Recently there have been a number of letters regarding the closure of the Verdugo Park swimming pool (“There is no bonus to bonus payouts,” July 6). I thought it might be helpful to clarify the reason for this temporary closure.
In recent years, the 50-year-old pool has suffered excessive daily water loss due to its aging infrastructure. For the safety of swimmers, it was closed in fall 2008. Since then, we have formed an Aquatic Study Group, hired an architect, conducted extensive community outreach and designs were completed for not only Verdugo, but also the deteriorating McCambridge Park swimming pool.
Like many other cities in California, Burbank is facing some challenging budget times. Our pension costs have risen dramatically and continue to account for much of our ongoing deficit. The council continues to make tough decisions regarding the important programs and services you have come to expect in our city.
The funding for the Verdugo pool has been in place for several years and is a priority. I ask for your patience as we move forward in this process and look forward to seeing our children splashing in a beautiful, but more importantly, safe new pool very soon.
Editor’s note: Golonski is a member of the Burbank City Council.
Voters: Don’t forget council’s choices
Perhaps someone out there can help me understand the priorities of the Burbank City Council.
I've lived in Burbank for 24 years and have found Burbank to be a wonderful place to raise my family. However, recently I find it difficult to understand our City Council.
How can you let the school crossing guards who have a responsibility for the safety of our children be told “You can keep your jobs, but you will no longer be receiving any health or welfare benefits. We can't afford it as a city,” while at the same time we pay out $4 million in bonuses to our city employees?
How can we keep the Verdugo Park swimming facility closed for a period of years while we bail out the DeBell golf course to the tune of at least $1 million.
If we, as a city, are experiencing austere times — as is the state of California and the country — then shouldn't our money be spent for the welfare of our children, not the comfort of our city employees or the golf habits of our upper class?
I'm not trying to be unfeeling toward city workers, but our city employees have not lost their health benefits or their pensions or been asked to take pay cuts as many of us in the private sector have over the past 10 years.
I don't think they would suffer if their bonus money went toward paying benefits for the school crossing guards. And I don't buy the argument that we will lose our best employees if we don't maintain their bonuses, not in an economic environment that is experiencing unemployment rates above 9%. If DeBell Golf Club had to be sold, a private buyer could probably be found who would maintain it as a golf course.
Maybe it's just me and I'm too dense or unsophisticated to understand the politics of the situation, but is this really the path we want to see our city go down — the way we want to be represented as a community: service the more privileged at the expense of those that need? And if not, then why does our City Council persist to make these choices?
I am a voter who has not missed an election in my entire residency. I, for one, will not forget the choices my elected officials are making.