HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsDecember 8, 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 24, 2015 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 503: Item 20, paragraph 3: “City Attorney Harp clarified that Council Member
Muldoon had to recuse himself due to a financial conflict because he works with a
company involved in telecom.” [Council Member Muldoon already declared he had a
financial conflict in paragraph 1. The City Attorney detailed the nature of the conflict.]
Page 504: last paragraph: “Dennis Baker spoke regarding Item No. 16 (Contract for
Veterinary Services) and complemented complimented Council and staff for addressing
the issue.”
Page 505: first paragraph, last sentence: “She added that medical cannabis delivery has
been occurring statewide and encouraged the City to reconsider consider not banning
delivery.” [or: “… reconsider not banning …”]
Page 505: paragraph 2: “Jim Mosher commented on Item No. 3 (Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance Amendment) and referenced an a model ordinance being proposed
by the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County.”
Page 510: paragraph 4, last sentence: “He questioned why Newport Beach residents were
not asked to comment this on their fire station’s design, and commented on the need for
a temporary fire station during construction.”
Page 510: paragraph 2 from end: “Council Member Muldoon spoke in support of the project
and hoped that the City will continue to pin pay down the debt.”
Page 511: Item 27, paragraph 3: “He suggested that, if Council moves forward with the
project, that the compensation for the consultant be on a not-to-exceed, fixed fee basis,
not on a not-to-exceed expenses basis.”
Page 512: paragraph 5, sentence 2 from end: “He suggested hiring a consultant for a future
project in order to learn those lessons, rather than going back and spending $600,000 of
taxpayer money to find out that $1,040,000 $140,000,000 was spent.”
Page 512: paragraph 7, last sentence: “He noted that piece peace of mind and trust are
two of the numerous benefits to moving ahead with this project.”
Page 513: paragraph 1, sentence 4: “He added that the bridge was a regulatory
requirement resulting from the EIR.” [This accurately summarizes what was said, but I’m
not sure the substance of the Councilman Petros’ statement was factually correct.
Spending $2,000,000 on the pedestrian bridge over San Miguel Drive was presented to the
Council, not as a regulatory requirement, but as a strictly discretionary expenditure
approved as Item 3 on the November 29, 2011, agenda.]
Received After Agenda Printed
December 8, 2015
Written Comments
December 8, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
Page 514: paragraph 6: “Community Development Director Brandt added that the City has
recently entered into an agreement with a landscaping design firm to help develop a
streetscape improvement plan for the West Newport/Mesa Newport Mesa area.
Additionally, she addressed Eco Echo Beach, a private construction project, currently
underway.” [note: “West Newport Mesa” is a geographic term used in the General Plan. It
needs no internal punctuation.]
Item 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-35 for Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2012-003 for the Former City Hall Complex located
at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2012-031)
The ordinance as introduced appears to have inadvertently included two minor substantive
errors:
“Section 1: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are incorporated into
the operative part of this resolution ordinance.”
“Section 8: If any section, subsection …. be declared invalid or unconstitutional.”
***
Although not directly related to this item, it might be noted that based on the minutes of the
November 24, 2015, meeting (Item 1 on the present agenda), two ordinances were expected to
be brought back in this “ORDINANCE(S) FOR ADOPTION” section of the Consent Calendar.
At the November 24th meeting, a “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance” was introduced on that
Consent Calendar as Ordinance No. 2015-34 and was ordered to “pass to second reading on
December 8, 2015.”
As reflected in my previous comments, if the City’s intent is to adopt or adapt the countywide
model ordinance proposed by the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County, I hope staff will
make an effort to locate the correct final version of that model ordinance to replace the
seemingly unfinished draft that was introduced on November 24th.
Item 4. 15th Street/Balboa Boulevard Revitalization - Award of
Contract No. 6341 (Project No. 15R11)
1. It might have been helpful to more thoroughly recap the design history of this project,
most recently, I believe, seen as Item 10 on the Council’s April 14, 2015, agenda, and to
detail how the present plan relates to the concept and alternatives reviewed by the
Council as Item SS3 on February 10, 2015. The April 14th report said the Council
“approved” a concept at the February 10th Study Session, but that seems implausible
since it is generally understood the Council does not take actions or approve projects at
Study Sessions.
2. Since the bid amount is lower than staff’s expectation, the adopted Capital
Improvements Projects budget for FY16 indicates a different funding allocations for this
December 8, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5
project than that shown under “Funding Requirements” in the present staff report. In
particular, staff has chosen to leave the General Fund expense at its original amount
and show the savings entirely as a reduction in the amount of the Gas Tax fund to be
used. It would seem the Council should have the discretion to consider other options for
allocating the reduced spending.
3. Finally, since the contract for which approval is being sought is not provided with the
staff report, it would seem difficult for the Council to review it.
Item 5. Zone III Pump Station Variable Frequency Drive (VFD)
Replacement - Award of Contract No. 6278 (Project No. 16W16)
In the adopted Capital Improvements Projects budget for FY16, I am unable to find the “Account
No. 70101-980000-16W16; 16W16-Construct-701-Unassigned” referred to under “Funding
Requirements” in the present staff report.
Is “Project 16W16” an entirely new CIP, unanticipated in May? Does the City have other items
that “have reached the end of their design life” and for which replacement costs should have
been budgeted? Or was a budget for unanticipated failures (like these?) approved, and if so,
how large is it?
As with the preceding item, the contract for which approval is being sought is not provided with
the staff report, making it seem difficult for the Council to review it.
Item 6. Tentative Agreements with the City Employees Association
and the Professional and Technical Employees Association, and Draft
Revisions to the Key and Management Compensation Plan
The City staff and Council should be commended for making these documents available for
public review more than a month before they will be considered for adoption.
Item 7. Planning Commission Agenda for the December 3, 2015
Meeting
Item 2 on the Planning Commission’s December 3, 2015, agenda brought to light an
unexpectedly significant issue: as the result of a 2005 revision to the Sign Standards in the
Zoning Code (specifically, Subsection 20.42.140.A), five kinds of signs, including all “pole” and
rooftop signs within the City, are required to be removed by October 27, 2020, unless
individually given a “Heritage Sign” status. However, the 2005 removal mandate seems soon to
have been forgotten, and the promised “Heritage Signs List” has never been developed or
approved (with the three “Heritage Signs” approved by the Planning Commission on December
3rd being the first ever, and hardly at the top of anyone’s earlier list). As a result a vast number
of business signs in Newport Beach, many of which might be regarded as “iconic,” remain
technically under the gun for forced removal five years from now.
December 8, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5
Item 8. Community Programs Grants for Fiscal Year 2015-2016
1. It might have been helpful to note that prior to this year these were called “Human
Services Grants” (hence the “Last HS Grand Rec’d” column in Attachment B), and total
was capped at $25,000.
2. Aside from requiring that Newport Beach residents be served, the Council Policy does
not seem to provide any clear criteria as to how the available funds are to allocated
among various kinds of competing applicants – or why it’s desirable to allocate the full
$40,000 if a sufficient number of meritorious applications are not received.
3. With modern technology, it would seem that the individual grant proposals could have
been made more accessible than simply saying “Copies of the submitted applications
(and audited financial statements) are on file in the City Manager’s Office.”
4. In Attachment B, it would seem like it would have been very easy to include lines for the
two rejected applicants, indicating how much they asked for and for what.
5. Also in Attachment B, a comparison of the “Total # of Clients” and “# of Newport Beach
Residents Served” columns suggests these statistics are not being reported in a uniform
or consistent way. For example, it seems implausible that all the Boys & Girls Club or
YMCA participants are from Newport Beach, and it’s unclear if the Speak Up Newport
number refers to estimated attendance at a single event or to distinct persons attending
over the course of a year.
6. Finally in Attachment B, while I don’t doubt the integrity of the “CDBG” column, some of
the listed entities have been consistent recipients of CDBG funding in the past and I
have found it very difficult to deduce from the City website who this year’s CDBG
recipients are, or if they’ve even been announced yet.
7. The appearance of the new proposed $1,000 award to Speak Up Newport suggests a
certain lack of uniformity in how the City treats different community organizations, as well
as what other less obvious City support may go to them. For example, the Chamber’s
competing Wake Up Newport program does not appear to requesting a grant, but has
videos of their meetings hosted on the City website. Offering that service to SUN might
be more effective than a monetary grant as a way to benefit the larger community.
8. The report does not make clear what follow-up the City does to ensure the grant funds
are actually spent as intended. Possibly that is to be found in the “audited financial
statements”?
Item 9. Purchase of New Load-Bearing Vests; Budget Amendment
Despite staff’s best efforts, this item highlights the continuing opacity of the City’s budgeting
process.
The Budget Amendment of Attachment A indicates a transfer of $55,000 from an “Asset
Forfeiture Fund” (identified as “Fund 1050061 – Object 30000”) to an “Equipment NOC” account
(“Object 911024”) “for the purchase of bulletproof vests.”
December 8, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5
First, according the City Manager’s staff report the request is not to fund the purchase of
bulletproof vests, but rather for what the Newport Beach police officers who have tried them
seem to regard as fashionable alternative to suspenders to support the weight of their gun belts.
More importantly, I am unable to find an “Asset Forfeiture Fund” or correlate the reported fund
and object numbers with anything in the web published version of the Council’s approved
Budget Detail for FY2015-16, which as of December 7, 2015, is still missing the 30 or so pages
of “City Manager letter and Revenue, Expense, and Fund Balance summary pages to be added
soon” (note: the versions of the missing pages in the earlier proposed Budget Detail, which no
longer seems available on the web, did list an “Asset Forfeiture Fund” [as does the Performance
Plan] – but identified as Fund 1210 – with an expected starting balance of $1,067,208, new
revenues of $5,901, and proposed expenditures of $887,358 for an estimated ending balance of
$185,751).
I am able to find (on the page numbered 63) a “9300 EQUIPMENT, N.O.C.” account within the
“010-1821 PD SUPPORT SERVICES” division to which $12,695 was allotted in May. I have no
idea what that $12,695 was intended for, or if it is in fact the account to which the present
amendment will be adding money.
I notice another account, “8204 UNIFORM EXPENSE,” which as summarized on page 24 of the
adopted Performance Plan (which itself, as of December 7, 2015, has “** Summaries Section
(Pages 25-33) To Be Added At Later Date **”) has $174,473 for the Police Department,
$280,301 for Fire and lesser amounts for other departments. One might think that might be a
more appropriate account to fund what is apparently intended to become a normal part of the
standard police uniform.
Be that as it may, both the budget and the present staff report seem to leave it as an exercise
for the reader to guess how police (and other) uniforms in general are paid for. Do the
employees purchase them with their own funds from a designated supplier, as in the Boy and
Girl Scouts? Or are they issued at government expense, free to the employee, as in the Army?
I certainly don’t know, although in the recently approved contracts for the Police and Fire Chiefs
I notice there were generous supplements ($1,350 and $1,719 per year) to their basic salaries
for purchasing uniforms (November 10, 2015, Item S18). And the most recent MOU with the
Police Association says (page 15) “The City reports to PERS a uniform allowance amount of
$1,100 per year for sworn officers” although the amount actually added to the salaries is not
clear.
It seems possible, then, that Newport Beach has a hybrid system in which police uniforms are
partially bought by the City and partially by the officers, but again I don’t know and have trouble
understanding how the present supplemental budget item fits in that picture.