Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed Written Comments December 10, 2013 December 10, 2013 City Council Agenda Item Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosherlc-)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the November 26, 2013 Study Session and Regular Meeting The passages in italics are from the draft minutes with suggested changes shown in =•:..,«o^ t underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 61. Page 365, last paragraph under Item IIA : "Public Works Director Webb reported that staff received a bid protest from the third low lowest bidder, but staff reviewed ...... Pages 365 -6, spanning paragraph: "Council Member Henn suggested automatically transferring everyone on FasTraG k FasTrak to ExpressAccount, and eliminating the old transponder technology. Mr. Peterson clarified that the ExpressAccount users will pay the same toll as existing cash users, but toll fees are reduced with the use of the c_>�R FasTrak transponder." Page 367, end of paragraph 5: "There would probably be conditions attached to the ultimate CORditional Coastal Development Permit (CDP)." Page 368, paragraph 3: "Council Member Petros reported that the City has elected to share in the TOT revenues with VNB at 18% and wondered if other cities also share the TOT." Page 369, paragraph 3: "He referenced the Coastal GemmissleR's Access Guide to Newport Beach and noted that VNB did not produce it." Page 374, paragraph 1: "He announced a Christmas Tree and Menorah Lighting Ceremony on Saturday, December 44 7, 2013, in Balboa Village at 5:00 p.m." [note: the minutes correctly reflect what was said, but the Councilman inadvertently stated the wrong date. The reference to a Menorah lighting may also be incorrect since Chanukah ended on December 5, 2013.] Page 380, paragraph 2 under Item XV: "He also discussed the 2006 Green -Ligh GreenMght Measure..." Page 380, paragraph 4 under Item XV: "She addressed ingress and egress difficulties in the ,Rfu Bluffs area and negative impacts to property values." Page 381, paragraph 2 under Item XVI: "... there will be several changes that will be acted upon by the PERS bend Board that will have the impact of further i„grease increasing pension costs for all member agencies, ..." Page 381, paragraph 3 under Item XVI: "... and a meeting of the Land Use Element Amendment Committee will Fnpp on December 3, 2013 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m...." Page 383, paragraph 3 under Item 33: "City Manager Kiff thanked Randy Pinson Poulson for his help in the matter." Page 385, paragraph 2: "Randy Pullen Poulson commented on a safe idea he developed called "cleanflame. "" December 10, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8 Item 5. Resolution No. 2013 -89 — A Resolution of Intention to Renew the Newport Beach Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) 1. For reasons previously cited, I am opposed to the City continuing the TBID. a. I thought Councilman Selich put it very aptly at the November 26 Study Session when he asked: Why should the City be involved in this at all? i. If the hotels want a professional conference sales function, they should be able (on their own, without government intervention) to set aside a portion of their revenue and hire a private firm to do so. ii. Those advocating for the renewal suggested that the hotels' distant corporate owners would not agree to such an arrangement. But the answer to that is that the local general managers need the same distant corporate approval to participate in the TBID, and it is very difficult to see how an arrangement involving local governmental and public scrutiny would be more attractive to them than one without it. Whether contracted privately or by the City of Newport Beach, using Visit Newport Beach (VNB) to provide the for - profit conference sales function seems particularly problematic. Not only does it muddy oversight of the purposes on which VNB spends its more public revenue streams, but it is probably inconsistent with their Chamber -of- Commerce -like 501(c)(6) tax status, which, under IRS rules, means they are supposed to be promoting the industries they represent generally, not marketing individual businesses within an industry. b. Council was presented with claims that arrangements similar to the Newport Beach TBID are common in California and throughout the nation. I found some of the information presented inaccurate, and I find it doubtful that many of the other TBIDs are focused on directly booking sales for the client hotels in the manner that the NBTBID is. It is very much the same as if the City government were involved in an operation directly booking sales for client auto dealers, or any other industry. 2. Contrary to my feeling that the TBID should be discontinued, at the November 26 Study Session several Council members wondered why staff wasn't recommended extending the TBID for a period longer than 10 years. It seems surprising staff didn't have a ready answer, for the answer is found in Streets and Highways Code Section 36622(g), reproduced on page 16 of the "Management District Plan" (Attachment B to the staff report), describing the rules for constructing plans: "In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years." 3. It is also telling to read the legislative findings to the Streets and Highways Code that are said to justify the need to create business improvement districts as reproduced on page 11, and to attempt to reconcile the activities of the NBTBID with the stated reasons for creating a TBID: None of the member hotels are in economically disadvantaged business districts (at least two of them — the Dunes and the Hyatt — are not in business December 10, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8 districts at all), and the conference sales activity is not intended to address and improve "inadequate facilities, services and activities" in those districts. 4. Beyond that, the proposed 2014 -2024 Management District Plan has some obvious problems: a. As Mr. Theodorou said on November 26, his establishment has no rooms and it is hardly obvious from the plan how much he would be assessed to participate. I don't recall how this was handled when the Dunes was added to the TBID, but I believe it may have involved some special language which may or may not have been incorporated into the new plan. b. More importantly, as I said on November 26, 1 don't recall the promise of $150,000 per year from the TBID revenue stream to be given to the City for cultural arts, which seemed so enticing to many on the Council, to have ever been approved by the TBID membership at any publicly noticed Brown Act compliant meeting. Whether it was legally committed to, or not, I can find no mention of it in the proposed Plan, and it does not fit within the annual budget presented on page 6. In fact, it is about equal to the amount allocated for "Sales Administration" and far exceeds the maximum contingency. This seemed to have been a primary argument in justifying to Council the City's involvement in this otherwise strictly commercial operation, yet from page 4 of the present staff report it sounds like VNB, rather than the TBID, may now be offering this as a kind of kickback for being given the marketing business — which suggests VNB has a profit interest in having the conference sales business, even though they are a non - profit. 5. Regarding Resolution 2013 -89, the Council, in approving it, will need to make findings that 50% or more of the businesses to be assessed "have signed and submitted petitions in support of the renewal of the NBTBID." I am unable to find any evidence in the staff report that that has actually happened, and if they were submitted, that those signing them had the authority to do so. Item 6. Sunset Ridge Park - Award of Contract No. 3449 Since the Council is here being asked to approve a $5.2M contract on behalf of the people, it would have seemed helpful to provide at least a link to an electronic copy of the contract so the Council, and the public, could verify what they are paying for, and what they expect to get. 2. The report is particularly confusing in that it says Council is being asked to 1. Approve the final park design and the project plans and specifications," yet the final design and specifications are not provided (on page 4 there is a reference to an "Attachments: B. Final Park Design," but the attachment was not among the documents available from the City Clerk). 3. Likewise, the second recommendation is to "2. Award Contract No. 3449 to Environmental Construction, Inc., for the total bid amount of $5,214,820.00," yet C -3449 December 10, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8 is an existing contract with an environmental firm to prepare CEQA documents, and the present action appears to be for an entirely new construction contract. It seems odd that an old contract number would be recycled for that purpose. 4. The motivation for asking Council to terminate the Bluff Road arrangement (recommendation #4) is also not clearly explained. In the unlikely event that Newport Banning Ranch were able to get their project approved with that road, it would seem the City might still want to have access to Sunset Ridge Park (SRP) from it, as SRP is notably lacking an access plan. Item 7. Marina Park Project- Marina Basin Construction Including Dredging, Bulkheads, Grading and Soil Remediation (Bid Package 2) - Award of Contract No. 3897(8) See comments on previous item. The City Council is here being asked to approve "drawings and specifications" and a $5M contract without seeing the drawings and specifications or the contract. And again a contract number that has previously been used for design and environmental work is being recycled for a new construction contract, albeit this time with a letter to distinguish it from the others. It might be noted that in addition to the contract C- 3897(B) mentioned in the staff report, the City archive already has a contract C -3897 and a C- 3897(H). If this is part "B ", one might wonder what parts "C though "G° are for. Item 8. Geotechnica/ and Water Quality Management Plan Review - Approval of Amendment No. 1 of the Professional Services Agreement with Bagahi Engineering The staff report suggests this has morphed into something involving a considerably larger volume of work than was originally contemplated. A $120,000 contract has grown to $733,700, with twice as much work per year as planned. One might wonder if, as a result, the original bidding process needs to be revisited to ensure those the City requires to use these services are getting the best deal possible. Is Bagahi Engineering being rewarded for a job exceptionally well done, or is this simply the easiest thing to do? Item 9. Extend Planning Staff Services Contract with MIG, Inc. See previous comment. In this case, a $120,000 contract has grown to $400,000. December 10, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8 Item 11. Amendments to Professional Services Agreements with Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. and EPT Design, Inc. for Sunset Ridge Park Despite the item title, the staff report suggests that a substantial part of this work, especially for Glenn Lukos Associates, is at John Wayne Gulch, and that all of it is related to earlier plans and work that "didn't fly' with the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Since John Wayne Gulch is quite remote from Sunset Ridge Park (SRP), and related to it only in that the work is needed to mitigate environmental damage at SRP, it would seem to me the City should have considered putting that work out to bid as a separate project. More generally, if these vendors' previous work, undertaken at considerable expense to the City, led to results rejected by the CCC, that would seem all the more reason to consider engaging new vendors for the corrections, rather than rewarding the failed vendors with still more work. Item 12. Quarterly Business Report (QBR) — April through September 2013 City staff is to be commended for preparing these quarterly summaries of City activities — in this case for two quarters — even though they seem to have rarely stimulated much discussion among either the Council or the public. As previously suggested, the burden might be reduced and the usefulness as a consistent informational document improved by adopting a more fill -in- the - blanks format. This seems particularly true of the Financial Report, which supplements the twice - monthly reports found in the City Managers Newsletters, the monthly Treasury Reports, the annual budget documents, the annual State Controller (and City Charter) mandated financial statement (not posted on- line ?), the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, the new Tide and Submerged Lands Annual Report to the California State Lands Commission, and perhaps other reports I am not aware of, or have failed to list. I believe the City's finances, with the many revenue sources going into many funds, are quite confusing to the average resident, and however well- meaning, the Quarterly Financial Reports, rather than synthesizing and consolidating the preceding mass of information in a consistent and more readily comprehensible way, tend to spotlight different selected details which when taken out of context may do little to make the City's financial workings any more fathomable to the average person. Some specific comments: Quarterly Financial Report -- Quarter Ending June 30, 2013 1. It seems odd the sentence the Finance Committee seemed to want as the take -home message, set in bold at the end of the first paragraph, is in parenthesis. December 10, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8 2. In the remainder of the Executive Summary, I think many in the public will not be tuned in to the nuanced differences (assuming some difference is intended) between terms such as "revenue' vs. "income," or "reserves" vs. "balances" (just as they may have trouble appreciating the distinction between "taxes" vs. "fees "), and hence will have trouble reconciling the numbers quoted in the Summary with the numbers quoted, with varying labels, in the remainder of the report. 3. The new "Financial Health Dashboard' (which I don't think was reviewed by the Finance Committee), implies by its name that it provides a continuous high -level overview of the City's financial health of the sort a non -expert might want, yet it does not appear in the Quarterly Report for the July- September quarter, and it is not even clear to me (a non - expert) that it can even be updated other than at year end, since it seems to focus on yearly totals. 4. As an example of the confusions one encounters when one delves into the details, on page 11 it seems particularly confusing to have the $995,156 Facilities Maintenance Plan Reserve (apparently separate and distinct from the Facilities Financing Plan Reserve) listed as something different from "Other Strategic Reserves" in the "Reserves Summary' table, and then have it listed as one of the "Other Strategic Reserves" in the separate detail for that, giving results for the "Other Strategic Reserves" total that are inconsistent by the $995,156. 5. To the layman skimming the report, it is similarly confusing to see the General Fund Reserve listed as $67.8M in the Summary table on page 11 when the detailed General Fund Reserves table on page 9 reports $82AM (which is also reported as the "balance' — rather than "reserve" -- on page 8). 6. Finally, it is slightly disconcerting that the transfers out of the General Fund (in the "Comparative Income Statement" on page 8) in FY13 are now thought to be more than $1 M more than they were thought to be when a draft of the present report was reviewed by the Finance Committee on November 18 (as agenda packet Item 5.13), and that the "Subtotal Assigned" and "Unassigned (Appropriations Reserve)" totals have changed by $12M or $13M from the draft report. Quarterly Financial Report -- Quarter Ending September 30, 2013 See preceding comment #3: The "Dashboard" has not been included. Is it not something whose state can be displayed each quarter? Boards, Commissions & Committees Report 1. City Arts Commission under "Committee Members ": I believe "Judy Change" should read "Judy Chang." 2. Civil Service Board under "Purpose ": The abbreviations used, without further explanation, for the "Safety Bargaining Units" differ greatly from those used in the City Council Closed Session notices. Although I was able to correlate the two lists, I think the average person would have little idea what the abbreviations stand for. December 10, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8 3. Harbor Commission under "Committee Authorization ": City Charter Section 700 (misquoted as "Section 702 ") gives the City Council authority to create Boards and Commissions, but as noted in the City Clerk's "committees pages" the specific authorization for the Harbor Commission comes from Ordinance No. 2001 -25, as amended by Ordinance No. 2013 -14. 4. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission under "Committee Members ": Given that the current reports cover a six -month span, the PB &R report is the only one to properly report that the composition of the body being reported on changed during the time of the report due to retirements and new appointments effective July 1, 2013. 5. Newport Coast Advisory Committee under "Committee Members': Since little happens with this committee, the recycled report from an earlier year inadvertently refers to "Council member Gardner" as "Mayor Gardner." 6. July 4th West Newport Safety Planning Committee: I find the status of this body disturbing, and not fully disclosed in the report. I have the impression that City staff did indeed seek public input regarding the 2013 West Newport July 4`h events, but selected a group for that purpose different from the officially designated one. Project Tracking Reports 1. Balboa Boulevard Beautification: I have never heard a clear answer as to whether this project, however worthy, has applied for or received a Coastal Development Permit. Unlike Sunset Ridge or Marina Park, or even the fire ring removal, I do not recall seeing it mentioned on a California Coastal Commission agenda. It seems very far along if it has not received all legally required approvals. 2. Fire Rings under "Status to Date ": The acronym "SCAQMD" is used without explanation. Also, I suspect we may be "3) authorizing the City or a vendor to sell the natural firewood and /or low -smoke logs" rather than "lots." One might also suggest that if the waxed - cardboard logs advocated by Mr. Poulson (see last suggested correction on page 1 of these comments) are as low emission as he testified to the Council at its November 26 meeting, the City should be pursuing asking the SCAQMD to modify its Rule 444 to make them an acceptable fuel for burning without a reconfiguration of the rings —just as the current Rule 444 would allow the rings to be continued in their current configuration provided the fuel burned is charcoal, liquid or gas. A solution that would not require changing the rings would greatly simplify matters for all concerned. December 10, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8 Item 13. Public Meeting on the Proposed Modification of the Newport Beach Tourism Business Improvement District's (NBTBID) Management District Plan Please see comments on Item 5, above. I am not sure if the TBID assessment cycle started on April 29, 2009 or on July 1, 2009, but if they want to terminate their relation with the City earlier than planned, I'm all for it. What I object to is renewing it after it expires. Item 14. Cultural Arts Grants - 201312014 My impression is the process this item represents has become largely dysfunctional A fixed list of organizations seems to be given grants each year, based largely on the fact that they received grants in the past. At least a couple of the programs take place in district schools and are for the essentially exclusive benefit of the schoolchildren. However worthy that may be, it would seem to me those programs should be funded out of the School District's budget, not the City's. School District officials would also seem better situated to judge if they are a good fit to the curriculum. Although I am very supportive of the arts in general, I think decisions to support them should be individual ones, and not undertaken on our behalf by the government with tax dollars or surplus fees. Item 15. Extend Term of the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee The preparer of this staff report appears to have relied on the enabling resolution originally proposed for creating this committee, rather than the one actually adopted by the City Council As originally proposed at the May 28, 2013 City Council meeting, decisions would have been made by a seven member committee consisting of two Council members, two Planning Commissioners and three at -large citizen members. However as the minutes indicate, Mayor Curry recommended increasing the number of citizen members from three to five. That change was incorporated into Resolution No. 2013 -45 as signed, and is how the Committee has been operating. The present resolution, if adopted, would appear to eliminate two of the present at -large citizen positions by reverting the Committee to its originally contemplated composition, leaving it with only three at -large members for the remainder of its existence. It seems unlikely this is what was intended