Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/2009 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes City Council Study Session September 22, 2009 — 4:00 p.m. I. ROLL CALL II. Present: Council Member Henn, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Curry, Mayor Selich, Council Member Webb, Council Member Gardner, Council Member Daigle 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. In response to Council Member Gardner's question regarding Item 8 [Affordable Housing Agreement with SeaView Lutheran Plaza], Assistant City Manager Wood stated that staff will clarify if it is possible for the City to apply for post -grant funds. In response to Council Member Henn's question regarding Item 15 [Acceptance of 2009 -2010 State of California, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), DUI Enforcement and Awareness Program Grant AL10871, Police Captain Johnson explained the process for receiving funds from the State and stated that they never incurred an incident where the funds were not refunded. City Attorney Hunt stated that the State has a legal obligation to fund the grants; however, they can avoid the legal obligation through bankruptcy proceedings. Council Member Daigle expressed concern about the vulnerability of cost programs. City Manager Kiff indicated that staff will closely assess grant programs funded by the State. In response to Council Member Henn's question regarding Item 16 [Review of the FY 2008 -2009 Community Development Block Grant Consolidation Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development], Assistant City Manager Wood stated that she will clarify if surplus funds are rolled over and provide a report at the regular meeting. 2. STREET SWEEPING PILOT CONTRACT PROGRAM. General Services Director Harmon utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the proposed street sweeping pilot program, the current program costs, condition of the current vehicles, and recent City contracts. He explained that the program will entail reassigning two full-time staff members and hiring an independent contractor for a twelve -month term to work in pre- selected, non - posted areas in the City. In response to Council questions, General Services Director Harmon noted that the funds in the reserve account will not cover the cost to replace the six diesel sweepers with new Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) sweepers and reported. that there are approximately three contractors that use CNG equipment. He indicated that the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) no longer allows cities to contract with companies that use diesel equipment. He stated that the program term could be adjusted, recommended that one contractor be used for the pilot program, and Volume 59 - Page 264 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session September 22, 2009 discussed the reasons for utilizing a twelve month term. He reported that staff will benchmark the service to compare service levels and perform a cost comparison with other cities in the County. Council Member Henn applauded staff, believed that options should be compared, and indicated that pension cost increases should be included in the analysis. He believed that a pilot program is not needed, suggested that staff move forward with a one month review period to set guidelines and to prepare a Request For Proposal (RFP), and expressed concern that using one company for the pilot program will create an advantage over other qualified companies. Council Member Daigle emphasized that both private and public entities are capable of delivering quality service. In response to Council Member Daigle's question, City Manager Kiff stated that he would like the term to be no more than six months. Mayor Pro Tem Curry expressed support of a six month pilot program. Council Member Gardner expressed support for a twelve month pilot program to allow time to evaluate the level of service. Council Member Webb expressed concern about the lack of information staff provided on other cities street sweeping efforts and expressed support for a twelve month pilot program. Council Member Rosansky expressed support for a twelve month pilot program. Mayor Selich expressed support for a short term pilot program. After hearing Council views, Council Member Henn suggested that the pilot program be shortened as much as possible in view of budget concerns. He also stated that, as we face even more pressure to cut spending, our first priority must be to assure that the City's efficiency and operating cost structure be addressed first, before we turn to reductions in the Capital Improvement Progam (CIP) and public value. S. STATUS OF BUCK GULLY EROSION CONTROL PROJECT. Principal Engineer /Assistant City Engineer Stein utilized a PowerPoint presentation that included the project site, photos of City property, proposed improvements to the site, artist renderings, previous Morning Canyon slope failures, Buck Gully problem areas, construction easements, concerns of property owners, project funding availability, the proposed schedule, and the City's next steps. He discussed the difficulties that staff is facing to obtain easements from property owners and indicated that staff would like direction from Council. Council Member Gardner announced that she attended a Buck Gully community meeting and requested that Council allow staff to perform more outreach to inform residents of the importance and value of the project. She reported that the grant funds the City has already acquired for this project cannot be reallocated and would have to be returned to the State. In response to Council Member Gardner's questions, City Attorney Hunt believed that this is not a liability issue, but a health and safety issue. He clarified that the intent of an easement is to give the City the opportunity to do the work and does not allow the City to take further action. In response to Council Member Rosansky's questions, Principal Engineer /Assistant City Engineer Stein believed that an Assessment District could be formed and noted that the repair cost increases with loss of sediment. He added that the City does not own property at the project site; however, damages could reach Coast Highway. In response to Council Member Henn's question, City Attorney Hunt stated that the Volume 59 - Page 265 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session September 22, 2009 City has no legal obligation to perform the work and indicated that it would be very time consuming and problematic for the City to take action by eminent domain. Mayor Pro Tem Curry believed that property owners were misinformed and expressed support for making more efforts to educate residents on the importance of the project. In response to Council questions, Principal Engineer /Assistant City Engineer Stein stated that relative to the Morning Canyon slope failure, there were no erosion control efforts and the City cleared the bottom of the canyon prior to the slope failure. He stated that unless all property owners in the area allow access, nothing can be done for the project and noted that detaining water upstream creates difficulties because of selenium and water quality issues. He believed that the existing easement is only partially useful but is not sufficient for the project. Public Works Director Badum clarified that the Coastal Commission would not approve the project using the existing easement. It was Council's consensus that another strong effort to get the necessary easements should be undertaken. 4. CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING VOTING CITY LAND IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BALLOTING. City Attorney Hunt asked Council to consider the issues outlined in the report, consider alternatives, and provide direction. Council Member Gardner believed that Council should not vote during Assessment District Balloting. Council Member Webb expressed concern about fees to residents on failed Assessment Districts and believed that Council should vote. Council Member Daigle believed that there should be a better way to obtain upfront costs. Mayor Pro Tem Curry believed that it would not be appropriate for the City to vote since it might skew the vote and force taxes on residents. Council Member Rosansky believed that Council should vote on behalf of City properties. Council Member Henn stated that he is uncomfortable with voting on behalf of City property and expressed concern that the City would be imposing taxes on residents. He noted that Council should vote in favor of a project only when it is in the best interest of the public and expressed support for the last alternative outlined in the staff report which will allow Council to make a voting decision as early as possible. Mayor Selich also expressed support for the last alternative outlined in the staff report. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to proceed with the last alternative as outlined in the staff report. William Dildine believed that Council should vote yes on all Assessment Districts on behalf of City property. III. PPUBLIC COMMENTS -None IV. ADJOURNMENT - 6:85 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on September 16, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Volume 59 - Page.266 _ City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session September 22, 2009 Volume 59 - Page 267