“Michael Kemps
”I believe in maintaining local control – and that safety is our priority. The talk throughout our community through the recent election was that Measure E was supposed to ‘Save Our Police.’ Numerous friends and neighbors circled the City with near paranoia around losing our police department, causing fear and anxiety. I heard many promises around the future solvency and stability of the Department and the City, if only Measure E was supported. I also reacted to seeing a City newsletter explaining our precarious budget situation, explaining considerations of massive cuts to basic services in order to recover. Sympathetically, I voted in support. Had I realized at the time how insufficiently Measure E was funding the actual requirement of the PVE PD, I would have voted against it.””

“JENNIFER KING (incumbent)
”In our City-wide survey and in multiple community meetings, our residents expressed how much they value our PVPED. An overwhelming majority of our residents likewise supported funding the PVPED through Measure E. The amount of the tax was designed to maintain the critical safety services our residents depend on. I am proud to have supported Measure E and pleased that a strong consensus of our community recognized the stakes. It will be the City Council’s role going forward to make sure that these critical funds are used effectively and efficiently to support our PVPED.””

“VICTORIA LOZZI
”While I believe that the residents of PVE want to maintain its private police department and are willing to support a tax to accomplish that goal, I disagreed with the structure of Measure E. The current cost to run the police department is well over $7 million and increasing every year. I felt that if the parcel tax was being positioned to pay for the police department, then it should have been for the full cost to operate it, not a flat $5 million. I also felt that a parcel tax after the failure of Measure D should not have been on a ballot to residents until a long-range financial plan had been developed that laid out all our obligations (e.g. pension obligations, infrastructure needs, etc.), again, so residents could understand what the true budget implications really were and make an informed decision.””

“KEVIN MCCARTHY
”Full disclosure, I was the “Yes on Measure E“ sign distributor. I have worked for the Los Angeles Police Department for almost 39 years and I know the limitations of a large agency. A large agency cannot deliver the same personalized service as a small agency. There would be little control or consistency in terms of who and how our community would be policed. In a large agency officers move, promote or are otherwise reassigned, not to mention rules, policies and regulations are set by that agency. Palos Verdes Police has incredible consistency in terms of personnel, training, experience and expectations. I understood that personalized service comes with a price and I was willing to pay for it. “”

“DAVID MCGOWAN
”Yes, I strongly supported the measure as well as the campaign team that worked for its passage. My reasons for that support were based on my financial background and my recognition that our city would be financially crippled without the $5 million annual revenue. The failed parcel tax (Measure D) made up approximately a quarter of total annual city revenue. Yes, I support our police force that is now partially funded by the Measure E parcel tax, but I also would have supported Measure E if it had been configured to fund the fire and paramedic services as before. Basic city operability was at stake here.

As a member of the Financial Advisory Committee I believe it is important to note that the revenue provided by Measure E is less than that would have been provided by the prior failed parcel tax and it contains no annual escalator. Accordingly, City operating economies are being sought and some have been achieved. It is imperative that the City Council continues to analyze and reduce spending to ensure a most cost-effective delivery of services including “community based” police services. “”

“BETTY LIN PETERSON (incumbent)
”Due to failure of Measure D, Council had to make multiple budget cuts, numerous project were cancelled or delayed, and we risk possibility of losing our Police Department. Council felt the urgency to write this new Measure to replace Measure D. This sentiment was echoed by the outpour of supporters who campaigned to keep our Police Department and the voters who voted in favor of passing Measure E. Unlike our opposition, the Council knew that our City could not afford to lose another $5 Million. The City runs on a tight budget normally to begin with. A fiscal emergency has already been declared and money in our Reserves was utilized to pay for normal operations. Losing another $5 Million and dipping further into the Reserves would have been detrimental to the City, and completely irresponsible for anyone who thinks this would not have a negative impact on our residents.””