Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed September 27, 2016 Written Comments September 27, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher { iimmosher(&-vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the August 9, 2016 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are ones from draft minutes with suggested corrections of obvious errors shown in stfikeeult underline format. Page 87: Item SS6, paragraph 7: "Cathy Murphy expressed concern with nine-month rentals and four -night minimum stastays." Page 98: Item XVII, last paragraph: "Mayor Dixon announced that the Balboa Village Advisory Committee (B VAC) will be meet on September 14, 2016, at Marina Park at 4 P.M." Note: like many before them, these minutes contain a number of public speakers' names whose spellings I am unable to verify. Some of them are almost certainly wrong. It would be helpful for the Clerk (or Mayor) to modify the boilerplate announcement about public comment to emphasize that the ,primary purpose of submitting speaker cards is to ensure speakers' names are spelled correctly in the minutes. The present announcement emphasizes, as the Brown Act requires, that submittal is voluntary, but does not explain why a speaker might want to take that extra unreq uired step. Item 3. City Council Policy on Candidate Forums that Use City Resources While I applaud the idea of the widest possible coverage of candidate forums, I personally find it problematic for the Council to be giving itself discretionary authority over which political events are worthy of the use of City resources and which are not, particularly when the Council members themselves may be making their case to voters at those events. a. As an example, I am not a cable TV subscriber, but I gather City staff has deemed the "Feet to the Fire" forum suitable for NBTV coverage and broadcast. also understand this year's edition was boycotted by a segment of the candidates. i. Has the proposed policy been written in such a way as to prohibit future NBTV coverage of that particular forum? For example, is Feet to the Fire hosted by a "local organization"? ii. If it is otherwise allowed, could a future Council invent criteria under clause 10 (on page 3-6) to prevent coverage of that forum if they felt the coverage would be unfavorable to themselves or the candidates they support? b. To avoid conflicts, would Council members running for reelection be expected to recuse themselves from the decisions under this policy? September 27, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 If so, it should be recognized that in every other election year there are potentially four incumbents running for reelection, leaving less than a quorum to vote on the decisions required under the policy. As an example, at the present four incumbents have active committees raising funds for reelection in 2618. 1. Will this be declared a matter of urgent public business requiring one of the conflicted Council members to be selected by lot to cast a needed vote? ii. Even in years where there is not a quorum problem, could the public trust the non -running Council members to not be unduly influenced by the interests of their colleagues or potential successors? 2. The staff report fails to address what seems to me the more important question of whether the video recordings should be archived for ort -demand internet viewing on the City's NBTV programs webpage? a. I understand that City staffs current administrative policy, which has no basis I am aware of, is to allow NBTV-filmed candidate forums to be shown as programming on the cable channel, but unlike other programming to not allow them to be archived or linked to for on demand viewing. b. I am unable to think of any rational justification for this policy. Since the on -air programming is viewable via the City website (and I don't think the forum broadcasts are being blocked from the internet feed), it is not as if the viewing of the NBTV-filmed forums is being restricted to cable subscribers (and why restricting viewing to cable subscribers would make sense is unfathomable to me). It is more as if staff has decided recording the forums is a proper use of taxpayer money, but once produced, viewing them should be made as difficult as possible. c. I would suggest all NBTV-produced content be made available on the City's on - demand video page. In my view, if it's worth spending taxpayer money to create, then taxpayers deserve being able to view it as conveniently as possible. 3. The staff report also fails to mention that the Council has already adopted policies for the coverage of political forums on page C-4 of the "NBTV Guidelines" which is Exhibit B to the City's March 26, 2014, contract C-5762 with Newport Beach & Company. a. That policy partially contradicts the proposed one in that it says a forum hosting organization is free to endorse candidates after their forum has been recorded (but not before). b. It is not clear how the proposed policy of not allowing a hosting organization to endorse a candidate, even after the broadcast, will be monitored or enforced. 4. The proposed policy (next to last paragraph) designates the City Council Chambers as a City facility off-limits for candidate forums. l have never understood why the Council September 27, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Chambers cannot be used for community events, especially since it is the one best equipped for video recording of activities. 5. Related to that, while the Council's possible interest in bringing greater visibility to third party City -related activities, such as the candidate forums, is commendable, it remains unclear why it is not equally interested in increasing the visibility of the City's own events, for example by turning on the cameras so the public can see the Planning Commission and other City board, commission and committee meetings. 6. The intent of the section entitled "Use of City's Official Seal at the Forum" is unclear to me. It cites NBMC Section 1.16.050. However, that code section suggests use of the seal requires Council approval by resolution or ordinance. Is this resolution granting approval or not? 7. The "Funding Requirements" section of the staff report mentions the authority under NEMC Sec. 3.36.030.E to waive City fees (by the Council or by the City Manager for non -profits up to a maximum of $1,000 per organization per year). Does the Council, or public, ever see an accounting of all the fees waived by the City over the course of a yea r? Item 4. Newport Boulevard Water Main Replacement 'Via Oporto to 28th Street and 26th Street to 79th Street) - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 5487 (Project No. 75WO2) 1. The staff report suggests a remarkably casual culture of public contracting, including the "change order' described on page 4-3 in which the City contractor was apparently, under this contract, directed to perform work for the OC Sanitation District at a site far removed from and unrelated to anything publicly approved in the contract. 2. It seems strange the City would not have known that one of the pipe sections scheduled for replacement had already been replaced (per bottom of page 4-2 and top of page 4- 3). Item 5. County of Orange Louver Santa Ana River Sand Management - Approval of Cooperative Agreement Has this project received a Coastal Development Permit? Page 5-44 says it was expected on the CCC's July 2016 agenda, but I don't see it there. Item 6. Semeniuk Slough Maintenance Project - Reject all Bids I have the impression the great bulk of the slough is not owned by the City. That impression is based on the City's Geographic Information System, which says the project area indicated in green on Attachment A to the present staff report (page 6-3) is part of "5904 Coast Hwy W f Assessor Parcel Number 114 170 80," while that shown in magenta is within "APN 114 170 09." In both cases the system says "City Property: N." In addition, the small City -owned pieces appear to be outside the area of Attachment A. September 27, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Repeated questions about the ownership of the slough at public meetings have not been responded to. If it is privately owned, is the owner proposing to reimburse the City? If not, what is the rationale for dredging the slough at taxpayer expense? 2. It may have been intended as a tongue in cheek indication of frustration with the project, but I suspect the "cofferdams" indicated in the Attachment A cited above is a cofferdam. Item 7. ,Amendment of Professional Services Agreement with Psomas DBA Bon Terra Psomas for Environmental Services for the Proposed Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Located at 107 Bayview Place (PA 2015-270) 1. Page 7-10 of the present staff report identifies "Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting" as part of the proposed Scope of Work. 2. The Notice of Preparation has actually already been issued and a Scoping Meeting was held in the Civic Center Community Room on August 15, 2016, at which the consultant acknowledged they were operating without a contract for preparing the EIR for the Harbor Pointe project. 3. The staff report could be more clear on how much of the current request is for compensation for that non -contract work, and how it is consistent with the California Constitutional prohibition (Article XI. Sec. 10) against municipalities making payment for services rendered without a contract. Item 9. Approve Participation in the Orange County All -Hazards Incident ,Management Team (QC AHIM7) It is good to hear this arrangement is not expected to cost the City anything. It might be noted that Assistant Chief Duncan is one of several employees who have already consistently cost taxpayers more than the City Manager in each of the four recent years for which data was provided to Transparent California. Item 70. Contract with Former City Employee, Michelle Caldwell The staff reports on these contracts rehiring City retirees rarely, if ever, make clear to the public and decision makers: 1. Does the new hiring in any way reduce the benefits being received by the retiree during the period of new service (or is entirely supplemental to the existing benefit stream)? 2. Does the new income in any way affect the employee's future benefits? 3. What deductions, if any, are taken out of the new salary? In other words, does a returning retiree actually receive more take-home compensation for the hours worked than a regular employee would? If so, should we really be paying the maximum rate? I suspect the answer to the first two questions is "no," but I don't know for sure. September 27, 2016; Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Item 13. Code Amendment Initiation Amending Title 20 - Temporary Signs {PA2016-149} My understanding is the Balboa Island Improvement Association ("BI IV) mentioned in the staff report is a long-time residents/property owners association_ Their interest in decorating Marine Avenue is commendable, but what has become of Balboa Island Marketing, Inc., ("BIMI") the new merchants association to which the City has been donating $40,000 per year since dissolution of the Marine Avenue Business Improvement District? Item 14. Budget Amendment to Accept a Check in the Amount of $765,000 from the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation and Appropriate Funds to the Library's Fiscal Year 201612017 Maintenance and Operation Budget The Council, at its last meeting, accepted a check for $205,000 from the Friends of the Library. It seems curious that the Friends, with their• modest used book sale operation, appear to be overtaking the Foundation (which is tasked with seeking endowments and contributions large and small) in bringing money to the City's library system. If that is true, I think it could be because substantially more money is passing through the Foundation than is apparent from the contribution checks. Such a situation can arise if the Foundation saves for and produces its own private programming, such as lecture series, potentially competing with traditional library services, and the ticket sales and other revenue from those activities go to supporting the private programming itself rather than directly supporting the library. While the end result may be much the same, and mutually beneficial, it would seem to me that if such private programming uses City resources (such as meeting spaces and publicity), a certain amount of caution needs to be exercised to ensure that the Foundation continues to support the Library rather than taxpayers supporting the Foundation.