Just the facts . . . a straight-forward primer on taxes

Councilmember Carl Morehouse never tires of trying to explain the facts of (fiscal) life. He's used poker chips and jars of penny, held up dollar bills and lectured and written extensively to simplify the complicated maze of munipal finance.

It's not that cities want to make things complicated. They were once much simpler. But thirty years of voters and politicians tinkering at the State and local levels to try to keep taxes low and services high have made California budgets very, very confusing. Only a few people really understand how government services are funded -- and they have long since given up on explaining it to the public. Except Councilmember Morehouse.

His latest effort is a remarkable primer available at CAPS-TV. Sitting at a simple table, Morehouse spends 24 minutes breaking down where your taxes go and how they are spent. He starts with the Federal and State taxes and then brings it all home to Ventura. He then succinctly reviews the sources and uses of tax funds -- and along the way deals with a number of controversial issues and widely cited misconceptions.

In a second, related video, Carl takes a dispassionate look at the contrasting perspectives that often shape public debate on the role of government.

Together, they are a great introduction to the realities of local government -- fiscal and philosophical. If more of our public officials at all levels took a step back from the debates of the day to look at the big picture, perhaps we'd have a better informed and more civil discourse!

Check out Carl's videos here. On the same page are some valuable interview shows produced by the Chamber of Commerce on local topics from a business perspective. Check them out as well.

Code enforcement: setting the record straight

On his Facebook account, Councilmember Neal Andrews has posted thoughtful background on Ventura's code enforcement effort, rebutting the scare talk about people losing their homes for failing to get permits to replace a water heater:

A few skillful political agitators are actively promoting the notion that the City is going to force little old grandmothers into homelessness by sending its jack-booted “Nazi code enforcers” out to harass innocent homeowners, who unwittingly and innocently bought or built illegal dwelling units within the City. They say these are really safe and affordable housing units that we need desperately to preserve. They say this is all about the greedy City searching for new sources of money. They say the building and safety codes haven’t been enforced for “a hundred years”, so why now in these troubling economic times, when affordable housing is in short supply, should we suddenly begin to enforce these laws. And, naturally, they always point to the darkest and worst possible reasons.

Here are the facts.

City code enforcement officers have an important public function to perform. They are enforcement officers. The City has a responsibility to enforce laws duly enacted, mostly by the State, to ensure that housing within the City is safe and meets basic construction standards. These are laws, for example, that ensure that your electrical wiring is properly installed, so you won’t be electrocuted or your house will not burn down because of a short-circuit in the system.

Code enforcement officers also have the obligation to enforce codes that protect you from health and sanitation hazards. These are laws, for example, that make certain your plumbing is installed correctly so that the germs in the sewer system cannot find their way back up the sewer pipes into your home and that your pipes bringing your drinking water to your tap don’t contain illegal lead that will retard the brain development of your children.

Code enforcement is obligated to enforce the laws that you and your elected representatives have enacted to preserve the quality of life in our community as well – laws that, for the sake of ensuring reasonable privacy, require a certain distance between your home and the new rental unit that your neighbor wants to build behind his house, or that prevent a garage from being converted to a spare room while a neighbor then parks his cars on the street where your visitors would have been able to park as intended, but now can’t find space, or laws that simply prohibit your neighbor from destroying the property values of your entire neighborhood because they think they should be able to “store” their junk cars or appliances in their front yard.

The scare talk began when the Council voted to shift resources to preventing slum conditions rather than simply responding to complaints, since so often renters are understandly reluctant to complain. In shifting to a "pro-active" enforcement effort, however, it became clear that many rentals, although illegal or substandard, do not pose a health and safety hazard. As a result, next month staff is bringing to the City Council a proposal for a one-year amnesty program to promote voluntary compliance. Everyone recognizes that there are real differences between conditions like a garage recently converted into a living unit for a family and a small guest house built decades ago without recorded permits. Here are some simple answers to questions that have been raised:

Q: When an individual has a home that was constructed many years ago, does the City require them to bring it up to current code when no other work is being done?

A: No. The State and City Building Standards are very clear about this. Only damage repair, voluntary alterations and additions must meet current code requirements.

Q: On an older home, if a property owner comes in for a permit for improvements, will the inspector use that opportunity to "hunt" for other violations such as an unpermitted water heater?

A: Staff reviews the property records to confirm that what is shown on a plan as "existing" has been permitted and approved. When discrepancies are identified, the owner can provide the following information to substantiate their position that the construction legally exists:

• County Assessor inspection records that show the use/structure was on the tax role before the property was annexed
• Executed Real Estate Documents
• Executed Lease Agreements
• MLS Listings
• Signed Affidavit from Prior Property Owner
  

If and owner has installed a water heater (or made other changes) without a permit, they will be required to obtain the permit required by the State of California. The State gives staff zero discretion in this matter. In fact, any inspector (or other City staff person) that knowingly allows work to proceed, or exist, without required permits is both personally and professionally liable.

Housing code enforcement, like traffic law enforcement, is inherently controversial. No one in their right mind would favor eliminating enforcement of such laws, but anyone who has ever gotten a traffic or building code citation has opinions about the "fairness" of enforcement. We continue to work hard to tackle enforcing State and local laws evenly, sensibly and cost-effectively. Not an easy task, but we can all agree, someone has to do it.

Volunteers pitch in giving 42,000 hours

Everyone knows we are in tough times. Now more than ever, we need to build partnerships to meet the needs of our community.

Every day, volunteers step in to help. On Wednesday, the City of Ventura honored the hundreds of local citizens who pitch in -- and last year contributed 42,000 hours of volunteer service to the community. Mayor Weir and Councilmembers Andrews, Morehouse and Summers all participated in paying tribute to Ventura's volunteer spirit.

Some wear uniforms, like our Volunteers in Policing (VIP) who provide a vital personal touch to everything from routine patrol along the beachfront promenade to assisting crime victims. Some keep a regular schedule, like Margie DeYoung, an 89 year old City Hall Ambassador who greets visitors at the front door all day every Tuesday with a smile and help at finding what they need. Some provide specialized services, like Bruce James, a professional photographer who assists the Fire Department with all the new digital tools that can help them do their jobs. Many, many just pitch in wherever and whenever they are needed, from cleaning beaches to organizing Neighborhood Watch.

Their contribution enhances our community at a time when the City Council has balanced our budget by making $11 million in cuts. Their service enriches our community by making a heartfelt commitment to what they do. Their volunteer spirit ennobles our community by demonstrating the unselfish love people have for Ventura.

Of course there are thousands more volunteers who give their time to civic, youth, cultural, environmental, religious and other organizations and causes in our city. All make a contribution to our quality of life and sense of place.

In fact, Ventura is a special place, in great part due to those efforts. Nationally, an authoritative study puts volunteer participation at 29% of adults. Our annual local citizen survey put it at 50% in Ventura.

There are lots of opportunities to not only serve the community, but to gain new skills and personal satisfaction as well. If you'd like to find out more about volunteer opportunities click here.

A quiet hero

We live in a time of rising frustration and anger. People are looking for someone to blame for the grim headlines of jobs lost, homes foreclosed, public budgets cut and taxes being raised.

Too often we overlook the other side of the story. The people who quietly go about their jobs, who go the extra mile to keep costs down and deliver quality results to improve the safety and quality of life of others.

John Schoof was that kind of man. The Wastewater Manager for the City of Santa Barbara lived here in Ventura with his wife Mary Walsh Schoof, Ventura's Deputy City Manager and their son Will, a sophomore at Villanova High.

John died at 48 after a courageous battle with heart disease. On Monday, 400 family, friends and colleagues paid tribute to his short and well-lived life.

John spent 20 years serving the City of Santa Barbara. At work, he was entrusted with sheparding the big projects with a quiet skill and patient assurance that there was no obstacle that couldn’t be overcome. John was project Manager the construction or refurbishment of Santa Barbara’s Granada Garage, Los Banos Pool, Railroad Depot, McKinley Park, and the Waterfront Offices. During his twenty years with the City of Santa Barbara, he supervised Wastewater; Streets; Land development; Real Property; Contract and construction Engineering and Inspection; Waterfront and Airport Engineering; GIS; Capital Improvement Programming; and Environmental Programs.

Recognized with six “Project of the Year” awards from the American Public Works Assn. and the American Society of Civil Engineers, he was honored as Maintenance Superintendent of the Year for Southern California. He was exacting in giving his best to others and kind in inspiring the best in others. His intuition and ability to read people earned him distinction as a beloved Little League Coach and a stand-out leader in his profession.

Both the Ventura and Santa Barbara City Councils adjourned their meetings this week in memory of John Schoof. Here is what Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum had to say about his public service there:

“I want to close tonight’s meeting in memory of John Schoof, who was our engineer in the Public Works Department, who we lost this last week. He was an asset to any public works project. I have never seen a person who was so even tempered—I’d like to think that I am pretty even tempered, but he was truly amazing. He was a real problem-solver and a very, very kind person."

Ray LaHood: A Second Look

When the Cabinet line-up was announced, I wondered why a relatively obscure downstate Illinois Republican Congressman with shallow background in transportation ended up being tapped as Secretary of Transportation. But in a relatively short amount of time (let's remember the Obama administration is barely five months old), Ray LaHood is proving to be an outspoken and highly visible advocate for transportation reform.

National transportation policy used to revolve around highway spending and aviation policy. But there is a new sheriff in town:

"What we’ve talked about is getting to a concept that we call livable communities, where people don’t have to get in a car every day. You can use light rail, you can use buses, you can use walking paths, you can use your bike."

The quote comes from an irreverent interview in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday. He stresses repair of America's crumbling transportation infrastructure -- and making new investments, including high speed rail.

He also stresses his role in the larger Obama team. One of the most promising hallmarks of the new administration is the vocal commitment to better coordination between the disparate Federal departments and agencies.

To paraphrase Obama's most memorable lines from his 2004 convention keynote address: rebuilding the economy is not confined to the Treasury Department, confronting climate change is not confined to the EPA and reducing dependence on foreign oil is not confined to the Department of Energy -- they are all challenges for the United States of America. Every one of them involves a key role for the Department of Transportation. And it appears we have a Secretary who understands this.

How bad is it in retail?

Nationwide, there is a 16.2 percent in vacancy rate, up 43% from just a year ago. Construction of new retail has fallen by half and rents are down 5 percent from last year. Although the wave of bankruptcies that were feared after retail's dismal Christmas season hasn't occurred, there is talk of "zombie" chains kept alive by the cash flow from money-losing sales. Our team at the giant International Council of Shopping Centers trade show in Las Vegas had no trouble making appointments -- attendance was cut in half by the recession.

It's not just that consumer spending is down because of rising joblessness. Consumers are saddled with debt that they must work to retire now that home equity has disappeared as a source of financing debt. And more and more shoppers are hitting the web, looking for bargains. This may mean a long-term shrinkage in "brick and mortar" sales -- and the stores that provide them.

America's long shopping binge fueled a remarkable boom in store construction. According to the New York Times, "In 1986, the United States had about 15 square feet of retail space per person in shopping centers. That was already a world-leading figure, but by 2003 it had increased by a third, to 20 square feet. The next countries on the list are Canada (13 square feet per person) and Australia (6.5 square feet); the highest figure in Europe is in Sweden, with 3 square feet per person."

A couple of years ago, the Riverpark Shopping Center looked like a formidable new entrant in the crowded Ventura County marketplace. The developers had signed up one of the hottest retailers in Whole Foods, plus a new multiplex and REI, the outdoor sporting goods chain. But there has been no major tenants signings announced since -- and construction has noticeably slowed on the shopping center.

On this side of the river, the Pacific View Mall is weathering the storm with tenant resignings, but has not been able to close the deal with tenants to redo the vacant buildings at the north end of the mall behind the new Target. Retailers across the nation are insisting on bargain leases -- leaving shopping center owners with the harsh choice of accepting unfavorable terms or leaving stores vacant.

Of course, this has a big impact on local governments. Citizens in many communities have happily supported retail expansions -- and even tolerated big subsidies to developers and retailers to provide sales tax revenue to support local services. But now, as auto malls and shopping centers struggle, the reliance on the revenue they provide is proving to be unsustainable.

Many hope the downturn's slowing portends a turn-around by the end of the year. But robust consumer sales and new retail developments are years away. The largest mall owner in the nation is in bankruptcy and Wall Street financing has virtually disappeared.

That poses a number of challenges locally, not only in funding vital public safety and community services, but also in providing local jobs and economic activity. It will leave vacant stores and empty streets in many parts of local towns. It will discourage the kind of mixed-use projects that seemed so promising in bringing back vitality to neglected areas. And it will pose tough choices to local City Councils as they struggle to maintain the stores they have -- and are pressed to subsidize any new ones they want to attract.

Saving local libraries

Amidst all the clamor about the State budget meltdown, there is more bad news for Ventura County libraries.

In the first round of cuts prompted by State cutbacks, County Library Director Jackie Griffin recommended consolidating Wright Library on the Ventura College campus with the downtown E.P. Foster Library. That remains the default option, although it has been put off by the "Save Wright Library" fundraising campaign mounted by the Friends of the San Buenaventura Library.

Now comes three more pieces of bad news. First, local property tax revenue is down more than originally anticipated by the County. Second, what little State library aid remained after the first proposed cuts may be eliminated altogether. Finally, the Governor's proposal to force "borrowing" of local property tax revenue would directly hit the County Library system.

The news puts even more pressure on an underfunded system. The City of Camarillo has been providing substantial supplemental funding to operate their brand-new library facility. They've liberally endowed the new book collection there. But, of course, the whole system benefits since those new materials are available for anyone to request any item be shipped to their home library for pick up. Libraries in smaller communities already operate with minimal hours. There isn't much room left for trimming -- again, whole libraries would have to come under scrutiny for consolidation/closure.

Complicating all this is the recommendation from the County Library Commission to stop paying Thousand Oaks nearly $200,000 to serve nearby residents of the County. Although that agreement is subject to cancellation, city leaders in Thousand Oaks are hurt and angry at the loss of revenue for their city library.

Support for libraries, though, remains strong. Unfortunately, translating that support into funding remains a challenge. Local leaders of the Friends of the San Buenaventura Library complain that their successful fund raising effort dried up after the City Council offered to make a "bridge loan" to keep the Library open through March of next year. Unfortunately, a loan only works if the fundraising keeps up so it can be paid back.

Meanwhile, tonight the City Council gives further consideration to the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Citizens Budget Committee that they place a half cent sales tax before voters in November. One of the Committee's recommendations was that libraries get additional funding through the measure.

The battle over Cemetery Memorial Park

UPDATE: Prior to the issue returning to the City Council for a vote, the Parks and Recreation Commission will be holding another discussion, this one focused on the "scaled-down" alternative(s). For the agenda and staff report for that June 17 meeting, go here and click on Agenda Item Four.

It is one of the most beautiful spots in Ventura. It has a rich history. It is much beloved. And it is the topic of emotional debate.

Cemetery Memorial Park is the site of 3,000 graves, buried in several adjacent cemeteries dating back at least to 1862. By the Thirties, the cemeteries were no long active. Neglect and vandalism prompted the Planning Commission to begin discussions for converting the cemetery into a park. That plan was ultimately adopted in the early Sixties. Remaining headstones were removed and a "parklike" setting was installed.

A movement spearheaded by Steve Schleder began five years ago to reverse that decision. He's been a persistent and passionate critic, arguing that Ventura not only dishonored those buried on the seven acre site, but violated the law. A Grand Jury investigation failed to confirm his legal arguments, but they did recommend the City do a better job of respecting the nature of the site.

In the years since, the City Council has heard from a shifting chorus of voices on what should -- or should not -- be done. At times, the passion and numbers have favored those demanding the City do more to honor the historic graves -- if not to fully restore the Cemetery, at least to put a name above each of the graves. Lately, the more numerous voices have been arguing that the City should essentially leave the site alone.

What brought the debate front and center again was a plan developed over the past two years to implement the Council's direction to do a better job of balancing the many aspects of the park -- as an historic site, as a cemetery and as a public park. Elaborate public input led to an ambitious -- and controversial -- plan. With a long-term price tag of $4 million, it made an easy target for neighbors and park users to lampoon City government for contemplating changes that no one wants at a cost that no one can afford.

The critics have a point -- up to a point. Instead of working from a realistic budget, the firm hired to assist in park planning designed a master plan that assumed that over the next two decades, private fundraising and park grant funding could pay for a park make-over. Some objected to removal of the parking lot; others to the placing of individual grave markers over all the remains; and others just griped about the whole package as an absurd waste of money in a down economy. As an alternative, staff placed before the City Council a much scaled-down version more in keeping with the original intent to address deferred maintenance and install some kind of appropriate memorial monument.

But the volunteer citizens who serve on our Parks and Recreation Commission, who held a series of meetings leading up to their approval of the plan, represent a different community perspective. They saw the plan as a visionary way of making the park truly a majestic destination that celebrated the legacy of Ventura's history, honored the departed and yet made the park a welcoming place for neighbors and visitors. They realized that it would take decades for that vision to unfold, but obviously the site has undergone a great many changes already in its 150 year history. Right now, the park is primarily used neighborhood strollers and dog owners, most of whom ignore the ban on unleashed dogs in the park. The Commission anticipated the park becoming a more unique and appealing setting to understand and appreciate our city's unique history and beauty.

After hearing from public speakers, the City Council ran out of time to adequately discuss and resolve the competing views. The topic is due to come back to the City Council -- but first the Parks and Recreation Commission will review again their recommendation -- and the scaled-down alternative.

Era of limits

To balance this year's budget, the City Council established a clear set of principles, starting with this overview:

To ensure increasingly limited resources are allocated to what matters most in achieving the General Plan Strategic Vision, the Council recognizes that tough choices will need to be made and that its emphasis will be placed on eliminating, reducing or restructuring lower-priority programs and expenses rather than compromising the success of high-priority efforts by inadequate funding.

Difficult and painful as it was, focusing on "what matters most" made it possible to reduce spending by $11 million. What it forces, however, is greater discipline about what we undertake because we have slashed capacity for taking on worthwhile additional work. There are 40 less people working for the city, but expectations remain high.

There was an old cartoon strip that ran for many years called, "There Ought to Be a Law." It was a send-up of the idea that for every problem, there was a legislative solution. The comic strip is long gone, but the impulse continues.

So the stream of well-intentioned citizen requests continues unabated, despite -- and in some cases, because of -- the economic reckoning we are enduring. One irate citizen demands the City put more emphasis on compliance with (and enforcement of) the Americans With Disabilities Act. Another frequent critic offers an ordinance from another city to ensure banks maintain foreclosed homes. A tireless citizen activist insists we come up with an amnesty program for illegal second-units. An advocate for marijuana access prods us to forge rules for implementing Proposition 215. A thoughtful fiscal conservative urges us to tackle the huge issue of local government pension reform.

All of these are legitimate concerns. So are the new mandates from other levels of government: the Regional Water Quality Board imposing a new and expensive permit to clean up stormwater run-off on all the cities in Ventura; the new regional planning framework imposed by SB 375; and the opportunities for securing competitive grants for Stimulus funding from the Federal government in everything from public safety to energy conservation.

The only hitch is: who is going to do all these things? Fiscal conservatives have a quick answer: nobody. Stick to the basics. Live within your means! Of course, like the old joke ("A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged), finding true fiscal conservatives is not so easy. People are often fiscal conservatives until you talk about cutting spending that affects their neighborhood, business or pet cause. I often hear, Cut out all that unnecessary 'stuff' . . . but don't cut out the arts or pay for dredging the Keys or help out Mrs. Yunker or whatever they don't individually see as 'unnecessary.' With 106,000 citizens, it turns out that there is a wide range of opinion on what is and is not 'unnecessary.'

Then there are others, fairly numerous in our community, who cheerfully acknowledge they understand we have limited resources and volunteer they'd be happy to pay 'a little more' so the city could do more on the homeless issue or code enforcement or protecting the hillsides or save a County library or . . . except that without a majority (or even 2/3rds vote) we don't actually have those additional resources to address their concerns.

So, how in an era of limits, do we balance the very real constraints on our staff time and financial resources?

There are two paths open. One is to stick with "what matters most" and let people know that their concerns will have to wait until we have the staff and resources to devote to them. The other is to give the voters an opportunity to restore some of the capacity we've lost as revenue has fallen.

What we can't do is what the State has done -- try to be all things to all people and duck hard choices.

Contrary to some stereotypes, politicians and bureaucrats aren't cursed with a character failing of spending like drunken sailors. But almost everyone drawn to local public service wants to solve problems and improve their community. Now is a challenging time. The number one problem we face is ensuring we don't spend money we don't have. That isn't a happy message to convey. But it is a message most people will understand, even if they aren't happy about it.

As our Police Chief Pat Miller reminds me, "We can do anything. We just can't do everything." Or as my great grandmother used to tell me, "If it is worth doing at all, it is worth doing right." We can't provide every taxpayer a solution to their problems. Instead, if we don't spread ourselves too thin, we can provide every taxpayer with value for their dollar.