SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

Mike Killebrew, Acting Dana Point City Manager

The Mayor’s article last week where she said we spent $11 million per year was an interpretation of a document we have produced that shows over 15 years worth of capital investments, into both existing capital assets and new assets (like the PCH bridge, medians, salt creek water treatment facility, new parks, etc…)

I have boiled this discussion down to what I believe to be truly meaningful to the readers if one looks at the actual 10 years of financial data associated with our capital investments (and there are a lot of them):

Fiscal Year 2006-07 through 2015-16

– Rehabilitation of Existing Infrastructure: $29 million ($2.9 million per year)

– New Infrastructure: $42 million ($7.1 million per year)

– Total Investment (new and rehabilitation): $71 million ($7.1 million per year)

If you want to assess the city’s fiscal health going forward, the more relevant number is what it costs to take care of what you have, which on average the past 10 years has been $2.9 million per year.

To build new capital assets that bump up the annual spending to anywhere near $7.1 million per year, we would have to raise revenues and/or cut costs/services. If that is the communities’ and thus the Council’s direction, that is what staff will work towards.

To submit a letter to the editor, email editorial@danapointtimes.com.

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAY
Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (5)

  • Mr. Killebrew’s response is typical of the past culture of the city council and staff leadership. He attacks the statements of those who care about the city in an attempt to dilute the power of their arguments, while failing to address the fundamental issues.

    The facts are that Dana Point ‘s staff has grown from 48 people to 70 over the last 10 years, while our population has declined slightly. We spend more per resident on police services than any other sheriff-contracted city in Orange County.

    Spending has gotten out of control. Nothing in Mr. Killebrew’s letter contradicts that conclusion.

    This kind of broad attack on dissent and obfuscation of the truth is indicative of the lack of respect for the residents of the city that has been on display by senior city staff for years. It’s very disappointing to see this continuing.

  • It was interesting watching the last City Council meeting.

    Maybe the last decade of politics has destroyed my ability to understand what goes on in governments both large and small but it seems some Council members are not happy the sandbox is being sifted.

    Every effort to evaluate and justify expenses is resisted well beyond any reason.

    The more “experienced” members are way more concerned with process than results.

    Process is fine and necessary but the almost outright refusal to look at expenses is disturbing.

    This is a small city obviously, but it still needs monitoring.

    We’ll see how it goes.

  • I can’t believe that a paid staff member–especially the leadership–would be critical of the elected body that it works for. How non-professional is that! Note the “acting” part of the job title. ‘Guess I was born yesterday.

  • Long-Time Resident Reply

    I think there’s a typo in Mr. Killebrew’s letter: “New Infrastructure: $42 million ($7.1 million per year)” should be $4.2 million per year.

  • There is more than a typo in this curious letter. The line referencing new infrastructure spending should have shown that average annual expenditure in this category was $4.2 million per year but curiously the city’s CFO divided $42 million by 10 years and got $7.1 million per year. Embarrassing.
    He closes the letter with a straw argument about future capital spending at $7.1 million as if anyone intended to do that. Did he even read this letter before he posted it? Before he implicitly criticizes the Mayor’s interpretation of TEN years of the city’s financial history, (not 15 years as he stated), he ought to consider proofreading his own very public comments. Or maybe he shouldnt have said anything at all.

comments (5)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>