Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED MARCH 13, 2018 March 13, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher6d.yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February 27, 2018 City Council Meeting Volume 63, Page 454: "XVIII. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES At Council Member Peotter's request, Police Chief Lewis discussed the Police Department's involvement in school safety. He also highlighted the Police Department's youth and mentoring programs." The above is, of course, not actually a report on a committee activity, and it seems remarkable here have been so few Council reports on committee activities in recent months. Between the Council's Feb. 13 and Feb. 27 meetings, the Finance Committee met on Feb. 15 and the Balboa Village Advisory Committee on Feb. 21. Similarly, between the Council's Jan. 23 and Feb. 13 regular meetings, the Aviation Committee met on Feb. 12. Yet none of these activities were reported to the Council as a whole. Item 6. Resolution Specifying Uses for FY2018-19 RMRA Funding from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 This matter is the same as that in which the Council famously refused its share of expected new state gas tax revenue, then reversed itself in a special meeting last August 31. Since several Council members pledged to use their personal funds to support an initiative to overturn the law providing the new revenue (but not effectively pledge their constituents' share of the pie), this raises the question of whether the Council may now be contemplating using City funds in support of the initiative. Item 8 on the present consent calendar, a new policy "Prohibiting the Use of Public Funds for Tax Measure Advocacy," seems to leave that possibility open by not imposing any restrictions on using public funds for or against state or national ballot measures. Item 8. Resolution No. 2018-16: Adoption of City Council Policy A-3 Prohibiting the Use of Public Funds for Tax Measure Advocacy First, this agenda item seems mis-noticed. My understanding is that the use of public funds for ballot measure advocacy in general is already prohibited. So the Council is clearly not being asked to adopt a policy about advocacy, but rather to consider one additionally prohibiting the use of public funds for informational campaigns related to tax measures -- such as sending out flyers purporting to show the impacts of a ballot measure, no matter how objective they might be claimed to be. March 13, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Second, I don't think this item should be on the consent calendar. Adopting new laws and policies without discussion is precisely how bad laws and policies come into being. Regarding the form of the proposed policy: 1. Who wrote this? Is it based on something successfully used in other jurisdictions, or was it created out of whole cloth? 2. Stylistically, the use of "shall not' in the first sentence may sound impressive, but it is incorrect. When used correctly, the word "shall" imposes a power and duty on someone. Not only is no power being granted in this instance, but "the City" is a very vague entity to be imposing a duty on. As a statement of City policy, the phrase "may nof' would be both better and less ambiguous. As to its substance: 1. What is meant by the prohibition on "studies"? 2. How is staff expected "to respond to questions about the fiscal impact of any local tax measure" without spending funds to study it? 3. If staff is allowed to study a measure, would posting its conclusions about the impacts on the City website constitute a prohibited "campaign"? Or does the "campaign" have to involve actively pushing information to potential voters unsolicited? If it does, why doesn't the policy say that? I think the term "campaign" needs to be more clearly defined. 4. Would the Council voting to take a position (by resolution or otherwise) for or against a measure be regarded as a violation of the policy? 5. Does it prevent Council members from participating, as such, in writing ballot arguments? 6. Is there any penalty for ignoring the policy? If so, where is it spelled out? 7. What is required to waive the policy? As to its merit: What is the problem this policy is trying to solve? Has there been a history of staff or prior Councils campaigning with public funds in Newport Beach? 2. Does the present Council feel it needs this to restrain itself? Or is it intended to tie the hands of future Councils? 3. If it is intended to restrain future Councils (who could presumably either waive or ignore it with impunity) then doesn't it need to be at least added to the Municipal Code by ordinance? Or, to be truly unavoidable, presented to voters as a City Charter amendment? 4. If this is good policy, why is it confined to "tax measures"? 5. If this is good policy, why is it confined to measures on a "City or County ballot"? What about statewide measures? March 13, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Personally, while strongly opposed to any use of public money to influence voters, I see merit in allowing government agency staffs to study and report how a measure will impact their agency. In fact, as a voter, I feel it's essential to understand (if I wish) "the City's" analysis of impacts, which, in making my decision, I can then weigh against my own and others' opinions. And it's hard to see how any City analysis can be formulated without expenditures of public funds. If a policy on this is needed, then for debate, I would suggest the following quick alternative which more closely expresses my own view that government can objectively analyze issues but should absolutely not be allowed to use its power to tell voters how to vote. It extends the proposed policy to all ballot measures, not just tax ones: "BALLOT MEASURE ACTIVITY It is the policy of the City of Newport Beach that public funds may not be used to campaign for or against ballot measures, including, but not limited to, taking a position for or against the measure, or providing ostensibly objective information to any voter who does not request it. 2. The City Council may authorize the use of public funds to objectively study the expected impacts of a ballot measure on the City of Newport Beach. If such studies are authorized, the conclusions, which may not recommend a vote for or against the measure, must be made available to those who request to see them on the City website." Item 9. Facilities Carpet Replacement Project — Award of Contract No. 7222-1 (18F02) I have not seen the carpets in the Utilities Yard, and since adults unaccompanied by children are no longer allowed in the children's areas of the libraries, I can't comment on the state of the carpet in the Childrens Room at the Central Library. In general, I do think issues with staining could likely be addressed through clearer policies on food in the libraries (and perhaps in other public buildings). Those who have seen the very old, but in my view still quite serviceable, carpets in my house would appreciate that by my (admittedly low) standards I don't see the 11 year old carpets at the Mariners Branch as being anywhere near in need of replacement. Item 12. Amendment No. Two to On -Call Professional Services Agreement with Mariner's Mile Pet Clinic It seems unusual for the Council to be asked to amend a contract without being provided with a copy of the contract being amended. March 13, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 13. Police Department Renovation Project Furniture and Fixtures The staff report, on page 13-2, appears to refer to a need for new fixtures in "The Detective Division work areas, the Patrol briefing room and the Crime Suppression Unit office." The recitals on page 13-4 refer only to the "Police Department Detective and Briefing Room areas." Are fixtures for the Crime Suppression Unit office included in the present agreement? Item 14. Planning Commission Agenda for March 8, 2018 The Council might be curious why so many items on the Planning Commission's recent agendas have been continued or taken off calendar. Considering the Council previously allotted $1 million in the current fiscal year's budget to study the City's General Plan, and the possible need for an update to it, the Council might be even more interested in Item 8, the "2017 General Plan Status and Progress Report" — an item that will be coming to the Council on March 27. Although the agenda asked the Commission to review and comment on staff's draft of the report, and make a recommendation about it to the City Council, the bare quorum of four Commissioners who bothered to show up, showed, as they do most years, a truly remarkable lack of interest in the matter, and even tried to discourage the unusually large contingent of the public who showed up from offering their comments on problems with the existing General Plan (saying it was only "receive and file," that the Council had prohibited discussion of the Plan before 2019, and, at one point, that the March 8 discussion wasn't even open to the public except by the grace of the Commissioners). The result, in my opinion, is that a significant opportunity to reflect on the state of the General Plan — and, for those who bother to read it, a reflective opportunity mandated by the General Plan itself — has been lost, and the Council will be receiving a report as flawed and inexpressive of both reality and public sentiment as that provided to the Commission. Incidentally, having evidently thought about the General Plan more than your Planning Commissioners, I have come to the conclusion that the Council was wise to put off staff's recommendation for a "comprehensive" update of the General Plan. I do not see the need for that. Indeed, I do not, as a general rule, see any need for a mature city to go through an expensive and largely symbolic (if not meaningless) effort to "re -invent" itself every few years. Instead, as Item 8 should have reminded us — and as the Plan itself says we should have been doing for the last 12 years -- rather than ignoring today's problems with the Plan by sweeping them into some promised, massive and jarring future set of "comprehensive" changes, the Plan should have been continually and incrementally renewed and repaired — something we have been absolutely neglecting to do. As a result, in my opinion, the City and its residents need to concentrate their efforts not on a comprehensive update, but rather on getting the existing Plan off the shelf and back on track.