Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsNovember 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar 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 1. Minutes for the November 10, 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 suggested changes shown in strikeout underline format. Page 492: Item III: “Relative to Item B, he noted that it would be useful if the public could review the contracts for services for each organization the job title of labor negotiator Jonathan Holtzman was not identified on the agenda and there did not appear to be a contract for him in the City Clerk’s database. Regarding Item C, he stated that the City Attorney had previously expanded on the issue disclosed on the agenda the nature of the anticipated litigation to be discussed, but it was not done at this time and suggested doing so going forward.” Page 495: “Council Member Petros recused himself from this Item due to business interests. … Council Member Muldoon recused himself from this Item due to business interests. Council Member Curry recused himself from this Item due to a stockholder conflict” and on page 499: “Council Member Duffield recused himself from this Item due to a business relationship with Visit Newport Beach, Inc.” A part of California’s Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 87105, requires that in recusing themselves, a public official “who has a financial interest in a decision” must “Publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to the conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public, except that disclosure of the exact street address of a residence is not required.” Merely saying one has a “business interest,” without identifying the business or what aspect of that business’ activities gives rise to a conflict, does not seem to me to be sufficient for the public to understand the details of the conflict. For example, what “business interests” does Council Member Petros have? Does Council Member Duffield provide services to Visit Newport Beach, Inc., or do they provide services to him? And what services? I am certainly curious, but not informed by the record. Page 497: Item 5, paragraph 1: “Mayor Pro Tem Dixon proposed amending the Resolution so after for the first year of the facility's operation, staff shall report to Council every 60 days with an update and analysis of how the parking approach is being implemented.” Item 3. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Amendment (NBMC Chapter 14.17) Introducing and adopting staff-proposed ordinances on the Consent Calendar, without any public debate, destroys the illusion that a citizens oversight body, like the City Council, actually Received After Agenda Printed November 24, 2015 Written Comments November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 11 creates the policy legislation that governs the City. Instead, the Council seems to act as little more than generally sleepy gatekeeper, passively watching City staff generate the policies with which staff governs their fellow citizens. Allowing that scenario to continue is particularly strange in this case, given the current City Council’s frequently-expressed distaste for having policies dictated to it by the Legislature in Sacramento, and especially by the State’s Democratic Governor. Yet without telling them in exactly in what ways it is more restrictive, or why being more restrictive is beneficial to the City, staff is telling the Council the proposed ordinance is “at least as effective as” (that is, presumably, more restrictive than) the bare minimum of regulations that would apply to the City if it did nothing and defaulted to the statewide measure. In addition, staff appears to be recommending the Council adopt a sloppily prepared ordinance of unknown provenance. The staff report claims what is being presented is an Orange County-wide model ordinance proposed by MWDOC, yet it does not match the “final” versions linked to (apparently for the benefit of landscapers working in the County) from the “Commercial... Resources” page of MWDOC’s OC Water Smart website, specifically Orange_County_Model_Water_Efficient_Landscape_Ordinance_2015_Update___Final.doc and Orange_County_Water_Efficient_Landscape_Guidelines_2015_Update___Final.doc. While who authored these and who vetted them remains a mystery, that the latter are indeed more “final” than the versions being presented to the Newport Beach City Council is indicated, among other things, by the “final” Design Guidelines (unlike the one the Council is being asked to adopt) having a Table of Contents that actually references correct page numbers and an ordinance with correct references to it. Adding to the uncertainty, on November 10, 2015,the Planning Commission in Fountain Valley appears to have seen a version of the legislation containing Design Guidelines that has a different set of Appendices and in a different order than either MWDOC’s “final” version or the version being considered in Newport Beach. With or without these uncertainties, since water efficient landscape is presumably desired not just to promote conservation, but also to reduce runoff, it seems strange that before being presented to the full Council on the Consent Calendar this proposal was not reviewed by the City’s Water Quality / Coastal Tidelands Committee. The foregoing having been said, and without having read all the pages of the draft legislation, the following are comments on portions of the current agenda item, which seems to be a recommendation to awkwardly graft some version of the MWDOC proposal onto the existing Newport Beach Municipal Code. Attachment A: Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 14.17 Page 3-9: third from last “Whereas”: “WHEREAS, Executive Order B-29-15 the California Department of Water Resources requires allows the City to adopt a regional November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 11 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance “at least as effective as” the State Model Ordinance by February 1, 2016, or implement the State Model Ordinance by February 1, 2015;” As best I can tell, the supposedly quoted language does not appear in Executive Order B-29-15. Instead, reference to it can be found in a fact sheet distributed by the California Department of Water Resources (tasked by the Executive Order with revising the State’s Model Ordinance and obtaining local buy-in). The deadline for cities contained therein is December 1, 2015 (not February) – or if the city is collaborating with other agencies on a regional ordinance, February 1, 2016 (not 2015) – with a report on the city’s response due (in either case) by December 31, 2015. The ordinance could perhaps make more clear that Newport Beach, along with other Orange County cities, is attempting to adopt a countywide, county-specific ordinance. Pages 3-10 through 3-14 (Section 14.17.010 “Definitions”): At least some of the definitions contained in this section may have been necessary when the ordinance consisted of a set of self-contained regulations using those terms. However, since the meat of the ordinance has been relegated to a set of Design Standards containing its own much more extensive list of internal definitions, this section has lost some its original purpose and is at risk of conflicting with the definitions in the Design Standards. It might also be noted that for technical definitions to be truly useful it is helpful to somehow distinguish the specially defined terms in the body of the code from words that simply have their ordinary meanings – for example, with italics or capital letters. Despite the apparent importance to someone of these definitions that does not seem to have been done here. I have not attempted to read or understand most of the definitions, but the following ones (and possibly more) are, according to a search with Adobe Acrobat, for words or phrases that appear to be no longer used in the Code and could and should be deleted from it: “Aggregate landscape areas,” “Budget-based tiered-rate structure,” “Local water supplier,” “Smart automatic irrigation controller,” and “Valve.” Instead, at least one of these (“Aggregate landscape areas”) is apparently being added even though it is not used. Page 3-11: “D. “Design standards” refers to the Design Standards for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which are hereby adopted by reference and may be amended from time to time, which describe procedures, calculations, and requirements for landscape projects subject to this chapter.” The proposed ordinance makes the highlighted statement without explaining who has the power to amend the Design Standards or what mechanism is followed. Can City staff alter them? Does the Council have to act by resolution? Or does a new ordinance need to be published to alter them? Page 3-12: “P. “Maximum applied water allowance” or “MAWA” is the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscaped area as specified in Section 2.2 of the design standards. It is based upon the area’s reference evapotranspiration, the ET adjustment factor, and the size of the landscaped area. The estimated applied water use shall not November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 11 exceed the maximum applied water allowance. MAWA = (ETo) (0.62) [(ETAF x LA) + ((1- ETAF) x SLA)]” This prescription makes no sense and has no practical use without defining the units in which the various quantities are measured. Also the meaning of the abbreviation “LA” (probably intended to represent “Landscaped Area in square feet”?) is nowhere defined in the proposed ordinance. Finally, the logic of why the factor in front of “SLA” (“Special Landscaped Areas”) is “1-ETAF” and if this is the ETAF of the landscaped areas or the special areas is unclear. That this is the correct formula for MAWA also seems to be contradicted or contravened by proposed Section 14.17.030 on page 3-15, which appears to say the ETAF for SLA’s in “new landscape installation or rehabilitation projects” (are there any other kinds of projects?) subject to the ordinance is 1.0 – which if the SLA is multiplied by (1-ETAF) gives SLA’s a water allowance of zero. What is the MAWA if a project is entirely SLA? Page 3-14: Section 14.17.020 Applicability, subsection A.3: “New or rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area of 2,500 square feet or less may comply with the performance requirements of this ordinance or conform to the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix A H of the Guidelines Design Standards (Prescriptive Compliance Option);.” [?] The “Prescriptive Compliance Option” is indeed Appendix A of MWDOC’s “final” Design Standards (which are nowhere called “Guidelines”). However it is Appendix H of the version being proposed for adoption by Newport Beach. Also, this clause should end with a period, not a semicolon. Page 3-14: Section 14.17.020 Applicability, subsection A.4: “For New new or rehabilitated projects using treated or untreated graywater or rainwater captured on site, any lot or parcels within the project that has less than 2,500 square feet of landscape area and meets the lot or parcel’s landscape water requirement (Estimated Total Water Use) entirely with the treated or untreated graywater or though through stored rainwater capture on site is subject only to Appendix A of the Design Standards.” Note: I do not know what Appendix of the Design Standards this subsection intends to refer to, but I’m pretty sure it’s not “Appendix A” (“Definitions”). I gave up trying to read or understand most of the remainder of the ordinance. Page 3-16: end of Section 2: “… irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.“ Attachment B: Draft Design Standards (Updated) Page 3-19: To distinguish it from other versions that may in be in circulation, it would seem helpful for the title page to include an adoption date (and a revision date if later amended) as well as a citation to the number of the ordinance it is implementing. November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 11 Page 3-20: As previously indicated, the page numbers listed in this “Table of Contents” do not correspond to the actual page numbers in the draft, and no page numbers are given for the appendices (which is hardly helpful for people actually having to use this document). I have not attempted to read the balance of these standards (especially since they don’t seem to be MWDOC’s final version), but based on a spot check of a couple of pages I would note – Page 3-40: Since the Standards appear to be a list of things that must be complied with by persons doing landscaping, under “4. Public Education” I found Subsection (a) (“Publications”) quite puzzling. Is this a directive to landscapers to create educational publications? If so, exactly what is their obligation? If it is an obligation of the City, shouldn’t it part of the Ordinance rather than the Standards? Page 3-57: In Subsection B(1)(h), I think what applicants are asked to sign should be changed to say ““I agree to comply with the requirements of the prescriptive compliance option to the MWELO Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.” Not only is the abbreviation “MWELO” nowhere defined, but the “M” is inappropriate since it stands for “Model” and what they are being asked to adhere to is the City’s ordinance, not a Model Ordinance. Item 4. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-33 Imposing An Express Ban on Marijuana Cultivation, Marijuana Processing, Marijuana Delivery, and Marijuana Dispensaries in the City Please see my previous comments at the time this ordinance was introduced. According to the draft minutes of the Council’s November 10, 2015, meeting (Item 1 on the present agenda), as part of November 10th’s Item SS1 (“Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar”), in response to a question from Council Member Petros the City Attorney assured the Council Member and the public that adoption of the proposed ordinance “would have no effect on the legal personal use of medical marijuana.” At least on the face of things, it would seem to me it has very significant effects since it appears to prohibit medical users from growing marijuana within the Newport Beach City limits, from accepting deliveries from any area outside those limits, and however they obtain the product, from processing it in any way. November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 11 Item 5. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Regarding Disability Retirement and Reinstatement Determinations and Appeals for Local Safety Members Under the Public Employees Retirement Law; Delegating Authority for Local Public Safety Member Disability Retirement and Reinstatement Determinations and Rescinding Resolution No. 2008-89 At the November 12th Finance Committee meeting, where the Police Department budget was being reviewed, the City Manager brought up the matter of the cost to the City of safety employees collecting disability retirement when they were in fact fit enough to provide useful work to the City in some capacity. It is, therefore, somewhat surprising the Council is being asked to take action on this important matter without further discussion by that Committee or the Civil Service Board, and without any clear explanation I am able to find of exactly how the proposed resolution (“Attachment A”) differs from the seven year old resolution under which we now operate (“Attachment B”), or what prompted the proposed changes. Has state law changed since 2008? Or is City staff suggesting a changed philosophy/policy? The staff report (in its final sentence), suggests the main purpose of the new resolution is for the City to “exercise its authority to re-evaluate industrial disability retirement recipients on an annual basis to determine if they remain incapacitated,” but the body of the resolution is completely changed (both in format and content) and the annual review feature has not (as best I can tell) been made any more prominent than it was (I, for one, am unable to find it). There is also no indication that either the old or the new resolution was reviewed by the City Attorney. This is especially disturbing since the factual legal assertion in proposed Section 2 – that disputed cases have to be referred to a hearing conducted by an Administrative Law Judge acting alone – appears to be wrong. On the contrary Government Code Section 11512 (last revised in 1995) makes it very clear an agency has the option of allowing an ALJ to hear the case alone OR to hear the case itself with the assistance of an ALJ ruling and presiding over the proceedings. Neither of the cases cited – Usher v. County of Monterey (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 210 or Langan v. City of El Monte (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 608 – contradicts that. They simply affirm the employee’s right to have an ALJ involved. If it is the Council’s (and City Manager’s) wish to choose the “ALJ alone” option I would suggest simplifying the language and correcting a couple of typos to read “SECTION 2. In the event of a dispute regarding retirement or reinstatement of a sworn local safety member, where a determination of incapacity is necessary, the City is required by California Government Code Sections 21156 and 11512, as well as the holdings in Usher v. County of Monterey (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 210 and Langan v. City of El Monte (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 608, to have the a hearing shall be conducted November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 11 by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) from the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) acting alone, who will then submit a proposed decision to the Council [?] upon which it [?] may act. The appeal hearing is required to be conducted consistent with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), California Government Code Section 11500, et seq.” As indicated, I would also question whether it is the City Council to whom the ALJ’s decision should be submitted: the Council is apparently authorized to delegate its role, and has chosen to do so (to the City Manager) in proposed Section 1. In addition to being unable to find the new provision authorizing or guaranteeing annual review, it seems to me the old format with its numbered list of steps applying to safety officers consolidated into a single section seemed much easier to follow than the new one with its multiple sections, most of which say they apply only to safety officers but a couple of which the reader is left guessing whether they were meant to apply to other employees as well. In that regard, the title of the 2008 resolution (which the proposed one replaces and rescinds) implied it was intended to apply in one part (specifically the delegation to the City Manager) to all City employees and in another part to safety employees only. The new proposed title makes it appear the resolution, in its entirety, applies only to safety employees. Doesn’t the City still need some procedure for handling non-safety disability claims? Finally, I might wonder if the City Council and the affected employees might want the Civil Service Board to be involved in the hearing process in some way? Item 6. Approval of Measure M2 Expenditure Report 1. The draft resolution (“Attachment B”) appears to contain a minor typo in the first “Whereas” (page 6-10): “WHEREAS, Local Transportation Authority Ordinance No. 3 requires local jurisdictions to adopt an annual Expenditure Report to account for Net Revenues, developer/traffic impact fees, and funds expended by the local jurisdiction that satisfy the Maintenance of Effort requirements; and” 2. Section 1(c) implies the Finance Director is not supposed to sign the report until authorized to do so by the Council via the resolution. He has however, quite reasonably, signed the report on November 16th, prior to submission to the Council. I would think that the submission of a signed report should be acknowledged in a “Whereas” and that Section 1(c) should be confined to authorizing the submittal of that signed report to OCTA. 3. As to the substance of the report, I have not had time to review it. Since it apparently funds several million dollars of City projects, it would seem like a reasonable thing to be examined by the City’s Finance Committee. November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 11 Item 7. Big Canyon Restoration Wetlands Project - Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Burns & McDonnell (Project 15X12; C-6023A) 1. I have not had time to study this report in detail, but I thought the selenium-removing “bioreactor” was an important part of the Big Canyon project, so it is surprising to see it being removed. 2. The funding requirement indicated at the end of the three requested design changes listed on pages 7-2 and 7-3 of the staff report don’t quite match the anticipated expenses listed in the Scope of Services on page 7-9 (even though the totals are the same). In particular, design change 3 (page 7-3) is particularly hard to relate to the Scope of Services. And since it sounds like it might involve nothing more than changing a few words in the plan and a line on the map, it is particularly difficult to see how it could consume $28,325 of office time. 3. The original contract for $599,750 would seem to have been sufficient to have funded many hours of design work. The revision request letter from Burns and McDonnell indicates that as changes to the concept were brought forward, their design effort was suspended. It would seem to follow that some of the unspent portion of the original budget could have been redirected towards designing the new concept, yet it is unclear from either the staff report or the request letter if that has happened. Instead it seems possible the City is being charged for designing and permitting the entire originally planned concept (even though the work was not completed) plus the additional features, rather than just the net extra effort (if there is any). Item 8. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Mariners Mile Wastewater Force Main City Inspection Support Services Amendment with Anderson Penna 1. Although the staff report says Anderson Penna has been “well received” by OCSD, and is being paid for by them, it is unclear if they are providing the most cost effective service for task payers, especially since the scope of their effort seems to have expanded far beyond what was originally contemplated. 2. The last few sentences of the staff report appear to indicate the $55,297.66 unrelated to Anderson Penna (but apparently coming from OCSD) is OCSD’s “share” of a City water main realignment. If OCSD made the work necessary, wouldn’t they be responsible for the full cost? Item 9. Storm Drain Evaluation - Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Downstream Services, Inc. - Contract No. 6277 This staff report is unusual in that although it says staff considered three “competitive proposals,” no details are given of what firms responded, what their proposed costs were, or how they ranked. It is also unclear as whether the “pipe clearing” being contracted for is just November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 11 sufficient to make the inspections possible, or enough to make the drains function properly. If a more thorough cleaning of all the drains is planned to be undertaken under some other contract, either as part of the City’s routine maintenance or as a preparation for the possible El Niño rains, then one might wonder why that cleaning doesn’t occur first so more accurate images of the structural integrity of the pipes could be obtained. Item 10. Request to Relocate a Driveway and Install Private Improvements within the Public Right-of- Way at 2723 Ocean Boulevard (N2015-0365) 1. It would seem good for the Council (and public) to see the Agreement they are being asked to approve. It does not appear to be part of the staff report. 2. It would also be good to have been provided with a copy of the Planning Commission hearing minutes, and not just their Resolution. 3. At the March 19, 2015, Planning Commission hearing I asked if these “improvements” to public property, and the variance for use of the private property, potentially having a negative impact on both public views and public access, had been, or will be, blessed with a Coastal Development Permit. I still don’t know the answer to that. 4. The authorization to construct an 11.85 foot wall up to 32 feet into the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way, described in the staff report, sounds particularly ominous. A better verbal or pictorial description of how much of this will be visible from Ocean Boulevard would seem in order. Item 11. Eastbluff Park Field Improvements - Award Contract No. 6268 It seems odd to me that the need for and design of this project was not reviewed by the City’s Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Charter Section 709 gives them the power and requires them to offer advice to the Council on all matters like this, but it is difficult for them to offer advice when they have not heard the matter. Item 12. Orange County Transportation Authority Cooperative Agreement No. C-5-3525 for MacArthur Boulevard Rehabilitation from East Coast Highway to Bonita Canyon Drive See Item 19, below, regarding the ambiguity in what the Public Works Department regards as a “50 percent match” requirement. In this case, it is apparent from the Cooperative Agreement that the City’s obligation is to provide an amount equal to OCTA’s grant (that is $1,000,000, which some might call a 100% match) and not just 50% of that. It appears from the “Funding Requirements” section that the City proposes to meet that obligation using Measure M money, which is in some sense another grant from OCTA. One wonders if OCTA knows, or cares, they are fully funding the project? November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 11 Item 13. Annual Concrete Replacement Program - Award of Contract No. 6304 Although the “Location Maps” are helpful, it is not apparent from anything in the staff report what quantity of concrete work is being contracted for. Surely not all the “sidewalks, curbs and gutters, curb access ramps and driveways” within those areas are proposed to be replaced? Item 14. Amendment of Professional Service Agreement with T&B Planning for Environmental Services for the Proposed 150 Newport Center Project Located at 150 Newport Center Drive (PA2014-213) The final sentence of the staff report (on page 14-2) that “The applicant has requested the preparation of an EIR, and staff concurs” seems strange to me. Although I understand applicants bear the cost of environmental studies for projects they propose, I thought the City was supposed to act as a objective and impartial judge of the impacts of those projects, and it would be the City, not the applicant, who would decide what level of analysis is required. Having the applicant decide what kind of study is needed, or even acceding to their request regarding that, seems contrary to that principle. In fact, I thought City staff had rather rigid State Guidelines it was obligated to follow in reaching an objective conclusion. In any event, as the paragraph preceding the questioned one indicates, the request for a “focused EIR” appears to have come from the Planning Commission Chair. And since there was considerable dissatisfaction with T&B Planning’s work to date it would seem reasonable to consider a different firm to assist City staff with preparation of the EIR. Item 15. Animal Sheltering Services 1. This seems a slightly odd item to be on the Consent Calendar, since page 15-3 of the staff report appears to anticipate the Council needs to discuss three options, of which the staff recommendation listed on the agenda is only one. 2. Under “Funding Requirements” on page 15-1, it is good to know the Police Department has adequate funding. But it would also be interesting to know how much more or less the proposed plan will cost that the existing one. 3. It would also have been good to indicate the dependency of this item on the following one, Item 16 (“Contract for Veterinary Services”) for which an additional $45,000 per year of funding is required. 4. In the paragraph under the title of the contract (on page 15-5) it seems strange that the address of the vendor is left blank, since it is mentioned in the body of the contract (for example, in Recital H). November 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 11 Item 16. Contract for Veterinary Services In addition to the cost mentioned under “Funding Requirements,” the proposed arrangement would seem to involve the City in considerable extra expense due to the City’s apparent obligation to transport animals from the shelter on Riverside Drive to the clinic on Avon Street for treatment, and then back. Was an arrangement considered in which the contract veterinarian could perform at least some of the services on site at the shelter? Item 17. Planning Commission Agenda for the November 19, 2015 Meeting At the public hearing, a member of the public (George Schroeder) testified that staff’s proposed closing hour of 12:30 p.m. for the Nobu Restaurant, with outside music turned off by 10:00 p.m., had been mutually agreed to at a meeting, arranged by Mayor Pro Tem Dixon, between the applicant and nearby residents, many of whom did not bother to come to the Planning Commission hearing because they assumed the matter had been settled, especially as it was already a considerable stretch from the Police Chief’s recommended closing hour of 11:00 p.m. It was, therefore, rather odd to see the Planning Commission extend both these hours with very little prompting from the applicant. Item 18. Confirmation of Appointments to the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District Advisory Board of Directors 1. It seems odd there were exactly two applications to fill the two vacancies, one from the person who created one of them. The staff report says the existence of the vacancies was duly noticed and published in the classified section of the Daily Pilot, but one wonders how many of District’s members actually knew there were vacancies and an opportunity to apply to fill them. 2. The statement on page 18-2 about former and future Board member Alexandra Robinson having “resigned from his seat on the Advisory Board” could just be a typo, but it makes one guess the City Clerk might be laboring under the misapprehension that Alexandra is a male. Alex is actually a charming young lady and the daughter of John Robinson, a long-standing member of the NBRA BID Board. Item 19. Acceptance of the 2014 Emergency Management Performance Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The report mentions a “50 percent funding match” requirement, which I initially assumed meant local taxpayers have to provide 50% of the FEMA grant amount (that is, $5,356 – a “2 for 1” grant arrangement). However, it could also conceivably mean a 50-50 arrangement, that is, one with $10,712 from local taxpayers and $10,712 from FEMA. It would, therefore, have been helpful to indicate the dollar amount of the City contribution (see also, Item 12, above).