A LATE NIGHT UPDATE: The council tonight made only one change to the staff recommendation for the 911 fee structure, adding a provision that hiring decisions will not be made until there is evidence the revenue generated will be enough to cover the costs of the six new officers and three firefighters proposed.
Several council members, along with the city manager, expressed concerns that the lowered opt-out fee of $17.88 per call, along with the ability to waive it on a first-time use, would not provide enough capital to allow the hiring to continue as planned.
The opt-out period will end May 6 and hiring decisions will be made at that time. The plan is to split the cost of three School Resource Officers with the School District and hire three additional police officers for high-needs areas, such as Downtown. The three additional firefighters will also be assigned according to priority areas.
Because of the matching component from the School District, we will be able to get more officers out there. Formerly a state grant helped pay for this program, which was lost in 2004. The schools are strapped right now and this means a significant commitment from them in trying budget times.
I commend everyone from both agencies for working together to restore this program, even though the source of funding from the city's side has been so controversial. My reservation with it has always been the high cost of the opt out. They've made that more palatable, even offering to waive it the first time. Good Samaritan callers will not be charged at all.
It remains to be seen now whether or not the fee will actually raise the required money. For those who don't opt out, the fee was set at a monthly $1.49 per-line, with $4.47 per month assigned to businesses and agencies with multiple or "trunk lines."
THE EVENING WAS FAIRLY TAME tonight compared to past sessions on this issue. Council member Neal Andrews once again voiced his opposition, with comments that obviously ruffled a few feathers among the public safety chiefs.
City Manager Rick Cole apparently hasn't learned his lesson from the last time he took a swipe at my favorite newspaper, this time pointing to "snarky" posts from the Star's venerable columnist Pa Ventura. (Take it easy on him, Pa.)
There were no public speakers at the meeting in opposition to the 911 fee; one asked for clarification on a few points, another was in support.
The council also approved just over $1 million in budget cuts for this fiscal year which include shelving the library plan and axing the Sister Cities program, relatively painless this time around. However, another $4 million in cuts are on the horizon for the next budget cycle which will likely be difficult.
Please post a comment below
Imagine that....."hiring decisions will not be made until there is evidence the revenue generated will be enough to cover the costs of the six new officers and three firefighters proposed."
And if there is not enough revenue generated to hire anyone because we all opt out and have our neighbors call 911 for us?
It's a shame that the council didn't have the cajones to take this to the voters again. I can't imagine what's next on the road-map of "fees".
Maybe they'll start collecting a pedestrian fee (taxing) the sidewalks that we walk on to keep them crack free.
Maybe they'll start collecting a view fee (tax) if you can see Two Trees from your house.
Opt out people. Mark March 6th on your calendars now. Get that paperwork and show the City Council what the real citizens think of this TAX.
As I posted on the other thread, I'm opting in, even on my fax line. It will cost me $89 a year for all my phones and I don't care. It's well worth it to me to restore our School Resource Officer program. I'd gladly pay four times that to get this valuable program back for our schools.
I agree with you Marie. A very small price to pay for our peace of mind. Thank goodness our community leaders have finally taken a stand on this most precarious issue. Are parents the only ones that see the dangers of not having resource officers on our campuses? It seemed for a long time that parents were the only ones concerned enough to try and do something about it. When I think back on all of the hours spent fundraising and pleading our case to the public, this fee seems inconsequential.
Kudos to Dr Arriaga who offered the district's assistance, which seemed to light a fire under our council's butts.
I was at this meeting and happen to agree with Mr. Andrews - I don't see it as a realiable revenue stream. I also think it is a tax cloaked as a fee but that dog isn't going to hunt so why be labor the point? I do share Mr. Andrews's concern and I'm glad he added the addendum regarding insurance that revenue concerns are met before hiring.
Well at least they did vote to eliminate one of the city's many "plans," this time for the libraries. That should make all the "plan haters" happy.
Carl Morehouse has already vowed to lead the charge on raising other fees to "cover the true cost" of the services provided, without any regard, of course, for the consequences of this action, like acting as a disincentive for people to get the proper permits for certain types of building/construction activity in the city (like sewer repairs). Things that you would think we would like to encourage people to do.
But, I think in Morehouse's view, based on statements he has made in public, this is his way of punishing people for having the audacity to question the 911 tax. Such arrogance...
Opt out, folks. This is your best way to protest this new tax. I will be doing so on March 6th, as will well over 100 of my neighbors, who have all vowed to spread the word to their family friends, neighbors, and co-workers that this is best form of protest to this unfair and arrogant action by the City Council.
Here is what Carl said, verbatim: "When it comes time for a fee structure evaluation, I will fight tooth and nail for full cost recovery of each of our services."
We are actually below other cities in the county in recovery of fees. So I'm sure he was referring to putting us on a par with other municipalities.
Mongo, you and I both know you've done some studying here. What would you do differently to fund public safety in these grim economic times? And please don't tell me "Bring in Wal-Mart" again.
Well, if you you don't want me to tell you, I guess I won't, but the reality is that more aggressive economic development is part of the solution to securing long-term funding for public safety. The City Council's recent anti-Wal-Mart vote was just symptomatic of the problems the City will be facing in the future by consistently sending out an anti-business message, with dumb moves like that. As usual, Neal Andrews provided the only sensible response by voting against the majority, as he did last night with the 911 tax. In grim economic times, it's all the more important to project a business friendly attitude, if you have any hope of retaining or improving local sales taxes.
Regarding Carl Morehouse's comments, I think you got them 100% correct. The thing that's missing, of course, is the tone of his voice, his facial expression, and body language when he delivered this message from the dais. It was clearly meant as a payback to those that dared question the Council's wisdom in going forward with the new 911 tax.
Wal-Mart is the cure for all that ails us?
Nice.
No, Skip, try and pay attention. It's about a strong economic development program. Wal-Mart is symbolic of what the City is doing wrong. It is just one of many examples...
No Bongo, it's you who are not paying attention. Wal-Mart in the Victoria location goes against the will of the majority of our citizens, goes against our general plan guidelines and will be moot soon once the petition drive gets going. It was a no go from day one. Get over it.
It is you who needs to get over it, Skippy. I accept the fact that the Council disregarded it's future sales tax revenue opportunities by acing out Wal-Mart on Victoria. I'm perfectly OK with that. The vacant building that used to be K-Mart is already attracting graffiti artists and, before long, will be occupied by druggies and other criminal squatters. This will impact law enforcement resources, but I'm OK with that too.
However, the City Council continues to act to the detriment of its citizenry when it continues to enact development policies and guidelines that discourage economic development in the city, which produces ongoing sales tax revenue that pays for essential city services. Capiche?
Mongrel - Last week the council passed a series of guidelines which will make the development process easier to navigate and in October they OK'd yet another series of steps which will streamline the process until the specific plans are written. They haven't turned a blind eye to the economic needs of the city. This is really a mischaracterization.
Skip-To-My-Lu,
Look, the measures that the Council has taken provide very little real relief when it comes to the overall processing time for large development projects. I am acquainted with several large developers that do business throughout Ventura County. They flat refuse to try and pull permits with the City of Ventura because they claim by the time they get through development review they have lost so much time and money due to the process that their projects have become infeasible. These are guys who know the development review requirements inside and out. They've built some of the largest retail centers in the County. There is something radically wrong when this is happening in a city that claims it is promoting economic development.
Mangle - So let's say we fill our understaffed planning department to the brim with new staffers in the midst of a round of budget cuts, expedite all projects, build anything anywhere with minimal design guidelines and give them all huge financial incentives to carry out their projects. Then, what would we be? Why, we'd be Oxnard, which is, ironically, trying to raise its sales tax half a cent to pay for city services.
Skippy Peanut Butter,
I wasn't implying that Ventura should try to become the next Oxnard. You obviously missed my points completely. Oxnard has made mistakes like any other city and I would hope Ventura wouldn't try to emulate them too closely in many areas.
However, Oxnard's 1/2 cent sales tax measure is intended to pay for street paving, which I think they could have done a better job getting developers to pay for. Oxnard does have a higher ratio of police officers per capita and quicker incident response times though, so they must be doing some things right.
Mongo,
Oxnard has a pre-Prop. 13 property tax override for public safety built into its property tax bills. Ventura can't do that because it would now violate Prop. 13. Oxnard can fund police and fire but they can't pave their streets. Many other local cities contract with the county for fire, but Ventura determined it would actually be more expensive for them to do so.
I am hoping very much that we can jumpstart our retail here, too. The new Target is supposed to bring in $500,000 annually. And we're getting 3 new major retailers for the north end of the mall. But did you know that because of a voter-approved measure some years ago, much of our sales tax revenues from the mall goes back to Macerich to pay for the construction of the mall? I've been attempting to figure out when that deal ends. We could use the cash.
Good comments, Marie. I agree Target should help, although it makes you wonder how successful they're going to be with one just a mile down the road.
I didn't know about the Macerich deal. That totally sucks. What brilliant mind at City Hall...? (oh, never mind, don't want to get you started...).
Cities make deals to get worthwhile things developed all the time, but you know that. The important thing to remember is that the voters approved it.
The brilliant minds that constructed the mall deal, back around 1995 or so, had defense, not offense, in mind when it came to economic development.
At the time the mall in Ventura and the mall in Oxnard each had two anchors. It was clear that only one mall would survive and all four anchors would go there. Ventura at that time feared losing the mall altogether (along with the $1 million plus per year in sales tax), so the then-City Manager put together a kind of an inside-out deal: The mall owner (not MaceRich at that time) would put up the up-front money for the street improvements and the parking garage (upwards of $20 million) and in return would receive most of the sales tax revenue for the foreseeable future.
Inside-out because more typically it would be the city that played banker and built the infrastructure and then pay off the capital cost with increased sales tax revenue.
I was not supportive of this deal at the time (I wrote about it in my book The Reluctant Metropolis) and I'm still not sure it was the best thing. Oxnard lost the old Esplanade Mall as a result but subsequently built their very profitable "power center" with Home Depot and so forth on that site. But that was hard to foresee, and I do understand the city manager's logic at the time. She knew if she didn't do something, our two anchors would go to Oxnard and our mall would be dead. So she placed the highest priority on protecting the sales tax revenue stream we already had, and was willing to sacrifice future gains to keep that revenue stream flowing.
I would love for the city to be able to pay that obligation off early and get the sales tax flowing again, but that's tough to do in this economic climate.
Thank you for the clarification, Bill. Do you know when we are expected to pay off the obligation?
Listen to this guy with his double speak and making excuses for past city managers. This is one of the guys who voted for the 911 tax, by the way. Well, I can tell you that I won't be voting for Mr. Bill Fulton, if he has the audacity to run for City Council again, that's for sure.
I hope everyone does as I'm doing and opts out of this ridiculous tax on something we are already paying for. The whole concept is laughable and plainly discourages people from calling 911 when they should be calling it because there is now a fee involved. The next thing they'll be charging a toll fee to drive down Victoria!
"....Resident Mike Gibson, however, applauded city leaders for being creative and following through on a pledge to provide greater public safety resources. Officials estimated the revenue would allow the city to hire six police officers and three firefighters and buy necessary equipment. Even with the new personnel, staffing levels in the police and fire departments would lag state averages.
"The fee is the most palpable and acceptable approach," said Gibson, who ran unsuccessfully for a council seat last month. He said the roughly $20 annual cost per phone line "is a small price to pay to add six officers and three firefighters on the street." ...
-- Ventura County Star, December 12, 2007
I don't give a damn what Mike Gibson has to say about this! What makes him the moral authority on this fee? If he runs for City Council again, I'll vote against him too!