The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15 - Response to Grand Jury Report.pdf� CITY OF City o I n l Staff Report Agenda Item No. 15 August 9, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, City Manager 949 - 644 -3001, dkiff @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Dave Kiff, City Manager APPROVED: G—llt� TITLE: Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities" ABSTRACT: The City is obligated to respond to a recent Orange County Grand Jury report on compensation by September 7, 2011. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to send the attached response to the Presiding Judge. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Please see the attached draft response for details about the study and the City's thoughts about the report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities" August 09, 2011 Page 2 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted by: Dave Kiff, City Manager Attachments: A. Proposed draft response to the Grand Jury Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities' August 09, 2011 Page 3 August 10, 2011 The Honorable Thomas J. Borris Presiding Judge of the'Superior Court 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 RE: Report of the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities." Dear Judge Borris: The attached is the City of Newport Beach's formal response to the above -noted Grand Jury Report. If you or any members of the Grand Jury have questions about our response, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, MIKE HENN Mayor of Newport Beach Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities' August 09, 2011 Page 4 RE: Report of the Orange County Grand Jury - "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities" FROM: City of Newport Beach, California DATE: August 10, 2011 The Report obligates the City to respond no later than September 7, 2011 to: • Findings F.4, F.S, and F.7; and • Recommendations R.1, R.2, and R:3. City Manager Dave Kiff was instructed to respond to the Report on the City's behalf. His comments follow. FINDINGS Finding F.4 — Public disclosure of municipal compensation levels is widely inconsistent, ranging from good to non- existent. Response: Responding as to our own City, we see that the Grand Jury awarded us two "Ds" and a "C." However, our salary and benefit information remains highlighted on our website in two locations (see Exhibits 1 and 2 below, which are direct cut- and - pastes from our website). There is a possibility that there may be a demographic technology divide between Grand Jury members and an average reader. That said, we will take the Grand Jury at its word and agree partially and will, as always, continuously work to improve the content, clarity, and accessibility of this same information. Finding F.S — With the exceptions of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the number of high -level positions in each city is generally commensurate with its population. Response: Acknowledging that we assume we are not literally being asked to comment on a finding about other cities' position levels, we disagree as it relates to Newport Beach. The Grand Jury's per capita ( "commensurate with ... population ") analysis and its methodology (what positions are included, what are excluded) is a common one in part because it's easy. But it is misleading, too. Here are our more specific concerns: o First, the finding is based on 2009 data. It does not take into account positions that were retired in 2009, 2010, and 2011. o The second concern is that the report, while noting that it excluded "Police and Fire" positions, erred and didn't do that for Newport Beach's positions (p. 43). It actually included some. Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities" August 09, 2011 Page 5 o Thirdly, the reasoning behind excluding police and fire (p. 2: "Several cities do not have any police and /or fire positions because they contract with the County for such services "), while somewhat reasonable on its face (yet again in error — the Orange County Fire Authority is not a County agency and Yorba Linda contracts with Brea for Police Services), begs further questions that the report- writers should ask themselves about other services not consistent across jurisdictions — why not exclude legal counsel? Why not library administration? Why not water and wastewater utility staff? Wherever one lives in Orange County, a resident likely receives the same menu of basic municipal services — drinking water delivery, wastewater collection, fire suppression, legal services, police protection, and access to public libraries, parks, senior services and community centers. That same resident pays taxes or commodity rates for each and in many if not most cases, public employees are providing the services. In Newport Beach, the city government provides most of these services plus lifeguarding, trash collection, disaster preparedness, and a number of other services due to our coastal location and the expectations of our citizens. If you live in a "contract city" such as Lake Forest or Aliso Viejo, the city government provides fewer of these services, but public employees and public agencies (ones possibly not yet scrutinized by the Grand Jury) still earn tax dollars to provide many (not all) of the menu of services. The Grand Jury may wish to consider whether the difference between contract cities and full- service cities is more determinant of upper -level positions than population. There is even a difference between cities that regularly accommodate large numbers of workers and /or tourists and those that do not. Newport Beach has an influx of visitors across several months that can add 100,000 or more people a day to our community. This past July 4", more than 135,000 came to our beaches in one day. Some of these daily visitors contribute well to our tax base, but also add more impacts to things like traffic engineering and public works, to patrol and traffic in Police, to fire and EMS, beach cleaning, and even to our libraries (our library system, ranked among the highest in the nation, is also our second most visited asset behind our beaches). This additional service base, not counted in our resident population, makes the Grand Jury's per capita -based conclusion less meaningful. Finding F.7 — There currently is no disclosure of written employment contracts on the majority of cities' websites. Response: Acknowledging the same caveat in our previous responses (literally being asked to comment on a finding about other cities' websites), we disagree as it relates to our own City website. Major employment contracts that go before the City Council are on our website as a part of Council Agenda packets. Modern search engines can be beneficial here. A recent attempt to see the City Managers employment contract using a common search engine (Google) brought the contract up on the City's web page in less than 10 seconds. Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities" August 09, 2011 Page 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation R.1 —All cities in Orange County report their compensation information to the public on the Internet in an easily accessible manner. Response: This recommendation has been implemented well before the Grand Jury's report. Compensation information is and has been on the City's website (see below) since summer 2010. That said, we will continue to consider ways to improve any and all information on our website. Exhibit 1— Main Web Page City of Newport Beach NEWS NP 'N21.ar`f S3 rtY1 Lf r:p s.zycl Yte bf:Ll vA rL2 �t 1'fE: Ne9,00rc ernr,:,,zY emt:, en, L _TEv" bme IT. If =a < -.L to to mar: and^..:k Yry C¢m,w Y ¢• }'(m21$ Ep:.tlt:112 C:Y fi[ II!'aA.R 6iaf11. P ilit F' x'9 a brbir Vf ar a 11a a9 r pPt.-. .,z M-c rwn.,u b 10W'18, "or QY G..IIVJ CIU:::49. TY:c 11(L'o9 Sots: Ifunaryer. +'v".: Plm9 ae ve—,ed by ONe,n ^.'3 umao wa;-i ep>'v�1I tJ PJP mrhe9 evul .am,eeiauce ebv=.g ana enw:e.'aa9'pzta waa ;1P W. n9 ;,06 to:rvvl etiieq:na iIL'J'.^ 1Pbtlr 1 -M' "Y. /�FF�''�� aael B:y Trzj SI:P. RBWe tri8H1 The M&iPY i *' wI 1..0 be MEETJNGS & EVENT / ee:TeYFe SYe:e9 Qua41:w'•tA:ca l / :PeG'I [yarn nCY,l't Cwn,LLCC3 ewr�It zntw A9rA9 t LtiM Phr:: ufamou,v� Itee 9G aA^.M:I GA W / Nee: U:e 9AaY.T s /tlr ottsxo rn. 1x."M t'umneae•• Ileelbq A"- &Hnules. /M ENDAS 8 MINUTES. '1 BUDGET T• SALARY INFORMATION I 0$ MAPS NBTV ONI INF1'PAYMEN15 I PROJECT$ & ISSUESL RECREATION CLASSES- SERVICE REQUESTS' STAFF DIRECTORY (eGU ! Newport Beach XOME ABOUT CITY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ►SERVICES RESIDENTS VESITORS BUSINESS �' ONLINE SERVICES* NEWS NP 'N21.ar`f S3 rtY1 Lf r:p s.zycl Yte bf:Ll vA rL2 �t 1'fE: Ne9,00rc ernr,:,,zY emt:, en, L _TEv" bme IT. If =a < -.L to to mar: and^..:k Yry C¢m,w Y ¢• }'(m21$ Ep:.tlt:112 C:Y fi[ II!'aA.R 6iaf11. P ilit F' x'9 a brbir Vf ar a 11a a9 r pPt.-. .,z M-c rwn.,u b 10W'18, "or QY G..IIVJ CIU:::49. TY:c 11(L'o9 Sots: Ifunaryer. +'v".: Plm9 ae ve—,ed by ONe,n ^.'3 umao wa;-i ep>'v�1I tJ PJP mrhe9 evul .am,eeiauce ebv=.g ana enw:e.'aa9'pzta waa ;1P W. n9 ;,06 to:rvvl etiieq:na iIL'J'.^ 1Pbtlr 1 -M' "Y. /�FF�''�� aael B:y Trzj SI:P. RBWe tri8H1 The M&iPY i *' wI 1..0 be MEETJNGS & EVENT / ee:TeYFe SYe:e9 Qua41:w'•tA:ca l / :PeG'I [yarn nCY,l't Cwn,LLCC3 ewr�It zntw A9rA9 t LtiM Phr:: ufamou,v� Itee 9G aA^.M:I GA W / Nee: U:e 9AaY.T s /tlr ottsxo rn. 1x."M t'umneae•• Ileelbq A"- &Hnules. /M ENDAS 8 MINUTES. '1 BUDGET T• SALARY INFORMATION I 0$ MAPS NBTV ONI INF1'PAYMEN15 I PROJECT$ & ISSUESL RECREATION CLASSES- SERVICE REQUESTS' STAFF DIRECTORY Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities' August 09, 2011 Page 7 Exhibit 2 — Next Link - Budget Web Page city tte fatrm is P,5gL) ce =. Afcr tm ipvi4c . " _np mfal t inks m m CITY BUDGET DOCUMENTS Budgetary Documents (Please Hater Fiscal Year= JuPi i - June 30) _',udget documents labeled as Preliminary represent the proposed budget prior to City Councii review, and are subject to change prior 'to ncc Gbi Council's approval. Department brdaet presentations are based on ?ha prelin inary budge: and do not repres = -r :t the final apnrwed budget. o =i =cal Y =ar 2irti_i% (.Proposed) - Access current Salary Information Here` • ; -ss[er vaar eUUS -.eu • Ft:;Ccl Ysar 20 8 -�� Recommendation R.2 — Each city reveal any individual employment contracts in an easily accessible manner. Response: This recommendation has been implemented. For those employees who have contracts, they generally are on the City's website associated with City Council agendas and packets — search engines can quickly find them. Recommendation R.3 — The cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach conduct a review of their organizations to reconcile the necessity of maintaining a relatively large number of upper level positions in relation to their populations. Response: Notwithstanding our assertion that the Grand Jury's resident population -based comparison is fundamentally flawed, we continuously review all of our positions. We do this as a part of every budget process and with every retirement or restructuring. In Newport Beach, we take personnel numbers and costs very seriously. In fact, the City Council has reduced overall City positions from a high of 833 full -time two years ago at this time to about 760 full -time positions in the budget year that begins in just a few weeks. That's 73 positions (about a 9% reduction) all done without significantly impacting the quality of services that Newport Beach residents (and those uncounted 100K+ visitors) have come to expect. Additionally, base compensation has been impacted (generally lowered since 2009) thanks to additional pension contributions from employees that are directly deducted from base salary. Non - safety employees will pay 8% of their salary towards pension costs in January 2012. Some safety employees Response to the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities" August 09, 2011 Page B already pay 9% (up from 3.5 %) of their base salaries in July 2011. This is more than $3.7 million in FY 2011 -12 coming off of base salary that is not part of the Grand Jury's analysis. The Council itself adopted a new "total compensation" philosophy at its June 14, 2011 meeting — a philosophy grounded in private- sector and public- sector comparisons, greater cost sharing for pensions, and that looks at the more useful "total compensation" metric versus comparing just salary. In closing, I would respectfully recommend that the Grand Jury continue to thoughtfully evaluate issues it might like to study given the resources at its disposal. I find that quality Grand Jury reports and analyses are valued and valuable to local governments and their residents — respectfully, I did not find this Report to be of the same discipline and value as others that the Orange County Grand Jury has produced. The multiple hours that Grand Jury members may have spent on this report, as well as the multiple hours that individual cities like our own spend in responding to it formally and informally (including media calls), arguably decrease that value even further. I welcome any views to the contrary or concerns that the Grand Jury might have about this response. I can be reached at 949 -644 -3001 or dkiff @newportbeachca.gov. Sincerely, City Manager, City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor Michael F. Henn Mayor Pro Tern August 15, 2011 Nancy Gardner Council Members The Honorable Thomas J. Barris Kei 1, D. Uiny Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Leslie J, Daigle 700 Civic Center Drive West Rush N. Hill, 11 Steven J. Rosansky Santa Ana, California 92701 Edward D. Selich RE: Report of the Orange County Grand Jury — "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities." Dear Judge Barris: The attached is the City of Newport Beach's formal response to the above -noted Grand Jury Report. If you or any members of the Grand Jury have questions about our response, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, MIKE HENN Mayor of Newport Beach City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 • www.newportbeachca.gov (949) 644 -3004 RE: Report of the Orange County Grand Jury - "Compensation Study of Orange County Cities" FROM: City of Newport Beach, California DATE: August 15, 2011 The Report obligates the City to respond no later than September 7, 2011 to: • Findings F.4, F.S, and F,7; and • Recommendations R.1, R.2, and R.3. City Manager Dave Kiff was instructed to respond to the Report on the City's behalf. His comments follow. FINDINGS Finding F.4 — Public disclosure of municipal compensation levels is widely inconsistent, ranging from good to non - existent. Response: Responding as to our own City, we see that the Grand Jury awarded us two "Ds" and a "C." However, our salary and benefit information remains highlighted on our website in two locations (see Exhibits 1 and 2 below, which are direct cut - and - pastes from our website). There is a possibility that there may be a demographic technology divide between Grand Jury members and an average reader. That said, we will take the Grand Jury at its word and agree partially and will, as always, continuously work to improve the content, clarity, and accessibility of this same information. Finding F.5 — With the exceptions of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the number of high -level positions in each city is generally commensurate with its population. Response: Acknowledging that we assume we are not literally being asked to comment on a finding about other cities' position levels, we disagree as it relates to Newport Beach. The Grand Jury's per capita ("commensurate with ... population ") analysis and its methodology (what positions are included, what are excluded) is a common one in part because it's easy. But it is misleading, too. Here are our more specific concerns: a First, the finding is based on 2009 data. It does not take into account positions that were retired in late 2009, 2010, and 2011. The second concern is that the report, while noting that it excluded "Police and Fire" positions, erred and didn't do that for Newport Beach's positions (p. 43), It actually included some. e Thirdly, the reasoning behind excluding police and fire (p. 2: Several cities do not have any police and /or fire positions because they contract with the County for such services "), while somewhat reasonable on its face (yet again in error — the Orange County Fire Authority is not a County agency and Yorba Linda contracts with Brea for Police Services), begs further questions that the report- writers should ask themselves about other services not consistent across jurisdictions — why not exclude legal counsel? Why not library administration? Why not water and wastewater utility staff? Wherever one lives in Orange County, a resident likely receives the same menu of basic municipal services — drinking water delivery, wastewater collection, fire suppression, legal services, police protection, and access to public libraries, parks, senior services and community centers. That same resident pays taxes or commodity rates for each and in many if not most cases, public employees are providing the services. In Newport Beach, the city government provides most of these services plus lifeguarding, trash collection, disaster preparedness, and a number of other services due to our coastal location and the expectations of our citizens. If you live in a "contract city" such as Lake Forest or Aliso Viejo, the city government provides fewer of these services, but public employees and public agencies (ones possibly not yet scrutinized by the Grand Jury) still earn tax dollars to provide many (not all) of the menu of services. The Grand Jury may wish to consider whether the difference between contract cities and full - service cities is more determinant of upper -level positions than population. There is even a difference between cities that regularly accommodate large numbers of workers and /or tourists and those that do not. Newport Beach has an influx of visitors across several months that can add 100,000 or more people a day to our community. This past July 0, more than 135,000 came to our beaches in one day. Some of these daily visitors contribute well to our tax base, but also add more impacts to things like traffic engineering and public works, to patrol and traffic in Police, to fire and EMS, beach cleaning, and even to our libraries (our library system, ranked among the highest in the nation, is also our second most visited asset behind our beaches). This additional service base, not counted in our resident population, makes the Grand Jury's per capita -based conclusion less meaningful. Finding F.7 — There currently is no disclosure of written employment contracts on the majority of cities' websites. Response: Acknowledging the same caveat in our previous responses (literally being asked to comment on a finding about other cities' websites), we disagree as it relates to our own City website. Major employment contracts that go before the City Council are on our website as a part of Council Agenda packets. Modern search engines can be beneficial here. A recent attempt to see the City Manager's employment contract using a common search engine (Google) brought the contract up on the City's web page in less than 10 seconds. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation R.1 —Ail cities in Orange County report their compensation information to the public an the Internet in an easily accessible manner. Response: This recommendation has been implemented well before the Grand Jury's report. Compensation information is and has been on the City's website (see below) since summer 2010. That said, we wilt continue to consider ways to improve any and all information on ourwebsite. Exhibit 1 — Main Web Page — City of Newport Beach Exhibit —Next Link - Budget Web Page Budgetary Docuincn&(PleaseNote:, Fiscal Y6ar� =- lulyi-- ]ona30'. - _ „ Recommendation R.2 — Each city reveal any individual employment contracts in an easily accessible rrrnNUM Response: This recommendation has been implemented, For those employees who have contracts, they generally are on the City's website associated with City Council agendas and packets — search engines can quickly find them. Recommendation R.3 — The cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach conduct a review of their organizations to reconcile the necessity of maintaining a relatively large number of upper level positions in relation to their populations. Response: Notwithstanding our assertion that (again), the Grand Jury's resident population -based comparison is fundamentally flawed, we continuously review all of our positions. We do this as a part of every budget process and with every retirement or restructuring. In Newport Beach, we take personnel numbers and costs very seriously. In fact, the City Council has reduced overall City positions from a high of 833 full -time two years ago at this time to about 760 full -time positions in the budget year that began on July 1, 2011. That's 73 positions (about a 9% reduction) all done without significantly impacting the quality of services that Newport Beach residents (and those uncounted 100K+ visitors) have come to expect. Additionally, base compensation has been impacted (generally lowered since 2009) thanks to additional pension contributions from employees that are directly deducted from base salary. Non - safety employees will pay 8% of their salary towards pension costs in January 2012. Some safety employees already pay 9% (up from 3.5 %) of their base salaries in July 2011. This is more than $3.7 million in FY 2011 -12 coming off of base salary that is not part of the Grand Jury's analysis. The Council itself adopted. a new "total compensation" philosophy at its June 14, 2011 meeting — a philosophy grounded in private- sector and public- sector comparisons, greater cost sharing for pensions, and that looks atthe more useful "total compensation" metric versus comparing just salary. In closing, I would respectfully recommend that the Grand Jury continue to thoughtfully evaluate issues it might like to study given the resources at its disposal. I find that quality Grand Jury reports and analyses are valued and valuable to local governments and their residents — respectfully, I did not find this Report to be of the same discipline and value as others that the Orange County Grand Jury has produced. The multiple hours that Grand Jury members may have spent on this report, as well as the multiple hours that individual cities like our own spend in responding to it formally and informally (including media calls), arguably decrease that value even further. I welcome any views to the contrary or concerns that the Grand Jury might have about this response. I can be reached at 949 -644 -3001 or dkiff @newportbeachca.gov. Sincerely, p`�' 14�% DAVE KIFF City Manager, City of Newport Beach