Editor,
So the city wants an additional $2 million per year to, according to the city’s informational flyer, “protect beaches from pollution; provide fire and police protection and emergency response services; promote utility undergrounding to prevent fires and power outages; improve the cleanliness of public areas such as sidewalks and streets; and provide other services and improvements in Laguna Beach.
Are these vital services currently being provided at reduced levels due to budgetary constraints? Are there any identified budgetary constraints? Not according to the city. In proposing a two-year budget on April 30, the city manager stated, “The general fund is doing well and the city finds itself in a relatively healthy position with many of the city’s revenues meeting or exceeding levels experienced prior to the recession….Overall, the proposed two-year general fund budget is balanced with revenues exceeding expenditures by $1.3 million in FY 2015-16 and $1.5 million in FY 2016-17. The 20% reserve remains intact.”
As late as March of this year, the director of finance stated that the “city’s overall financial position is strong,” with a general fund reserve of $11.6 million.
So why the need for an additional $2 million per year for the unrestricted general fund? Fortunately, the city has already answered that for us. Back in 2015, the city manager warned, “unfunded pension liabilities still remain a significant concern…In 2014, the City Council approved its own strategy to help stabilize the impact of increasing pension costs by augmenting the City’s contribution to the unfunded pension liability by $1.4 million annually. However, the city’s plan for safety employees must still be addressed. This will likely require another $1.4 million be added to the budget.” Again earlier this year, the director of finance also warned that “long term financial issues include paying down the unfunded pension liability and personnel costs (salaries, benefits, healthcare).”
Clearly, the city needs unrestricted funds to pay down its pension liability that it freely admits is unfunded. In drafting Measure LL, it seems that the City Council targeted a small non-voting constituency, “local hotels and other lodging establishments,” and figured that voters would agree to increase someone else’s local taxes by 20%. The city’s unfunded pension liability is a serious issue that deserves proper attention, but its solution should not be borne on the backs of some of the city’s most important economic drivers and contributors.
James M. Lawson, Laguna Beach
Amen!!! And thank you for addressing this. This measure was supported by the entire CC and is financially supported by two members as well as investors and a private resident. Basically the bogus community survey was done to use it as the basis for this measure. No-brainer if you looked at the focus of the questions. Many residents were ignored when they spoke to the opposition of these funds going into the general fund. This City Council is not listening to constituentss. Most have been in office too long and are no longer objective or effective representatives. Time for a change. I’m voting for Judie Mancuso who opposes Measure LL and highly supports transparency at City Hall.