Ventura City Council Meeting
October 10, 2011
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
Fire Chief Kevin Rennie likened the city's latest grant acquisition to something like hitting the lottery. The SAFER Grant (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) has awarded the city – thanks to the proactive effort on the part of Chief Rennie and his staff – the entire amount requested, $2.4 million for two years with the city’s commitment to fund a third-year. This award funds the reopening of Fire Station #4. The facts in the case proved to be an outrageously compelling story to the grant reviewers. They found that Ventura Fire is providing service in 2011 with 1974 staffing levels [1974; 63 personnel; 2000 calls; 50,000 population] vs. [2010; 63 personnel; 11,500 calls; 100,000 population] and yet incredibly enough, it remains to be seen whether or not this City Council will accept.
Mayor Fulton brought the meeting to order with a call of the role – all present. Council Member Andrews was asked to lead in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse mentioned the event on Saturday – the Ventura Museum’s celebration of Chicano influence in Southern California – followed by traditional Chicano music. It was also mentioned that this week marks the beginning of Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Council Member Andrews mentioned Mental Illness Awareness Week which is being observed nationally. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill is very active in Ventura. This Saturday night will be the Black and White Ball at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center. The St. Vincent De Paul Society is the beneficiary which helps with the winter warming shelter in our area. $50 per person will be the entry fee. On the 22nd the Kinetics Sculpture Race will be held at the Ventura Harbor. Turning Point Foundation helps the mentally ill, and relies on public support for events such as this. There is no cost or admission. The race begins at around 10 a.m. and is over by 4 p.m. For those who attended the Scottish Highland Games, the councilman praised the turnout – always the second weekend in October.
Council Member Brennan reminded citizens of our Community Emergency Response Training going for the next six Wednesdays, covering fire safety, light search and rescue, along with such things as terrorism and homeland defense – giving the public the skills necessary to assist our professionals during times of serious fire, flood and other human disasters.
Council Member Weir said that the Women’s Right to Vote in California will be observed by holding a special event at the Museum of Ventura County on October 23rd from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. with presentations and exhibits explaining women’s rights and the 100 anniversary of this event. The councilwoman said that openings exist on advisory committee positions. The city clerk’s office is open to help anyone interested in serving.
Council Member Monahan mentioned the 6th Annual Reception to Support Veterans at the Spanish Hills Country Club at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 16th where special guest of honor Michael [Arrive on Vacation, Leave on Probation] Bradbury along with Veterans Affairs Undersecretary Lawrence Gonzalez will help kick off the following day’s golf tournament. Also a workshop at City Hall for people having businesses or property on Ventura Avenue – sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce – will discuss the Avenue Redevelopment Plan. The League of California Cities Conference was well attended, recognizing past presidents and their achievements. Councilman Monahan attended several sessions, one being the parliamentary procedure seminar, saying that an issue at council meetings could be passed with only one vote as was done in the city of Bell. Parking was an issue brought up at the meeting, discussing parking of RVs and large trucks. The Tri-County’s chapter of the League of Cities held a luncheon, with Mr. Morehouse leading the session and keeping order.
The mayor discussed the weekend opening of the Seaside Highland Games, or the Scottish Games if you prefer, along it being Yom Kippur also. Adjournment was to be requested in memory of Edith Kahn, Jerome Schwartz and Louie Camarillo.
Regional Boards Commissions and Committees – Council Member Morehouse as Ventura-Ojai-Santa Paula Representative for the 47th Regional Council District of SCAG, said the rollout of the Regional Transportation Plan handled discussions on population with its distribution demands on infrastructure, noting that bridges and roads hold infrastructure dangers for the general population in the future. The economic health of the region is at stake, according to the councilman. “We’re watching our state crumble beneath us,” or so it was said. The high-speed rail issue was chided “by some of us” who called the “experiment” a “silly little strip” somewhere out in the Central Valley where it “doesn’t make much sense.” Attention was also directed toward “Go-San, the route from San Diego to San Luis Obispo, which includes us here, where a “better route” could be found for moving people.
[Comment] A better route for moving people? Like by “adapting” the 19th Century infrastructure built by T. C. (Big Scam) Durant’s Union Pacific perhaps? which is of course the only way America could ever afford such a luxury. Have any of your politician friends who are “really thinking about this” ever thought about a real high speed rail line using real high speed rails? You know your “silly little strip” somewhere out in the Central Valley where it “doesn’t make much sense” could be placed down the center of Interstate 5 “as an experiment,” nearly matching the distance from London to Brussels (232 mi.) while moving people from Bakersfield to Modesto, or thereabouts, in a like amount of time (1 hr, 43 min). This is probably out of the question, though – too expensive to be sure, even as an experiment here in poor little America. In case no one has looked lately, France and Great Britain have graduated beyond the experimental stage, and have been “moving people” along the ground at 200 mph going on two decades now. So … tennis, anyone? [Ed.]
Council Member Weir as liaison to the Visitors and Convention Bureau announced a new map called Vine-Tura, a self-directed tour of Ventura’s wineries – tasting rooms and wine shops. A a new application on the Web called “tomb finder” is helping people to locate specific graves in cemeteries all over the world. With 16 tenants in our Incubator, the creators of this app would, in fact, be one of them.
Council Member Andrews as Liaison to the Regional Defense Partnership at the naval base, reported that the naval base will be demobilizing one of its Seabee Construction Battalions in the near future. Additional jobs and work for those laid off are being sought. 550 jobs have been lost as a result.
The mayor, as the city’s representative to the County Transportation Commission, reported that at the monthly meeting of the VCTC and the administrative meeting of VCTC and VCOG there was a discussion of the possible merger of both bodies, with the respective boards being in favor. The County CEO and the city managers are seeking consensus on some structure, which would then be brought before Ventura’s City Council for its consideration.
Public Communications – For matters not on the agenda, the protocol is known as first Monday. The mayor reiterated the ground rules for speaking, with any individual item being limited to 3 minutes. Speakers may address Council for a total of 5 minutes when cards are filled out for more than one item.
Helen Yunker spoke on the escalation of interference by the city on the public’s rights and freedoms. Most problems had been pre-orchestrated, according to the speaker. Citizens are not given sufficient time to discuss issues of interest. It was said that the city’s lobbying of community councils around the city is designed to ferret out code violations. The city was labeled as a land grabber by the speaker based on her own experience with private property in the Pierpont area. Condos now sit on her stolen property. The city has total disregard for law and human rights or so it was said. This is as a result of our greed and power cartels.
Carroll Dean Williams said that the council chambers were dark. It was asked who was the prosecuting attorney for the city when a citation officer brings an issue to court.
Brian Rencher launched into a scathing discussion of City Manager Cole and his recent evaluation by the council from behind closed doors. The city manager needs to show responsiveness and less intrigue behind the scenes, according to the speaker, and the situation must change with an amendment to the City Charter. It was thought that Mr. Cole probably wanted to succeed but now may not have the veracity to hold his own in the position. 750 new housing units that were available before his ascendancy had been eliminated upon his taking the oath. It was said that closing libraries and fire stations along with losing $10 million in Wall Street makes a recall effort necessary and proper. We are getting no fire stations and no libraries, with the speaker calling for a Charter amendment as the only way to bring a competent city manager to the city of Ventura.
Massoud Ahmed lives near the Ralphs Center in housing that was built about 2 years ago, near (or just in front of) Promontory Point – a building designed for 72 condominium units, with the developer now petitioning the city for permission to expand the project – a 130% increase – to 162 units. The speaker expressed concern and dismay over the sudden switch which could not have been forecast before having purchased his home, and is not happy with the prospects for additional traffic and the potential for crime. It was the speaker’s desire to have clarification on the issue.
The Planning Commission gave conceptual approval for that project last week, according to the mayor, and the issue has not yet come before the council. The mayor did acknowledge that this has raised concerns among many of the neighbors.
Patti Thomas spoke on the library issue. The Education Code documents that had been requested by the speaker online could not be located by the city clerk’s office, and was asking for clarification by the city attorney on whether or not city libraries in charter cities, as described under Education Code Section 18963 Chapter 2, are governed by this. The Wright Library was operated as a city-county joint library, without the city being part of the county system in total. AB 438, if that were to pass and he signed by the governor, this rule would not apply to Ventura as a charter city, according to the speaker. From Public CEO Lance Howell it was written on November 22nd 2010, that “Fulton and staff members met with LSSI representatives who said they could develop a preliminary proposal to reopen the Wright Library and maintain services.” Those discussions have not surpassed the initial talks stage, according to the speaker, and Council should invite LSSI move things along, at least as may be applicable to the Wright Library. Direct the committee to reopen those talks and have LSSI produce a proposal to reopen Wright and maintain services, said the speaker.
The mayor stated in response that a Library Strategic Planning Meeting is forthcoming in the Topping Room on this coming Wednesday, and that Governor Brown has signed AB 438.
Laura Gullafson, a longtime resident of the city, said that the city should consider reopening the H.P. Wright Library, which serves 70,000 people in the east end. This includes eight schools and other facilities depended upon by citizens. It was said that The library could be open five days a week from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. – 20 hours per week. A graph from the county assessor’s office, reminding the city that property taxes support libraries and that our property taxes are at their highest levels over the last 2 years. Ventura County Library Services, directed by Jackie Griffin, has said that Wright was closed due to a lack of money. Director Griffin came in to head the county system in 2006 with Moorpark withdrawing in 2007 electing to have a private city library management system. When Moorpark withdrew in 2007, Ms. Griffin spent the remaining and unaccounted for money on new hires, a new and expensive automatic check-out system instead of refunding this money to the city of Moorpark. The real reason for the shortage of money was due in part to highly paid administrators and a lack of oversight in the Moorpark affair, not the cost of running Wright Library. The Ventura City Library Commission had been tasked to streamline the system and keep Ventura’s libraries open – Foster and Wright – on reduced hours, not to close. It was Fulton and Griffin, according to the speaker, who chose the last option on the list and close Wright. Citizens have been all but closed out of public meetings and hearings, the speaker said, many of which have taken place at 8:00 a.m., eliminating teachers and working people with children.
The speaker recalled an evening meeting at the Foster Library in a tiny conference room capable of serving only about 6 people. Overflow attendance was the rule in all of the library commission meetings, according to the speaker. Jackie Griffin has exhorted the public to attend commission meetings and be heard. The speaker said that it always sounded good but has never produced the desired result. Much of the information given out was just plain wrong also. The speaker quoted Mayor Fulton as having said, “The city just can’t subsidize the libraries as it has in the past.” The speaker rejoined this by saying that the city has never subsidized the libraries on a regular basis.
Council Member Andrews asked if it were true that in the last ten years of property tax revenue for the county has increased about 80 percent, and if so, is it possible that library operating costs have increased by that same amount – 80 percent – other than with respect to personnel. The speaker said that this didn’t fall specifically within her area of expertise. At one point the speaker said that the city was funding rental units to house 3 library staff members. One was a public relations person, according to the speaker, and these rental units for housing were costing the system a minimum of $200,000 per year.
The councilman went further saying that with respect to Wright Library, it was wondered what the council should be asked to do if Council should elect to not reopen Wright. The original lease has been known as a 50-year lease at $1.00 per year. The lease then should be renegotiated to keep Wright open for at least 20 hours per week.
Greg Webster said that as a generational Webster family member, his great, great grandfather is buried in Cemetery Park. The speaker wished to have the council authorize a monetary reward for the return of missing headstones. The speaker thought that the Tomb Finder program would be beneficial to the city residents. And markers placed on every known grave, with or without families requesting them, should be the new rule, according to the speaker. A cemetery, according to state law, must be fenced in and a fence should be erected around Cemetery Park.
Steve Schlader spoke, noting that he, as the initiator of the Cemetery Park Restoration Program, mentioned the looming “status quo” which will occur with the upcoming citywide election cycle, to wit: Cheryl Heitmann hasn’t a year of residency within the city, along with the likely reelection of Christy Weir and Carl Morehouse. The speaker begged to inform Ms. Weir that there is a grave finder program called find%20a%20grave.com already in existence, and can be found on the Internet. If we elect Cheryl Heitmann we will get more of the same as we have had for 12 or more years. A weed abatement tax has been put up. A 911 tax. Self-enforcing code enforcement looms. Sand abatement remains a problem. A library has closed. A flagpole was cut down at the cemetery. The County Grand Jury was defrauded by not being told there were graves under the parking lot. We have a parking meter fiasco. 2380 graves in the Whittier Cemetery have now fallen victim to Ventura’s lead, having created for themselves their own “Dead Man’s Park.” The City of San Diego is now the proud owner of 4000 desecrated Calvary Cemetery graves. Counting all in the City of Ventura, this “status quo” City Council presides over 13,230 desecrated graves, according to the speaker.
Prevent Code Enforcement Abuse, showing: “Prevent return to proactive code enforcement using citizens as unofficial code enforcers.”
Public Safety Should Not be “Self Funding” showing: (1) June 2008 Code Enforcement directed to be “Revenue Neutral” – (2) Priorities were compromised – (3) Revenue now equaled survival [Civilized countries do not allow the people who draft the laws to enforce the laws.]
January 2009, showing: (1) Code Enforcement justified enlarging staff – (“They have identified revenue opportunities.”) – (2) Change from complaint based enforcement to “door to door” – (3) Citizen outrage and uprising interfered with reelection campaign by May 2009 – (4) Created the impetus for Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative
February 2011, showing: (1) Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative given 10 minutes to present two years of work – (2) Recommended grandfathering for all buildings over 30 years of age to ensure safety for the most vulnerable; 75 percent – (3) Staff drafted second unit ordinance that discourages safe housing but optimizes ticketing opportunities
Exposes a Larger Ticket Pool, showing: (1) Required disclosure of setbacks on unrelated structures to be prosecuted – (2) Un-affordable – (3) Discretionary process – (4) Hire safety bar than HUD – (5) Criminalization for failure [Barriers to legalization were not recommended by Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative]
How to Return to Proactive; “Budgeting for Outcomes,” showing: (1) “Establish community-based (example: VIP, community councils) code enforcement by engaging neighbors in identifying and documenting violations” – (2) “Offer rewards for citizens to turn in violators” – (3) “Amnesty then Be Nasty.” [“Impact: Increased citations resulting in additional revenues.”]
Unrestrained Reporting = Unintended Consequences, showing: (1) Vigilante enforcement and retaliation – (2) Political opponents – (3) Quell dissent – (4) Discrimination against poor and minorities to “gentrify” community – (5) Change focus to revenue generation
How Other Cities Prevent Abuse, showing: (1) “If there is a neighborhood dispute over other matters or involving other neighbors please explain. Disputes may be processed through mediation” – (2) “How does the suspected violation impact your neighborhood?” – (3) “The violation must be visible from the public right of way.”
Keep People in Their Homes; Do not Allow Unrelated Complaints or Vigilante Patrols. [“To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave.” – Justice George Sutherland, U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 1921
The mayor entered a round of questions to be answered: “Who is the prosecutor when law enforcement opens a case?” The city attorney replied, saying that there is nothing to prevent a police officer from testifying in court without having a prosecutor present. Also, “How does the fact that we are a charter city affect these education code provisions regarding county library systems” and “Whether or not a charter city, what is the effect of the newly signed AB 438?” [requiring findings when contracting out public library systems to private entities]
Mr. Calonne replied that he is not in a position to answer those questions. It was suggested that Council might direct the city attorney’s office to address the question in more specific detail.
CONSENT//FORMAL ITEMS – Consent Agenda Item No. 1; Minutes of meetings: Sept. 19 and 26. It was moved and seconded that the minutes be approved. The mayor asked for a roll call to be taken: Brennan, yes; Weir, yes; Morehouse, yes; Andrews, yes; Monahan, yes (19) abstain (26); Tracy, yes; Mayor Fulton, yes (19) abstain (26).
Agenda Item No. 2 [Back] - Agenda Item No. 2 – California Public Employees' Retirement System Contract Amendment. City Manager Cole introduced the item, saying that [in waiving the second reading and adopting the ordinance] this is to formally make changes that had been approved by Council, with this being a public hearing as well. The previously entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes the firefighters association and fire management positions in the phasing in of 4½ percent increased contributions to the employer share of the pension costs borne by the city. The Fire Management Association already contributes 100 percent of the employee share.
Brian Rencher spoke indicating support for Staff’s recommendation.
Deputy Mayor Tracy moved acceptance of the staff recommendation. With a second having been obtained, a roll call vote was taken: Brennan, yes; Weir, no; Morehouse, yes; Andrews, no; Monahan, yes; Tracy, yes; Mayor Fulton, yes.
Agenda Item No. 3 [Back] - Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Acceptance Grant. Fire Chief Kevin Rennie along with Jay Panzica and Assistant Fire Chief Don McPherson opened the staff report. It was said that being awarded a grant of this nature helps put firefighters into the field and protect the community.
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response [SAFER], showing: “Awarded by the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]”
Purpose of SAFER, showing: “The goal of any SAFER grant is to enhance the ability of grantees to attain and maintain 24-hr. staffing and to ensure that their communities have adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards.”
How Did We Get Here? [Fire Department Staffing Reductions] showing: (1) 2009; Elimination of Administrative Assistant Chief – (2) 2009; Elimination of Medic Engine 10 and the elimination of three positions [Captain, Engineer and Firefighter/Medic] – (3) 2010; Elimination of a Fire Prevention Inspector – (4) 2010; Closure of Fire Station #4 and the elimination of 9 positions [3 captains, 3 engineers, 3 firefighter/medics [17 % Reduction in emergency responders over the past three years. We are now providing service to a community now 50% larger with 1974 staffing levels]
Our Assignment Following FY 2010/11 Reductions, showing: (1) Evaluate staffing models – (2) Identify funding sources – (3) Actively seek grant funding
Evaluate Staffing Models, showing: “While nearly every fire department in the State of California operates on the 24/7 fire station based delivery model, the City of Ventura has experimented with other ways to deliver the fire/rescue services.”
Why is the 56-hour Work Week the Fire Service Standard? Showing: (1) 3 shifts of 56-hour firefighters covers 168 hours/week [24/7] – (2) 3 shifts of 40-hour firefighters covers 120 hours/week – (3) A 40-hour work week pays the same base salary, only the hourly rate changes – (4) A fire station operating 24/7 can be staffed by 9 firefighters on a “56” while the same station operating on a 24/7 would require 12-1/3 firefighters working a “40”
Staffing Model A, 40-hour Engines, 1 or 2 [Pro], showing: (1) Lower-cost of operation than 24/7 station – (2) Flexible hour staffing – (3) Increases coverage for training
Staffing Model A, 40-hour Engines, 1 or 2 [Con], showing: (1) Does not meet Grant intent or request – (2) Higher cost of operation for hours of service [40 or 80] – (3) 10% shift differential pay – (4) Labor-intensive and high-risk incidents typically occur at night – (5) Reduced mutual aid support – (6) Leaves service coverage gaps in East Ventura and other geographic area(s)
Staffing Model B, 40-hour Engines, 3 [Pro], showing: (1) Meets the intent of the grant – (2) Flexible hour staffing – (3) Increases coverage for training – (4) Can be scaled back if not financially sustainable the end of the grant
Staffing Model B, 40-hour Engines, 3 [Con], showing: (1) Expensive; Costs more than a fully staffed fire station – (2) 48 hours less coverage weekly than fully staffed fire station – (3) Does not meet grant request – (4) Over spends grant allowance by $300,000 per year – (5) May have to purchase additional engine at $600,000 – (6) Reduced mutual aid support
Staffing Model C, Increase Staffing on 3 Current Fire Engines [Pro], showing: (1) Meets the intent of the grant – (2) Increased firefighter safety – (3) Supports NFPA 1710 – (4) Supports some performance measures – (5) Increases service to three fire station districts
Staffing Model C, Increase Staffing on 3 Current Fire Engines [Con], showing: (1) Does not meet grant request to reopen Station #4 – (2) Does not improve response times – (3) Does not improve East Ventura service – (4) Does not support all performance measures – (5) Reduced mutual aid support
Staffing Model D, 56-hour Shifts (2) at Station #4 “BROWN-OUT” [Pro], showing: (1) Less expensive than a fully staffed 24/7 fire station – (2) Supports some performance measures
Staffing Model D, 56-hour Shifts (2) at Station #4 “BROWN-OUT” [Con], showing: (1) Does not meet the grant intent or request – (2) No coverage one-third of the time [112 versus 168 hours] – (3) Does not support all performance measures – (4) Reduced mutual aid support – (5) Leaves service coverage gaps in East Ventura and other geographic area(s)
Staffing Model E, 56-hour Shifts (3) at Station #4 [Pro], Showing: (1) In compliance with grant intent and request (2) Supports all performance measures – (3) Restores 24/7 service area around Station #4 – (4) Supports mutual aid
Staffing Model E, 56-hour Shifts (3) at Station #4 [Con], Showing: (1) Requires hiring, training and outfitting 9 new firefighters in short timeframe – (2) No assurance it will be financially sustainable after term of grant
Calls for Service, FY 2010-11, showing: “All Calls for Service,” and “Calls for Service in 6-hour Blocks” [A series of citywide maps was shown to graphically illustrate the Engine workload during a typical 24-hour period.]
Fire Station #4 Closure, Impact to Response Time, showing: “While citywide we are arriving emergencies in under 5 minutes 51% of the time, Sector 4 arrivals have dropped 16%. NFPA Standard and the Department Performance Measure is to arrive in under 5 minutes 90% of the time.”
How Did We Actively Seek Grant Funding, showing: “In support of the city’s Grant Active direction, the fire department obtained approval from the city manager to apply for the SAFER Grant.”
The SAFER Grant Application, showing: (1) $2.4 million was requested – (2) The grant application outlined our recent staffing reductions with the request to fund 9 full-time positions to reopen Fire Station #4 – (3) The facts proved to be a compelling story to the grant reviewers. They found the Fire Department is providing service in 2011 with 1974 staffing levels. [1974; 63 personnel; 2000 calls; 50,000 population] [2010; 63 personnel; 11,500 calls; 100,000 population]
What Did the Grand Award, showing: “The grant awarded the entire amount requested, $2.4 million for two years with the city’s commitment to fund a third-year. This award funds the reopening of Fire Station #4.”
The SAFER Grant, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, showing: (1) Submitted application in September 2010 – (2) City was notified by Congresswoman Lois Capps’ office in August 2011 that we were awarded the grant (3) Grant effective November 2011 – (4) Grant pays for salaries and benefits for 9 firefighters for two years [$2.4 million] – (5) City is required to continue the salaries and benefits for one additional year [$1.2 million]
What Happens in 3 Years, showing: (1) The fire department will continue to evaluate staffing models and seek ongoing funding options. Economic recovery may be able to support necessary funding – (2) If sufficient funding is not available, the full closure of a fire station, or one of the previously discussed partial staffing models, may need to be implemented – (3) Staffing reductions, if necessary, would be managed through attrition
Fire Chief’s Recommendation, Accept the SAFER Grant, showing: (1) Improve response times per national standards – (2) Restore equivalent emergency services in East Ventura – (3 Provide for citizen and firefighter safety – (4) Support Department Performance Measures – (5) Support mutual aid commitment to regional partner agencies – (6) Support Fire Facility and Equipment Master Plan (7) We are on track to open Station #4 in January 2012
City Manager Cole said that a compelling grant application and having it yield a successful result is a proud achievement. A balanced budget was in place at the time of the grant application along with a declining economy was the reality, but the outlook was for one that was slowly recovering, as well. A better picture was expected for the following year. The last four months, however, has seen a darkening of the prospects for normal recovery for this nation and other countries around the world. Without knowing what the state’s budget for current fiscal year would yield, nonetheless, receipt of an unexpected $173,000 in police grants, offset by $385,000 in vehicle license fund reductions, has resulted in a net loss of $212,000 after the adoption of Council’s balanced budget. At your last meeting you approved a 459,000 bridge loan, allowing us to meet our redevelopment obligations. It was said that ”We will have the money to repay that to the city” if the state doesn’t again appropriate city funds in excess of the level previously agreed to. With their being no guarantees, according to the city manager, the risk remains for the loan being beyond the capacity of the redevelopment agency to repay.
Another unbudgeted $50,000 to $75,000 falls upon the city as it conducts elections this November, due to the fact that the school board district will not be participating, and therefore normal cost-sharing efficiencies will not be felt. There is, however, a $0.5 million contingency fund the city maintains for situations just such as this, and with the ups and downs of doing citywide business over the course of a year, we are forced to cross our fingers and move on. This year could be different, however, according to the city manager due to gloomy economic recovery prospects. “It is increasingly hard to imagine how we would squeeze $400,000 out of this year’s budget in order to set aside one-third,” Mr. Cole said, and yet we don’t actually need $395,000 this year since the staffing of additional firefighters won’t occur until next year. “It’s a grimmer picture that we face today,” and yet an additional $400,000 is “not an un-climbable mountain,” or so it was said, having already experienced cutting by one-third our fire department administration costs. “I would like to be able to tell you tonight that we can afford a third year of $1.2 million,” said the city manager, but tapping into an additional $400,000 is not as easy as it once was. “The default option is to tap our reserves.”
Council Communications – Deputy Mayor Tracy wondered how we would fund this operation. The analysis not being in the report was a drawback, said Mr. Tracy. It means that something else will have to be curtailed in our city in order to fund safety for our citizens. There are things that could happen but before committing to this type of funding obligation, we need a plan. We could approve this and then figure out where the money will come from, but this is not advance planning, or so it was said.
Saying that discussions have taken place with the city manager, Mr. Rennie nevertheless has made his position clear, which is and always has been that as the Fire Chief responsible, this is a city that needs seven fire stations – not five.
Jay Panzica was asked whether or not we have forecasted this year. We don’t receive all the data or information until next month, making it difficult to forecast, was the reply. Our city had a drop-off in revenue at the end of the year, as did many cities. At best the national economy will be going up one or two percent, with California advancing even less. The city manager may not see a bright spot of any kind in revenue. The deputy mayor asked what our real liability would be in terms of this grant.
Mr. Cole said that we’ve asked that question, saying also that this is a good faith agreement. Other cities have used waivers.
Staff said that the grant requires us to maintain positions that we have. Should we lose position we would have to enter into full disclosure and that we would be committing to the full-term of the agreement. In response to the deputy mayor with his question on the liability issue, staff said upon default the city could be asked to pay back all of the grant funds that had been received by the city.
Council Member Monahan concurred with the deputy mayor’s issues and concerns. Some things that have been said at candidate’s forums should be cleared up, including the idea that volunteers could be working with our regular firefighters, and why, in the councilman’s opinion, this does not work. Chief Rennie replied that having heard these discussions also, volunteer firefighters generally are found serving in communities that are of a different type than ours. To bring on even one volunteer corpsman, the staff member would enter as a “firefighter/paramedic,” which requires extensive knowledge of lifesaving skills. This would be problematic for both the city and the applicant, and so to think of increasing to either 4 or 6 in this manner is almost out of the question. Looking at large numbers of volunteers and then seeing that they are operating at the lower end of the organization – not at the engineer or captain level – typically occurs when the agency has the wherewithal to fund 4 firefighters per engine, according to Mr. Rennie. There was a time when Ventura had this type of service, but has now dwindled. It was the fire chief’s feeling that we should first adequately staff our city’s fire department, and then begin to discuss the possibility of volunteerism.
Mr. Monahan continued by asking if there was the possibility of restoring our own city’s emergency response system. Mr. Rennie responded by saying, “Unfortunately there is a bill now that is precluding anyone from changing their form of EMS,” using 1982 as the cutoff period. As an example, if you were providing medical transport prior to 1982, you are able to grandfather the function in to your system. It was also noted that the private EMS transport companies are quite happy with this arrangement. The chief said also that this is affecting the entire California fire service.
Council Member Morehouse wished to explore further the “federal funds that are distributed on a disbursement basis through DHS.” It was wondered whether or not we are even “guaranteed” this kind of money from the federal government. The chief responded by saying that after having contacted other agencies who have landed similar grants, no case was found where the grants had failed to perform. It was said that this is one of the easier grants to administer.
Mr. Morehouse continued by asking to explain the paradox of why the staffing of 9 personnel would be cheaper than one of the options which do not actually fill the bill. Chief Rennie explained that the 40-hour assignment is actually at a higher rate, meaning that the salary remains the same for either 40 or 56 hours weekly, but that the hourly figure when spread over longer time results in a lower figure. Also when working outside the 40-hour workweek, there is a mandated 10 percent “assignment” increment. The other factor that came into play when submitting the application data took into account the lower salaries of the new hires would be required.
Jay Panzica mentioned in response to another question from the councilman, that a conversation had taken place with the owners of the casino, and that the establishment “is doing better than expected.” It was said that he city manager was correct in estimating a yearly $100,000 increment, with the problem being that this amount has already been built into the budget as a projection. The mayor reminded Mr. Morehouse that Staples, BevMo and Trader Joe’s would be generating nice sales tax revenue, but a previous council authorized the return of 85 percent of that income to the mall operation, leaving the city with only 15 percent.
Council Member Weir asked whether or not the qualifying conditions enumerated in the grant application were in fact geared toward the reopening of Fire Station #4. The chief responded, saying that there were other models that could have been developed, but that this effort is akin to “hitting the lottery.” It was explained that unless you have a compelling story, the chances of success are diminished greatly. It was said that “We chose to focus on the 9 personnel it would take to fill that hole.” It was also said that in speaking with the grant administrator, there are several phases to the application, including questions of palatability to “folks like you.”
The councilwoman also questioned the types of service calls and the vast number of such calls that would tend to originate in the downtown area. The chief responded that any high density area where there are nightclubs and high-density type living spaces, there will be an above average number of calls for response. Rest homes and care facilities also generate higher volume. “Funding for this ongoing expense,” cited from page four of the staff report, was described by the councilwoman as “scary.” As a city council, the issue of ongoing expenses always raises the question of how they will be paid for, as in, “What other service is going to have to be cut in order to pay for this?” It was not thought that it would be possible to assume the necessary payment solution. Mr. Cole responded with what had been stated earlier concerning the possibility of attrition or other staff reduction methods for the future. The Councilwoman seemed to be insisting upon an advance budget worksheet “of some type” that would further solidify plans for funding downstream.
The city manager referred again to his comments on funding for the next three years, which was to spread the expense in $400,000 increments, or one-third of the expense per year, through the three-year period. It was said this amount in increments would not have a cataclysmic effect on any one yearly budget. It was explained earlier, said Mr. Cole, that in managing a city we typically live with unexpected gains and also liabilities year over year, and that first with one time savings and then ongoing savings, Covering a liability of $400,000 would not seem un-doable. The question yet to be dealt with was “What happens in the fourth year?” which depends largely, according to Mr. Cole, on what happens to economy. It was said that over the past 3 years economists have been overly optimistic over the prospects for economic recovery, and that “perhaps” they are overly pessimistic concerning prospects for the coming 3 years. Mr. Cole said that he does not possess a reliable crystal ball that goes out four years, and he “would not bet” that we will be able to keep Station #4 open in year four. In year four it is most likely that we will be looking at the “brownout” situation and other austerity measures already worked through back in 2010. It was said that this city at one time received $94 million worth of revenue per year, and that with those kinds of numbers the situation before us would not be a problem.
Council Member Weir persisted in asking for a plan which would show funding for the first three years. Mr. Cole was forced to explain again, when asked if revenue would be available to support “new hires,” that some money would become available through attrition as we may expect retirements to occur within the same time frame.
Council Member Andrews asked Mr. Rennie that when just speaking to the issue of the public concerns such as the reduction in response times, is the reopening of Station #4 the best option in the interest of safety for achieving those outcomes. Mr. Rennie responded by saying that he would not be bringing the issue before the council had this not been the case. It was asked further that would this not have been the “compelling reason” for having framed the grant in this way, and isn’t this the reason for having pursued the grant? Fire Chief Rennie had a one-word answer: “Yes.”
Public Communications – Frank Martinez said that he represented one of the 11,500 calls that had been made, apparently as a survivor of “sudden death syndrome.” With a 5 percent survival rate through such a condition, the speaker said that the right conditions must be present before ”miracles” can take place. In relating the story it was said that paramedics arrived within three minutes, using the defibrillator on him for the next eight minutes during the hospital trip. Mr. Martinez indicated that he would not have wished to be attended to by a volunteer – “These people were professionals” and their professionalism was in evidence every step of the way. The point was made that had he lived out of that area, the additional time needed to reach him would have meant the difference between life and death.
Doug Mizer spoke as a resident and firefighter, saying that this is an amazing opportunity. Even with medic-engines 10 and 4, it was said that “we are 32% off our goal,” in arriving in less than five minutes, and 22% off in response to structure fires. It was said that “We are responding to calls in less than five minutes only 51 percent of the time.” The speaker felt that his job was being compromised by economic collapse which you [Council] are not responsible for. And yet you [Council] have the opportunity to take this “blessing” and help take us back to the level at which we know we can perform. The speaker reminded his audience that This is as much about the safety of firefighters as it is for the citizens. With a backup that is only 5 deep, “It is absolutely imperative,” said the speaker, “that we have backup coming in.” It was asked of the council to “please accept this grant.”
Council Member Morehouse had a question – How would Mr. Mizer as a firefighter handle the funding for what council members have begun calling “the third year out?”Mr. Mizer claimed that to answer would mean “speaking out of step,” but as a worst-case scenario, “this would come out of reserves.” This could mean more years of stories such as the one just heard, according to the speaker.
Brian “Give ‘Em Hell” Rencher spoke to the issue, saying that it would be a “big yes” to Staff’s recommendations A, B and C, also saying that it would be a no-brainer to accept this SAFER Grant if we weren’t forced to deal with mayors and council members who hadn’t, over many years and over multiple projects, “stuck it to us with their gambling problems.”
Cheryl Heitmann said that what the fire department has done is phenomenal in going out and seeking this money, which is exactly what we’ll all be needing to do in the future. It was said that while more hard data on finding would be desirable, that if sitting in Council’s shoes, the speaker would make the decision to go forward and accept the grant. This could mean three years of life saving service and an opportunity which should not be lost.
Council Communications – Deputy Mayor Tracy wished to follow up on a comment by the city manager, saying that somewhere down the road there might be a reconsideration by the community on something like a sales tax. Noting that just as there will be impacts over the reduction of police services over the past year or two, there will be similar impacts over the reduction in our emergency response capabilities. Mr. Tracy made the motion that Council should endorse the grant without formally accepting it outright this evening. It was requested that staff, through City Manager Cole, forward specific funding sources to counterbalance the three installments of $400,000 each, within two weeks for further consideration by the council. The motion was seconded.
Council Member Andrews said in speaking to the motion wished to be informed of the impact of a potential delay in acting on the measure. Chief Rennie replied that the logistics of getting 9 personnel ready involves out-of-state searches (out of the country in some cases) plus training in the Academy puts the depment in a tight statistical race. The money from the grant is received quarterly, equating to the fact that the city wouldn’t be receiving funds until at least three months down the road. Funds are received from the date that the grant is accepted, with the potential for two payments that could be claimed during this quarter.Staff noted that the award date is November 6, essentially a “hard date.”
Council Member Monahan requested information concerning the city’s utility tax, asking how much in utility taxes are collected yearly. Some cities, it was said, dedicate all utility taxes toward public safety, making it a predictable number. It was desired to know if arrangements could be made for following suit, thus helping to place a prediction on the funds available for the grant obligation in the third year out, for example. Mr. Panzica noted that the utility users tax is more than adequate to fund this one obligation, but to divert those funds means leaving open one or more obligations elsewhere in the general fund.
Council Member Morehouse spoke to the motion with clarification, noting that if the hard date is November 6, it would seem that we would have time to research allocation sources for this funding and still remain within the expected timeframe as long as Staff is able to research the request within a restricted time frame of only two weeks.
City Manager Cole said that if the information were available within two weeks it would be before Council this evening. The city has just completed an exercise which has resulted in a reduction of $15 million in budgetary expenditures, so if $400,000 in savings could be brought before Council in two weeks, which the city manager said he would do if the motion passes, the councilman might well expect a variety of voices being raised in opposition, both in this chamber and in the public forum. A way was sought instead to avoid that kind of “body blow” impact to the system, according to the city manager, saying further that he doesn’t have any “magic tricks.” A list of reduction options may easily be brought forward but not without some push back.
Council Member Weir said that these days it is our job to choose between pain options, indicating therefore, that she would support the motion requesting listed options from the staff for supporting the financial viability of accepting the SAFER grant money.
Council Member Andrews indicated support for the motion in a time extension, thinking that the problem exists because of mistakes made in the past, emphasizing his displeasure with the recent public compensation and pension negotiations just completed. It was the councilman’s contention that public employee financing is the issue that is driving “all of our problems here.”
[Comment] A councilman can always throw his pet peeve at a problem and sit back with a Cheshire grin on his face, reveling in the thought that he’s just rubbed everyone else’s nose in it. The question must be asked, however, “Is the councilman smarter than a 5th grader?” because it was said in this very session that he’ll have a long wait ahead of him before he’ll see volunteer firefighters and policemen on the streets of Ventura. And of course it’s volunteerism that the councilman wants, because by his own admission he is absolutely averse to seeing anyone being paid a living wage or earning a comfortable retirement – even if that person should one day happen to save his life in any way similar to the testimony given by one public speaker in the councilman’s very presence this evening. This man has no place in public office sitting in judgment of others. Period. And the same can be said of a certain councilwoman as well. [Ed.]
The mayor asked for a roll call vote on whether or not to waive the first reading and public hearing on the SAFER Grant and return with an adoption measure in two weeks – Brennan: yes; Weir: yes; Morehouse: yes; Andrews: yes; Monahan: yes; Tracy: yes; Mayor Fulton: yes.
The mayor called for a 10-minute intermission in the council proceedings.
Agenda Item No. 4 [Back] - Investing in Ventura's Infrastructure. Rick Raives opened Council’s second workshop on ways to improve the city’s infrastructure. On August 1st we began the discussion, and with a changing economic landscape we must acknowledge the possibility of a prolonged recovery.
Council Direction, showing: (1) Game Changing Projects – (1.1) California St./Hwy 101 N/B offramp capping of the freeway – (1.2) 505 Poli bldg behind City Hall – (1.3) Olivas Park Drive extension and levee – (1.4) Multimodal transportation center – (1.5) Grant Park Botanical Gardens – (1.6) Westside Community Pool – (1.7) Ventura Community Park completion – (1.8) Olivas Links clubhouse
Other Visionary Projects, showing: (1) High-speed fiber optic network – (2) Upgrading streets, trees and medians – (3) Acquire state beaches – (4) Others
City Infrastructure Needs, showing: (1) 279 Capital projects [$863 million] – (1.1) 15% Funded [$13.3 million] – (1.2) 85% Unfunded [$730 million]
Streets and Parks Infrastructure Needs, showing: Graphical representation of funded vs. unfunded amounts (in millions) split between Streets and Parks as assessed over the next 10 years. The Streets program will require $65 million, $28 million of which is unfunded. The Parks program will require $46 million, $43 million of which is unfunded.
Facilities and Drainage Needs, showing: Graphical representation of funded vs. unfunded amounts (in millions) split between Facilities and Drainage as assessed over the next 10 years. The Facilities program will require $41 million, $32 million of which is unfunded. The Drainage program will require $31.5 million, $31 million of which is unfunded.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs, showing: Graphical representation of funded vs. unfunded amounts (in millions) split between Water and Wastewater as assessed over the next 10 years. The Water program will require $154 million, $124 million of which is unfunded. The Wastewater program will require $103 million, $42.4 million of which is unfunded.
Funding Options, showing: (1) Do nothing – (1.1) Downward spiral of disinvestment – (2) Cut operations and services – (2.1) Previous budgeting efforts addressed this already – (3) Pursue grants – (3.1) Current high priority – (4) Public/private partnerships – (4.1) Require the “right” project
Funding Options (cont’d), showing: (1) Utilize redevelopment agencies – (1.1) Current legislation may eliminate – (2) State and federal funding – (2.1) State of California not in a position – (2.2) Federal funding available through grants – (3) Outside financing – (3.1) New tax or loan
Funding Options (cont’d), showing: (1) Revenue based – (1.1) General obligation bonds – (1.2) Development impact fees – (1.3) Utility bonds – (1.4) New taxes
Funding Options (cont’d), showing: (1) Lease based – (1.1) Issued by the General Fund – (1.2) Based on an assignment of real estate – (1.3) Parks, PD/FD building, City Hall, Corporate yards
Recommended Approach, showing: (1) Address deferred maintenance – (2) Include “game changing” projects – (3) Ventura’s 150th Anniversary
Council Member Monahan mentioned the San Francisco Conference, where one of the items dealt with space for communications towers, where it is discovered that there is a good business in leasing or selling land to these telecommunications companies, and Staff seemed to be in agreement.
Council Member Weir mentioned parcel taxes, and police pensions. Do we know of parcel taxes for infrastructure, such as street paving, in other areas of the county, was the question. Mr. Pazica responded, saying that if the city wanted to use parcel taxes for raising revenue, it could easily be placed on a ballot and put before the voters. The Councilwoman stated that our city does not have generalized parcel taxes, whereas most of our neighboring cities do. Downtown parking structures were mentioned by Ms. Weir as having the potential for inclusion in public/private partnership arrangements. She went on to ask Jay Panzica about the Job Investment fund as a way to use the building behind City Hall (505 Poli) as a way to lure tenants toward the Incubator program. Mr. Panzica indicated that with about $3 million remaining, the city does not at present have the authority to use the money without reopening a contract.
City Manager Cole made it clear that to expand floor space in that building would trigger the sprinkler requirement ordinance, which would require substantial investment.
In response to Council Member Brennan’s inquiry into deferred maintenance issues, Staff said that in water/wastewater there are priorities and that they could be “picked off” at the top of the list as we already are in our Capital Program with the money that is available. Street paving was used as another example, wherein another $3 million per year is needed just to keep up with street maintenance needs.
The councilman used the opportunity to mention the impact that our infrastructure has on tourism, noting in particular the corridor from downtown into the Pier/Promenade area lends itself toward focusing on the 150th year anniversary. It was thought that in many cases Band-Aids have been applied recently in the attempt to use limited funds wisely, and yet it is no secret that the ground floor of that parking structure will probably not be developed for at least 7 more years. The boardwalk idea could be resurrected with coffee carts available to visitors, making in a rather easily facelifted space, according to the councilman. Concern was also expressed over the California Coastal Commission issue along the beach at Surfers Point where we will be losing the palm trees, and that issues such these will be “waking people up.” It was said that these are areas which cost money initially, but can also be focused in ways that make money for the city.
Council Member Andrews said that he was “skeptical of the fiber optic high-speed network” as a citywide project. Specific areas might benefit if, as intended, such a network were to prove itself as a magnet for businesses. Repairing and upgrading all the streets in the city and comparing that to our economic life, along with the coastline issue with the state, the councilman said, “No way should we touch that.” Of the three major focal points seen, it was thought that the deferred maintenance issue should top the list based on the financial consequences of letting them slide. Any “game changing” projects should be not only self-financing, to the extent that this is possible, but prioritized based on their ability to generate revenue. It was thought that the Olivas Park Drive extension would be the most “game changing” of any project on Staff’s list. The councilman also expressed favor for the idea of a Performing Arts center in Ventura, and that we could find private investment and cooperation as a way of backing the idea financially. The councilman said he was “shocked” that the capping of the freeway project was not listed, and wishing to promote a far grander vision for the Cap than has heretofore been proposed, extending from the Avenue exit on the west all the way to San Jon Way on the east.Council Member Morehouse looked to a prioritization of the issues surrounding deferred maintenance, seeking Staff’s concurrence with the idea that subsurface infrastructure could be the most impactful. Mr. Raives tended to agree, saying that water and wastewater failures underground are able to erase gains made in maintaining surface structures. Other scenarios could be built around critical failure models as well, and a list could be compiled based on priorities. It was mentioned again that we are the only county without augmented funding such as a ½ cent sales tax, and the councilman wished to hear additional response from the staff. The city’s CFO, Mr. Panzika, estimated revenues at between $4 million and $7 million per year.
Mr. Morehouse inquired into Staff’s estimation of the “game changing” project that could produce the earliest return either in the form of savings or additional revenue. Mr. Raives mentioned several of the items that had been brought up during discussion – the Olivas Extension already in progress; the freeway capping which is an increasingly popular idea; the Promenade as pointed to by Mr. Brennan, but possibly not upgraded to the level that might be desired.
Mr. Panzica added that part of the federal budget balancing strategy is to take away cities’ tax-exempt status. Jay said that our issuers in the past few months have been concerned enough that when they issue bond debt, they have been recently including additional amounts as part of their official statement. This will change the answer on how much the city will be able to borrow. Community Memorial has already seen this which is what drove them before Council to hammer out the hospital’s tax-exempt status.
Council Member Morehouse echoed what been said about the League of California Cities and its attempts to educate on issues such as how to do civic engagement. Methods need to be found for reaching the public’s sensibilities on the issue of taxes and their essential nature on preserving our lands, cities and infrastructure.Deputy Mayor Tracy also weighed in on the issue of deferred maintenance, saying we “can’t overstate the need for that.” Maintaining the beach as a tourist destination would rise high on the list, or so it was said, while agreeing that we cannot replace every street in the city with new ones, and while this might please the average citizen it would be a much harder sell to propose $(X)-billion to construct a roof over the freeway.
Council Member Monahan thought that there was already $5 million set-aside for the Focus Area 1 project (Olivas extension). A Traffic Mitigation Fee fund currently holds $11 million for that project, according to Staff. The councilman also expressed partiality toward the construction of a performing arts center, favoring its location in the vicinity of the Ortega Adobe, making it almost the westernmost improved structure within the city and a virtual stone’s throw from the Ventura River. It was said that the location with its proximity to the Patagonia complex would somehow attract visitors from the North (Santa Barbara was mentioned), along with the further suggestion that the Ortega site would somehow enhance its “tourist destination” bona fides by tossing historical interest into the mix.
[Comment] If Council should wish to begin preoccupying itself with siting the ephemeral “Civic Arts Center” in Ventura, let us hope that committee chairmanships do not go out to those who helped choose the location for the WAV Market Rate Condos and BMR housing project, which also shares proximity with the landmark structures mentioned by the councilman. It wouldn’t seem that anyone involved in that decision would immediately jump to favoring the location just mentioned – hard up against the river and with parking an impossibility. Were it so, however, this would not bode well for the idea that the human is the only animal on Earth capable of learning from his mistakes. [Ed.]
Mayor Fulton commented on “game changer” – The best way to keep highlighting deferred maintenance is to “keep talking about it,” pointing out to the community that the city is not currently spending any General Fund money on maintaining anything in the way of capital projects. It was the mayor’s considered opinion that the one game changer the city should focus upon would be Focus Area 1-Olivas Park Drive. We should also support botanical gardens as a “game changer.” [Not a capital project, however.] The freeway cap also appeared to be pulling its weight with the mayor, noting that Caltrans needs to step up and become proactive in an issue that is finding greater acceptance throughout California. The mayor said he would work “beyond his term of office” to see that fiber optic networking becomes a reality for our city.
It was decided to “flip” the remaining two items on the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6 [Back] - Aesthetic and Safety Enhancements to the Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle - Status of Cooperative Agreement and Franchise Renewal. Rick Raives was to lead the staff report. Staff has been working with Union Pacific Railroad to find a way to maintain the Pacific Highway-101 Railroad trestle overpass.
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) Three “Pronged” Approach – (1.1) Add deterrents – (1.2) Repaint bridge – (1.3) Enhanced enforcement
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) City responsibility – (1.1) Security – (1.2) Graffiti abatement – (1.3) Paint material – (1.4) “Nu-Gard” deterrent
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) UPRR responsibility – (1.1) $90,000 to paint – (1.2) $20,000 for deterrents – (1.3) Safety “flaggers” 6 times per year – (1.4) 50% fee increase to franchise
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) Caltrans responsibility – (1.1) Labor to paint – (1.2) Traffic control – (1.3) Security
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) Issues – (1.1) Liability – (1.2) Costs – (1.3) Legal
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) Progress on negotiations – (1.1) Less “NuGard” deterrents – (1.2) City’s police powers language – (1.3) Less city liability on safety flaggers – (1.4) 2 additional “free” safety flaggers
Union Pacific will not accept any liability on the deterrents. The possibility of installing fewer deterrents could translate into less liability for the city. On the police powers issue, both parties have agreed to remain essentially neutral. On the flaggers issue UPRR has agreed to accept liability on gross negligence or criminal misconduct on the part of its employees. This does not include general negligence, however. They also wish to maintain the 50 year maintenance agreement, which would then match the franchise.
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) Costs – (1.1) One time – (1.1.1) Paint, cameras, streetlights and fencing – (1.1.2) $40,000 net – (1.2) Ongoing – (1.2.1) Graffiti abatement, flaggers, cameras [deterrent maintenance] – (1.2.2) Up to $50,000
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) Alternatives – (1.1) Reject the agreement and appoint a city council ad hoc committee to re-open negotiations – (1.2) Approve the terms of the agreement subject to specific amendments that might or might not be acceptable to UPRR – (1.3) Reject the agreement and pursue a nuisance abatement action through Code Enforcement
Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle (cont’d), showing: (1) Recommendation: Approve the terms of a draft agreement with Union Pacific Railroad [UPRR] to accept responsibility for abating graffiti on the Highway 101 Railroad Trestle in exchange for their funding a repainting of the trestle by Caltrans and additional funding for graffiti prevention measures as well as an increased annual franchise repayment and direct Staff to return with a final agreement for ratification.
Council Member Morehouse asked whether or not the cameras are vandal-proof, and are they high-definition. Staff replied that they are fairly expensive – $40,000 for four of them, and no, they are not vandal-proof, was the answer. Vandals typically take measures to prevent self-identification, so with that, some of the high-def characteristics are essentially lost.
Public Communications – Tim Hansen said that he heard council laud the importance of keeping our city beautiful for our visitors and passersby, also noting that Public Works typically removes graffiti from private property. It was questioned as to why UPRR deserves any different treatment. Previous councils apparently did not feel restricted by OSHA regulations, EIRs or color compatibility, but simply saw to it that routine maintenance was performed. The speaker said that perhaps Gene Dunn could be persuaded to turn his city mindedness toward this project area. Alternatively perhaps Ken Couzzens would lead his City Corps volunteers with 1000 cans of spray paint and let them solve the problem. Failing this, the city could simply tackle the problem and paint this eyesore, according to the speaker.
Marie Laiken said that the gateway to Ventura’s downtown is inextricably intertwined with a railroad overpass which was constructed in 1959. It has not been painted since. It was suggested that with this degree of neglect in city maintenance, citizens may be justified in their suspicions over the lack of credibility in government. The speaker claimed to have been involved in meetings with Union Pacific, Caltrans and other agencies, wishing to acknowledge the good-faith efforts of all who are involved. It was said that the railroad fears establishing a precedent for future liabilities as well as simply not wanting to accede to the demands of outside agencies. It was the speaker’s opinion that Union Pacific is a large and powerful corporation, and that it may not be within the city’s ability to extract from them everything that it wants. Again the idea of a public/private partnership was advanced. It was asked of the council to approve that which has been brought to the table, and “Please do not prove to our citizens that government does not work for them.”
Dave Armstrong said that ultimately the issue comes down to one of liability. It was also reported that the Chamber of Commerce had moved its arts event venue out of the city and into the Harbor area in order to save $6000 they were paying extra just to cover liability. “We can become so risk averse, that we could be driving business out of this town,” was the speaker’s assertion. On behalf of the Downtown Ventura Partners Association, the speaker urged Council to approve proposal.Cheryl Heitmann urged proposal adoption, agreeing with a previous speaker who said that this is probably the best compromise the city is likely to obtain.
Jim Luchon noted the importance of having a welcoming gateway into the city, along with respecting the sensitivities of hundreds of hotel guests who are subjected to the unsightly nature of this all too prominent landmark in our downtown area. The speaker expressed support for adopting the proposal.
Bill Harton said that this is a bad agreement, arguing that the city owns the right-of-way and that the city should be handling the problem in-house.
Carroll Dean Williams said that Carl Morehouse called Union Pacific a big bully. It was said that Oxnard conducted a sting operation that caught trespassers and it was the speakers feeling that the trestle overpass should not present Ventura law enforcement with a serious vandalism problem. Police need to step up the pressure realizing that once the trestle is painted it will be graffitied again. There is now available a high-tech anti-graffiti paint that will render graffiti invisible, according to the speaker, and the best news is that it only comes in silver.
Council Member Weir said that “This deal is way better than no deal.” It was the councilwoman’s desire to see the overpass painted, and so moved that Staff’s recommendation be approved. A second was obtained.Deputy Mayor Tracy asked of either the city attorney or Ms. Mendoza to clarify and enumerate upon the issue of city liability. The city attorney wished to respond to a few public comments, saying that the city is not driving up the cost of business via an obnoxious stance on liability. It is instead Union Pacific that is asking the city to become its insurer, essentially saying “You provide the insurance and pay us to take it out,” or words to that effect. This is the position we are being put in.
Rebecca Mendoza said that we are being asked to indemnify the railroad for any general negligence. In reply to Mr. Tracy’s question, Staff replied that we are agreeing to accept liability for Union Pacific Railroad workers and any injury that may come to them during the normal course of maintenance on their own railroad property, as well as any mishap that may occur as a result of installing or maintaining the “NuGard” devices. Injuries sustained to taggers seemed less of a problem due to the fact that such an individual would be committing an illegal act. It was also said that the city is not currently involved in any sort of indemnification issue with the railroad.
The deputy mayor also mentioned that the city is involved on a rather regular basis certain liability issues such as slip and falls, saying further that these can amount to anywhere between $50,000 and $100,000 yearly. Mr. Tracy noted that the $50,000 the city is being asked to pay is being applied to a structure that the city has no responsibility for. Furthermore it was his feeling that visitors proceeding past the overpass toward their destination at the Promenade or pier are likely to be more turned off by the lack of maintenance in that area than what may have been only a fleeting glimpse of the railroad trestle. Private property owners could see the issue as discriminatory should they need to defend themselves against citations for not removing graffiti on their own property, and for these reasons the deputy mayor would decline to support the motion.
Ms. Mendoza spoke to the private property owners’ liability issue raised by the deputy mayor, saying that there is a great distinction between private owners and the railroad. The railroad comes under statutes and regulations at the federal level that have limited impact on the city, but that the rest of the city comes under our control directly. Mr. Tracy in saying that the city is maintaining someone else’s property wasn’t particularly persuaded by the argument for or against a local property owner, and that this doesn’t change his view.Council Member Morehouse said they he was also dissatisfied with the terms of this agreement on its previous iteration before Council, noting that previous councils committed the city to certain agreements involving Pacific View Mall over which we now have some regret. The councilman said that in taking the public’s will at its word in desiring to see a resolution to the problem, he would ask for forgiveness by future councils and go ahead with support for the motion.
Council Member Andrews expressed concerns for a comprehensive agreement; one concern remains with the franchise issue. Fifty years seemed a long time to lock down a fee the benefit of which the city has not obtained in full or fair measure in exchange for granting its valuable right-of-way. It was not thought that future councils should be locked down on a “paltry adjustment” of this fee. The councilman claimed to be in sympathy with the public will, but in expressing other serious reservations, indicated non-support for the motion.
Council Member Monahan asked whether it were possible for the city to pay the structure without permission or interaction with the railroad. Staff replied that the problem exists with the railroad requiring one or more flagmen on scene while anyone is performing maintenance on their equipment, and it is that flagman’s vulnerability which is at the heart of the indemnification issue. The councilman wished to have clarification as to whether or not the city’s own liability package would suffice in place of a separate agreement with a single entity, in this case being the railroad.
City Manager Cole said that the city does not carry clauses in its self-insurance package for each and every street, building or piece of property that it owns. Our insurance would handle this instance as it would any other claim against the city. The councilman persisted by asking whether or not a tagger falling from the structure and being killed would substantially alter the city’s liability based on what we as a council decide in the issue at hand. Mr. Cole pointed to an earlier question which was answered by Rebecca when she said that vandals being injured in the process of breaking the law would not affect normal criminal statutes, and that the city’s liability would be low-to-nonexistent in this instance. Mr. Cole made the point that from the railroad’s point of view, where they are saying that under all legal maintenance procedures the city or its agents may be out there on their bridge, and they must be insured. In further elaboration, the comparison was made to the city’s position in handling special events – carnivals and the like – where the amusement company is allowed onto to city property, but only with their own insurance, thus holding the city harmless should someone fall from a Ferris wheel.
The city attorney reentered conversation saying that the “NuGard” is a new product and that this is the new untested property element that the city being faced with. It was said that much of what is happening is not that unheard-of or speculative, but that what is being discussed is in the interest of full disclosure to the council.
Council Member Brennan felt that this project will not cost us an awful lot of money compared to the other projects under consideration, and yet with the public’s concern over the matter the councilman felt that it was something we need to deal with, indicating his begrudging support for the motion.
The mayor asked for a roll call vote on the measure: Brennan, yes; Weir, yes; Morehouse, yes; Andrews, no; Monahan, yes; Tracy, no, Mayor Fulton, yes. The measure passed 5 – 2.
Agenda Item No. 5 [Back] - Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Update. Mary Joyce Sievers and Rick Raives raised stepped forward for the presentation, saying that Staff was prepared to discuss the $1 million stimulus grant money that has been received as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment program [U.S. Department of Energy].
Renewable Energy and Conservation Programs Update. It was said that the city is able to save $1.7 million as our efforts to continue to reduce greenhouse gases continues. Part of the effect has been to cut 12 million kilowatt hours, the equivalent of powering 1100 homes and reducing the equivalent of 3500 tons in greenhouse gases. In May 2009 and application was submitted for participation in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with the city having been awarded $1 million along with a $0.5 million low-interest CEC loan, the fruits of which will generate $128,000 – to $228,000 in direct savings to the city.
City of Ventura Annual Electricity Costs, showing: A chart revealed the city’s expenditure for electricity in the year 2010 amounted to $4.4 million. The Ventura Water Department comes in at ½ that figure at $2.2 million. The department consumes 50 percent of the city’s electricity. Second-highest is Streetlights and Signals at 31% – Facilities at 10% – Parks at 6% – Other 3%
City of Ventura Energy Conservation Milestones, showing: A chart representing 20 years of energy distribution. In 1994 Ventura Water/Wastewater implemented cogeneration power systems along with pump efficiency improvements which has saved over $800,000 annually. In 2003 a joint power agreement with the Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance has helped provide training opportunities along with rebates and incentives – monies which have helped implement a photovoltaic system at the city maintenance yard, generating over $25,000 worth of savings each year. In 2007 a green initiative has reduced our energy usage by 5%. ARRA money has permitted the Solar Power Purchase agreement for City Hall power generation to go forward, which is a 443 kW photovoltaic system.
Celebrate Current Successes, showing: (1) Ventura is currently a Silver Level Southern California Edison Partner – (2) Reduced greenhouse gases by 14% in three years – (3) Saved over $1.7 million in energy costs – (4) Reduced 2.8 million kilowatt hours – (5) $1.5 million in federal stimulus [ARRA]
The criteria for participating in the program is that the organization must be a nonprofit operating in the City of Ventura. They must be a utility subscriber with an average monthly bill of $200 or more.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Modeling Project, showing: (1) Innovative, community focused decision-making modeling tool – (1.1) Evaluate costs/benefits of efficiency measures – (2) Help city make informed decisions – (3) Seat funding for energy efficiency projects – (4) Evaluate neighborhood level emissions – (4.1) Transportation, residential energy use, etc.
City-wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory, showing: Total annual emissions for 2009 were equal to 825,000 metric tons. The greatest contributing source is in the transportation sector [61%] – The next largest is residential [17%] – Commercial [7%] – Industrial [7%]
AB 32 [Global Warming Solutions Act] Reduce CO2 Emission to 1990 Levels, showing: Chart illustrated the growth of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. A graphic projection indicated 925,000 metric tons of emissions by 2020, a growth of 242,00 MT. It was shown that the use of low carbon density fuels along with the reduction of transportation miles would return usage to within 10 percent of the goal.
Community Partners, showing: Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance has since 2003 supported the city’s energy efficiency efforts utilizing the REAs expertise. The city has completed over 20 energy projects with their help, saving over $260,000 per year.
Future Opportunities, showing: (1) Renewable energy [solar and wind] – (2) Solar thermal pool heating (3) Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles – (4) Energy efficient water and wastewater – (5) Support community efforts
In response to a question by Council Member Morehouse, Staff said that we have collected a lot of the information necessary for the development of a Climate Action Plan – at least 70 percent – with the remaining portion using this data to create the necessary steps along with the identification of potential funding sources.
In response to a question by Council Member Brennan, Staff replied that LED lighting is very directional, which is becoming more widely used at street intersections where lighting from other sources helps to illuminate backgrounds and areas where the LEDs alone might not illuminate the entire scene.
Public Communications – Bill Harten said that Harbor Boulevard next to the pier is dark and with a very poor lighting system in place. The speaker said that bushes have overgrown the sidewalk, and that there is no other way to access the pier. The freeway onramp at the bridge overcrossing is also dimly lit, or so it was said.
With no further business to discuss, the mayor adjourned the meeting in the memory of Edith Kahn, Joe Schwartz and Louie Camarillo.