Fact or fiction on the budget?

The Ojai Voice frequently runs columns by an acerbic critic of what he calls "the Gang in the Ivory Tower." His latest lambastes the City for spending $170,000 to erect three monuments in the Hobson Heights Neighborhood. The real number was actually $21,800 (the handsome tile work of artist Michael Kelly was donated by the neighborhood.) Which means the example in the photo cost each resident of Ventura a little less than seven cents.

Some critics aren't interested in facts that get in the way of their obsession that the City of Ventura wastes money. Lots of it. Some have a political agenda. Some are just math challenged. But it is a myth repeated so often that it takes on a life of its own.

They cite various controversies that over the years have made for some interesting newspaper stories. Perhaps the biggest favorite is "public art." Take the infamous "Bus Home" at the mall. Please. It's been five years since it was built, but it still rankles some as a symbol of idiotic spending.

For the sake of argument, let's say that every penny of federal, state and local transit matching funds used for the project was totally wasted. That year, Ventura spent $134,933,000 on everything from responding to 911 calls to supplying safe drinking water to every household and business. To put the cost of "Bus Home" in perspective, if the money spent on it was the height of a fire hydrant, the total spending that year was taller than the Empire State Building. Or if the total spending that year was compared to a 24 hour day, Bus Home would be about a minute.

Okay, maybe it's just a tiny proportion of city spending, but the critics maintain it is just the tip of the wasteful spending iceberg. What about paying severence pay to the ex-City Manager? Different year, same tiny proportion. What about the loan the city provided me to buy a home when I became City Manager? They never acknowledge that I'm obligated to pay it all back, plus market appreciation. What about the Community Park? Yes, that did cost a lot of money, but the citizens voted to build it -- and raised $1 million in private funds to help pay for it. Plus, have you noticed how many people are using it every day?

We could go back and forth down the list. But in the end, the real test is not whether someone can find something to fume over. After all, we live in a democracy. The objective standard is whether the City is providing exceptional value for taxpayers. On that score, the evidence is clear.

Here is the breakdown of what it costs per resident per day for next year's budget recommendations:

• 73 cents for Police (911, patrol, criminal investigations, traffic enforcement etc.)
• 46 cents for Fire (Fire and medical emergency response, disaster preparedness, fire prevention, building permits etc.)
• 38 cents for Public Works (Street paving, park and street tree maintenance, engineering, storm drainage, environmental services etc.)
• 33 cents for General Government (Computer systems, revenue collection, financial, personnel and legal services, City Council, etc.
• 17 cents for Community Services (Youth and senior recreation, social services, Olivas Adobe, Albinger Museum, special events, cultural support etc.)
• 9 cents Community Development(Citywide and area planning, regulation of new development)
• 9 cents Citywide Contractual Obligations (Payments to the County and other agencies, beach parking structure, public safety matching grants, budget contingency fund etc.)
• 8 cents Capital Improvements (Debt service on Community Park, renovation of City Hall, installation of solar panels, etc.)

The total is $2.33 per resident, per day. Less than a cup of Starbucks coffee. By any standard, that's a bargain. In fact, in a study of comparable cities done last year by the City of San Luis Obispo, Ventura was second lowest in per capita spending overall and sixth out of nine in per capita General Fund spending. We were seventh out of nine in General Fund staffing per capita. A study done in 2003 of 20 comparable cities by an independent firm showed similar results: Ventura was 11th out of 20 in per capita general fund expenditures and tied for 12th out of 20 on General Fund staffing per capita.

Of course, for those who disdain government, who distrust City Hall and who believe that nothing ever changes, there is nothing we can say that will change their minds. But do the math. When you think of what you can buy for $2.33, Ventura City government represents lower prices, everyday. Hey, does that sound familiar?

Not too hot, not too cold

We all remember the Goldilocks story, who found the papa bear’s porridge “too hot,” the mama bear’s porridge “too cold” and the baby bear’s porridge “just right.”

For years, public debate in Ventura has been polarized between two camps. One favors piping hot development to bring more business, housing, tax revenue and progress. The other wants to cool things down to protect our history, environment and quality of life.

The deep divide began to be bridged with the “Ventura Vision” effort and the unanimous Council vote to adopt the 2005 General Plan. A third alternative, called “smart growth,” aimed at a balance that was “just right” in our new General Plan:

"Our goal is to protect our hillsides, farmlands and open spaces; enhance Ventura's historic and cultural resources; respect our diverse neighborhoods; reinvest in older areas of our community; and make great places by insisting on the highest standards of quality in architecture, landscaping and urban design."

Nobody said it was going to be easy. And last Monday night brought out the old “too hot” and “too cold” reactions. The City Council debated a proposed project on the eastern edge of the city that included 50 two-story detached homes along with “accessory units” that would be built over the garages of nine of those homes. Although the project has been “in the pipeline” for nearly five years, members of the Council challenged the narrow width of many of the lots (just 35 feet wide), the value of the small neighborhood green space and whether some single-story homes should be required on the periphery of the project, immediately next to the neighbors living in single-story mobile homes. In the end, the Council voted 5-1 to postpone final approval for a month with instructions to the developer to increase the minimum lot width to 40 feet.

The “too cold” side immediately weighed in with fiery comments from one community activist posted on the Star’s web site. She charged “the builders lots were under 3,000 feet, with yard space so small that it was questionable that it could accommodate even one tree.” She went on to tag Councilmembers with derogatory nicknames and sneer at the “math-challenged City Council” going along “with what appeared to be irregularities” and only changing the minimum lot width.

The “too hot” viewpoint was just as vocal. Another commenter argued that “the 11th hour decision to block the development was a completely capricious decision,” insisting “the i's had been dotted and the t's had been crossed and it was time to move forward.”

So which is it? Was the Council derelict in not making greater changes to a deeply flawed project? Or was it reckless in making a last minute change in a project that had been recommended by the Planning Commission after five years of public process?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But what is missing in the “too hot” or “too cold” versions of reality is the Council effort to find a balance that is “just right.”

The Council had many options. It could have rubber stamped the project as submitted. It could have sent it back to the Planning and Design Review Committee for months of additional hearings and changes. It could have tried to design the project itself.

The Council considered all these options and in the end, by a 5-1 vote, chose to impose a single change and ask the developer to adjust his plans and bring them back directly to the Council. That angers both the “too hot” and “too cold” camps. But what the Council did may be what the majority of Ventura residents would have done, if faced with that tough decision. Just about everybody wants to see new quality housing built in our community. That’s what the Council tried to accomplish on Monday night and the extra month it will take to achieve that goal may turn out to be time and effort well spent.

We asked for it

Last month, Mayor Carl Morehouse headlined a "State of the City" lunch sponsored by the Ventura Chamber of Commerce. He outlined the City's budget realities and asked for input (see "What Price Art" posting below.)

In addition to suggesting their own budget priorities, attendees were encouraged to make their own comments. Boy, did we get an earful! While many were supportive of Ventura's direction, there were also plenty of complaints:

"Get a grip on over-blown public employee benefits which out pace those in private sector. Treat the city like a business, not as a bottomless pit."

"Contract our City Fire and Police services to County."

"Our city officials keep telling us how difficult it is to budget, given our limited resources, yet the city stifles growth, wants to close down Victoria to prevent Wal-Mart, stands in the way of development and does not utilize our natural resources to increase revenue."

"We need to get rid of the bureaucracy preventing good projects from being developed, like Anastazi Dev’s project on Harbor/Seaward."

"There seems to be overabundance of bike lanes and bike lanes not used."

Of course, we asked for these comments and Chambers of Commerce are seldom overjoyed with their local city governments. By nature, businesspeople tend to be more hostile to regulation and more supportive of new development than voters. But many in the audience were also residents and I think we'd get a lot of similar feedback no matter what the audience.

So let me share some thoughts on each of these comments, recognizing as Mark Twain observed: "It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races."

Employee benefits: Yes, public sector pensions and benefits are generally more generous than the private sector, in some cases much more generous. There is no question that the private sector has trimmed pension and benefit costs and I understand the expectation that we will follow suit. Yet we are in a competitive labor market. Our most generous pension plan, for example, is for police officers. Given the stresses of that line of work, Ventura still has a hard time attracting top quality recruits (over the past five years, we've lost 30 officers who've transferred to other departments, often for higher compensation.) Our Police Department could, of course, settle for less. But we've found that if you do, there are offsetting costs: higher worker's comp claims, higher exposure to lawsuits and lesser performance.

Which brings us to the suggestion that we contract with the County for Fire and Police. We actively explored doing that for Fire, although I'm not sure how popular that would be with the community. We found it would cost a minimum of 25% more a year -- at least $4 million more. Why? County Fire spends much more per capita than we do. They deploy four firefighters for every three we do. Their crews average half the amount of calls. They invest much more heavily in new stations and equipment. So rather than a bargain, going to the County means paying premium prices.

And what about Walmart? Next to religion, few topics in America are more likely to evoke emotion instead of reasoned discussion. Ventura, by the way, has not turned away Walmart. It is absolutely true that we are asking Walmart to divert from its standard one-story box with a sea of parking in front. Our 2005 General Plan forbids that kind of development from continuing to add traffic to Victoria Avenue. But Walmart has signed a lease to take over the existing K-Mart store and can move in whenever they submit an application to change the signage. Of course, we are encouraging them to build a new store -- like the ones they've built in seven other California communities -- that fits better into its surroundings.

And what about the famous Ventura planning bureaucracy? Yes, it takes quite a while to building housing projects in town. And that's frustrating -- unless, of course, you happen to be one of the numerous vocal neighbors who object to a particular development. Then you have the opposite view -- that developers control City Hall and development is running rampant. If we all agreed on what is historic, if we all agreed on what heights were reasonable, if we all agreed on whether affordable housing belongs in my neighborhood or should be built instead in yours -- then things would go smoother and quicker. We are working hard to establish plans that clear up our rules and processes. You can be part of helping reach consensus. Check out our Smart Growth page on the City's website:

http://www.cityofventura.net/cd

Finally, what about those bike lanes? Are they just a silly waste of space? Or are they routes to a healthier way of living that makes getting around on bikes safer and more convenient? Too soon to tell. But the rising costs of gas and increasing rates of obesity suggest that our almost total reliance on cars has its problems also. I think the jury is still out, but they are a relatively inexpensive experiment.

I doubt whether the anonymous folks making their comments will see mine -- or would be convinced. But I hope everyone understands that it is easy to sit back and complain than to roll up your sleeves and work to improve things. Democracy is not perfect. But if we reflect on what a great city we live in and how many things we can be proud of in our town, maybe we wouldn't be so quick to seize on the shortcomings.

What price art?

Last week, Mayor Carl Morehouse headlined the Chamber of Commerce’s annual “State of the City” lunch, focusing on the City's budget realities and challenges. As part of his presentation, the Mayor distributed a breakdown of our General Fund budget by the Strategic Visions in our General Plan. Lunch attendees were asked to apply their own ideas for how to prioritize spending. Remembering that this was a Chamber of Commerce audience, the results were intriguing. When all the results were tallied and averaged, here is the breakdown of the share of the General Fund budget we currently devote to each area and the proportionate share the Chamber members suggested:

Our Natural Community (protecting our environment):

• Current City share: 1%
• Chamber member's suggested share: 1.43%

Our Prosperous Community (promoting business activity and economic development):

• Current City share: 1%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 3.45%

Our Well-Planned & Designed Community (managing growth and development)

• Current City share: 5%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 4.22%

Our Accessible Community (Transportation and mobility)

• Current City share: 5%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 4.79%

Our Sustainable Infrastructure (City buildings, facilities, storm drains etc.)

• Current City share: 3%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 3.51%

Our Active Community (park maintenance and recreation activities)

• Current City share 9%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 7.46%

Our Healthy & Safe Community (Police, Fire and medical emergency response)

• Current City share: 52%
• Chamber members' suggested share 49.19%

Our Educated Community (Support to County Library and adult education classes)

• Current City share: 1%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 4.35%

Our Creative Community (Support for museums, arts and historic sites)

• Current City share: 1%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 1.38%

Our Involved Community (Supporting public participation in local government)

• Current City share: 1%
• Chamber members' suggested share: 1.06%

Our Accountable Government (all other government support services and operations)

• Current city share: 21%
• Chamber members suggested share: 19.11%

Amazingly, for a group that has consistently faulted the City for spending too much on art and too little on public safety, their members opted to spend even more money on art than the City and less than we do on safety.

Of course, a key question is not just where our money is spent, but how. There are a couple of pieces of public art that rankle many people in the community, especially the award-winning but locally unpopular "Bus House" behind the Pacific View Mall. Why, many residents and businesspeople ask, would we spend money on such a "useless" extravagence when we don't have enough funding for Police and Fire?

People's tastes differ and I won't defend that particular choice. But Mayor Morehouse explained that almost all our public art projects, including Bus Home, are funded from completely different sources than the General Fund which supports all our Police and Fire expenditures. We might have spent our transportation money differently by not allocating 2% to the project budget to public art when that bus center was built, but it would still be transportation funding and by law can't be spent to hire police officers and firefighters.

So what do we spend 1% of our General Fund budget on that goes under the "Creative City" catagory? Well, we have several historic sites (Olivas Adobe and the Albinger Archeological Museum) that are maintained by the City (and staffed by volunteers.) The City has a small competitive grant program aimed at local music, dance, theater, visual arts and other cultural institutions to help extend their programs to wider audiences. The Recreation department has numerous arts classes, particularly for kids at a time when arts have been cut way back in public schools (and these classes are paid for by participant fees.) The City also sponsors many community events like the thrice-annual Art Walk that bring thousands of visitors Downtown.

Some say all these things are nice, but until public safety is completely funded and all our streets are paved, these are "frills" that we can afford to do without.

Is culture and art worth spending 1% of our budget dollars on? Are these efforts "frills" -- or a wise investment in future economic development?

Arts advocates point to studies (including one done here in Ventura) that count up the number of jobs generated by art and cultural activity, the amount of direct dollars pumped into the economy from those activities and the indirect benefits they generate (visitors to art events who eat dinner before they play or stay overnight to attend Artwalk, etc.)

But in an economy our size, while every little bit helps, that is hardly a significant factor statistically. The real connection between arts and prosperity is less tangible, but even more fundamental.

Quite simply, we all recognize the increasing global homogenization that best selling author Thomas Friedman describes in his book, “The Earth is Flat.” Where national borders, time zones and distance are shrinking in importance, paradoxically, the importance of distinctiveness is growing. If I can get more or less the same white blouse for my wife at the local mall, on-line, at a downtown boutique or from a big box warehouse, it is hard for retailers to squeeze a premium price out of that transaction. They have got to offer buyers either a distinctive white blouse or a distinctive buying experience. If they don't I can pick one up at Target or go online for the lowest price I can find on the Net -- delivered to my door in a couple of days.

The same paradox applies to communities. The more mobility people have for living, shopping or doing business, the harder it is for any place to keep its high value jobs, its highly educated residents or its higher end retail sales.

So what does a community do? Particularly a community like Ventura that starts from a position of relative strength? Few people realize that Ventura already gets more than its share of sales tax dollars, with the County's second highest per capita sales, only slightly behind the more affluent Thousand Oaks. As hard as our retailers work to stay ahead of the competition, we are constantly under pressure to keep sales here. The same goes for our high value jobs.

Is arts the ticket? Is that what sets us apart? Will that provide a distinctive edge? All by itself, no. But as part of a larger strategy, one or two percent for the arts is a remarkably cheap bet -- and the pay-off has great odds. All by itself, a small investment in arts and culture, it won’t leverage huge gains in direct jobs and revenue. But as part of under highlighting Ventura’s Downtown, our identity, our image and our pride . . . art is like the spice in soup. If you didn't have enough potatoes for your stew, you wouldn't economize by skipping the salt and pepper.
Spice alone won’t fill you up or sustain you . . . but it sure makes for a far more interesting and delicious meal.

So maybe it’s time to stop worrying about whether we are spending too much on art and focus on how we find additional resources and avenues for solving our other challenges.