By Michele Monda
The city council majority is on a spending spree with resident’s money, and there’s no end in sight. Consider the mega-expensive projects they anticipate passing.
The biggest project is taking over Laguna Canyon Road from Caltrans. According to city staff, this will cost $141 million for undergrounding, bike and pedestrian lanes and beautification. Then, there’s a projected annual liability outlay of $12 million and $250,000 per year for upkeep (not including new staff and equipment).
The council majority stated that it’s necessary for wildfire reduction. Yet the city’s consultant, HDR, writes, “There’s a low likelihood that the relocation of utility infrastructure in the Laguna Canyon Road right-of-way will generate wildfire prevention benefits.”
A pivot was necessary. Now, the council majority says the reason for the takeover is safety, but there are other much less costly solutions for improving safety besides taking over the road and resulting annual costs.
Additionally, Caltrans will be subject to SB-960, which mandates that it implements Complete Streets. It passed the Senate and will likely pass the Assembly. This means that many of the reasons given to assume Laguna Canyon Road will have to be done by Caltrans.
Staff says the state will pay most of the $141 million with grants, but grants were not forthcoming in 2018 or 2022 (when staff said $47 million in public funds would be enough to underground LCR). The city continues exploring funding options.
We have spent $9.8 million on this project since 2017. California has a deficit, the economy isn’t good, and the outlook for grant funding isn’t good. Councilman Whalen spent his career doing municipal bond work. Can one be far behind?
Why is the council not allowing taxpayers to vote on this expensive venture that will tie up a key evacuation route for years? (Remember Third Street?)
The next spending item is participation in a desalinization plant. City council serves as directors on the Laguna Beach County Water District board. Whalen has been a liaison for the desalinization project for the past two years.
Recently, by a 4-1 vote, the city council authorized $2.6 million for the project’s first phase, agreeing to participate in the South Coast water district’s desalinization project for $23 million. This is only for building the plant. We still pay for the water that we only receive in an emergency. Getting the water requires infrastructure upgrades of $300,000 – $600,000. The water is projected to cost an estimated $2,400 per acre-foot, but maybe more like $3,500 per acre-foot as produced by Carlsbad’s desal plant.
Yet for $1,100 an acre-foot, we could get water from the Orange County Basin, where we already have water rights that will provide 80% of our water needs, plus we are currently looking at sites.
For emergency water, we have a mutual aid agreement with other OC agencies and can secure an agreement with Irvine Ranch Water District, which has two connections to our water system. Why does our city council majority think this is a good way to spend ratepayer money? Don’t we have more important priorities?
Another project: The council wants a parking structure at City Hall. Despite multiple rejections by residents of other structures at the Village entrance, they plow ahead. They have already spent $708,000 on a consultant study for a parking structure to accommodate more day-trippers. But there was no discussion about the need for a plan, the cost of the structure, who will pay for it, or how it will be funded. Another bond?
The promenade could cost another $3 to $4 million. We have already spent over $1 million on maintenance, building and rebuilding it, along with lost parking revenue. Despite any empirical data or bona fide survey, the council majority, led by Mayor Kempf, will not accept a hybrid plan that would help retailers, capture lost parking revenue and preserve our historic street.
Next expenditure: the Downtown Action Plan, estimated at $14 million. Approved in 2022, it awaits funding. Why aren’t the beneficiaries, downtown businesses, contributing?
Then there’s the $23 million spent on acquiring St. Catherine’s. To date, it has limited recreational use for residents and is used to house some city staff.
Why is the city council majority looking at projects costing millions of dollars with marginal value for residents?
Let’s get serious about using St. Catherine’s for recreation—build that community pool, parking lot, and skateboard park there, put in a preschool, and maybe a children’s library, which now stores 5,000 books.
Put more streetlights on Glenneyre for safety, upgrade our decaying sewer system and build that fire station in south Laguna.
In this difficult economic environment, we need to change how we spend. In November, elect candidates prioritizing resident-serving projects instead of wasteful pet projects.
Michèle is a 21-year Laguna resident and actively follows Laguna politics. She is the treasurer of Laguna Beach Sister Cities and is involved with the local arts scene. She can be reached at Michelemonda3@gmail.com.
It’s under-educated residents who refuse to acknowledge the City’s Constitution and Bylaws in authorizing the elected City Council’s authority in these issues. Laguna Canyon will be transformed in to a beautiful parkway instead of the over grown back alley we’ve put up with for 60 years. Build Better Forward. Let’s non-profit Ms Monda and have her raise the sponsorships needed to build the monuments she’s detailed. I’m sure the well endowed local businessman would help build everything on time and on budget! Let’s move forward with private investments
And yet we manage to live within our income, year after year after year.
How come Santa Barbara doesn’t have these problems? Higher quality government structure and leadership capabilities instead of electing realtors, bar owners and art gallery salesmen.
It’s all about the money. Where is it going to come from – who’s going to pay for all these “wonderful projects” that residents have NOT said they want. Follow the money.
We will continue to live within our means, no matter what, because we are required to do so. Everything else is noise.
Mrs. Monda, residents don’t have to say what they ‘want’. They elect representatives to do that, and it’s the council’s complete authority to green light public projects. Because some say no isn’t valid in democracy.
The wish list of future projects detailed in the column including; 1) the canyon road project, 2) a desalination plant, 3) the downtown action plan, and 4) the promenade, total a staggering $180 million. The City Hall parking structure does not as yet have a cost, but it is clear that the Council is serious about some kind of parking structure. It considered one at the Presbyterian church that would have cost $13 million, and floated structures near the lawn bowling facility and at Aliso Creek. (The later may still be open for discussion.)
Even without the parking structure, at $180 million the wish list exceeds the current budget of $145 million by $35 million. And the current budget has doubled from $70 million in 2013 to the $145 million today. Clearly, satisfying the City’s project appetite will of necessity require it to use debt financing.
In addition, in 2021 the Council purchased Ti Amo (without an appraisal) for $2.7 million. It was to be used as a fire station, until the property was determined to be unsuitable. Now there are discussions of selling it. Even more recently, Council purchased the old St. Catherine school at a cost of $23 million, which added $11 million to the City’s debt. The property was to be used as a community center but two years later those plans have yet to materialize. Finally, since 2018, the City has borrowed $16 million in the Sewer Fund, of which $14.6 million remained outstanding at June 30, 2023.
Questions to ponder during this election season. Do we have control over our spending? Are we living within our means? Or are we becoming profligate spenders? Could we be accused of mortgaging our future and that of future generations? You decide.
Mary, there was never a snowball’s chance that we would replace lawn bowling with parking. That ranks up there with the absurd idea that we would replace the library with a parking structure. It was an exercise (and possibly a waste of time) simply to list every single possible place in town where we could add more surface parking. As for the Ti Amo property, it is up for sale and will almost certainly sell for more than we paid for it. (Without an appraisal? What does that even mean?) The Presbyterian project was a non-binding MOU allowing us to take a closer look and decide against it. It never cost us a cent. If we decide to assume control of Laguna Canyon Road, we won’t be on the hook for $140 million. Read the City Manager’s letter.
You ask “Do we have control over our spending?” Yes, because we are legally obligated to live within our means. Can we mortgage our future? Can we raise taxes? Yes, but good luck getting an initiative passed to do either of those things.
I think you all could save yourself a lot of sturm and drang by reading this week’s balanced and thoughtful column by City Manager Dave Kiff. https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/letter-to-the-community-about-laguna-canyon-road/
Instead of feigning outrage over the projected costs, you would learn how it could be funded without our tax dollars, and the many benefits we would accrue. Taking no action by standing on a platform of no new spend will leave us hopelessly behind our ever mounting traffic and safety problems. Doing nothing is not an option. It’s why we elect officials. To do things that make our lives better.
Billy – I specifically mention in the column that the city staff has been looking at grants from the state and has been since 2018 and 2022 – neither instance resulted in any grant money. So with the state in a deficit right now, the economy not doing well, it is more than wishful thinking to believe that it will be covered by grant money. Oh, staff is still looking – they admit that. But it’s not going to cover the cost by a wide margin. I say “Follow the money”. If it isn’t coming from the state, you bet residents will be asked to foot the bill. There are less costly ways of accomplishing safety which is now the appeal the CC is making since fire safety was ruled out by their consultants. Please reread the column again to get the point.
Chris – I can’t even begin to counter your foolishness. You know darned well what the point of getting an appraisal is about. They did it AGAIN with the MOU for the Presbyterian church spending spree. No appraisal, just took their word for it. YOU wouldn’t buy a piece of property without an appraisal I’m sure. Ask the city of Bell how well they lived within their means. It’s no oversight and lack of transparency. That’s what is going on here.
Agree with you Michele when you state “In this difficult economic environment, we need to change how we spend. In November, elect candidates prioritizing resident-serving projects instead of wasteful pet projects.”
As you address the Council majority and excessive spending, it’s important to note that many of the projects and costs you highlight have been spearheaded and/or supported by incumbent Bob Whalen. During his 12 years in office City spending has ballooned by over 107%.
One area of our government spending that reflects his decision-making is our rising employee salaries, benefits, bonuses and pension costs. Whalen often leads the charge for such increases. These costs are eating up our budget (public safety 40%+ of budget) and our City Manager’s package alone now totals about $400,000 or more per year. How is our City employee costs to do our City business sustainable? Check out CLB transparency and compensations: https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/government/departments/administrative-services/finance-division/transparency-compensation#!/
Just listening to the candidate forums and the multitude of serious community problems being identified as “having to be fixed and soon” convinces we have the wrong leadership in place. Our environmental resources appear to be constantly in distress and the concerns are growing over our financial oversight and continued city departments operating dysfunctions. Where has this 12 year incumbents oversight been? How many “I need more time to fix things” answers can we afford to accept? Yes, let’s stop wasteful spending by multi-term leaders that aren’t listening or benefiting the residents. Vote for leadership change. I am.
Ms Abraham and Ms Monda did all they could to drive out the last city manager at the cost to the taxpayers of at least half a million dollars. Now they’re complaining about the cost of her replacement????
Chris, the former City Manager did all of the “driving” herself, whether in her wildly successful shakedown of the City of Laguna Beach or in her multiple missteps while serving as the City Manager.
Ms. Monda and Ms. Abraham (and numerous others) only pointed out the “need” to replace the City Manager with a “qualified” City Manager. A CM with the educational credentials and experience, not to mention the proper temperament and capacity to effectively direct our town.
Furthermore it was most certainly was not Ms. Monda and Ms. Abraham as Your LTE states that “cost the taxpayers a half a million dollars”.
No Chris, it was Bob Whalen and Sue Kempf who orchestrated that fist full of dollars for the CM on her way out the door. Trying to blame anyone other than Bob and Sue is of course laughable and absurd. There was more than enough “just cause” to terminate the CM due to her own ineptitude and incompetence. Why did our CC not pursue that imperative? In the opinion of many the reason for the overgenerous payout was to deflect inquiries as to “WHY” she was hired for the position in the first place. Bob Whalen, Sue Kempf and Peter Blake were all culpable in the placement and hiring of the underqualified CM. If You are wondering who cost “the taxpayers at least a half a million dollars” look no further than Bob Whalen, Sue Kempf, Alex Rounaghi and Mark Orgill.
Chris, no one drove the CM out, she did it all by herself, (and got paid handsomely for it) with a little help from her friends.