Beverly Hills Adopts Budget of $147 Million

In the wake of warnings from the city’s finance director to pinch pennies or face the possibility of its first deficit in 11 years, the Beverly Hills City Council approved a budget of more than $147 million for the coming fiscal year.

The budget resolution adopted Tuesday earmarks about $70.6 million for operating expenses and $76.8 million for capital improvements, including the renovation of Roxbury and La Cienega parks, and remodeling of city parking garages.

2% Cutbacks

The fiscal 1989-90 budget reflects 2% cutbacks in requests from all new departments, ordered by City Manager Ed Kreins to offset cash-flow problems. The city’s contribution to the Chamber of Commerce Visitors’ Bureau was slashed by $250,000 from its request of $800,000. The lower budget will result in a sharp reduction of a proposed advertising campaign and cancellation of the city’s annual Christmas pageant.

The council also dropped a proposal to renovate the city-owned Greystone Mansion, which would have cost $5.2 million.

Although the budget resolution was approved without discussion, Councilman Bernard J. Hecht took time just before adjournment to list measures the council might consider to increase revenues, including higher parking and garbage collection rates.

Other council members, questioned after the meeting, spoke emphatically in defense of the economic strengths of the city.

“Some articles (in the press) have implied that we are in the midst of a serious cash problem,” said Vice Mayor Allan L. Alexander. “We are not.”

Alexander acknowledged that “much of our surplus funds are now being used for major capital improvements, and we have to look carefully at our revenue base and expenditures to be sure that they are maintained in balance.”

But, he added, the capital improvements are necessary because of the city’s age. “Fortunately,” he said, “we have a strong economic base to be able to pay for these--sales tax revenues, business taxes and a very high property tax base.”

Councilwoman Vicki Reynolds said balancing the budget was important but also crucial was “how we look to the future, how we service long-term debt and maintain a high level of quality services.”

Mayor Maxwell H. Salter was vociferous--and adamant. “There is no financial crisis in Beverly Hills,” he insisted. “Every city in the country wishes it had the financial health of Beverly Hills.”

Noel Marquis, deputy director of finance administration, said Wednesday morning that he was satisfied with the budget. “We wanted to make the City Council aware that the well is not bottomless, that there are limits to what we can and can’t do. We wanted to make council and city staff pro-active rather than reactive, and to plan a future course that will be steadfast. I think we’re well on the path to that,” he said.

Debate Over Art

Although passage of the budget was swift and decisive, the council spent two hours mulling over what has become a touchy issue: what is art and who decides it?

The council voted 4 to 1 to reject developer Moses Lerner’s appeal of a decision by the Fine Art Committee to deny approval to five sculptures the committee decided did not meet the city’s fine art ordinance, but not before a lengthy debate about the nature of art and the constitutionality of the ordinance.

The ordinance requires that certain commercial developments either display works of art approved by the committee or pay $50,000 toward the display of such art elsewhere, on city property.

Although it does not contest Lerner’s right to display his sculptures at his Village on Canon, a commercial development on Canon Drive and Dayton Way, the committee ruled that the sculptures failed to meet “intrinsic aesthetic standards” specified in committee guidelines and were too small to be harmonious with the structure.

As council members debated the appeal, it was clear they were chafing from recent controversy sparked by other works of art, including a sculpture titled “Moon Dial” now installed in a park on Santa Monica Boulevard and Palm Drive, and an anti-nuclear-arms sculpture that Times political cartoonist and sculptor Paul Conrad tried to donate to the city.

Councilman Robert K. Tanenbaum, who cast the dissenting vote, said the fine art ordinance was vague, subjective and probably in violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. “I suggest we immediately redraft this statute,” he said. The matter was referred to the council’s fine art liaison committee.