“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
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 November 3, 2020 in Palos Verdes Estates. Two of the five City Council seats are up for election. You the voter have a choice between five candidates - one incumbent running for re-election (Sanford Davidson) and four challengers (Gayne Brenneman, Dawn Murdock, Jim Roos and Bill Sewell). You may vote for up to two candidates.
PVrrg has posed a series of questions for the each of the five 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. On October 1, 2020 we plan on hosting a Candidate forum so you can hear directly from each of the candidates live and in-person — more details here.
Overall Financial Health of the City
Background: In a recent survey of PVE residents conducted by Palos Verdes Residents for Responsible Government (PVrrg), 4 of the top 6 issues measured by residents’ responses have to do with the financial health of the city and are listed below in order of identified importance:
Long term financial viability of PVE
Unfunded pension liability
Exploring all options (including outsourcing) to find a sustainable a solution to Policing that takes quality and resident preferences into account as well as cost
Finding new sources of revenue.
Question: Do you agree that these are the top issues facing the City? If not, what would be on your top issues list? No matter the exact content of your list, from your perspective is “everything on the table” when it comes to solving the City’s financial problems? Whether your answer is “yes” or “no”, please specify the steps/actions you would advocate.
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Pensions
Background: Due to a change in government financial reporting rules, PVE was required to disclose its long-term pension obligations for the first time in FY 15. The City’s audited financial report for that year, (the CAFR), showed a total of $11M in Unfunded Pension Liability (UAL), as reported by CalPERS, the state agency that manages the City pension plans. This debt has continued to grow each year. According to the most recent CalPERS valuation reports, the UAL balance was $16.6M at June 30, 2018 and is now estimated to be over $19M. Increases in the debt are the result of several factors, including failure of CalPERS to meet its earnings targets, accrued interest*, changes or inaccuracies in actuarial assumptions and underpayment of the annual pension cost incurred by the City. While the City has little to no control over some of these factors, it does control payment of the current year’s pension expense, known as the “Normal Cost.” However, for a number of years the City has “short-paid” the Normal Cost, paying only the minimum amount required by CalPERS. This is like paying only the minimum due on a credit card. Additionally, the City does not pay the full interest amount accrued on the UAL each year, again opting to pay only the minimum required. When we continue to “short-pay” pension related expenses, we add to the increasing debt burden.
Furthermore, the total liability will dramatically increase if CalPERS continues to fall short of their investment goal of 7% and could potentially double or triple. For example, if the return on the CalPERS pension portfolio going forward were to drop to 4%, the debt would increase from about $19 to an estimated $62 million (based on GovInvest).
The City Council has formed a Pension Ad Hoc Committee to address this issue but the Committee has not yet presented its findings and recommendations.
* Interest rates vary by year and by “tranche,” but range from 7% to 8%.
Question: What is your perspective on the pension issue? What specific ideas do you have and what would you do about it?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Public Support for the Police Versus Concern for its Costs
Background: It is clear from the fact that nearly 70% of voters were in favor of Measure E, as well as from the preponderance of comments received in response to the recently conducted PVrrg survey, that our Police Department enjoys widespread support among residents. It is also a fact that police costs represent the most significant portion of the City’s budget, and even Measure E does not cover the full cost.
Many voters assumed Measure E’s $5 million tax was sufficient to fully fund the PVE Police Department (PVEPD). Yet the budgeted cost of the PVEPD for the current fiscal year is just over $7 million.
The City Council has formed a Police Department Ad Hoc Committee to address the issue of police costs. Interim Chief of Police Dreiling is heading up efforts to find solutions.
Question: From your point of view, what is the best way to resolve this apparent conflict between public support and cost concerns? What ideas do you have for addressing the police cost issue? Do you see this as an important issue? What steps are you willing to advocate for to solve this long-term financial concern?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Maintenance of City Infrastructure
Background: Maintenance of city infrastructure, including roads, sewers, storm drains, parkland maintenance (weed-abatement/fire suppression) and street medians was also rated as having high importance by survey respondents. According to the HR Green report commissioned by City Council at the recommendation of the Financial Advisory Committee, we have a backlog of City Infrastructure Projects (CIP) that will cost as much as $60M over the next 10 years, AFTER taking into consideration revenue from other sources besides the general fund. Of this, $20M is just to cover minimum improvements required for safety ($13.4M) and regulatory compliance e.g., ADA, ($6.1M). Another $25M is to cover preventive maintenance, forestalling bigger investments later. The rest is “best practice.”
If we cover only the first $20, that’s an additional $2M needed per year. If we do only half of the preventive maintenance, another $4.5M per year is needed. This does not include any needed retrofitting of City Hall to meet ADA and safety requirements.
Question: Do you see a difference in priorities across various types of infrastructure in terms of importance? Can you reconcile the need to do this while maintaining fiscal stability? If not, what might have to be de-emphasized?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Fire Risk and Public Safety
Background: Out of the current FY21 budgeted expenses of $18.7 million, fire and paramedic cost paid to LA County is $5.9 million. In addition. PVE pays about $225,000 annually for weed abatement to suppress fire, resulting in 33% of the total budget. California has reached the point where our fire season is essentially year-round, and residents have expressed concern about this issue. In addition, California classifies all of PVE in its highest fire risk category:
One of PVE’s great advantages is also one of our greatest vulnerabilities, i.e. open space and a rural environment which can easily erupt into wildfire. As of now, PVE has one dedicated fire department which also handles EMS, the Los Angeles County unit based in Malaga Cove Plaza. The cost of this unit rises every year and was up 7% last year alone.
Question: What changes, if any, would you advocate in the area of fire protection and what concrete steps should be taken to mitigate PVE’s fire risk?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Approval Process for Buildings and Tree Disputes
Background: Since 1940 when, the City of PVE was formed, there has been perennial confusion over and dissatisfaction with the cumbersome process of approving building and vegetation changes that need to be approved by both the PVHA’s Art Jury and the City Planning Commission. If their decision is appealed, a fairly easy process, the City Council has to review and vote on the decision. Residents have asked for greater cooperation between the various agencies as well as transparency and streamlining of the process.
Question: What would you do to improve the process?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
City Council Reviews of Planning Commission Actions and Appeals
Background: Looking back at past City Council Meeting Agendas over the years, significant time is devoted to the City Council reviews of Planning Commission actions related to new builds, remodels, tree and landscaping changes (and appeals of those actions), especially when there are contentious issues related to neighborhood compatibility, views, privacy, size of homes, grading, etc. These reviews typically involve public comments from numerous neighbors either in support or opposition to the subject project as well as the comments from the homeowner(s), their architect and potentially other subject matter experts. Thus, a single review can sometimes utilize two or more hours of a meetings’ agenda.
Question: What are your thoughts on how to balance Council time considerations with the importance of getting these reviews “right” both in terms of the homeowners’ interests as well as that of neighbors, other interested parties and the City as a whole? What ideas do you have for streamlining this process?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Municipal Code
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.” In the Code is a requirement to get competing bids. There have been a number of instances where it did not appear that City Council had solicited competing bids for some major services [e.g. for engineering, legal and external audit] thus making the bid selection process incomplete and less than 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.? Do you pledge to follow the guidelines of the code in all matters?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Background: Under amendments to State law effective January 1, 2020, the City is mandated to administer the approval of ADU’s and Junior ADUs sought by residents. Under new State laws (click here for more details), the City’s existing ADU regulations are null and void until a new compliant code is adopted, which would then be subject to review and approval (or denial) by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The City has reviewed several iterations of a new ADU ordinance throughout the past three years. On April 14, 2020, City Council adopted a temporary ordinance to regulate ADUs while Council reviews iterations of a permanent ordinance for the City. This temporary ordinance remains in effect either until a permanent ordinance goes into effect or April 13, 2021, whichever occurs first.
Residents have expressed concern about the possible consequences of this new State law and the City’s response to compliance. In particular, the ordinance (and the recently passed state law) are in conflict with the underlying CC&Rs from the 1920s; these are contracts which all homeowners are obligated to follow. Some residents are concerned that this may create a precedent that the State could leverage to force eventual conversion of parklands into low income housing notwithstanding the fact that the underlying deed restrictions explicitly forbid the sale of parkland for any purpose except public recreation.
Question: What is your view of this new State law? What ideas do you have for balancing the concerns of the residents while achieving compliance with State law on this matter? What steps should the City take to allay residents’ concerns?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Parkland Encroachments
Background: The City has about 600 acres of deed restricted parkland that, under the City CC&Rs, must can only be used for “public recreational use.” In addition, there are about 90 paths, alleys or lanes (collectively called “rights-of-way”) between houses that are not deed restricted but are covered by Municipal Code which mandates that they cannot be encroached upon. However, over the years, many homeowners have “annexed” adjacent public property for their own private purposes, including structures and dense vegetation to block public access and improve their privacy. In 2013, two residents documented over 90 of these encroachments and provided the City with photos and maps to aid in the enforcement efforts. Seven years later, about one quarter of these have been addressed but more have been added. The penalties for encroachments have been ineffective in deterring violations or forcing removal.
Question: How do you feel about this issue, and what (if anything) would you do as a City Council-member to address encroachments on parkland and rights-of-way?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Scope of City Council Authority and Perspective on Voter Approval
Background: In the last couple of years, there have been examples of potentially significant decisions considered by City Council that, if passed, could have obligated the City financially for many years and for very significant amounts (millions of dollars). Examples include:
CPA (Clean Power Alliance) energy liabilities
Debt offerings, such as issuance of:
Pension bonds
Certificates of participation
T3 Public-Private partnerships wherein the City Council obligates the City to pay the builder's debt
Outsourcing police services to the LASD or another entity
Some (not all) of these actions were put to a vote by Council but not to a vote by the residents. Others have just been discussed at some level but not yet proposed or voted upon.
Question: As a Council member, what are your perspectives on the appropriateness of pursuing any of these types of actions without a referendum? Should there be any limits (financial or otherwise) on what the Council can or cannot approve?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.
Philosophy on Decision Making
Background: As a City Council member, you will read all staff memos, ask questions, hear and participate in the discussion and debate around each issue. As such, you should be better informed on almost any issue than the average person in our community.
Question: If an issue comes up where you think the best decision for the City is “X", but your sense of the community is that the residents want “Y" (even if “Y” may not be affordable or may be otherwise ill-advised), what would you do? Put differently, given that you may be better informed than much of the public, is your role to make the best decision for the City or should you bend to the perceived “will of the people” even if you believe it is based on limited knowledge or even misinformation?
For responses by the five candidates, click here.