Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed June 9, 2015 Written Comments June 9, 2015, Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item SS2. Technology Update Although an update is certainly commendable, I think something like the City's former Media & Communications Committee might provide a better and more in -depth forum for providing public feedback to ensure the City's technological innovations indeed serve the citizens they are intended to serve. In the absence of a citizens review committee, if, as has been rumored, the City plans to transition soon to a new and different agenda system, it would seem helpful for this Study Session update to include a demonstration of the new system's public interface. That would allow staff to receive comment and perhaps improve its features before it is rolled out. If City staff plans to make other significant changes to the City's website, it would seem helpful for those changes, too, to receive at least some public review prior to committing to them. And this would seem a good opportunity. Item SS3. Waste Water Rate Study It would seem helpful to know that in late 2012 the same company and same consultant prepared a waste water rate study for the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. CMSD's infrastructure, which provides sewer service to the City of Costa Mesa and parts of Newport Beach and Santa Ana, is very similar, although slightly larger in size (224 vs. 197 miles; 26,096 vs. 25,525 connections), to that provided by the City of Newport Beach. The report for CMSD, dated December 7, 2012, should be available in the agenda packet for the Board's June 27, 2013, meeting. The result of the CMSD study was to increase the single - family sewer rate from $69 per year to $85 per year in FY 2013 -14 rising to $92 per year in FY 2017 -18. As shown in Figure 2 attached to the current staff report (copying Figure 4 -6 from the study, which although not well explained in either place appears to compare the rates for typical single family residences) the typical CNB single family rate is already higher than this, and after the adjustment would be considerably higher. Despite this, a quick comparison of the two suggests that the projected revenue requirements to maintain the CNB system are lower than the expected cost of maintaining the CMSD system, and even then is top -heavy on salary and benefit costs, and light on actual maintenance and capital improvements. It would be good to understand if adequate revenue is being requested to maintain the CNB system in the long term. Whatever the revenue requirements, an important function of these studies is to equitably distribute the costs over the users. Because it does not supply water, CMSD has to guess at the apportionment without benefit of knowing the quantity of the customer's water use. One would think that knowing the amount of water going into the parcel would be helpful, but, as is readily admitted, water in is not always a good proxy for the amount of sewer use. Many June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 14 customers use the majority of their water for irrigation, which does not burden the sewer system. Others use none for non - sewered uses. So in the Newport Beach, as in CMSD, the allocation of costs is inevitably uncertain, and in some cases unfair. I find it interesting that in CMSD the consultant recommended setting the rate for a dwelling unit in a multi - family setting (where less water goes to landscaping) at 60% of the rate for a dwelling unit on a single family parcel. From Figure 4 -5 of the CNB study, the same consultant expects the rate for a typical dwelling unit in a mutli- family complex in Newport Beach to be just 34% of the charge for a typical dwelling unit in a single family setting. It is difficult to tell from either study if this difference has some solid basis, or is simply an indication of the arbitrariness with which the rates are set. Finally, it might be noted that the "transportation" charges being discussed here are small in comparison to the $316 per year charged by the Orange County Sanitation District, for the final collection and treatment of the wastewater from a single family parcel. One wonders if that number is being equitably allocated among users; and to what extent the actual flows in the mains from known areas are monitored and compared to the quantities of wastewater assumed in the models on which the rates are based. Item W.B. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION In my view, the justification in Government Code § 54956.9(e)(1) for closing this discussion to the public is one of the most questionable in the Brown Act. The justification is that the City has done something that exposes it to litigation but the party that might sue is unaware of what the City did wrong, and discussing the matter openly, or even openly disclosing the subject under discussion on the agenda, would tip them off. Not only does a refusal to confront errors openly seems ethically wrong to me, but the failure to notice the subject matter means both that no meaningful public comment can be offered and that in all likelihood the public will never know what the problem was. The Council should perhaps again be reminded that the City Charter, prior to its amendment by a yes -no vote on 38 changes with Measure EE in 2012, had stricter transparency requirements than the Brown Act and required all the Council's meetings to be held in the Council Chambers and open to the public. Item 1. Minutes for the May 26, 2015 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with amended numbering. Suggested changes are shown in strikPaut underline format. Page 313: paragraph 6: "..., City Manager Kiff addressed the Arts and Culture Master Plan and reported that staff is proposing a .75 full time equivalent contract position for $60,000 ..." June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 14 Page 313: paragraph 10: "City Manager Kiff added that the net change is an increase in of two positions but that, as of June 2016, there will be a decrease in of one position." Page 314: paragraph 3: "Further, the TMC gave provided the City Council with a strategy to move forward with spot improvements at a Study Session." Page 315: paragraph 3: "He noted that the Friends of the Corona del Mar Library are in favor of having more input..." Page 315: last paragraph: "Council Member Peotter commented on Visit Newport Beach (VNB) and wondered why the TBID Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue and expense is not shown in the City's budget." Page 317: paragraph 5: "tea -Linh Do spoke in support..." Page 319: Section XIV, paragraph 4: "Libby Hyke Huvck spoke regarding Item 3..." Page 322: Section XVI, paragraph 3, sentence 3: "He added that some of the features have been put into a new Council Policy (H -6), but nothing in it mentions an annual review by the City Council or the operation being restricted to the turning basi Turning Basin." Page 323: Item 16, paragraph 1: "He asked whether it would be appropriate to add the items not already covered in the Fiscal Policy section of the Council Policy Manual (Nos. 7, 10, 12 and 13) which would delete the need for the Fiscal Sustainability Plan." Page 324: Section XVII, paragraph 3: "Libby#yke Huvck addressed the budget..." Page 327: Item 21, paragraph 4: "Lynn-Linh Do spoke in support..." Page 328: paragraph 2 from end, last sentence: "Additionally, the Park Avenue project budget project �-ais includes Federal funding and must comply with a predetermined schedule." Page 331: Item 25, paragraph 2, sentence 2: "He suggested that the Harbor Commission also take on beach, pier and semeniuk siough Semeniuk Slough issues, and that the City continue to manage Beacon Bay." Page 332: paragraph 4, sentence 2: "He spoke in support of fine - tuning the duties and reported that the Tidelands Management Committee also deals with beaches, upland * define ^es tidelands the Balboa Bay Resort, Beacon Bay, and leases with different organizations in the Harbor." Page 332: paragraph 5 (substitute motion): Were the two Council Members announced? If so, the minutes should reflect which ones they were. Page 333: paragraph 3: "Mr. Griffiths hoped that Council will take into ^^ ,rider consideration the work that Great Scott has already done for the City." June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 14 Item 3. Non - Exclusive Solid Waste Franchise with Genesis Dispatch, Inc. Considering the Council's approval of the budget at its last meeting, it would be interesting to know what the "City Environmental Liability Fund" referred to on page 3 of the ordinance (and to which the franchisee is expected to contribute 5.5% of gross receipts) is used for, especially since the contract calls for the franchisee to indemnify the City. According to page 23 of the Council's approved Budget Detail the fund has evidently been increasing, with the estimated $702,778 of revenues in and $178,530 of expenses out leaving it, at the end of the current fiscal year, with a projected balance of $5,604,057. 1 am especially curious what the ongoing annual expenses go towards. Are they used to pay environmental claims related to the franchise operations? To buy further insurance? Or for what? Why is the public not informed of what its money is going for? Item 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2015 -13, Regulating and Limiting Vessels Propelled by Water Above the Surface of Newport Harbor It might again be noted that at its last meeting the Council adopted Policy H -6 which presupposed the adoption of this ordinance. One might hope the adoption of ordinances at their second readings is not a forgone conclusion. Item 5. Adoption of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 (Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulation) It might be noted that the redlined version provided as Attachment B does not entirely match the "clean" version being proposed for adoption by the ordinance, and the snippets shown in the staff report may be something yet again. For example, in the first line on page 5 -32 the words "of potable water to fill or refill" are shown as being struck out, yet at the bottom of page 5 -14 they are shown as being part of the new ordinance. One hopes the many other clauses of the clean version, mostly copied from the existing Municipal Code, have been carefully checked to ensure they were copied correctly and /or reflect the language intended. Regarding that language, the threshold use level introduced at the last meeting seems helpful, but since it was added not as a clear "exemption" (Section 14.16.100), but rather as a criterion to be considered along with others in an application for "relief from compliance" (Section 14.16.110), it would seem to offer the public little certainty as to when and under what conditions relief can be expected. Item 6. Minor Amendments to the Newport Beach Zoning Code Ordinance - Second Reading (PA2015 -056) As I indicated orally at the May 26' Council meeting, with regard to the proposed change regarding "vehicle /equipment sales," does indeed restore the Zoning Code to what it appears to June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 14 have been intended to achieve when the Code was comprehensively updated in 2010, however that intent is slightly different than the May 26th staff report suggested it was. That report suggested the only difference between a "limited" vehicle /equipment sales operation (permitted "by right ") and a "general" vehicle /equipment sales operation (requiring discretionary approval of a Conditional Use Permit) was whether it included an extensive repair facility requiring mechanical hoists. In fact, the definitions adopted in 2010, and not being proposed for modification here, additionally limit a "limited" operation to sales of automobiles only. Since the definitions were never used in the code itself in 2010, it's unclear if they were carefully thought out. If it is the current Council's intention that all kinds of vehicle sales should be allowed by right in the General Commercial zone (that is, including trucks, motorcycles and other equipment — not just automobiles), then the definition of "limited vehicle /equipment sales' should be amended reflect that. It is also not clear to me why the current prohibitions against obstructions in alley- facing setbacks are being relaxed to apply only to rear setbacks abutting alleys. My understanding is the definition of what setbacks are front, side or rear can be non - intuitive, especially for corner lots, and it would seem to me that keeping at least a portion of the setbacks adjacent to alleys clear of obstructions would be important whatever the setback is called. Item 7. Amendments to City Council Policy A -6 (Open Meeting Policies) As with many other items, it may give the public some unease to see no indication the proposed action has been reviewed by the City Attorney. In this case, the absence of review would be particularly problematic since the preamble to the proposed policy says one of its purposes is to ensure City meetings comply with the Brown Act. 2. Some aspects of the existing policy already seem problematic. For example the idea of releasing agendas and agenda packets to the Council on Thursdays but not to the public until Friday afternoon (Policy clauses CA and C.2) conforms neither with the Brown Act nor with City practice (in which the agenda packet is posted electronically at about the same time it is sent to the Council members, namely around 4 p.m. on Thursday). 3. Aside from a passing reference to them in policy clause B, Policy A -6 doesn't make good on the promise in its preamble to ensure the people's appointed representatives on the City's Boards, Commissions and Committees meet in compliance with the Brown Act. And this is a matter that requires serious attention. One of the worst practices is that of the Board of Library Trustees and the City Arts Commission who allow public comment on agenda items only in a single segment at the start of the meeting, before the items have been heard. That hardly "promote[s] full citizen participation in the discussions and decisions" and may contribute to the almost non - existent public attendance at their meetings. 4. Policy A -6 also fails to articulate what seems to be an unwritten policy that the Council does not take action during the Study Session portion of its Regular Meetings — even June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 14 though staff does occasionally request "direction" at them, and even though in the Brown Act such direction is regarded as an "action taken." 5. Of the proposed changes to A -6: a. On page 2 of the proposed policy, the method of getting items on the agenda is an improvement over the present one, although it is still more cumbersome than is allowed by the Brown Act. The Brown Act allows a city council to vote at any public meeting, without prior announcement, to place an item on a future agenda, provided the vote is taken without substantial discussion about substance of the matter. The Newport Beach City Council might be able to accomplish that by voting to waive its Policy A -6 procedure, although it's not clear if the vote to waive its publicly- adopted policy would have to be pre- announced on the agenda. b. On page 3, aren't "Presentations" at Study Sessions supposed to come before "Current Business" (so presenters /recipients won't have to wait two hours or more for their moment in the sun)? If so, they have been misplaced in the resolution being presented to the Council. c. Also, although listed on recent agendas as an item of "Current Business," the "Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar' item has always had the feel of being in a separate category of its own. Should it be listed separately? d. On page 5, 1 see no reason for giving the Mayor the unilateral power to change the publicly stated order of business. The existing policy already gives the Mayor the power to do that with the consent of a majority of Council members present, and it takes only seconds to obtain that consent. Changing the order without asking the consent of the group violates both common sense and common courtesy. Item 8. Changes to the Fiscal Sustainability Plan and Council Policy F- 28, Facilities Financial Planning Program It is good to see staff acknowledging, at least obliquely, that the City's Fiscal Sustainability Plan was amended once before, on May 14, 2013. Although the Fiscal Sustainability Plan and Policy F -28 will once again be in alignment in proclaiming a 3% floor on the General Fund contribution to the Facilities Financing effort, I believe the FFP Tool continues to try to hold the contribution at close to 5 %. The policy guiding staff towards that 5% goal should perhaps be spelled out more clearly in the two documents that are the subject of the present action. June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 14 Item 9. Petition Certification and Request for Funding for Proposed Underground Assessment District No. 117 (Area Bounded by: Bayside Drive, Avocado Avenue, Coast Highway, and Carnation Avenue) 1. As alluded to in the staff report, under the current procedures, the City's taxpayers are assuming a substantial risk in funding a study which, if rejected by the petitioners, will not be reimbursed. 2. It may have been helpful for the staff report to explain how an employee of Penco Engineering became the City's "duly appointed Assessment Engineer." 3. It seems strange Assessment Engineer tells us only the petitions represent at least five owners and "more than 60% of the assessable area" and the staff report says the result was `just over 60%." Is there something secret about the exact result? 4. It also seems strange that according to the map supplied as Attachment A to the staff report four of the poles to be undergrounded lie outside the area being assessed. Item 10. Resolution No. 2015 -50: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Association and Approving Salary Range It is good staff provided an extended public preview of this item by placing it on the Consent Calendar at the previous meeting. However, it seems like the kind of matter that would have benefitted from input from the City's Finance Committee. Item 11. Multiple Back -Up Generators Replacement Project — Award of Contract C -6011 (CAP150042) I am not sure the public has ever seen the maintenance scheduled we contracted for in FY14, mentioned at the start of the "Discussion" section of the staff report, but it looks like staff did the right thing with regard to this particular recommended project in accepting the low bid and rejecting the protest. It is much less clear that taxpayers get the best deal in other contract awards where discretionary "qualifications based" points are assigned. Item 12. Approve Amendment No. One to the Cooperative Agreement Between the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach for Mooring Management Services in Newport Harbor for Six Months, and Direct Staff to Issue an RFP for Mooring Management Services 1. Staff seems to be taking the right course in exploring other vendors, but it would have been helpful to identify the contract number of the existing agreement in the City Clerk's June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 14 Laserfiche contracts database so the public and Council could see what is being amended /extended. 2. It might also have been helpful to summarize the price differential between the County and other respondents to the 2009 RFP. 3. It is not clear from the staff report why the 2009 agreement with the County is referred to as a $264,000 per year contract when the starting cost is listed as $180,000 per year and the ending cost as $290,000 per year. The average would seem to be $235,000 per year. 4. It is also not clear from the County letters that they would be willing to accept the proposed six month extension at $158,050. The County appears to have offered a $316,100 per year rate as a kind of teaser to ease the transition to full cost recovery ($404,622 per year) by FY20. City staff appears to have simply divided the first year teaser rate by two, but it is not obvious that rate is available without a full five -year commitment. Item 13. Professional Services Agreement to Prepare a Multi - Jurisdictional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and a Five -Year Housing Action Plan 1. The staff report does not make clear how or why Newport Beach became the organizer and contracting hub for this joint effort between 16 cities, and whether as the organizer it will bear the full stated cost if some of the other cities choose not to participate. In addition, doesn't the City staff time needed to coordinate the project add to Newport Beach's burden and therefore its share of the cost? Are the other cities reimbursing Newport Beach for that part of the effort? 2. The staff report does not make clear why the contract with GRC & Associates (page 13- 5) is back -dated to May 19"'. See the final comment on the following item for why that is a matter of concern. 3. Similarly, on page 13 -41, the sample Memorandum Of Understanding suggests Newport Beach expects payment from each participating city by June 30, 2015. Given that is just three weeks away, is that realistic? 4. Why is Exhibit B to the MOU (the final page of the staff report) blank? Will it be the same as the table shown on page 13 -39? 5. As with the following item, I'm skeptical of the "Financial Disclosure for Consultants' analysis on pages 13 -34 through 13 -35. Won't the consultant be doing work similar to that which could be done by a staff employee and influencing future City policy and actions in a way in which he could be financially interested? June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 14 Item 14. Professional Services Agreement with Schmitz & Associates, Inc. for Consulting and Advocacy Services for the Certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (PA2013 -001) 1. I doubt I am the only resident of Newport Beach who is embarrassed to have my city represented before the Coastal Commission by a hired snake oil salesman like Don Schmitz, who accomplishments include a Sunset Ridge Park without a parking lot, a Marina Park lighthouse conditioned on its use as a tsunami warning tower (without the City knowing if that was even feasible) and a role I would have to research in the initial fire ring debacle. 2. Assuming he is the "President" referred to in Exhibit B (page 14 -17), 1 find his hourly rate of $325 per hour (which at 40 hours per week would work out to over $676,000 per year) outrageous. I would like to think the Coastal Commissioners are sophisticated enough to recognize the paid hokum Mr. Schmitz delivers for what it is, and that they would be more responsive, and the City would have better outcomes, if we were more honestly, simply and sincerely represented, and at much lower cost, by our own elected officials and employees. 3. Even his lowliest "Planning Technician," at $95 per hour, seems much better paid than a comparable position on City staff, again making one wonder if outsourcing to for - profit enterprises is really in taxpayers' best interest. 4. 1 am also doubtful of the "Financial Disclosure for Consultants" analysis on pages 14 -22 through 14 -23. In my view, Mr. Schmitz plays a role similar to that which could be performed by a City planner, influences City policy and could steer that policy in directions that financially favor his own firm and his firm's other clients. The address also does not match that on the contract (page 14 -3). 5. Finally, the contract appears to have been back -dated to June 1st implying the Consultant may bill the City for services purportedly rendered under some informal agreement prior to the contract having been entered into. I believe such payments would be improper under the California Constitution. Item 15. Approve Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement for Grease Control Device Inspection Program The Costa Mesa Sanitary District has an extensive annual report from their FOG contractor, Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), on their Study Session agenda for Tuesday morning (June 9). A comparison of the services provided by EEC, including their cost and effectiveness, compared to those of Newport Beach's contractor, ECIS, might be instructive. 2. The sample letter provided as Attachment B contains a minor typo in paragraph 3 from the end: "helps" should be "help'. June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 14 3. The fine print at the end of the "Grease Disposal Permit Application" would seem to suggest that signing the permit makes one subject to the Municipal Code. Isn't compliance mandatory whether a permit is signed or not? 4. In the next to last check box in the Inspection Report (page 15 -30), "dishwashing" is probably meant to read "dishwashing areas," and in the previous section does "Clean kitchen mats ..." belong under "Corrective Actions' rather than in the "Non- compliance" section? Item 16. Initiate a Zoning Code Amendment to Modify Landscape Regulations Although the Zoning Code allows the Planning Commission to initiate amendments, it is good that staffs intent to request changes to landscaping standards during times of drought is being presented to the Council for their comments. However, no details are provided of what the proposed changes might be, and if, as is usually the case, the Council approves this Consent Calendar item without comment it seems like a useless extra step. The Planning Commission will be left in the dark as to what kind of changes the Council wants. Item 17. Annual Measure M Fund Eligibility Requirements I'm all for the City receiving Measure M money, but it's not clear to me the City meets all the eligibility requirements listed in the staff report. 1. Was the treatment of the 19th Street bridge in our General Plan's Circulation Element ever corrected to conform to what the County did to it in their MPAH? 2. Was the curb cut onto MacArthur allowed in connection with the Todd Ridgeway shopping center project at Newport Place consistent with the requirement to limit access to arterials? 3. Doesn't the grand total of $8,425,679 of General Fund expenditures shown on the next to last page fall short of the $8,868,393 threshold mentioned in the staff report? Item 18. Acceptance of Grant Funding for the Community Paramedicine Pilot Project The letter from Hoag Hospital offering the grant indicates the funds are to be used in the fiscal year ending in three weeks, on June 30, 2015. The staff report fails to clarify how this restriction can be reconciled with what appears to be the City's intention to use it to supplement other funds received over up to the next two years or if the account it is going into is part of the City's General fund. June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 14 Is this being used to backfill expenses that have already been paid? If not, wouldn't any portion unspent on June 301 have to be returned to the General Fund, violating the grantor's restrictions. The staff report also indicates Newport Beach is "the designated fiscal agent" Item 19. Donation of Art to the City of Newport Beach 1. The last line of the Discussion in the staff report indicates Board of Library Trustees approved the placement of the paintings in the Central Library. My recollection is the acceptance was "pursuant to Council Policy 1 -11," and there was no assurance the works would be displayed in the Central Library in perpetuity. 2. The history related in the staff report regarding the artist's civic service may be a bit shaky. I believe Rex Brandt served on the Board of Library Trustees (he is named as a Trustee on the dedicatory plaque in the Balboa Library expansion area) and later on the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Prior to either of those, he was one of the "freeholders" elected to draft a city charter prior to the current one. That effort failed at the ballot. Joan Irving Brandt was one of the original members of the Council- appointed City Arts Committee that preceded the present City Arts Commission. I am not aware she ever served on the Board of Library Trustees. 3. In my view, the Rex Brandt painting being offered to the City is a rather striking work. The Joan Irving Brandt piece is much less impressive, and doesn't seem artistically in harmony with it. Item 20. Board and Commission Scheduled Vacancies - Confirmation of Nominees As the staff report says, the Council is here following its appointment process per Council Policy A -2, in which the applicants are screened by an Ad Hoc Appointments Committee. That does not mean it is a good process. I think it would be beneficial for both the public and for the Council members not on the Committee to see all the applications, not just those recommended by the Committee. For example, I understand PB &R Vice Chair Roy Englebrecht may have applied for reappointment to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. It would be of interest to know if he is being slighted by the Committee simply for having had the temerity to run for Council himself. Hopefully some other Council members might have an opinion of the merit of his application, and others, that differs from that of the Committee, and should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice. Similarly, it may be of interest that I applied for nomination to the Library Board and Planning Commission, and was not even interviewed by the Committee, even though I am the only member of the public that regularly attends and comments on the matters before those bodies. June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 12 of 14 Finally, when the Council votes on the "confirmed" nominees on June 23b, it may discover once again that Policy A -2 contains an imperfect voting system that has led to embarrassing deadlocks in the past. The problems that led to those deadlocks should be reviewed and a system that avoids them should be instituted. Item XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS Although I have been unable to find a clear rendition of it in the official minutes, I recall an exchange between Council members at the May 26'h meeting, during Item SS2 ( "Budget — Part 2 "), regarding the tediousness of some members having to listen "ad nauseum" while others quizzed staff on the details of presentations and proposals, when they could have obtained that information privately prior to the meeting. I would like to amplify the comment I made orally regarding that: I encourage Council members to ask their questions publicly. I think a society in which some kind of stigma is attached to the act of questioning information or authority is a poor society; and a government in which decision makers make decisions on the assumption that others must understand the details and the correctness of the decision better than they is a very poor government. Item 21. Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution for Level Three Water Supply Shortage 1. Since the Council previously adopted a "resolution of intention," was Clause 1 of the present resolution's "Now, therefore" section intended to say "the City Council declares its intent to declare a Level Three water supply shortage" or simply "the City Council declares a Level Three water supply shortage "? 2. Clause 4 says the resolution will become effective on the date of its adoption. Is this possible when it recites restrictions from the related ordinance (Item 5) which says it will not be effective until 30 days after its adoption (on the same date)? Was it the intent that the resolution become effective with the ordinance, and if so shouldn't it contain a clause explaining that? Item 22. Balboa Theater - Notice of Change of Intended Use and Sale, Located at 707 East Balboa Boulevard What happened to the Council's previously announced plan, after the collapse of the private Theater Foundation, to add the parcel to the City's recreation empire and repurpose the empty shell of a building into a community activity center focused on youth art programs? If the Council were to entertain the need for such a facility has it been carefully thought through if use of this site would be cheaper than acquisition of a new site? June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 13 of 14 Item 23. Approval of Service Agreement with Alexander's Contract Services for Water Meter Reading Services It is good to see the staff report includes a copy of the proposed contract. It might be noted that there is a minor typo in the fourth bullet on page A -6 of the Scope of Services (Exhibit A): "Upon notice form the City" was presumably intended to read "Upon notice from the City'. 2. At the bottom of the same page, under "Reporting Maintenance Issues," similar or identical items (for example, "potential water leaks ") are listed in the first two bullets, but the required timeliness of reporting is not clearly indicated if the problem falls under the second (non- hazardous problems) bullet. 3. In Exhibit B ( "Schedule of Billing Rates "): a. Paragraph A seems to be left over from the RFP, and not to be part of the contract. b. Paragraph B has an extraneous "in ". Item 24. Water Main Master Plan Replacement - Award of Contract No. 4920 (CAP14 -0031) This item seems very poorly noticed and explained. From the agenda one might assume it has to do with the replacement of the City's Master Plan for water mains. Instead it seems to have to do with construction work related to two segments called out for replacement or repair in an existing Master Plan. 2. The description of CAP14 -0031 on page 69 of the recently adopted Capital Improvements Plan says "This project involves the removal and replacement of older cast iron water mains identified in the Water Master Plan. Continued focus will be on pipelines near River Avenue between 41st and 44th Streets that have experienced breaks several times in the past few years." Although lines in Corona del Mar are mentioned, no new funds were appropriated and the present project (which does not address the problems on River Avenue) appears to exhaust most of the $1,405,000 "re- budget" for the coming year. 3. Links to the Water Main Master Plan and the Scope of Services of the proposed contract would have seemed helpful for the public and Council to better understand what they are paying for, and why. 4. As came up in connection with the recent award for a water main replacement project in the Lido Village area, it would also be helpful to provide some assurance that the replacement product is the most cost effective available and will (hopefully) provide a greater lifetime than what it replaces. June 9, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 14 of 14 Item 25. City Insurance Renewals This item would seem like one that would benefit from an annual review by the City's Finance Committee. It would have been helpful for the report to summarize the quantity of claims paid by the City versus those paid by insurance versus the premiums paid for that insurance. The former two numbers are very difficult to extract from the City's standard financial reporting.