Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 28, 2024 Written Comments May 28, 2024, City Council - Finance Committee Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council and Finance Committee special joint meeting agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(a�yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget The agenda promises a presentation highlighting "the revenue assumptions, expenditure requirements, and program enhancement recommendations included within the proposed budget, as well as any revisions required to the proposed budget as originally distributed' (the latter being part of a process formerly called the "budget checklist"). Some of this (the budget revisions) seems to have been presented as Item IV.A at the May 9 Finance Committee meeting. That meeting also included, as Item IV.B, a discussion of departmental performance metrics proposed to be included in the eventually -adopted budget book. It sounds like the performance metrics will not be presented or discussed at this study session, but whatever is presented, it would have been helpful to post the slides in advance of the meeting. Absent that, shouldn't there at least be a link to where the public can find the Operating Budget document to be reviewed? As to that budget document, as I noted at a Finance Committee meeting, the organization chart shown on page 1 does not seem quite correct. The "Board of Trustees" shown in the upper left should be "Board of Library Trustees" and the "City Clerk" and "City Attorney" boxes are shown reporting to the City Council, when they more properly report to the City Council. Also, although the City Council generally sits above the City Manager and the various City departments, there simultaneously seems to exist in Newport Beach an inverted relationship in which the departments select Council members to serve on shadowy private working groups. As to the Board of Library Trustees, as Item 11 on their May 20 agenda, they saw and were asked to approve a very high level overview of their budget. Among other things, they noticed that while increases were budgeted to meet rising salary and utility costs, no inflationary increase at all was allowed for purchasing library materials. It is difficult to understand why that would be. Doesn't the Finance Department expect the cost of books to increase? The Trustees were also puzzled by the $1,852,173 budgeted for Internal Service Fund expenses, the largest of all their Maintenance and Operations costs, nearly three times the $669,740 library materials budget. Library staff did not have a good explanation, saying (if I recall correctly) it was related to facilities maintenance costs. I suggested it had to do with all services provided to them by other departments, which is what the introduction to the proposed budget document suggests on page 4. But not all such interdepartmental charges fall within. I remain puzzled by the Internal Service Funds. May 28, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item SS2. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program Budget The agenda promises a presentation highlighting certain projects and programs proposed for the coming fiscal year. It would have been helpful to post the slides in advance of the meeting. Absent that, shouldn't there at least be a link to where the public can find the CIP document to be reviewed? Item SS3. Public Safety Technology Ad Hoc Committee Results The City Clerk does not list a committee of this name under Category II (Council Committees) on her somewhat out of date Boards. Commissions and Committees webpage, or her more up-to-date Roster. Although it is also not listed by the City Clerk, the agenda announcement seems likely to be referring to the Ad Hoc Technology Implementation and Integration Committee created by Resolution No. 2024-5, which was adopted as Item 5 on the January 23, 2024, consent calendar, and apparently was intended to address all safety issues, not just police. Since the resolution gave the committee till October 31 to complete its work, it may (or may not?) be good it has been able to work more quickly. It is unclear from the announcement of "results" if the committee conducted any public outreach or consulted independent experts. Or if it considered the recommendations of the previously -appointed Ad Hoc on Residential Crime and Burglary Advisory Committee, which were received as Item 14 at the July 11, 2023, Council meeting, and, according to the minutes, ended with: In response to Council Member Weigand's question, Police Chief Cartwright thanked the committee and noted a robust public engagement program, plans for more engagement, and a nimble and efficient technology approach that fits the City best. Mayor Blom indicated that Council will wait for recommendations from the NBPD and thanked the committee and police force for bringing the matter forward. As with Item SS2 on the present agenda, it would have been helpful to post the new committee's recommendations in advance of the study session so that more intelligent questions could be asked about what will be presented. Item 1. Minutes for the May 14, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in tr eeu underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. May 28, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Page 90, Item II, last bullet, last sentence: "Mayor O'Neill announced the Touch A Truck event on May 8 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to noon in the Balboa Pier parking lot." Page 92, Item XII, last bullet: "Announced the 3rd Annual Touch A Truck event on May 18, 2024, the Newport Coast pickleball courts opening celebration on May 20, 2024, Memorial Day, and Field of Honeys Honor at Castaways Park." Page 95, Item XVI, paragraph 3, first sentence: "Affen Gunt Alan Guenther thanked the City for opening eight additional pickleball courts on Monday and expressed concern for the system to reserve and pay for a court." Page 95, Item XVI, last paragraph: "Jim Mosher recommended that Council not override the Airport Land Use Commission's likely rejection of the proposed Airport Land Us ''ommission's amendments to the General Plan and consider an open discussion with the public about less offensive options that can be included on the November ballot." Page 95, Item 10, paragraph 1: "Acting Deputy Public Works Director Salazar and Senior Management Analyst Springer noted that, while there has been progress, compliance issues still exist and he -relayed the outstanding issues." [alternatively: "the ' — but "he" doesn't work since two speakers are identified] Page 96, Item 11, paragraph 12: "Kathy Frasier Frazer thought the playground is not part of the literacy program, questioned who will monitor the parking lot, and expressed concern for the safety of children crossing Balboa Boulevard." Page 96, last paragraph: "Jim Maloney Moloney read excerpts from City Council policy G-1 and provided a handout and requested that removing the tree be delayed." Page 97, paragraph 3: "Tara GiNi n Gillfillan suggested retesting the tree and to consider the magnitude of preserving the tree." Page 97, paragraph 4: "£-eNin Colin Israel thought the site is a community spot and, if lost, will not be regained, took issue with the cost of the project, and supported preserving green space instead of installing a playground or parking lot." Page 97, paragraph 8: "Marjorie Loebe/ supported preserving the tree." [? The name sounds like "Lovell" to me, which is consistent with the statement her family has lived in Newport since the 1920's.1 Page 97, paragraph 10: "Nina Mikkelsen Mikkelsen expressed her sadness for losing the tree and library." Page 97, paragraph 11: "Helen Mikkelsen Mikkelsen supported building around the tree to save the space for future opportunities." May 28, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Item 5. Water Transmission Main Valve Replacement Phase 2 (Project No. 18W12) - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7539-3 This seems to have been an unusually complex and long -running contract, having (as explained in the staff report) been awarded as Item 8 on November 10, 2020, for 22 valve replacements at what looks like 17 locations, but amended as Item 5 on July 26, 2022, to cover costs of unexpected obstacles encountered and to 2 valve replacements at one of the originally -planned locations. However in the final iteration, as indicated at the end of the present report, one location (Back Bay Landing) was deleted, so although items were added, not all the originally planned work was completed. It would have been helpful to indicate the total number of valves replaced in this round and the rough cost of the replacement work that had been contracted for but remains to be done. Item 6. 38th Street and Lake Avenue Landscape Improvement Project - Award of Contract No. 9008-1 (24LO1) This staff report seems a little deceptive. It says that on March 26, 2024, as Item 5 on the consent calendar, the Council was asked to reject a low bid for the same project that "was approximately 46% higher than the engineer's estimate," and is now being asked to accept one that is "29% higher than the engineer's estimate of $150,000." The reduction from 46% over to 29% over makes it sound like taxpayers are getting a better deal now than they could have gotten in March. What it does not say is that on March 26, the engineer's estimate was significantly lower, $112,000, than the $150,000 it is now. So despite being more over the previous estimate, in March the Council rejected a bid of $163,816 from Armstrong Cal Builders, Inc., and is now being asked to accept a bid of $193,067 from S&H Civilworks, who in March had bid $174,981 for the same work. In other words, instead of getting a better deal, it appears the City will now be paying $18,086 more than the same vendor previously offered, and $29,251 more than a different vendor offered to do it for. Has the scope of the work increased? Or was this just a case of bad luck (or poor advice)? Item 7. Balboa Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and 32nd Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Award of Contract No. 8833-2 (22R11) This item seems unusual in that it calls for major repairs on a main Peninsula arterial for 90 days starting in "July (or sooner)." Won't this cause traffic disruptions? Isn't such work normally scheduled for the off season? May 28, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Item 8. Irrigation Controllers Replacement - Award of Contract No. 9527-1 Normally there would be a map showing the locations of the 59 controllers to be replaced. I notice that in the Q&A on Planet Bids, prospective bidders twice asked if there was a map and were told "Not available at this time." There is a written list of locations in the Special Provisions document. That includes the Balboa Library & Fire Station. Since that site is scheduled for construction, does it really make sense to pay to replace the controllers now, only to have them torn out? It is also unclear why, if the plan is to replace all 300 controllers over the next four years, the contract is only for 59. Item 10. Award and Approval of Purchase Agreement with Florence Marine X, LLC for Junior Lifeguard Program Uniforms and Apparel The staff report mentions in passing (on page 10-3) that "Florence Marine X, LLC is also a local Newport Beach business, headquartered at 210 62nd Street with a retail location at 6100 West Coast Highway." It does not mention the location of the other potential suppliers. It sounds like staff may be unaware of our City's long-standing "buy local" requirement in CAY Charter Section 1111 (Purchasing Supplies): "The City Council may prescribe by ordinance rules and regulations for the purchasing of supplies, materials and equipment. When making purchases for the City, merchants maintaining an established place of business within the City shall be given the preference, quality and prices being equal." Item 14. Annual Report and Renewal of the Military Equipment Use Policy for the Newport Beach Police Department The current policy, as reproduced on page 14-10, indicates it has to be approved by an ordinance of the City Council, leaving readers uncertain if it has been approved, or not. Adding to the confusion, the copy of the policy available on the NBPD Policies and Training page says it is a "draft" and will be the subject of a "June 14, 2021" Council hearing (all the dates on the cover sheet appear to say "2021" when they mean "2022"?). Shouldn't Section 707.4 (APPROVAL) of the policy be amended to indicate it was approved by Ordinance No. 2022-15 on June 28, 2022 (which would probably require a new ordinance), or at least the copy on the NBPD site have a cover page citing its approval and the applicable ordinance number? May 28, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 17. Resolution No. 2024-32: Notice of Intent to Override Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency for the City's Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments (PA2022-0245) The City presented to the ALUC, for their consideration at their May 16 meeting, a large package of amendments, many of which I don't think they would have found objectionable. In particular, it does not look like ALUC staff even bothered to reproduce in their agenda packet (Attachment E to the present staff report) the Objective Design Standards, which I think are important to move forward independent of the rest of the Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments, because they could still be effective and enforceable even if other parts of the implementation are not completed by HCD deadlines. I believe their objections are confined to the proposals to allow new housing close to the airport, in areas where it does not currently exist. The present staff report says, on page 17-3, that adoption of the present resolution does not predispose the Council as to future action on the consistency determination. I do not think that is quite correct. In adopting the resolution, Public Utilities Code Subsection 2167 a) requires the Council to find the amendments consistent with the purpose of having ALUCs as stated in PUC Section 21670, which is what Section 1 of Resolution No. 2024-32 purports to do, stating that purpose before the findings, but not directly address them in it. I do not see how a land use measure to allow new housing in areas of high noise close to the runway could be regarded as a measure to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards." It seems likely to increase, not minimize, them. In this connection, it might be noted that Council Policy A-17 (Newport Beach City Council Airport Policy) states "The City Council' s primary objective is to protect Newport Beach residents from the impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne Airport JWA). The City Council believes that the impacts related to JWA are now, and will continue to be, the most significant threat to the quality of life of Newport Beach residents." As keynote speaker Peter Kirsch observed (see video) at the 2024 UC Davis Aviation Noise & Emissions Symposium, cities like Newport Beach need to take responsibility for "real" land use planning, in which they adhere to the standards they would like the FAA to adopt to protect the existing population. It is unrealistic to expect the FAA to be responsive to requests to reduce impacts on existing residents when we propose to place new residents in areas even more impacted than those we claim are already excessively impacted. Beyond this, the override of the ALUC findings of incompatibility is being pushed forward to advance General Plan Amendments for placement on the November 2024 ballot which voters are very likely to reject for other reasons. In particular, the state, through the RHNA process, is requiring Newport Beach to plan to add something like 2,707 new dwelling units affordable to families with below moderate incomes. Yet May 28, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 the amendments presented to the ALUC, if placed on the ballot, would ask voters to "Greenlight" 8,174 new units, with no guarantee any of those would be used to meet the state mandate, and no guarantee their approval of the excess units would end if the 2,707 were built. It is hard to see how anyone concerned about growth, and local control of it, would vote for that. It seems time for the Council to take a step back and consider what the City is doing, and what it could do.