CITY OF COSTA MESA
Finance & Pension Advisory Committee
TO: COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COPY TO: LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON - CITY MANAGER,
CAROL MOLINA - FINANCE DIRECTOR
RAJA SETHURAMAN - PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BRENDA GREEN - CITY CLERK
DATE: APRIL 17, 2025
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 401
REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.Support Staff’s proposal to waive the City’s CAN ordinance for the 2024/25 fiscal year due to an economic downturn.
2.Support Staff’s proposal for FY 24/25 Ongoing Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Cancellation or Funding Reductions with the following exceptions:
Project #200077 City Hall Cast Iron Drain Repipe $254,019 Project #210019 City Hall 5th Floor Air Handler Replacement $140,000 Project #210021 City Hall Heater(s) Replacement $350,000
3.Consider Staff’s recommendations to Council for $744,019 in alternative reductions to meet the proposed budget savings.
BACKGROUND:
On the evening of April 8th, FiPAC members received information stating the need to reduce the current fiscal year budget by $3.6 million to address a potential revenue shortfall. Included in that information was a series of spreadsheets listing capital improvement projects with reduction proposals for the current FY 24/25 budget and FY 25/26.
1 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Finance & Pension Advisory Committee
At the FiPAC meeting scheduled for the next day, April 9th, Sta ff provided a presentation on the proposed CIP reductions and relayed a request from Council for FiPAC to make recommendations.
Concerns were expressed that FiPAC was not given the opportunity to consider alternative reductions other than CIP’s to meet the proposed budget savings.
With limited information and insufficient time to consider Staff’s proposal, FiPAC members conducted a good faith discussion and came to a unanimous decision to make the above recommendations.
ANALYSIS:
FiPAC reviewed the proposed project cancellations or funding reductions from a financial perspective and there was general consensus that if deferred maintenance results in additional deterioration or emergency repairs, delaying certain projects could lead to higher future costs.
With this in mind, the committee reflected on some of the following project descriptions provided in budget documents to guide these recommendations:
City Hall Cast Iron Drain Repipe “The cast iron sewer drain pipes at City Hall are in need of significant repair. The cast iron pipes have deteriorated and are failing in some areas leading to sewage spills. Initial repairs have been completed but additional funds are needed to address additional deteriorating pipes at City Hall.” (Funds adopted in FY 22/23 budget) City Hall 5th Floor Air Handler Replacement “The existing air handler is failing and is approaching life expectancy. Replacement is necessary for the heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system to function properly. (Funds adopted in FY 24/25 budget) City Hall Heater(s) Replacement “The current HVAC equipment is approaching life expectancy. It is imperative that the equipment is replaced as soon as possible to avoid major breakdown.” (Funds adopted in FY 24/25 budget)
2 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Finance & Pension Advisory Committee
FiPAC did not have the information or time necessary to consider alternative CIP reductions for Council to consider. Therefore, it was agreed that Staff is in the best position to provide those recommendations.
CONCLUSION:
While these recommendations address urgent FY 24/25 budgetary needs, FiPAC intends to fulfill Council’s expectation to take a more comprehensive look at capital projects in the context of the entire proposed budget for the 2025/26 fiscal year.
This future review may provide an opportunity to better align long-term capital investment strategies with fiscal realities.
With complete proposed budget information and sufficient time FiPAC will be able to provide Council with well considered recommendations.
3 From: Ralph Taboada
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Letter to Council
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 12:07:13 PM
City Clerk...Please forward the enclosed letter to City Council members. Thank you.
Date: April 21, 2025
To: Costa Mesa City Council
From: Ralph Taboada
Subject: Comments for the April 22
nd Study Session on fiscal 24-25 and
25-26 Capital
I am writing for myself and not FiPAC of which I am a committee member.
1. Draft Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->A. <!--[endif]-->Energy & Sustainability (E&S) One of the major Council goals listed in the agenda report is “Advance Environmental Sustainability and Climate Resiliency”. The draft 5-Year CIP report does not forecast any Energy and Sustainability (E&S) projects until FY 28-29 (4 yrs). In addition, no E&S projects have been approved in the last two years. This means a gap of at least six years between E&S projects being approved. One previously approved project “Community Choice Energy Study”, was never started and is on the list of projects to be deferred.
In addition to the benefit of sustainability, this category of projects can generate cost savings. For example, the projects “Energy Efficiency Projects” and “HVAC Retrofit” could very well reduce operating costs.
The city is more than likely foregoing cost savings by pushing E&S many years to the future.
The forecasted six-year gap in approving E&S projects does not appear to be aligned with Council goals. In addition, City could be foregoing cost savings by deferring implementation of E&S projects.
Recommendation
– Council review the E&S group of projects and
move the most cost-effective projects to no later than FY 26-27.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->B. <!--[endif]-->Bike Trail Lighting Cornerstone/Joann (line item #76)
It has been at least 1½ years since lights on the Cornerstone and Joann pedestrian/bike trails were vandalized. The draft CIP forecasts repair of the lights to more than five years in a “future” year.
I believe the city has installed cameras on sections of the Joann trail as an interim action.
Vandalization of lighting fixtures has become a national issue. I am not discounting the problem or the challenge of repair but I think residents having to wait six or more years for the lighting to be repaired is unacceptable.
Recommendation – Council place a higher priority on the Cornerstone/Joann trail repair project and move the forecast to no later than FY 26-27.
2. Westside Park Development
The PACS Commission recommended $250K be allocated annually for Westside Park Development. Park development is an objective in the Open Space Element of the General Plan. Also, funding for this purpose has been forecasted in the CIP for the past several years but never materialized.
No mention was made of the funding source however, the Park Development Fund seems a logical choice and it had a balance of $2.3M as of last fiscal year end June 2024.
Recommendation – Council approve allocating a minimum of $250K annually for Westside Park Development.
3. Capital Asset Needs (CAN)
Staff is requesting a waiver of the CAN ordinance. However, staff is also proposing using $4,950K of General Fund money for capital purposes, $2,150k for projects and about $2,800K for payment of the Lion’s Park bond.
It is difficult to make a decision on a CAN waiver until Council is presented with the proposed revenue for FY 25-26, to determine the amount CAN would be. Also, Council has not seen the proposed operating expenses. Potentially there could be capital projects that Council believes have a higher priority than some initiatives within the operating budget.
By requesting a waiver, all that is known is the $4,950K is less than what CAN will calculate out to be, once the proposed revenue amount is known.
Thank you
Ralph Taboada
From: Roberto Herrera
To: CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; CHAVEZ, MANUEL
Cc: Christian Lopez
Subject: Petition Signatures for Crosswalk on Center & Placentia Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:30:17 PM
Attachments: Crosswalk Petition 2025.pdf
Hello City Clerk,
Resilience OC and Costa Mesa Unidos are submitting this petition with 125 signatures from Costa Mesa residents, a majority who live within a 10 min walk from Placentia & Center St.
The petition calls for the Costa Mesa City Council to install a crosswalk on Center St & Placentia so community members are able to safely cross the street.
Thank you for your time and consideration as you prepare to discuss capital improvement projects for the City.
Best,
Roberto Carlos Herrera
Pronouns (They/Them/Theirs)
Leadership Development Director
Resilience Orange County
2790 Harbor Blvd Suite 208, Costa Mesa 92626
Email: [email protected]
www.resilienceoc.org
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.
IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
From: Amy M
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: TERAN, STACY
Subject: Public Comment: Tonight’s Special Study Session (4/22 at 5pm) Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:10:40 AM
Attachments: List Ongoing CIP Projects_Attachment 1_ Pg 3.pdf City CIP Schedule_July 14 2023 .pdf
RE: City of Costa Mesa Regular City Council and Housing Authority Agenda Special Study Session: CIP Projects
Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 5:00pm, City Council Chambers (77 Fair Drive) Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Council,
In 2020, a petition was signed by 350 Costa Mesa residents to update the 25 year-old playground structure at Brentwood Park – making it safer and more usable for all. Forty Costa Mesa residents also completed a survey sharing input on what playground features are most important to the community.
In 2022, CIP budget of $250,000 was approved by the council and allocated to the 2022/2023 fiscal year. During the 2023/2024 fiscal year an additional $400,000 was allocated for Brentwood Park and Brentwood Park was voted to be included in the “Phase 1” priority park projects.
On the city’s July 14, 2023 “Capital Improvement Program Schedule” Brentwood Park was scheduled for design in summer of 2024 and construction in summer of 2025. (please see attachment, City CIP Schedule_July 14 2023)
The timeline for Brentwood Park is continually changing. As of tonight's agenda for this special study session of CIP Projects, Brentwood Park’s Phase/Status is listed as “Project to be initiated soon.” (please see Attachment 1, titled “List of Ongoing CIP Projects”, Page 3) With the current fiscal year ending in just over 2 months (June 30, 2025), the community is asking for an update on how the city can prioritize and make a commitment to the community to ensure that the Brentwood Park playground update will be completed.
With the nature of the economy and recent inflation the longer we wait the more expensive we can expect the playground equipment to be.
The residents of Costa Mesa are eager, excited, and hopeful to see the past five years of dedication and hard work be awarded at an official ribbon cutting ceremony unveiling a beautiful new playground at Brentwood Park for the benefit of the community it serves.
We kindly request your support in these final stages of the project and greatly appreciate all of the support given thus far by the City Council, Public Works and the Parks and Community Services Commission.
Sincerely,
Advocates to Re-imagine Brentwood Park Playground
From: Jim Fitzpatrick
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Comments - City Council Study Session 4.22.2025 Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:00:09 PM
Attachments: GOAT Newsletter - Fiscal Emergency & Structural Budget Deficit - City Council Public Comments 4.22.2025.pdf City clerk, please confirm receipt of this email ...
In this GOAT Newsletter Issue ...
Will City Council declare a Fiscal Emergency facing a
Structural Budget Deficit?
###
GOAT Newsletter is Draft, please advise if you have thoughts, comments or want to help with Final Draft:
Budget Review & Comments
CPA & Bankruptcy Experts weigh in
Mattie’s Patties Building Permit took 18 months
Review of the time and money business must endure in Costa Mesa Pavement Condition Index
A look at Costa Mesa deferred Maintenance and what to do about it Auto and Tax Sales comps
Key driver of Structural Budget Deficit
Review of last 4 quarters
Issues observations and recommended solutions
HdL Tax study- structural budget deficit ..: how bad is it and what to do about it
Tessa
Issues observations and recommended solutions
Encourage City Council to request measurements
Laguna Beach set goal of 100% response to plans in 30 days How did they do it?
How can Costa Mesa follow with a similar goal and corresponding policies?
Arts Commission. -Staff still trying to usurp the role of City Council and shield Council from Commission and Committee feedback at the time council seeks such input during believer deliberations
Costa Mesa 311 APP
What is it
How to use it
Community walk days to improve out community
Cheers,
Jim Fitzpatrick
Solutioneer
G.O.A.T Government Openness and Transparency-
Will Costa Mesa City Council declare a FISCAL EMERGENCY?
GOAT is a group of Residents and Business people coming together to discuss issues, propose solutions and encourage City Council and other Community Leaders and Groups to make necessary change.
Will Costa Mesa City Council declare a Fiscal Emergency in response to a Structural Budget deficit, where the only solution considered is the Capital Improvement Projects? April 22, 2025
G.O.A.T Government Openness and Transparency-
Will Costa Mesa City Council declare a FISCAL EMERGENCY?
Facing a Structural Budget Deficit, is the City prepared to declare a Fiscal Emergency necessary to satisfy section 2-209.2 of the Municipal Code?
The Council adopted Policy, CAN , defined as CAPITAL ASSET NEEDS… codified in the Municipal Code (2-209) as adopted in 2015, requires the City to allocate a minimum of five percent (5%) of the annual general fund revenue to the Capital Expenditures Account. The Aim is to ensure adequate funding and maintenance. THE BASIC ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.
The deferred maintenance, THE BASIC ROLE OF GOVERNMENT is further exacerbated by this considered City Council action by shifting $700,000 from the General Fund to the Gas Tax Funds, by simple math, means there is less funding available for things like potholes. Not deferring … Stealing from Peter to pay Paul
Questions / Observations:
• Why only these CIP Projects and not any of the Active Transportation projects?
• City Council has confirmed all the many Consultant Contracts, like the Climate Action Plan, all have Termination Clauses? Why are non of these options in front of City Council to be considered?
• Does this mean Staff is now available to accelerate the significant backlog of other projects?
• Does this further delay others projects in future years? What’s the plan to catch up?
• The City added 100 FTE Employees in the last year? Isn’t anyone concerned that failing to look at other options will necessitate a reduction in Staffing?
• Auto Sales and Auto Tax revenue is down significantly, much more so than in Orange County and more than the State.
• We don’t have visibility the next quarter so we don’t know if this decline has plateaued? Or the trend will continue to grow
• And the Category of Department Stores is also down. More than County & more than state. What if that continues to get worse?
• So, what is the structural budget deficit we are actually trying to solve for?
• Why haven’t we formed a task force with the Chamber, Harbor Blvd of Cars, Orange County Auto Association and others to discuss and figure this out ?
• It is concerning only CIP is on the table while Staff is shielding Commissions from presenting budget recommendations
Requested City Council Action:
1. V ote NO, and direct Staff to seek input from all Commissions & Committees, to bring back all options to include Vendor Contracts for consideration and further study and present tax and budget facts.
G.O.A.T Government Openness and Transparency-
Will Costa Mesa City Council declare a FISCAL EMERGENCY?
2. Form an Emergency Task Force on the declining Auto Tax issue
ARTICLE 8 : Capital Asset Needs
§ 2-208Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the following term shall have the following meaning unless it is clear from the context that a different meaning is intended:
Capital assets are defined as fixed assets that are stationary in nature, including, but not limited to: city owned or operated buildings including, but not limited to: City Hall, civic center, police department, old corporation yard, new corporation yard, fire stations, libraries, and community centers, publicly owned or operated streets, highways, bridges, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, alleys, storm drains, trees and landscaping, medians, parks, playgrounds, traffic signals, streetlights, fences, facilities and walls. (Ord. No. 15-07, § 1, 9-15-15; Ord. No. 20-06, § 1, 3-17-20) § 2-209Reserve requirement. The city shall allocate a minimum of 5% of the annual general fund revenue to the capital assets account.
(Ord. No. 15-07, § 1, 9-15-15; Ord. No. 20-06, § 1, 3-17-20) § 2-209.1Limited use.
(a) Capital asset funds shall only be used for the construction, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or modification of city owned or operated capital assets as defined in section 2-208, including construction, design, engineering, project management, inspection, and contract administration. Capital asset funds may be applied toward debt obligations created to fund capital assets where the indebtedness originated after October 15, 2015. (b) The use or loan of capital asset funds for a purpose other than those referenced in this section shall require approval of a supermajority vote of the entire city council. (Ord. No. 15-07, § 1, 9-15-15; Ord. No. 20-06, § 1, 3-17-20) § 2-209.2 Emergency exception.
(a) In the following circumstances, the city need not comply with the requirements set forth in section 2-209, subject to supermajority approval of the entire city council:
(1) General fund operating reserve falls below the general fund operating reserve as set forth in section 2-205; or
(2) An economic downturn, natural disaster, emergency or other unforeseen circumstances. (b) The exception set forth herein shall require annual supermajority approval of the entire city council. (c) In the event this provision is applied, the city shall develop a plan to replenish the capital asset funds for the amount exempted.
(Ord. No. 15-07, § 1, 9-15-15; Ord. No. 20-06, § 1, 3-17-20) G.O.A.T Government Openness and Transparency-
Will Costa Mesa City Council declare a FISCAL EMERGENCY?
April 22, 2025 Via Email Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 [email protected] Dear Members of the City Council: The lean list of proposed capital improvement projects reflects staff's expectation of disappointing
revenue
projections
for
the
upcoming
fiscal
year.
This
is
unsurprising.
Sales
tax
receipts—our
largest
revenue
source—are
vulnerable
to
macroeconomic
trends
and
consumer
sentiment,
both
likely
to
suffer
this
year.
Staff's
caution
is
warranted.
I'll admit the tight budget is disheartening. For my part I've championed improvements at Harper Park
for
years,
with
its
first
victory
being
inclusion
on
the
five-year
capital
improvement
plan
beginning
in
2022-2023.
Since
then
Harper
Park
has
been
slated
for
playground
replacement
in
2025-2026.
That
year
has
now
arrived,
but
there
are
no
funds
for
its
planned
improvements.
Instead,
this
project
has
been
pushed
back
–
again
–
to
2028-2029.
And I understand why. The Council is being asked to waive the CAN ordinance for two consecutive
years.
Neighborhood
parks
always
draw
a
short
straw
when
budgets
get
tight.
So
I
am
seeking
a
silver
lining.
The Dalai Lama once quipped, "sometimes not getting what you want is a wonderful stroke of luck."
Perhaps this pause in capital spending is an opportunity. For years, the selection and prioritization
of
capital
improvement
projects
has
needed
serious
reform.
With
fewer
projects
to
review,
this
may
be
the
year
to
address
those
reforms.
I
offer
these
suggestions:
Reform 1: City Council should give specific instruction to its commissions and committees
to
produce
recommendations
during
the
budget
season.
I applaud Council Member Arlis Reynolds's comment at the March study session that she wanted
"recommendations"
from
the
city's
commissions
and
committees
regarding
deferred
CIP
projects.
However,
based
on
observing
the
subsequent
conversations
at
the
FiPAC
and
the
PACS
Commission,
simply
requesting
"recommendations"
isn't
sufficient
to
facilitate
meaningful
advice.
The FiPAC letter in today's public comments illustrates this confusion: Did Council want opinions on
staff's
recommended
deferrals,
on
addressing
the
budget
shortfall
with
deferrals,
or
on
using
gas tax funds for routine maintenance? Was Council seeking guidance on waiving the CAN ordinance?
Without specific direction from the City Council, both City staff and the Council’s commissions and
committees
are
left
guessing
at
the
kind
of
information
they
should
produce/review
as
well
as
the
ultimate
work
product
the
City
Council
wants
to
see.
To
fix
this
problem,
I
would
encourage
the
City
Council
to
not
only
request
“recommendations”
from
its
commissions
and
committees,
but
to
also
task
them
with
answering
specific,
relevant
questions
and
producing
reports.
For example, a member of the City Council might request: “I would like the FiPAC to review and discuss
the
long-term
financial
implications
of
deferring
the
projects
recommended
by
staff.
I
would
also
like
it
to
review
and
discuss
alternatives
to
deferring
such
projects,
including
the
deferral
of
other
projects
or
utilizing
other
means
to
address
the
budget
shortfall.
It
should
also
review
the
requirements
of
setting
aside
the
CAN
ordinance.
Once
complete,
these
thoughts
should
be
sent
to
the
City
Council,
either
in
the
form
of
a
letter
or
via
presentation
in
chambers,
no
later
than
May
15.”
Similar,
tailored
directives
could
be
given
to
the
other
in-scope
commissions
and
committees
as
well.
Such clear instructions would accomplish two things. First, it would give staff clearer direction regarding
the
type
of
information
to
be
presented
to
the
FiPAC.
And
second,
it
would
set
the
agenda
for
the
instructed
committee
to
work
towards
a
specific
goal:
the
production
of
either
a
letter
or
a
presentation
summarizing
its
discussion
and
recommendations.
Reform 2: Commissions and committees should review grant applications under consideration
by
City
staff,
not
just
review
grant
awards
after-the-fact.
Almost a quarter of funding for the proposed 2025-2026 CIP projects will come from either federal,
state
or
county
grants:
$6.9
million
of
anticipated
grant
funding
compared
to
the
$28.7
million
in
capital
improvements
across
all
funding
sources,
each
as
disclosed
in
the
Agenda
Report.
Nearly a quarter of funding for proposed 2025-2026 CIP projects will come from grants: $6.9 million
compared
to
$28.7
million
in
total
capital
improvements.
And
now
with
the
city
struggling
to apply even 5% of general fund revenue to capital projects 1 , grant funding will continue to be
crucial
to
achieving
stated
city
goals.
However, grants aren't "free money." Many require matching funds or maintenance of programs for
years.
Grant-funded
projects
consume
staff
resources,
potentially
crowding
out
other
priorities,
as
illustrated
in
the
current
proposal.
Reviewing projects after grants are awarded is often too late. Rejecting "free money" after expending
staff
time
damages
the
city's
reputation
for
future
applications.
This
leaves
Council
and
committees
obligated
to
support
projects
that
may
not
align
with
priorities.
A better approach: have staff disclose intended grant applications to Council or relevant committees
during
the
application
process,
perhaps
in
quarterly
or
semiannual
"grant
application
update"
presentations.
The
Arts
Commission
could
review
art-related
grants,
PACS
Commission
park-related
grants,
and
so
on.This
involvement
would
foster
collaboration
between
staff,
commissions/committees,
and
the
public.
Residents
may
even
identify
new
funding
opportunities,
as
the
Brentwood
Park
Alliance
has
done
for
their
upcoming
renovation.
Reform 3: The five-year CIP methodology should be disclosed and, if necessary, rationalized
to
promote
clarity
and
public
trust.
The typical presentation of CIP projects in “one year” and “five year” lists has long been criticized
by
the
public,
most
recently
(and
most
cogently)
by
long-time
commenter
Ralph
Taboata.
Speaking
for
myself,
I
have
found
the
five-year
CIP
list
to
be
mystifying,
as
the
budget
and
even
the
study
sessions
lack
detail
as
to
how
projects
end
up
on
the
five-year
CIP
list
and
how
they
are
slotted
into
various
future
years.
What,
then,
is
the
five-year
CIP’s
purpose?
I have already mentioned how Harper Park’s planned improvements have been moved from the 2025-2026
budget
cycle,
where
it
was
projected
to
land
for
several
years,
to
the
2028-2029
budget
cycle
in
the
staff’s
latest
update.
Why
2028-2029,
and
not
2026-2027,
or
2029-2030?
As
usual,
the
agenda
report
provides
no
justification
for
the
delay
of
projects
that
were
projected
to
fall
into
the
upcoming
year’s
CIP
in
prior
budgets.
So
it
is
clear
the
five-year
CIP
doesn’t
serve
to
commit
the
city
to
projected
future
expenditures,
because
City
Staff
clearly
feels
no
obligation
to
explain
changes
to
such
projections.
1 As an aside, the mechanics for the waiver of the capital asset needs (CAN) ordinance, codified in Article 8 of
the
Costa
Mesa
Municipal
Code, is woefully underdeveloped in the Agenda Report. Not only does such
waiver
require
a
supermajority
vote
of
the
entire
City
Council
(presumably
meaning
it
must
receive
at
least
five
votes
regardless
of
attendance,
though
the
City
Attorney
should
clarify
as
I
do
not
believe
“supermajority”
is
defined
in
the
CMMC),
it
also
requires
a
specific
finding
that
the
city
is
experiencing
an
“unforeseen”
economic
downturn.
Waiving
the
CAN
ordinance
in
advance
for
the
2025-2026
budget
cycle
means,
by
definition,
that
such
economic
downturn
is
foreseen.
The
Staff
should
explain
how
the
City
Council
can
comply
with
the
CMMC
in
this
circumstance.
Furthermore,
the
CAN
ordinance
also
requires
that,
in
the
event
the
requirements
of
Article
8 are
waived,
“the
city
shall
develop
a
plan
to
replenish
the
capital
asset
funds
for
the
amount
exempted”
(emphasis
mine).
The
Agenda
Report
contains
no
reference
to
such
requirement
and,
accordingly,
it
does
not
provide
a
roadmap
to
replenishing
the
missing
CAN
funds
in
future
years.
It
should
have
done
both.
Additionally, the five-year CIP doesn’t seem to be sorted according to need, either. For example, the
FiPAC
letter
points
out
that
the
description
of
the
City
Hall
drain
pipe
project
described
the
need
in
dire
terms,
as
the
existing
pipes
were
“failing”
and,
in
some
areas,
leading
to
“sewage
spills”.
Raw
sewage
leaking
in
City
Hall
sounds
like
a
“right
now”
priority!
Yet
in
today’s
agenda
report,
the
staff
maintains
that
this
project
can
be
deferred.
In
fact,
they
are
recommending
it
not
only
be
deferred,
but
that
it
be
categorized
as
a
mere
“future”
project
on
the
five-year
CIP.
How
can
pipes
go
from
needing
immediate
replacement
to
now
indefinite
deferral,
not
even
meriting
a
slot
on
the
projected
CIP
lists
for
the
next
five
years?
And finally, the five-year CIP also seems completely disconnected to expected future revenue sources.
For
example,
anticipated
parks
spending
in
the
adopted
2024-2025
five-year
CIP
plan
was
projected
to
be
$8.2
million
in
2026-2027,
just
two
years
out.
Now,
fast
forward
to
today:
parks
spending
is
now
projected
to
be
a
mere
$1.265
million
in
2026-2027,
with
only
one
additional
year
of
data.
Are
we
now
projecting
park
impact
fees
to
(further)
collapse?
Did
general
fund
expenses
explode
in
one
year
and
crowd
out
park
spending?
The
agenda
report
doesn’t
say,
and
frankly,
the
city’s
budget
discussions
rarely
discuss
the
wild
swings
in
projected
spending
in
any
given
area
from
year-to-year.
If we are asking ourselves these kinds of questions, then it is clear that the current approach to the
five-year
CIP
list
obfuscates
more
than
it
clarifies
.
The
purpose
of
the
five-year
CIP
is
to
aid
in
rational
long-term
planning
by
city
decisionmakers
and
to
maximize
public
transparency.
At
the
moment
it
does
neither.
I would request that the City Council undertake reform here first by instructing the Public Works department
to
disclose
its
current
methodology
for
constructing
the
five-year
CIP
list.
A
formal
methodology
may
not
exist.
If
it
does
not,
the
City
Council
–
or
a
delegated
body
like
the
FiPAC
–
may
want
to
consider
whether
adopting
a
formal
methodology
is
in
the
public
interest.
I
would
expect
it
would
be.
Thank you for your time and attention. Fewer CIP projects may be a blessing in disguise. It may be
just
the
opportunity
the
city
needs
to
take
stock
of
its
process
and
implement
long-needed
reforms.
Best, Jenn Tanaka 321 Broadway Costa Mesa, CA 92627 From: Cynthia McDonald
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Comments at tonight"s City Council Study Session Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 1:38:12 PM
Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I ask that you allow the public to comment after the Staff presentation at this evening’s meeting. At a regular City Council meeting, the comments would be taken after the presentation and after the Council has had an opportunity to ask questions of Staff.
However, the order of the Study Session agenda puts the public is at a disadvantage if we have to comment before important information has been imparted. It would be more transparent if the public comments could be taken after the presentation.
In addition, I read Mr. Taboada’s email to you and took note of his comment about the Joann and Cornerstone trail lighting problem. When I reported the lights being out on the 311-app last week, I thought the lights had been repaired, and then vandalized again. I didn’t realize that the City had not repaired them since they went out about 18 months ago. That is a liability for the City should anyone be injured on the trail as a result of the lack of lighting. It is also a “broken windows” issue. I support his effort to move the repair (or replacement with lighting that is more vandal proof) to a higher priority.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cynthia McDonald
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.