Laserfiche WebLink
January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 <br />Moreover, if the Council is revisiting NBMC Section 3.36.030 and its "Exhibit A" cost recovery <br />table, there are a number of other problems with it that might be addressed: <br />1. The City's Master Fee Schedule offers facility rentals, and possibly other services, at <br />distinctly different rates for different groups (residents, nonresidents, for -profits, non- <br />profits, much like the residents -only discount for the Junior Guards) in ways that are not <br />justified in "Exhibit A". <br />2. Among the discounted rates that are listed, the "1%" cost recovery for library room <br />rentals has long seemed like a typo compared to the rate for renting rooms at other <br />facilities (apparently "45%" at OASIS and "50%" elsewhere). <br />3. The $0 fee for appeals by "officials" (the last item in the table), which like the 82.1 % <br />recovery for Junior Guards was added by Ordinance 2013-18, seems especially <br />problematic to me since it would seem to encourage individual Council, Board or <br />Commission members to act on their own. The City Charter, and good governance in <br />general, envisions a City Council deliberating and acting publicly as a body by majority <br />vote, outside of which the individual members have no powers different from those of the <br />average citizen. The vague powers and exemptions afforded individual Council <br />members in Newport Beach is an issue that came up in the Woody's Wharf appeal <br />which will apparently be the subject of Closed Session discussion at the present meeting <br />(California Court of Appeal Case No. G050155). <br />Finally, in connection with dock fees, the new Council members may be interested to observe <br />the City does not always seek to recover 100% of what it believes to be fair market costs. <br />Item 4. Balboa Village Parking Management and Resident Parking <br />Permit Program (PA2014-016) <br />This item consists of the "second reading" (and adoption) of three ordinances. While it is <br />common for the second reading of ordinances to be placed on the Consent Calendar, the <br />underlying assumption is that those voting will have reviewed and discussed them at their <br />introduction ("first reading"). This case is peculiar in two ways. First, a majority of the present <br />Council members are new and did not have an opportunity to participate in the discussion at the <br />first reading on November 25'". Second, these were part of a larger package and public debate <br />centered almost entirely on an ordinance establishing a Residential Permit Parking Program <br />that was not ultimately introduced. As a result, the present three ordinances have been <br />subjected to very little critical review. <br />In view of the above history, I think it would be prudent for the present Council to continue this <br />item so they may defer their approval until they, and the public, have had a chance to study the <br />ramifications of these proposed, and rather complex, ordinances in more detail. <br />Beyond that, I have trouble understanding the significance of the new RP3 Survey form <br />attached to the report as Attachment CC6 ("Advisory Ballot"). Contrary to what the staff report <br />implies, I do not recall Attachment CC6, or the way in which a new survey might be conducted, <br />having been reviewed or approved by the Balboa Village Advisory Committee. If the Council is <br />being asked to review and approve this form, or the mode of conducting the survey, the <br />potential for that action is not clear from the agenda. <br />