November 17, 2005

Dear RPV Residents,

The city staff reported a series of favorable "variances" in the budget (some one-time windfalls but others not) of increased revenue and expenses coming in under budget. The total for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005 is $2.8 million more than the city expected.

Some of this will be used to cover a series of unplanned expenses for emergency storm drain and other infrastructure repairs from last year's storms. Those amounts will show up as expenses in the current fiscal year. But nevertheless, we are left with a surplus that overcomes the original reported deficit of $800,000 by a wide margin. Further meetings will address the variances and I will try to provide more explanation.

The city's representatives on the regional law enforcement committee working with RHE and RH, Mayor Pro Tem Wolowicz and Councilman Stern have reported that the other cites are interested in sharing traffic enforcement with us through our regional contract. Given the strange city boundaries, this is more efficient than the city hiring its own traffic deputy. Neither RHE nor RH have hired their own deputies although RH has hired overtime for additional coverage at times. (The sheriff's office indicates that piecemeal overtime is an inefficient way to add enforcement.) Adding enforcement on a regional basis insures fair coverage everywhere. A deputy devoted to RPV only probably won't patrol much in my neighborhood, for example, because all of its arterial roadways are in RHE. I hope any additional law enforcement we add is through our regional contract and that we always approach the other cites before going on our own. I urge you to write the council and tell them you agree with my approach. You can write them all with one e-mail at cc@rpv.com.

Tom Long
Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Office: (213) 612-7871
Cell: (213) 718-4484
Home: (310) 544-2978
EMAIL

Back to Top

November 14, 2005

Dear RPV Residents,

Here are the election results of interest for Palos Verdes.  The pundits will no doubt have various interpretations of these results, but I am very pleased with them.  You (the voters) have returned two well qualified RPV councilmembers, passed two important school bond measures, and chosen well qualified persons to serve on the school board.  Thank you!

Tom Long

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL RESULTS [updated)
(Top two are elected.)

PALOS VERDES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (updated)
(Top 3 are elected, bonds need 55% to pass.)

Back to Top

October 4, 2005

Dear RPV Residents,

This election presents a choice of 4 candidates for 2 spots on the RPV city council,  4 candidates for 3 seats on the PV School Board as well as Measures R and S, and a host of state ballot propositions..  Here are my thoughts on each for your consideration:

RPV City Council

The city council race has Mayor Larry Clark and Councilman Peter Gardiner running for re-election against Nancy Comaford and former mayor and councilmember Barbara Ferraro.  I have endorsed both Clark and Gardiner and urge you to vote for their re-election.

The 2001 and 2003 elections brought about an almost complete turnover of the RPV city council.  The earlier council was, as even some of its supporters on PVP Watch acknowledge, a "sleepy village council" that did not recognize the challenges the city was facing and did not make its decisions in an open way.  Most significantly, the pre-2001 council was dominated by individuals whose agenda was subservient to developers.  The city's applications for open space funding from state and federal governments were endangered by the prior council's undisclosed plan to give public land to a private developer for yet another golf course.

Mayor Clark and Councilman Gardiner were both instrumental in protecting the city's open space efforts and were among the first to oppose giving city land to a private developer. Gardiner's independence came as a surprise to those who appointed him, including Barbara Ferraro who later described her vote in favor of Gardiner's appointment as her worst mistake. Both Clark and Gardiner can be counted on to remain independent of developers and to protect the city's open space.

Both Clark and Gardiner have proven to be excellent mayors, conducting meetings that encouraged public input and brought out the best participation from their colleagues.  Mayor Clark has also proved to be a regional leader, taking a decisive role as RPV's representative with the League of California Cities in getting Proposition 1A passed to protect the city's revenues from more state raids.

Both Mayor Clark and Councilman Gardiner, unlike Mrs. Ferraro, recognize the seriousness of the city's infrastructure problems (storm drains and the like).  Both supported studying the problem carefully and devoting city reserves to address it.   While Gardiner opposed the recently-approved user fee because he favored a shorter sunset provision, I am confident he will accept the judgment of the voters on this issue.  Mayor Clark clearly took a courageous role in campaigning for the passage of the user fee tax even though it is an election year.  In contrast, Mrs. Ferraro continued to discount the problem only days before the city was sued by homeowners on Sea Cove for $12 million in damages from a failed storm drain.  Since then we have also learned that the unanticipated problems on Western Avenue could cost the city up to $5 million, although we remain hopeful that the vast majority of these costs will be paid by other agencies.  Prior councils merely waited for the storm drains to fail and paid damages and inflated repair costs when it happened.  Thanks in part to the leadership of Mayor Clark and the rest of the council we are now on a path toward addressing these problems before they occur and before homes are damaged and sinkholes open up in streets.

Electing Mrs. Ferraro would be an attempt to return to the pre-2001 councils.  I urge voters to learn about her record.  I won't recite it all here but I believe it speaks for itself.  Mrs. Ferraro began her campaign this year by suggesting that she is seeking "re-election" and implying that she is an incumbent.  (I guess those of us on the council should feel flattered that she wants to be thought of as an incumbent.  Perhaps she agrees that we are doing a good job!) In both 1999 and 2001 Mrs. Ferraro also ran dishonest campaigns.  In both those years she disregarded the California constitution which provides that local elections are non-partisan.  In both elections Mrs. Ferraro sent out mailers to Democrats suggesting she was a Democrat and to Republicans suggesting she was a Republican.

Mrs. Comaford has no prior experience on any city committee or commission.  Mrs. Comaford's campaign manager Ken DeLong is a leader of PVP Watch, the organization that prefers "sleepy village councils" so we can expect her to also favor a lethargic RPV city government.  Mrs. Comaford's recent fund-raising mailer shows her lack of knowledge of city issues.  She criticizes the city's support of open space preserves as too expensive but at the same time suggests that the city should fund and maintain a senior center.  (Peninsula Seniors plan on raising an approximate $7 million in capital costs and an equal size endowment for maintenance--if the city funded this it would be far more expensive than city's contribution to the open space preserve.)  Mrs. Comaford also suggests that the city should get more "bang" for its buck.  Apparently she is unaware that RPV collects and spends far less money than the vast majority of all other cities.  And yet our police and fire protection are excellent, our streets are in generally good repair, we are working on improving other infrastructure and we are remaining independent from developers.  What exactly would Mrs. Comaford do to get more "bang" for our buck and would it be anything good?

In sum, the first terms of both Mayor Clark and Councilman Gardiner have been marked by important accomplishments and an improved and more responsible way of governing.  Instead of a "sleepy village council" Mayor Clark and Councilman Gardiner bring us wide-awake and engaged decision-making.  We are lucky they are both willing to serve 4 more years. I urge you to join me in voting for both of them.

State Propositions

I normally do not offer recommendations on ballot initiatives unless they affect city government.  I believe the reapportionment proposition does affect local government.  That proposition will designate 3 retired judges to draw up state legislative and federal congressional districts.  Anyone who has seen the rampant gerrymandering in these districts should want to see a change in how we do things now.  We are represented by a Congressman (Republican) and a State Senator (Democratic) who have little connection to us.  Our Congressman is based in Orange County and is connected to our area by a very narrow strip through Long Beach.  (I have heard some say that the strip is invisible at high tide.)  Our State Senator is based in Inglewood and is also connected to our area only by a very thin strip of land. (I am told he didn't know where we were when we were first added to his district.)

The gerrymandering is bipartisan.   Incumbents draw lines designed to re-elect themselves.  They are inherently biased and cannot be trusted to do a reasonable job of apportionment.  This has been proven over time.  In light of this I urge you to vote for Proposition 77.  Here is a web link with more information on the proposition:

http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/77/

I urge you to vote Yes on Proposition 77.  The other propositions address very different issues than Proposition 77 and each should be studied carefully on its own before you make your decision.

October 24 addendum:

School District

There are 4 candidates for 3 spots on the school board. All are strongly qualified and have shown considerable commitment to the schools. Based on a number of comments from others more familiar with school board issues and my meeting with her, I am endorsing Ginny Snider and urge you to vote for her, The strongest endorsement of her was by my 4th grade neighbor Anna Riedl who had Mrs. Snider as a teacher and described her as "the best teacher I ever had." I am also convinced that Mrs. Snider will be an independent voice who will look at things objectively.

I am concerned about one other candidate. Erin Lamonte has been active in RPV city issues in a way that has not been entirely helpful. During a trip sponsored by the school district and the PTA to Sacramento, Mrs. Lamonte met with representatives of the state agency that the city was applying to for a grant to fund our purchase of the Portuguese Bend Preserve. Mrs. Lamonte urged the state official to reject the city's application. For a representative of the PTA to lobby against the city getting a grant just makes no sense. It also makes no sense that the lobbying was done with at least the implicit approval of the PTA and the Board President (since they must have known about it) with no notice to the RPV city council. I would never oppose the district's application for a grant without a very good reason and I would never do so without telling the school board my position beforehand. Thankfully Mrs. Lamonte's efforts were unsuccessful and the city received the state grant it needed for Phase I of the open space acquisition. But Phase II has not yet been approved. I am concerned that Mrs. Lamonte could use her position in the future to lobby against open space grants to the city. I am also concerned that the other candidates who have endorsed her (Mr. Sharp and Mrs. Lucky) might share her views. I hope not. I have met with Mrs. Lamonte and Board President DeLaRosa to try to assuage my concerns, but I remain concerned. While they have said Mrs. Lamonte's position was not the "official" position of the district, I was given no assurance that Mrs. Lamonte would not use her position as a means to engage in lobbying harmful to the city.

Recreational needs and open space are not in conflict. None of the city's Preserve includes any land that anyone has expressed an interest in for recreational fields. (The Preserve land is simply unsuitable for playing fields.) The vast majority of funds being used for the acquisition are restricted to open space land acquisition. The city and the school district can and should work together to enhance both increased recreational opportunities and the preservation of open space.

I do endorse both measures R and S.  They will provide needed funds for the district to renovate its facilities at a very low cost to residents.  Like the cities on the Peninsula, the school district also has a poor tax base and is underfunded.  Together with the Peninsula Education Foundation, the school district works hard to give us good value.  Passing measures R and S will help the school district continue to do so. 

Other Elections

Beware of last minute hit piece mailers that candidates cannot respond to. They have been sent around in the past in our city. In 2003, one was financed by Norm Ryan, a Long Beach resident who serves on the water replenishment district board with Mr. Rob Katherman, an RPV resident discussed in the article quoted below. Another was listed as being financed by school board candidate Brad Bartz, but he only paid $400. The real financers of that hit piece are not yet publicly known. The people who finance these mailers often go to great lengths to conceal their involvement. I set forth below a portion of a front page article from yesterday's LA Times reporting on one such hit piece in another city.

Secret Financier in Monterey Park

In Monterey Park, home to stretches of the 60 and the 710 freeways, billboard opponent Judy Chu remembers a war that Regency waged against her in the early 1990s over the city's billboard ban.

Chu , now a state Assemblywoman, was then Monterey Park 's mayor and a member of its five-person City Council.

Regency was campaigning to get the council to lift the ban and allow it to build freeway signs.

The firm employed a veteran lobbyist, Robert Katherman . He began popping up at political and charitable functions offering large donations to council members' favorite charities, Chu said.

"For me he said, 'Oh. I could make a big donation to the Asian Youth Center ,' " she said.

Chu , who regards billboards as an aesthetic "abomination," said she was appalled by the way he attempted to curry favor. Katherman declined to comment. Her council colleagues supported lifting the ban.

When Chu countered by helping to organize a voter initiative to retain the ban, Regency launched a "campaign of terror" against her, she said.

It included an 18,000-piece barrage of political mail just before election day 1997, when both Chu and the billboard initiative were on the ballot.

One mailer sought to stir racial passions. The headline: "What's Judy Chu's Problem with Latinos?" The state Fair Political Practices Commission investigated and concluded in 2001 that Regency had secretly paid for most of the mailers. Drake Kennedy at first told a state investigator he didn't know anything about the mailers, records show.

However, Katherman , others who worked on the mailers and eventually Regency itself provided records that showed Regency paid for them.

The commission fined Drake Kennedy $18,000 for illegally concealing his role.

Chu was reelected handily to city office despite the attacks and the billboard ban survived.

Tom Long
Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes

EMAIL
www.palosverdes.com/tomlong

Back to Top

September 6, 2005

Dear Residents,

Now that the dust has settled on the user fee campaign, we can move on. I attach an editorial by the PV News urging just that. Future annual hearings will provide an opportunity for identifying additional revenue or budget cuts to allow the fee to be reduced or suspended on a year-by-year basis. But with our current operating budget almost $800,000 in the red and with the user fee making no allowance for unknown problems or lower priority repairs, there is a ways to go before we should be declaring "surpluses" that can be returned to residents.

I am sure many who voted "no" on the user fee feel there were better solutions. But the vote also suggests that some of those solutions were not likely. Given the outcome, we can be certain a parcel tax would never have gotten two-thirds approval. And a larger user fee designed to finish the program in less time would also have failed. True a program designed to tax the whole city for a few years to do work in only some areas might have passed with a wider margin, but it would have been unfair and we would have been forced to return to the voters again in a short period--something the school district is doing this fall.

The trauma in New Orleans over the last week is a reminder of how fragile government and indeed civilization itself can be. One lesson we should all learn is that in a crisis we may all be on our own for a week or more if we face a disaster. Your city doesn't even have the resources to keep all of its infrastructure properly repaired without raising your taxes. We do not have good emergency shelters or emergency supplies so we will be counting on higher levels of government and private organizations to help in a disaster. And that may take time. I hope that after the dust settles there will be a careful examination of what might have been done better in New Orleans. But nevertheless, the lesson for us all is to rely on ourselves first.

We will face important questions regarding proposed development at Point View and modifications to development at the Trump property over the next few months. I am sure all of the council would welcome your input on these issues.

Tom Long
Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Office(213) 612-7871
Cell(213) 718-4484
Home(310) 544-2978

Editorial, Peninsula News, Saturday, September 3, 2005  [PDF FORMAT]

EMAIL
www.palosverdes.com/tomlong

Back to Top

June 29, 2005

Dear RPV Residents,

Recently, your city council approved placing a user fee on the ballot for your consideration. The ballots will come out next month by mail to all parcel owners asked to pay the fee. (I call it a "fee" because that is what state law says it is but it is a "tax.") The fee is designed to fund a 30 year program to repair storm drains city-wide. In a last-minute amendment, the fee will automatically sunset in 30 years when the program is done. The fee requires a simple majority of those voting to pass.

My property is not subject to the fee. (It drains to county-owned storm drains.) As a result I don't get to vote. But I have already donated $86 (the average annual fee) to the city. I encourage all of you to vote for the fee.

RPV is a poor city. I know that sounds odd, but it is true. It has only 28% of the revenues of the average city in California ($363 vs. $1280) and we are in an expensive county and have more than an average share of infrastructure to take care of for our population. The city gets only 6% of our property tax dollars. Our general fund reserve (surplus) is decreasing every year. Even with Ocean Trails and Long Point being fully operational and even with this new tax, the city will have less than half the average per capita revenue of a California city.

After our approval of the proposed user fee to repair storm drains, many questions have come up. I cannot answer them all, but here are some answers:

(1) Why such a long (30 year) sunset? The user fee will support a program that will take 30 years. It is a city wide tax. It should pay for a city wide program not just the problems of the few areas to be fixed first. Any other approach is unfair and probably illegal. We could shorten the program to shorten the fee, but then it would be much more expensive than the current estimate of $86 per year.

(2) Why not wait for Trump's golf course or Long Point? Trump's golf course will only raise perhaps 2% of the city's budget each year. Long Point will raise more in a few years if it gets built. But hotel taxes are unreliable. We should not repeat the State's mistake of relying on windfall revenues for regular expenses. And we should not become dependent on developers.

(3) Why not put off the open space preserve and the whale watch center and use the money for storm drains? The contract for the whale watch center is signed so that money is committed and much of it was from dedicated funds not available for this purpose anyway. The open space preserve is being funded almost entirely by state, federal and private grants restricted to open space acquisition. The city contribution is $1 million but is way less than what the city has already committed to storm drains from its general reserves and is a worthwhile investment to get tens of millions in open space grants that may not be available in the future.

(4) Is there a guarantee the money won't be used for other things? Yes, the user fee monies go to a dedicated fund that cannot be used for anything other than storm drain repair and maintenance.

(5) When will it end, I don't want taxes in perpetuity? But you do want storm drains in perpetuity, so the fee should last long enough to guarantee all needed repairs. It will automatically end in 30 years. It can be suspended or repealed at any time before then by the city council or the voters if it proves unneeded in the future. There will be no incentive to continue it once all needed work is done since the user fee cannot be used for anything else.

The user fee is vital to the city's financial health. I stand ready to answer your questions about it to try to persuade you to vote yes. I also encourage you to go to the city's website at the link below to learn more about the program.

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/water_quality_flood_protection/

Tom Long
Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Office: (213) 612-7871
Cell: (213) 718-4484
Home: (310) 544-2978

Back to Top

June 22, 2005

Dear RPV Residents,

April 26 , 2005

Dear RPV Residents and Others,

Your city council spent a large part of last Saturday touring storm damage to homes in the city, much of it quite serious.  A number of homes were damaged by a large mud flow from an overtaxed storm drain.  This coming Saturday February 26th we will be looking at the city budget and at possible emergency steps to address storm drain failures.  The meeting starts at 8 a.m. and will continue most of the day.  Unlike our meetings dealing with issues such as trails, I suspect it will draw few members of the public.  Nonetheless, the issues are important.

I specifically requested that our meeting on February 26th also address these issues and the mayor kindly agreed to my request.  My specific request was that the council consider taking the following actions: 

1. Instructing staff to prepare RFPs and submit the 3 or more most important storm drain repair projects for bid ASAP.
   
   
2. Consider the establishment of a storm drain repair enterprise fund now and fund it now with funds estimated to be sufficient to achieve construction of the projects identified in Item No. 1 above with a contribution from general fund reserves, even if that contribution exceeds the $2 million currently planned.
   
   
3. Begin discussion (to be continued on March 15) of setting the proposed user fee higher than currently planned to provide contingency funding for accelerating high priority repairs and to address unanticipated problems without being required to borrow.

I urge you to let the council know that you feel prompt action to repair our storm drains is essential.  Since my election over a year ago, I have waited patiently for decisive action to be taken in the belief, in part, that careful, measured progress toward our goals was best.  This may no longer be the case given the damage we are now seeing.  I am becoming increasingly impatient with the slow progress that government seems to inherently make towards it goals.  We need a jump start and I think we may need your input to get it.

Tom Long
Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Work: (213) 612-7871
Home: (310) 544-2978
Cell: (213) 718-4484

Back to Top

January 15, 2005

Dear RPV Residents,

Today I toured Eastview to look at 2 closures of Western Avenue at Westmont and Summerland. As discussed below, these closures help explain the provocative title of this letter to you. Both of these closures are the result of failed storm drains owned at least partially by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes . We may get some help paying for the repairs, but right now no one else is giving us any commitment. The Westmont repair alone will cost $750,000 to $1 million and the road will not be open for about another week. The cost of the Summerland repair and the time it will take are unknown, but it may be an easier repair because the street at Summerland has not yet collapsed.

As bad as the situation is, it could have been much worse. No one has been hurt. One of the City's residents saw the sinkhole at Westmont and called the Sanitation District. The District responded promptly to protect a threatened sewer line and succeeded. Had that line broken, the repair would have been even more difficult.

There are 7 more storm drain crossings of Western Avenue in RPV. At least 5 of them are worn out 1950s corrugated steel just like the two that failed. None of these storm drain crossings on Western are part of the 56 projects already identified as part of the City's repair program estimated to cost a little less than $30 million. Yet it turns out these crossings will need to be added to our list of projects and many will be priority one. As was the case with the City's past repairs, these emergency repairs, unlike planned repairs, cannot be arranged through competitive bidding and will require a lot of overtime, so they will be more expensive than normal.

Let me try to answer some questions you may have:

(1) Why didn't we know about these storm drains on Western before?

The City knew they were there, but the drains were concrete at both ends (and concrete usually does not fail) so no one thought there would be corrugated steel under the street. Such a construction approach is apparently surprising. Of course Rap's problems have often been surprising in the past. We need to anticipate such surprises and try to be ready for them. I am confident the City's staff is working hard to do so.

(2) Why are we in such a mess?

Year after year, the easy thing to do when revenues run short is to defer infrastructure maintenance. Typically nothing goes wrong. It's a "don't worry, be happy" approach that politicians feel keeps them popular. You just always tell the public they can have more services, pay less taxes, and everything will be fine. When I raised the neglect of the City's infrastructure as a campaign issue in the election in 2003 my opponents accused me of "scare tactics." They claimed they had done a good job because not much had gone wrong. I wonder what they think now. The City set aside absolutely nothing in reserves for storm drain and sewer repairs. This allowed some prior councils to tell you that they didn't need to raise your taxes. They were wrong and they made a big mistake. You are now paying the price of that neglect.

(3) Donald Trump is in town with a fancy new golf course and soon there will be a big resort at the old Marineland. Why can't these facilities pay all the taxes the City needs and lighten my burden?

According to the City's financial advisers, Trump's golf course is not likely to give the city more than about 2-3% of its budget (or about $400,000) when it is up and running and it is already over a year behind schedule. The taxes from golf courses are primarily property taxes of which the City gets only 6%. (Yes, the City gets only 6 cents of every property tax dollar you pay despite all its responsibilities.) Most of the revenue generated by the golf course will go the County. At least some of what the City gets will probably be consumed by increased expenses that the golf course may cause.

The current developer on Long Point, Lowe Enterprises, unlike the prior developer Monaghan, is not likely to go bankrupt just yet and may actually start construction this spring. If and when the resort is built, most of the city's financial advisers seem to feel that it will work its way up after a few years to hotel tax revenues for the City of about $4 million per year in good years. But there are a lot of caveats. It will take some time to get to this revenue. The revenue is likely to fluctuate up and down a great deal each year. In tough years the developer, or a new owner of the resort, may ask for a tax reduction or holiday. Some hotels in Los Angeles are currently asking for and getting long tax holidays in order to save the hotel. Because hotel taxes are so uncertain, no one will lend us money on them. So if we have surprises in the future and no user fee, we will not be able to borrow. (We currently have no revenue in excess of regular expenses in the general fund to secure borrowing.) Other agencies will also have their hands out if the City gets this revenue. The County is already suggesting that the City gets too good a deal on the sheriff's contract. (It is way less expensive than what our own police department would cost.) One can expect the Fire Department, the Sanitation District, water suppliers and others to tap into the City's added revenue to cover added costs created by the resort. The resort will also add to the City's costs as well.

Counting on Long Point or Trump National to pay for what we need is like trying to pay our grocery bills or our mortgage out of a Christmas bonus. Not a single financial adviser to the City recommends such an approach. The State got in trouble using unreliable revenues from capital gains taxes during the dot com boom to pay for regular expenses. We should not repeat this mistake.  In essence, no Virginia , there is no Santa Claus.

(4) Why can't the City just borrow?

Easy answer. No one will lend to us because we do not currently have revenue in excess of expenses (in fact we are in a deficit) with which we can pay back the loan. Unlike the federal government we cannot print money. There is another answer too: Borrowing against the income of future generations to pay for what we need now is just plain wrong. The City's assets have been entrusted to us and we should leave them in good condition for the next generation and not saddle them with debts created by our failure to pay for what we use.

(5) Why should I pay for the City's mistakes?

Because if the City's residents don't pay, no one else will. After all you are the City. And infrastructure neglect will ultimately affect the value of your property. In the long run people will not buy property in a city that does not maintain its infrastructure. Plenty of other cities do maintain their infrastructure, many of them with user fees. Unfortunately RPV is a residential city with little commercial tax base, leaving us with no alternative to a user fee at this point.

(6) Why can't the City just cut waste in spending?

I think my predecessors did a good job of this. RPV has one of the lowest amounts of spending per capita and lowest number of employees for a city of its size in California. Councilman Gardiner voted against any user fee but so far has not identified any spending cuts to eliminate waste. Indeed he favored additional spending for more traffic enforcement to the tune of about $500,000 per year! It is popular for politicians to say they will "cut waste" and provide more services. But RPV's budget is quite lean. Moreover cutting expense may not actually save money. Some have suggested the City should cut its budget for litigation. But in most of the lawsuits the City is in, the City is a defendant. If the City stops defending itself, the damages awarded to the plaintiff could easily exceed the savings in attorneys' fees. Similarly cutting the budget of the Finance Department could result in the City failing to comply with financial reporting laws and/or missing out on grants, both costing the City money. I invite those who think they can identify enough waste to both close the current deficit and pay for infrastructure to pick up a copy of the budget and tell us how to do it. You need to cut about $2 million per year. Please be specific in telling us what cuts to make and why.

(7) What is a user fee and why don't you just call it a tax?

OK. In common terms it is a tax. Legally it is called a user fee because it is charged based on use. The fees will be set based upon how much water from your property drains into city-owned storm drains. A small minority of property owners have properties that do not drain into city-owned storm drains. Ironically I am one of them. Legally these owners cannot be charged anything. Nonetheless, I will be devoting considerable time and personal funds to campaigning for this fee for the best interests of the city. I wish we could charge all of us rather than set a fee based on use. But that would legally be a "tax" and would require a two-thirds vote which we would never get. (I know the school district got two-thirds by exempting seniors and agreeing its parcel tax would last only for a limited time. But we cannot exempt seniors and we must not "sunset" this fee because that will leave us unable to address future problems as they arise and provide the security we need.

(8) The City has big reserves, so why can't we pay for this out of our reserves?

The City's reserves are savings for emergencies. Failed planning for regular infrastructure and maintenance is not an emergency. (An earthquake would be.) Financial planners advise people to have reserves of 6 months of expenses on hand. This is the City's policy reserve level now. True the City has additional reserves in excess of the policy reserve. However, based on current revenue and expense projections and including sewer repair (for which the council is not proposing a fee) the excess reserve over the 6 month level will be gone in the next 5 years. The balance is what we need for emergencies. Remember, someone who supports spending reserves is supporting spending in excess of current revenues--in other words deficit spending. This approach is irresponsible and should not be followed by any true "fiscal conservative."

(9) How much will this cost me?

The City will calculate a fee based on the size of your parcel and the amount of "impervious surfaces" that cause water to flow to storm drains. This is a complicated process but you will know the proposed fee for your parcel before you are asked to vote. Based on current estimates, over 80% of City property owners will pay $100 or less per year. This will go up some with the new problems on Western but the fees are likely to remain less than $100 for most residents and some or all of the fee may be tax deductible. (Check with your advisor.) If and when other revenues come in the City can lower the fee.

Tom Long
Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Work: (213) 612-7871
Home: (310) 544-2978
Cell: (213) 718-4484

Back to Top