| Home | Back to Letters | ||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, Each year the City rotates the assignment of mayor. I am your fifth novice mayor in a row. I have the good fortune of having been able to watch the leadership provided by each of my four colleagues on the council during their terms as mayor. I will try hard to draw upon the good examples they all provided. I have also been grateful to receive the advice of many of the City's former mayors who are no longer on the council but who have stayed involved in the community. (This includes former mayors Ken Dyda, Ann Shaw, John McTaggart, Mel Hughes, Jacki Bacharach, Susan Brooks and Steve Kuykendall who have all been kind enough to counsel me from time to time.) Of course in our city day to day management is in the hands of the City Manager and staff. The mayor is just another council member. The mayor's primary responsibility is simply to try to lead the council meetings efficiently. If last night's meeting (the longest in city history I think, lasting until after 2:30 in the morning) is any guide, it will be a challenge. But I have some ideas. The next year will be a challenging one for the city. Terranea (the resort at Long Point--former Marineland) may (or may not) break ground. An art center may (or may not) get funding and permission to build near city hall. The storm drain user fee may be repealed or may be kept. It may (or may not) be replaced with another revenue source. The city may (or may not) have the funds necessary to repair storm drains, maintain streets in good condition, and provide continued good service to its residents in other areas. The city may (or may not) get the funding and the agreements needed to aquire and maintain many acres of additional land for open space preservation. The city's open space land may (or may not) be open to members of the public in ways that people wish to use it. The city may (or may not) get the money and develop expanded opportunities for active recreation. The city's residents in Eastview may (or may not) become full members of PVPUSD and thus the community. Neighboring cities (RHE and LA) may (or may not) pay attention to the concerns of RPV residents about close-by developments (Ponte Vista and Peninsula Center Village Plan Overlay Zone). The city, Marymount College and neighboring residents may (or may not) reach consensus on what level of development is appropriate on the college's land. The City may (or may not) win current and future lawsuits against it and may (or may not) owe a fortune in legal fees and damages. Even with a strong consensus among the whole council and the whole community on some or all of these issues, I cannot tell you how they will be resolved. Some are largely beyond the City's control. Some elude a consensus. Some simply cannot be resolved in "only" one year. Yet all of these issues (and many others) are important to the City's welfare this year and in the future. I urge you to help the council point these issues in the right direction. (And yes, provide your input even if your idea of the right direction may be different from mine or that of other council members.) Chairing last night's council meeting was a reminder to me of how slowly government moves and how hard it is to guide its direction. I am already much more appreciative of the work my colleagues did as mayor now that I can already see how difficult the task is. I think I have a bit of the feeling that Captain Smith must have had on the Titanic after the icebergs were spotted and he was trying to turn the ship to avoid them. The ship responds very slowly. So I ask each of you to join me and put out an oar and row. Thank you. Tom Long
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, There are several things you should be aware of that the RPV city council (or in one case a neighbor city council) will be deciding soon. I invite your input. Waste Pickup The council voted to not accept Waste Management's bid. We will likely be reformulating the Request for Proposal (RFP) and seeking new bids. We will probably still face a 50% increase in rates since such an increase is what it would take to get our price comparable to nearby cities such as Rolling Hills Estates and to pay for the added cost of twice a week pickup. In preparing the RFP, instead of asking for numerous options this time we need to make decisions beforehand to make it easier for bidders to respond. We will need to decide between manual pickup and automated and cone a week and twice a week before we go out to bid. Other issues include whether we should have a flat rate or require those who generate more trash to pay more (often called "pay as you throw"). We also need to decide (1) whether to continue to offer discounts to seniors and to those who pay for a year in advance; (2) whether backyard pickup will be available and if there will be a charge for it; (3) how many free special pickups to include each year and a number of other details of the contract. Some decisions may be made for us by the market. So far none of the bidders want to offer manual pickup because of the injuries to workers and the resulting workers' compensation costs. Your input will help us make decisions. I encourage you to e-mail staff directly laurenr@rpv.com so that your input can be included in the council agenda packet. Use of Upper Point Vicente (the City Hall Area) Various uses for this land have been proposed over time. Right now the city is conducting a vision plan study funded by the Annenberg Foundation to consider possible uses. But one proposed use that stands out is the possibility of a new Art Center using the Nike missile silos as galleries and funded entirely by private donations. The council previously approved this concept and we are close to entering into a 99 year lease with the Art Center that, in turn, will allow them to approach major donors and get the remainder of the funding they need. (They already have millions in the bank from the house raffles you may be familiar with as well as the possibility of millions more form selling their current location.) The Art Center's current location allows no room for expansion and is insufficient for their needs. If we are serious about public/private cooperation to build important community facilities then we should support the Art Center. They are the only proposal I have seen that has a prospect of providing funding in the near future and the proposed location is a unique and highly desirable use of the land. Some have referred to a lease with the Art Center as a "great land giveaway." Ironically some of these people are those who wanted us to give Upper Point Vicente land to a private developer for a golf course. I view an art center as an important part of an expanded civic center. I recognize that not everyone will use an art center. But if the standard for public use of city land is that the use has to be something that everyone can use then no use will ever qualify. I urge you to support the Art Center as the first successful effort to use private funding to build a facility the city could never build itself and that many in the community will enjoy. Please send your input directly to the council at cc@rpv.com. Trail Usage and Access to City Open Space The city council may soon be called upon to decide issues relating to trails and access to city open space. Many have already provided input on this subject. I am hopeful that we can find a reasonable way for different users to share access and to maximize access while at the same time preserving habitat. I very much want to avoid turning city-owned open space into a medieval "king's forest" where no one is allowed access because of the fear that they may damage something. But we also have to prevent those whose use is destructive from damaging the city's land and the habitat. The Village Plan for the Peninsula Center RHE held a "scoping meeting" to identify issues relating to its consideration of proposed (but not yet approved) plans to bring high density residential development to the Peninsula Center. I urge people to offer their opinions on this to the RHE councilmembers but to also be mindful that the new plan has not yet been approved. (Some units have been approved under an old plan for the area.) Since the matter has not come before the council yet its members may not be as aware of the issues as staff and could use your input. I have spoken to the RHE councilmembers on this and other issues before and I can assure you that even though RPV residents are not in their jurisdiction that they will be mindful of the impacts of development on our residents as well. I am hopeful that they will take a thoughtful approach to development in the Peninsula Center area and that they will realize the inherent tension between high density development and not widening any roads. Before approving expanded development they need to carefully consider the carrying capacity of RHE's infrastructure. If that carrying capacity is not sufficient for the proposed development and if they are not willing to increase the capacity with infrastructure improvements, they need to reject high density development. In addition, a way needs to be found to keep development in the area consistent with the service-oriented nature of the area. Doctors, dentists, grocery stores, drycleaners, vets and the like should not be priced out of the area. Peninsula Center will likely never be a Westwood or a Rodeo drive, even if that is what we want (and I don't think it is). Send your thoughts directly to RHE's city councilmembers. Here is a link to a webpage with all their e-mail addresses: http://www.ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us/citycouncil/index.htm Tom Long
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, I would like to offer you my thoughts on Election 2006. I am confining my suggestions to items which affect local government, the state assembly race, our water district and the judicial positions. Proposition 1E: Additional Disaster Preparedness Funding I recommend a "yes" vote. This may not directly affect RPV but California has needs to prepare for and to minimize the impact of disasters. Some of the funding from this proposition, for example, will go to repair levees in the Sacramento Delta that are in very poor shape according to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is seeking their repair. He is right to do so since repairing the levees before they break and cause a flood will be much less expensive than addressing the damage from a flood as New Orleans and Louisiana are finding out. The governor is sensibly rejecting the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. By protecting the state against such a financial disaster we help assure that more money could become available to local governments too. Proposition 83: "Jessica's law" I recommend a "no" vote. A better title for this law would be "Law to require registered sex offenders to move to rural locations with less law enforcement capabilities." This proposition imposes registration requirements on sex offenders (a good thing) but also places residency restrictions on them. No registered offender will be allowed to live within 2000 feet of a school or park. If you look at a map of the South Bay, this means that Palos Verdes will be one of the few, if not the only, places in the South Bay where it will be legal for registered sex offenders to live. Offenders will be forced to move to rural or semi-rural communities that have fewer law enforcement resources to look after them. Cities cannot regulate group homes under state law as long as 6 or fewer people live in the home. RPV has many such homes, currently mostly for assisted living for the elderly. While I think we are unlikely to get halfway houses for sex offenders, this law would make it more likely that we would. And the city would not be able to prevent it. So if you vote yes, don't say you were not warned. If this law plays out the way I think it will, it will increase the city's law enforcement costs. Proposition 84: Water quality, flood control, natural resource protection and park improvements funding. I recommend a "yes" vote. This proposition contains funding crucial to RPV's efforts to purchase and preserve open space. As many of you know, part of the purchases planned for the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve have been made. If this bond is approved additional state funding will become available for which the city could apply (and might well get). If the bond fails, additional state funding in the near future is unlikely and additional acquisitions would probably be delayed indefinitely since state funding is crucial to the plans. Proposition 90: Restrictions on eminent domain and land use control. I recommend a "no" vote. This proposition was designed to address the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo where a city in Connecticut was allowed to take a private home by eminent domain and hand it over to a private developer. The ability of California cities to do the same thing is limited. In any event, the proposition goes way beyond simply overturning Kelo. The proposition would allow landowners to sue any public agency any time they felt any new land use regulation decreased the value of their land. If the proposition passes, the ability of RPV and other cities to control development will be hampered. Land use planning will be done primarily in courtrooms by judges who have little or no knowledge of the local issues involved. It will, of course, be a bonanza for lawyers like myself. I should urge you to vote yes to fatten my wallet. But I really think you should vote no if you value local land use decision-making. I get few complaints that the city's land use rules unduly restrict development. Indeed I just got yesterday a petition from many homeowners unhappy with the expansion of a home from 1500 square feet to about 2700. The most common complaints I hear are that the city does not restrict development enough. Proposition 90 will alter the playing field completely, tilting things heavily in favor of development. The League of Women Voters provides an
excellent website on the California elections at Assembly: I endorse Betty Karnette's bid for re-election. Those who know Betty's work know that she has been very attentive to the Peninsula even when we were gerrymandered out of her district while she was in the state senate. She is aware of our local issues and has helped us address them. Most notably, despite her connections with teachers' unions, she had the courage to help obtain a bill allowing RPV's Eastview residents to attend Palos Verdes schools instead of LAUSD. Her ability to help the Peninsula is also enhanced because she can get the attention of the legislative leadership. Water District: Bill Baker is an RPV resident who has served on this board and has support for his re-election from many others whose opinions I respect. I feel confident that he will continue to look out for our interests. Judges: The Los Angeles County Bar Association provides some ratings and qualifications with which I usually agree. Their thoughts can be found at http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=6802 They also provide links to candidate profiles. I am endorsing one candidate the bar association did not rate highly, George Montgomery, because I have met him and I personally believe he is qualified. Sheriff Baca has also endorsed Mr. Montgomery. He has a diverse background as both a criminal and civil lawyer with over 30 years of experience. Mr. Montgomery has worked in both the LA City attorney's office and the state attorney general's office as well as spending many years in private practice. He also served in military intelligence. Most judges end up serving in civil courtrooms and many of them have no experience beyond criminal prosecution. This is not helpful to the efficiency of the judicial system. Mr. Montgomery is running against a well-financed opponent, a Mr. Zacky (yes, he is related to Zacky farms) who can run a countywide campaign and (who like some many judges) stresses his criminal prosecution background that is already in oversupply and is not really relevant to the responsibilities he is most likely to be assigned. Tom Long
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, More publicity on this issue recently has created some confusion. Among other things, some have suggested that there has been no survey of public opinion on waste pickup. There has been a city survey of people in the test areas showing that the vast majority are happy with the new automated pickup that is being tested. In that survey 86% of the respondents indicated that they were happy with the pilot program and preferred it to the old method of waste pickup. Many assumptions of how automated pickup works are mistaken. Our automated pickup program has not involved any change in parking rules. Under our automated pickup, extra pickups can still be arranged and the drivers do get out of their trucks. Backyard pickup is still available (for an extra fee). Plastic bags and bundling of greenwaste can be used for special pickups and we can provide as many special pickups as we decide to provide.. Of course waste must usually be in the containers that are provided, but they are in a wide variety of sizes, are easy to handle, are provided free and are durable. Those of us in the test area are not limited as to the number of containers--we get as many as we want. Many of the concerns about automated pickup are misplaced if you actually see it in operation. The vast majority of those in the pilot areas are happy with it and do not want to go back. Every problem presented to staff from the pilot areas has been solved as far as I know. We have not had trash left behind in my pilot area except on those rare occasions when brush clearance created so much waste the truck was full (and the property owner had not called in advance to arrange a special pickup). This problem happened under the old system too. While one can always say "I like it the way it is so don't change it," it is worth considering change if it will bring an improvement. In this case, of those who have tried the new system almost nine out of ten think it is better than the old system. Tom Long
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, For those of you who are interested (and who isn't?), the Trump organization's appeal of the planning commission's denial of a permit application for the flagpole at the golf course will be heard by the City Council on September 5th. You may have read about Councilman Clark's proposed solution in the Daily Breeze. The proposal involves asking Trump to grant the city an easement to make the flagpole a public memorial. This would assure that an American flag is flown at this location rather than some other flag. The flagpole would then be controlled by the City. This solution may have some advantages to it. Of course the Council as a whole cannot discuss the issue beforehand so we will be thinking it through out loud at the meeting. If you would like to tell us what you think beforehand feel free to respond to this e-mail or to write to cc@rpv.com which will automatically go to all councilmembers. There will also be a landslide moratorium workshop on October 7th. More details on that will follow. The ability of local governments to control development may soon be limited severely by the pending ballot initiative called the Andersen Initiative. Here is a short synopsis of what it would do:
The language I have bolded is probably the most dangerous part of the initiative. Understandably a lot of people were unhappy with the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case. There the court upheld the ability of a city to condemn a home and take the property for the benefit of another private property owner. But RPV has never done that. And in California the ability of cities to do that is limited. In any event, the Andersen Initiative cuts far too broadly to attack the perceived problem and would make it impossible for many cities to continue to enforce land use regulations that are designed to control the density of development and to preserve our way of life. One can easily see the hands of developers in the drafting of this initiative. While it is designed to attract the votes of residential property owners and to appeal to popular conceptions of "property rights" its real beneficiaries are developers. Think about it: land use, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations are to be scrapped unless they are necessary to preserve public health and safety. Few laws will met this test. Please carefully consider this initiative before you vote on it. Tom Long
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, I set forth below a staff e-mail regarding the city's upcoming renewal of waste hauling contracts. The council will be asked to make many important decisions on this renewal on which we need your input. There are many questions. Here are a few: Do you want twice a week pickup to continue? Would you prefer once a week if it were cheaper? How much cheaper does it need to be? Would you be willing to pay more for CNG (compressed natural gas) trucks that pollute less? Would you prefer smaller trucks and would you be willing to pay more for them? Do you think people who throw away less and recycle more should pay less? How much less? Should seniors and disabled people get free backyard pickup? Should we all be able to buy backyard pickup? Should there be discounts for anyone? Who? How much? Are you willing to pay more to provide those discounts? How many large item or special pickups (say for brush clearance) do you need per year? How many should we include in the basic fee before there is an extra charge? Are you in a pilot test area for automated pickup with new containers? What are your thoughts on that program? Needless to say our decisions on these and other questions will not make everyone happy, but the more input we get from our residents, the better chance we will have of getting these decisions right. Tom Long
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV’s) current contracts with Waste Management of Los Angeles and Universal Waste Systems dba Ivy Rubbish Disposal (UWS), for residential trash and recycling services expire on June 30, 2007. There are extension options. However, at this time the City Council has decided to explore other competitive opportunities. RPV has non-exclusive commercial trash and recycling agreements with 14 haulers. These agreements are renewed annually. The City has recently begun a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for new residential and commercial solid waste and recycling collection services. This process will take several months and we would like the RPV community’s input. Please plan to attend one of the upcoming community meetings, to discuss the various items of interest and concern to you. Each meeting will discuss individual group’s specific issues and services. 1) Meeting for Waste Management Residential Customers: Thursday, July 13, 2006,7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (for WM customers) Hesse Park, MPR, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. 2) Meeting for Universal Waste Systems dba Ivy Rubbish Residential Customers: Monday, July 17, 2006, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.(for UWS customers), Hesse Park, MPR, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. 3) Meeting for Commercial Customers (RPV Businesses, Store Managers, and Business Owners): Thursday, July 13, 2006, 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.(for businesses, managers,and business owners), Hesse Park, MPR, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd., RPV A copy of the RFP can be downloaded or viewed on the City website at: www.Palosverdes.com/rpv/publicworks and then look under "current projects in RPV" If you cannot attend your appropriate meeting, other meetings will be scheduled in the following months. If you have any questions or have comments, please contact Lauren Ramezani, from RPV’s Department of Public Works at (310) 544-5245 or e-mail the department at at: www.palosverdes.com/rpv/publicworks
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, As you may know there are elections on June 6th. You will be asked, among other things,. to vote on a number of judges. The Los Angeles County Bar Association makes non-partisan assessments of the candidates for judgeship as to whether they are "not qualified," "qualified," "well qualified," or"exceptionally well qualified." I attach the association's assessments of the candidates. The association also provides a web link www.lacba.org/judicialevaluation and a phone number 213-833-6767 to provide you with information about the evaluations of the candidates. The association does not endorse or oppose particular candidates but is simply trying to assess the qualifications of judicial canidates to assist the electorate. I hope you find this information useful. Tom Long
LA
County Bar Judicial Evaluations
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, One of PVP Watch's board members Barry Hildebrand, a former school board member, takes a very different view of the city than I do. Mr. Hildebrand earlier sent me an editorial suggesting that cities should not exist that I shared with you. Here is his e-mail to me (commenting on my e-mail about the city's finances) and my response following. Mr. Hildebrand's words are in red and bracketed to separate them from my comments (just in case you couldn't tell). PVP Watch's members apparently believe that city government is unnecessary and unhelpful and hope to drive it "towards zero." Tom Long
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bjhilde@aol.com
Sent: Friday,
May 12, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: "We're
the Poorest" (Your e-mail of 5/3/06)
Tom, Some comments on one of your recent attempts to make RPV look like pikers among South Bay cities. Gentlemen, Here is some interesting data gathered for me about expenses per capita of various cities. RPV has slipped. We have fallen behind Lawndale and are now the poorest city in the South Bay. [BH Comment: Hooray! As a libertarian I applaud you (the CC) and the staff for doing such a great job. The goal should be to drive the per capita costs towards zero, not to the average. After all, the "average" is an unattainable and mythical condition unless all have exactly the same expenses, etc..... (See below*) Maybe with a little effort on the part of the CC, we can become the lowest expense city in the entire state. Wouldn't that make great PR for RPV?] We have dropped from operating expenses of 28% of the average California City to only 25%. The user fee will (if not repealed) increase RPV's per capita revenue from $335 to about $366. That will still be way below average. RPV was and continues to be a poor city. [BH Comment: And to that I say, "So What?" I forget who said this, but to the degree that we reduce our expenditures, we make the city a more desirable place to live from an economic standpoint........the quote is, "Government is this great myth by which everyone thinks that they can live at the expense of everyone else!" Right here in downtown RPV we are doing a good job of defeating that myth, and again I say, "Hooray!." Minimum government equals happy citizens.] [BH Comment: * Our school district, like all districts in the state, is the nearest thing we have to pure socialism in operation. The "professional" staff (teachers, librarians, counselors, etc) are placed on a "step and column" chart for computing their compensation. Just by sticking around another year, they "earn" a raise. If a new contract has been negotiated, the level of the entire chart rises, and our teacher again gets a raise. If he/she acquires additional hours of education in that year, he/she can move to another column of the chart. Thus, it is possible for a teacher to get three raise components in a given year without necessarily teaching his/her students any better, i.e., there's no "accountability" built into the compensation plan. But year after year all we hear is "we're below the county average, etc." If every "lower-than-average" district raised salaries in attempting to get to the average, the average would continue to escalate and we would still have districts "below average." It's a mathematical axiom! Ditto for all levels of government. Therefore, the "average" is universally unattainable, meaningless, and serves no purpose as a goal. ] Tom Long Barry Dear Barry, Interesting. With a budget of zero per person or driving "towards zero" (your words), how does the city maintain streets and other necessities? I assume the answer is that the city should not exist (along the linees of the article you sent me before) and that people should band together and take care of streets, sewers and storm drains themselves. My bet is people in such a "state of nature" would quickly realize that they cannot handle the streets, sewers and storm drains themselves and they would create an organization, appoint and hire people to handle matters for them and pay some of their money to this organization. This social contract (see John Locke) would perhaps be called "government" and the money paid "taxes." But we can use other words if you find those words too offensive. I have not heard much unhappiness with the city for doing too much. Most unhappiness seems to stem from us doing too little. With a budget of zero we would have a lot more unhappy citizens with walls of mud in their homes and sinkholes in their streets. I am not saying RPV needs to be above average or even at average in its expenses. I am saying we need to provide a minimum level of service. We cannot do that properly with revenues that are so low. So, in sum, we need to act together. And no matter how we act together there will be "government" and "taxes" even if you want to call them something else. "A rose by any other name is still a rose." Tom Long
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, Below is a PVP Watch Newsletter on budget issues with my commentary marked. PVP Watch had representatives at our budget workshop yesterday but despite my urging that they give us their suggestions, they said nothing. Even with the adoption of the user fee tax, the budget we approved will spend over $2 million more this fiscal year than the city is likely to collect in revenue. The 5 year model predicts that spending more than we take in (which I call "deficit spending" but some disagree) will continue. Our best hope is that Terranea (Long Point) revenues will arrive in the fifth year of the model, but even then they will just hold the line. The user fee tax that the city adopted was only half what staff recommended (and what I preferred) and so has no leeway for the discovery of new problems or increased construction and material costs. Those of us who supported the user fee wanted a dedicated revenue stream to fund repairs and those who didn't wanted to use general revenues from hotel taxes. I have the sinking feeling we will both get our wish because it will take both revenue sources to get the job done. We have asked our Finance Committee to study borrowing alternatives again to see if that will help us but their chair has already stressed that the city will get no loans without the user fee to back them. Repealing the user fee without putting a different new tax in place to fund storm drain repair would cause a lot of problems. As it is we previously eliminated funding of less important storm drain repairs and restricted ourselves to priority 1 and priority 2 repairs both of which are needed to protect private and public property. There simply is no more cutting of the program we can do without cutting into bone. And no other budget cuts have been identified. As it is other major city costs like repaving streets are rising faster than revenue. So look for your streets to get worse. And please don't sign the PVP Watch inspired petition to repeal the user fee tax. We need the tax and we don't need to waste city money on a second election on the issue. Please tell your friends in RPV the same thing. It is important that the city resist this challenge to its fiscal health. Tom Long Cell: (213) 718-4484 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, The RPV City Council is having its annual budget workshop this coming Saturday April 29th at the Palos Verdes Interpretive Center (the whale watch site) starting at 9:30 a.m. I encourage you to attend or at least to provide us with input. Send an e-mail to cc@rpv.com with your thoughts. In particular I am interested in what you think we should cut in terms of spending. Keep in mind that our revenues and spending per capita are less than one-third of the average California city even with the recent passage of the user fee tax for storm drain repair. I just received the materials for the budget workshop, including the five year budget model, and have not yet reviewed them completely. But even a cursory review reveals some reasons to be concerned. If things continue as projected over the next five years, the city will be spending over $1 million per year more than it takes in. Our reserves will be reduced to below the 6 months' worth of revenues that has always been recommended as a prudent precaution. Spending more than you take in is "deficit spending" in my view. One can rationalize it by saying some of the spending is for "one-time" expenses. But many of those "one-time" expenses are emergencies that occur because we defer maintenance, something that should be a regular expense. Also please note that we seem to have various "one-time" expenses every year. Pretending that we have a balanced budget when we don't avoids confronting the real problem and making the hard decisions that are needed. I encourage you to ask the council to address the systemic problem. Had my support for a higher user fee tax for storm drain repair been heeded and a higher fee (as recommended by staff) been set, we would not find ourselves in such a difficult position. The scenario above assumes that revenues from the Trump golf course will not be significant (they are not likely to ever be even 2% of the city's budget) and that the revenue from Long Point (Terranea) will not help us either (it is not likely to arrive in the city's coffers until late 2009 and even then may be less than what was previously projected at least at first). The scenario above also assumes that the storm drain user fee remains in place and it assumes that the city will not be tagged for significant unanticipated costs on Western Avenue, at the Terrapaca landslide, or elsewhere. If those assumptions prove wrong, then the city could be in truly dire financial straights. The scenario makes conservative assumptions about revenues, but not as conservative as the assumptions that yielded a large favorable variance before. (And most of that variance has already been consumed, mostly by unanticipated storm drain emergency repair projects not in our budget.) Unfortunately, the city's largest needs in the near future--storm drain repair and street maintenance--have had significant increases in costs. The user fee model assumed some increases in cost but not what we have seen. Street work is funded out of general revenues which increase very slowly, only 3-4% a year at most. Unfortunately, the cost of asphalt has gone up by 40% and labor costs are up a lot too. Despite its responsibility for much of the infrastructure that most directly affects you, the city gets only 6% of your property tax, a portion of your (now reduced) car license fee and some permits fees, the utility user tax and the storm drain user fee tax. Since the city lacks much commercial development it receives little sales tax revenue. Opponents of the user fee are now seeking to repeal it arguing that the city does not need the revenue. In their view the city can eliminate about 10% of its revenue (the user fee--about $1.3 million per year), repair the storm drains, keep the streets paved and balance the budget. PVP Watch appears to be leading the charge in advancing this rosy picture. I have one simple question. How? I challenge opponents of the user fee to get the city's budget, review it, and come to the workshop with specific suggestions that tell us how to balance the budget while eliminating the user fee and keeping essential services. And don't do it by counting money that is not in the door. And don't do it by spending all of our reserves because we need a large chunk of them for emergencies that may well occur. I invite your comments. If you prefer you can go to my website listed below and forward them anonymously. But either way I encourage you to help us shape the city's financial priorities. Tom Long |
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, I attach the RPV city council's goals for 2006 which we adopted unanimously at our recent tactical workshop. As always I invite your input on these goals. Tom Long
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, Some of you may have seen articles in the Daily Breeze and PV News on this subject. Here are some comments I submitted in a letter to the editors of the Daily Breeze. Prior PVPUSD school boards have been supportive of efforts to make Eastview a permanent part of PVPUSD. I believe at least two members of the board still are supportive. I am not clear as to where the others stand since they have not aired their concerns with me despite my request that they do so. It seems the district's superintendent is opposed, but I assume the elected board will decide the district's position. I also attach an e-mail I sent about 5 weeks ago shortly after the RPV city council first submitted proposed legislation to Assemlymember Karnette. As of this date, none of the board members nor the superintendent have identified their concerns with the proposed legislation to me. One-sixth of RPV's population remains in LAUSD for tax and voting purposes, although only a small minority of the students in the area attend LAUSD schools. If you have views on this issue I urge you to let the school board members know. The e-mails of each board member are included as ccs with this e-mail. The superintendent's e-mail is not available to me or to the public, but I have included his assistant as well. I am hoping that PVPUSD's board and staff can be encouraged to work constructively with us to try to formulate legislation that brings all of RPV into the PVPUSD but also addresses any concerns they may have. Tom Long Letter to the Editors, Palos Verdes Peninsula News and The Daily Breeze Dear PVPUSD School Board Members, In light of the RPV council's recent action and the press coverage it received, I felt it could be helpful to engage you in a dialogue about trying to make Eastview a permanent part of PVPUSD. Although the RPV council vote was a split vote, I believe our council is united in the goal of bringing Eastview into PVPUSD. I would much have preferred to get your input before taking any action, but as Councilman Clark pointed out Assemblywoman Karnette gave us a very limited timetable to get her a proposed bill. Nonetheless, I am confident that she will be interested in your input (as is our council) in deciding how to frame the bill if and when it goes forward. I am unaware of any school board policies that have been adopted that express the kind of opposition to Eastview becoming part of PVPUSD that Dr. Toibin expressed to the press. His remarks were not constructive and do not appear to reflect the school board's position as I understand it, so I hope you will take steps to clarify his remarks. I assume that in PVPUSD, as in RPV, elected officials set agency policies. I am sure you can understand that the RPV council is mindful of its constituents' concerns about the quality of services they receive. There is a very strong consensus in the community that PVPUSD provides much better educational services than LAUSD. This is, of course, a testament to your work and the work of your staff. Because of this there has been an effort for many years by many RPV councilmembers to make Eastview part of PVPUSD. Years ago I wrote a letter to my legislators on this very subject at then Mayor Ferraro's urging. When I met with the 3 of you who were on the board last year I am sure I raised this issue then as well. While there are obstacles to making Eastview permanently a part of PVPUSD, I encourage you to work with the RPV council and our state legislators to try to formulate constructive approaches to those obstacles. I also request that your staff provide constructive assistance as well. We look forward to working with you and hope that together we can fulfill the goal of bringing Eastview into PVPUSD. Tom Long |
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, Several interesting things are happening in the community. First, Rolling Hills Estates is continuing to evaluate its Peninsula Village plan for the Peninsula Center area. Most residents who live nearby are in RPV. I will attach a recent article by the Daily Breeze on the plan to the copy of this letter on my website for you to access. (It's too large to just send to everyone). You may want to review the plan and let your thoughts be known to the RHE planning commission and city council. Second, supporters of Palos Verdes High School are trying to raise money for a major swimming pool project at the school. Although the school district has pledged $1 million, more money is needed if the project is to provide improved pools that meet league specifications rather than just repair the old pools. Donations are tax deductible. You can get information on the project and where to donate online at www.seakingcapital.com or by calling Kate Cocke at (310) 541-7474. The issue will be discussed at the next two meetings of the RPV city council (February 21st and March 2nd). I am hopeful the council will decide to make a contribution. This is a great opportunity for members of the community to donate to something that can really make a difference. Third, libertarian activist Don Reeves and others at PVP Watch are circulating a petition to force a second election on the user fee tax voters approved for storm drain repair last year. The petition is based on the same tired arguments that revenues will soon appear to solve all of the city's problems. Without the user fee RPV has less revenue per capita than any other South Bay city except Lawndale--less than $400 per year--less than one-third what the average city has at about $1280 per person. Even with the user fee RPV's revenue will grow by only about 10% and will still be way below average. Revenues from Trump's golf course could add another $250,000 a year some day and Terranea may add another $4 million a year in 2011 or later (if it gets built despite being $100 million over budget in construction costs), but neither is providing anything significant now. RPV gets only about 6% of its residents' property tax dollars and has little sales tax revenue. Yet the city's problems are daunting. Storm drain repairs were originally estimated at around $30 million but are rising substantially as new problems are discovered and costs escalate after Katrina. The user fee was designed only to address known high priority repairs and provides no money for storm drains that cause mere "nuisance" flooding that does not damage structures or streets or for problems (like the sinkholes on Western Avenue) that were unknown when the fee was formulated. Reeves mentions that the city has spent millions on things he feels are not "needs." He fails to mention that much of this money (for the Interpretive Center and open space acquisition) came from restricted grants and cannot be used for storm drain repair. Reeves overstates RPV's financial strength and understates the problems. The $300,000 spent on the user fee election (under procedures mandated by state law) would have done little to repair McCarroll Canyon's storm drain or the Terrapaca landslide (repair costs estimated at $4.6 million and $5 million respectively). It is true that the city has large reserves equal to a little under one year's worth of general fund expense. But those reserves could be wiped out if the city is held responsible (as some agencies want it to be) for the Western Avenue storm drain repairs (with a possible estimated cost of $10 million) and the Terrapaca slide repair. Regular necessary expenses should come out of the city's operating budget, not out of reserves held for emergencies. I attach a recent editorial by the Daily Breeze voicing its continued support for the user fee in light of growing problems. If Don Reeves, Barry Hildebrand or other members of PVP Watch come to your door to seek support for their efforts to repeal the user fee tax, please send them packing without your signature and help save the city the cost of a second, unnecessary election on the issue. Tom Long
RPV's
storm drain costs keep on rising KEEPING
CITY – NOT PROJECT – PEDESTRIAN [ADOBE PDF FORMAT] CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE ADOBE ACROBAT READER Tom Long |
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, The council will be having a workshop at the new Palos Verdes Interpretive Center this Saturday February 4th at 9:30 a.m. to discuss goals for the upcoming year. This session is open to the public and is a great opportunity to see the new PVIC and the great view of Catalina from the multi-purpose room. (Yes, I know I shouldn't stare out the window during council meetings, but you can!) We last had a council goals workshop in 2004. Many of the goals identified then have either been achieved or are well on their way and do not need our day to day attention. It is time for us to move on to new things. I would like (and I think the other members would too) public input on what our new goals should be. Several that I have in mind are getting the Peninsula its own sheriff's substation (we are served by a station in Lomita), getting paramedic coverage for the neighborhoods on Palos Verdes Drive South (that service now comes from San Pedro, Miraleste or the Peninsula Center area) and making Eastview a permanent part of PVPUSD. I invite your thoughts on these and on others. If you can, mark the subject line in your e-mail "Council Goals" so I can sort it and make sure all the councilmembers get it. The council will be taking up the issue of appointing two members to try to lobby for legislation to make Eastview a permanent part of PVPUSD on February 21 at its regular meeting at Hesse Park at 7 p.m. If you read former mayor John McTaggart's letter in the PV News today (Thursday February 2nd) you might think some councilmembers are opposed to making Eastview part of PVPUSD. That is not the case. But there are different opinions on the best way to proceed. If you are interested in the issue I encourage you to attend the council meeting on February 21st and to try to get your HOA to send an official representative. Tom Long February 1, 2006 A while back I attended the Sheriff's Station open house in Lomita. One of the deputies did an exellent presentation on the latest fraud scams. They handed out a brochure which I attach for your reference. It is in PDF format so most computers should be able to print it. If not, the information below can help you get the program you need to see and print PDF programs.
A Victim's Guide to Fraud [ADOBE PDF FORMAT] CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE ADOBE ACROBAT READER
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, Recently the council agreed to a temporary opening of Trump's golf course (final opening awaits submittal of final as-built plans and geologic reports). It seems likely the course will be permanently opened soon. You may also have heard about the very successful marketing of Terranea's (Long Point's) rooms. This makes an opening in 2008 (and then resulting revenues to the City in 2009) much more likely. The council also responded to Assemblywoman Karnette's recent suggestion while we were on our annual mid January visit to Sacramento that we provide her with a draft bill no later than January 27th to place Eastview permanently in PVPUSD. We voted to instruct staff to do so. Unfortunately the tight timetable did not allow time to seek input from the school board, but I am confident they will provide input to Karnette and her staff as the bill moves forward. I believe we all share the goal of bringing Eastview into PVPUSD permanently. Right now Eastview residents cannot vote for the PVPUSD board and can only apply to attend PVPUSD schools. Thankfully PVPUSD has been accepting those applications so far. The City also closed on the purchase of Hon's property, thus implementing the Portuguese Bend Preserve and leaving only York's property to be purchased to fulfill the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan ("NCCP"). Funding for the purchase of York's property is uncertain. It depends on grants from state and federal agencies that have not yet made firm commitments to the City. Nonetheless, the acquisition of Hon's property shows real progress toward open space preservation in RPV. The City experienced an approximate $2.8 million favorable variance on last year's budget. Thus instead of an operating deficit of about $800,000, the City had a surplus of about $2 million. But the City also faces uncertainties from the sinkholes on Western Avenue and other issues. How to address the City's budgets in the future, as well as a consideration of the councils goals for the upcoming year, will be the subjects of a council workshop at city hall on February 4, 2006 that is open to the public. The workshop will be at City Hall starting at 9:30 a.m. I invite your suggestions as to possible council goals for the next year for consideration at the February 4th workshop. Tom Long |
||||||||||||||||
