Q and A with the Malibu City Council Candidates

• Part Two of a Series Exploring Issues in the 2010 Municipal Election

BY BILL KOENEKER

A 25-question survey was distributed to the 10 city council candidates by the Malibu Surfside News. Seven candidates tackled the array of complex local issues and policy questions that were included.
For over a decade and a half the city has been a pay-as-you go municipality. Just over the last several years that has changed and the city has incurred as much as $65 million in debt that it must pay back.
The issue has become a hot button topic for the candidates. They were asked what their position is on the amount of indebtedness incurred by the city to date.
Lou La Monte said, “Presently the city has a Standard and Poor’s AAA rating, one of the highest ratings in the state. We should do nothing to change that. At this time, the rents from the commercial properties on Legacy Park pay the debt service and the city hall debt will be paid in lieu of our present rent. We must maintain the substantial reserves we have now.”
Harold Greene said it has been quite prudent for the city to invest in infrastructure at a time when the economy is circling the drain. “And secure extremely favorable interest rates and pay-back terms,” he said.
Mike Sidley indicated that he thinks that it is a matter of balance. “Debt is not necessarily bad, if you are in a position to properly service that debt and obtain necessary services in return. I previously have expressed my concerns about the city hall and Legacy Park. I think for those two projects, our debt is too great. We have an outstanding wastewater problem with an estimated $56 million dollar price tag to fix it. Because of our current indebtedness, we could be well looking at an inability to take on any additional long term debt for necessary capital improvements in our city,” he said.
Ed Gillespie wrote about how the indebtness acquired by the city council was not mandated by the voters. “Taking this financial route when raising funds for a municipal project does not require a mandate from the voters. However, in this economy the city should be more fiscally conservative. A great deal of money is being spent on Trancas Park and on the improvements to the new city hall. I truly fear the city may be incurring too much debt,” he said.
Steve Scheinkman noted in 2006 the city had zero debt and reserves of more than $12-14 million. “Today, we will soon have debt of $47 million and a reserve of only $8 million. The city council made the decision to incur this additional debt during the most significant economic downturn this country has seen since the great depression. Incurring this amount of debt in this economic environment without a long term financial plan was unwise and could place the city in future financial difficulty,” he said.
John Mazza said all this debt was taken on “in the worst economic time in the last 20 years. Future building operating costs for the new city hall and debt service will strain our budgets in future years.” Mazza indicated that is why experienced financial management and long-range plans are needed to insure the city manages the debt and does not fall into the situation other governments similar to the state. “I have over 30 years experience in financial management and am sure the situation can be successfully addressed,” he said.
Laura Rosenthal said she is always concerned about the financial health of the city, especially during difficult economic times. “I applaud the city for their excellent credit rating. I am comfortable with the debt for Legacy Park, as it is being paid through the commercial rents of the Lumber Yard. I am very glad that the city bought a city hall, as we will now own a far superior building for the same yearly cost as renting a smaller facility. I am concerned, however, in the extra $7 million in bonds for the refurbishment of the new city hall. With the limited information about the design that it is currently available. I believe the $7 million is too much,” she said.
Council hopefuls were also asked about their assessment of the current city council.
Mazza said the council is divided on many issues and some of the council members have engaged “in what I consider inappropriate personal attacks on members of the public and other council members. If elected, Steve Scheinkman and I will work with the other members of the council in a respectful manner, seek solutions that are productive and be considerate of the input we receive from the public.”
La Monte said he would defer. “When I declared my candidacy, I said that I would only discuss the issues. I will not comment on individuals except to thank them for their public service,” he said.
Sidley said he would not comment on individual members of the current council. “There is no question that I have clearly disagreed with this council and their votes on various issues. My disagreements generally stem from my belief that the current council on occasion has demonstrated an inability to make hard, but necessary decisions. I think the current council has on occasion, made hasty decisions that may well haunt us long-term. First, the purchase of city hall. Second, the inability of the current council to address wastewater problems in the Civic Center. Finally, the decision to bail out the developers of the Lumber yard,” he noted.
Rosenthal said she could respond to certain decisions that the council has made or issues they have faced, but would not do an assessment of individual members. “I think that generally, each council member has worked hard for our city and tried to make the most informed decisions possible. I have not always agreed with these decisions, but I respect their attempts to get it right,” she said.
Greene said the council has done its job, albeit with emotional and policy conflicts,” and reach consensus on all important issues that come before them. “Each member has a special area of skills, experience, and all of us have seen responses from them on hot button issues “that have been intemperate and divisive.”
Gillespie said, “Sharon Barovsky and Andy Stern have worked well together and have had several notable accomplishments over the same time they have been in office. Pamela Conley Ulich appears to make her decisions from the heart and has a lot compassion for the families and people of Malibu. John Sibert seems analytical and very often thinks for himself, establishing his own position on an issue. Jefferson has been a real asset to the city council. He does extensive research on an issue that is before him and makes sound and informed decisions. As a group they have not always made popular decisions and maybe not always the right decision for the right reasons but with Pam and Jefferson and John we have a good nucleus and I hope I am given the opportunity to work with them.”
Scheinkman noted that he had respect for each of the council members, for their hard work and what they perceive is the best interest of the city. “Over the last year, it seems that infighting and personal attacks by some council members have become standard fare at our city council meetings. And on occasion, this conduct is extended to citizens who appear before the council to offer a differing point of view. Almost everyone agrees this intolerance for differing views and the negative atmosphere it creates hampers good decision-making. I believe the council can be more productive,” he said.