Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" Comments on April 24, 2012 Cagy Council Agenda nerves from: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a-)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548 -6229) Item 3. Supporting Submission of Application under the Measure M2 Environmental Cleanup Grant Program o It would seem helpful for the Council and public to see the proposals in more detail before being asked to support them. In view of the proposals being for "environmental cleanup" it seems particularly ironic that the Environment Review (on page 2) says "the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." Hopefully the proposed projects will produce positive changes in our environment. Otherwise it is hard to justify any commitment of funds for them. Item 4. Amendment 4 to Civic Center Contract with C.W. Driver The staff report implies (on page 3) that the Council's Building Ad Hoc Committee continues to review and approve changes to the Civic Center project on behalf of the Council as a whole. This suggests that the committee's role is not strictly advisory and that its meetings should be subject to the Brown Act, with full public participation. Item 5. Amendment 1 to Agreement with Floury Engineering C From the staff report this appears to be a request for additional compensation to be paid for services already rendered under a binding contract. Article 11, Section 10(a) of the California Constitution prohibits such payments with municipal funds and it is not clear that compliance with that restriction has been adequately considered. Item 6. Agreement with the PCR Services for Environmental Services Although this agenda notice may (or may not) be minimally compliant with the Brown Act it would have seemed helpful to give some hint of what services are being contracted for. In this case the Council is being asked to choose a firm to prepare, on the City's behalf but using the applicant's money, an Environmental Impact Report for the "Back Bay Landing," a proposed mixed -use development in the area on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway, just east of the Harbor Bridge. It seems quite possible there might be members of the public with views on the appropriateness of selecting PCR, or their proposal — if they knew what was being voted on. April 24, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 8. Extension of the Joint Powers Agreement for Use of Marian Bergeson Aquatics Center C Since the current Agreement appears highly favorable to the City, and since circumstances can change, it is not entirely clear why the School District would be agreeing to extended the Agreement more than two years before it is due to expire. That said, the staff report and letter from the City Manager (Attachment C) suggest the City and School District have been operating under an informal understanding that differs substantially from the terms of the Agreement that is being extended. o The Agreement appears to assume the Center is the exclusive property of the District subject to an understanding that for the life of the Agreement the City will be given essentially free use (Sec. 11) during certain hours (Sec. 4) provided the City contributed to the construction costs in an amount capped at a maximum of $625,000 (Sec. 3). The City's further financial contributions appear to be limited to providing lifeguards and other support personnel and equipment when using the pool (Sec. 6) and collecting an unspecified surcharge on user fees to help defray utility costs (Sec. 5). The District appears to have agreed to pay all costs to repair and maintain the facility (Sec. 7). o Yet from Attachment C it appears the City has contributed $1.3 million above the originally agreed to maximum of $625,000 to maintain and "enhance" the facility, and is planning to contribute an additional $330,000 — an unspecified portion of which may be through community fundraising efforts — even though the City appears to have zero obligation to pay these costs under both the existing Agreement and the proposed extension. • If this interpretation is correct, it is unclear why the City is gifting public funds to the District for a service the District agreed to provide to the City for free; or if the Agreement complies with the California Government Code 6505(a) requirements for strict accounting and reporting of all financial transactions related to an exercise of joint powers. Indeed, I am unable to find anything in the Agreement about how or by whom the receipts and costs are monitored or reported. • It may be entirely fair and equitable that the City should contribute $1.6 million (and more ?) beyond the original maximum Agreement amount in return for our continued use of the facility, but that does not seem to be what the Council publicly agreed to in 1989. U Since one has to assume repair and maintenance costs will loom large in the next 25 years it would seem in the interest of both the City and the School District for the Agreement to spell out more clearly the two agency's obligations with respect to future repairs, improvements and other matters. April 24, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Item 10. Budget Amendment to Appropriate Expenditures and Revenues for Contract Classes, After School Enrichment, and OASIS Fitness Center Personal Trainers 0 These contracts seem to be routinely awarded by the Recreation and Senior Services Director. Although consistent with Council policy, that seems at odds with the Charter Section 421 provision that only the City Manager can bind the City to contracts for services approved in the Council's budget. Item 12. Budget Amendment Allocating Donated Funds for the Purchase of a Library Radio Frequency Identification System 0 Although the Council approves the budget for library services, Charter Section 708 assigns administration of City libraries to the Board of Library Trustees. 0 1 have attended every meeting of the Board of Library Trustees for the last year, and do not recall any mention of converting from the current bar code system to a radio frequency identification system — certainly no extended discussion of the pros and cons of doing that. 0 By approving so specific a budget recommendation the Council would appear to be improperly imposing on the Board a staff -level administrative decision as to how library funds should be spent. 0 Administratively the decision is hardly an obvious one since it might make books in the Newport Beach collection incompatible with those in other California libraries, impeding sharing resources with them. In addition it is unclear from the staff report if the allocations it proposes would cover the entire cost of conversion, or only initiate a larger and more costly effort. The appropriateness of using the Ackerman Fund is also questionable. According to the City's 2011 -2012 budget, the "Hi Tech" endowment had at that time a balance of $740,070, with spendable interest of $23,821 accumulated over a period of several years. Council Policy F -16 dictates that the Spendable Reserve should be used to purchase high tech equipment only when "no other funding sources are available." The staff report fails to establish why this is an appropriate time to spend the entire rainy day fund, and the Trustees may well not agree with that recommendation. Item 13. Hoag Hospital Development Agreement Review Handwritten page 14 calls attention to Section 8.4 of the Agreement: "Hoag shall reimburse the City up to $150,000 for installation of groundcover, shrubs, and irrigation April 24, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 systems with the unimproved portion of Sunset View Park and Superior Avenue, approximately 20,500 sq ft in area, located northerly of the cogeneration building, " and the fact that the Hospital is still waiting for the City to exercise this option. Item 14. Appeal of Denial of Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger I have submitted separate written comments to staff on this item, which I understand will be continued until May 8th. Since the project involves a clear change in density (number of dwelling units per acre), I do not believe the CEQA determination is correct. I also suspect the merger requires review by the California Coastal Commission. Item 15. Resolution Amending the Newport Beach Tourism Business Improvement District I submitted written comments about this item at the last Council meeting. I continue to think the City should be phasing out the TBID, not expanding it. Far from promoting the kinds of improvements and activities needed to revitalize "economically disadvantaged" businesses in blighted urban areas — as envisioned by the state's enabling legislation copied in the staff report — the joint sales effort coordinated by the TBID appears to be a purely for - profit commercial operation masquerading as a civic function. To the extent such joint marketing is legal, the interested hotels should be pursuing that effort privately. To the extent it is illegal, the City should not be legitimizing it. With the City's blessing, this commercial effort is being channeled through Visit Newport Beach (VNB), quite likely endangering its non - profit status. o VNB's status is further undermined by representatives of the TBID member hotels, who are financially benefited by VNB's efforts on their behalf, sitting on the VNB Board of Directors, and exclusively on its TBID Committee. This is not the financially disinterested board one would expect to oversee a legitimate non- profit. VNB is further compromised by acting as the contractor for both the TBID levies and for the more general City -wide promotional effort funded with the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The public has no practical way of knowing the funds are not being commingled and that the public's TOT revenues are not being used to promote the TBID hotels at the expense of the more general effort. April 24 Agenda Item 1 (typos in Draft Minutes for April 10, 2012) Volume 60 - Page 421 (under: ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m.) o The Council members are listed under their 2011 designations. The designations of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem need to be updated to 2012 Volume 60 - Page 422 e (fourth paragraph): "... Harbor Resources Manager Miller stated ..." (f%th paragraph): "... and required- requested that staff include ..." • (third paragraph fr onz end): "... the Bayside cover Cove public walkway..." • (second paragraph from end): "... Council Member Daigle's question ..." Volume 60 - Page 423 • (fth paragraph): "... the LCP 4%p4mentatieu implementation project ..." • (last line): "Bernie Svets"d Svalstad ..." Volume 60 - Page 424 C (third paragraph): "... Novelle Novell Hendrickson inquired about the bank in Corona del Mar that has been under..." Volume 60 - Page 426 G (second paragraph): "... Tenant Rights workshop on June 4, 2012." o (third paragraph): "... the Library is proud to be the community's foremost source ... e (second paragraph from end): "... Frankie Anderson Youth Track Meeting Meet ... Volume 60 - Page 427 O (second paragraph): "... presentation on Ships to Reef Reefs ..." Volume 60— Page 430 (under: Public Comments) C (first paragraph): o '... to attend the Tidelands Committee meetings about the "Estuary" (the Semeniuk Slough), ..." o " ...the Eery L2jM of Engineers is moving forward with dredging the -area their pact,..." G (second paragraph): "... recent efforts to include the Semin"i Semeniuk Slough draining project ..." • note: " Semeniuk" is the spelling used in the General Plan • the speaker said "draining" but meant "dredging" O (fifth paragraph): "...dealings with Caltrans regarding the bridge Nest Coast Highway landscaping approved by the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee." (seventh paragraph): "... the City is trying to find a way to impr- ove4..e-iwidge put in the Nest Coast Highway improvements with Caltrans keeping ownership, noted that the Semeniuk Semeniuk Slough will cost the City more ..." o Note: neither Ms. Leslie nor the City Manager said anything about a bridge. Volume 60 - Page 431 0 (first line): "... dredging the Tidelands under their doek docks ..."