“If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself”
Questions for Candidates
Palos Verdes Residents for Responsible Government (PVrrg) believes that an informed electorate is the key to effective democracy. An important election is coming up on March 5, 2019 in Palos Verdes Estates. Three of the five City Council seats are up for election. You the voter have a choice of one of two incumbents that are running for re-election (Jennifer King and Betty Lin Peterson) or five challengers (Jeff Groves, Michael Kemps, Victoria A. Lozzi, Kevin F. McCarthy and David McGowan).
PVrrg has posed a series of questions for the each of the seven candidates, and their responses are contained in the links below. The questions are based on issues of interest to voters in our community. We hope this is helpful to you. In February 2019 we plan to help facilitate a Candidate forum so you can hear directly from each candidates live and in-person — more details to follow.
Parklands
Background: In May 2012, City Council unanimously approved a transaction led by the City Attorney wherein the City transferred 1.7 acres of parkland on Via Panorama to the PVHA who immediately sold for $500,000 that parkland to a private resident who had built encroachments on that parkland over a period of 35 years. In 2013 Citizens for Enforcement of Parkland Covenants (CEPC) sued to reverse that sale, and in 2015 a Judgement was rendered in Superior Court in favor of CEPC. In November 2015 the City Council unanimously decided to appeal that decision, and in January 2018 the Appellate Court confirmed the Superior Court conclusions against the PVHA but remanded the case back to the Superior Court to prove that the City knew the PVHA was going to sell the parkland to a private resident at the time the City transferred it to the PVHA. For more info on this matter, see www.pveopenspace.com.
Question: If you had been on the City Council in 2012, would you have voted for or against the sale of parkland? If you had been on the City Council in 2015, would you have voted for or against appeal the Superior Court Judgment on the CEPC Parkland case? Please explain your answers to both questions.
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Measure D
Background: Measure D was rejected by voters in March 2017 when it failed to reach 2/3 in favor. It would have levied a parcel tax on the citizens of PVE for a period of 12 years, and would have replaced an earlier “Fire Tax” that expired in 2017. This new tax would generate approximately $5 million in revenue per year with escalation clause of up to 6% per year. All current City Councilmembers supported the Measure. For more information, click here.
Question: Did you support Measure D? What were your reasons?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Measure E
Background: Measure E was passed in April 2018 by a vote of 69% in favor (2/3 required). It levies a parcel tax on the citizens of PVE for a period of 9 years, and replaces an earlier “Fire Tax” that expired in 2017. This tax will generate approximately $5 million in revenue per year which can only be spent on the PVE Police Department (PVE PD). Therefore, it became a referendum on retaining the PVE PD and there was much discussion about exploring the option of outsourcing to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD). All current City Councilmembers supported the Measure. For more information, click here.
Question: Did you support Measure E? What were your reasons?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Pensions
Background: In FY 15, the City disclosed for the first time that it had $10 million of Unfunded Pension Liability under CALPERS. This is debt that needs to be paid over 20 years, and interest of just over 7% annually. In FY 17 the debt increased by $3 million and last year by another $1 Million -- thereby increasing the total liability/debt to over $14 million; of this, $10.8 million relates to the PVE PD. The total liability will continue to rise if CalPERS continues to fall short of their investment goal, and the City continues to not even pay all the interest due each year which causes the principal to increase. For more information, click here.
Question: What is your perspective on the pension issue, and what would you advocate doing about it?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Approval Process for Building and Tree Disputes
Background: Since 1940 when the City of PVE was formed, there is perennial confusion and dissatisfaction because of the cumbersome process of approving building and vegetation changes that need to be approved by both the PVHA’s Art Jury as well as the City of PVE’s Planning Commission and City Council. Residents have asked for greater cooperation, transparency and streamlining for the process.
Question: What would you do to improve the process of approvals?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Spending
Background: PVE has been consistently spending more than its revenue with the approval of all current members of the City Council. We spend $4.5 million more per year now than in 2014. That has caused the depletion of $6.7M in the reserve fund. Now there is hardly any money left for the desperately needed capital improvements. Yet the City Council claims we have no fiscal problem.
Question: Do you believe there is a fiscal problem that needs to be addressed? How would you proceed if you were elected?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Financial Planning and Transparency
Background: The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is an audited financial statement prepared by an independent third party submitted to and approved by the City Council. It includes a Transmittal letter prepared by the city manager. Each transmittal letter from 2015, 2016, and 2017 has included language expressing the importance and critical nature of Long-term Financial Planning. Rigorous Long- term financial planning is necessary to deal with infrastructure requirements, changes in the law , and changes in the financial environment.
Question: Do you believe long-term financial planning should be a priority? As there is no evidence of a current long term plan or fund analysis, do you believe that it should be scheduled and communicated to the community?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Police - Spending
Background: The annual PVE PD cost of $7 M is 39% of the PVE annual expenditures of $18M and 77% of PVE’s unfunded Pension Liability. As such, the magnitude bears scrutiny. Moreover, each year we pay 3.5 – 4 times more than our neighboring cities of RPV, RHE and RH which all contract with the LASD for police services and pay far less on a cost per person, per household or per acre basis (for details click here). The difference the multiple goes up to 5 times factoring in increases in unfunded pension attributable to having an internal PD. In 2016, the City Manager obtained a preliminary quote from LASD for $3.5 million, and recommended that the City commission a Sheriff’s Feasibility Study to at least better understand this option. City Council has not authorized such a study.
Question: As Councilmember, would you be for or against a Sheriff’s Feasibility Study to explore this further? Please explain why.
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Police - Safety
Background: By most measures PVE enjoys low crime statistics as published by a number of different websites the statistics are based on Uniform Crime Reporting Data published by the FBI. The FBI cautions using an index as there are so many variables that affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place. Some of which are: population density and degree of urbanization, geography proximity to freeways, stability of the population with respect to residents, mobility, commuting patterns, economic conditions including median income, poverty level and job availability, modes of transportation and highway systems climate etc. Other cities such as Rancho Santa Margarita, Danville, Mill Valley, and the other cities on the Peninsula , enjoy crime statistics that are similar to PVE, yet at half the cost per resident.
Question: As a candidate do you believe this is an issue worth investigating? As a council member what would your position be on determining the causes for the fiscal differences in cost?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Governance
Background: PVE is governed by a Municipal Code. On a number of occasions one will hear in council that The Municipal Code “shall govern”, “takes precedence” or “prevails”. There have been a number of instances where it did not appear for some major services that city council had not solicited competing bids for safety (police) engineering, and external audit, or made the bids available for public review. Or made the bid selection process more transparent in terms of best value.
Question: Are you familiar with the City Of Palos Verdes Estates Municipal Code? Are you familiar with its direction relative to “Purchasing Systems” which requires a minimum number of bids, solicitation of bids etc.? Will you follow the guidelines of the code?
For responses by the seven candidates, click here.
Questions asked in the February 6th PVrrg Candidate Forum
The following questions were asked of each candidate at the February 6th Palos Verdes Residents for Responsible Government Candidate Forum, and the video answers can be found here:
City Finances: Based on the Financial Advisory Committee’s trend analysis, the city’s revenue is growing at approximately 2%/year and expenses are growing at a little over 3%/year. It appears that there are 4 options to deal with this. One is you can draw down reserves, you can reduce expenses, raise revenue, sell assets. So the question is, what approach would you take? And why would you take it? For video answers, click here.
Pension Liability: The City’s Unfunded Pension liability continues to grow. While it is a future liability, and doesn’t have to be paid in one year, we are charged interest (currently 7.5%) on unpaid principal. The amount the City owes is real, is due, and can’t be “forgiven”. What do you see as the biggest issues and risks in this area and how would you propose to deal with those issues? For video answers, click here.
Police Benchmarking and Best Practices: The bulk of the City’s budget (over 50%) is dedicated to public safety (which includes the police and fire department). Would you be in favor of a comprehensive benchmarking study that provides an “apples to apples” comparison of our costs (per resident, per household) to other cities - with objective of best practice implementation and cost reduction? For video answers, click here.
Managing Cost of Police: Our city’s annual cost for public safety has been variously analyzed as between 3.5 and 4 times higher than other cities on the hill – whether you look at per capita issue or cost per home or cost per acre. We have just signed an MOU that gives our police an annual raise in excess of our revenue projections. Do you believe this is an issue? And if so, how would you manage cost escalation within our police department going forward? For video answers, click here.
Coyotes: We live in a semi-rural environment and share our City with a number of other living beings- including coyotes. Coyotes can be a danger to domesticated animals, such as cats and dogs as well as human beings. What are your thoughts regarding our control and/or co-existence with these animals? For video answers, click here.
Parklands Pledge: As part of the recent settlement, the City agreed to reaffirm the continuing legal validity of the Protective Parklands Restrictions that set aside parklands in perpetuity for the communal use and benefit of PVE residents for public recreation only. Would you pledge here tonight that you will support and enforce the Parklands Protective Deed Restrictions? For video answers, click here.
Support of CC&Rs (& ADU issue): What will you do to support, protect and enforce the City’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (most commonly known as CC&Rs) in the face of growing challenges from outside entities such as the State of California, who may seek to restrict cities’ (not just Palos Verdes but all cities) authority to make local decisions regarding housing density, cell phone tower placements, etc? As an example of that, I know that the City Council is considering allowing ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) on 25% of lots and JADUs (Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) on all lots even though the CCRs forbid it. What is your position on ADUs/JADUs and why? For video answers, click here.
Government Culture & Transparency: This has to do with city government culture and transparency. If you look at the City website, there is an org chart there that has the Residents on top, the council below, and the city manager at the base. Do you feel this is how the City is currently managed, and are there any changes you would advocate? For video answers, click here.
Breakdown of Courtesy & Respect: During the past year, PVE has seen a breakdown of courtesy, decorum and respect during some council meetings. There are some officials and residents who feel that have been personally attacked and/or stated that they feel intimidated. Are there guidelines that apply or should apply to council member behavior regarding topic, tone and content of speeches? If there are, do you favor consistent application of those guidelines, and what other actions are you willing to take to address this issue? For video answers, click here.
Malaga Cove Development: Subject of this one is Malaga Cove. The question is how do we improve parking and also the diversity of businesses to increase both revenue and enhance enjoyment? This refers to the Plaza area. For video answers, click here.
Butcher Hill Development Plan: Butcher Hill, adjacent to Palos Verdes Estates, has a plan submitted to Torrance that greatly affects PVE residents with traffic, diminished home values, etc. What are your thoughts on this? For video answers, click here.
Improving Concessions: Do you believe we should make our Golf, Tennis Club and Stables more profitable, and if so, how? For video answers, click here.
Questions asked in the February 11th LWV Candidate Forum
The following questions were asked of each candidate at the February 11th League of Women Voters Candidate Forum, and the video answers can be found here:
Emergency Contingency Reserve: The City’s General Fund balance committed for emergency contingencies is established at $7.2 million. In your opinion, is this emergency reserve level too much, too little, or about right? For video answers, click here.
Financial Advisory Committee Role & Support: What is your position regarding the role of the FAC [Financial Advisory Committee]? Do you feel the FAC is currently receiving appropriate support from the Council to carry out that role? If no, what changes would you advocate? For video answers, click here.
Balanced Budget: Do you consider the PVE Annual Budget to be balanced when it annually underpays its CalPERS obligations and borrows additional funds from the City reserves? For video answers, click here.
Where Grew Up: Did any of you grow up in Palos Verdes Estates and what does that mean to you? For video answers, click here.
Risks to Growing up in PVE: I am an 8thGrader at PV Intermediate School. What are the biggest risks to me and my friends growing up in this community, and what will you do about it? For video answers, click here.
Communication Through Social Media: Given the challenge of dialogues on social media sites, what is the best way Council should communicate their message? For video answers, click here.
Code Enforcement: Some complain that PVE codes are not enforced in regards to landscaping, weeds, home maintenance, unfinished construction, etc. Others feel the City is too strict about code enforcement and that their property rights are being infringed upon. What is your take? Is the current level of code enforcement appropriate, or do we need stricter or looser code enforcement? For video answers, click here.
Contractors vs City Employees: To save money, do you think City Hall should be staffed with as many contractors as possible and a minimal number of directly employed City employees? For video answers, click here.
Beautify Lunada Bay: What is your position on the Beautify Lunada Bay Project? For video answers, click here.
Homeless Shelters: PVE’s Housing Element required by Los Angeles County allows landlords in the Malaga Cove Plaza to convert their properties into homeless shelters if they wish. This has not happened to date. How worried are you that Plaza landlords will choose to convert their properties into homeless shelters in the future? For video answers, click here.
Traffic Signal for Malaga Cove Intersection: Some get frustrated at the four-way intersection in front of the Malaga Cove Plaza due to traffic backups in rush hour periods. Would you attempt to do something about this if elected? Do you support installing a traffic signal in lieu of the current four-way stop at this busy intersection? For video answers, click here.
Butcher-Solano Project: What is your position on the Butcher-Hill Solano Project? For video answers, click here.
Maintaining Trails and Parklands: Some feel like the trails in our parkland need to be better maintained or even expanded. Others don’t like seeing people walking on the trails and advocate for less or only limited public access in parklands. Where do you stand when it comes to public access to parkland trails and the role of the City in maintaining trails and parklands? For video answers, click here.
Trees versus Views: There is often conflict in the City between those who believe PVE’s urban forest of mature trees improves their property value and defines or contributes to neighborhood character, and those who believe that having a 180 degree unimpeded view is a right. Where do you see yourself – are you a tree person or a view person? For video answers, click here.
“Mansionization”: Where do you stand on “mansionization”? The Deed Restrictions for PVE limit the height to 30 feet and square footage of a residential structure to the lesser of 50% of lot size or 30% of lot size plus 1750 square feet. At what point does a home that meets these constraints become a mansion and subject to additional limitations through the Neighborhood Compatibility ordinance? For video answers, click here.
Beach Club Access -- Changes to Membership and Fees: Some in PVE want to see the City owned Beach Club expand membership in order to reduce the wait list and/or reduce day use fees to increase access for non-members. Others report that the Beach Club is already at full capacity and that such changes would reduce the quality of the Club experience for those current and future members and day-users. Since the City Council has the authority to determine both the number of memberships available and the amount of the day-use fees, what changes if any would you advocate for when it comes to the Beach Club? For video answers, click here.
School Resource Officer at PV High School: Would you support the addition of a School Resource Officer to the High School in Palos Verdes Estates, which is apparently available and provided in Manhattan Beach and El Segundo? For video answers, click here.