Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written Comments Received After Agenda Printed October 13, 2015 Written Comments October 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the September 8, 2015 Study Session and 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 450: paragraph 3: "Jim Mosher referenced an item regarding there being no pararnedis ^'�.,.-o.,'"ie. t fe reimbursement by insurance providers and expressed hope that people enrolled in that the paramedic subscription program will not have to pay transportation fees." Page 450: paragraph 4, sentence 3: "He referenced the Community Paramedicine,—the pilot program and pointed out its strict parameters." Page 450: Item SS3, paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Andrew Vorrath, Sage High School, presented details of a service project in which he has been involved with during the past year to provide stewardship to the Bay." [alternatively, leave "in" and delete"with"] Page 451: sentence 1: "He explained that the project will catch the first-flush trash in from a high-industrial and dense area that generates a lot of trash." Page 451: paragraph 4: "Regarding street sweeping, Council Member Petros stated that he would be interested in knowing the speed in at which the trucks drive to ensure they are catching all areas that need sweeping." Page 452: paragraph 1: "Mayor Selich stated that the Median Turf Conversion Update will be presented during a Study Session at the October 13, 2015, City Council meeting." [I have been unable to find this topic on the current agenda. It joins a number of other items that have been requested or announced, but which have failed to appear.] Page 453: Item XIII: [This is yet another directive by the Council to bring something (in this case, "Issues surrounding off-leash dogs at the mouth of the Santa Ana River") back at the October 13`" meeting which has not materialized.] Page 453: Item XV.C, statement at end: "Council Member Curry recused himself from this item due to stockholdings and Council Member Muldoon recused himself from this item due to financial reasons." [It seems doubtful these statements, especially the second, satisfy the FPPC burden of explaining the nature of the financial conflict in enough detail that the public can understand it.] Page 456: paragraph 1: "Wayne Harropson expressed the opinion that Council should apologize to Council Member Peotter for attempting to censure him for expressing his objection to the Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage." October 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Page 458: Item 14, paragraph 3, sentence 2: "He suggested defer ring referring this matter to the Planning Commission since there is no provision allowing Council to modify a Conditional Use Permit." Page 458: Item 14, paragraph 5, sentence 2: "He pointed out that the City Council can defer refer it to the Planning Commission, if desired, but Council's consideration would be appropriate as well." [note: "defer' is in interesting substitution, but the word actually used in both these instances was "refer," or as the City Attorney said, "refer down."] Page 459: paragraph 4 from end: "In response to Council Member Peotter's question regarding the City having a flat, hourly rate, depending on independent of the experience of who performs the work, City Attorney Harp stated that the City uses blended rates." 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-29 Relating to Changes in Cost of Service Subsidies and Ordinance No. 2015-30 Relating to City Manager Discretion to Waive EMS Fees and Charges As I attempted to say in oral comments when it was introduced on September 22, the Cost Recovery Table that would be enacted by Ordinance No. 2015-29 does not correlate well with the charges imposed in the Master Fee Schedule adopted by Resolution No. 2015-76 at that meeting. One of the most obvious examples of this discrepancy is the long list, near the end, of different rates charged by Recreation and Senior Services when rooms are rented by different categories of users. Commendable as this practice may be, I am unable to find any basis for it in the Cost Recovery Table of the present ordinance. It is also a mystery to me how Resolution 2015-76 was able to shrink the previous Master Fee Schedule (adopted October 22, 2013)from 843 numbered fee line items down to 491 items. My guess is this was accomplished by inadvertently leaving out large chunks of the schedule. For example, most of the former Recreation and Senior Services fees (for such things as program registration, sports field reservations, and so on and so on) appear to be missing. Is the idea that the current Master Fee Schedule is some kind of hybrid between the old and new? 5. Adoption of Police Management Association Memorandum of Understanding The City is to be commended for making this Agreement available for public review prior to its adoption by the City Council. Despite its having been available for more than three weeks, I have not yet read it, although I generally feel the City's safety personnel are overpaid. It seems problematic to me to have at least two Police management persons (not necessarily covered by this MOU) and three Fire management people cost the City more than the City Manager (as well as, I assume, enjoying a more generous retirement package). This is according to the 2013 reporting to TransparentCalifornia.com of information difficult to extract from the City's own financial documentation. Since the City Manager manages them and all October 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 those under them, they clearly manage fewer people than he and one would think management compensation would bear some closer relation to the number of persons managed. 6. Approve Purchase of 14 Boats from West Coast Sailing for Marina Park Boating Program It would have seemed helpful to provide a picture of what the City is proposing to buy: I thought a dinghy was a small utility boat one rowed to tend a larger one. I didn't know it referred to a class of sailboats, which is apparently the case here. Also, knowing very little about boats, I am puzzled why, if they are both sailboats, the 16-foot model would cost nearly three times as much as the 14-foot model, and why that would be a good deal? That is, why is adding 2 feet so expensive? 7. Amendment No. One to the Professional Services Agreement with Sampson Oil Company for Oil Well Management Services I, at least, have lost track of what, if anything, became of the outside, independent study of the City's oil field operations or the 2013 Resolution of Intention to enter into an operating agreement detailed on the City's undated Oil and Gas page. According to our Laserfiche archive, the City Council previously saw a contract with Sampson Oil on January 26, 2010, (Item 10) with an amendment on November 27, 2012, (Item 11). The existing contract, to which a substantial amendment is being proposed, appears to have been granted later and separately, under the City Manager's subsequently increased $120,000 Policy F-5 spending authority. The existing contract, like many City contracts, is a little peculiar in that it became effective on March 301" of this year, but was not signed until May 7`h. It would seem prudent to negotiate and complete contracts before the work starts, rather than after. The proposed contract is even more peculiar in that although it calls for substantially increased compensation, unlike in the 2012 amendment there does not seem to be a new scope of work detailing what additional work would be undertaken to justify the increased compensation. In fact, it is difficult to tell if the amount being proposed for continuing operational expenses for the remainder of 2015 is greater or less than the amount already contracted for. It would not seem prudent to increase the cost to taxpayers if a lower amount had previously been agreed to. Also, although Sampson Oil was by far the lowest bidder in 2010, wouldn't it be prudent to at least invite bids from other providers before committing to a new expenditure of$600,000? October 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 8. Upgrade of City Microwave Radio Infrastructure - Award of Contract The staff report repeatedly refers to an 8 year life span for the City's microwave radio links, but does not explain what fails and what needs to be replaced after 8 years. I picture this as something like a pipe for the flow of electronic data, with no moving parts. Although the content of the flow may change radically over 8 years, I would think the transmitting and receiving equipment might have a much longer lifetime. Is this a complete replacement? Or just of select components? 11. Acceptance of Grant Funding for the Community Paramedicine Pilot Project The acceptance of gifts is generally a pleasant thing, although grant funds often come with a taxpayer matching requirement. As best I can tell from the report, this one does not. One oddity of this pilot program, based on my understanding of the presentation received by the Council at its last meeting, is that the more successful it is, the sooner it will end. One might have thought that if it proves to be of real benefit to the community there would have been a provision for continuing and expanding, rather than terminating, it. 12. Appointment of a New Finance Committee Member to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy I am flattered to have been recommended for appointment to the Finance Committee based on my July 8, 2015, application. Although if confirmed by the full Council I will, of course, do my best to serve in this capacity, I would like to emphasize that I do not have the recommended background in business or finance and I sincerely believe that if the City had made a more serious effort to advertise the unscheduled vacancy someone with that background could have been found. Nonetheless, given the dynamics of public meetings, I feel I would be a useful addition to the Committee and more effective than as a non-member speaker. I would also like to emphasize the concern which I believe I have previously expressed to the Council in oral testimony about the Brown Act issues raised by a committee consisting of three Council members and four citizens "appointed by" the remaining Council members. Since Subsection 54952.2(c)(6) prohibits those remaining Council members from attending the Finance Committee meetings in person, except as silent observers, it seems clear the citizen appointees cannot"represent"them at the meetings without creating an unnoticed indirect meeting of a majority of the Council —something that is prohibited by Subsection 54952.2(b)(1). I hope the City Attorney can be encouraged to clarify his opinion about the extent, if any, to which the citizen members can even discuss the Committee's activities with the Council people who are not Finance Committee members. That said, I believe Subsection 54952.2(c)(4) leaves the citizen members free to attend, comment on and discuss the many matters within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee at October 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 other City meetings, even if non-member Council persons are present (as at City Council meetings), provided the comments and discussion by the citizen members take place on and within the context of the topics noticed for that meeting. But, again, an opinion from the City Attorney would be appreciated. 13. City Hall and Limited Off-Site Holiday Closure (Beginning at Noon, December 24, 2015 through January 1, 2016) The staff report does not make clear that the library hours listed in Attachment A are those already adopted by the Board of Library Trustees at their July 20. 2015. meeting (Item 5.B.2) under their City Charter authority to set policy for administration of the City's libraries. It might be noted that for a couple of years the Library Board quietly acceded to a request to observe the same year end closure hours as City Hall, but based on negative public feedback changed that policy a few years back. Library staff has found it relatively easy to juggle vacation schedules to keep the facilities open as indicated and maintain a high level of service to the public. 14. Urban Water Management Plan I do not recall this item having been discussed with the City's Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee and I find it strange it has not been. 15. Sewer Rate Study Results From previous experience I know these requests for sewer rate increases normally involve two major issues: (1) a projection of the expected operating and maintenance costs and (2) an equitable distribution of those costs over those discharging into the wastewater system. In the present case I believe a major driver behind the increased costs is the City's need to finally undertake long deferred maintenance and replacement of aging infrastructure. Since the main motivation for keeping a sewer system in good working order is the avoidance of water quality problems from leaks and overflows, like the previous item I find it strange the nature and amount of work the City needs to undertake has not been reviewed, at least in any detail or recently, by the City's Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee. Regarding the equitable distribution of costs, I believe the City uses water consumption as a proxy for sewer use. It is at best a very imperfect proxy since the fraction of the water used that goes into the sewer versus that which goes to landscaping or other non-sewer-loading uses varies widely among properties and tenants. Although I do not live in the portion of the City served by the municipal sewer system, I can imagine those who do might have concerns on both these counts. It may also be of interest to know that in 2012 the neighboring Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which has almost exactly the same number of miles of sewer pipes and pump stations as October 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Newport Beach, commissioned a wastewater rate study from the identical consultant (John Farnkopf of HF&H) presented as Item 14 at their December 20, 2012, meeting. It led to their current increased rates which include the anticipated costs of aging infrastructure repair and replacement but which, as shown in Figure 4-7 on page 15-32 of the current staff report, appear to be below bath the existing and proposed rates for Newport Beach. Finally, in the table on page 5 of the staff report, I believe "National Plan Services" is actually "National Plant Services."