Here's something I have written on C7 for publication elsewhere, in case anybody is interested in this measure. I think it's OK to post it here, too:

In the upcoming election, Venturans will be asked to vote on Measure C7 which will lower the Utility Users Tax on telecommunications to 4.5 percent. With a ballot statement seven pages long printed in tiny type, it's a complicated subject, so here are a few basics:

- We are already charged a 5 percent Utility Users Tax (UUT) on telecommunications. This includes landlines, cell phones, and cable TV. This money goes into the general fund and helps pay for police and fire services, park maintenance, beach cleanup, etc. The tax generates $2.8 million a year. Without it, important city services could be cut.

- The existing code for the tax is outdated. It was written 40 years ago when there were no cell phones or competing telecommunications companies. What is happening around the state is the telecommunications companies are challenging this tax saying it was written before cell phones were invented and that cities can't apply this old code to new technologies. Los Angeles is currently enmeshed in such a lawsuit.

- More than 150 other California cities charge this tax and all are looking at updating their codes.

- Rewriting this code requires that it go before the voters. It requires a 50 percent passage because the money goes straight into the general fund and is not earmarked for a specific purpose, as was P6 last fall with police and fire. This measure would apply solely to telecommunications. The city is rewriting its code to include a broader interpretation of "instant telecommunications" so it doesn't have to go back to the voters when technologies change again. For example, if we some day we all switch to video phones, this could be taxed as well.

- C7 will not boost the taxes of Venturans. We'll be paying about the same as we do now. Different things will be taxed as technologies evolve, that's all.

- Under federal law, Ventura's Utility Users Tax be cannot be extended to Internet services. Congress is very unlikely to change this rule.

- To assure passage of this code rewrite and protect this important revenue source, the city decided to lower the tax rate to 4.5 percent. To make sure the measure ends up being revenue neutral and does not lose money for the city, it was extended to include the formerly exempt inter-state and international calls.

- If C7 does not pass, Venturans will still be charged the existing higher 5 percent rate, but the city could be involved in a costly lawsuit over the cell phone portion of the UUT, as Los Angeles currently is. Pending federal and state legislation as well as current legal challenges could all affect the outcome.

Our city cannot afford to lose this important revenue resource. Please vote yes on C7. For more information, go to the city’s web site at www.ci.ventura.ca.us and click on the tab for Measure C7.

Voting YES. As I understand it, not to do so would be akin to having a maintenance tax for only railways on the books and not having one that would maintain and repair highways. We need revenues to match the utilities and the technologies that support them so that we can keep the infrastructure needed well-maintained and secure for the benefit of local businesses and residents.

Is that other Venturans' understanding?

Interesting Tax.

In Simi Valley, as is it is for most other Ventura county cities, we don't have a "communication tax" at all. We seem to maintain a pretty strong funding stream with no real shortfall or major impacts on quality of life.

17 pages to drop the rate 4.5%? Why doesn't that seem like the only thing going on here? Marie, do you happen to have a link to the fine print? Can't seem to find the actual measure.

Last, I keep seeing the figure 2.8 million in annual revenue, but according to the state controller the city of Ventura raised 7.7 million in UUT in 04-05, which increased about 200K to 400K per year since 1992.

Just curious with what the state controller is counting versus what the Chief Financial Officer is counting?

And if the 7.7 million is the true revenue figure and I'm sure it grew since 04-05, then in order to maintain the revenue neutrality principle, wouldn't Ventura need to reduce the rate further?

Last, if more items are taxed that weren't before, doesn't that mean, this is in fact a tax increase even though the rate has dropped by .5%?

Scott,

Thanks for adding a high level of analysis and providing thought provoking questions.

In the ideal world what would fund a city? Property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?

I think the sales tax model has its limit because it forces city's to grow. Although it could be argued it encourages them to get out of the way of developers.

Brian,

I was more interested in answers to the Utility Users' Tax as it's not one I'm real familiar with. All I can really say is we seem to be doing well without one.

Without getting off topic, don't communities and people have to grow?

I visited a town called "Bodie" once when I was a kid. It was a mining town that is now a ghost town. Talk about a no growth paradise. ;)

Scott,

To clarify I meant it forces a city to have commercial growth instead of industrial growth or residential growth.

I have live in or visited areas that were not putting in malls and they seemed to also be fine.

But back to your point. Are you saying we are fine with less revenue or we are fine because we have different sources?

Brian,

I don't think we have less revenue, but I'd have to actually look at the budgets. I was more responding the argument being put forth that if C7 doesn't pass it will be financial Armageddon for the city of Ventura.

And also, that despite the reduction in the rate of 5% to 4.5%, some items being included now will go from 0% to 4.5%, which would be an increase, would it not?

Of course, I cannot find the 17 page measure online to tell you that, but that is my guess.

I wanted to point out many cities don't have this tax at all. It is unique to Ventura. In Ventura county, only the city of Port Hueneme also has a UUT.

Services still get done and none of the other cities in Ventura county that do not have a UUT are facing major shortfalls.

We all have comparable property taxes, fairly close rates on sales taxes, and comparable commercial space, so I'm not really sure why Ventura needs a UUT and the rest of Ventura cities can get away without one.

In answer to your questions, Scott, Ventura imposes a UUT on other utilities, too. So that would account for the $7.7 million figure you are seeing.

This measure only deals with the telecommunications portion of the tax which includes all forms of "instant communications." This portion of the UUT raises $2.8 million for the general fund.

Cities pay for services in different ways, based on historical decisions that were considered good choices at the time they were made. For example, in some cities without a UUT, fire and paramedic services are paid by the property owners through an assessment on the property tax bill. I am not familiar with how the City of Simi Valley pays for fire services, but I know some cites in the county contract with County Fire.

The fact is that more than 150 cities in CA impose a UUT tax and it accounts for a significant portion of revenue. Without it, vital city services would be cut. There is no question about it. Ventura does not need its police and fire personnel trimmed right now. We are already behind in our staffing to meet the needs of the huge increase in 911 calls in the last 10 years.

The only new items added are the formerly exempt inter-state and international calls. This will make up the difference in the loss of revenue by cutting the tax rate to 4.5 percent.

It is rather complicated to explain, but if this measure does not pass and if current legal disputes are not resolved in a favorable manner, Ventura and the 150 other cities would still be able to tax local calls made on landlines. This results in an inequity among taxpayers.

None of us likes paying taxes. But they are necessary to maintain public services that we all depend on. As I watch the TV news and see the infernos raging all over the area, I see how well our tax dollars are put to use. There is nothing more important than public safety.

This measure is a deception from the beginning. A rate reduction of ½% is inconsequential but it allows the politicians to sell this as at tax cut. Why can’t they just be honest and say, “Changing technologies have invalidated the current tax and we need this new law to maintain our revenue stream.� This initial deception only makes me wonder what other lies are hidden in the 17 pages of fine print.

The fact that over 150 cities in California impose a UUT means that over 320 cities do not impose a UUT.

If this measure does not pass and if current legal disputes are resolved in a favorable manner, Ventura and the 150 other cities would no longer be able to tax local calls made on landlines effectively eliminating the current tax.

Well, no, that's not true. I was hoping to avoid this complicated explanation, but here goes: Awhile back, to streamline the process, cities charging a UUT on telecommunications based their UUTs on the FET (Federal Excise Tax) on telecommunications. The FET on telecommunications was repealed on everything except local calls made on landlines back in May of 2006. The FET no longer applies to cell phones. The FET is still collected on these "local access" calls.

Since cities used the FET as the basis for the UUT, there have been some legal challenges as to the rights of cities to tax cell phone calls when the feds do not. Some cities have merely changed their codes to delete any reference to the FET. But most, like Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Pasadena and Ventura, are readying measures for the ballot to fix this wording and include updated technology. They do this so they don't have to go back to the voters as technology changes.

The tax rate reduction is obviously to make the measure more palatable to voters. The City of Compton recently passed a similar measure by 90 percent.

This is a very complicated subject and all the verbiage I have have used here may give you some idea of why the ballot measure itself is so long. I cannot find an online reference for you. But all Ventura voters received a written version in the mail.

I need to correct one other thing from Scott's post: I wrote that the measure takes up seven pages in our voter guide, not 17. This includes all the arguments for and against.

Is Scott Blough offended at the level of taxes or what is being taxed? I so no studies that Simi Valley has higher or lower taxes so i think right now there are too many assumptions and wild guesses.

But if we are allowed to have wild guesses I am going to state for the record Simi Valley's taxes are much higher and less business friendly then Ventura.

Feel free to provide facts, not guesses, to prove me wrong.

I guess my question as it relates to "updated technology" is whether the language is broad enough to include communication technologies not yet invented or in their infancy? For instance, last year Ebay bought a company called Skype, a software company that grants online phone calling access to buyers and sellers about to close a deal all free of charge.

While the talking points say it doesn't tax the internet, what if that option became available in the future. Would this fall under the broad definition of "updated technology"?

Many other major companies such as Verizon and AT&T are offering online phone service to customers. Will they fall under the local UUT?

Doesn't this fly in the face of the Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act, which has an expiration of November 2007, right around the time this new law could potentially pass?

While it says this measure doesn't tax the internet, technologies are merging and since we can't evaluate the measure because it's not on the net, how do we know for sure?

The House just voted 405 to 2 to extend the Internet tax exemption until 2011. It still needs to go to the Senate.

From what I have read, it is very unlikely that the Internet will ever be taxed.

It is not the internet as a whole that was the focus of my question, but products such as internet phones moving to systems that may fall under the definition of "updated technology" in measure C7.

Please explain specifically what is classified as an "updated technology" and what isn't.

If an inventor brought new telecommunications technology to market and it took off, what tests would the city of Ventura use to determine if it was to be taxed or not?

I wish there was a way to get a copy of this to you. It would take me into the wee hours and then some to type the part of the measure that spells this out.

Here is just a very small part for you: Telecommunications services means the transmission, conveyance, or routing of voice, data, audio, video, or any information or signals to a point, or between points, whatever the technology used. ...

I wish it was available too.

So, based on what you just wrote, if phone services is over the internet, it would be taxed under the UUT, despite federal laws outlawing internet communication taxation?

That broad definition seems to includes internet-based telecommunication service such as Voice over the Internet (VOIP) style technology.

I thought I read it didn't tax the internet, but this broad definition appears to be inclusive of this internet technology? Seems kind of stealthy.

Scott,
I am going to have to do some more research to answer your question about VoIP.

I do know with certainty that the measure will not tax traditional Internet services. This includes Wi-Fi access and Internet services such as email and digital downloads such as music, games, and ringtones.

Scott,

The federal moratorium on Internet taxes would cover VoIP. Therefore, even if C7 passes, VoIP could not be taxed.

Hey Fulton, stick to your own blog, would ya'.

Well thanks, Bill. I emailed our city's CFO with some specific questions about that today and he hasn't responded to me yet, so I appreciate you jumping in here.

Bill and Marie:

I think more or less the internet moratorium depends on the US Senate. If it expired while the Senate was working on it and they didn't complete it by winter recess, would Ventura be able to tax VOIP?

I read through the FAQs given on the Ventura website and it doesn't specify the annual average cost to businesses in Ventura. What is the cost to a small call center that employs 12-15 people? Wouldn't this owner just want to move to an area that had no UUT?

I saw a figure that Ventura brought in 9.3 million in UUT last year. The Telecommunications rate would change to 4.5% while electricity, gas, and other items stays at 5%? Do I have that right?

Why not reduce all utilities? Why does electricity and gas get to pay more for the same services?

The moratorium expired once before and no cities jumped to tax the Internet. There is great momentum in the Senate right now to make the ban permanent.

I can't speak for the city, but I don't believe there is an effort to reduce the UUT across the board.

As I mentioned before, different cities find different ways to generate revenue. If it's not one way, it's another. Some added assessments for public safety to property tax bills long ago, before Prop. 13. Oxnard did this, I believe. Ventura does not have this option. We tried to pass a 1/4 cent sales tax increase to pay for public safety a year ago. It needed 66 percent to pass and it got 62.

None of us likes to pay them, but still we need them. This current firefighting effort will cost millions. What pays for that? Taxes.

Marie,

The point, however, is that government should be looking at ways to manage the public's funds in a more prudent fashion. One of the main reasons people detest new taxes so much is because of all the fraud, waste, and abuse that goes on out there with taxpayer funds.

In my opinion, raising taxes should be the absolute last resort for government to fund existing or even enhanced programs. We should first look at cuts to other programs, efficiencies and economies, etc., much like the private sector does, before even considering new taxes. That is why P6 failed. The City didn't try other ways to fund police and fire before asking the voters to pay more taxes for these services. And, low and behold, they were able to fund 6 cops and 3 firefighters after rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work we elected them to do in the first place (i.e., make tough decisions & choices).

I think most people feel that they pay far too many taxes already - and they're right. That is why I think another P6 effort will fail more resoundly than the last effort did.

Well hello again, Mongo. You're still around, huh?

The city recently went through a thorough department-by-department scouring of where they could cut back. That, combined with an uptick in property tax revenues, was where they found the money to hire a few extra public safety personnel. But you and I both know it's nowhere near what they need. And the city never said they wouldn't be doing it in a piecmeal fashion like this if P6 didn't pass.

The fact is that 62 percent of the voters were willing to tax themselves a few pennies more to adequately fund public safety.

I noticed Mike Gibson, who you are a great fan of, wrote a piece in the new Ventura Breeze supporting C7. So surely you do as well?

Yes, I do support C7. Number one, it's not a "new tax" like P6 would have been. Secondly, it's simply updating an old ordinance that is currently subject to legal challenge because it doesn't take into account the evolution of technology that has occurred since the ordinance was written (back in 1960s, I believe). Third, not doing this would put $2.8 million in annual ongoing general revenues at risk for the City, thereby, potentially affecting a whole gamut of public services (including police, fire, paramedic, parks, streets & roads, etc.).

C7 is good public policy. P6 was not.

Marie:

I just had a couple observations as I had a small opportunity to look at the the CAFR for the city of Ventura. The question is how easy would it be to make some cuts or changes instead of having the UUT or also making more money available to public safety and firefighters?

First, what is the deal with the $325,000 home loan to a city employee? It was originated on 03 and as of 2006's CAFR it is still unpaid sitting at $325,000. (Pg. 78 PDF PG: 48 report). Has anything been paid down since 2003. Is this employee even paying interest? Is it a market rate?

Another major issue I see is overtime. Now, overtime for police officers and firefighters in times of crisis makes since, but yearly the city of is closing in on 4 million to pay overtime. Why not hire additional employees and stop paying time and 1/2? If you cut overtime in half by hiring more employees at regular time, it would already equal the 2.3 million for the telecommunication part of the tax and you don't have employees exhausted because they are putting in extra time.

Also it appears the golf course operations cost the city $3.2 million a year, yet do not bring in enough to even breakeven. Why is golf course funding as important as public safety? Should taxpayers subsidize golfers? Get those operations off or raise the prices to pay for things the city needs like public safety. Golf Courses, higher taxes, or public safety? Which one if on a ballot would the public do with out?

Another area worth looking at to raise revenue is fines and forfeitures. Look, the city of Ventura brings in about a 1.7 million in fines and forfeitures far less than the % of revenue that utility taxes do. These people are breaking rules, they should pay a higher price, especially if public safety dollars are needed.

These are just some of my initial observations. I'm sure I could find other areas to save taxpayers from paying more if given more time.

If the purpose of fines is to raise money wouldn't the government almost want people to break the rules? I thought fines were to deter unwanted behavior.

Who or what organization in Ventura is against this tax?

Scott,

That $325,000 home loan you're referring to was granted to the City Manager, Rick Cole, when he was hired to help him purchase a home in the City of Ventura. The reason it's just sitting there unpaid is because I believe the loan agreement requires Cole to repay the City when he leaves and sells his house, which, based on the way this election is shaping up, could be in the not too distant future.

I like Scott's comments. Usually the government punishes people doing the right thing. He is proposing going after people doing the wrong thing.

Free loan to the city manager? Subsidizing golfers at a loss to public safety. Yet, they lecture us on the Ventura vision and needed tax increases. Give us a break.

Marie is pretty funny. She went to Tax U.

We need an answer for public safety.

Marie: Raise taxes.

We need better parks

Marie: Raise taxes.

We need a more expensive union contracts.

Marie: Raise taxes.

Yeah, and Marie is a big fan of reelecting the 3 incumbents. It's not hard to connect those dots.

If 200 people controlled 50% of your income, you'd question things. But, because people like Marie call them government officials, people think it's okay.

If you don't support our tax increases your trash will sit, public safety won't exist, and firefighters will suddenly stop pointing the hose at the fire.

Talk about the politics of fear. You make George Bush blush.

I see you have been having fun while I was gone, Mongo. I am in favor of C7, as are you. I also supported P6, as did 62 percent of our voters, because I didn't mind paying a little bit more to fully staff our police and fire services.

In addition, I supported P6 because it would've restored our School Resource Officers to our schools. I have worked on school issues for many years and saw the fine work these officers did for our schools with gang intervention issues. As you know, we recently had a big gang fight at Buena. Graffiti has gone up exponentially. These are things our SROs worked on. But they were pulled out of the schools and put back on patrol to handle the increase in 911 calls.

I don't believe I would support tax increases for parks and more expensive union contracts, though.

Scott, on the face of it, it sounds like there is merit in some of your arguments, but I am not an expert on the city's finances.There may very well be good reasons why the city does what it does. If one of the city folks who reads this blog cares to weigh in on your comments, that would be great.

I took an interest in C7 because I am interested in technology issues.

Marie, Greetings from Tax U.

I imagine somehow if taxes were higher there wouldn't have been a fight at Buena.

Maybe, instead of giving a free loan to the city manager, who probably already makes a six figure salary, we could have paid for some extra hours for the SRO.

I like how this Scott Blough guy is so upset about high taxes but never tells you that taxes in America are actually low in comparison to the rest of the westernized world which is amazing being that we have the most expensive military and pretty decent public services.

Taxes are the dues for membership in civilized society.

Save Money, you make some good points. I would also add that the City recently hired a new City Attorney who's making well over $200,000/year. At the time the City was in the process of hiring him, this guy was embroiled in a childish feud with one of his neighbors in Boulder, Colorado that resulted in him being convicted of vandalizing her property. Don't we do background checks on people at this level that we hire as City employees? What's going on here? More evidence of the City Council not serving the best interests of the community.

Mango, how much do city attorneys in other parts of Ventura County get paid?

You make it seem like he is overpaid with no evidence. Maybe you are right but I am curious to see the evidence.

USA,

Actually he is among the highest paid of all the City Attorneys in Ventura County (I believe he's in the top 2 or 3). But, that is really not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that he's really not a good choice for the City of Ventura if he cannot abide by the same laws he's required to enforce as City Attorney. He seems like a real hothead, actually. And this decision to select him just underscores the numerous poor choices this City Council has been making over the last few years. It is clearly time for change at City Hall.

Our city attorney makes the median salary for city attorneys in this region. His skirmish with his neighbor in Boulder involved kicking her lawn sprinkler heads during an argument over a dog crossing into the neighbor's yard. This particular woman had a documented habit of harassing her neighbors.

The city attorney was hired by Ventura before this information came to light. He personally called each member of the council and asked to keep his contract.

The jury is still out on him. But given his diverse and experienced background in legal matters pertaining to cities, he was likely a good hire. A good city attorney can end up saving a city millions.

My point is the jury shouldn't have to be out on a City Attorney (pardon the pun). He should be beyond reproach, which this guy apparently is not!!!

The jury would still be out on any new hire. I'm willing to give him a shot to see what he's got. Maybe some of that fire will translate into a good guardian of the city's interests.

Enough already about that loser City Attorney, what does everyone think about the Ventura City Council race? Winners, losers, predictions, etc. I'd be interested to hear your views.

Well, my predicions are that Fulton will hold onto his seat by a pretty strong margin. Weir will hang on by a thread due to her Chrisitian Coalition followers, who will come out strong for her. I heard Morehouse told his wife that they may get to take some of those exotic vacations they'd been talking about before he went into poilicts after all. Although he'd like to be reelected, I'm msure he's looking really at what the polls are saying moe

Mongo/Chastity/Pick Axe/Jill/Jim (all the same person),
My predictions:

1. Bill Fulton
2. Christy Weir
3. Carl Morehouse
4. Doug Halter
5. Jerry Martin
6. Lou Cunningham
7. Mike Gibson
8. Brian Lee Rencher
9. Carroll Dean Williams

The spot for No. 3 will be really close and it will be late before we know.

Meet you back here in nine days.

My Predictions:

1. Bill Fulton
2. Christy Weir
3. Doug Halter
4. Carl Morehouse
5. Mike Gibson
6. Jerry Martin
7. Lou Cunningham
8. Brian Lee Rencher
9. Carroll Dean Williams

I agree the No. 3 spot will be the closest, but I had Gibson a couple of notches higher than you did. I know he will be doing a big push this last week (including mail-outs to 30,000 voting households, putting up some larger signs in key locations, and daily precinct walking with 8 helpers).

I wouldn't underestimate Jerry Martin. The unions are doing big-time phone polling for their candidates. Halter has encountered the full wrath of the Citizens for Hillside Preservation. I wouldn't underestimate that group either.

I had Lou higher because he has the Chamber endorsement and has more name recognition.

I believe absentee will be about 50 percent. Those people have already voted.

All the top candidates are doing mailers, precinct walking and calling.

What's actually more interesting right now is the school board race!

Hi Scott, are you still out there?

I really appreciated all the time that went into your research. I thought those questions of yours deserved an answer. So I passed them along to City Manager Rick Cole and he answered them. Here goes:

Q: I just had a couple observations as I had a small opportunity to look at the the CAFR for the city of Ventura. The question is how easy would it be to make some cuts or changes instead of having the UUT or also making more money available to public safety and firefighters?

First, what is the deal with the $325,000 home loan to a city employee? It was originated on 03 and as of 2006's CAFR it is still unpaid sitting at $325,000. (Pg. 78 PDF PG: 48 report). Has anything been paid down since 2003. Is this employee even paying interest? Is it a market rate?

From Rick: It is an "equity share" agreement, made as part of the recruitment of the City Manager (me.) No interest is paid, but the City is entitled to full repayment of the principal upon sale, along with the proportionate share of the appreciation over the sales price. I am responsible for all upkeep, insurance and taxes.

The arrangement was made at the time of my selection as City Manager, at a time of rapidly rising property values.

Q: Another major issue I see is overtime. Now, overtime for police officers and firefighters in times of crisis makes since, but yearly the city of is closing in on 4 million to pay overtime. Why not hire additional employees and stop paying time and 1/2? If you cut overtime in half by hiring more employees at regular time, it would already equal the 2.3 million for the telecommunication part of the tax and you don't have employees exhausted because they are putting in extra time.

From Rick: The overtime issue is one we work on constantly. It is not as simple as a mathematical formula. In the case of Fire, overtime is often simply a function of "mutual aid" for which we are reimbursed by the agency we sent help to (using State and/or Federal disaster funds.) In both Police and Fire, we have a difficult time filling our authorized positions and employ a variety of strategies for both retention and attraction. And in the case of those two functions, the fully burdened fixed costs (including mandatory training, equipment, fixed monthly benefits, insurance etc.) of a new person are not that much cheaper than overtime costs for someone who is already covered.

Q: Also it appears the golf course operations cost the city $3.2 million a year, yet do not bring in enough to even breakeven. Why is golf course funding as important as public safety? Should taxpayers subsidize golfers? Get those operations off or raise the prices to pay for things the city needs like public safety. Golf Courses, higher taxes, or public safety? Which one if on a ballot would the public do with out?

From Rick: The Golf Course is bearing new debt service at a time when both courses were shut down for extended periods. Once they return to stable operation, they will be back in the black. However, the General Fund does not subsidize the golf fund, nor does the golf fund subsidize the general fund. That is a long-standing policy that could be changed, but there does not appear to be market demand that would allow us to run enough profit to take money from golfers for public safety funding.

Q: Another area worth looking at to raise revenue is fines and forfeitures. Look, the city of Ventura brings in about a 1.7 million in fines and forfeitures far less than the % of revenue that utility taxes do. These people are breaking rules, they should pay a higher price, especially if public safety dollars are needed.

From Rick: It is an area worth looking at. We have made recent adjustments that will increase this number over time. But in the case of zoning code enforcement, for example, our goal is to get compliance, not make enforcement so prohibitive that we end up in stalemate, racking up fines that we need to go to court to collect and meanwhile not having the situation corrected.

Q: These are just some of my initial observations. I'm sure I could find other areas to save taxpayers from paying more if given more time.

From Rick: We too have a list of things we are working on. I'm sure you could identify some areas worth a harder look. But I think it is unrealistic to assume that there are "other areas to save taxpayers from paying more" just by a cursory analysis of the CAFR. We have devoted systematic attention to eliminating the City's structural deficit and channeling additional resources into areas like public safety, as well as increasing the efficiency of the resources we currently have.

Mongo - Since you seem to be an insider on Gibson's campaign, who is providing the funding for the 30,000 mail pieces? Is it out of his own pocket, or is this Republican party membership communications, or a 3rd party "independent" organization? Wouldn't that cost about $20000 including postage? Is someone "donating" the time and materials? Doesn't that donation have to be declared?Who's buying this election?

As I understand it, Mr. Gibson is funding the vast majority of his campaign expenses himself. I know the Republican Central Committee had offered to do a mass mailing on his behalf, which he declined, so as not to give the appearance of being beholden to a particular organization (I see the rumors still abound though).

I don't think many of the other candidates can make this same claim, do you? Jerry Martin, for example, is almost exclusively funded by labor organizations. Gee, I wonder how he's going to vote on the next employee contract, or enhanced retirement benefits for police and fire. Mr. Fulton, Mr. Morehouse, and Ms. Weir received numerous contributions from developers, architects, builders, and various other business interests with a direct stake in projects that will eventually come before the City Council for approval.

So, contrary to your highly speculative and inaccurate comment on someone buying his election, I would say his campaign may be the purest of the bunch.

Wow! So Gibson is personally footing the $20000 or so for the mailers. Impressive!

If he is sending to frequent voters and the list has been scrubbed for absentees, it won't be anywhere close to 30,000.

10,000 tops.

Truth in Advertising, I guess it becomes less impressive when you realize that his Dad is a gazillionaire. I know MIke, Sr. was one of the biggest single donors over the last ten yaers to the Los Angeles County Arts Foundation/Museum of Art ($1.2 nillion).

He claims his family is not involved in his campaign (even his wife, who's loaded too), but I have my doubts unless he's already tapping that trust fund.

Dear Mongo - Was Lou Cunningham offered a mass mailing on his behalf? Did he also decline?

Who did the mailing for Mike Gibson? Was it DMH & Assc.?

Mike Gibson will have to declare the mailing on his Campaign Finances.

Well if the candidate declares the income/contribution after the fact, he will just be taken before the Ventura County Ethics Commission who will maybe slap his hand. But if elected, it will have been well worth it.

I noticed Gibson didn't declare the mailing expenses on his last campaign financial statement (thru October 20th). I received one of his brochures in the mail yesterday (I live on the east end).