The following is not a paid advertisement from the Chamber of Commerce:
“If I could live and work any place in Los Angeles County, I would choose Culver City,” Mayor Andy Weissman said this morning.
Naturally the mayor would say that, an uppity cynic might sneer.
In truth, though, the reasoning is rational rather than cheap, old tub-thumping.
When officials on the third floor of City Hall push their spectacles to the South Pole portion of their noses and peer into their raggedy pocketbook, their reaction is different from that of executives in most other County cities.
Far from prosperous, Culver City’s financial standing nevertheless is respectable, which is a lofty position in these thin times.
Projection Fulfilled
After the recession exploded across the globe last autumn, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Muir, never given to overstatement, said that Culver City, for geographic and other reasons, was more fortunate than most communities because it figured to be shielded from the worst of the fallout.
While this assessment is definitely not final, it is looking prescient as the old fiscal year chugs to a close.
Fiscally, Culver City is not badly off, especially when judged by the barometric readings in nearby more glamourous communities.
In the same week that City Manager Mark Scott’s alma mater, Beverly Hills, announced programmatic and personnel reductions because of the recession, Culver City appears to be entering the new fiscal year in two weeks on fairly sound footing.
With the City Council scheduled to approve Culver City’s newly configured $83 million budget at Monday night’s 7 o’clock meeting, City Hall adroitly has averted the black-bottom financial pitfalls that are daily besetting communities of all sizes coast to coast.
Who Should Take a Bow?
Credit for the relative prosperity appears to belong to a philosophy of conservative stewardship by the most recent team of city officials — led, presumably, by now-retired City Manager Jerry Fulwood and the previous edition of the City Council.
Here is one explanation:
Although City Hall has an established policy of maintaining a reserve fund, a rainy-day component, that amounts to 30 percent of the general fund budget, present accounting stands at 41 percent of the budget.
Kind of like finding an extra hundred dollar bill in your wallet.
Further, the City Council seems positioned to only dip into the reserve fund — so far — for walking-around money, a relative pittance, $120,000.
As a cautionary note, it must be remembered that Culver City’s fiscal condition rests, precariously, atop a huge mound of jiggling jelly.
Culver City’s financial peace of mind hinges on what the legislators in Sacramento decide to do about community funding in the next few weeks.
The final result at City Hall presently is a 100 percent guess until Sacramento makes the pivotal call.
With new City Manager Scott barely having unpacked, he will be catching up and reviewing the work-in-progress budget, line by line, during the coming weeks. In consultation with the City Council, changes of varying degrees are expected to be implemented.
Insiders at City Hall, who pointedly asked not to be identified, speculated — that is why they did not want to be named — that personnel and programs/services both figure to take light hits when Judgment Day does arrive.
Such projections, however, are being written with pencils that boast of tall erasers.
The downside of City Hall’s budget is that Culver City’s business base is just as vulnerable as anyone else’s. The community is losing auto dealerships, big stores (Circuit City) and numerous mid-size and small businesses, thereby shrinking the sales tax base..
Sixty percent of the budget is sales tax generated.
