HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments�a id w ^•J me GH. r�.
ua� rd„
Comments on September 11, 2012 City Council Agenda Items
Comments by: Jim Mosher (limmosherof�vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-
548 -6229)
REGULAR MEETING (at 7 :00 pm)
Item 1. Minutes for the August 14, 2012 Regular Meeting
C On page 560, in the second line from the end, the reference to a "Critical Facilities
Plan" correctly states what was said, but I understand the intended document is the
"Facilities Financing Plan ".
On page 565, under Item XV, the Mayor's comment was presumably "that there are
grant funds available" rather than "that there is grant funds available."
Item 3. Delegation of Authority to Request Disbursements
Although I presume it is routinely done behind the scenes (as required by Charter
Section 602(f) and Council Policy A -10), it would seem helpful to assure the public and
the Council, either in the report or on the proposed resolution itself, that the language
has indeed been reviewed by our City Attorney.
Item 9. Newport Coast Monument Signs Concept Selection
It is a difficult to understand what this item is doing on the Consent Calendar since a
decision is needed and staff has not made a recommendation for the Council to ratify.
1 hope the Council will stick with its earlier plan to use a standard design throughout the
City. Approval of Option #3 would seem to make the standard meaningless by opening
the door for all sorts of special interests to seek major deviations.
Item 10. Approval of Amendment to On -Call Professional Services
Agreement with SoCal Walden
a $300,000 seems a very large amount for an "on- call" agreement.
G Section IV (Contract/Agreement Types) of the June 10, 2011 version of staff's "F -14
Administrative Procedures" (Policy AP - 001) says:
a. On -Call Agreements: These agreements are typically for professional services and
repair and maintenance services that are needed from time to time where the size of the
job does not warrant the expense of entering into individual agreements for each
service. For example, an On -Call Agreement may be used to contract with an electrician
who may be called on to perform minor electrical repair work on an as needed basis.
On -Call Agreements may not extend longer than two (2) years.
September 11, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
Item 11. Sponsorship Request from Balboa Theater Foundation
Considering the very significant amount of City time and effort that the staff report
indicates has already been expended on the Balboa Theater's Beach Music Festival, as
well as the very significant donation of and disruption to publicly -owned property, the
request for an additional $20,000 of "sponsorship" -- without which the City will
apparently receive no recognition -- seems a rather extraordinary act of extortion.
Considering, in addition, that this request for additional funding was not vetted through
the normal Special Events grant process that the City has been developing, I hope the
Council will deny this request.
Item 12. Planning Commission Agenda Report
In an alternate universe it might be considered a matter of embarrassment that the
Planning Commission, unaware the City has no significant business to transact in the
summer, held two regular meetings since the Council last met, including a regular
meeting in the second half of August.
Item 14. 19th Street Bridge Traffic Study Update
Although the staff report includes the City's letter requesting modifications to traffic
plans, I think the public would benefit from seeing the recommendations made by the
other stakeholder cities and agencies.
Item 15. Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Contract Reporting
Although I appreciate the intent of this reporting, and I may be missing some of the
subtleties of the reporting requirements, I have to question its completeness. I am
aware, for example, of many contracts, without dollar or time limit, entered into by the
City Attorney in the last fiscal year that do not appear on this list.
Item 17. Prevailing Wage Exemption
This item appears to be misplaced on the agenda since it involves adoption of a
resolution. Council Policy A -6 would seem to require that the public's attention be called
to this by placing it in section XII.B.
In addition, since this involves complex legal issues, the comment made above
regarding Item 3 applies here, too: it would be good to see a written assurance that the
proposed language has been reviewed by our City Attorney.
Item 19. Changes to the Management Team
I very much appreciate the City Manager's effort to comply with the City Charter in
making these staffing changes, but in my view the sentence highlighted in bold on page
2 of the staff report is an addendum to the first sentence of that paragraph: namely that
the Council is to implement by ordinance or resolution the details of the departments it
establishes by ordinance (as authorized in the preceding paragraph). The City
September 11, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
Manager's role, as I see it, is to appoint persons to fill the positions established by the
Council, and to see that those persons have the qualifications and properly perform the
powers and duties assigned them by the Council.
The problem here is that these changes are being effected by informal Council
"approval" rather than by the ordinance or resolution required by the Charter.
0 To adequately comply with the Charter requirement highlighted in bold by the City
Manager it would seem to me that someone needs to maintain a book listing "the
number, titles, qualifications, powers, duties and compensation of all officers and
employees," that, after public inspection, the Council approve it by resolution, and that
changes to staffing not be allowed until the Council has resolved to change the book.
0 Beyond this, I have some problem with the idea of combining disparate functions as in
the two new positions proposed to be created, particularly the combining of the "Humar
Resources Director" duties with "Deputy City Manager' duties. Newport Beach has a
checkered history of making such changes, and they seldom turn out well, a relatively
recent example being the appointment of a single individual to serve as director of both
the Library and Recreation functions, forming a "Community Services Department" that
later had to be abandoned.
o I'm sure the people being recommended are highly competent and
conscientious, but I just don't think it's a good idea.
Finally I am confused by the implication on page 3 of the staff report that the position
Rob Houston would be leaving is "Chief Information Officer." I had been under the
impression that his current position — as indicated in the titles to the staff report for Item
21 — is "Assistant to the City Manager."
Item 22. Marina Park Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
0 I personally think the City is asking for trouble, and potentially wasting taxpayer dollars,
by changing the height of the proposed decorative tower from 71 to 73 feet.
0 The proposal the Coastal Commission saw in June was for a 71 foot tower, and not all
the Commissioners were on board with that. Since the plan (as I understand it) is for a
71 foot tower, and since the correspondence with Coastal Commission staff shared at
the July 24 Council meeting refered to a 71 foot tower, coming back with a request for a
73 foot tower seems like a completely unnecessary testing of the waters.
0 1 also find it a bit disingenuous to suggest the tower "shall house screened
communications or emergency equipment" if we don't actually have an intention of doing
SO.
0 And, incidentally, I find the new rendering of the facility without the tower at least as
aesthetic as the earlier ones including the tower.
September 11, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
C In the proposed resolution itself:
• In Section 2, Item 2, 1 would suggest it should say "A 73- foot -high tower element"
rather than "The 73- foot -high tower element' since the previous reference (in
Section 1, Item 3) is to a 71 foot tower.
• I would expect to find something in the "Statement of Facts" and /or "Findings"
justifying the need to include a requirement for the tower to house equipment. I
may be missing something, but I cannot find that. All I can find are statements
that an exception is wanted because we need a tower as an iconic and
wayfinding feature (Section 3, Item 3). Something about a need for emergency
equipment above the normal 35 foot limit should be added.
o In Section 3, Item 4, 1 assume "view sheds" should be "viewsheds" and the "a
tower element' in the final sentence should be "the tower element' since it refers
to the specific tower mentioned in the preceding sentence.
o Finally, in the Section 4, Item 2 (the redlined amendment, itself), "73- foottalf' is
clearly a typo for "73 -foot tall'.
Item 23. Quarterly Business Report - April through June 2012
u The QBR is an outstanding effort by City staff to report progress to the public.
The strong reserves (page 3) and bond rating (page 8) are exemplary, however I think
the public's understanding of these should be tempered by clearer disclosure of the
City's liabilities, which according to the most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report were, quite aside from the "unfunded pension liability" so much talked about in
the papers, over $200 million, including liabilities of $166 million due in more than one
year -- some $120 million of which I believe is related to the new Civic Center -- and
would, in a more ideal world have been bonded debt knowingly approved by two - thirds
of the voters as required by City Charter Section 1109.
LOW 6 1'Monday, Sept: IQ 2613 CAMP AHOM 2 ®1'' 2 The orange county Register
ED17ORIALS
'W
�`� 0 1
Dozens of changes to city charter, even many
small ones, are too much at one time.
Measure BE on the Nm: 6 ballot
world make 25 modifications to New-
port Beach's City Charter, although
opponents count it differently and
find 88 changes. If it wins, all the
changes go into effect, If it loses, no
changes will occur. It comes two
years after Measure V in 2010,
tv itich made 15 changes to the char-
ter, and which we supported.
Some of the changes in. this new
measure are laudable, others raise
concerns. And attempting to force a
veto on so many issues in one mea-
sure, instead of giving voters tine
ability to vet eadh individually, is
problematic and enough, reason to
oppose the measure.
Some. of the now changes, from
the city attorney's impartial analysis,
would inchlda: "[Elxpand the prohlb-
ition on the eduncal, department
heads, officers, board members and
commissioners from having a, fi-
nancial interest in contractg/salas/
transactions to committee members
and align conflict of interest provi-
sionsJ aeaeptions with state law."
"[,A]uthorize the city attorney to at-
tend all city meetings." And, "[Alllow
boards /commissions flexibility to
meet as buslness dictates."
A inajor itom.is that the changes
would include banning "the Installa-
tion of red light cameras" at inter-
sections in the city without a future
charter amendment.
We talked to one
signor the "Argu-
= -r`, ment AgainstMea-
tt sure BE." in the votY
or pamphlet, Bon
Hendrickson, a 40-
year Newport resi-
'" dent. He said
Gardner that, although
some of the.see-
tions of HE are good, "changing 38
items in the charter Is too many for
one yes-or-no vote," especielly com-
ing just two years after the previous
changes. He said many of the pro-
posed changes could be handled by
ordinance: and didn't need to be put
in the measure.
MY, Aendrickson said he believes
EE, would reduce conaiet- of- inturest
protections and compromise open -
meeting laws-And besaid,the ban on
red -light cameras is only designed to
attract Yes votes because the city
doesn't have any such lights and is
unlikely to get them in the future.
- In:response, Mayor Nancy Garde-
er told us that the city, by state law,
always must function under the
Ralph M. Brown Act, California's
open - meetings lavi, "I didn't know,
there was a tone rule" to making,.
changes two years after Measure V,
she -said. And she said a lot of the
sections:m BE are "mundane," such
as that - adding "gender- neutrallan-
guage" to etty documebts. "Ale are
dealing with some issues and practic-
es thathave evolved, that were not
considered in the 1950s "; the city's
charter originally was adopted in
1955.
One of the core concerns we have
with this measure is that, while it
seeks to "align" conflict -of- Interest
rules with state Saw, what it might do
instead is water down stricter con-
flict rules Imposed by the city
We recommend. that all Newport
Beach voters closely look_ at the sec-
tion on HE in voter pamphlets sent to
them to examine each proposed ,
change. After Ave reviewed tile pro-
posed chnnges, overall; we believe
that too many sections are being
clianged in a single move, which can
lead to confusion. In the future, mea-
sures altering the charter should in-
elude no more than a few changes at
a time, with other changes Imple-
mented by ordinance or put into sep-
arate measure% We recommend trot
ing Noon Measure EE.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE EE
NewportCharterUpdate.wikispaces. com
NO.ON.MEASURE.EE @GMAIL.COM
NEWPORT (BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660