Ventura Commenter

Ventura City Council Meeting

May 2, 2011

Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street

 

Council Member Carl Morehouse spoke on a subject that was said to be budget related, but that involved the city’s caseload situation – specifically, a lawsuit that may hit the city in terms of water. City Attorney Ariel Calonne responded saying that the council as well as the public needs to be aware of certain facts. The city was sued by a group called Wishtoyo Foundation, Ventura CoastKeeper under citizen enforcement sections of the Clean Water Act. The city's operation wastewater treatment is in violation of state and federal law, according to the plaintiff.

The suit’s objective is to move the city’s wastewater operations out of the Santa Clara River estuary and enhance management of the effluent to include higher reclaimed water production. These projects will have dramatic import on costs and rates which may be called for in the creation of those projects. In the wastewater fund significant rate impacts may come about, according to Mr. Calonne.

To View a listing of the agenda items for this council meeting, go to www.cityofventura.net/meeting/city-council-meeting-47.

Mayor Fulton called the meeting to order with the call of the roll. All council members, the city manager and the city attorney were present. With Colors being presented, Boy Scout Troop 103 along with Scout Master James McBride was asked to lead in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Special Presentations and Announcements – Brooke Neuman, a student at Pierpont Elementary School, read an essay chosen as the winning entry in the monthly contest among all fifth-graders in the VUSD. The theme focused on the character trait, respect. Brooke’s parents, Ric Neuman and Rebecca Tanner along with School Principal Susan Martinez came to the dais. The young essayist said that it is better to make friends, and not enemies. Ways to show respect include sitting up straight and looking at whomever is talking to you. Respect also means treating others the way you would like to treated. Being polite also shows respect said the young essayist. At the conclusion of the essay a plaque was presented to Brooke, along with the key to the city and a pin for her to wear at school.

Employer of the Year and Supervisor of the Year awards had been announced in April, with each of them now being formally awarded. The Employer of the Year award went to Anita Diaz, who heads up the West Park Community Center. Her work with young people in the computer labs is considered to be nonpareil. Anita was awarded a check for $250, who thanked the selection committee while noting that she had been one of nine potential recipients. Parks, Recreation and Community Services was thanked especially along with Supervisor Mario Robinson. Also in April, Carl Valdez was honored in Council Chambers as Supervisor of the Year. Public Works supervision in the Streets and Drainage division means becoming especially involved in potholes and water drainage problems. Carl was also awarded a check for $250. The speaker stated that he feels great humility in being selected Supervisor of the Year.

Closed Session Report – the April 19 closed session involved labor negotiations with firefighters and fire management with no reportable action having been taken. Before this meeting the city council held a closed session with a performance review of the city attorney with no reportable action having been taken.

Council Communications – Council Member Monahan asked that Ray Ellison be remembered at the close of the meeting who had passed away this week.

Deputy Mayor Tracy asked the community to be aware of the posting around town for a threat level that is increasing for burglaries. Burglaries have been active during daytime hours, with perpetrators approaching homes and knocking on doors pretending to be persons that they are not. On April 28 the Soter Point City-Private Partnership dedicated a piece of art at Marina Park in honor of Andrea Soter Simonsen. Holly Simonsen, daughter of Andrea, is planning to climb Mount Kilimanjaro this summer, it was announced. The Boy Scouts Jamboree was held with around 600 scouts in attendance.

Council Member Weir wanted to acknowledge the city’s recreation magazine/flyer that is being distributed throughout the community. BP Foster Library has a reading program for kids during the summer. The kids are being kept active on May 7 with a tennis clinic, which is free, at Camino Real Park. Thanks went out to groups on Saturday who participated in Paint Ventura, Music Week, Botanical Gardens Tour along with the Downtown Rotary and its International Rotary Work Day. The Serra Cross Park was one of the venues, on along with City Corps who helped out at The Cross.

Council Member Monahan spoke as the representative to the museum there was a meeting last week with a particular point of interest being the farm implement and tractor and exhibit to be held on September 24 in Santa Paula. On Sunday the kickoff music event for the season was held at Ventura College, and was well attended. The City Corps kids were directing traffic and getting involved.

Council Member Morehouse noted that last Friday was the Hillsides Conservancy's annual meeting. Paul Jenkins, the driving force behind the Surfers Point project (ongoing), was one of the presenters with a slide show. Among the highlights was on a time lapse photography show showing a year’s worth of construction taking place in just minutes.

The mayor noted that the Ventura Music Festival is going on this week through Saturday night. The gala opening was on Thursday. The mayor wished to thank Steve Schlater and the Chinese Historical Society for sponsoring the Ching Ming ceremony held on Saturday, April 23, at Cemetery Park. It was hoped that the identification of graves Chinese Americans might be honored with full recognition. The family of Dr. Albert Chung, who passed away recently, was in attendance. Dr. Chung authored a piece that told of his family's history in novel form. The title of the book is “Bitter Roots.”

Regional Boards, Commissions and Committees – there were no reports.

City Manager’s Report – Police Chief Ken Corney reported on the California State Prison Realignment Initiative.

California Public Safety Realignment, showing: (1) Governor Brown signed Public Safety Realignment Bill AB 109 into law on Monday, April 4 – (2) AB 109 changes the law to realign certain responsibilities for lower-level offenders, adult parolees and all juvenile offenders from state to local (County) jurisdictions – (3) The goal of AB 109 is to manage offenders in a smarter and cost-effective way

California Public Safety Realignment, (cont’d) showing – (1) By its terms, AB 109 will not go into effect until a community corrections grant program is created by statute and funding is appropriated – (2) The incarceration of “nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex” offenders in county jails nor the realignment of certain parole functions can take place in the absence of funding

Local Governance: AB 109, showing: (1) Provisions of AB 109 contemplates the actual implementation of public safety realignment be conducted at the local level, on a county by county basis. AB 109 creates, in each county, an “Executive Board” – (2) The Executive Board is currently slated to consist of the Sheriff, a Police Chief, the Chief Probation Officer, the head of that County’s Social Service Department, and a member of the Board of Supervisors or the County CEO’s designee – (3) No District Attorney representation is included in the current legislation

Local Governance: AB 109 (cont’d), showing: (1) The Executive Board is charged with the responsibility of developing a local realignment plan and presenting that plan to the Board of Supervisors – (2) As currently designed, the Executive Board has only an “advisory” role to the Board of Supervisors – (3) California Police Chiefs Association has proposed amendments to AB 109 that will provide that the recommendations of the Executive Board in each county will become operational unless overturned by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors

Strengths, showing: (1) Significantly reduces state costs for incarceration – (1.1) 90-day parole violations – (2) Greater local control for law enforcement – (3) No inmates currently in prison will be released early (No more Non-Revocable Parole, NRP) – (4) All felons currently in state prison will continue to serve their entire sentence at the state level [The police chief said that prisoners will serve the balance of their sentences in county jail; that there will not be open release of prisoners into the general public]

Weaknesses, showing: (1) Funding is currently not constitutionally protected – (2) Nonviolent, non-serious non-sex offender provides for a very broad category of felons who will be housed and supervised locally – (3) Parole revocation hearings may become more complex – (4) The Executive Board made up of primarily County agencies – (5) County Jail capacity is limited

Opportunities, showing – (1) Possibility of improved rehabilitation and reentry programs – (2) Improved information sharing (3) Improved potential for collaborative programs

Threats, showing: (1) Jail overcrowding – (1.1) Release of lower-level offenders – (1.2) Release of pretrial/pre-sentence criminals – (1.3) Restrictions of booking offenses – (1.3.1) City ordinance violations – (2) Jail release process [Under restrictions of booking offenses and city ordinance violations the chief mentioned “our more aggregious vagrancy violations”

Threats (cont’d), showing: (1) No funding for front-line law enforcement – (1.1) no funding is identified for frontline law enforcement to assure that there are resources available to police and sheriffs to deal with the impacts of realignment for

The chief completed the presentation by noting that this is a sea change for law enforcement in California.

Council Member Morehouse wished to know whether this is in response to the federal court decision to reduce prison populations. The chief responded that with less people in jail the costs will go down. The struggle with the overpopulation and medical treatment applies more across-the-board with crime than what is presently targeted.

The councilman wished to continue by asking what was known of a case presented by the League of California Cities where changes in the booking fees could occur. The chief said that booking fees are arrived at on a county-by-county decision making process. With the passage of Prop 172 and the way money was distributed, we would not be charged booking fees. Money was being transferred via the 0.15% vehicle license fees, now not active, which could mean that booking fees could be restarted in the county.

Deputy Mayor Tracy asked if there was a deadline for the state to allocate this, and it was revealed that the governor’s plan would not become reality until funding was available, but also that $21,000 for every person incarcerated could be more rumor than truth. The deputy mayor continued by saying that the county jails would be overburdened with prisoners who previously would've gone to state prison, making the sheriff decide who should be pushed out and who should stay. The chief stated that a serial burglar who had been arrested and rearrested, might be given credit for time served with the threat of an eight year sentence if he violated parole. It was the chiefs feeling that this will increase the amount of recidivism in this type of activity.

The chief went back to a discussion of 50% reduction in burglaries. In the last three weeks eight people were arrested for burglary within the city. It was relentless pursuit of criminals along with getting the citizens engaged that has helped capture these individuals.

Public Communications – first Monday, meaning that public comment may be made on any subject before formal items are taken up for the evening. The mayor reiterated the ground rules for speaking, meaning that each speaker would be allowed three minutes to speak.

Helen Yunker spoke as a 53 year resident. It was her wish to bring the council up to date on city lot number seven. 13 ½ years in getting to this stage was revisited, beginning with the 1998 landslide on the property. It was said that through her support of community colleges she received an award in 2008 in Washington DC. The first buyer defaulted in 2009. 14 months ago the first phase of stabilization in the landfill began, with the first construction now slated to begin. There was her desire to thank Councilman Monahan for his interest and support.

Raymond Stoyanov spoke saying that his store, the CAAN thrift outlet, continues to suffer business losses as a result of the parking meter issue in the downtown area. His claim was that council members were attempting to gloss over the situation by blaming retail slowdowns after a big holiday sales season. It was his claim that as of 1 May, business has not improved. He also said that he has not heard anyone speak positively about the meters. His customers say that if they can't find a free spot to park they will be going back home. Customers from Oxnard are unhappy according to the speaker. Taxable sales are up according to the VC Star, but in his store sales are down. Deputy Mayor Tracy mentioned the free parking lot behind the store. The speaker said that lot fills up by 10 o'clock in the morning with downtown workers. After 10:30, one or two spaces open up, according to the speaker.

Bill Berger said that as a homeowner from the Citrus Walk development in East Ventura, he is unhappy over the fact that Citrus Walk has been covered by Maintenance Assessment District (No. 17) since 2006, and that developers are in the process of relinquishing listed items in the maintenance assessment document – items which will fall under the purview of the city. Homeowners have looked at some issues as to the content validity of the document. To cooperate with the council the residents would like to amend the document according to the realities as they exist in the development. Homeowners will be forwarding correspondence in the hope of receiving an agenda item for review.

Neil Subick spoke a resident of Ventura county for 25 years, as a business owner and as an employer living in Citrus Walk neighborhood. It was his desire to speak for the 232 Citrus Walk residents. Acknowledging a “rather simplistic” disclosure (1 paragraph) at closing, the speaker said that owners were “just notified” of the maintenance assessment fees and the added burden of a property tax assessment to cover city administration costs associated with public improvements in the neighborhood area. A committee was formed to voice their concerns. Residents were told that they have no voice in the matter and that city policy does not allow for public input on the document. It was said that City Council has accepted the development previously. The residents were provided with a copy and the council's resolution and the developer’s engineering report. Review and audit of the document by the residents has shown discrepancies. It was his claim that the levy of assessments of thousands of dollars to Citrus Walk residents cannot be shown to be improvements as required and set forth by Prop 13.

Rich Roselle, District Superintendent for California State Parks, Channel Coast District, speaking on McGrath State Beach. McGrath Beach will be closing effective 6 September, due to lack of funding and the ability to reinforce a sewer main that crosses the bridge onto the park property. The speaker’s update to the council was to show what is going on and what it would take to fix the sewer line so that the park could remain open. The speaker was looking for partnerships with the City of Ventura and/or the City of Oxnard, and perhaps other ways of identifying funding sources which would allow McGrath Beach to remain open.

Council Member Brennan wished to ask whether park officials could levy something like a “resort fee” at the gate or other assessment fee, perhaps even on a volunteer basis. It was said in reply that overnight fees would have to be raised to $28 per night in order to capture the $500,000 amount required. The California Department of Finance would need to approve any plan, and at that point loans might be arranged.

Council Member Monahan asked about the size of the main with it being a 4 inch force main with 2,000 linear feet going underneath the Harbor Blvd. Bridge. There's a bend before going underground according to Mr. Roselle. Mr. Monahan said that it's a forced main meaning that another line, something like a sleeve, could be slipped through it. Mr. Roselle said that this would increase the cost by having to do it in sections getting it under the bridge. Mr. Monahan said that this sleeving comes in reels “hundreds of feet long” and that the gas and electric line folks do this all the time. Mr. Monahan suggested that more modern methods should be looked into.

Camille Harris spoke saying that this coming Wednesday Council will have in their Council Meeting packets for next Monday’s meeting, the recommendations from Code Enforcement and Staff for “leg one” of the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative’s recommendations. What may be missing from the packet would be a reference document compiling the public's input, and, wishing to keep the public's comments front and center would mean that with these recommendations coming from VSHC, public confidence will be maintained in the process of finding community solutions to the challenges of nonconforming properties, including second units. The speaker’s request would be to insert public's recommendations into the packet so as to receive equal weight during Council deliberations. Hundreds came forward but in the editing of the recommendations (56), some of the intent became somewhat confused. Misunderstood recommendations could mean missing out on community buy-in, Camille said. Notated clarifications on the 56 recommendations were being brought before Council for its review as responded to by Code Enforcement and its staff personnel. The speaker wished to thank Jay Panzica for obtaining the document in a form that was most helpful to the organization.

The mayor thanked all the speakers including those from Citrus Walk, wishing to allow the city manager to talk on the maintenance district assessment situation. Mr. Cole stated his appreciation over the concern on any possible errors. A maintenance assessment district has been duly adopted by the city council but is not up for review, according to the city manager. Mr. Cole said he would be pleased to discuss a reopening of the issue, acknowledging that flaws or problems with the legality would certainly suggest a dialogue to arrive at mutual understanding. It is always the city's goal to follow the law, according to the city manager. It was his suggestion that this is not an ideal way to run cities, knowing that the city has been living with a reduction of city services by 15% and more. A fair and broad-based system for financing local government in California would be desirable, but has not been the fact for more than 30 years. Mr. Cole indicated his willingness to review these concerns.

The city attorney weighed in by saying that “we take seriously” the concerns that are being raised by the citizens in this case. Don't think that this is indifference just because it has been pushed through Council. Mr. Calonne stated that he too would make himself available for further discussion.

CONSENT ITEMS – The minutes from April 4 and April 11; the waiving of a second reading and adopting of changes to the solicitation and tattoo ordinances; the monthly report back schedule; Council quarterly travel report; applying for transportation grants; the resolution to approve the Bicycle Master Plan; the water project for the Fairview Drive neighborhood. There were no public speakers.

Council Member Monahan wished to pull Item No. 3 for discussion – the tattoo parlor ordinance. It was asked whether there were any other items – there were none. Council Member Morehouse moved for acceptance of one and two, plus four through eight. The motion was made with a second. All members voted yes.



[Comment] Here, Mr. and Mrs. Ventura, is your future “mixed use” concept at work – the reason why we began creating C-1 and M-1 zones in the first place, and being highlighted here by a simple failure of the dedicated zoning process. This isn’t saying anything that Mr. Monahan doesn’t already know, and yet what does the council-at-large want? It wants “Smart Growth” and a return to the 19th Century, where everything can be jumbled together – living quarters above restaurants (cockroaches are light eaters anyway), taverns (the music isn’t always Country) beauty shops (peroxide fumes are actually good for the sinuses), and – oh yes – C-1 garbage collection outside bedroom windows (hey, quit complaining and get used to it). [Ed.]

Council Member Morehouse agreed to a policy consideration under a specific line item such as a zoning change for collection points. The councilman moved that the tattoo parlor item remain standing. Council was asked to vote with all members voting yes with the exception of Deputy Mayor Tracy who was not present at the time of roll call.



Commissioner Dan Long was present and was asked to address from the speakers podium, saying that he felt proud to be serving another four years as Planning Commissioner. The Planning Commission appointee David Fairen made himself available for a few words, saying that he was “pretty happy” about Council’s decision to have him follow John Peck’s 12 years of service. Council Member Weir congratulated the appointee, saying that he’d done a “great job” with the Midtown Community Council. Mrs. Weir noted that the Tree Advisory Committee still has an opening along with the Mobile Home Rent Review Board. The Downtown Parking Committee still has an opening. A business owner within the downtown business district can qualify. The recommendation was at one point offered up to consider expansion of the commission to seven members, according to Council Member Monahan. Ms. Weir noted that a separate agendized item would be required to consider the possibility.



A $250 million budget is proposed with $183 million for operations and $60 million in capital improvements along with $6.7 million devoted to the RDA.

Budget Timeline, showing: (1) March 7, 2011 – (1.1) Council budget workshop – (2) April 4, 2011 – (2.1) Council revenue workshop – (3) April 28, 2011 – (3.1) Transmitted proposed budget to Council – (4) May 2, 2011 – (4.1) Open public hearing – (5) June 6, 2011 – (5.1) Close public hearing and adopt budget

Overview Budget Development, showing: (1) Recovering from devastating recession – (1.1) Slower pace compared to other recessions – (2) Local economy leveling off – (2.1) Some signs of revenue growth – (2.1.1) Sales tax slowly improving – (3) Working back toward sustainability

Budget Development, showing: (1) Hard decisions made in previous years – (2) Now operating at a new level of revenue – (3) Holding the line on services provided – (4) Past impacts still unable to restore – (4.1) Police staffing reductions – (4.2) Closure of fire station number four – (4.3) Work force reductions – (4.4) Capital investments fall short of needs. The impact of what we took away from you last year we still have not been able to restore, according to Staff. We are not able to reopen fire station number four nor reinstate any other similar actions from the last two or more years.

Living Within Our Means, showing: (1) Balanced approach to delivering key services within the resources available – (2) Safeguards our ability to deliver core services – (2.1) Keeping our streets safe – (2.2) Maintaining our quality of life – (2.3) Protecting our environment

Working Toward Sustainable Prosperity, showing: (1) Use volunteerism and more community partnerships – (2) Reorganized and downsized organization – (3) Economic development – (3.1) High-value, high-wage jobs

Future Challenges, showing: (1) Capital projects and infrastructure needs – (2) Water utility and storm water budgets – (3) library strategic redesign – (4) Elimination of RDA?

Proposed Citywide Budgets, showing: (1) Fiscal Year 2010 – 11, $231 million – (2) Fiscal Year 2011 – 12, $250 million – (*) Approval will result in submission of a balanced budget for all citywide funds that will allow the city to live within its means

Proposed General Fund Budget, showing: (1) Fiscal Year 2010 – 11, $80.4 million – (2) Fiscal Year 2011 – 12, $86.8 million – (2.1) Ongoing revenues, $81.2 million – (2.2) One-time revenues, $1.4 million – (2.3) Capital projects, $4.2 million

Proposed General Fund Budget, showing: (1) Ongoing revenues (increase) $0.8 million – (2) Up – (2.1) Sales taxes (increase) $0.9 million – (2.2) Cardroom tax (increase) $0.4 million – (2.3) Internal admin charge (increase) $0.4 million – (3) Down – (3.1) Utility users tax (decrease) $0.5 million – (3.2) Vehicle License Fee, VLF (decrease) $0.4 million. [ISF's Internal Service Funds (shown here as Internal Admin Charge) are those which are charged specific departments for such things as fleet expenses.]

Proposed General Fund Budget (cont’d), showing: (1) One-time revenues, $1.4 million – (1.1) Return of fleet fund reserves, $0.5 million – (1.2) Return of public liability deductible, $0.2 million – (1.3) Savings from current year, $0.7 million. [$700,000 will be returned to the general fund.]

Proposed General Fund Budget (cont’d), showing: (1) Capital projects, $4.2 million – (1.1) Olivas clubhouse – (1.2) Cemetery Memorial Park – (1.3) Surfers Point – (1.4) Marina Park boat docks and restrooms – (1.5) Energy efficiency improvements – (1.6) City Hall photovoltaic, HVAC and Refurbishment – (1.7) Emergency generator [Projects for which funding is available through General Fund.]

Proposed General Fund Budget Excluding Capital Projects, showing: Chart was one that would reveal the operating capital to run the city. A total of from last year to this year, $80,444,259 last year, 82,606,044 for this year. This is the money that is required to run the city.

Proposed RDA Budget, showing: (1) Total, $6.7 million – (1.1) Capital projects, $3.4 million – (1.2) Low-Mod projects, $1.4 million – (1.3) Administration, $0.7 million – (1.4) Debt service, $1.2 million

Proposed Water Fund Budget, showing: (1) Total, $44.3 million – (1.1) Operating, $23.6 million – (1.2) Capital, $20.7 million

Proposed Waste Water Fund Budget, showing: (1) Total, $28.7 million – (1.1) Operating, $17.6 million – (1.2) Capital, $11.1 million

Proposed Golf Fund Budget, showing: (1) Total, $5.8 million – (1.1) Operating, $5.0 million – (1.2) Capital, $0.8 million

The public hearing and discussion opened as the presentation was completed with two years of history having been completed in the staff’s new way of slicing and dicing the budget in both form and function.

Mayor Fulton noted that this being the first with another on June 6 the discussion was opened Council there were no public speakers

Council Member Morehouse spoke circuitously on a subject that was said to be budget related, but that involved the city’s caseload situation – specifically, a lawsuit that may hit us in terms of water. The nuances cannot be discussed, it was said. City Attorney Calonne responded saying that the council as well as the public needs to be aware of certain facts. The city was sued by a group called Wishtoyo Foundation, Ventura CoastKeeper under citizen enforcement sections of the Clean Water Act. The city's operation wastewater treatment is in violation of state and federal law, according to the plaintiff. The suit’s objective is to move the city’s wastewater operations out of the Santa Clara River estuary and enhance management of the effluent to include higher reclaimed water production. These projects will have dramatic import on costs and rates which may be called for in the creation of those projects. In the wastewater fund significant rate impacts may come about, according to Mr. Calonne.

Mr. Morehouse continued by declaring that there is an overhanging “cloud” to be dealt with and not a lot of buffer space around it. Mr. Panzica acknowledged that this budget to did not account for incremental changes in the future. The budget does not assume a rate increase, it was said further. It was also learned that a study has been undertaken by the city to definitively answer further questions such as these. Mr. Morehouse said that booking fees may come about even though the city has a good relationship with the county.

Council Member Andrews wished to follow up with the city attorney – these organizations suing the city for alleged violations of environmental laws, do so on the premise that they are serving the public. It was his desire to ask whether these organizations have sought benefit beyond the public good they see being created should they be successful. City Attorney Calonne acknowledged attorney’s fees and costs associated including ongoing monitoring and compliance liabilities for the city. The groups themselves would not receive payment however.

Deputy Mayor Tracy mentioned that departmental expenses and revenues might have been more helpful if broken down by department such as the Police Department looking at 2010 – 11, by looking at programs individually or divisions. This would give increases by department which would have been valuable to know for areas such as salaries versus equipment, and services and supplies. Deputy Mayor wished to suggest that a personnel register with breakouts to indicate what individuals are doing in – for example – school resource programs. A further question dealt with the policy on how department heads dispense with salary money on departments that are not specifically filled, salary-wise. Mr. Cole said that the degree of flexibility is built in so that micromanagement for each line item is not necessary.

Mr. Panzica has said that a professional services account such as a PSA means that the departments have the ability to move their money usage down but not up. Managers may hire a consultant but savings and supplies does not mean that that can be applied to new personnel since this would require City Council approval. Mr. Cole continued saying that Council sets the broadest framework but within those areas the city manager sets certain levels.

The city attorney noted that in 2009, Council set a $50,000 limit on professional services. Non professional services, supplies, etc., assigns a discretionary spending limit of $250,000 to the city manager, allowing him to filter and set budget limitations to department heads within this amount.

Mr. Panzica to continued by saying that similar authority has been delegated to himself and to the purchasing manager, thereby establishing a mix of protocols and functions designed also to create the necessary oversight in the acquisition process.

The deputy mayor said that he is not in favor of using reserve funds, with Mr. Panzica saying that we did not do that in this year's budget.

Council Member Monahan said that his question had been answered.

Council Member Weir noted that the budget figures are online, finance and technology, and that new budget figures are only a click away. Proposed budget for next year, however, is shown without context. It was suggested that the new computer system might be capable of adding in the historical context from last year, perhaps in side-by-side mode [a-la Windows7, perhaps?]. Mr. Panzica for said that going a few lines down you will find last year’s data. The councilwoman went ahead with trying to understand the rationale for not including the budget with historical data. It was her desire to know the context so that line items could be compared one by one.

Mr. Cole said that it was not his decision to delete historical context. The format was bid up by the computers but could be reformatted, according to Mr. Cole.

The councilwoman continued saying that in the personnel section the salaries were $5 million, with the personnel costs being $10 million and a breakout list of eight or 10 items adding up to the extra $5 million. Would all of those extras be considered benefits? was the question. Mr. Cole said that they would not be. Internal service funds (ISFs covered in the presentation) was the subject, and that with personnel it may be that individuals could be injured in the course of their duties. These injuries are typically more expensive, especially with fire and police. This risk is allocated. This being a formatting issue, however, would allow the flexibility to either include or remove. The public may construe this as payouts to the employee, which is not the case. It is in fact the true total costs for taking on the responsibility of a new hire, according to the city manager.

Mr. Cole added to this, saying that with fewer employees there would be lower employee “comp” costs. This would include their pensions. As far as workers comp goes, no rational person would call this a benefit, according to the city manager. The total cost of adding a police officer is about twice what we would pay out as salary.

[Comment] Good info, but nothing new. The formula follows the established standard for any large private corporation as well (Litton-Aero, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, etc.) Anyone who has worked for one of these companies knows that the cost of travel insurance, salary continuation insurance, fully vested pension plans, paid vacations, per diem – the list goes on – results in an employee expense that is about double that of salary alone. It is amazing that someone who has prior service as mayor of this city would need to be schooled in this level of detail when it comes to labor remuneration issues, especially considering the influence a city council member has in the labor negotiations process affecting hundreds of city workers. [Ed.]

Council Member Andrews asked whether there was any public comment. There was to be one, but Mr. Morehouse spoke, asking about the revenue stream being very high-end for the finance and technology department. All other departments show very high expenses. Mr. Panzica said that taxes and all monies from licenses just goes into the general fund. The Councilman asked about the expenses balancing with revenue fund depletion on the street lighting district. A development district had been created and was discussed this evening. The street lighting district operates on subsidies from the general fund since the city does not recoup all of what it pays out for keeping the street lights operating, it was said.

Public Communications – Dan Cormode asked that in the reorganization of the public works department that took place with 94 positions being transferred from Public Works to the utilities division, and by putting the city manager in charge of the utilities section, why does the budget not show much change in the public works area, and what was the loaded cost of those 94 positions that moved between Public Works and the wastewater utilities enterprise fund?

Mr. Cole said that the general fund budget has never shown the water or wastewater employees. What you have seen is the streets not paid for by gas tax, the street lighting, and maintenance, the parks division – all have been shown in the general fund side.

Mr. Stoltz acknowledged speculative constraint over the pending lawsuit but asked for an estimate over the scale of the suit that might be considered under the movement of the water treatment plant.

The proposed general fund budget slide was re-shown highlighting a change to the organizational structure wherein no enterprise funds are expected to be shown on a page titled “General Fund,” in answer to Mr. Cormode’s question.

The city attorney was asked to clarify the lawsuit – saying that it would be speculative to quote figures beyond saying that “substantial numbers” are involved. It was said that our major public investment is in water, with Mr. Cole adding that we don't know what a court would decide in the way of settlements. There exists a wide range of outcomes, also agreeing with the city attorney, that the lawsuit has very substantial financial stakes for the city and its rate payers.

Council Member Andrews spoke reinforcing Council Member Weir’s suggestion on the history with percent changes to be shown is quite helpful. Noting that the one time savings for this year came mainly from personnel deferment, the issue was moved along by Mr. Cole who said that with Council’s labor negotiations, those accrued savings would be used to fund higher pension costs in the coming year. The councilman said that the on the one side there are the Pers benefits and then the workers compensation on the other side of the ledger.

CalPERS pension rates were primarily the factors according to Mr. Cole. We've over collected in the fleet area but have under collected in workers comp. We were able to under collect last year because of the smaller workforce. The increase this year is one of showing the normal base amount.

If the employees continued with the 6% that they yielded 2008, where would we be if that 6% had continued through to today? asked Mr. Andrews. Would there be enough to restore full number of positions such as opening the fire station again?

Mr. Panzica attempted to understand the question. Where would we be at the 6% rather than the 4 ½? The total savings for the 6% was $1 million in the general fund. Police staffing represented about $1.4 million … the fire station about $1.2 million with the library about $250,000. Could the employee concessions be kept, could we have saved those police positions or the fire station? was the continued line of questioning. The councilman said that those concessions were reasonable in the time of recession. Now being faced with pension cost increases he thought are significant, with the employees contributing for the first time to their pensions thinking this is a good thing. The councilperson thought we needed to rethink this. He thought that the taxpayers expect the council to go back to the employees and recalibrate where they are versus where they need to be in order to provide the services that the city expects. Council Member Andrews thought that we have cut services too far in the light of citizen requests. It was the councilman’s clear position that the city needs to go back to its employees, quote, “because that’s where the money is,” endquote.

Council Member Brennan begged to disagree with Council Member Andrews. It was his feeling that we're not that far off. Mr. Brennan thought that the employees had come in with concessions maybe not enough for Mr. Andrews, saying also that he didn't think the statement should go unchallenged about employee concessions. It was his thought that we do not need to reopen everything. The Councilman agreed that there are morale issues and that all are struggling.

Mr. Brennan spoke of symposium he attended on the subject of sea level rise. The framework of the issue centered not on disappearing islands in the Pacific, but here in the O.C. South Bay area, where sea level rise is expected to have a major impact on infrastructure costs. Even the Capital Improvements Projects Workshop upcoming along with water considerations dictated by civil lawsuits should force us to think in terms of sea level rise, according to the councilman.

[Comment] Unfortunately, with so few visionaries in positions of political leadership in our community, state and federal institutions, we wouldn’t expect this momentous tidbit of information to be carried very far. [Ed.]

Council Member Weir asked about the $80 million up to $82 million it was asked what the community would be seeing in the way of a $2 million increase in the budget.

Mr. Cole said that we would be paying for our obligations going forward, mainly due to factors beyond our control. We are paying for our share of $52 billion worth of CalPERS concession losses which formerly were passed on immediately to agencies. It was Mr. Cole's claim that under current CalPERS policies, “we will be paying for these obligations for the next 30 years.”

In the proposed general fund budget, Mr. Panzica said, we are not buying anything new with this money or reinstituting any services with the $2 million. Mr. Cole said that the real number to focus on is the $73.3 million versus last year’s $74.2 million – the difference in the operations budget. In the CIP there was shown the $4.2 million in capital projects such as Marina Park boat docks and restrooms, with the exception of energy efficiency improvements, emergency generator, which has allocations from new money. Mr. Cole said that all of this money was previously borrowed and paid for by the general fund. This money can't be spent on operations, and winding everything down by refunding the bondholders would be difficult.

Council Member Monahan asked whether this was to be the new norm. Is $80 million the type of level we will be dealing with in the future? was the question. Mr. Cole apologized for formatting shortcomings such those that have cropped up in presentation. Mr. Cole speculated over the prospect of having to go three years with a closed fire station and a lowered police force. The question really became how long or will we have to live with this as the status quo. Mr. Cole thought that another year or two beyond this would mean the city manager coming back to recommend – one – further cuts in ongoing programs in order to deal with the reductions made, that these could involve solutions that Council has rejected in the past but would necessitate revisiting if revenue remains flat. Number two – how do we spend our money, and would we have to be more frugal. The third area – we would need to see payoffs from efforts on economic development or face going to the community for higher taxes. With an economy that may not recover Mr. Cole said that we have absorbed large changes over the last two years, and with employees deciding how to reorganize their jobs, this will take some adjustment period.

The mayor asked the revenue going up about $800,000 or 1%. It shakes out as a $900,000 increase in the operating budget or a 1.2% increase. The mayor wondered what the city wide obligations consisted of. Mr. Panzica said that these are obligations not necessarily tied to a given department. These are more generic in nature. The number may fluctuate year-to-year, noting that last year and years prior it's not very static. This year we asked where the incremental CalPERS costs would go and it would be disbursed as received. We don't know where to put it right away.

The mayor chose to deliver his summation, saying that a status quo budget proposed by the city manager, under Charter, with Council having been duly consulted, suggested to him that the city is, in the end, left contemplating the proverbial fork in the road – do everything the same way and increase taxes in order to pay for it, or, do everything the same way and cut salaries in order to pay for it. This meant to the mayor that we must find new ways of doing things.

[Comment] Well Mr. Mayor and City Council members, one of these two ways will eventually win out, and it won’t be the one that continues to cut salaries. The city manager has suggested in recent weeks that we’ll be forced to “inflate” our way into the future – a very ugly prospect indeed. No one has any illusions as to what that would mean … namely, that nearly everyone has stopped paying their bills. We’re pretty sure we know what the mayor is thinking, however. It’s that old Reagan-flavored Kool-Aid still hanging around – and a great book title by Ralph Nader, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.” Reagan really meant it. Nader, of course, was just putting us on. So … taxes, anyone? [Ed.]

The mayor indicated that the public hearing would continue, so with the city attorney’s concurrence, a motion was to be entertained. Council Member Weir hoped for additional clarification – the proposed general fund expense level for the operating budget is $86.8 million. Elsewhere under fiscal impacts, the proposed operating budget expense level is $82.6 million. The mayor noted that the next paragraph notes the $4.2 million in one-time capital projects which brings the general fund budget to $86.8 million. Mr. Cole said it is a capital expense within the operating budget.

Council Member Weir moved to accept Staff recommendation A, B, and C with the provision of asking Staff to come back before the next budget meeting with a variation that includes historical data. The deputy mayor has already asked for expenses to date with projections at the department level.

The mayor wished to clarify – direct Staff to approach June 6, 2011, making available to Council and the public, an online version of the 2011/2012 budget in a side-by-side format. A second was obtained. The city clerk was asked to take the roll with all members voting yes

City Manager Cole wished to again apologize for the format. This is essentially a status quo budget according to Mr. Cole. He claimed that the budget has no policy implications.



Jeff Herford began the presentation for Gold Coast Transit.

GCT 2011/2012 budget, showing: (one) GCT has developed their fiscal year 2011/12 draft budget – Jeff budget does not include any service cuts as in years past – projected transportation development act (PDA) funds for fiscal year 2011/12 is approximately $3.36 million

GCT 2011 – 2012 Budget, showing: (1) GCT has developed their FY 2011 – 2012 draft budget – (2) Draft budget does not include any service cuts as in years past – (3) Projected Transportation Development Act , TDA, funds for FY 2011 – 2012 is approximately $3.36 million – (4) Approximately $610,000 more than received in FY 2010 – 2011

GCT 2011 – 2012 Budget, showing: (1) City’s net contribution for FY 2011 – 2012 is $3,010,000 – (2) Total of $350,000 remaining in TDA funds – (3) $230,000 in TDA funds will be used to pay for transit facilities maintenance and VISTA bus service – (4) $120,000 in TDA funds will be used for transit operations in future transit years

GCT FY 2011 – 2012 Budget, showing: (1) The following assumptions were made as a part of GCT’s draft budget – (1.1) Increased service levels for other member agencies – (1.2) Last year of grant funding for Route 40 – (1.3) Federal funding levels at 90 percent of what GCT received for fiscal year 2010 – 2011 – (1.4) No increase in benefits or wages for GCT employees – (1.5) Hiring three new GCT employees – (1.6) Fare increase $1.35 to $1.50 – (1.7) Restoration to Route 6

{Route 6 runs between the Oxnard transportation center and the Ventura transfer center, continuing on to Ventura Avenue and Dakota. Cuts in service have meant that not all Route 6 buses have continued through to Dakota. However beginning in August all buses will continue through to Dakota.}

Staff Recommendations, showing: (1) Approve the expenditure of up to $3,010,000 of Transportation Development Act, TDA, funds to Gold Coast Transit for the 2011 – 2012 fiscal year and provide direction to the city’s Gold Coast Transit representative regarding the fiscal year 2011 – 2012 Gold Coast Transit budget

The mayor said with no public speakers but with a question on Route 40 – a number of people have said coming from the school district that we should institute Route 40 to the Technology Development Center. Gold Coast used one of those three-year pilot grants to begin that route but that we are now down to two years. With the question – what has the ridership been like and what are the prospects for service beyond the federal funding of three years?

It was said that ridership numbers on Route 40 are the worst ridership numbers of any in the system. Ridership never materialized out to the Technology Development Center. It was their stated intention to spur some ridership improvements. Some ridership exists along Johnson Drive, many due to short scheduled morning or afternoon classes or in the evening. A new marketing and communications person is on board. The mayor wished to mention the Gold Coast town hall meeting at Bell Arts with almost 60 people in attendance. In that meeting service restoration options were laid out with Route 6 being the overwhelming focus of interest.

The speaker said that Route 16 received marks, along with interest in added service to Routes 10 and 11 but with Route 6 being the overwhelming favorite. Council Member Morehouse wished to speak saying that five or six are based on assumptions. A meeting is coming up with the councilman wanting to know how targeted the assumptions might be, with the mayor replying that they seemed pretty conservative.

Council Member Andrews wished to note that there was a $300,000 rollover from last year. $320,000 is apparently being held to rollover into the future. Being that this is an under budget amount the question was could this money be used to improve services this year. It was felt that holding that money over for next year would be better.

The mayor thanked the Gold Coast representatives for their appearance, with being a Route 6 bus rider himself the mayor said that this is been a tough year. Cuts on Route 6 during the middle of the day was not well received by the community and so restoration of those services was deemed important.

Council Member Morehouse wished to know why there was opposition voiced by the county and by Ojai residents. It was said that these groups felt that it was an inopportune time to be hiring.

Council Member Morehouse moved to accept the recommendations of the budget. With a second having been received, the mayor asked the city clerk to take the roll. All members voted yes

Public Communications – there were none. Council Communications -- there being none, Council was adjourned until Monday next in the memory Ray Ellison.