Facts don’t support Greenlight contentions

Homer Bludau

The July 13 Daily Pilot contained a “Community Commentary” from

Greenlight spokesman Phil Arst titled “Waste to blame for service

cuts.” Arst’s commentary contained numerous claims which are not

supported by the facts; therefore, I feel an obligation to our

citizens to set the record straight on just a few of Arst’s

unsupportable statements. They are as follows:

Arst -- “Newport Beach has cut services provided to its residents

for the coming fiscal year by materially reducing the general fund

part of its capital budget.”

This statement is false. The city’s Capital Improvement Budget for

fiscal year 2003-04 is $30.84 million for accomplishing 101

individual capital improvement projects, which is the maximum number

of projects that we are likely to be able to accomplish, given the

size of our staff to oversee and manage the projects. While general

fund monies going toward the capital improvement budget have been

reduced, it would be foolish to budget for more projects than can

realistically be accomplished. Therefore, capital improvement

services for the community are not being reduced.

Arst -- “The city has recently raised fees on some services. For

example, they are now charging seniors for classes and keeping 30% of

the money instead of turning it all back to senior activities.”

This statement is false. I don’t know where Arst is getting his

information, perhaps from one of the contract cities he is so

enamored with, but there have been no recent or contemplated changes

in city fee or charges for OASIS Center senior classes provided by

the city.

Arst -- “The city says it needs to build a $30-million Taj Mahal

of a City Hall to accommodate an increasing number of its government

employees.”

This statement is false. Today’s Newport Beach City Hall

accommodates the same departments that it did in 1990 (Administrative

Services, city clerk, Human Resources, city manager, Recreation and

Senior Services, Fire Administration, city attorney, Planning,

Building and Public Works). In 1990, the Newport City Hall

accommodated 158 city employees; today’s number is 175, an increase of 17 employees in 13 years. The City Council is contemplating

building a new City Hall not to accommodate an increasing number of

City Hall employees, as Arst states, but to improve the efficiency of

serving the more than 170,000 people who come to City Hall each year

for interfacing with city employees over city services.

If Arst had attended any of the City Council’s discussions

regarding the possibility of a new city hall, he would have heard the

following reasons given for the inadequacy of the current facilities:

there is not enough public parking; there is very little meeting

space for staff to meet with customers; the amount of waiting space

for the public reflects a disregard for their comfort; the buildings

do not meet current earthquake codes or American with Disability Act

requirements; there is very little storage space for documents

(indeed, many city hall documents are stored off site); some

buildings are at the end of their planned life; and the band-aid

add-ons to City Hall over the years have created operational

inefficiencies that cost City Hall customers both time and

convenience.

A discussion for a new city hall originated only after staff

proposed to the City Council some costly improvements in order to try

and band-aid the structures for a few more years. The City Council

looked at the modifications staff had proposed and decided it was

time to try to solve City Hall space issues, rather than putting that

decision off. In his commentary, Arst claims the city should be more

efficient in the way it provides services, but seems to draw the line

when antiquated facilities contribute to proven customer service

inefficiencies.

Arst -- “It behooves the city to reduce government waste through

outsourcing. That will enable restoration of residential services and

headcount reductions will eliminate the near-term need for a

$30-million Taj Mahal of a city hall.”

This statement does not stand up under scrutiny. Let’s say Arst

had his way and the following functions currently provided at City

Hall were accomplished through contract with the private sector:

billing, billing collectibles, utility services, accounting,

recreation and special event sign-ups/applications; planning services

and permitting, building/inspection and permitting services, public

works permitting, public projects management, management information

systems support. And let’s say that the private sector through

contracts provided these services to the public at City Hall. Given

the current level of services provided by city employees at city

hall, I challenge Arst to show how fewer private sector employees

could provide the public the same level of services.

My point: With either private sector or public sector employees

providing the services, the City Hall complex still does not have

adequate parking, meeting space and American with Disability Act

accommodations nor meets earthquake codes. The City Hall employees

that I work with and oversee on a daily basis are professional, loyal

and committed to Newport Beach and the customers they serve. They do

the best they can to provide excellent services; the physical

constraints of City Hall make that a more difficult goal to

accomplish. One more thing: Arst knows the $30 million he cited for

the project includes the cost of a replacement fire station and a new

multi-story parking structure.

Arst -- “Except for two very small cities (Brea and Laguna Beach),

Newport Beach has the highest ratio of employees per resident among

the 34 county cities.”

The reasons behind our city work force numbers are as follows.

Arst is correct when he states that Newport Beach has more city

employees per resident capita than almost every other city in the

county, but I believe there are two very good reasons for this.

One, Newport Beach draws people because of its beaches,

restaurants, shopping and numerous other amenities. For example, we

anticipate within the next 12 months, more than 8.7 million will

visit our city just to use its beaches. While our resident population

is 80,000, we have to provide basic services for a much larger

population.

Two, I think our residents want the best in terms of services they

receive. Even if 8 million-plus people visit our beaches and utilize

our other facilities, our residents want our beaches, restrooms,

streets, public safety services, parks, libraries, etc., to be the

best anywhere, regardless of how many users make demands on those

facilities and services. I can provide Arst numerous examples where

the city contracted for private sector services and those services

had to be taken back by city employees because the pride and

commitment to the job did not match the previous quality of work. As

it is, the city annually does contract for millions of dollars worth

of services provided by the private sector. But we carefully pick and

choose those services where we feel that the quality of services will

best be maintained at a very high level.

Arst -- “The target of these suggestions (contracting out for

services) is nonpublic safety services. In no way is it suggested

that police and fire services be outsourced.”

This statement is disingenuous. Arst does not advocate our public

safety services (police, fire, lifeguard) be contracted out, even

though Arst knows that the salaries/benefits for these safety service

employees make up 63% of the city’s total salary/benefit costs. My

guess is that he does not suggest this because he knows it would not

be supported in the community. Arst and I are in agreement these

important life safety services should not be contracted for, but if

Arst defines the term “efficiency” as providing a service for less

cost, he should champion contracting out for police and fire services

also. Why would Arst not want the same high level of services

provided from non-safety employees for every service provided to our

community?

Arst, like every other Newport Beach resident, certainly has the

right to question the efficiency, effectiveness and costs of city

services being provided. I take no issue with him doing so. However,

I do ask at least a minimal level of homework in order to get basic

facts correct prior to conveying inaccurate information regarding

your city government to our populace. I also challenge Arst to be

faithful to his philosophy by not picking and choosing bits and

pieces of information which distort the complete picture of such an

important issue to the community of how best to provide city services

to our residents and visitors.

* HOMER BLUDAU is the city manager of Newport Beach.