Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed June 11, 2024 Written Comments June 11, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosherno_yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the May 28, 2024 Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Finance Committee and the May 28, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in s-lj4keeu underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 108, Item 18, paragraph 4, sentence 1: "In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Mr. Katangian stated that the emails related to Tasks 3 and 4 were not included in the May 14 staff report and would pfeven have prevented the termination." [It is clear from the May 28 video that Mr. Katangian was speaking in the past tense about the May 14 staff report and not about the May 28 report. Although he is correct the emails were not included in the May 14 staff report, it appears they were provided to the Council and public on May 14 as supplemental correspondence.] Item 4. Resolution Nos. 2024-33 to 2024-35: Calling the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election It does not seem apparent from the staff report or the related Resolution No. 2024-34, but the consolidation of the general City election with the Countywide one is not a discretionary act of the Council and Clerk. It is actually required by City Charter Section 1000. Regarding proposed Resolution No. 2024-35, while it is true that California Elections Code Section 13307 gives the governing bodies of local agencies, like the City, some discretion over candidates statements, the resolution seems to go well beyond that. In particular, the filing and distribution of candidates' statements appears to be a right and the governing body's discretion is limited to deciding: 1. If the default limit of 200 words should be increased to 400 [Subsection 13307(a)]. 2. If candidates should be allowed an electronic statement on the agency website in addition to the one in the printed informational guide [Subsection 13307(c)]. 3. If candidates will be charged an estimated cost for publishing either or both of these statements, and if the actual costs differ from the estimate, whether they will be eligible for refunds or billed for the excess [Subsections 13307(d) and (f)]. Much of the proposed Resolution No. 2024-35 appears to deal with matters beyond this very limited scope, and to the extent it deviates from the Elections Code Section 13307 regulations that it is echoing, such deviations would not be valid unless adopted by City ordinance pursuant to Charter Section 1002. June 11, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Moreover, of what it is allowed to do, it is not evident from the proposed Resolution No. 2024-35 if the Council is accepting the Clerk's estimate of $1,500 to cover the costs of publication (which appears to be mentioned only in the staff report) or what its decision is regarding refunds or billing for excess costs. Wlth the regard to this, as some may recall, I was a (unsuccessful) candidate for Council in 2022. 1 have a receipt for $1,500, but, admitting my memory is faulty, I do not remember receiving either a refund or a bill after the election. It would, therefore, be interesting to know what the actual cost of publication was. Additionally, before adopting Resolution No. 2024-35, since it has that choice, I think the Council should seriously consider whether 400 words would be a better length than 200, and what the difference in cost would be. Item 8. Professional Services Agreement with Dudek, Inc. for Consulting Services for the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study (PA2024-0002) In the staff report, in the list of "Opportunities" on page 8-2, 1 do not understand the final statement: "Businesses that do not encourage walkup traffic, such as massage establishments or banks, may be restricted or capped in some manner." Why would massage establishments and banks be less inclined to have walkup traffic than any other? It's not like customers are buying or selling heavy merchandise and need a vehicle to do business with them. I also do not understand why the staff report describes the proposal scoring process, but does not reveal what the scores were. If the "two highest scoring proposals" were close, one might think the Council would be shown the two close proposals and asked to choose between them. My more general concern is how staff sees this process coordinating with the General Plan Update, a topic that does not seem to be addressed in the staff report. Public input is currently being solicited on the GPU, but citizens need to be warned that what they are being asked to comment on is something someone independent of the General Plan housing amendments they will likely be asked to vote on in November. Now, it seems, citizens will be asked to comment on their vision for the future of the city, but not the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor, because that, too, is on a separate track? Wouldn't it make more sense to complete the overall city outreach and visioning before devoting resources to implementing that new vision in a specific area? Moreover, based on experience with much of the same team on the GPU, I am not particularly confident about the contract producing a quality result. Very close to a year into the GPU contract (C-9358-1), outreach does not seem to have been very thorough, and the "data driven" insights of Pro Forma Advisors seem too often based on data that is not reliable. June 11, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 9. Amendment No. Four to Post Retirement Temporary Employment Agreement with Rosalinh Ung Although it is not clear from the current staff report, Item 14 from the June 23, 2020, meeting, where a contract for temporary re-employment was first considered, indicated that Ms. Ung retired on September 17, 2019. In all cases, the extensions of that re-employment have been for temporary situations expected to be resolved within the extension period. By the time of the next extension, if there is one, it will more than five years since Ms. Ung's retirement. Will Section I of Policy F-14 still be interpreted as requiring Council approval of that extension, or will it be regarded as being more than five years since leaving "service with the City" (allowing a quiet staff extension)? It might also be noticed that Policy F-14 requires Council approval of a contract with any corporation or business that employs a person who former City employee who left the City's service five or less years before — apparently even if they will not be working on the contract. It is unclear if the City always makes that inquiry. Item 10. Professional Services Agreement with Lyons Security Service, Inc. for Security Guard Services The staff report is unusually opaque. It makes it sound like the current provider was selected and hired by the City Manager's Office In fact, the current provider, American Global Security, Inc., was approved by the Council as Item 9 on the June 23, 2023, consent calendar, for a one-year term with two potential 1-year extensions and a possible compensation of $550,000. The contract for the earlier November 2022 retention of Lyon for Civic Center security does not seem to be on file, unless the work was conducted under the on -call contract C-8458-lA with the Recreation and Senior Services Department. The report does not explain why the City Manager's Office is recommending not continuing with American Global Security. It is also unclear why Lyon Security Service is being selected as their replacement, since in the 2023 report they six of the 22 bidders that passed the technical evaluation (with an unknown score) but of those, ranked fifth in total score. It is good that Lyon may be able to provide the service at lower cost, but the 2023 report indicated the contract with American Global would include patrolling restrooms at City facilities "around the city." The present report does not indicate how restroom security is being provided outside the Civic Center, or how that affects cost. Item 11. Professional Services Agreement for Beach Fire Rings Security In recommending Lyon Security Service, the Police Department appears to be following the City's established contract awarding guidelines, but in this case I would think Safe Rock deserves additional consideration. June 11, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 In the Technical Review, SafeRock finished second out of the ten bidders listed, a competition in which Lyon, as the incumbent provider, would be expected to have a considerable advantage. In addition, SafeRock offered the lowest cost of the six proposers that exceeded the technical threshold, apparently offering a $226,000 package compared to the $300,000 requested by Lyon, a $74,000 savings for the City. Considering the incumbent's advantage in the technical scoring, the second -highest score combined with the lowest cost would seem like the better deal to me. Item 12. Purchase of Virtual Use -of -Force Training System The report does not indicate if there are alternative vendors of similar training systems, and if there are, why these particular ones are recommended. Item 14. Community Programs and Special Event Grants Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2024- 25 Regarding the Community Programs Grants, the staff report, on page 14-4, that "In a shift from years prior, the City will no longer provide room fee waivers for the use of the Civic Center Community Room. Organizations requesting use of the Community Room will be provided with a monetary credit in the exact amount of the City fee for the requested room reservation." The one instance in which this statement can be test is the request from the Southern California Blood Bank for 32 hours of Community Room use, for which it is recommended they be granted $5,193 (see page 14-10). That figures to 162.28 per hour. That does not seem to correlate with the rental rates approved on page 77 of Item 14 at the Council's April 23, 2024, meeting, which are $146 per hour for resident non -profits and $221 per hour for non-resident non -profits (which, which addresses in San Diego and Irvine, the Blood Bank would seem to be). At the lower rate, the rent would seem to be $4,672, leaving $521 unexplained. Item 17. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council It is good to see the bi-monthly updates getting back on a bi-monthly track. As a member of the GPAC, I think there may be some frustration with the results of the public outreach, which so far has consisted exclusively of "pop-up" events and the website, not coming back in any systematic or readily -referenced fashion. For example, the Get Engaged! page of the website promises that "Following the pop-up events, community feedback will be summarized into a report." But that does not seem to have happened. In addition, the Existing Conditions and Background Analysis reports do not always provide accurate or easily digestible information. As to the present update, it may not be evident from the report that the Noise Element Subcommittee is not supported by the consultant's contract and relies solely on staff support and its own wits. June 11, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Regarding the last paragraph of Steering Committee Chair Gardner's memo, it may be useful for Council to know the City does not have an "Arts Master Plan." Although an oddly -named Master Arts and Culture Plan was prepared by an outside consultant in 2014 and last discussed by the Council as Item SS4, on May 10, 2016, it was never adopted. Item 18. Confirmation of Annual Citizen Member Appointments to the Finance Committee I am not opposed to the reappointment of the current citizen representatives, but it would be interesting to know if as a result of the "Notice of Scheduled Vacancies" the Council members making the appointments had any other applicants from whom to choose. Item 19. Confirmation of Nominees for Scheduled Board and Commission Vacancies Having applied continuously since 2009 for appointment to the Board of Library Trustees, I understand the first step to getting appointed is getting nominated, a milestone I believe I have never reached. While I appreciate I may not have been chosen by this year's three -member nominating committee, perhaps one of the four other Council members might consider reviewing my application and adding my name to the list of nominees? Otherwise, the often -repeated advice of "just keep trying" may fall flat on some ears. Item 20. Resolution No. 2024-38: Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Adoption, Budget Public Hearing, Recommendations from the Finance Committee, and Proposed Budget Revision Items; and Resolution No. 2024-39: City Council Policy F-2 The addition of annual departmental goals, objectives and performance measures to the adopted budget is an interesting step. I see at least one of our neighboring cities, Costa Mesa, has been doing something that looks very similar to this in their adopted budget: since 2010. I also notice they supplement those goals, objectives and performance measures with a detailed strategic plan, which they will be discussing simultaneously with the present meeting as the sole item on their June 11, 2024, Special Meeting Agenda.