Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge caution after city pursued $19 million gun‑range grant; one caller urges per‑capita budget review
Summary
Two residents addressed the Finance and Budget Commission about a recently pursued $19 million federal grant for a gun range and about Redondo Beach general‑fund spending compared with peer cities. They urged fiscal caution and requested improved online financial transparency.
Two public commenters at the Sept. 11 meeting urged the Finance and Budget Commission to proceed cautiously on large projects and to improve transparency about the city’s finances.
Wayne Craig, who identified himself as a Redondo resident, said he learned at a community meeting that the city had applied for a $19 million grant for a proposed gun‑range facility. Craig said the city had spent money preparing the application and that if grant conditions were unmet the city might need to cover up to 30% of costs. He said he understood the city had allocated $1.3 million toward the project and spent about $200,000 of that amount. Craig suggested transferring roughly $1.1 million from a city account back into the general fund or holding it as contingency to offset near‑term budget pressures. He described a $3.5 million “structural deficit” and urged the commission to write to City Council asking for conservative budgeting.
Another commenter, Jim Mueller (District 5), urged the commission to compare Redondo Beach’s per‑resident general‑fund spending with peer cities and to publish updated comprehensive financial reports online. Using FY 2025–26 budget documents, Mueller reported Redondo Beach general‑fund appropriations of $123,450,000 or about $1,725 per resident; he compared that to Montebello ($83,550,000; roughly $1,349 per resident) and Monterey Park ($73.9 million; roughly $1,002.47 per resident). Mueller did not make a value judgment about those differences but recommended the commission investigate them and asked that the city post ACFR updates for 2023–24 and 2024–25 on its website.
Staff and commission response
Commissioners and staff thanked the commenters and noted related agenda items were already under commission review or scheduled for future discussion. No formal action was taken on the grant or the public requests; the comments were entered into the public record.
Ending
Commenters asked for caution in spending, greater transparency on financial reports, and a possible letter from the commission to City Council; commission members said they would consider the suggestions and continue related agenda items at a future meeting.
