Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed June 28, 2022 Written Comments June 28, 2022, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(@-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the June 14, 2022 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in c*�,., Gu underline format. The page number refers to Volume 65. Page 322, paragraph 4 from end, sentence 1: "In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Fire Marshal Bass discussed the map that includes the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (V4XSZ VHFHSZ) and how new areas that do not exist yet will impact insurance eligibility, ..." [see City web page for abbreviation] Page 330, paragraph 6 from end: "Steve Rosansky, President/CEO of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, supported the grant for the boat parade and noted that the Parade Co -Chairs Chris Delfs and David Beek, Chamber members, and GemmedGre Commodores Club members were in attendance." [see Chamber web page] Page 330, paragraph 5 from end: "Tim Shields, Commodore Commodores Club, noted the contributions by the volunteers and thanked the City Council for their support." Page 331, paragraph 3: "Council Member O'Neill noted the relevance between of the General Fund and TOT, budget management, and scope of tourism funds, and indicated he will support the item." Page 332, Item XVI, paragraph 1: "Roy Englebrecht expressed his opinion relative to the Measure B special election. Mayor Muldoon clarified that no special election took place." [comment: The minutes are correct, but the Mayor's comment was strange since Resolution No. 2021-103, adopted by the Council to place Measure B on the June 7, 2022, ballot, was entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Calling for the Holding of a Special Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, and Ordering that a Proposed Amendment to the City Charter be Submitted to the Voters of the City."] Page 333, paragraph 3: "Jim Mosher noted the discontinuance of the open budget feature on the City website and discussed challenges following the budget report and the CalRecycle grant." [comment: As correctly reported, I used a CalRecycle grant as an example of the impossibility of telling from the budget as posted where particular anticipated revenue is anticipated to be spent. As it happens, that grant is subject of Item 6 on the present consent calendar. Since the recommended action includes a budget amendment, it was apparently not included in the budget as approved on June 14, even though on page 31 of that budget, line 431490 under Fund 135 shows anticipated revenue for FY23 of $162,702.] June 28, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Item 6. Resolution No. 2022-45: CalRecycle Grant Funding and Approval of Amendment No. Three to On -Call Professional Services Agreement with EcoNomics, Inc. for Solid Waste Consulting Services In my oral comments on the budget at the last Council meeting (see previous page), I said I could not recall any discussion in Newport Beach of CalRecycle's SB 1383 grant program. So I was surprised to see from the staff report this is regarded as a continuation of Resolution No. 2017-68 from the October 24, 2017, Council agenda (Item 5), which I now see I even commented on at the time. I remain uncertain why a budget amendment is required and how the expected $122,083 of this award relates to the $162,702 of CalRecycle grants anticipated in the budget approved at the last meeting. Did the $162,702 represent other CalRecycle grants the City has or will apply for in coming fiscal year, such as for rubberized asphalt? The proposed amendment to the existing contract with EcoNomics (C-8478-1) also seems a bit problematic. The amendment says (on page 6-39) that its purpose is "to reflect additional Services not included in the Agreement, as amended, to increase the total compensation to reflect additional grant funding received by the City, to update the insurance coverage, and to update the Project Administrator." I see the updated compensation, insurance coverage and Project Administrator provisions, but I see nothing in the contract about what additional services are expected of EcoNomics in return for the increased compensation, despite the many bullet points listed on pages 6-2 and 6-3 of the staff report (which are not part of the contract). Also, even those bullet points do not contain any proposal I can see as to how the funding would be distributed among them. Meanwhile, the budget presented to CalRecycle in February (as reproduced on page 6-8) suggests a rather large proportion would go to enforcement, even though it is just one of the six bullet points, and seemingly a relatively minor one at this point. Apparently the lack of specificity is because this would remain an on -call contract, and the bullet points will be individually approved through Letter Proposals. But since SB 1383 didn't exist at the time the contract was originally negotiated, most of the tasks expected seem outside the original scope of services. Doesn't the scope need updating? Or wouldn't it be better for this to be not an on -call arrangement, but rather a standard professional services agreement so as to ensure all the desired services can be delivered at the expected price? Finally, I brought this up to the Council on June 14 because that morning the Costa Mesa Sanitary District had been discussing CalRecycle's SB 1383 grants as Item CA on its Study Session agenda. Apparently because of a slightly larger population in their service area they received "$156,658, the maximum amount CMSD was eligible plus an additional $11,604 as a first -round awardee." According to their staff report, it appears they report consultant contracts to CalRecycle as an "Administration" cost. It is not clear what the City's breakdown on page 6-8 means when most, but not all the grant, goes to "Personnel." June 28, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 7. Newport Pier and McFadden Plaza Area Rehabilitation (Project No. 22T12) - Approval of Professional Services Agreement with SWA Group Most recent concept developments of this scope have involved a Council -appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, which by its nature required the meetings at which it reviewed the consultant's proposals and made recommendations to Council to be held in public. While the staff report mentions 10 public meetings, I fear this will be shunted off to a subcommittee of PB&R which may attend some of the meetings, but work with the consultant to complete the recommendations in private, making the final recommendation to Council by the full PB&R Commission seem pre -ordained. Item 9. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, LLC for Regional General Permit (RGP-54) Sediment Suitability Characterization The previous contract for this service with Anchor QEA (C8534-1), from2017, was for $462,200, which is substantially more than the $324,553 of the present proposal. It would be refreshing to find something that costs less than it did five years ago. Is the scope of work the same as it was then? And if so, is the lower cost due to the contractors ability to reuse much of the planning previously developed? Item 15. Confirmation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for the 2022 League of California Cities Annual Conference - September 7, 2022 to September 9, 2022 Recommendation "b)" was likely intended to read "... and City Council Member Will O'Neill ..." rather than "... and City Council Will O'Neill ..." Item 16. Confirmation of Annual Citizen Member Appointments to the Finance Committee While it may have made sense for the terms of the citizen appointees to the Finance Committee to have been changed by Resolution No. 2017-58 coincide with fiscal years, they continue to serve as substitutes for the Council members not on the Committee. As such, the current appointees will actually serve a full fiscal year only if there is no change in the composition of the Council appointees when the Mayor makes those appointments in January, and if none of the appointees is themselves elected to the Council. Even so, it looks like some of new Council members taking office in December, and not on the Committee, will be saddled for six months with a representative not of their choosing. It seems a rather imperfect system. That said, I notice the four proposed appointees are simply the current incumbents. While they have all served with competence, the City Clerk has seven additional applications on file from June 28, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 individuals hoping to serve on the Finance Committee. One has to wonder if they were considered? Item 17. Confirmation of Appointments to the Aviation Committee It has never been entirely clear to me why Resolution No. 2019-26 set the term for citizen appointees to the Aviation Committee at 6 years (longer than any board, commission or committee appointments), with the District 2, 4 and 6 representatives (originally appointed for 3- year terms) being potentially able to serve a total of 15 years. That seems a very long time to me. It might also be noted that Objective 2 of the City's still active Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Costa Mesa regarding John Wayne Airport (C-4119) requires a Costa Mesa representative to have a seat as a full voting member on the Newport Beach Aviation Committee. The omission of that seems to be another anomaly in the drafting of Resolution No. 2019-26. Item 20. Tustin Avenue Trial Street Closure Staff's recommendation to remove the closure seems well reasoned to me. Item 21. Balboa Island Teak Wood Bench Replacement Recommendation A question was raised at the PB&R meeting of whether the City had evidence of unfinished jatoba benches outlasting unfinished teak in the marine environment of Balboa Island, or how their longevity would compare to the other bench options available, with no clear answer being provided. The staff report does not explain how old the existing 53 or 54 jatoba benches on Balboa Island are, or how long they are expected to last without themselves needing replacement. My only personal experience of this is that the homeowners on my cul-de-sac maintain a maintain a small park that for many years had concrete benches. At some point, it was thought it would be more aesthetically pleasing to replace them with Victorian style wooden park benches, being promoted at the time by home improvement stores. The concrete benches were duly demolished and replaced with wood. But the wood did not last, so after a few years we had to buy new concrete benches, which by all appearances will, unlike the wood, outlast us all. That experience makes we skeptical that wood benches are a wise investment, even if teak or jatoba. Item 22. Annual Appointments to Boards and Commissions In the written comments I submitted to the Council with regard to the nomination item on the June 14 agenda, I mistyped the item number (labeling it "18" when it should have been "21") As a result, my previous comment regarding my nomination to serve on the Board of Library Trustees may have been overlooked, but it remains the same: my wish to serve on that body, as June 28, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 described in my application, is both sincere and long lasting. And I regret the City's recent scheduling of BLT and Newport Beach Aviation Committee meetings on the same day and at the same hour, making it impossible to attend both. Item 23. Resolution No. 2022-46: Declaring No Surplus Water and a Level Two Water Supply Shortage The staff report refers to several external documents, including State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2022-0018 enacting 23 CCR � 996 (which appears to be current state law as of June 10), the City's 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan approved as Item 18 on June 8, 2021, and the Water Conservation and Water Supply Shortage Program of Municipal Code Section 14.16, as recently updated and approved by City Council as Item 4 (Ordinance No. 2022-13) on the June 14, 2022, consent calendar. The latter technically doesn't become effective until 30 days after its enactment, or July 14, 2022, so the NBMC Chapter 14.16 posted online remains, for another two weeks, that adopted by Ordinance No. 2015-14 in 2015. Although the recommendations in the proposed resolution seem reasonable ones, there do seem to be some discrepancies between them and the Level Two plans of both Ordinance No. 2015-14 and the soon -to -be -effective Ordinance No. 2022-13. In particular, not only do both state specific irrigation days would be specified, but both suggest the 3 days per week limit would be reduced to 1 day per week from November through March. It is not obvious to me why that nicety has been omitted from the resolution. It is also not obvious to me that the State Water Board's reduction goal is (although it seems reasonable to assume a 10 to 20% use reduction would be necessary to deal with a 10 to 20% supply shortage), or, more importantly, what keeping usage at or below 2020 levels would represent a 10 to 20% reduction from.