Municipal Finances in Rancho Palos Verdes

Is there a crisis in R.P.V. finances or a crisis in credibility or both? Where are City Council finance goals that justify present tax increases? Where are documented specific line items in the budget? I oppose providing the city with an open checkbook.

At the City Council meeting on Aug. 31 Mayor Susan Brooks admitted possibly being naive. Do City Council meetings permit a full spectrum of opinion to be expressed? Do citizens have the right to ask, “Why more taxes?” Can citizens inquire what taxes are to be used for? Are citizens permitted to ask about previous spending items?

Ten years ago R.P.V. had a surplus of $1.5 million. Now we seem to be broke. I recognize that the state has reduced subventions but this does not give the city license to increase the general fund with taxes. If new taxes are imposed they must be allocated to specific essential budgets, for example road maintenance, police, etc. Most citizens of R.P.V. do not have an open checkbook for city spending.

Recently there has been a bipartisan conference in L.A., jointly chaired by Gov. Wilson and Willie Brown. The conference objective was to stimulate the economy and increase employment. One cogent bipartisan point the conference made was that taxes and bureaucracy are strangling the state. I hope the same problems will not surface in R.P.V..

R.P.V. has, in my opinion, illegally converted recycling money to the General Fund. It has also circumvented the intent of Prop. 13 by using the landscaping and lighting assessment, in part, for the General Fund. I am concerned with the never-ending insatiable need for money designated to the general fund. It was this unrestrained requirement for money that unleased Prop. 13 in the first place. I oppose any increased utility tax or other residential tax including the Landscape and Lighting Assessment.

Any responsible organization, be it public or private, knows that it is fiscal suicide to rely predominantly on one source of income such as R.P.V.’s relying on state subventions. The city might better concentrate on broadening the tax base by actively encouraging the development of commercial and other sources of revenue rather than defenseless homeowners. A review will show that the R.P.V. City Council has for years dragged its feet in processing commercial income-producing land use applications.

The city has reduced some spending but more seems appropriate. For example, the City Council meeting on Sat. Aug. 21 had a one-item agenda, City Goals and Objectives. Some voting members of the focus groups were people who are not residents of the city and others were those who may have a personal interest in increasing R.P.V. spending. It cost the city $9,500 for a facilitator to run the City Council meeting and prepare a report.

Is Mayor Brooks, in her admitted naivete, unable to run City Council meetings? We elected a R.P.V. mayor and council to solve R.P.V. problems. Why are the mayor and City Council abrogating their responsibilities by bringing in consultants from outside the city to discharge their elected responsibilities? It is surprising that not one member of the nonpartisan City Council was willing to act as facilitator or failing that, to find a member of the city staff to do so. As an alternative, R.P.V. citizens possess a great wealth of talent in every aspect of business and commerce. Many would be willing to donate time to help the city in problem solving.

In the present R.P.V. financial climate I find it unworthy of the city to contemplate spending many thousands of dollars for a voice mail system at City Hall. This is an example of a nice toy, but not a necessary spending item for a city of this size. This item and others like it should be eliminated from any proposed budget. Rather than increase taxes the city needs to find more ways to cut spending and increase efficiency.

R.P.V. assembled a finance committee early in the year. The finance committee asked City Council to provide finance and tax goals for them to work with. In the absence of council direction the committee prepared and submitted a preliminary set of finance goals that were rejected by (the) City Council. Now the committee has been recessed indefinitely. Where are city council finance goals that justify present tax increases? Where are fully documented specific line items in the budget?

If I recall correctly at least two members of R.P.V. City Council publicly stated at the last election they would not support a tax increase without a vote of the people. Where do they stand now?

If additional revenue is absolutely necessary I recommend more spending cuts, increased efficiency and finding sources of revenue other than taxing homeowners. R.P.V. citizens should not permit the City Council to operate on an open checkbook policy.

PAUL H. CHRISTENSEN

Rancho Palos Verdes