May 27, 2025, City Council - Finance Committee Joint
Meeting Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council and FInance Committee joint meeting agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2025-26 Operating Budget As one of the many whose eyes glaze over when talk turns to budgets, I appreciate the advance posting of the staff presentation.
With written comments due at the end of a holiday weekend, I do not claim to have studied all the slides in detail, but I found Slide 13 “Primary Reasons for General Fund Budget Growth of
3.3%” to be particularly confusing. After adoption, it will likely replace the table on page 34 of the adopted FY2024-2025 Budget Detail book (page 42 of the 417-page PDF for FY25), which purported to explain a 5.9% growth in general fund expenditures in that budget.
Both seem to advance the mathematically improbable idea that overall expenses can grow by a larger percentage than any individual expense category contributing to the overall (in the present case, a 3.3% overall growth when no contributing part grew by more than 1.8% and many went down).
That paradox seems to arise from a mislabeling of the column on the right as “% Change from Adopted FY25’ when that column, in fact, appears to be reporting what percentage of the total FY26 budget the stated change will represent, not how much that category changed.
For example, the reported $5,538,755 “Increase in base Transfers (FFP, HBMP)” adds 1.8% to the overall budget, but that is quite different from how the proposed transfers compare to the numbers adopted in FY25.
Comparing the “Transfers In” to the “Harbor & Beaches Capital Plan Fund” and “Facilities Financing Plan Fund” on pages 109 and 110 of the FY25 budget (pages 117 and 118 of the above-linked 417-page PDF) to those in the corresponding table on pages 49 and 50 of the proposed FY26 Budget Detail (pages 56 and 57 of the 277-page PDF for FY26), the general fund transfers to the HBMP are proposed to go from $5,832,875 to $5,978,697 (a $145,822 or
2.5% increase), while those to the FFP will go from $1,285,152 to $6,778,085 (a $5,492,933 or 427% increase). Combined, the increase is $5,638,755, as stated, but that is a 79% increase for that category compared to FY25, even though it increases the overall budget by only 1.8%,.
The percentage changes in the other categories compared to FY25 budgeted expenses in the same categories are likely also quite different from the numbers stated, and likely also contain within them components differing widely from each other. For example, the $19,500 of decreased Flock ALPR ongoing costs may represent only 0.01% of the overall general fund, but it must represent a much larger change in the expenses budgeted for the Flock program.
Setting aside the slides, I remain baffled by such inscrutable, to me, questions as why, in the budget world, the City’s Information Technology Division is regarded as performing an “internal service,” while its Human Resources Department is not. Both seem to exist solely to support other City departments, and only indirectly the public.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 27, 2025
Written Comments
May 27, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item SS3. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement
Program
Budget
The slide reproduced on agenda packet page SS3-6 informs viewers “The Proposed CIP Budget
detail
can
be
found
on
the
City’s
website:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/public-works” Those following that link may well give up in frustration. Although the Public Works Department’s website does contain links to what appears to be the current CIP budget, it is not at all clear a link to the proposed one can be found anywhere on it. Even the Finance Department’s City Budget & Salary Information page does not seem to have a link to it. And the folder for “2026” in the City’s Budgets Archive where proposed budgets, and then the adopted versions, are normally posted (as for “2025” and before) is inaccessible. The Budget Division webpage provides no assistance, while the link to the Capital Improvements Budget on the City’s Financial Information returns an error. An undated page on the Public Works Department’s website does mention an Interactive CIP Portal and Map, but if those features ever existed, they no longer appear to. At the most recent meeting of the City’s Finance Committee on May 8, I recall members having what I assumed to be printed copies of the proposed CIP budget (along with the separate printing
of
the
proposed
operating
Budget
Detail).
While
printed
copies
may
be
available
at
the
City’s
libraries
(which
are
closed
on
the
day
before
the
present
Council
meeting),
my
efforts
to
find
a
copy
online
have,
thus
far,
proved
unsuccessful.
Item 1. Minutes for the May 13, 2025 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66. Page 314 , paragraph 2: “ Jim Mosher questioned Council's approach in the planning process for
the
trolley
expansion,
suggesting
that
procedural
issues
might
have
limited
public
participation
.”
[comment: My comment was to caution that according to the City’s Council Minutes archive, a
little-remembered
former
trolley
experiment,
hosted
by
the
City
along
essentially
the
same
route as is now being considered, approved as Item J.2 at the Council’s March 24, 1986, meeting had been terminated on January 31, 1987 on the basis of the ridership not justifying the cost (see page 15 of the February 9, 1987, minutes). While the recent popularity of summer trolleys in coastal cities may indicate a different market for such services today, I did not
recognize
this
as
my
comment
from
the
sentence
quoted
above.]
at
Castaways
Park
starting
May
17,
2025,
invited
the
public
to
attend
the
free
events
which
May 27, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 honors honor military personnel and first responders, and indicated that the field will also feature
artwork
by
local
fifth
grade
students
.”
[alternatively,
“events event which honors ”] Page 318 , Item XIV, paragraph 3: “ Adam Leverenz echoed Mr. Mosher's procedural concerns
regarding
the
Five
Crowns
temporary
patio,
emphasizing
that an expectation
changes
to significant mitigating factors such as sound walls and time limits would be included, might have discouraged some residents from participating in the discussions .” [SInce there was no hint in the posted notice that last minute changes might be made, that could not have been what discouraged attendance. The video clearly indicates the comment was that it was an expectation the mitigation measures stated in the notice would be included that
discouraged
attendance.]
Item 2. Reading of Ordinances While the recommendation to waive reading, in full, of ordinances proposed for adoption, as allowed by City Charter Section 412, 1 is a customary consent calendar item, I have some difficulty understanding what relevance or necessity it has to the present agenda, since there do not
appear
to
be
any
ordinances
proposed
for
either
introduction
or
adoption.
Item 3. Resolution No. 2025-24: Establishing the Position of Historian Laureate
The suggestion to create this position would seem to me to fall clearly within the purview of the City Arts Commission to evaluate and provide advice about per City Charter Section 712. I do not recall staff consulting them about this. It might futher be noted that if the person in this new position were to make recommendations to the
Council
about
“ordinances,
rules
and
regulations”
needed
to
preserve
City
history,
that
would
seem
to
conflict
with
the
role
voters
have
assigned
to
the
Arts
Commission.
Item 4. Resolution No. 2025-25: Approving Amendments to the Records
Retention
Schedule
Since Exhibit A says it is a summary of “major changes,” it would have been helpful to provide a redline
version
of
Exhibit
B’s
full
schedule,
so
all
the
proposed
changes
(not
just
“major”
ones)
would
be
visible
and
more
easily
seen
in
context.
That
would,
for
instance,
help
to
clarify
what
significance
things
like
adding
or
deleting
“1
year”
or
“2
years”
might
have.
But even in Exhibit B, the significance of the entries is not always obvious. For example, Classification CW-020 is said to apply to “Boards, Commissions, & Committees:
City
Council
Subcommittees
(All
records)”
–
which
are
apparently
scheduled
to
be
destroyed
after
two
years.
First
it
is
not
clear
from
the
quoted
description
whether
this
is
supposed
to
apply
to
all
BCC’s
or
only
City
Council
Subcommittees
(and
if
the
latter,
why
it
refers
to
BCC’s
at
all
–
or
is
this
intended
to
apply
to
all
subcommittees,
whether
of
the
Council
or
a
BCC?).
Second,
it
1 It might be noted that waiving the full reading of ordinances is one of the rare motions that requires unanimous
consent
of
the
members
present.
In
other
words,
a
single
member
can
require
the
full
ordinance
to
be
read,
even
if
no
others
want
that.
May 27, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 seems to say the paper copies can be destroyed after “QC & OD.” But if the records are being transfered
to
a
permanent
electronic
format
is
the
intent
that
those
will
also
be
destroyed
at
the
end
of
the
two
years?
And
if
so,
why?
While
it
is
true
City
Council
Subcommittees
only
make
recommendations,
the
documents
that
led
to
those
recommendations
may
have
historical
significance.
Should
the
Historican
Laureate
or
City
Arts
Commission
be
consulted
before
destroying
them?
Many of the other entries are also less than self-explanatory. For example, CW-025 refers to “Copies
of
City
Attorney:
Opinions.”
I
am
aware
that
some
cities,
San
Diego
being
a
prominent
example, post copies of legal opinions produced by their city attorney, and more frequently their Memoranda of Law. Does the City of Newport Beach have such things? Is the public allowed to see them? If so, who decides “When No Longer Required” and why is there no requirement to preserve
them?
How
is
CW-025
related
to
CA-001,
which
is
also
titled
“City
Attorney:
Opinions”
but
appears
to
be
related
only
to
lawsuits?
Don’t
Councilmembers
and
employees
ask,
like
in
San
Diego,
for
opinions
unrelated
to
lawsuits?
What
is
the
rule
for
those?
Many of the 132 pages of Exhibit B raise similar questions. In addition, there seem to be City policies related to record retention not covered by this. For example,
some
years
ago,
a
decision
seems
to
have
been
made
that
“News”
items
appearing
on the City’s internet home page be retained under “More News” for at most a very limited time, making it impossible for the public to re-read an announcement they believed they saw a short time
before.
I
am
not
aware
of
any
news
organization
that
does
that.
By
the
same
logic,
the
City’s online calendar would be erased after the current month is past (fortunately, it is not, although some events and announcements on it do seem to disappear). Again, perhaps, the Historian
Laureate
should
be
consulted…
Item 9. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Recommendations for
Ocean
Boulevard
Vision
Plan
and
The
Great
Rescue
of
1925
Plaque
On Friday, shortly before 4 p.m., the City sent out an emailed news alert warning recipients that “
**
The
Staff
Report
and
Attachment
A
for
the
Ocean
Boulevard
Vision
Plan
(Item
9)
have
been
amended
**
.”
This
was
quite
confusng
since
there
was
no
explanation
of
what
had
changed,
or
why,
and
it
was
not
self-evident
how
the
new
documents
differed
from
the
old,
which
appeared
very
similar.
The changes seem to be that the next-to-last slide of the presentation provided as Attachment A,
which
slide
broke
down
the
“Priority
1”
and
“Priority
2”
improvements
with
a
total
$1,995,250
cost
estimate,
has
been
removed,
and
the
first
paragraphs
of
the
Discussion
and
Fiscal
Impact
sections
on
page
9-2
of
the
staff
report
have
been
extensively
modified
to
tone
down
references
to
actually
including
anything
other
than
critical
maintenance
issues
in
future
CIP
budgets.
Curiously,
no
cost
estimate
for
those
is
provided.
Neither the original nor amended staff reports disclose what the vote at PB&R was on the Concept
Master
Plan,
whether
PB&R
or
the
public
had
any
comments
regarding
the
Plan,
nor
what
significance
PB&R’s
“approval”
of
it
might
have.
May 27, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 In the Council-City Manager form of governement, it is expected that staff will provide their professional
opinion
for
the
Council
to
consider,
along
with
public
input,
in
reaching
their
political
decision.
In
this
case,
the
lack
of
explanation
as
why
the
report
was
changed
suggests
that
after
its
initial
posting,
staff
was
placed
under
some
pressure
to
modify
what
was
supposed
to
be
their
good-faith
professional
recommendation.
As to the largely unrelated matter under this item heading regarding the proposal to approve “The
Great
Rescue
of
1925
Plaque,”
I
continue
to
think
a
locatioin
near
the
base
of
the
East
Jetty
to
the
harbor
entrance
would
be
more
historically
appropriate
site
2 and
would
likely
allow
the
plaque
to
be
seen
by
more
visitors.
It
would
also
avoid
loss
of
most
of
the
existing
flower
bed
at
the
Dahlia
“Vista
Point.”
Regarding Attachment B, the Donation Agreement: 1. In paragraph 2, “ rescued the crew ” should probably read “ rescued part of the crew ” or “rescued
12 crew
members.”
2. In paragraph 6, “ slight line ” should almost certainly read “ sight line .” Item 11. Tentative Agreement with Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA)
proposed
MOU
(redlined),
whose
presentation
for
review
is
the
purpose
of
the
agenda
item,
“
will
be
available
for
viewing
prior
to
the
date
of
the
meeting
.”
As of noon on Memorial Day, May 26th, the day before the date of the meeting, that promise does
not
appear
to
have
been
fulfilled
–
at
least
the
Attachment
A
link
within
the
relevant
agenda item posting continues to return nothing but the PDF with the message quoted above. This is not to say I don’t feel a little relief at not needing to feel guilty about not reading the proposed
new
MOU
on
a
national
holiday.
Item 12. Temporary Employment Agreement for City Clerk Services I will be sorry to see our present City Clerk leave. She seems too young to be retiring. 2 Although subject to a more corrosive marine environment, a location on the East Jetty would apparently be
immediately
adjacent
to
where
the
rescue
took
place.
Additionally,
Pirate’s
Cove,
from which the
rescuers
likely
came is visible from the East Jetty, but not at all from the proposed location at the Dahlia Vista
Point.