Economic and budget prospects for the year ahead

We are now in the third year of Ventura's successful Three Year Plan to balance our City's General Fund budget. Our goals at the outset were simple, clear and straightforward:

• Eliminate the chronic structural deficit where expenses were rising faster than revenue, opening a widening gap between our commitments and our capacity.
  
• Create additional capacity to address long neglected community priorities:
  
  Address the near-tripling of 911 calls by adding new police and fire staffing
  Invest in our aging infrastructure, particularly streets
  Maintain park maintenance in the face of 33% more greenspace and 25% less staffing Bring salaries and benefits back to competitive levels for all city staff

Strong fiscal discipline and a strong economy achieved the first goal and carried us a long way toward the key priorities of the second goal. We’ve added 10 police officers and firefighters. We’ve invested a half million of annual additional General Fund dollars into street repair and tapped other resources to fund a major infusion of park, building, water, wastewater and other capital projects. We’ve kept competitive on sworn police compensation and made up major ground across other units.

We intend to continue that progress in the year ahead. But the deteriorating economy will make that a tougher challenge. Although we’ve been aided in the last two budgets by strong property tax growth, we are now looking at significantly lower growth in both sales and property tax. Next year, our current projections show expenses again growing faster than revenue, creating a budget gap of approximately $1.8 million. That is a conservative estimate, because it does not include any pay adjustments for 80% of the City's workforce (sworn police officers have a raise coming in the final year of their three-year contract.)

I am confident we can overcome next year’s challenges by:

• Eliminating, reducing or restructuring lower-priority programs and services to free up resources to fund “what matters most.”


• Seeking additional revenue through economic development; shifting a greater share of the cost of services to user fees; and seeking innovative new sources of revenue.
  
• Scaling back or postpone anticipated further commitments to our four key priorities.

What is frankly more problematic than balancing next year’s budget is the reality that the economic downturn may be deeper or longer lasting than currently predicted by mainstream economic opinion. For the last year, optimistic expectations about “a soft landing” for housing and the national economy have consistently had to be revised downward. The falling price of residential real estate, the rising price of oil, the declining dollar, the continuing turmoil in international credit markets all work against a quick recovery. In Sacramento, the looming $10 billion dollar deficit has sparked calls by Republican lawmakers for Governor Schwarzenegger to declare a “fiscal crisis” and call the Legislature into session under emergency powers spelled out in Proposition 58.

That is why it is so important for the community to take the long view. We’ve had success over the last three years by realizing that short-term thinking is not the way to solve long-term challenges. We will have success in the years ahead by keeping our focus on our key priorities – and remaining committed to achieving the Ventura Vision.

Midtown Code: Is there room for differing opinions?

Last night, at 11:30, the City Council voted 6-1 to adopt the proposed Midtown Corridor Code with a number of changes prompted by last week's public hearing. The new code lowers height limits along more than 75% of those two streets. The new code puts in place detailed regulations to improve the design of future development there. You would think that the most vocal critics of what's been approved under the existing zoning would be pleased by the change. You would be wrong.

Today, Camille Harris blasted the Council in vitriolic terms. Here is how her report to members of her group (VCORD) begins:

"Sitting at council last night with hardy VCORD patriots, I wondered how Ventura's City Council and Planning Commission could so callously disregard the obvious community sentiment against tall buildings invading through the corridors of their miniature one story historic village of Midtown, I realized some secret deal must have been made somewhere that we just didn't know about. Read on!"

For another 1300 words she blisters the Council, Planning Commission and City staff, insisting that her organization represents the people and that the newly re-elected members of the Council don't. She compares the Council to the Soviet Politburo and advocates for junking the form of government we've had since 1934 and putting (ironically) more centralized power in the hands of a directly elected mayor.

Camille is a thoughtful, passionate, well-informed and caring citizen. She has put her a huge amount of her own time and money into her cause. She believes fervently that the soul of Ventura is its views of our hillsides and that development along the Midtown corridors will wipe out this unique legacy. She dismisses the new code because it doesn't limit building to 26 feet or less along both corridors until a "view protection ordinance" can be written by a committee appointed by . . . her group.

Unfortunately, she has a consistent tendency to label anyone who doesn't share this viewpoint as not simply misguided -- but greed-driven or corrupt.

Yet, when many Midtown residents drive down the corridors, they see too many seedy motels, vacant lots and marginal businesses amongst the cherished long-time businesses and promising new ones. It was a desire to strengthen these streets with new stores and townhomes that emerged from a series of citizen planning efforts (Ventura Vision, Midtown By Design, Midtown Charette and the 2005 General Plan.) It might seem that reasonable people could disagree about whether it was appropriate to lower existing height limits from six stories to just three or perhaps two.

But for Camille, there is no room for compromise. Over the last six months, her group (along with paid signature gatherers) collected more than 10,000 signatures on an initiative that (if passed) would slap a moratorium on construction over 26 feet in most of the City for up to two years. During that time, a VCORD appointed committee would draft a "view protection ordinance."

Again, it might seem reasonable that other issues might be considered in the mix -- providing affordable housing for our community's workforce, supporting new investment in older neighborhoods and promoting more walkable and sustainable development patterns instead of suburban sprawl onto our hillsides and farmland. But no. For Camille, "views are the cornerstone of a green strategy. They are what makes our neighborhoods healthy, breathable and walkable. Skypaving over Ventura does not jibe with our Green Strategy and it endangers the health of our children!"

I respect her concern about views -- and Camille is hardly alone in caring about them. But some of us who live in Midtown and have children don't share her conviction that we are endangering the health of our kids by supporting replacing vacant lots and tawdry tobacco shops with compatible new homes and businesses. I do wish this talented and tireless community leader would spare a little respect for the views of others. None of us has a monopoly on either wisdom or virtue. But all of us have a shared stake in working together for a better Ventura.

Pay to park?

It's been tried before. Has the time come again for parking meters in Downtown Ventura?

That's the plan adopted by the City Council when it approved the Downtown Specific Plan earlier this year. Last night, UCLA Professor Don Shoup presented his findings on the advantages of paid parking at Ventura City Hall.

Shoup, the author of "The High Cost of Free Parking," has earned renown as "a parking rock star," according to the Wall Street Journal. "Cars are parked 95% of the time, but 95% of the academic research studies when they are moving," he told the Ventura audience last night. As a result of his research into this neglected realm of transportation policy, Shoup says charging for street parking will:

• Reduce wasted vehicle travel, cutting congestion, air pollution, gas consumption and greenhouse gase emissions
• Improve public services by providing new funding for added police protection, streetscape amenities and routine cleaning and maintenance of our Downtown

Shoup advocates pricing at a price high enough to ensure that there is always at least one space open on each side of a block. That eliminates the circling of the block that research shows averages about three minutes per car over the course of the day (eight minutes during peak parking usage.) While that may seem like a small improvement, Shoup's study of Westwood showed that 45% of the cars during peak hour traffic had already arrived and were looking for a convenient place to park. Over the course of a year, that consumed a million miles of excess vehicle travel, which is the distance of four trips to the moon.

Shoup detailed case studies in Redwood City and Pasadena where paid parking strategies have been successfully implemented. Pasadena, for example, now generates more than a million dollars of paid parking revenue per year to fund added public services in their downtown.

Shoup concluded that cities face a choice. Which would you rather have -- a million miles a year of wasted travel or a million dollars a year to improve Downtown?

Neighborhood oasis: green art

Although done by a well-known artist and the recipient of a national award for public art, I've yet to meet a citizen fan of "Bus Home" the sculpture installed at the bus transfer station north of the Pacific View Mall. It often is cited as a prime example of city waste and stupidity. I won't argue. If it is the worst mistake made in the last ten years by Ventura City government, we aren't doing too badly.

On the other hand, it is hard not to be proud of the Pepper Tree Demonstration Garden on the north side of Poli, just east of Ventura High School. On Saturday, local neighbors pitched in with planting native shrubs and groundcover as part of a unique public art improvement to the little oasis.

The lot is the site of a water pump booster station that keeps up water pressure to customers up the hill. Years ago, the surroundings were landscaped to make a small neighborhood pocket park. Years of wear and tear, including by the local high schoolers, have not been entirely kind to the park.

So using part of the 2% public art set aside from the water fund, two "environmental artists" were called in to help. They designed a new entry and a nicer and more environmentally-friendly drainage basin. They collected up the loose boulders and sculpted them into benches under the shade of the graceful oak. And they relandscaped a berm in the middle of the park with local native plants that use very little water, once established.

A modest project. No one will curse it as an eyesore. All too few will notice. But in many ways, this project is much more typical of Ventura's vision of becoming "California's New Art City." The 2005 General Plan sets the goal of "weaving art into everyday life." With the enthusiastic participation of local families, there is no better example than the Pepper Tree Garden.

What does it mean?

Over the weekend, Pa Ventura had this pithy verdict on the recent Council election:

Judging from the ease with which three City Council incumbents were re-elected, the voters must like the way things are being done at City Hall.

Kevin Clerici, the Star's regular Ventura reporter had filed this analysis the day after the election:

Incumbents Christy Weir, Bill Fulton and Mayor Carl Morehouse were the top three vote-getters Tuesday among nine candidates in a largely low-key campaign without a defining wedge issue.

Low turnouts inevitably work to the incumbents' advantage, and in a race without a big issue to excite people to go to the polls, challengers "are pretty much dead in the water," said professor Herb Gooch, chairman of the political science department at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks.

Actually, the turn-out was not as low as assumed. With more voters choosing to cast their ballots by mail, another 1100 ballots dropped off at the polls are still being tallied, boosting final turn-out by about 13% over the record-low four years ago.

But it may also be misleading to assume that incumbents benefit from low turn-outs. The Council race two years ago drew an all-time record turn-out because Governor Schwarzenegger scheduled his special election on the same day. In that race, the three incumbents were also convincingly re-elected. There may be an advantage to incumbency, but it seems to be equally strong whether the turn-out is high or low.

The second factor cited by Clerici ("lack of a defining wedge issue") may be equally dubious. The Chamber-backed candidates mounted attacks on the Victoria Corridor planning effort and City use of consultants. The union-backed candidate came out strongly against Walmart and aligned himself with the core of activists supporting a construction moratorium until they can write a "view" ordinance. But perhaps these "wedge issues" failed to connect because they were overshadowed by a much more potent record of accomplishment.

On the classic scale ("Is Ventura better or worse off today than four years ago?") it is hard to doubt the record:

• A budget brought out of the red into the black while preserving vital services
• A consensus General Plan approved
• The first increase in public safety staffing in 15 years (six additional police and an additional roving fire crew)
• Major investment in repairing streets and upgrading water and wastewater systems
• Continued downtown renaissance with new restaurants, stores and housing
• Improved quality standards for new development
• Regional leadership in environmental stewardship
• Opening of the new Community Park and two smaller neighborhood parks

Ventura has raised its standards. That means that more is expected. But is it possible, as Pa Ventura observed, that Ventura voters were not bored, but satisfied? Is it possible that in re-electing the incumbents, they were voting for change -- because the changes they want are being successfully pursued?

Ventura Votes

Yesterday, Ventura voters returned Mayor Carl Morehouse, Deputy Mayor Christy Weir and Councilmember Bill Fulton to another four years in office. Here are the (unofficial) final results:

CHRISTY WEIR 9,715 20.97%
CARL MOREHOUSE 7785 16.87%
BILL FULTON 7780 16.81%
DOUG HALTER 6,549 14.11%
JERRY D. MARTIN 5,385 11.55%
BRIAN LEE RENCHER 3,482 7.45%
LOU CUNNINGHAM 2,533 5.41%
MIKE GIBSON 1,924 4.11%
CARROLL DEAN WILLIAMS 1,1261 2.63%
WRITE-IN 36 0.08%

C7 was the only measure on the ballot. It was drafted to update our long-standing utility users tax on phones to keep pace with 21st Century technology. It was overwhelmingly approved by the voters:

YES 10,300 63.24%
NO 5,987 36.76%
Total 16,287 100.00%

These are not the final unofficials, but represent a big jump over the morning after vote due to counting late absentees. The few remaining uncounted votes are not expected to alter the results.

Voter turn-out increased by at least 32% over 2003 (the 2005 results were skewed by the statewide special election held the same day.)

The newly re-elected Councilmembers will be sworn in at the first meeting in December. That night the Council will select a new Mayor and Deputy Mayor to serve for the next two years.

E Day

On Monday, staff is presenting to the City Council the results of the Green Initiative Inventory of current practices– and a set of recommended next steps for how we can become models of environmental stewardship.

The strong leadership of the Council gives us a remarkable context, not only to look beyond departmental boundaries, but to build community partnerships for a greener Ventura. Yet as Mayor Carl Morehouse emphasized in his 2007 State of the City, true sustainability is not about stressing the environment over the economy and equity – it is about integrating our concern for the environment into everything we do.

The results of our inventory show we have much to be proud of:

• Ventura nows divert 65% of the waste generated by residents and businesses away from the landfill by recycling, composting and other waste reduction efforts


• Ventura installed solar panels at the City Maintenance Yard, cutting power bills by 45%


• Our waste water plant meets 40% of its energy use through renewable waste gas co-generation


• In the last two years, we've reduced electricity usage by 25% in City facilities, saving money and reducing carbon emissions by 1.2 million pounds per year.


• We've reduced pesticide and herbicide use in city parks to just over one ounce for every ten acres per month


• For additional accomplishments see: http://www.cityofventura.net/GreenVentura/

Now the Council will consider taking major new steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water and energy consumption. See the Council agenda report:

Council Agenda Report on Green Initiative

Take particular note of the "Get Your Green On" action steps at the back of the report (pages 60-70)

In Ventura, sustainability not only includes the environment, economy and equity -- we also add a fourth “E” – engagement. “Sustainability” is not a service we deliver – it is ethic we embrace. Long-term success will come from focusing on the Ventura Vision – a community-driven commitment to sustainability.

Monday marks an important milestone on that journey. The item is scheduled to be heard on Monday night at the regular 7 PM City Council meeting in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Council invites public comment. You may also express your opinions with an email to the City Council:
citycouncil@ci.ventura.ca.us
or by using My Ventura Access.