Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA - Budget Overview - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed May 24, 2016 Special Meeting Agenda Item No. A May 24, 2016, Council/Committee Item A Comments The following comments on a joint Newport Beach City Council — Finance Committee agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(Dyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548-6229) Item A. FY 2016-17 Budget Overview, Including Checklist, CIP, and Allocation of Fund Balance from Close of FY 2015-16 Reviewing the 36 -slide PowerPointrp eview posted in advance of the meeting, the following questions, too numerous to put in a 3 -minute comment occurred to me: 1. The title indicates the item will include discussion of the Checklist. I am unable to find anything in the slides mentioning the Checklist. However, I previously submitted written comments on the one presented as part of Item 12 on the evening consent calendar. 2. Slide 3: It is not apparent to me what this is trying to illustrate. In the left panel, it seems a $2.5 million "Planned Use of Reserves" will produce a zero "Net Surplus," but I am unable to relate the $2.5M to the other slides. And is the right hand panel saying the City as a whole plans to spend $5.8M more than it expects to receive in revenue? If so, why does Slide 1 say the budget is "balanced"? 3. Slide 4: Is the "Performance Plan" volume part of the budget that will be submitted to the Council by Friday's 35 day deadline? Or is it a non-essential derivative of the Budget Detail volume? Also, the slide does not mention the requirement for the proposed budget, presumably as modified by Council member suggestions, to be available for public review at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing. 4. Slide 7: What is the assumed increase in TOT based on? 5. Slide 9: (Undoubtedly a previously — and frequently — answered question, but) given the increases in Assessed Valuation reported on Slide 8, why did property tax revenues decline in 2010-2012? Unpaid bills? 6. Slide 13: The first check mark gives the impression that the CdM Library and Mariners Fire Station improvements will cost $12.3 million. In the C/P, they actually seem to be proposed to be budgeted at $5.99M and $1.00M. The total presented seems to be the total for "Facilities" from the C/P, not all of which (such as $2.29M to execute the Facilities Maintenance Master Plan Program) would seem "big projects" — while some other "big projects" may not be listed under "Facilities." 7. Slides 18-19: The allocation of expenses to "functions" with names differing from the City's administrative "departments" is confusing, at best, especially when there is a "non - departmental" category. This makes little sense without some kind of user's guide. 8. Slide 20: The slide appears to highlight various budget categories in which the FY17 proposal differs from the FY16 revised budget by anywhere from +1.6% to -0.56%, yet it seems to say the overall budget will increase by +3.87%. Since the items illustrated all increased by less than 3.87%, for an overall average growth of 3.87% to be logically May 24, 2016, Council Item A Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 possible it would seem there must have been items that increased by more than 3.87%, and counterbalanced those illustrated. What were they? 9. Slide 22: The distinction between "capital improvements" and "maintenance and operations" seems blurry to me, as does what we report as "salaries and benefits," especially when much of the City's work is done by contract workers. Doesn't much of the CIP budget go to wages of contract employees? 10. Slide 23 (? no number visible): The proposed FY17 Budget Detail appears, possibly for the first time ever, to list the seven Council members as 7.0 Full Time Equivalent employees. Are they included in the employee count? Are their salaries and benefits included in the totals reported? Also, the slide doesn't mention adding two people for records management even though it's on the Checklist of evening agenda Item 12. Also, is the "Community Services Officer" being added (and partially deleted) there different from the "Civilian Police Position" being added here? Or is "Community Services" being used there in the sense of Slides 18-19? 11. Slide 26: 1 am puzzled by the statement in the Insider's Guide that the City's unfunded pension liability "is completely akin to debt - borrowed at 7.5%." 1 heard the same comment at the last Finance Committee meeting, but don't recall having heard its basis. 12. Slide 27: There appears to a note missing relative to "Amortized Cost of Unfunded Liablility." The essence of this slide seems to be that the employees are paying more than half the "normal" cost of their pensions, but not the unfunded part? 13. Slide 28: Are "Newly Proposed Projects" truly new projects? Or does this include new and additional allocations towards existing CIP projects? And where does one find the quantity of "Encumbered Funds" listed in the budget documents? 14. Slide 31: If I am understanding this slide correctly, the surplus for the year about to end on June 30, 2016, is expected to be negligible ($147,500), but the $14.2M surplus from the previous year has not been fully allocated, and the "balancing" is being achieved by allocating $1.7 the remaining portion of that entirely to "Neighborhood Enhancement," leaving $3.5M unbudgeted and under the control of the City Manager? Of the new allocation, is the $60k for "Mariners Mile Study" in addition to the $116,380 being allocated to that in the evening agenda Item 8? If so, what is it for, since the evening agenda amount is purportedly sufficient to fully fund the proposed study? (the evening item, incidentally, proposes transfers using the new division and account numbering system of the proposed FY2016-17 budget even though it is supposedly an amendment to the existing FY2015-16 budget, which has a completely different numbering system for identifying accounts) 15. Slide 31: The slide contains a minor typo. The "third review" by the Finance Committee already occurred, of course, on 5/12/2016, and is not scheduled ten years from now on "5/12/26".