.

Council OKs $8 Million in Bonds for Community Park, Moonlight Beach Project

The council approved funding for the construction of Encinitas Community Park and improvements to Moonlight State Beach in July.

The Encinitas City Council Wednesday night voted unanimously to issue up to $8 million in bonds for the construction of Encinitas Community Park, route: {:controller=>"articles", :action=>"show", :id=>"city-breaks-ground-on-encinitas-community-park"} --> and

GoodGovernance September 20, 2012 at 01:42 PM
The Council also (finally) acknowledged the need to have a workshop on pension obligations. Their excuse to date was that they were in negotiations with employee unions so it would have been inappropriate to talk about it earlier. It seems to me that the time to have a pension cost workshop and listen to experts would be before negotiating new contracts. Wouldn't that be good to know what future pension projections are BEFORE you enter into negotiations? Wouldn't it be good if the employees and management all listened to experts together so there was a common basis from which to negotiate? Alas, that's not how the Council majority seems to think. But better late than never - I look forward to more information about the workshop. Maybe it will be after the election and there will be some new Council members participating who don't just say, as our mayor did recently, that these actuarial calculations are complicated (and by implication, we taxpayers shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it ...). Encinitas has some pretty smart heads who can help us make good decisions, if we'd only let them contribute.
Chris may September 20, 2012 at 02:20 PM
Our schools have de funded music, art and computer classes and more. But, a past mayor stated, "If we don't build more soccer fields, we will have to build more jails."
Cyrus Kamada September 20, 2012 at 03:25 PM
The question is, should Mayor Stocks et al, be allowed to add $8 million in indebtedness to the city's general fund ( our tax-payer funds ), without a vote by the people who supplied those funds ( us ). This is akin to one spouse taking out a mortgage to buy a vacation home, and not even asking the other spouse if he or she thinks it's a good idea.
William September 20, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Like a drunk in a whorehouse with pockets full of other peoples money. Keep the party going while there's still hookers and blow to be had. It is so irresponsible.
Chris may September 20, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Cyrus, This is not just $8 million. It's 8mil plus 7mil from other city projects, 23mil to buy, 4mil for bond payments, half a mill maintenance a year, bond payments for the new bond, off site improvements and more. More like over $50,000,000.00 and counting and no you do not get to vote on any of it.
Sarah Riccitelli September 20, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Why am I not surprised? Spending oodles of $ that we don't have on stuff that we don't need. We have plenty of nice recreational areas. Hell, it's one of the reasons that Encinitas is such a popular town.
Chris may September 20, 2012 at 04:58 PM
Sarah. Unfortunately the city, without asking you is taking all the money that has been saved up for open space land and land for true community parks, with tennis, basketball and other amenities and defunding open space funds in order to make sure that there are sports fields in the special use sports park to entertain outside sports teams.
BW September 20, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Did we pay off the library yet? If we don't have the funds, we shouldn't be spending them.
Lynn Marr September 20, 2012 at 11:22 PM
I sent Council, City Manager, City Attorney, & City Clerk an e-mail last night & followed up today by forwarding e-mails I sent last July when Council addressed the idea of defunding open space & habitat acquisition & defunding monies earmarked to deal with chronic Leucadia flooding, as well as floating a third "lease revenue bond," for improvements, again, to the former Hall Property, and (this time) for improvements to Moonlight Beach. By the way, we don't want or need a $1.4 million parking garage destroying our natural bluff, nor so many sports fields at a community park! Here's part of my e-mail to Council: . . . I realize lease revenue bonds are legal in California, and that they have been tested in Court to demonstrate that they are. However, in the precedent, which is binding case law, which I sent to all of Council and the City Attorney and City Manager, previously, it was demonstrated, specifically, that while lease revenue bonds are allowable, and a legal device of setting up a joint powers authority with "leasing authority," published Court rulings MANDATE that the actual revenue stream must not be derived entirely from a public entity's General Fund! The Courts have made exceptions to having an actual revenue stream during construction. But case law is clear; these bonds are to be used for public projects such as parking garages or stadiums, where there is anticipated revenue, once construction is completed.
Lynn Marr September 20, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Here's a pertinent part from my previous July e-mails that I've now forwarded to Council regarding the July 11 2012 Council Meeting at the Community Center. " . . . we conclude that the repayment contract violates the constitutional debt limitation because it contravenes the Offner-Dean [72 Cal. App. 3d 177] requirement that each year's payment be supported by consideration furnished that year, and because the City's in futuro commitment of its general funds to repay the Agency's HUD obligation in the absence of a two-thirds vote of the electorate creates an illegal indebtedness as articulated by the Supreme Court in City of Palm Springs v. Ringwald, supra. . ." . . . the City's repayment contract with the Finance Authority has violated . . . the constitutional debt limitation because it contravenes lease revenue case law, that each year's payment must be supported by consideration furnished that year (a REVENUE STREAM). . . [T]he City's in futuro commitment of its general funds to repay the Finance Authority's obligation in the absence of a. . . vote of the electorate creates an illegal indebtedness as articulated by the Supreme Court. From my reading of this precedent and the other precedent I shared with you, through links, I feel that creating a Finance Authority may be okay, but that there MUST BE A LEGITIMATE CONSIDERATION paid for "use and occupancy," which consideration is derived from such occupation and use [not an ongoing General Fund commitment].
Jay Berman September 20, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Very sad, we pay too much for too little and we have to finance it with bonds on top of that. Sure, the park is nice but almost $20m ???? It's a friggin park with a concession stand and bathrooms ... $4.8 for a concession stand, bathroom and garage ... why so much ? None of this should have been done until we had the money to pay for it. And the $5.5 M for the underpass, another $4.5 for the massive new firehouse in Cardiff ... complete and total irresponsibilty. This city has crappy roads that need fixing .... 11/6 .. remember VOTE for people who will spend responsibly !!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something