Bond for Parks Called a ‘Pork Barrel’ Plan by P.V. Estates : Revenues: Twelve South Bay cities support the proposed $816-million bond issue. The County Board of Supervisors will vote soon on whether to put it on the November ballot.

Saying it is ill-conceived and too costly, Palos Verdes Estates officials have denounced a proposed bond issue that would raise $816 million for numerous recreation and park projects countywide.

In a letter sent last week to every city in the county, Palos Verdes Estates contends that the group backing the measure, the Mountain Recreation and Conservation Authority, has failed to provide enough information on how much the measure would cost taxpayers, who would repay the bonds through an increase in their property taxes.

The letter, signed by City Manager James Hendrickson, also argues that the size of the bond, originally estimated at $750 million, has grown out of control.

“It is an unabashed pork barrel measure,” Hendrickson said in an interview this week.

The measure is called the Los Angeles County Beaches, Wildlife and Park Land Conservation Act of 1990. The Malibu-based authority, a nonprofit public agency that provides park services, is presently drafting a final version of the proposal to submit to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Supervisors are expected to vote within the next three weeks on whether to put the measure on the November ballot. Three supervisors must approve it before it can be placed on the ballot. The measure, which has received widespread support among the county’s cities, would require a two-thirds majority of the popular vote to pass.

Esther Feldman, spokeswoman for the authority, said the amount of the bonds has grown “a lot” because supervisors have requested specific projects be funded through it.

“We call it a park barrel,” Feldman said.

She also said that a chart sent with the Palos Verdes Estates letter is highly misleading. The chart, for example, shows that although Palos Verdes Estates property owners would pay nearly $3.5 million in principal alone to pay off the bonds over 20 years, the city is slated to receive only a $214,019 grant based on its population of 14,600.

Feldman said the letter and chart fail to state that cities, such as Palos Verdes Estates, would also be eligible to receive a share of $50 million that would be set aside for competitive grants. And the city would also benefit through the numerous regional projects that would be funded under the bill, she said.

“I think they are being extremely shortsighted, unless the people in Palos Verdes Estates never leave Palos Verdes Estates,” she said.

Feldman said the authority estimates the measure would cost the average taxpayer $8.50 annually for 20 years, if the sale of the bonds is staggered. That amount is based on an average assessed property value countywide of $125,000, she said.

Under the measure, $140 million would be distributed to cities based on their population, and another $243 million would be distributed to various cities for specific projects. Unlike some South Bay cities, such as Rancho Palos Verdes and Hermosa Beach, Palos Verdes Estates did not apply to receive money for a specific project.

Also, $219 million would be used for county and beach projects, $80 million would go to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for projects scattered around the county’s mountains, and $50 million would be used for the competitive grants. Other monies raised would go to various county recreational and cultural agencies.

The authority says the money raised by the general obligation bonds is needed to pay for renovations to recreational and cultural facilities. The agency also says the measure would provide much needed funds to acquire new parklands.

But Hendrickson said individual cities should issue their own bonds, repaid by their residents, if they believe a particular park or recreation project would benefit their community.

Besides Palos Verdes Estates, San Marino also has been critical of the measure. San Marino City Manager John Nowak said his city is opposed to the measure because of the money slated to go to the conservancy. The conservancy, he said, has no accountability to county taxpayers.

Feldman said the authority is now working to clarify what controls should be placed on the conservancy. She said 47 cities, including 12 South Bay cities, have endorsed the measure.

Even though Supervisor Pete Schabarum has said he will not support it because he is concerned the county is incurring too much bond debt, Feldman said the authority is confident the measure will muster the needed votes to be placed on the ballot.