20110920 Late CorrespondenceKen Dyda ITEM #6 PENSION REFORM Sept.20,2011
1 I compliment the sub committe for bringing the pension proposal to the council.Based
on the data the subcommittee had,the conclusions and recommendations are well
founded.However,they did not have the benefit of other inputs from the public.
2 Before I get into specifics about the pension plans,I want to disabuse the notion that
because we have a $9M general Fund Reserve and a $6M elP reserve that the city is in
great shape and should use those funds to create an entitlement for increased wages and
benefits.We need to look at preserving the reserves for some emerging liabilities such
as:
a.$6M is on standby should San Ramon need urgent stop gap measures before federal
monies are available which mayor may not come.If the monies come there will be a
matching fund requirement of 10 to 20 %.There goes another $2M to $4M dollars.
That:s a total of$8m to $lOMgone.ifthe monies don't come in time.If the monies do
not materialize at all,there's $19M in addition to the stop gap money that may have
been spent.
b.This begs the issue of the storm drain fee sunsetting in the near future and the real
possibility for major renovation/repair of the sewer system which is reaching the end of
its projected life.The T<?T may cover these expenses.
c.Let's not forget Port.Bend moving 6 to 9 feet a year.Sooner or later the stop gap
band aid approach will end and more cost will be involved.Do we continue to ignore
this problem until it becomes a crisis?
3 I have talked to a number of retired middle and upper management retirees from the
private sector.Their pension runs between 28%and 34%.ofthe final base salary.The
qualifying service is 35 yrs even if their service goes beyond that time.The city is
showing two programs.One is a 2%and the other is 2.5%.At 2%after 35 years the
pension is 70%of the base salary and at 2.5%it grows to 87.5%.That's if spiking is
not an added factor or longer service credit is included.
4 The plan before you is for the city to continue paying the employer portion and to move
the city's 6.5%,which is 81 %of the employees share,back to the employee with a 5%..--:'''':'':'I'''"~_'''
raise.This is to soften the impact.This is in addition to the approved 3.5%cola and a
merit pool of 5%.That's 13.5%to offset the 6.5%.The other facet is that the 5%raise
will create a new baseline for future raises which will compound the effect.We all
know how compounding steepens with time.Mayor Pro tem Misetich's proposal is a
more sensible approach to soften the impact by reducing the city's payment of the
employees share over a period of time.It avoids the compounding of the 5%raise.
The employees share being paid by the city should not be looked at as an entitlement
but rather a generous tax free benefit while it was in place.
5 Lastly the second tier still needs further study.I'm sure with the talent we have,a
minor realignment of employee responsibilities can be made to temporarily fill the
vacant positions until such time as a more meaningful tier two can be developed for
new employees.
Dear Mayor and City Council (,:embers,
My name is Nancie Silver and I have enjoyed working for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its
residents since 1984;I have been a resident in this City since its incorporation,moving to the hill
in 1969.Many people in the community know me as the manager for Hesse Park and Ryan Park.
I am speaking tonight to encourage the City Council to support the recommendation made by the
Pension Subcommittee and Management Partners regarding Pension Reform.I appreciate the
thoughtfulness and diligence of the pension sub-committee in arriving at this recommendation.
Over the past 27 years,I have been privileged to work with intelligent,thoughtful,dedicated,and
professional employees and members of Council,and we have enjoyed the support of the
community in our endeavors.The relationship between the Council and the employees has been
one of compromise and mutual respect,and this has set the tone for the community.
As an employee in the Recreation and Parks Department,I know first-hand the amount of staff
time and resources it takes to produce the new recreation programs set forth by the City Council in
its Tactical Goals and we have achieved these goals and others with no new staff.Some of the
programs we have created for the enjoyment and benefit of the residents include:
Egg Hunt Eggstravaganza
Halloween Spooktacular
Night at the Museum
Paddle Tennis Tournament
Night Hikes in the Preserve
MRCA Park Ranger and Jr.Ranger Programs
These are in addition to popular programs and events already offered,such as the Los Serenos
Docent/Jr.Docent Programs,REACH,Whale of a Day,July 4th Fair,and Breakfast with Santa.
The Department also manages the operations at five active park sites and seven passive parks,and
has undertaken some exciting new projects,including the completion of the expanded Pt.Vicente
Interpretive Center,the Hesse and Ryan park field renovations,and the upcoming improvements
to lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park.
I think when the community reflects on what the Department and City offers its residents,they can
be proud to live in a City that actively promotes beautiful parks and recreation programs that
contribute to their quality of life.The well-educated and hard-working residents in this City
recognize that you get what you pay for;if you want to live in a City with a high level of service,
you have to be willing to offer reasonable and fair compensation.
I want to encourage the Council to support the recommendations,as I believe they represent a
compromise between the employees and Council,with both parties giving up something to ensure
that the City continues to be a shining example of what peo Ie can achi rk
together for a common purpose.-rrenk \Iou...RECEIVED FROM THE RECORD AT THE -.-:LM':::Ji:'I_I AND MADE A PART OF --I:1e7~JP
COUNCIL MEETING OF ;;;:;err d..D1 d./JII
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 20,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
E
3
6
Description of Material
Email from Ellen November
Email exchange between Staff and Mr.and Mrs.McElroy
Responses from Tim Sullivan;Email from Emilio Blanco;Julie Peterson;
So Kim;Tracy Banana;Mona Dill
Respectfully submitted,
~cm~----Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday,September 19,2011**.
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\2011 0920 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:Ellen November [mailto:ellen.november@gmail.com]
sent:Tuesday,September 20,20111:25 PM
To:Douglas Stern;Brian Campbell;Tom Long;Anthony Misetich;Steve Wolowicz
Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;Tom Odom;Susan Seamans
Subject:Tonight's Agenda
Gentlemen:
Katie Howe of RPV City Staff was kind enough to let me know that you will be
reviewing an item on the consent calendar tonight.
Specifically,this is a contract item to approve funds for a community outreach project for
a\'~kate park.
We appreciate all the work the City Staff has put into obtaining this contract.
It is a measured and fair approach to choosing the best location for a park.
Our non-profit,Skatepark PV,Inc.,is continuing to build community and corporate
support.
Our next event will be an Art Show and Silent Auction called OFF THE HOOK,at the
Zask Gallery at the Pr9menade Mall.
I'll make sure you all receive an invitation for the Sat.Nov.5 opening reception.
Again,thank you for helping to make RPV a better city,
My best,
Ellen November
President,Skatepark PV,Inc.
Ellen November
mobile:310-384-6912
£.
From:EduardoS [EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 9:39 AM
To:'Carla Morreale'
Cc:'Teri Takaoka'
Subject:FW:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
For tonight's meeting.
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AICP
SENIOR PLANNER
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Bottlevard
Ranc'ho Palos Verdes,CA 90215
ph:310-544-5228
lax:310-544-5293
From:timothy McElroy [mailto:timmac7@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 7:09 AM
To:eduardos@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Cc:joelr@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com
SUbject:RE:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
The street needs to be fixed so the residents across the street can get into their driveways and not park
on the street.A parked car is the equivalent to a 4'wall.Put three cars on the street and our view is
lost.It would be nice if you could help with the parking issue.Maybe by permit only after 5:00pm?
One last thing,there is a palm tree loaded with ivy that needs to be removed as it is above the street
level.
Thanks,Tim
From:timmac7@msn.com
To:eduardos@rpv.com;sandy.mcelroy@ngc.com;aram@rpv.com
CC:joelr@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com
Subject:RE:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
Date:Mon,8 Aug 201115:49:49 +0000
Thanks Eduardo.Boy,I don't remember the silhouette,but the photo makes it clear.I look forward
to Public Works'assessment.
Thx,Tim
From:EduardoS@rpv.com
To:timmac7@msn.com;sandy.mcelroy@ngc.com;aram@rpv.com
CC:joelr@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com
Subject:RE:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
Date:Fri,5 Aug 201116:39:08 -0700
Mr.McElroy,
Consistent with the requirements of the City's Development Code,a temporary silhouette representing
the new residence was constructed on the property in April 2008 (silhouette certification attached).This
resulted in the issuance of a Notice (attached)of the application that was mailed out to all property
owners within 500-feet and published in the PV Peninsula News on May 1,2008.As indicated in the
9/20/2011 3 •
attached Notice,reference is made that "...a frame structure (silhouette)has been constructed on the site to outline the height
and bulk of the proposed project."In response to this Notice (and silhouette)the City received comments from you and your
neighbors.Ultimately,in June 2008,the proposed residence was conditionally approved;and,it is the 2008-approved
residence that is now under construction.I have also attached photos from Google Maps street view that show the temporary
silhouette on the subject property in 2008,which is confirmed by observance of the other residences (now completed)that
were under construction in 2008.
Lastly,with regards to the street dip/slope,I will coordinate with our Public Works Department since driveway curb cuts need
to be designed and constructed per certain specifications.
Sincerely,
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AlC?
SENIOR PLANNER
Ct'ry of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Bottievard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ph:310-544-5228
(a.",:31 0-544-529J
\
From:timothy McElroy [mailto:timmac7@msn.com]
Sent:Thursday,August 04,20111:06 PM
To:sandy.mcelroy@ngc.com;eduardos@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Cc:joelr@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com
Subject:RE:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
Eduardo,
Are you saying flags for the properties directly in front of our home are not necessary as they will be the same height as the
other existing home on Via Victoria?
Regarding the driveway,it appears the developer will ultimately be requesting two new driveways,one for each home.After
all the real reason to add driveways is to avoid an easment across one of the properties as it will impact that home's value.
I'm sure this was the intent all along.
One ignored issue,from my original E-mail further below,I've re-c1ipped below.Please advise.thx,Tim
Finally,I cropped in below a concern I last raised in October of 2008 (and a few times prior)that you
addressed.I've seen the current owners have to angle their car or even back it in to avoid scrapping.
It doesn't always work...Our issue is if they cannot get in they will park on the street.A car parked on the
street is the equivalence of a 4'wall.So two homes are occupied so I assume they have final permits.Why
didn't the street get fixed?
With regards to the street dip/slope between the street and the driveway,this will have to be done prior to
finalizing building permits for the houses.As you may recall,there is another condition that requires the dip
between the driveway approach and the street be corrected.
Hope this helps.But,let me know if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AICP
From:sandy.mcelroy@ngc.com
To:EduardoS@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;timmac7@msn.com
CC:joelr@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com
9/20/2011
Subject:Re:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
Date:Wed,3 Aug 2011 00:32:34 +0000
Eduardo,
Again,you have not done your homework.There were NEVER FLAGS FOR THE HOUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET;only
the other than the two already constructed.This is unacceptable and obvious to me there is either a lack of appreciation for
the seriousness of our concerns and/or favoritism towards the builder.Either way,we will forward this to the other
'neighbors who will weigh in on the truth of your statement.I expect to hear back from Ara on this matter.
Sandy McElroy
From:EduardoS [mailto:EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,August 02,2011 07:06 PM
To:McElroy,Sandy S (AS);aram@rpv.com <aram@rpv.com>;timmac7@msn.com <timmac7@msn.com>
Cc:joelr@rpv.com <joelr@rpv.com>;gregp@rpv.com <gregp@rpv.com>
Subject:RE:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
\'
Hello Mr.and Mrs:McElroy,
In June 2008,the Director approved a new residence on Lot 10 of the tract.At that time,there was a silhouette of the
proposed building constructed on site,and remained up through the notice period and through the appeal period.The house
currently under construction is consistent with the June 2008 approval,and the height of the new residence has not changed.
Further,the conditions require that the ridgeline of the residence be certified to ensure that the highest roof ridgeline elevation
does not exceed the 400'maximum allowable ridge elevation.As indicated above and important to note is that the new
residence has not changed;the design,location and building footprint are in accordance with the 2008 approval.Thus,
construction of the residential structure is underway.
There will be a request to modify the project for a 2
nd driveway,which does not affect the location,height or building footprint
of the residence.As you correctly pointed out,the tract map as approved by the City Council illustrates one driveway
approach serving the four residences along Via Victoria.As such,construction of additional driveways would not be
consistent with the approved tract map and would necessitate approval of a tract map amendment by the City Council through
a noticed public hearing.I had conveyed this to your father/father-in-Iaw when he came to the counter in June.
Although the plans do show a new driveway approach serving the new residence,the owner is aware that in order to construct
the additional driveway a tract map amendment is necessary and that construction of an additional driveway approach is not
allowed or approved.The owner is currently putting together plans and an application for a tract map amendment to have
more than one driveway along Via Victoria.It is anticipated that it would go to the City Council in September or October.
When this item is agendized for hearing with the City Council,a notice of public hearing will be mailed out at least 15 days
prior to the meeting.Further,I will email you a copy of the notice as well.
Sincerely,
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AICP
SENIOR PLANNER
Ciry ofRam:ho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ph:310-544-5228
fax:310-544-5293
From:McElroy,Sandy S (AS)[mailto:sandy.mcelroy@ngc.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 26,201111:10 PM
To:'aram@rpv.com';'timmac7@msn.com'
Cc:'joelr@rpv.com';'gregp@rpv.com';'EduardoS@rpv.com'
Subject:Re:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
Ara
For the record,I contacted Eduardo over a month ago when I accidentally discovered the builder's intent to start creating a
9/20/2011
new driveway.The workers produced a blueprint of the plans which included two driveways.Isn't that strange since you and
I both know there were APPROVED CITY PLANS over 5 years ago that only included ONE driveway.When Eduardo not only
seemed surprised to hear this,but had not even intended to find the archived and APPROVED plan until I insisted,I was
shocked and dismayed.It should be noted that I never heard back from Eduardo after my complaint.It is obvious to me that
once again it appears the city did not do their due diligence in confirming the plans were in fact the correct APPROVED plans.
During the course of this project over the last 10 years the lot pad height increased and we were lied to about the street
level being 400 ft.
,No new flags have been erected in lieu of those changes.
We have alerted the neighbors and they will be contacting you and following this closely as well.What point is there in
having APPROVED plans by the city of RPV if the developer can continually come back and change them?The city of Rancho
Palos Verdes needs to do their own due diligence here or we will be seeking legal advice in moving forward.So far this has
been sloppy and clearly in favor of the developer.
Sandy Mc Elroy
From:Ara M [mailto:aram@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 26,201111:31 PM
To:'timothy McElroY'<timmac7@msn.com>
Cc:McElroy,Sandy S (AS);joelr@rpv.com <joelr@rpv.com>;'Greg Pfost'<gregp@rpv.com>;'EduardoS'
<EduardoS@rpv.com>
Subject:EXT :RE:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
Mr.McElroy,
City Staff received your email and is aware of your concerns pertaining to the development across the street from your
residence..
It is my understanding that Deputy Director Greg Pfost spoke to your in-laws this morning regarding your concerns with the
roof ridgeline and the driveway of the residence under construction.The project planner assigned to this case,Eduardo
Schonborn,is out of the office until Monday,August 1st.Since both Greg and I are unfamiliar with the current status of the
project,we will have Eduardo contact you or Sandy at the following telephone numbers on Monday upon his return to the
office:
o Sandy McElroy -310-629-9916
o Tim McElroy -310-488-6344
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protec.ted from disclosure,The
information is intended only for use of the individual 01'entity named,Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited,If you received this
email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify tile sender immediately,Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:timothy McElroy [mailto:timmac7@msn.com]
Sent:Monday,July 25,2011 2:07 PM
To:eduardos@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Cc:sandy.mcelroy@ngc.com
Subject:30034 Via Victoria -new Development across the street
Importance:High
9/20/2011 'I of it
The new home across the street has a significant amount of work completed on the west portion of the property.Problem is,
they have not put up flags so we can view the total height of the structure.There were flags many years ago,but that was
before the lot heights were adjusted to street level (calculated incorrectly at 400').
There is another concern regarding the driveway accessed from Via Victoria.The approved plan has one driveway off
Via Victoria feeding the four homes.The current driveway is structured for only the two existing homes.In addtion,we
received a call from a realtor a couple of weeks back asking us to dicuss having additional driveways.We said we will
,discuss,but were adamant about keeping to the approved plans.The realtor never called back to set a time.So,where are
we at with the driveway?I assume since there has been no notice everything remains to the approved plan (4-5 years ago).
Please advise either way.
Finally,I cropped in below a concern I last raised in October of 2008 (and a few times prior)that you addressed.I've seen
the current owners have to angle their car or even back it in to avoid scrapping.It doesn't always work...Our issue is if they
cannot get in they will park on the street.A car parked on the street is the eqUivalence of a 4'wall.So two homes are
occupied so I assume they have final permits.Why didn't the street get fixed?
With regards to the street dip/slope between the street and the driveway,this will have to be done prior to finalizing
building p~rmits for the houses.As you may recall,there is another condition that requires the dip between the
driveway approach and the street be corrected.
Hope this helps.But,let me know if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,A](].J
SENIOR PLANNER
Ciry q(Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthome Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ph:310-544-5228
fax:310-544-5293
From:timothy McElroy [mailto:timmac7@msn.com]
Sent:Thursday,October 16,20089:16 AM
To:EduardoS
Subject:RE:Via Victoria
Hi Eduardo,
We noticed some new thin trees planted across the street.They are below street level,but we fear they could grow qUickly.
Do you approve the foliage up front?If not,can you have a look and let us know if there are any issues?
Down the road when the properties are occupied,how do we handle overgrown foliage?
Also,has there been any discussions recently about the street slope?Both the neighbors and developer are concerned the
residents will not be able to pull their car into the access road without scrapping the bottom of their car.This will increase
the chance of street parking,thus blocking our view.
Thx,Tim
From:EduardoS@rpv.com
To:gpsteiger@aol.com;timmac7@msn.com;sandy.mcelroy@ngc.com
CC:joelr@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com
Subject:Via Victoria
9/20/2011
Date:Mon,30 Jun 2008 12:30:34 -0700
Mrs.Steiger,
It was a pleasure speaking with you and your husband this morning ...although it is unfortunate that it is under these
circumstances.As indicated on the telephone,I have attached a copy of the staff report,notice of decision,and the
certification of the silhouette..
As indicated to Sandy McElroy last week,the silhouette certification is required prior to deeming an application complete and
'mailing out notice,not after a decision is made.Although these certifications are provided by an applicant,a registered
engineer/surveyor provides evidence of its accuracy by stamping the certification form.In essence,they are putting their
professional license on the line.As also indicted to Mr.and Mrs.McElroy,I asked the applicant to re-measure and certify the
silhouette,but they are not willing to do this and the City does not have the ability to require them to do so at this point.
Nonetheless,I have gone out to the site again and the flags appear to be as high as the house under construction at 30065
Via Victoria.Since the City Council had limited the new residence at 30065 Via Viotoria to the same condition (of a 400-foot
max roof ridgeline elevation),I checked the building permit file and found that the new residence has been certified at 399.19'.
I have attached the ridgeline certification for the new residence at 30065 Via Victoria for your review.
In the meantime,should you wish to discuss this project in further detail,please feel free to contact me.
\
Sincerely,
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AlCP
SENIOR PLANNER
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ph:310-544-5228
fax:310-544-5293
9/20/2011
From:Tim Sullivan [mailto:tsullivan@managementpartners.comJ
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 9:50 AM
To:Dennis McLean
Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Eric Mausser';'Carolynn Petru';'Kathryn Downs';Andy
Belknap;mwu@hansonbridgett.com
Subject:RE:Question re:proposed one-time salary increase
Dennis,
I am responding to your question regarding the impact of a one-time 5%
salary increase on the City's unfunded pension liability.
I am not an actuary,nor is Management Partners in this business,and
therefore we cannot provided an answer about unfunded pension liabilities
because this requires an actuarial analysis.However,based on my knowledge
of how CalPERS works,the impact on the City's total unfunded liability
should be minimal.First,the unfunded liability is a long-term calculation
and a single pay increase will not have a major impact on that calculation.
Further,Rancho Palos Verdes is part of a risk pool comprised of other
public agencies.RPV's pension liability is a small part of this larger
pool and the risk pool's unfunded liability would not be significantly
impacted by the 5%increase.
Of course,from an annual cost standpoint,any salary increase will increase
the amount of the City's actual retirement contributions since the total
payroll amount (the base)by which the contribution rate is multiplied will
increase.However,this cost has already been factored into the calculation
the City made to determine the savings that will be achieved by decreasing
the EPMC from 6.5%to 0%for current employees.The City will achieve
further savings by moving new employees to the 2%@60 formula with a 3-year
compensation average.
To put this all in perspective,consider that an actuary estimated the
unfunded pension liability for RPV as $2.7 million in January,2011.The
cost savings from the pension changes noted above over the next 6 years is
estimated at between $1.2 and 1.6 million.
I hope this response is helpful but,if you wish to get a definitive answer
on the impact of a salary increase on the City's unfunded liability,you
should contact CalPERS,an/or an actuary,for a more definitive answer.
Tim
Tim Sullivan
Management Partners,Inc.
Special Advisor
(408)500-1789
&.
Dennis McLean
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Tim Sullivan [tsullivan@managementpartners.com]
Tuesday,September 20,2011 5:16 PM
dennism@rpv.com
Andy Belknap;clehr@rpv.com
Carolyn and Dennis,
Andy Belknap looked at the City's savings calculations over the weekend and they seem to be in order.He did ask for two
clarifications and those items have been clarified.After receiving those clarifications,we agree that the cumulative savings
estimate of $1.2 million to 1.6 million over six years is reasonable.
You also asked me to review your methodology and assumptions for calculating the impact of a 5%salary increase on the
City's pension contributions.I agree with your methodiology and assumptions.Although,over the past 20 years,the City's
contribution rate has averaged 7%,you used the contribution rate of 15%which is higher than the actual current rate of
13.353%.USing the 15%rate,the City's contribution rate would increase by .75%if the salary base were increased by
5%.This would still result in a net savings for the City of .75%for all Tier 1 employees.(Reduce City's EPMC by 6.5%,
increase wages by 5%and factor in the.75%increase in pension contribution).If the City contribution were lower than
15%,the savings for the City would increase.For example,if the contribution rate returned to the historic average of 7%,
the City's net savings for Tier 1 would be 1.35%of payroll.
Of course,the real savings lie in the establishment of a new Tier 2 which,over time,all City employees will be under.
Tim
Tim Sullivan
Management Partners,Inc.
Special Advisor
(408)500-1789
1
From:Emilio Blanco [EmilioB@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,September 19,2011 5:33 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Pension Reform
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued support and confidence in staff's ability to help make the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes a safe,clean,green,and progressive community for the residents.During the past year and a half,I
have been the maintenance superintendent for the city and I have enjoyed working on projects such as Hesse,and Ryan Park
field refurbishing,Ryan Park basketball court resurfacing,the Palos Verdes Drive West shrub replacement,the maintenance of
streets,including potholes and signage,sidewalk grinding and repair,tree pruning,facility upgrades,and vehicle maintenance
as well as bidding the maintenance contracts for parks and medians at a substantial cost savings.While these are only a
fraction of the assignments we manage everyday,we continue to re-evaluate maintenance functions we can bid out and where
the city can benefit from savings or increased services,as well as seeking out projects that will benefit the community for years
to come.All these,and many more accomplishments would not be possible without the leadership of the City Council,City
Manager and the Management Staff.
I find myself in a great organization with professional,highly skilled employees who do everything asked of them and more,
some of the projects mentioned above are a collaboration of many employees working together to ensure the best results for the
community and the organization;while the final product top notch athletic fields,clean parks,facilities,restrooms,streets,trails,
open space,and excellent customer service speak for themselves,we continue to strive for a higher level of service.
For these reasons,I ask for your consideration and vote for the recommendations made by the City Council Pension Revision
Subcommittee in conjunction with Management Partners report.
9/19/2011 ~.
From:Julie Peterson Uuliep@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 8:42 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:pension revision agenda item
<Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council,
As a long time employee of the City I have been reading the subcommittee
recommendations regarding proposed pension reform and attended the August meeting
to hear the City Council discussion.While I agree that steps should be taken to attain
sustainability and cost control,I do not agree the employees should be required to take
a substantial cut in pay to do so,especially given our balanced budget and reserves.
Therefore,I urge the City Council to adopt the recommendations made by the
subcommittee to end the 6.5%employer paid member contribution in conjunction with a
one time sala~',increase of 5%.
Thank you,
Julie Peterson
9/20/2011
From:So Kim [SoK@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 10:11 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Proposed Pension Revision
Dear Mr.Mayor and Members of the Council:
I WQuid like to express my concern related to any increases in employee contribution.Being in
an entry-level position considered lower tier t I am not privile~ed with the luxury of living
beyond each paycheck.Any increase to our contribution is a deduction in my paycheck t which is
an additional sacrifice I will have to make.
I understand the Council is considering pension plan revisions to stabilize the City's pension
costs.I also understand the Council's consideration to off-set our contribution with a 5%one-
time salary 1l(1crease.For this t I am appreciative.
However t I would still like to provide a different perspective t other than focusing solely on
numbers.I lived with my parents and continued a 2-hour round trip commute from Huntington
Beach on a daily basis for nearly the entire 6-year duration of my employment with the City.
The primary reason for this long commute is because I love working for this City.However t
RPV is not the most affordable place to live.In factt the monthly rent in most cities with my
income is tough to manage.
The point iS t even with the 5%one-time salary increase to offset the additional 6.5'Yo
contribution,I will still have to make sacrifices.However t given the pension cost concerns of
the Council,I am willing to take the 1.5 'Yo deduction.But,please understand that anything
above and beyond the current recommendation would be harmful to City Staff t who are
hardworking and dedicated in serving the City.
SincerelYt
~9ak
Assistant Planner
[]city of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310)544-5228 /sok@rpv.com
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/
9/20/2011
From:PETE BONANO [pete_tracy@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 11 :48 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
SUbject:RPV Pension Revision -Tracy"Bonano -Employee Comments -September 20,2011 City Council Meeting
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Understanding time is valuable:
1.Yes.I believe pension reform is necessary and that some pension plans in the
PERS system were poorly constructed for long term City sustainability.
2.Yes.I believe our nation-wide economic environment,and popular public
opinion,is encouraging cities to "do something"about pension plans (even though
our City budget is fiscally sound).
3.Yes.I support the 6.5%increase along with the 5%salary offset for all
full time employees as recommended by City Staff and Management
Partners.I believe our staff needs to compromise and I hope City
Council will support the same.
4.No.I am not in favor of the Two Tier approach (for reasons of my own)
but,at this time,I will support the Two Tier system our City Staff and
Management Partners recommend as a reasonable compromise.(My
thought is that if RPV ends up as one of only a few cities that adopt a Two Tier
system,possible candidates will first search for cities offering better benefits -and
we will lose.)
5.Fact:Changes in City service requests over several years have increased and
our resources (staff and monetary)have not kept pace at a one to one level -
staff and monetary resources continue to fall/be in arears.
6.Fact:Faster and more efficient technology and communication
methods (voicemail,email.twitter.face book,etc.)also plays a large part in
increased City service requests without increased staff and monetary resources to
support production.
7.Fact:The number of RPV staff is lowest per capita for comparible cities.
8.I hope our RPV citizens,and City Council,do not lose sight of our employee moral
which is important in any organization -government or privately operated.
9.Finally,I have worked for several local government south bay cities over the past
24 years and must say that RPV is one of the most efficient staff pools I have ever
had the pleasure to work with.And,fortunately,commitment to service and a
positive attitude runs directly from our City Manager out through the "front line"
teams and back again.It is truly a pleasure to serve here!
As a dedicated staff member of this beautiful and unique community,I ask that you
take a moment to reflect on what our staff members do to support this City and move
to accept our City Management and Management Partners recommendation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Tracy Bonano,Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
9/20/2011
._------_._._-
From:MONA DILL [monadill@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 2:54 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
In regards to pension revision,I urge to consider the recommendations made by the City
Council Pension Subcommittee and Management Partner's.
The recommendation is a well-measured and viable solution.Though a 1.5%salary reduction
will be personally challenging for my family,my husband (a public servant in another South Bay
City)and I recognize these are tenuous times and we appreciate the need to compromise on
the pension issue.I feel strongly that the recommendation is a reasonable option for both
parties.I would also like to state that further reductions would be very challenging.On a
personal,both my husband (both Recreation and Parks employees at different cities in the
South Bay)are challenged like many others to struggle to pay for our son's college education
that has tripled since he graduated from high school two years ago,our elder parent care costs
are through the roof and the additional concessions we have already concessions in regards to
our healthcare plans in recent years have definitely caused us to feel the pinch.I am hoping that
the aforementioned recommendation will encourage you to share the challenge along with staff
to compromise on pension reform and that you will see it as a reasonable option especially
since the City of RPV does have a balanced bUdget,increased revenues and strong reserves.I
would like to add that I strongly believe that a second-tier pension plan for future employees will
result in high turn-over in employee Qown the road.If I were starting my career over,working for
a City that did not have a two-tiered program would certainly be more desirable than a City that
did.Additionally,research of comparably sized cities has shown that RPV has the lowest
number of employees per population capita,something I believe we can all be proud of.
,
I have worked in the recreation field for the last 35 years and have found that public service has
recently challenged us as recreation professionals to provide more services with less and less
resources.When I first started working for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes back in 1986,our
Recreation and Parks Department had 17 full time employees.The Recreation and Parks Dept.
now has only six.One of these employees splits his time between Public Works and Recreation
and Parks and the other splits her time between Emergency Preparedness and our Department
With several part-time staff picking up many responsibilities.Responsibilities throughout the City
have significantly increased as our we manage and maintain new parks and programs such as
Marilyn Ryan Sunset Point Park,Lower Hesse,Grandview,Founders Park,PV Nature
Preserve,the beach at Trump,ranger services from MRCA,extensive facility rentals at PVIC,
inereased recreation program offerings,online recreation guide,partnerships,and
research/outreach efforts for future projects.Staff throughout the City work diligently to increase
services with fewer resources and strive to meet the continuing demands of community growth,
litigation and expectations from the public.
In closing,please consider adopting the recommendation proposed by the City Council's
SUbcommittee and Management Partners.Thank you for allowing staff the forum to express our
opinion.
Respectfully,
Mona Dill
Recreation Supervisor II
9120/2011
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 19,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,September 20,2011 City Council meeting:
Item No.
2
3
6
Description of Material
Emails provided by Lili Amini (Trump National)from:Rick
Minogue,John and Janine Colich,Dr.Peter Sinclair,Nancy
Swanton,Bob Alvarado,Gus Gallup,Lisa Wang,Raymond
C.Baker Jr,Rick Hartigan
Proposed Revised Tract Map provided by Staff;Email from
William Festa and Cindy S.Tea
Financial Analysis-Assumptions A &B;Comparable Cities
Survey:Pension Comparison;Emails from:Matt Waters,
Katie Howe,Eduardo Schonborn,Daniel Pitts;John Alvarez;
Sandra Ishman
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110920 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
-----Original Message-----
From:Lili Amini [mailto:lamini@trumpnational.comJ
Sent:Tuesday,September 13,2011 9:24 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost
Subject:Trump Driving Range Support
Dear City Council and Mr.Pfost-
Please see attached letters of support for our driving range extension.
Thank you.
Lili Amini
General Manager/Director of Golf Events
Trump National Golf Club
One Ocean Trails Dr.
RPV,CA 90275
D:(310)303-3256 F:(310)265-5522
follow us on twitter <http://twitter.com/TrumpGolfLA>
www.trumpgolf.com
17teetogreen3
This e-mail message,and any attachments to it,are for the sole use of the
intended recipients,and may contain confidential and privileged
information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution of
this email message or its attachments is prohibited.If you are not the
intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of the company.Finally,while the company uses
virus protection,the recipient should check this email and any attachments
for the presence of viruses.The company accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
tof /~
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kristouher Brown
lJJ.l..alll.In.
FW:Golf Range Testimonial
Monday,September 12,201110:57:11 AM
-----Original Message-----
From:uRick Minogue"<sixesandsevens@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday,September 11,2011 10:05pm
to:uKristopher Brown u <kbrown@pga.com>
Subject:Golf Range Testimonial
Hi Kris,
Trump National offers a superb golf course and practice facility.As someone
relatively new to the game,I have explored the other resources available in the South
Bay and Trump is simply unmatched.The course,practice range,and short game
practice area are all impeccably maintained and to have such facilities open and
available to the public in such a scenic coastal setting is simply amazing.
Furthermore,the staff are warm and generous and uniformly exhibit the highest levels
of professionalism.In particular,the Golf Academy's Director of Instruction, Kris
Brown,and his associates in the Pro Shop,have been invaluable in my efforts to
improve my skill and,therefore,enjoyment of the game.This is no small matter as
golf is my primary form of recreation and exercise.Loss of the privilege to practice
and take lessons on the range at Trump National would be a terrible disappointment
and a disservice to the Academy staff and its clients.
Rick Minogue
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Keyin SWQjslJ
l.ilLllliJllll
Joey Lewis
FW:Permit Extension
Monday,September 12,20111:52:57 PM
Please see note below.Thanks!
Kevin Swoish,PGA
Associate Golf Professional/Merchandise Manager
Trump National Golf Club of Los Angeles
One Ocean Trails Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Phone:(310)303-3240
Fa.x:(310)265-5522
-----Original Message-----
From:Janine Colich [mailto:sjx::!sc:@gmail,com]
Sent:Monday,September 12,2011 9:02 AM
To:Kevin Swoish
Subject:Permit Extension
Kevin,
We would like to express our support for an extension to your use permit,and for a final approval from
the city.The driving range is a big enhancement to that area of the Trump property and as an adjacent
homeowner,we feel it is an appropriate use of the land.Plus,I do enjoy trying to improve my golf by
frequently practicing on the driving range!We also feel the golf course has brought a beautiful setting
for residents and visitors to the city to enjoy.
Thank you for being a good neighbor.
John and Janine CoUch
4115 Maritime Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
3 of-/,)..
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Krjstopher Brown
Lili Amini
FW:Trump National Driving Range
Monday,September 12,201110:56:49 AM
-----Original Message-----
From:"Peter Sinclair"<sinclair@usc.edu>
Sent:Saturday,September 10,2011 5:51 pm
To:kbrown@pga.com
SUbject:Trump National Driving Range
Dear Kris,
I would like to express my appreciation for the driving range at Trump National Palos
Verdes.It is an excellent facility that offers me the opportunity to practice my game
both before playing a round as well as on my own.lt also serves as an outstanding
venue for golf instruction.I really appreciate the ability to hit off the excellently
maintained grass.The range is definately an asset to the area and an integral part of
the recreation opportunities in Palos Verdes.
Regards,
Dr.Peter Sinclair
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kristooher Browll
J.ili..8!:l:ll!
FW:Driving range
Monday,September 12,2011 10:55:50 AM
-----Original Message-----
From:"Nanbwlr"<nanbwlr@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday,September 11,2011 8:59pm
To:"Kris Brown"<kbrown@pga.com>
S'Ubject:Driving range
Dear Kris,
We are writing to express our sincere appreciation of your teaching skills.We look
forward to our weekly lessons with great smiles on our faces!
.
As you know,Norman is an experienced golfer and I'm the consummate novice.
Some how you are able to instruct us simultaneously bring out the best in us both!!
Each lesson is a breakthrough experience!
.We live on "The Hill"just above Trump.Having the gorgeous driving range right at our
doorstep enhances our living experience.We love just driving by,it looks so exclusive
and luxurious it's hard to imagine that it's actually a public course.
Thanks again for making our day,every day!!
Warmly,
Norman &Nancy Swanton
Nancy Swanton
310890-5740
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kristopher Brown
l.JJL&r!JJ:ll
FW:Driving Range
Monday,September 12,2011 10:56:24 AM
-----Original Message-----
From:rvanews1@aol.com
Sent:Monday,September 12,2011 10:17am
To:kbrown@pga.com
SUbject:Driving Range
Good morning,Kris:
Please pass along to the appropriate groups my support of the driving range at Trump National and
support for an extension <;>f its operations.
I am a average golfer on a good day.I have golfed infrequently for almost 30 years.The facilities at
Trump,the personnel and you,in particular,have rekindled my interest in the sport.I have been at
dozens of private and public driving ranges.None compare to Trump.Its conditions and amenities
make practicing meaningful.Once a year,or so,I will try to go to the local County course but you
never hit off grass,the mats are in disrepair,mat tees are not available.Worse,the pro shop does not
even have the mat tees for sale and the overall facilities are mediocre,by even public course
standards.It is simply not conducive to productive practice or lessons.
Our family also enjoys walks along the trails (sometimes before or after I practice).Moreover,there are
several times a year where we will have dinner at Trump after my lessons,helping to support the local
economy and tax base.
The Trump range should be allowed to continue in operation (in my opinion on a much longer term
basis)and I would be happy to talk to anyone about the benefits and my views on this.
Thanks,
Bob Alvarado
Advanced Consulting Insurance
Group,Inc.
Gus Gallup
4 Ocean crest Ct.
Rancho Palos Verdes
California 90275
310-377-4021
310-710·71290ell
ggallup@acinsgroup.com
CA license OF49750
To whom it may concern
Re:Trump National-Los Angeles Golf Course
I am an avid golfer and a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes,I have been going to the
property for almost 12 years.Since it has been owned and developed by the Trump
organization,it has become an outstanding place to practice and play.The driving range,
teaching and practice facility are by far the best in the area,and coupled with the
spectacular scenery,makes hitting balls that much more enjoyable.I will be going
ther s long as I am able,which on average,is about three to four times a week.
70f I~
Lili Amini
SUbJect:FW:Thank you
From:lisa wang [mailto:lisawangmtc@yahoo.com]
Sent:Sunday,September 11,2011 9:33 AM
To:Joey Lewis
Subject:Thank you
Dear Mr.Joey Lewis:
Just want to Thank You for all the exceptional experience Trump National Golf Course provided us in the past
years.Having a first class golf course with your impeccable service near by makes us feel very fortunate and
special.The course condition is always good and not to mention the best pratice facility you provided us there,a
driving range with a beautiful ocean view.
I wish you all a great success in mnning a first class golf course at Trump and support you the best I can.
Sincerely,
Lisa Wang
310678 4555
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Kevin ;?wojsl)
l.ill..6!l:llil
Joey Lewis
FW:Driving Range Extension
Saturday,September 10,2011 11:31:56 AM
Here is a note from Ray Baker.
Kevin Swoish,PGA
Associate Golf Professional/Merchandise Manager
.Yn;mj.'JIMMla((f/'r1f ?/lfO (/0&",.!:l11,·/r·,;
One Ocean Trails Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Phone:(310)303-3240
F8>x:(310)265-5522
From:Ray Baker [mailto:rbakerjr@cox.net]
Sent:Saturday,September 10,2011 9:47 AM
To:Kevin Swoish
Subject:Driving Range Extension
Kevin -
I support getting a permit for a six-month extension of keeping the driving range.Practice and
warming up are important issues in playing good golf.There are a number of good courses I won't
play because I can't warm up prior to playing a round of golf.
I also think it is a good thing for the city to support as it attracts more people to the area and they
spend money.We don't have enough interesting things out here on the Peninsula to attract
people.Trump Nat'l and the driving range with the ability to practice on grass is an great
attraction.Better than going to Harbor Golf or Los Verdes with its side hill driving range.
Be Well-
Ray -
/0 of /~
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Sick Hijl:tiggll
~;Joey Lewi:i
ricgrdo.hgrtigan@blackrock.colU
Thank You
Saturday,September 10,2011 11:32:40 AM
To:
Joey Lewis,Head Golf Professional
Lily Amini,General Manager
Trump National,Los Angeles
J.oey and Lily,
I just wanted to take a minute to Thank You for the great service you and your staff
continually provide at Trump National,Los Angeles.
In January of 2005,my wife Carolina and I were fortunate enough to have our wedding
reception in your banquet room.The event was truly 'storybook',and your event planning
group was a pleasure t<;>work with;they ensured everything came off without a hitch -down
to the last detail.
We've been living in Palos Verdes Estates since 2007,and the service and facilities have
only improved.The restaurants and food are some of the best in LA.The facilities are
community and family friendly,and your staff is unmatched.Trump National Los Angeles
has become my favorite business venue as well -either taking clients on your immaculate
course,or hosting lunch and dinner events in your private rooms is always a huge success.
Carolina owns a small women's clothing boutique in near-by Redondo Beach,and has been
referring clients to your venue for their Bridal and Wedding Showers,with confidence in
every outcome.
From the moment you arrive,you are greeted by the most attentive valet staff -Chris,Nick,
Jordan,Kyle,Stuart (and many others)are all phenomenal employees.Your starter,Manny,
is always eager to assist,and get our round off on the right foot.And every employee you
encounter through the day,is just as helpful,and professional.From Francisco in the Men's
Locker Room,to Mardo the Clubhouse Manager;every detail and need is looked after.
Thomas and his staff in the restaurant are world-class.Your bartenders Ryan,Ryan and Joe
make sure patrons barely ever have to ask for anything,and your servers (Arianna,Diane,
Kevin,Luis,Victor to name a few)make the dining experience tremendous.
As an avid golfer,I can honestly say that you have the finest practice facilities I have ever
used,and one of the most beautiful golf courses in world.Martin and his team keep the
course in perfect condition,and maintain the practice areas and public access areas with the
same attention.We are fortunate to have your facilities and staff members as part of our
community.My Family and [are grateful for all the fantastic service over the years;and for
all the new friends we've made.
1/of /:J.
Best Regards,
Rick Hartigan
Vice President
BlackRock
1720 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates.CA 90274
609.529.8083
c~:
The Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue
New York,NY 10022
--~-~--
~
~
4::',=::
..
SECTION B-B
VIC1l:lIII'J.Pw.R.C:C.:ro21
E¥PIRCS9-~13:5
SECTION D-D
,
i$
wt~//.i Vt:#:/~]
0)CONe.SWALE DETAIL
'tit'0,-
)l~:r~~~.~i
CRAlJ/NC PLAN
II
~I REVISIONS INC I FIL2N..Um:lll827GR.7
tD156.7.lJ~n
DATE:05-12-2011
SCALE:1~_30'
DRAWN BY JOB NO.10827
VJPjRJC SHEET 2 OF 2
J
SCALE:1"=30'
",I
"'....
'."""
GRADING QUANTITIES
2001 -16,500 cubic yards
2003 Revis/on A -24.900 cubic flJrds
2()(H Revision 8 -22.100
2005 RtMsion C -23.240 cubk:yards (proposed)
".
C::f
_._------_._--------
SCALE..1~_JO·HORf2ONTIll.'--.30'Vf:RTICAL
DRIVEWAY PROFILE FOR LOT /2
-,"'"'~-~~~~-Rw.I%- ...JIll!J9I)-,--------
~~O~t'
LEGEND
!::!:....r6"'..fJNt£SSOTHCRIrIS£NOTfD
O:::;:~~gg~~
o!:!;....c..•..
/NOICATtS ClIIB DIWN PCII'",Pcw....sm
150-2,N_2.
rzzz2ZI/NOICAtrsPflOPOSEDRCTMilNGIIlOU
~_YORAlHP£RAF'."'.Asm.151-1.5-llr
DINOICA1tS12"Jt12-AR£/IORNNWfl:R.t1£
(UNt£SSOTH£R'MSCIIOTED)
o
GL.~~~
Testimony -Case No.SUB2011-00003 (Tract Map Amendment)September 16,2011
Attention:Eduardo Schonbom
Dear Mr.Schonbom,
eduardos@rpv.com
We are writing as prospective buyers of30051 Via Victoria (Lot 10,Tract 52666)and oppose shared driveway
access on a property purchase of this magnitude.Requesting City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
to grant approval for individual driveway access for 30039 Via Victoria (Lot 9,Tract 52666)and 30051 Via
Victoria (Lot 10,Tract 52666).
Individual driveway access would ensure protection and guaranteed safety while children are outside playing on
the parking apron.Approval will also provide protection to domestic pets that may be roaming the property.
This will also allow the homeowners to maintain a satisfactory level of privacy since driveway path is adjacent
to the main entry door.Individual access will permit installation of wrought iron gating to the lower driveway
level,making it true by definition a private road giving access from a public way.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
William Festa and Cindy S.Tea
3.
City of Rancho Plaos Verdes
Proposed Pension Revision by Pension Subcomittee and Management Partners
Savinga Analyala -
A -Immediate DlaconUnuance of 6.5%EPMC -.1x 5%Salary Offaet
e Asa m tlons Re ardln Pro osed Penalon Revlalon:
1 Cit would discontinue a in 6.5%Em 10 er Paid Member Contribution "EPMC"for currant am io eesln axchan a for one-tlma 1X 5%sala Increase;
Cit would eatabllsh a 2nd Tier retirement Ian for new em 10 ees.includin :
2 2%/60 benefit fonmula;
3 Final com ensatlon calculation based u on hi hest annualized 3 ear avera e;and
4 Cit would rovlde 100%Deferred Com ensatlon match to new em 10 ees not to exceed 1.5%of sala
aneral Assum tlons Re ardln Savin s Anal als of Pro osed Pension
A 6 Year Anal sia:FY11-12 Throu h FY16-17;
B$5.2MillionFull-TimeSalariesandWa es basedu on FY11-12 Bud etado tedb Ci Council;
C Salaries and wa es Increased at an avera e rate of 3%Includln cost-of-livin allowance;
D Tumover based u on recent 5 ear avera e of 2.8 FTE's/ear ren in u to 4 FTE'si ear based u on review of current em 10 ee census;
E Startin sala of new em 10 ees 10%less than currant em 10 ee in same osition;and
City of Rancho Plaos Verdes
Proposed Pension Revision by Pension Subcomittee and Management Partners
Savings Analysis -
A -Immediate Discontinuance of 6.6%EPMC •1x 6%Salary Offset
Future Annual Salary Increases 3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
Salary Increase Exchanged 5.0%5.0%
FY 11-12 FT Salaries PER Sable only $5,195,900 $5,192,317 $5,079,440 $238,295 $340,421
FY12-13 FT Salaries PERSable only $5,351,777 $5,076,806 $4,844,281 $490,887 $701,267
FY13-14 FT Salaries PER Sable only $5,512,330 $4,949,692 $4,590,441 $758,421 $1,083,458
FY 14-15 FT Salaries PER Sable only $5,677,700 $4,810,383 $4,317,010 $1,041,564 $1,487,949
FY15-16 FT Salaries PER Sable only $5,848,031 $4,658,259 $4,023,042 $1,341,014 $1,915,734
FY16-17 FT Salaries PER Sable onlY $6,023,472 $4,492,679 $3,707,551 $1,657,493 $2,367,848
Employee Turnoyer Rate 4.8%6.9%4.8%6.9%
FY11·12 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY12·13 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY13·14 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY14-15 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY15-16 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY16-17 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY11·12 Employer Rate 13.353%13.353%13.353%7.733%7.733%
FY12·13 Employer Rate 13.900%13.900%13.900%7.874%7.874%
FY13-14 Employer Rate .15.500%15.500%15500%8.413%8.413%
FY14-15 Employer Rate 15.800%15.800%15.800%8.507%8.507%
FY15-16 Employer Rate 16.100%16.100%16.100%8.602%8.602%
FY16-17 Employer Rate 16.400%16.400%16.400%8.697%8.697%
Deferred Comp Match 0.000%0.000%0.000%1.500%1.500%
FY11·12 Total Ci tv Contribution 19.853%13.353%13.353%9.233%9.233%
FY12·13 Total Ci tv Contribution 20.400%13.900%13.900%9.374%9.374%
FY13-14 Total Ci tv Contribution 22.000%15.500%15.500%9.913%9.913%
FY14·15 Total Ci tv Contribution 22.300%15.800%15.800%10.007%10.007%
FY15-16 Total Ci tv Contribution 22.600%16.100%16.100%10.102%10.102%
FY16-17 Total Ci tv Contribution 22.900%16.400%16.400%10.197%10.197%
Tota/City Contribution =IEPMC +IEm%ver Rate +Deferred Como Match
FY11-12 EPMC Cost $337,734 $0 -$0 $0 $0
FY12·13 EPMC Cost $347,866 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY13·14 EPMC Cost $358,301 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY14·15 EPMC Cost $369,051 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY15·16 EPMC Cost $380,122 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY16·17 EPMC Cost $391,526 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY11·12 Employer Rate Cost $693,809 $693,330 $678,258 $18,427 $26,325
FY12·13 Employer Rate Cost $743,897 $705,676 $673,355 $38,655 $55,221
FY13-14 Employer Rate Cost $854,411 $767,202 $711,518 $63,802 $91,146
FY14-15 Employer Rate Cost $897,077 $760,040 $682,088 $88,611 $126,587
FY15·16 Employer Rate Cost $941,533 $749,980 $647,710 $115,360 $164,800
FY16·17 Employer Rate Cost $987,849 $736,799 $608,038 $144,159 $205,941
FY11-12 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $3,574 $5,106
FY12-13 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $7,363 $10,519
FY13-14 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $11,376 $16,252
FY14·15 Deferred Como Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $15,623 $22,319
FY15·16 Deferred Como Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $20,115 $28,736
FY16-17 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $24,862 $35,518
FY11-12 Total City Contribution Cost $1,031,542 $693,330 $678,258 $22,002 $31,431
FY12-13 Total City Contribution Cost $1,091,763 $705,676 $673,355 $46,018 $65,740
FY13-14 Total City Contribution Cost $1,212,713 $767,202 $711,518 $75,179 $107,398
FY14·15 Total City Contribution Cost $1,266,127 $760,040 $682,088 $104,234 $148,906
FY15·16 Total City Contribution Cost $1,321,655 $749,980 $647,710 $135,475 $193,536
FY16·17 Total City Contribution Cost $1,379,375 $736,799 $608,038 $169,021 $241,459
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Proposed Pension Revision
Savings Analysis -
B -Phase Out of 6.5%EPMC with No Salary Increase
e Assu tlo s Rardin Pro osed Pension Revlslo :
Cit would discontinue a In 6.5%Em 10 er Paid Member Contribution "EPMC"for current em 10 eeswlth no exchan e for one-time 1X sala Increase;
Cit would establish a 2nd Tier retirement Ian for new em 10 ees,includin :
2 2%/60 benefit formula;
3 Final com ensation calculation based u on hi hest annualized 3 ear avera e;and
4 Cit would rovlde 100%Deferred Com ensation match to new em 10 ees not to exceed 1.5%of sala
lof ,;>-
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Proposed Pension Revision
Savings Analysis·
B •Phase Out of 6,6%EPMC with No SalilrY Increase
Future Annual Salarv Increases 3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
Salary Increase Exchanged 5.0%5.0%
FY11-12 FT Salaries (PERSable onl~$5,195,900 $5,192,317 $5,079,440 $238,295 $340,421
FY12-13 FT Salaries (PERSable onl~$5,351,777 $5,076,806 $4,844,281 $490,887 $701,267
FY13-14 FT Salaries PER Sable onl~$5,512,330 $4,949,692 $4,590,441 $758,421 $1,083,458
FY 14-15 FT Salaries PER Sable onl~$5,677,700 $4,810,383 $4,317,010 $1,041,564 $1,487,949
FY 15-16 FT Salaries PERSable onl~$5,848,031 $4,658,259 $4,023,042 $1,341,014 $1,915,734
FY 16-17 FT Salaries PER Sable onl~$6,023,472 $4,492,679 $3,707,551 $1,657,493 $2,367,848
Employee Turnoyer Rate 4.8%6.9%4.8%6.9%
FY11-12 EPMC 6.500%1 3.500%3.500%0.000%0.000%
FY12-13 EPMC 6.500%1.500%1.500%0.000%0.000%
FY13-14 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0000%
FY14-15 EPMC 6.500%,0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY15-16 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0000%0.000%0.000%
FY16-17 EPMC 6.500%0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000%
FY11-12 Employer Rate 13.353%13.353%13.353%7.733%7.733%
FY12-13 Employer Rate .13.900%13.900%13.900%7.874%7.874%
FY13·14 Employer Rate 15.500%15.500%15.500%8.413%8.413%
FY14·15 Employer Rate 15.800%15.800%15.800%8.507%8.507%
FY15-16 Employer Rate 16.100%16.100%16.100%8.602%8.602%
FY16·17 Employer Rate 16.400%16.400%16.400%8.697%8.697%
Deferred Comp Match 0.000%0.000%0.000%1.500%1.500%
FY11-12 Total Ci IV Contribution 19.853%16.853%16.853%9.233%9.233%
FY12·13 Total Ci IV Contribution 20.400%15.400%15.400%9.374%9.374%
FY13-14 Total Ci IV Contribution 22.000%15.500%15.500%9.913%9.913%
FY14-15 Total Ci IV Contribution 22.300%15.800%15.800%10.007%10.007%
FY15-16 Total Ci IV Contribution 22.600%16.100%16.100%10.102%10.102%
FY16-17 Total Ci IV Contribution 22.900%16.400%16.400%10.197%10.197%
Total City Contribution =EPMC +Emo/over Rate +Deferred Como Match
FY11-12 EPMC Cost $337,734 $181,731 $177,780 $0 $0
FY12-13 EPMC Cost $347,866 $76,152 $72,664 $0 $0
FY13·14 EPMC Cost $358,301 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY14·15 EPMC Cost $369,051 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY15·16 EPMC Cost $380,122 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY16-17 EPMC Cost $391,526 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY11·12 Employer Rate Cost $693,809 $693,330 $678,258 $18,427 $26,325
FY12·13 Employer Rate Cost $743,897 $705,676 $673,355 $38,655 $55,221
FY13-14 Employer Rate Cost $854,411 $767,202 $711,518 $63,802 $91,146
FY14-15 Employer Rate Cost $897,077 $760,040 $682,088 $88,611 $126,587
FY15-16 Employer Rate Cost $941,533 $749,980 $647,710 $115,360 $164,800
FY16·17 Employer Rate Cost $987,849 $736,799 $608,038 $144,159 $205,941
FY11-12 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $3,574 $5,106
FY12-13 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $7,363 $10,519
FY13·14 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $11,376 $16,252
FY 14·15 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $15,623 $22,319
FY15-16 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $20,115 $28,736
FY16·17 Deferred Comp Match Cost $0 $0 $0 $24,862 $35,518
FY11-12 Total City Contribution Cost $1,031,542 $875,061 $856,038 $22,002 $31,431
FY12·13 Total City Contribution Cost $1,091,763 $781,828 $746,019 $46,018 $65,740
FY13·14 Total Ci IV Contribution Cost $1,212,713 $767,202 $711,518 $75,179 $107,398
FY14·15 Total Ci IV Contribution Cost $1,266,127 $760,040 $682,088 $104,234 $148,906
FY15-16 Total Ci tv Contribution Cost $1,321,655 $749,980 $647,710 $135,475 $193,536
FY16-17 Total Ci tv Contribution Cost $1,379,375 $736,799 $608,038 $169,021 $241,459
Comparable Cities Survey:Pension Comparison
&>*,':~~¥fu~E'JilL%~x~__o_~_~~'."
2nd Tier for 2 d T'2nd Tier 2nd Tier C t Current cEurrel nt Plans to S I ff t f. n ler urren mp oyee .a ary 0 -se ornewlyhiredP'Employee Employer E I Current Employer.t Increase t. .ens Ion . . .mp oyee .Increase 0 currenCitiesIemployees:f I Paid Matching Portion of P'Employee Portion of /EPMC current I dormuae.g...enslon emp oyees an
yes,no,under 2%t 60 Contribution member F I EPMC member "tho I t 2 employee %.
consideration °a (EPMC)contribution orumu a contribution WI In as EPMC °Increase
years
Atascadero yes in 2012 2%@ 55 4.15%2.85%2.5%@ 55 4.70%2.30%yes no no
Calabasas no nfa nfa nfa 2%@ 55 0%100%oHotal no no no
Dana Point no nfa nfa nfa 2%@ 55 0%7%no no no
Encinitas no nfa nfa nfa 2.7%@ 55 5%2%yes unknown no
G I t *f f f 2°1 @ 55 1 7501 525°1 1.75%for yes 2.5%·for2o e a no nan a na /0 •/0 •/0 yes t 3nex years years
Hermosa Beach yes 2%@ 60 0%7%2%@ 55 0%7%no no no
La Canada Flintridge no nfa nfa nfa 2%@ 55 I 0%I 7%I no I no I no
L M
· d 2%@ 55 no 001 701 2%@ 55 001 701 being I .a Ira a yes PARS /0 /0 with PARS /0 /0 no analyzed being analyzed
.under being being being ° ° °being..
Laguna Niguel I consideration negotiated negotiated negotiated 2 Yo @ 55 0 Yo 7 Yo no negotiated being negotiated
yes 3.5%for two
Lake Forest*I no I nfa I nfa I nfa I 2%@ 55 3.50%3.50%yes yes-up 3.5%years to offset
increase
Malibu no nfa nfa nfa 2%@ 55 0%7%no no no
Palos Verdes Estates no nfa nfa nfa 2%@ 55 I 0%I 7%I no I no I no
Rolling Hills Estates*
San Juan Capistrano
yes
under
consideration
2%@60
under
consideration
7%
under
consideration
0%
under
consideration
2%@55
2.7%@55
7%
5.01%
0%
balance
yes
no
no
being
discussed
yes 7%
being discussed
*Additionallnformation:Goleta,Lake Forest,Rolling Hills Estates:Cities wI Employee EPMC increases and partial or total salary offsets.
~
Goleta:Goleta employees used to pay 0%EPMC.They recently began paying 1.75%EMPC.Over the next three years,employees will pay an additional 1.75%
annually.At the end of those three years Goleta employees will be paying the entire 7%EPMC.As a partial salary off-set,Goleta employees will receive a 2.5%
annual increase for the next two years.Total Change:7%EPMC increase partially offset by 5%salary increase.
Lake Forest:Lake Forest employees used to pay 0%EPMC.Last year they began paying 3.5%EPMC.Next year,employees will pay an additional 3.5%,bringing
their total to the full 7%EPMC.At the same time,Lake Forest employees received a 3.5%salary increase last year and another 3.5%next year to fully off-set the
increase in their EPMC contribution.Total Change:7%EPMC increase completely offset by 7%salary increase.
Rolling Hills Estates:RHE employees used to pay 0%EPMC.Effective July 1,2011,current and new employees began paying 7%EPMC.RHE employees
received a one-time 7%salary increase on July 1,2011.Total Change:7%EPMC increase completely offset by 7%salary increase.
From:Matt Waters [mailto:mattrwaters@verizon.net]
Sent:Friday,September 16,2011 3:11 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:9-20-11 pension item
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council,
It has been my honor and privilege to work for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for over twenty
years.I began as a part-time Recreation Leader with the Recreation and Parks Department and
worked my way up to the position of Senior Administrative Analyst,first with Recreation and now
Finance/IT.During that time,I always appreciated the positive,supportive attitude that
permeated the entire organization from the newest hire up to the most experienced veteran
management staff or Council Member.Staff at RPV have consistently been dedicated,
resourceful,and productive and we have always enjoyed and appreciated the support of City
CQl,lncil.
With that long history in mind,I support the recommendation to increase the employee
contribution by 6.5%with an accompanying 5%salary offset for all full-time employees.While the
City's financial picture would be the envy of most cities with its balanced budget,50%General
Fund reserve policy,recently-increased TOT revenue stream,and growing Capital Improvements
reserve,I understand and appreciate the tenor of the times regarding public employee pensions.
I applaud the Council Sub-committee for the careful and thoughtful manner in which it has
proceeded and for its measured recommendation.A 1.5%overall reduction in salary is
significant but not catastrophic.I have two young children-one with autism-and a wife who is
currently working on her teaching credential,so every dollar is precious and this reduction will
have a palpable impact.Despite that regrettable reduction,I believe it is a pragmatic and
reasonable compromise,so it has my support.I believe any reductions in salary or benefits
beyond this level would not be warranted.
As a long-time employee who has seen the value of recruiting and retaining quality employees,I
am also concerned about adding a second tier for new employees.While many cities have
moved to create a second tier,or are considering this change,I believe cities that do not adopt a
second tier,will have a significant recruiting advantage.
The recent "Spotlight on Achievement"highlighted the efforts of staff to achieve impressive,
measureable results in terms of revenue generation and cost savings.New projects and
responsibilities are regularly added to staffs workload and staff continues to rise to the occasion
every time.Staff time and resources expended on a myriad of new projects and responsibilities
including Terranea,Annenberg,Open Space Acquisition and increased financial report
requirements,continues to grow based on Council direction and community needs,and other
factors.The City is fortunate to have a staff that is nimble and skilled enough to evolve to meet
those ongoing challenges.The number of staff per capita is the lowest for comparable cities,but
the level of customer service and overall productivity remains impressively high.
Thank you for your time and I again encourage you to vote in favor of the recommendation on
Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
Finance &IT Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
31 0-544-5218
mattw@rpv.com
From:Katie Howe [kthowe@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday,September 16,2011 3:29 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Pension Revision Agenda Item -From a Member of Staff
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
This letter is to encourage City Council to adopt the recommendations originally made by the Pension
Revision Subcommittee and by Management Partners regarding revisions to the City's pension program for
current employees on September 6,2011.
In my opinion,an important contributing factor to the City's ability to efficiently provide an exemplary level of
service (with the lowest number of FTE's per population and the lowest cost of employees per capita)is a felt
unified purpos~,effort,and respect between Council and staff.I love my job,and I love working for the City,
because I feel privileged to work with such an experienced,talented group of professionals that continuously
impress and motivate me.I feel gratified being part of a team that accomplishes this City Council's active
agenda and meets residents'high selvice level expectations.
Below are some examples of increased exceptional services of which I am proud to have been a part during
my employment with the City:
•The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve,treasured by residents,has grown to 1,400 acres,and its recreational use has grown to
include hikers,equestrians,mountain bikers,and professionally led nature and fitness hikes.
• A new contract with the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority Rangers provides enforcement and interpretive
services in the Preserve.
•The City has increased its number of parks to include Founders Park,Marilyn Ryan Sunset Point Park,and the beach below
the Trump National Golf Course.
..The Point Vicente Interpretive Center was substantially renovated in 2006,affording the ability to accommodate weddings,
public rentals,a gift shop,educational exhibits,and increased docent services to the community.PVIC is cherished by
residents.
•In the past years city-offered recreational offerings have more than doubled.
• A project is underway to improve two underdeveloped parks (Lower Hesse and Grandview)to improve access and
opportunities for recreation.
•Ryan and Hesse Parks athletic fields improvements have helped meet Peninsula Youth needs for athletic facilities and create
the opportunity for expanded City offered recreation.
•.We are about to embark on a site analysis and outreach process to consider viable locations on the Peninsula for a new dog
park and a new skate park.
•We are conducting public outreach and research on a potential off-leash dog beach at the City's new beach below Trump
National Golf Course.
I believe staff's general acceptance of the Subcommittee's recommendation demonstrates employees'unified
purpose with City Council.On a more personal level,as a single female living alone,a rejection of the
Subcommittee's recommendation,and an essential pay reduction of 6.5%will affect me substantially and will
likely influence the neighborhood in which I can afford to live,and its level of safety.
Please use a balanced approach weighing costs of operation with quality of service and caliber of City
employees to prevent an exercise in maximum cost savings in a city that has been well managed,and unlike
many cities,is fiscally sound.Please do everything in your power to maintain and continue to develop a
powerful tool available to you -your professional,talented,and dedicated staff.
Thank you for reading this email.
Respectfully,
Katie Howe
Administrative Analyst
Recreation and Parks Department
9/16/2011 b.
From:EduardoS [EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,September 19, 2011 11 :26 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Clehr@Rpv.Com;carolynn@rpv.com;'Carla Morreale';'Eric Mausser';joelr@rpv.com
SUbject:Pension Revision Item
Honorable Mayor and Council members:
I would like to express my support for the City Council Pension Subcommittee recommendation presented by Management
Partners.I believe that the recommendations address the goals set out by the City Council Subcommittee.
Although many cities are in financial turmoil,RPV is in the fortunate position of having a balanced budget and maintaining
healthy reserves.As such,this exercise is not being done to address an economic crisis;rather,it is being done to stabilize
the City's pension costs.Acknowledging this pension cost concern,I believe that the Subcommittee's recommendation helps
the City in its end~avor to control its pension cost obligation while saving the City money and minimizing impacts to existing
employees..
Although the recommendation calls for a 5-percent increase to employee salaries,the City will nonetheless realize savings.It
is important to note that although there would be an increase to salaries,it would not cover the fuIl6.5-percent EPMC.As
such,there will be a financial hardship to all employees.However,given the Sub-committee's goals and the economic reality,
I believe that it illustrates my willingness to sacrifice for the benefit of the City's goal.Should the Council decide not to
increase salaries,I believe it would create unwarranted financial hardships to the employees that have worked with the
Council to produce balanced budgets arnd healthy reserve accounts over the past 14+years.
As such,I hereby ask that the City Council adopt the recommendations made by the City Council Pension Subcommittee as
presented by Management Partners.
Sincerely,
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,Ale?
SENIOR PLANNER
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ph:310-544-5228
(ax:310-544-5293
9/19/2011
From:Daniel Pitts [danielp@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,September 19,2011 11:40 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Proposed Pension Revision
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Please allow me to take this opportunity to express my support in passing
the recommendations of The Management Partners.
Though this will be felt financially,I believe my colleagues and my RPV family
will embrace the study results and recommendations of Council.
Daniel PiUs
Code Enforcement Officer /CCEO
9/19/2011
Teri Takaoka
From:John Alvarez Oohna@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,September 19,201112:25 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Cc:cityclerk@rpv.com
Subject:Pension Revision Agenda Item
Honorable Mayor and member of the City Council:
I have been following the City Council's discussion of the proposed pension plan revisions since its
inception.I am taking this time to offer my support of the City Manager's recommendations bulleted as 1-
4 in the September 20,2011 City Council Memorandum.I understand that the recommendations
provided to the City Council meets the Council's goal to control City pension costs.As noted in the
Memorandum~,the additional 6.5%employee contribution (EPMC)represents a significant cost transfer
for each employee.Provided that your decision will inevitably involve the two-tiered formula approach
and for employees to fully contribute to CaIPERS,a one-time 5%salary adjustment is a reasonable
concession that I urge you to Consider.
Respectfully submitted,
John Alvarez
Senior Planner
9/19/2011
Teri Takaoka
From:Sandra Ishman [Sandral@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,September 19,201112:23 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Carla Morreale';'Joel Rojas';'Greg Pfost';'Paul Christman'
Subject:Pension
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am one of the employees present for last week's council meeting when the pension steering
committees proposal was presented.I want to say that I am in favor of the committees recommendations
and also I want to ask you to look at how council's decision will affect someone like me,who is single
and has no other income accept what I make.
I currently make around $50K a year as a permit technician.If council were to accept/approve the
steering committee's proposal I would be paying an additional 1.5%which equates to $30.00 more a
paycheck or $60.00 per month.I say this is additional because I currently pay 1.5%($30.00)to Calpers;
but on another note 1 also pay 1 %(28.00)per paycheck for retirement health savings benefits.As you
can see I'm at 4 %or $176.00 per month at this point but please don't misunderstand,I am not
complaining,I'm only trying to say that this is much easier for me to budget than the Council's
alternative.
The Council's alternative is for me to pay all the EPMCwhich is 6.5%and equals $130.00 more per
paycheck or $260.00 per month for me.This $260.00 per month does not include the 4%or $176.00
noted above.
Mr.Mayor and Council members ifyou deny the steering committees recommendations than I will be
paying $436.00 per month or 10.5%per month total solely for retirement benefits;I hope you agree with
me that $436.00 per month is nothing to sneeze at and acknowledge that I'm saying this will be a
financial hardship for me.I don't want to be seen merely as a dollar amount on a page,I really need you
and the Council to see me as a person,because either decision the Council makes will affect me and the
other staff greatly.Nonetheless,I want it to be known that I am willing to help the City save money by
paying an additional 1.5%for a total of $176.00 per month,ifyou will help me and the others with the
5%increase proposed by the steering committee to afford these personal financial sacrifices.
Mr.Mayor and City Council members I ask that when making your decision that my situation is taken
into consideration.I appreciate your time.
Thank you,
Sandra Ishman,
Building &Safety Department
Permit Technician
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310/265-7800
sandrai@rpv.com
9/19/2011