Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments"Received After Agenda Printed" Public Comments 7 -23 -13 July 23, 2013 Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(cavahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Newport Beach Public Facilities Corporation Meeting The printed agenda appears to be missing some of the Brown Act required notices identifying, for example, a contact person for additional information. 2. In the draft minutes, under "3. Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 201 V the following corrections are suggested: Ayes: Board 9 Directors Hill, Selich, Henn, and Daigle; Vice - Chairperson Curry. and Chairperson Gardner Absent: Rearde€ Director Rosansky REGULAR MEETING Item 1. Minutes for the July 9, 2013 Regular Meeting have no corrections to the minutes to offer, however with regard to Items 3 ( "Amendment of the Balboa Village Advisory Committee Membership ") and 4 ( "Amendment of the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Membership ") I continue to think the Council violated Government Code Section 54972 by creating new appointive positions and making non - emergency appointments to them, all in a single evening without advertising for interested applicants. 2. In addition, with regard to the Item 3, filling of the "Balboa Village Merchant Association Business Board Member" position (per Exhibit A), the California Secretary of State continues to have no record I can find of any recently created, or currently active, legal entity with a name resembling that, even though the Council has budgeted, and plans to give, $40,000 to it in the current fiscal year. Item 6. Building Inspection and Plan Review Services The report fails to make clear what need triggered staff's original $100,000 contract with VCA Code Group dated September 1, 2011 (and ending June 30, 2012), or whether that need and its continued existence have ever been carefully reviewed by the City Council. Item 10. Agreement for Sewer Video Inspection Services 1. The agreement begs the question of why the present in -house service costs so much more than the same service provided by the selected outside vendor, and why that vendor's cost is so much lower than most of the other bidders. 2. Without clear explanation, the proposed ten year contact term seems unusually long for a service agreement of this type, particularly for an untested service. 3. 1 believe the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which provides sewer service to some portions of Newport Beach, and is perhaps more focused on sewer maintenance, has reduced its July 23, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 "hot- spots" to a considerably smaller fraction of miles than that suggested in the City's report. 4. The fate of the City's existing sewer inspection equipment, which the report says would cost $141,172 to replace, is left unclear, at least in the summary report. Item 13. Budget Amendment to Accept a Check from the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation 1. Although it is not clearly stated, I assume the recommended action is intended to include actual acceptance of the check as well as approval of a budget amendment. 2. Although a small amount, even in total, I do not recall the acceptance of these gifts, or their proposed uses, ever having been approved or recommended to Council by the City's Board of Library Trustees, as would seem to be expected under City Charter Section 708(f). Item 14. Budget Amendment to Accept a Check from the Friends of the Newport Beach Library 1. As in the previous item, I assume the intended action includes formal acceptance of the gift (ceremonially presented on July 9), as well as approval of a budget amendment. 2. The Council may wish to be aware that the library "wish lists" appear to be prepared entirely by library staff based on unknown input and criteria, and although the Board of Library Trustees reviewed and approved a PowerPoint of staff's draft of their 2013 -2014 Wish Lists (one to be funded by the Friends and one by the Foundation) at their May 6, 2013 meeting, it was with the understanding that it was only a draft, and might be modified by the donor organizations. 3. Since no printed handout was provided at the May 6 meeting, and since the list, which is not included with the present staff report, might have been subsequently changed, I don't think either the Trustees or the public at large know for sure what "approved" uses the $255,000 Friends gift has been accepted for. Item 15. Sculpture in the Civic Center Park, Orange County Museum of Art Memorandum of Understanding 1. As staff acknowledges in its report, the present proposal seems rather different than the one reviewed, refined and approved by the City Arts Commission at its July 11, 2013 meeting, as well as being quite different from the original Peter Walker — OCMA plan that the public had been expecting. 2. As I said to the Arts Commission at their July 11 meeting (but due to limitations on public comment at those meetings, after their recommendation had been voted on), I believe interest in the proposed project would be considerably enhanced if the selection of the successful artists from among all entries received for this public art exhibition was made with public input at a widely publicized public session of the City Arts Commission, rather than having the entries "vetted" by a private entity whose tastes may differ from those of the community, as seems presently to be proposed. 3. It remains unclear tome why the original Peter Walker — OCMA plan for a rotating display of loaned sculptures at the locations shown on Attachment A was, and is being, abandoned.