A marathon City Council meeting on the evening of Monday, February 26 saw the council presented with the 2023/24 budget monitoring report before it ended at approximately 2 a.m.
The report details the highlights of the report as: “General Fund Operating Revenues through December 31, 2023 total $54.8 million or 34.1% of the current revised Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget. Analysis of the current fiscal year suggests the City’s overall recurring General Fund revenues, along with one-time revenues, are expected to be slightly less than the Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget. Additional General Fund Revenue details are provided beginning on page 2 of this report. Staff is recommending that some revenue categories be increased and others be decreased for a net reduction of $358,480.”
As for General Fund Expenditures, “through December [they] total $89.9 million or 47.4% of the current revised Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget.”
General Fund revenues for 2022/23 was just over $160,000, and it is projected to be a similar amount for the fiscal year 2023/24. Meanwhile, projected expenditure for the current fiscal year is $191,516.
Council Member Goran Eriksson questioned the fact that the City has $160,000 coming in and $190,000 going out, and asked how long that is sustainable for. Essentially, it will eat into the City’s reserves fast. Eriksson stated that there is much work to do to get the books balanced.
Action Items 2 and 3 saw updates to the general plan, and zoning code amendments. Earlier, Public Hearing Item 1 saw the failure of an appeal “of the administrative telecommunication permit to Crown Boulevard.” The appeal was filed by a gentleman named Ron Peled, who wrote in an email to the City, “On behalf of a small group of neighbors our stand remains the same: choose a different [location] – we recommend closer to the highway and away from [residential] homes.”
However, the council was happy with the staff recommendation to proceed. The second Public Hearing item, “Appeal of the administrative approval of wireless telecommunications facilities encroachment permit to Crown Castle for 6292 Buckingham Parkway, Culver City,” saw the council request more time as the proposed location did raise eyebrows. Its proximity to, among other things, a cemetery, led the council to ask for more details as to why alternative locations wouldn’t work. A representative from Crown Castle agreed to the request.
The meeting started on a bright note, with staff stating that, without being able to provide numbers at present, the recent homeless count was down. More on that as information becomes available.
