There were approximately 20 residents listening to the discussions about Measure C and when all were asked for a show of hands of those who have already decided what their vote would be, only two people raised their hands.
I raised mine of course. I still vote Yes on Measure C. April S. is a strong opponent of Measure C and she still wants me to vote No.
Frankly, I wasn't moved with the presentations made by the speakers and I feel they all did a less than wonderful job making their points. However, since I know so much more about Measure C than most folks do, I am not as objective as others may be as to the speakers' abilities to communicate their points.
What impressed me was the remarkable questions and comments from those gathered to learn more about Measure C and what a charter city status would and would not contain.
There was a lot of back and forth, along with a few good questions regarding whether R.P.V. as a charter city could keep and protect the Transitory Occupancy Tax revenues generated by Terranea. In 2010, the TOT provided the city will about 2 Million Dollars and it is expected to go up to about 3 Million Dollars this year.
There are no guarantees that Sacramento or Washington won't raid our TOT funds and the speakers did state factually that opinions seem to indicate that, as a charter city, R.P.V. MIGHT be in a better position to protect the funds. I agree with this and I do acknowledge that there is no proof that we would be able to keep revenues collected via the TOT or Utility Tax monies shared with the city. I am still using my hopeful thought that having a greater opportunity to keep the money in the city is one of the reasons I am voting Yes on the measure.
A brilliant question came from a resident who asked for specific details as to what some existing charter cities have realized in savings by becoming a charter city.
What is so brilliant about that question is that none of the speakers on either side of the issue were able to cite any charter city's actual savings and that is looks like both the Yes on C folks and the No on C folks haven't really researched actual savings by actual charter cities.
There have been some studies of some existing charter cities that seem to show indications that some charter cities find 2-3 Million Dollars worth of savings as opposed to having remain a general law city.
I think both sides haven't stress strongly enough that by becoming a charter city, R.P.V. MAY have the POTENTIAL for real savings.
Another fantastic question from the floor had to do with costs related to becoming AND remaining a charter city. Here again, neither side offered any true cost analysis as to how much savings might be achieved in governmental processes and fees by remaining a charter city.
We know our city funds of somewhere in the neighborhood of $70,000-$80,000 will be incurred with the vote on March 8.
I haven't seen any studies that state administrative costs of a charter city compared to what administrative costs might be for the same city remaining a general law city. However, it is acknowledged by both sides that there will be added expenses for the processes or changing from a general law city to a charter city and what the administrative costs would be or might change in R.P.V. should we become a charter city, may not apparently be known.
One thing that FINALLY blew me away was the acknowledgement by the speakers supportive of passage of Measure C was that the prevailing wage issues have basically been abandoned by supporters as a major reason to support passage of Measure C.
A member of PVP Watch had a handout concerning the McCarrell Canyon Storm Drain repair project. As it turns out, that project was exempt from prevailing wage guidelines and it was completed while R.P.V. is still a general law city.
Even though some very strong supporters of Measure C are almost chomping at the bit to have full exemptions of prevailing wage guidelines for city sponsored projects, it turns out that point might be moot even before the California Supreme Court issues its ruling as to whether it is even legal for a charter city to have full or partial exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines.
I think my very subjective observations about the speakers is that they did not explain better what a charter city CAN, MAY, POSSIBLY do or that becoming a charter city provided OPPORTUNITIES not granted to general law cities.
Attendees at the meeting should have been given a clearer scope, I feel, of what the possibilities AND probabilities of becoming a charter city are, with particular attention placed on what probably would happen should R.P.V. become a charter city.
Another attendee asked about Design-Build and how the potential that a 'brother of the mayor' might win a contract bid he would not necessarily be entitled to. This was a good question with some good points made by both sides, but I have my own take on this matter.
I support Design-Build and its connected opportunity to not have to use the lowest bider's bid used. I think this is one area where SOME money would be saved over separating the design contract bid processes from the build bid processes.
As for the brother of the mayor issue, I strongly feel there are enough informed residents of R.P.V. providing regular checking of things the City Council deals with and that future Councils will be scrutinized at least as much as this current Council is.
A hefty portion of the meeting dealt with the brevity and timing issues related to this particular charter. I cannot disagree with charter critics that contend the charter was 'rushed' through its creation and that the processes are too hurried with nowhere near enough input from folks not necessarily as supportive of the measure as those on the City Council and just about the entire volunteer activists within R.P.V.
I have opined about this particular in an earlier post and offered some points I feel are valid as to what I find missing in the charter up for a vote.
Are we rushing to judgement by having the vote on March 8?
Well, please remember the time it took to get Terranea opened. Also, take a good look at the history of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and its associated Marymount Plan.
Unless there is an immediate need to get something fixed quickly, many of our residents are so involved with city matters that it takes years and years and years and years to get anything done.
A large number of R.P.V. residents are paying a Storm Drain Users Fee established several years ago. The fee was voted on after years to decades of infrastructure mismanagement by prior City Councils and the extremely long discussion times related to finally really working to solve the problem. A fee might not have been necessary had the problems been dealt with years ago and without so much study by so many residents.
I really believe that if PVP Watch were to join in discussions with our current City Council makeup, we wouldn't see a draft of a charter for years.
I firmly believe that waiting to November would not be enough time, in the eyes of PVP Watch and others opposed to having our city becoming a charter city, would not be long enough by at least a year.
We have to remember some issues related to Palos Verdes on the Net and the talks, FOIA requests, as attempts by some to deal with issues they didn't see eye to eye on with some members of the City Council.
Yes, if I had my druthers I would like to vote on becoming a charter city AFTER this November's election of three new members of the City Council.
I would have liked the very political issue of charter city status held with those already seated on the City Council and NOT as part of the election cycle to determine the three new members.
I think PVP Watch's call to have the charter vote at the same time as the vote for new Council members detracts from both thing and causes support and opposition issues towards candidates based on support or opposition to becoming a charter city and both issues are too important to not be separated.
I don't know which side 'won'. There are a number of residents on the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA that oppose passage of Measure C.
I know there are some folks who will vote Yes on Measure C because they know that most of the active opponents of Measure C were supporters of having Marymount see approval of on campus student housing.
The Rolling Hills Riviera area and most of the rest of Eastview would be negatively impacted because of additional daily trips to and from Marymount College should dorms get built there.
This is a fact documented in Marymount's EIR. What is also very important to remember is that the Rolling Hills Riviera area has houses directly across Western Avenue from the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
Eastview residents need to look at both the continuing aspect that dorms are still sought on the campus of Marymount College AND the second EIR for Ponte Vista hasn't been published yet.
It is a fact that a charter city has the OPPORTUNITY to change initiative requirements and some other other issues related to elections and voting and there has been some less-than-quiet talk that should R.P.V. become a charter city, some changes MIGHT be sought to make it harder for special interest groups to float measures for their own special interests.
I was very proud to see everyone listening and offering comments at times. I felt the members were well engaged in learning more about issues related to charter cities and they demonstrated concern to know more about Measure C.
The editor of Rancho Palos Verdes Patch attended tonight's meeting. I am learning that the Patch network is a large online function that has sites a great number of cities and towns in the U.S.A. I have been given approval to use a very good article I found on Patch that may help to educate folks more.
Thank you to the LaCombe family for allowing the use of their home for the meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment