVB meet annually to discuss budget situations and funding needs. Council Member Rosansky confirmed with Revenue Manager Everroad that the assumed annual growth is 1.3 %, which Revenue Manager Everroad stated has been the average annual growth for the past five years. Council Member Rosansky confirmed that there was a decline after September 11, 2001, and that possibly a growth of more than 1.3% could be seen in the future. Revenue Manager Everroad added that staff performed projections based on no growth for the next five years, 1.3% average annual growth and 5% growth. He stated that based on the staff recommendation of 16.5 %, the CVB would receive approximately $200,000 more in compensation at the 5% growth than at the 1.3% growth. Council Member Rosansky confirmed that at the projected growth of 1.3 %, the CVB would receive an additional $82,000 the first year, over the current agreement, if the staffs recommended 16.5% level is used. Marta Hayden, Executive Director, CVB, stated that the CVB originally asked for 18% the first year, 19% the second year and 20% the third year. She asked for the City Council's support of this proposal. Ms. Hayden stated that the CVB is currently spending $1.7 million annually. At the 16.5% level, assuming a 1.3% growth and an increase in spending of 3 %, the CAB would fall short by approximately $258,000 the first year and $549,000 the second year. Mehdi Eftekari, General Manager, Four Seasons Hotel, stated that the CVB wants to maintain funding levels adequate to represent Newport Beach as a destination. He stated that the CVB has worked very hard to increase tourism and promote Newport Beach, and is competing with new hotels from Santa Barbara to San Diego. He noted that the major hotels in Newport Beach have spent in excess of $90 million on renovations, while cutting costs in operations and increasing sales efforts. Mr. Eftekari stated that the hotels are working with the CVB to increase the revenues being brought into the City and helping the businesses in the area. Clayton Shurley, President of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association and Chairman of the Board of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated that the CVB does a good job of helping Newport Beach to become one of the strongest cities in the country. He asked the City Council to support their efforts and approve their proposal. Tom Johnson, Board of Directors, CVB, stated that the staff recommendation includes a cap, which he disagrees with. He stated that, Volume 56 - Page 722 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX instead, the CVB should be encouraged to produce more revenue for the hotels, which the City will also benefit from. Steven Sutherland asked the City Council to support the CVB to the fullest extent possible. He stated that they provide value to the City and that TOT is the highest net revenue to the City. Mr. Sutherland explained that the net revenue from the major hotels in the City, after cost of services, is greater than the combined total of every restaurant and every retail outlet, not including automotive and yacht sales. He stated that the CVB should be supported in their efforts to keep the hotel rooms in the City occupied. Craig Batley stated that he is speaking on behalf of the vacation rental industry and expressed his support of keeping the CVB budget at the highest funding level possible. He stated that the CVB is the only official sales effort in the City that promotes and attracts visitors, and that the vacation rental industry generates nearly 13% of the TOT and, therefore, 13% of the CVB's budget. Mr. Batley stated that the CVB is considering a new program to promote short -term rentals, but that it can't happen if the City doesn't increase funding above the 16.5% level. He also noted the sales tax generated by vacation and hotel visitors. He asked the City Council to provide the necessary funding so that the CVB won't have to cut its budget. Brien Amendt, General Manager of Newport Channel Inn and CVB Board of Director, stated that there has been fierce competition in the hospitality industry in the past few years. He stated that the CVB can fill hotel rooms and their marketing efforts can maximize revenue to the City. Mr. Amendt stated that the increased percentage being asked for by the CVB is necessary and will make a difference. Lastly, he stated that a cap makes no economic sense. Linda Mongno, Vice President and General Manager of Hornblower Cruises & Events and Past Chair of the CVB, asked the City Council to support the CVB's funding request. She stated that the competition is fierce and Newport Beach's voice needs to be heard. Ms. Mongno stated that visitors contribute a significant amount of revenue to the City. The hospitality industry also employs thousands of workers that contribute financially to the health of Newport Beach. She stated that the revenue that goes to the CVB is reinvested to generate more revenue for the City. She noted that the cost to market and sell a destination continues to go up, and the CVB's current funding represents the lowest level in more than six years and during its most competitive time. Ms. Mongno stated that supporting the CVB's request is an investment in the financial health of the community. In closing, she stated that the hospitality industry is willing to do their share to generate revenues to the City and is asking the City to do their share. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the City Council has a greater responsibility to the City's budget, which will be reduced for the upcoming fiscal year. He stated that the hotels in the City have the ability to increase the TOT percentage, but they have refused. He noted that other cities are doing Volume 56 - Page 723 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX this and Newport Beach has one of the lower TOT's. He expressed his support for the staff recommendation of the 16.5% level, but stated that he would remove the cap. [Mayor Ridgeway left the meeting.] Richard Luehrs, President and Chief Executive, Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated that the CVB funding is also important to the Chamber of Commerce, and that the Chamber of Commerce unanimously supports the CVB's funding request and the removal of the cap. Mr. Luehrs stated that the CVB funding not only assists the hotels, it also impacts the small business owners in the City. He agreed with earlier comments that the cost to do business is increasing. He stated that Newport Beach is fortunate to have professional hotel operators in the City and if they feel that the funding needs to be increased, they should be listened to. Barbara Sloate, President of Whirl -A- Round, stated that as a small business owner, she depends on the CVB to market Newport Beach as a destination on a level that she can't afford to do on her own. Ms. Sloate stated that the CVB needs increased revenue to promote Newport Beach, or the businesses and the City will suffer. Andrew Theodorou, General Manager, Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort, stated that the TOT from the Dunes Recreational Vehicle (RV) resort represents about $250,000 to $300,000 annually, and that they rely on the CVB to support and promote them with their programs. He requested that the City Council approve the 18% level with no cap. Peggy Fort, consultant to the CVB, Restaurant Association and Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, encouraged the City Council to support the CVB to the best of its ability. She stated that many of the small businesses and restaurants in Newport Beach will benefit even more than the major hotels, because they often can't market themselves effectively. Ms. Fort stated that the tourism industry is very competitive and is experiencing some dynamic changes, and that Orange County is growing. She stated that it is important that Newport Beach be a leader. Debbie Fabbri, Southwest Airlines, CVB Board Member and Orange County Tourism Association Board Member, expressed her support for the CVB and asked the City Council to increase their financing, which would be reinvested in the tourism market. She stated that Southwest Airlines is the largest airline in Orange County, and she provided information on the amount of money that is spent and invested in Orange County. Ms. Fabbri stated that Southwest Airlines also helps to promote Orange County and provided information on the amount of money spent by tourists. She urged the City Council to remove the cap, which would allow the CVB to earn more revenue for the City. Bill Gunderson, General Manager, Marriott Hotel, complimented the Revenue Manager and the City's staff, and stated that the CVB and the City work together in a partnership. He noted that the CVB represents Volume 56 - Page 724 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX more than hotels and plays a major role in attracting business to the community. He stated that competition is fierce, and sales and marketing are essential. In response to Mayor Ridgeway's earlier suggestion, Mr. Gunderson stated that increasing the TOT would only put Newport Beach at a greater disadvantage. Bruce Brainerd, General Manager of Hyatt Newporter, CVB Vice Chair and Chamber of Commerce Board Member, stated that the CVB's current annual funding is $1.3 million and that it has been as high as $1.9 million, which was in 2000/2001. He stated that the staff recommendation to approve a 16.5% level would bring the CVB's funding to $1.4 million, which is still not where it needs to be, and that the 18% level being recommended by the CVB would still require the CVB to cut its budget by $200,000 annually. Mr. Brainerd noted that the sales and marketing efforts by the hotels has increased, and that the CVB programs are needed to keep Newport Beach competitive. He encouraged the City Council to invest in the City and consider the comments made at the current meeting. Ms. Hayden stated that the various segments of the visitor industry have been represented at the current meeting, which shows the value that the visitor industry has on the community. She stated that the CVB is appreciative of staffs recommendation, but that it won't get the CVB to the next level. She asked that the City Council consider the CVB's request for 18 %, with a review after one year and an increase to 19 %, and then an increase to 20 %. Mayor Pro Tem Adams referenced the staff report and the CVB's agreement the prior week to go to 17% and 18.5 %. Ms. Hayden explained that after running the numbers, it was discovered that 17% would put the CVB in jeopardy. Council Member Bromberg stated that the City Council can acknowledge its responsibility to the citizens by helping to bring money into the City, and that he has confidence in the CVB and the businesses that make up the CVB Board of Directors. He noted the community business leaders in attendance at the current meeting, and stated that it truly is a partnership with the City. Council Member Bromberg agreed that the competition is fierce and that the CVB needs the funds to work with. He expressed his support for going above the 16.5% and removing the cap. Council Member Webb stated that the difference between 16.5% and 17.5% appears to be between $70,000 and $80,000, which won't make up the difference that the CVB is looking for. Council Member Webb confirmed with the Revenue Manager that other cities have increased their TOT'S. Motion by Council Member Webb to approve a five -year agreement with the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau, which includes annual funding provisions at 17.5% of the total Transient Occupancy Tax/Visitor Service Fee, no cap and a review after two years. Volume 56 - Page 725 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 INDEX Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that, given the current economic conditions, he'd be more comfortable not committing to 17.5% for five years, at this point. Council Member Bromberg stated that the motion allows the City to review the CVB's performance and make an adjustment, if necessary. It protects both sides. Council Member Webb further explained that if the TOT increases go up at the lower rate, or 1.3 %, the funding level would be increased to 18.5% to provide the CVB with additional funding. If the TOT increases are greater, both the City and the CVB would be getting more revenue, so the level would remain at 17.5 %. Council Member Heffernan stated that he's impressed with the CVB and feels that they should get what they're requesting. Be added, however, that they should be held accountable. He stated that they need to report to the City Council annually and show that they've produced, as they've stated that they can with appropriate funding levels. Council Member Heffernan stated that if they haven't produced, their funding levels would be decreased. Mayor Pro Tern Adams asked for the purpose of the cap in the staff recommendation. Revenue Manager Everroad stated that the cap would only be an issue in the third year of the CVB's original proposal and if there's 5% growth. City Manager Bludau stated that he would be negligent if he did not bring to the City Council's attention that the City's budget is out of balance by $1.5 million. He stated that it is hoped that the revenue that comes in before the end of the fiscal year will improve the situation, but the City Council needs to be aware that the expenditures approved at the current meeting won't be available when discussing the upcoming budget. Council Member Bromberg asked if the City Manager is concerned that the CVB won't bring in additional revenue to the City. City Manager Bludau stated that he doesn't feel that it'll be automatic. Council Member Bromberg agreed that it's a risk, but the City does have a partnership with the CVB. Both agreed that the CVB does a good job. Ms. Hayden stated that the agreement and the CVB's performance will be reviewed annually. City Manager Bludau asked when the return on a promotional effort is usually expected. Ms. Hayden stated that they are always working and its continual. Council Member Rosansky asked if there's an objective way to measure the CVB's success. Ms. Hayden stated that they have several measurements that they use, and that they quantify everything that they can. Council Member Rosansky asked how much other cities are devoting to their CVB's. Revenue Manager Everroad stated that he didn't have the figures with him at the current meeting. City Manager Bludau stated that it ranges greatly. Council Member Rosansky stated Volume 56 - Page 726 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 that he understands the effect of spending money to make money, but that he also understands the concerns for the City budget. He expressed his support for an annual adjustment and believes that the CVB should receive what they're asking for. Council Member Nichols asked how other cities compare to Newport Beach with regard to their TOT rate. City Manager Bludau stated that every city has a TOT, and that they generally run between 8% and 13 %. He stated that in addition to the TOT, some cities, such as Newport Beach, contribute to a visitor promotion effort. Council Member Nichols confirmed that Newport Beach's TOT is 10 %. Ms. Hayden stated that Los Angeles has a 14% TOT and Anaheim has a 15% TOT, but that the majority of the cities in California are at 10 %. She noted that some of the cities also have other means of funding, or a combination of funding. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what the difference is between the 16.5% and 17.5% at a 5% increase. Revenue Manager Everroad stated that he didn't have that particular breakdown, but that the staff report indicates the increase from the current agreement for both staffs recommendation and the CVB's proposal. He added that the CVB's request at the current meeting would mean an increase of $212,000 over the current agreement in the first year, $302,000 in the second year and $394,000 in the third year. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what the impact on the upcoming City budget would be if the motion were approved. Revenue Manager Everroad stated that it would be about $150,000 over the current funding level. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked how much leeway the annual review provided. City Attorney Burnham stated that one reason for the cap is to account for the additional TOT that would result from new hotel and resort development. He suggested that the annual adjustment consider this factor. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked how the timing of the annual adjustment would work. Council Member Bromberg asked when the CVB sees the return on money that is spent and if it would be seen within a year. Ms. Hayden stated that the impact would begin within a year. Council Member Nichols asked if it would be beneficial to the industry if the hotels lowered the TOT. Substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to approve a five -year agreement with the NBCVB, which includes annual funding provisions at 18.0% of the total TOTIVSF, with annual adjustment provisions based on economic conditions and NBCVB performance and no cap. The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Nichols Noes: Webb Abstain: None Absent: Mayor Ridgeway INDEX 22. STAFF PROPOSAL TO ADD TWO PLAN CHECKERS AND ONE 1 (100 -2004) Volume 56 - Page 727 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 PART -TIME PERMIT TECHNICLAN POSITIONS TO REDUCE RELIANCE ON CONTRACT PLAN CHECKERS AND TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICES IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Motion by Council Member Brombere to approve a budget amendment (BA -035) transferring $27,641 from account number 2930- 8080 and $4,359 from unappropriated general fund balance to various salary and benefit accounts in division 2930 to cover the cost of employees added in this fiscal year. Council Member Webb asked if the motion included the remodeling necessary to move the plan checkers to an area near the inspectors, and the inspectors to a trailer. Mayor Pro Tern Adams also asked if the staff recommendation included a recommended alternative for space considerations. City Manager Bludau stated that staff prefers the first alternative in the staff report, as outlined by Council Member Webb. Council Member Nichols asked if better service would possibly be seen through the use of private industry. He stated that there's been problems in the past. Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that he's asked the same questions and is satisfied that the new positions are needed and would provide better service. Richard Luehrs, Building Code Board of Appeals, stated that the Board discussed the issue and came to the same conclusions. He stated that the complaints have been about the work done by the outside consultants and that it is felt that a better job could be done by hiring the additional employees. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Mayor Ridgeway 23. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. Council Member Heffernan stated that he, Council Member Webb and Mayor Ridgeway served on the City Council Ad Hoc Compensation Committee. He stated that they compared the City Manager's salary and compensation package with other city managers in Orange County, evaluated City Manager Bludau's performance, and recommend a 4% salary increase to be effective on January 1, 2004, with no increase for 2005. He stated that this rewards the City Manager for a job well done, and establishes a two -year contract. Volume 56 - Page 728 INDEX C -3262 City Manager Employment Agreement (381100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting February 24, 2004 Motion by Council Member Heffernan to adopt Resolution No. 2004 -17 to enter into a two -year employment agreement with the City Manager which includes a one time 4% salary increase for the period from January 3, 2004 through January 3, 2006. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Mayor Ridgeway O. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None P. ADJOURNMENT - at 11:25 p.m The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on February 18, 2004, at 3:15 p.rrL on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on February 20, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary W Mayor Volume 56 - Page 729 INDEX