May 26, 2026, Joint Council-Finance Committee Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the joint City Council-FInance Committee agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Note : it is common for the first business item on an agenda to be approval of the minutes from the body’s
previous
meeting.
In
the
present
case,
the
last
joint
meeting
was
held
on
May
27,
2025,
and
the minutes were approved by the City Council as part of Item 1 on their June 10, 2025, agenda. It is not clear to me if the Finance Committee ever saw or had a chance to comment on those minutes.
Item 1. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating Budget The agenda gives the public relatively little to go by. While the Council members have likely been offered
copies
of
the
proposed
budget
being
reviewed,
the
PowerPoint
slides
attached
to
the
agenda
do
not
appear
to
tell
the
public
where
they
can
find
it.
At the recent Finance Committee meeting I believe I announced that printed copies were available for review at all the City’s libraries. If I did so, I was wrong. A more careful reading of the library catalog reveals that only the Central Library has a single printed copy of the proposed Budget Detail. The branches
have
only
a
single
copy
each
of
the
proposed
Capital
Improvement
Program.
Helpfully,
the
catalog
indicates
where
digital
copies
can
be
found
online.
Regarding the PowerPoint, the last bullet on Slide 2 (setting a budget focus to “Address City Council priorities
identified
at
the
January
31,
2026,
Planning
Session”)
raises
an
interesting
question:
didn’t
the
priorities
considered
at
the
Planning
Session
need
to
a
confirmed
by
a
formal,
agendized
vote
of
the
Council
at
a
later
meeting?
Did
that
ever
happen?
Or
will
the
June
9 budget
adoption
be
that
vote?
If
the
latter,
that
seems
a
very
obscure
and
opaque
way
of
announcing
agreement
on
priorities
since
they
are
not
clearly
identified
in
the
budget.
As always, there are many things I don’t understand about the City budget, but (as also often happens)
I
have
not
allowed
myself
enough
time
to
make
comprehensive
comments
in
writing.
But a couple of small points I might mention are that at the May 12 Council meeting it was announced that
a
very
deserving
employee
had
been
promoted
to
the
position
of
Deputy
City
Manager.
Yet,
when
I
look
at
the
budget
the
City
Manager
is
requesting
approval
for
it
seeks
(on
printed
page
number
122)
a
budget
for
two
highly-paid
Assistant
City
Managers
(as
well
as
an
Assistant
to
them),
and
has
no
budget
for
a
Deputy
City
Manager.
I am also puzzled why on printed page number 106 the City Clerk’s Office is seeking to eliminate the Assistant
City
Clerk
position.
Not
only
does
it
seem
important
to
have
a
qualified
person
to
step
in
should
the
Clerk
be
unavailable,
but
it
is
an
extremely
small
department
to
begin
with,
and
this
would
make
it
even
smaller.