L.1. 20-0948 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2020-2025 CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
PROCEDURES:
a. Open Public Hearing, take testimony; and
b. Continue Public Hearing to June 2, 2020; and
c. Receive and file Budget Response Reports.
Jeff Ginsburg, President of Riviera Village Association
over 4 years ago
I am currently the President of the Riviera Village Association and a goal the RVA Board has had for a few years is the city completes its Capital Improvement Project (CIP) of replacing the old concrete sidewalks with the new pavers as the updates make the sidewalks ADA compliant while also making sidewalk dining possible which then provides the city with rental income for the areas restaurants expand onto...the great advantage of this for the city is how it will result as a Return On Investment (ROI) while also making the village safer...few CIP projects result in a ROI so hopefully this can be a prioritized project for this budget...thank you :)
If 1/3 of the staffing at Stn 3 is moved to other responsibilities, what does that do to the platoon schedule at FS 3? Will we only have FS3 open 20 days/month?
To: Mayor, City Council, and Senior City Staff
From: Mark Hansen, King Harbor Boater
Please do not accept Decision Package #29,
regarding a reduction in Harbor Patrol Staffing.
That proposal states that:
“This reduction would eliminate 1/3 of the staffing in the
Harbor Patrol Division and…a 1/3 reduction in service hours.”
The City Manager’s message, of May 16, advises that:
“Non-Safety Departments were given a 15% targeted amount for reduction,
while Safety Departments (Police and Fire)…were given a 5% targeted reduction.”
However, this proposal would reduce the Harbor Patrol by 33%.
Our Harbor Patrol officers have saved numerous lives over the years,
including boaters, anglers, and harbor visitors.
During the current COVID-19 crisis, boaters will be endeavoring to engage in recreational boating, in a manner that is both safe and consistent with city and county orders. This will necessitate that various boat owners will not be able to man their vessels with their full regular experienced crews, but will be boating with fewer crewmembers and potentially less experienced household members.
This is exactly the wrong time to reduce the staffing of our Harbor Patrol.
Please maintain this critical public safety service for our community,
and do not accept Decision Package #29.
To: Mayor Brand and City Council Members
RE: Agenda Item L.1-Public Hearing to Consider Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Proposed Budget
Covid 19, like a tornado, arrived suddenly and has changed our lives in so many ways. Some of these changes will be permanent but some will last a relatively short time. Change, nevertheless is always difficult, sudden change even more so. So first I want to express my appreciation to the council members and staff in their efforts to guide the our city forward during this difficult time.
I have read the budget and decision packages, most of which I support. RB residents support all efforts to save money, spend wisely, and balance the budget. However, below are my comments on five of the decision packages:
DP# 21-Vehicle replacement policy-it would be helpful for the residents if we could view the current policy and the method that determines vehicle replacement. Residents need to know that it makes economical sense to replace vehicles. If you are changing the policy to lengthen the life of vehicles now, why make it temporary? Why not permanent?
DP# 23-Budget and Finance Commission should continue to meet monthly, not every other month. Citizen commissioners with financial expertise provide an extra pair of eyes to assist the city in saving money. That can only be done by continuing the current practice of holding monthly meetings.
DP# 25-Continue Moss Adams audit services. Moss Adams has provided critical guidance and recommendations in streamlining practices and saving the city money. This service should be continued.
DP# 26-Continue Harbor contract auditing services. Outside auditors can bring objective eyes in reviewing contracts, catching details that may go unnoticed, saving the city money. This should be continued.
DP# 44-In general, RB residents would like to see greater transparency in vehicle replacement purchasing policies. Again, if the city is now extending the life of vehicles, why not make that policy permanent?
One comment/question: Of the 34 positions eliminated, please tell us how many of those positions were vacant or unfunded in the 2019/2020 fiscal year.
As a former City employee in Public Works I strongly oppose the elimination of the supervisor position in the Parks Division. This position serves the Parks Manager as the field lieutenant. Eliminating this position forever will have a detrimental effect on the services that Parks employees deliver. The supervisor is the person in the field that oversees the daily hands-on operations. The playgrounds, the medians and the trees that grace the City. The Manager sees the “big picture”. The budget, safety issues and citizen inquiries are just a few. The current virus situation will end and the City will return to normal operations. When this happens the “look” of the city will be important in bringing tourism and business back. I proudly served in both positions and understand the importance of both. I also understand the current fiscal climate and the need to reduce employee payroll. Perhaps restructure the position to make it more fiscally possible to keep it. The Parks Department is already losing a long tome valuable asset in the current employee in that supervisory position. Don’t let the retirement of this employee be the reason to eliminate this very important cog in the wheel that is the Parks Division and Public Works.
What is the city's long term financial plan? If the economy returns will the city re-hire and re-authorize the planned eliminated positions?
The city already has used too much cutting and eliminated the fat. You have now reached the bone.
Before de-authorizing ~30 positions and firing 9 people, 2 of which will be unemployed, an optional early retirement package should be offered to employees so those who may be close to retirement can be incentivized to retire and those who want and need to work can stay.
Why not consider a one time use of cash reserves reducing the one month reserve money from ~$8M to $6M. The one month cushion is nice and well earned by conservative choices by the city but it should be considered as other cities operate with less cushion.
The following decision packages are not in the best interest of the city and other options need to be found:
(No) Decision Packages #16 (Reducing Library hours) as a lot of residents including kids use the library after school and closing Mondays and at 6:00pm leaves them no where to go.
(No) Decision package #23 (Changing most commission meetings to bi-monthly) This is also not a wise investment as it is difficult enough for commissioners to do a good job and get staff support at the current meeting schedule. Referrals take too long to come back and discussions move at a glaciers pace. This package would make that problem even worse.
(No) Decision Package #21: Rather than extend one-year again after doing the same last year, a better choice would be to change the mix of vehicles purchased. Currently, the city is purchasing very expensive and excessive fully electric vehicles at full MSRP (Not receiving the Federal or State credits that bring down the costs) and using those vehicles for currently 12 or 13 years. What do you think a Chevy Bolt EV will be worth 13 years from now? Instead consider purchasing other less expensive vehicles this round or consider a municipal lease program to transfer the risks of devaluation while keeping green and zero or low emissions fro your city fleet.
I am currently the President of the Riviera Village Association and a goal the RVA Board has had for a few years is the city completes its Capital Improvement Project (CIP) of replacing the old concrete sidewalks with the new pavers as the updates make the sidewalks ADA compliant while also making sidewalk dining possible which then provides the city with rental income for the areas restaurants expand onto...the great advantage of this for the city is how it will result as a Return On Investment (ROI) while also making the village safer...few CIP projects result in a ROI so hopefully this can be a prioritized project for this budget...thank you :)
If 1/3 of the staffing at Stn 3 is moved to other responsibilities, what does that do to the platoon schedule at FS 3? Will we only have FS3 open 20 days/month?
To: Mayor, City Council, and Senior City Staff
From: Mark Hansen, King Harbor Boater
Please do not accept Decision Package #29,
regarding a reduction in Harbor Patrol Staffing.
That proposal states that:
“This reduction would eliminate 1/3 of the staffing in the
Harbor Patrol Division and…a 1/3 reduction in service hours.”
The City Manager’s message, of May 16, advises that:
“Non-Safety Departments were given a 15% targeted amount for reduction,
while Safety Departments (Police and Fire)…were given a 5% targeted reduction.”
However, this proposal would reduce the Harbor Patrol by 33%.
Our Harbor Patrol officers have saved numerous lives over the years,
including boaters, anglers, and harbor visitors.
During the current COVID-19 crisis, boaters will be endeavoring to engage in recreational boating, in a manner that is both safe and consistent with city and county orders. This will necessitate that various boat owners will not be able to man their vessels with their full regular experienced crews, but will be boating with fewer crewmembers and potentially less experienced household members.
This is exactly the wrong time to reduce the staffing of our Harbor Patrol.
Please maintain this critical public safety service for our community,
and do not accept Decision Package #29.
To: Mayor Brand and City Council Members
RE: Agenda Item L.1-Public Hearing to Consider Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Proposed Budget
Covid 19, like a tornado, arrived suddenly and has changed our lives in so many ways. Some of these changes will be permanent but some will last a relatively short time. Change, nevertheless is always difficult, sudden change even more so. So first I want to express my appreciation to the council members and staff in their efforts to guide the our city forward during this difficult time.
I have read the budget and decision packages, most of which I support. RB residents support all efforts to save money, spend wisely, and balance the budget. However, below are my comments on five of the decision packages:
DP# 21-Vehicle replacement policy-it would be helpful for the residents if we could view the current policy and the method that determines vehicle replacement. Residents need to know that it makes economical sense to replace vehicles. If you are changing the policy to lengthen the life of vehicles now, why make it temporary? Why not permanent?
DP# 23-Budget and Finance Commission should continue to meet monthly, not every other month. Citizen commissioners with financial expertise provide an extra pair of eyes to assist the city in saving money. That can only be done by continuing the current practice of holding monthly meetings.
DP# 25-Continue Moss Adams audit services. Moss Adams has provided critical guidance and recommendations in streamlining practices and saving the city money. This service should be continued.
DP# 26-Continue Harbor contract auditing services. Outside auditors can bring objective eyes in reviewing contracts, catching details that may go unnoticed, saving the city money. This should be continued.
DP# 44-In general, RB residents would like to see greater transparency in vehicle replacement purchasing policies. Again, if the city is now extending the life of vehicles, why not make that policy permanent?
One comment/question: Of the 34 positions eliminated, please tell us how many of those positions were vacant or unfunded in the 2019/2020 fiscal year.
Sheila W. Lamb
As a former City employee in Public Works I strongly oppose the elimination of the supervisor position in the Parks Division. This position serves the Parks Manager as the field lieutenant. Eliminating this position forever will have a detrimental effect on the services that Parks employees deliver. The supervisor is the person in the field that oversees the daily hands-on operations. The playgrounds, the medians and the trees that grace the City. The Manager sees the “big picture”. The budget, safety issues and citizen inquiries are just a few. The current virus situation will end and the City will return to normal operations. When this happens the “look” of the city will be important in bringing tourism and business back. I proudly served in both positions and understand the importance of both. I also understand the current fiscal climate and the need to reduce employee payroll. Perhaps restructure the position to make it more fiscally possible to keep it. The Parks Department is already losing a long tome valuable asset in the current employee in that supervisory position. Don’t let the retirement of this employee be the reason to eliminate this very important cog in the wheel that is the Parks Division and Public Works.
What is the city's long term financial plan? If the economy returns will the city re-hire and re-authorize the planned eliminated positions?
The city already has used too much cutting and eliminated the fat. You have now reached the bone.
Before de-authorizing ~30 positions and firing 9 people, 2 of which will be unemployed, an optional early retirement package should be offered to employees so those who may be close to retirement can be incentivized to retire and those who want and need to work can stay.
Why not consider a one time use of cash reserves reducing the one month reserve money from ~$8M to $6M. The one month cushion is nice and well earned by conservative choices by the city but it should be considered as other cities operate with less cushion.
The following decision packages are not in the best interest of the city and other options need to be found:
(No) Decision Packages #16 (Reducing Library hours) as a lot of residents including kids use the library after school and closing Mondays and at 6:00pm leaves them no where to go.
(No) Decision package #23 (Changing most commission meetings to bi-monthly) This is also not a wise investment as it is difficult enough for commissioners to do a good job and get staff support at the current meeting schedule. Referrals take too long to come back and discussions move at a glaciers pace. This package would make that problem even worse.
(No) Decision Package #21: Rather than extend one-year again after doing the same last year, a better choice would be to change the mix of vehicles purchased. Currently, the city is purchasing very expensive and excessive fully electric vehicles at full MSRP (Not receiving the Federal or State credits that bring down the costs) and using those vehicles for currently 12 or 13 years. What do you think a Chevy Bolt EV will be worth 13 years from now? Instead consider purchasing other less expensive vehicles this round or consider a municipal lease program to transfer the risks of devaluation while keeping green and zero or low emissions fro your city fleet.
I am in support of Decision Package #4 and #24.
Thank you for your time.
Matthew Hinsley
District 3