Who pays?

After hearing from four speakers in favor, five against and one calling for more study, the City Council tonight approved by a 6-1 vote a new fee on business, residential and cell phones.

The "Emergency Communications Fee" was first proposed on December 10th. The Council asked for alternative revenue sources to fund additional police officers and fire fighters.

At the time, the Council selected the option of a monthly fee of $1.75 to recover the annual cost of providing a 24 hour/7 day a week state-of-the-art emergency dispatch center. This was reported in the Star in three different articles, but generated very little controversy.

This time, however, there was genuine howls of outrage. What changed?

The first time out, Councilmember Andrews spoke for many in the community by saying that while it may be called a "fee" -- the monthly charge looked to him like a tax. Given that the difference is often left up to the courts to decide, the City Attorney recommended including an alternative -- an "opt out" provision if, for example, residents or businesses only used a phone line for fax services. In that case, under the Attorney's suggestion, users could apply in writing to exempt that line -- but in that case, they would pay a "per call" use charge, estimated at $50 per call.

The Star's headline in Saturday's paper made no mention of the monthly charge. Instead, it gave many residents the impression that every time someone used 911 they would have to pay fifty bucks. No wonder there were howls of outrage. No one noticed the monthly fee had actually been adjusted downward from $1.75 to $1.49.

This is not to say that no one objects to a $1.49 a month fee per phone. Somewhere around a third of the voting population of Ventura are highly skeptical of paying more in fees or taxes, for a variety of passionately articulated reasons. Some object on principle to any new taxes by any level of government. Some feel the City's priorities are misplaced. Some feel the City is inefficient.

But clearly the spectre of charging people $50 to call the cops seemed like the height of bureaucracy run amok. Lost in the uproar was that NO ONE WILL EVER BE CHARGED SUCH A FEE unless they requested the opt out alternative in writing in advance.

After a thorough discussion, the Council majority decided that a $1.49 charge per phone line per month was a reasonable way to augment the budget for hiring more police and firefighters. After all, the reason people call 911 is not to have someone to answer the phone -- it is to get emergency response quickly. Phone bills in Ventura will be a little more expensive. And as a result, you can sleep easier that when you call 911, the response will be little quicker. The only way you will ever be charged for calling 911 is if you choose that alternative -- in writing, in advance. If you don't like that alternative, you will never have to worry about it.

Hunkering down -- and continuing our progress

Yesterday, the Federal Reserve stepped in to halt a global sell-off, announcing its biggest rate ever -- and speculation more will come soon. Locally, the LA Times reports today that fourth quarter foreclosures in the Southland are at an all-time high -- more than double the previous record.

Some economists maintain that we are talking ourselves into a recession -- that the fundamental economy remains sound. But the voices of optomism have had to consistently revise their forecasts over the past nine months -- always downward.

The "business cycle" remains a part of our economic way of life, even though people always seem to forget that when the markets are rising and jobs are being added. For 150 years, California real estate has ridden an even more extreme roller coaster. While each boom surpasses the previous one, it often takes a decade to recover from the bust.

Mainstream economists are still predicting only a "mild" recession, with recovery in 2009. But we are in uncharted waters now. Not since 1929 have the global financial markets been so vulnerable.

It is not for lack of money. While the "gross domestic product" of the entire planet is roughly 50 trillion a year, there is another $750 trillion of paper value invested in that core economy. A huge portion of that paper value is in the form of market and credit derivatives and hedges. Cynics label this the global financial casino. In the last decade, it has fueled huge booms across the world -- with an explosion of new skyscapers in Dubai, factories in China and subdivisions in Florida. It has inflated housing prices here in California and carried the US through record energy prices. It has paid the cost of the war in Iraq -- on both sides.

But how stable are these trillions? No nation is capable of regulating the titanic waves of financial transactions across the globe every hour of the day and night. What is panic triggers a sudden dumping of American assets? We like to think this only happens to countries like Argentina, Russia, Indonesia -- and Japan. But we are now the planet's biggest debtor, reliant on countries like Abu Dhabi to prop up our tottering financial giants.

Prudence dictates that we recognize the new risks. California bet the State budget on the boom continuing -- and now finds itself facing a $15 billion gaping hole in next year's budget.

In Ventura, we are moving now to deal with falling revenues. Each department has been asked to hold expenses to 98% of this year's adopted budget. On February 25th, we will be recommending a list of projects to be postponed, cancelled or indefinitely delayed. We are also working on a balanced budget proposal for next year that continues our forward progress, but at a slower pace, redeploys resources from lower to higher priorities and pays for new investments with new sources of revenue.

Those choices will -- or should be -- vigorously debated. On January 25th, we are presenting a revised proposal for adding another six police officers and three firefighters -- and paying for it with a monthly 911 fee on residential and business phone lines. Last year, we were able to add that many sworn public safety staff out of rising property taxes. But with property tax revenues headed in the other direction, adding safety staff can't happen without new revenue.

There are lots of reasons to object to the proposal. One is that voters "turned down" a plan for adding 14 officers and 11 firefighters at the ballot box. True, that plan fell short of the necessary 2/3rds vote to raise taxes -- but 62% voted yes. Should the Council pay attention to the majority who wanted the added investment in their safety -- or the minority who wanted to hold the line on taxes?

Another objection is that a "fee" is really just a tax in disguise. There is some credence to that claim and in fact the courts are sorting that out in other cities with a similar 911 fee. But Ventura's fee will offer an "opt-out" -- if users don't want to pay for access to 911 protection, they would be able to pay instead for each use.

Finally, many Ventura voters insist that needed public safety staffing should come ahead of all other city expenses. But when it comes time to make those hard choices, it turns out that spending on parks, environmental protection and other quality of life services are also highly valued by many other Ventura residents.

On the other hand, keeping Ventura safe will be even more important if tough times are ahead. Adding staff is essential to meet our response goal of arriving on scene to a life threatening emergency within five minutes at least 90% of the time -- to save lives when it counts.

These and other choices facing Ventura deserve intelligent debate, particularly as we all cope with a deteriorating economy. Your comments -- and suggestions -- are welcome!

Victoria plan moves forward

At the end of Monday's lengthy City Council meeting, the City Council unanimously approved the final draft for the Victoria Corridor Plan which will now be subject to environmental review prior to coming back in final form by the end of this year.

The plan, which earlier evoked significant controversy, had widespread support from such disparate groups as the Chamber of Commerce and Livable Ventura. Having scrapped the option of revamping the streets eight lanes to create a more efficient traffic flow, the new plan envisions modest improvements over time to make the corridor more pedestrian- and transit-friendly. The main emphasis is to promote more first class office space to house the "high value, high wage jobs" that is the number one priority in the City's 2005 General Plan.

The headline in the VC Star focused on an aspect that while relatively minor in the scope of the plan, was the subject of the most debate:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/16/ventura-votes-to-limit-wal-marts-size/

The story pointed out that the Council's 6-1 vote to limit any single store to 100,000 total square feet would apply to any retailer, but it is the possibility that Walmart might replace the K-Mart on Victoria that evokes passion on both sides of the issue. The 2005 General Plan clearly called for "eliminating 'big box,' mega block auto-oriented strip developed and the traffic patterns it generates." By breaking large parcels into blocks no bigger than 300' by 300', the proposed Victoria code already limits the coverage of a building, but the 100,000 cap seeks to keep out the 'biggest' of the 'big boxes' on an already congested street.

Of course, Walmart has the option of simply reoccupying the soon-to-be-vacant K-Mart building or conform to the new proposed rules on building design and overall size.

While the plan encourages new commercial office development, a market study indicates that current market demand is modest. It will take active private and public marketing and commitment to encourage the growth of needed new jobs on Ventura's central corridor.

Lone Star Journey

This April will mark my completion of four years as City Manager of Ventura. I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to serve a community that seeks to be a leader in accountability in government, civic engagement of our citizens, smart growth and environmental stewardship.

Recently, because of the success we've had, I was invited to be among seven semi-finalists for the City Manager job in Austin, Texas. I was both honored and intrigued. Austin is the nation's fifteenth largest city and one of the most rapidly growing. Austin's Mayor and Council have set the ambitious goal of making it "the most sustainable and livable city in America."

As I told the Mayor and Council during my interviews, neither being the manager of a major city nor moving to Texas were part of my life plan. I stressed that I was happy with my job in Ventura and would be pleased to return home to it. So why did I go -- since it inevitably raised questions about my commitment to Ventura?

I passionately believe that cities are ground zero for sustainability in the 21st Century. America is finally waking up to the reality that we cannot be economically, environmentally or socially sustainable unless we do a far better job of making cities work. For the past half century, we've operated as if cities could be neglected or even abandoned as we continued to sprawl outward, investing in ever wider highways to speed us to a better life. The staggering costs of this profligacy is now becoming clear: dangerous dependence on foreign energy sources, unaffordable housing, absurd commutes, a debt-laden economy and governments unable to afford the necessary investments in infrastructure to remain competitive in the global economy.

For a city like Austin (in Texas!) to want to lead the way toward a new model for cities is an exciting prospect. I knew that I would learn from -- and possibly contribute to -- their effort by sharing my insights into the challenge.

It was a great learning experience. The process involved sitting down for an hour each with the Mayor and six Councilmembers, meeting the 33 department heads and key staff leaders and presenting a 120 plan for getting started. There was intense press coverage from Austin's six television stations and two newspapers and going through that experience certainly sharpened my game.

I also came away convinced that the Austin Council had made the right choice in selecting two others as finalists -- both assistant city managers in major Texas cities. Sure, my competitive side was disappointed I wasn't picked for the top two, but it was the right outcome for Austin and for me. I never quite got over learning that Austin employs nearly 12,000 people in their city government. One of the important lessons for me is that I am better suited to the job of running a submarine than an aircraft carrier.

It may seem like an odd analogy, but it rings true. One of the most important lessons I've learned over the past four years in Ventura is that our success is almost entirely a result of our people -- and that flows directly from how relentlessly we focus on recruiting, retaining and developing them. The sheer scale of an organization like Austin makes it difficult to treat people as . . . people, not numbers on an organization chart.

I wish Austin every success in achieving their vision and look forward to watching their progress from afar. But what Ventura lacks in national visibility, I think we more than make up in human scale and potential. By creating our own model of livability and sustainability, I think we can leave a legacy not only for future generations who will live here, but be an example that inspires others.