HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/2011 - Study SessionREGULAR ADJOURNED/STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF COSTA MESA
March 8, 2011
The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California met in a Regular
Adjourned/Study Session on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 77, Fair Drive, Costa Mesa.
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present: Mayor Gary Monahan
Mayor Pro Tem James Righeimer (arrived at
4:55 p.m.)
Council Member Eric Bever
Council Member Wendy Leece
Council Member Stephen Mensinger
Council Members Absent: None
Officials Present: City Chief Executive Officer Thomas R. Hatch
Interim Assistant City Manager Terry Matz
Interim Fire Chief Kirk Dominic
Public Services Director Peter Naghavi
Development Services Director Kim Brandt
City Engineer Ernesto Munoz
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Brian Tyce, Fountain Valley, complimented the Costa Mesa Fire Department
and expressed concerns regarding the possible shut down of Fire Stations in
Costa Mesa. (00:00:37)
2. Mrs. Drain, Costa Mesa, expressed concerns regarding the possible closing of
Fire Stations in Costa Mesa. (00:01:55)
3. Perry Valentine, Costa Mesa, felt it important for the City Council to understand
all sides of an issue before taking action regarding possible closing of Fire
Stations in Costa Mesa. He stressed the importance of understanding
financial impacts as well as impacts to service levels. (00:03:27)
4. Sue Lester, Costa Mesa, reported speaking with many in the community who
have expressed concerns regarding the proposal from the Orange County Fire
Study Session — March 8, 2011 — Page 1
Authority. She stated the desire to see the Costa Mesa Fire Department stay
intact and urged the City Council to let the community know what the financial
impacts will be. Ms. Lester spoke in opposition to the privatization of
ambulance services and suggested some property tax and drug enforcement
dollars be used to fund emergency services. (00:05:56)
5. Beth Refakes, Costa Mesa, noted that currently, eastside residents receive
most of their fire related services from the City of Newport Beach. She asked
whether that would continue and expressed concerns regarding costs to
residents and lower quality of service. (00:08:12)
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (00:09:32)
1. Orange County Fire Authority Fire Service Proposal (00:09:32)
Mayor Monahan reported this item will be presented for information only and that
Council will not take action at this time.
CEO Hatch introduced this item and reported staff has begun reviewing the proposal
proposal for Fire Services from the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Interim
Assistant City Manager Matz presented an overview of the services currently provided
by the Costa Mesa Fire Department (CMFD). He noted that the proposal was
requested by the CMFD to the OCFA. Mr. Matz listed parameters of the study including
specific services being considered, all related costs, governance and impacts to CMFD
staff.
OCFA Chief Bryan Brice presented details of the proposal including OCFA's operating
budget, service area, number of fire stations and units, active and reserve personnel,
management and staff, range of services and programs, apparatus transfer and
facilities lease, the proposal process, OCFA's role and fire protection options. He
presented details of three different options developed for the City including costs and
staffing for each station. Options two and three involve one station closing under each.
He presented a summary of the options in addition to the current model using the Costa
Mesa Fire Department. All of the options keep the same units or increase them by one.
Assistant Chief Brice presented a summary of costs and savings prior and after the
fiscal year as well as a five-year projection of savings for the City using different
assumptions.
Assistant Chief Brice explained details of the 4.5% CAP for partner cities and addressed
additional savings and benefits of partnering with OCFA.
Mayor Monahan indicated that questions from Council will be noted and that staff will
return to Council with a report including responses to questions.
Mayor Monahan and Members of Council inquired regarding fire insurance, manning
standard differences between CMFD and OCFA for fire calls, response standards and
Study Session — March 8, 2011 — Page 2
mutual aid agreements with neighboring cities, paramedic transport services and fees,
plan checks, length of typical contracts, types of equipment by the CMFD, personnel
and PERS costs, breakdown on facilities issues, responsibility for scheduling and
paying work, breakdown of costs and benefits for services by City staff, "like -for -like"
quote, actual response times and tracking and maintaining assets.
Discussion ensued regarding pension impacts to CMFD personnel, continuance of the
CERT program, turn around and costs for plan checks, consideration that Costa Mesa
is not bordered by wild lands, paramedic assessments, inclusion of comparable
mapping data, personnel compensation impacts, breakdown of other costs and other
identified savings, fire prevention service offsets, contract terms, segregation of pension
shortage settlement and plans for reconstruction of fire stations.
Additional inquiries were made regarding inspections of apartments, timing of
communications, benefits of a front-end paramedic system, placement of existing
CMFD personnel, Fourth of July events management, impacts of closing stations,
management of fairgrounds and South Coast Plaza, flexibility of options presented,
helicopter unit response timing, the reserve firefighter program, historical data regarding
the CMFD and OCFA for the last ten years and average costs per firefighter.
Discussion followed regarding different types of contract cities, comparable cities,
service impacts related to the USAR unit and pension issues.
CEO Hatch encouraged Council and the public to forward related questions to Mr. Matz
in the CEO's office at City Hall. He added that a report should be available within four to
six weeks.
2. Pavement Management Overview (01:17:55)
Deputy CEO/Economic Development Director Peter Naghavi introduced the item
regarding evaluation of street pavement conditions (PCI). City Engineer Ernesto Munoz
provided a PowerPoint presentation including background, types of pavements and
conditions, factors that affect pavement life, pavement managing tool, details of the
pavement management program (PMP), update of Costa Mesa PMP, completion of a
pavement condition survey, Measure M funding eligibility, MicroPAVER software,
determination of a pavement condition index (PCI) and actions to take depending on the
index number. Mr. Munoz addressed the Costa Mesa street network and presented a
current street network pavement condition summary, current street condition
percentages, current alley network pavement condition summary, current alley
conditions and comparisons to surrounding cities.
Mr. Munoz addressed asphalt pavement life cycle, the advantages and importance of
regular maintenance, common pavement rehabilitation strategies and costs, next steps,
available revenue to fund street improvements, the proposed 2011-2012 FY street
improvement program and projected PCIs for the entire network based on current
funding. In addition he presented details of a projected seven-year program based on a
Study Session — March 8, 2011 — Page 3
1
1
1
pre -determined desired PCI and the related necessary funding. He presented findings
and recommendations and offered to respond to questions.
Discussion followed regarding mapping alleys, sections of the network to be worked on
during the upcoming years, programming use of gas tax fund balance, alley project
projections, funding needed per year to maintain an 85 PCI score, capturing historical
PCI data, limitations of grant money, the ability to use revenues for enhancement of
residential programs, use of slurry seal and specific areas needing reconstruction and
maintenance.
Ensuing discussion pertained to projects that are already funded and those that are
shelf -ready and will be competing for funding, funding for alleys and projection of funds
needed to upgrade alleys. It was noted that parkways and medians are not included in
the aforementioned programs.
Discussion continued regarding capital improvements necessary to upgrade and
beautify parkways and medians and the possibility of establishing an "adopt -an -alley"
program.
Mr. Munoz reported asphalt alleys are very labor intensive and although they are less
expensive, the department chose to go with concrete alleys because competitive bids
were received and because of the longer life cycle.
3. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
The City Council reviewed applications submitted for Employee of the Month; a
preference was indicated, absent any objection. Announcement of the Employee of the
Month would be made at a subsequent City Council meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS
None
ADJOUR T:
The o ed the
Stephen M. M
ATTEST:
erwe�c_
nsinger, Mayor
Brenda Green, Clay Clerk
ial meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Study Session — March 8, 2011 — Page 4