During the '06 fires, the firefighters accomplished the heroic. They saved mine and my neighbors' homes.

$99.00 is a very small fee to pay for the work they have already done and will do.

I think we all need to share in this cost, I don't begrudge this increase in fee.

While hillside property owners pay more on home insurance, I also think it is fair that we pay more than the $25.00 we paid before, which was, in my view, too low.

Two comments:

We have 3 acres here in Cam and every year we get the weed abatement notice. It costs several hundred dollars to remove the weeds to the fire department satisfaction. They spend about 20 minutes max. looking at the property. Do I think the fee excessive - YES!!

The other comment is that I believe the new attorney is from Boulder Co and I would look to that city to see what is in store for Ventura regarding fees versus taxes. It has reach their capitol if I'm not mistaken.

I personally wouldn't mind paying a few extra dollars a year so that the hillside owners get "free" city inspections for weed abatement and so that the Pierpont area residents get "free" sand removal. These services seem reasonable and along the lines of the city's tree-trimming services, building code inspections, etc... It's all about public safety and keeping expenses down through prevention. HOWEVER, since the city is short on revenue and the 2/3rds majority of taxpayers refuse to accept new or increased tax proposals, what choice does the city really have but to charge "fees" to those who directly use the services? There seems to be a complete lack of desire on the part of our citizenry to sacrifice any new dollars for the common or collective good, whether it be city or county services, state services, public school services. The mantra is always: just be more efficient with what you already have. That mentality has led to public agencies that are stripped over the years to the bone. What is left to cut? So this is what we get: a pay-per-use fee system, like the 9-11 fee. Any time now I expect entrance fees for our parks and bike paths, and bills to parents of school children who use the bus.

"since the city is short on revenue and the 2/3rds majority of taxpayers refuse to accept new or increased tax proposals"
The problem with the last proposal was that people didn't believe that the Public Safety folks really needed the money. Then after it was defeated, the Public Safety folks went out and hired new staff anyway.....

I think that the city should put a general tax raise on the ballot. It is my understanding that it would only need a simple majority.

Or...... speed up Wal-Mart so that we can tap into the sales tax it will produce.

Katie:

While we do pay to remove weeds, there has to be inspections to make sure it is done. Our negligence or mistake could lead to devastating consequences. Until citizens are willing to share more equitably the costs of living a high quality of life for all, we are all going to be spending more in a pay-as-we-go public finance model. I think this economic model is not as efficient and leads to an over-all lower quality of life. Those of us with this view are in the majority, but not a super-majority.

I believe those who chose to live by the sand and adjacent to fire prone areas should bear the cost. The rest of us have to pay to water our lawn, trim our trees etc. Those in condo/townhouse properties pay high homeownership fees each month for the upkeep up their mutual property. We choose where we live and assume the responsibility for the upkeep. I feel the beach and hillside owners should pay the inspection fee and be grateful for the protection they receive during fires and floods.

I've got a great idea. Why don't we change it to a city-wide fee, and charge residents $1.49 for each weed that is removed. There should also be an opt-out fee that would enable you to pay $99 (not $100, but $99, mind you) per year no matter how many weeds are removed from your property.

Wait a minute, this sounds too much like another fee the City has in place already. We can't do that or the public will start to catch on as to how much we're milking them.

I've got a better idea. Let's see what Pasadena does, what Azuza does, and what Boulder, Colorado does and pick the most expensive of the 3. Yeah, that's the ticket...

Mongo, in the past you've written here that the Pierpont folks should pay to move their own sand. What is the difference between having hillside folks pay for the entire cost of weed-abatement inspections and having beachfront homeowners pay to move the sand?

The $120,000-plus that this program costs could be used by the fire department for other things that will serve a greater population. Right now they are looking at trimming some critical things from their budget.

I am not advocating either way, I just think it's a discussion we need to have right now.

I don't think the beach issue and the weed abatement issue is a valid comparison. The City asking that 1200 hillside homeowners pay $99 each for a weed abatement inspection for inspecting private property is not the same as asking 45 beachfront owners to pay possibly tens of thousands of dollars each to move sand that is not even on their property but rather that is on the City's Shore Dr. easement. Note that unlike the hillside owners who can readily clear their property of weeds, the City and Coastal Commission have made it all but impossible for the beachfront owners to get the sand moved away from their homes.

I beleive that like most services in Ventura these costs should be spread over the total community much like street maintenance. I am guessing that in the weed abatement situation that a lot of administrative costs can be avoided if individual billing and collection of the $99 fee is avoided.

Murray:

Actually, the city and utilities have easement on hillside properties. We pay to have brush and weeds abated on those easements. The telephone companies only take care so that trees don't interfere with their lines.

Linda: I agree with you. Those who live on the beach and hillsides should pay more. I also think that all of us in our city need to increase our share so that infrastructure and services throughout the city is equitably improved. I don't think the quality of service should be exclusively determined by how much one is able to pay.
That is the ultimate consequence of that public finance model. All citizens need to have high quality police and fire protection, safe drinking water, sewage treatment, streets paved, parks, etc.

Good points, Murray. But Mongo needs to explain why he thinks the Pierpont folks should pay for all their own work, but the hillside homeowners shouldn't pay for inspections.

A question for you: If it will indeed cost tens of thousands per homeowner (and there are 45 beachfront homeowners) what else needs to be cut further from the Public Works budget to do this? They are already making significant cuts. Where would that half million or more come from? The TOT collections from beach rentals will not likely cover the entire cost.

Neal Andrews seemed to be suggesting at the last council meeting that beach rental TOT should instead go to the Ventura Visitor's Bureau to promote tourism here and bring in tax dollars. Their budget will be taking a big hit.

The issue of Shore Dr. ownership should be settled on April 30, correct?

Given that Public Works hasn't done any maintenance along Shore Dr since 1999, I guess its up to the City to figure out how it will play catch up. It is interesting that the City has said that the Coastal Commission denied their permit back in 1999. It is my understanding that the Coastal Commission asked for more information and the City determined it was too costly to provide it and stopped seeking the permit. The Coastal Commission contends that the City never asked them for another permit. If they had, the Coastal Commission would have provided them with one (given the City were provided the necessary information). Of course, all this was a decade ago and no one really seems to know what exactly went on.

Just because the City did not do the required sand maintenance for a decade, the sand just didn't go away. It's sort of a pay me now or pay me later problem. "Later is now" because the residents of Pierpont have gotten organized via the PCC and VCSB and are forcing the issue. They simply got tired of the City pointing at the Coastal Commission and vice versa and nothing getting done.

According to the City's easement interpretation, you also own to the center of your street. Have they asked you to pony up extra money to maintain it?...probably not...you and I and everyone else in Ventura pays to maintain your street. And this is the way it should be. I can guarentee you that the beachfront property owners are paying more than their fairshare in property taxes for the 45'x 90' lot they are on.

Note I am not a beachfront owner, but I don't think 45 property owners should be singled out to pay to maintain a public beach.

Hopefully, the court case will resolve the ownership issue. But once again I am not a beachfront owner so I am not a part of the lawsuit so I am not an expert on whether the case will resolve "Who owns Shore Dr?". If it is determined that no one owns it...I would like to bid on it...ha, ha.

Marie, I think Murray has made some important distinctions here between the beachfront maintenance and the hillside weed abatement.

For one thing, as he points out, and I agree, having the City pick up the entire cost for the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to maintain the beachfront the way the Pierpont residents think it should be maintained is not reasonable. On the other hand, the weed abatement work, which seems far more critical in order to maintain the safety of properties and lives and, thusly, I feel, is more within the realm of the City's responsibilities (as a critical public safety function).

The other point is that the weed abatement inspection fee seems cut from the same cloth as the 911 tax (i.e., quarterback-sneaked on the public). As I've said before, the purpose of the fee often gets obscured and then overrun by the method by which it's imposed. This fee is starting to turn brown and smell bad already. I think the City Council is wise in reconsidering it.

I'm not sure you and Murray are on the same page, Mongo. Murray will have to get on here and explain his point of view.

What I think you are saying is that the $120,000 it costs to conduct the weed-abatement inspections, plus do the documentation and notification are something that the entire city should pay for since it's a part of the greater good.

But the cost for maintaining Pierpont (by Murray's estimates $500,000 and up) is too much for the city (other taxpayers) to manage. Am I correct?

There was plenty of public discussion about the 911 fee. But this wasn't the case with the weed abatement fee and that's why they backed off.

I really have know idea how much it would cost to move the sand. It would probably be a whole lot less than $500,000 if the City were to be able to put large equipment on the beach, pick up the sand along the 40' width of the Shore Dr and drop it into the ocean at Surfer's point (to be restributed back onto the Ventura beaches). And, of course, there are economies of scale in doing the job all at once instead of piecemeal as proposed in the Sand Management Plan. Some of the sand might be able to be sold cutting the overall cost. (I am sure that this is a sacrireligious statement.) This isn't the way the Coastal Commission works, however. A biologist would have to be present and the sand would probably have to be sifted through carefully to insure no critters like the Glubose Dune Beetle or the illusive legless lizard are not harmed. Ludicrious but probably true...which would add to the cost tremendously. {With governmental agencies the shortest distance between two points isn't necessarily a straight line.} Note also that there are probably 6-7 of the 26 Pierpont lanes where there is actually a sand deficiency so some of the sand might be able to be put there. Oddly enough, neither the City, the Coastal Commission or State Parks bothered to consult with a geologist. Instead their recommendations are based on biologists/ecologists and the City Engineer. A local geologist who happens to live in the Ventura Keys spoke at several of the City's meetings and basically said that the Sand Management Plan as presented was flawed.

The simpliest, most straight forward solution to Pierpont's sand problems is to reestablish Shore Dr as an unpaved road and maintain it as such. This moves the sand away from the homes and the lanes. But this is way too simple a solution. Too straight forward. Too reasonable. Instead we have been presented with a Sand Management Plan that is so convoluted that it is almost humorous. It should start out with "A dune beetle and a legless lizard walk into a bar..."

It seems we are blurring important distinctions regarding these three different issues. All three have costs attached, but

1. Pierpont residents are asking city to pay for moving sand to reduce sand build up on their properties. The build-up of sand does not pose danger to the community at large;

2. 911 Fees -- not site-based;

3. Hillside -- residents have decided to live in a fire zone and should be required to take extra precautions to prevent endangering
their community. Hillside residents have benefited from a very low inspection fee for quite awhile.

Common thread here- the city has no money and the state wants to push through unfunded mandates. Residents want more and better services and they don't want to pay one more cent in taxes and fees, even if what they want only affects a few of them. But the city can't run deficit spending and can't put it all on the credit card like Governor Terminator did. People forget that "the city" is all of us.

This is to address MLs previous question, before I comment on your paying for weed abatement on an easement, I have to know whether the easement is on the deeded part of your property or an easement that adjecent to your property...i.e. an easement that you do not have title to.

Shore Dr is an easement that is not part of the beachfront owners property. Everyone uses this area...its the beach!!! everyone includes not only the beachfront owners, but all of the Pierpont residents and Pierpont's visitors from the rest of Ventura and everywhere else. Thusly, it should be paid for by the community as a whole.

I doubt if your easement, even if it is not on your property is much of a shared public resource unless there are trails or bike paths on it...at least not like the beach is. 51% of the people that visit Ventura come to the beach. I doubt that is the case for the hillsides.

I don't mind sharing in the cost for weed abatement if it is not on private property, nor do I mind sharing in the cost sand maintenance if it is not on private property and of course I am willing to share the cost of maintaining your street and everyone else's in Ventura.

If we are going to work it some other way then, I guess I should only have to pay for the maintenance of the 45' of street that is directly infront of my house and you might have to pay for the 100' or so of street that is in front of your house. Then we have to consider how we both should be charged for the amount we use Main St. This starts getting silly really fast if you get my drift. I feel we should all share in weed abatement and sand maintenance costs on public (not private) property. Individual property owners should not be singled out.

Apparently, Ventura's high-priced City Attorney has determined that the City may have violated the law in enacting the weed inspection fee. Another reason to appeal it. These guys have gotten so fee crazy that they have forgotten to check into the legal requirements before they adopt new fees. When's the next election again?

I am one of those disenchanted homeowners who received the "unexpected" bill. While I am extremely supportive of our fire department, and am forever grateful that firefighters saved many Ventura homes from the School Canyon Fire in 05, I do not agree with this new "annual administrative fee" directed at a minority of homeowners. Some people believe hillside homeowners should pay the price for living in a fire hazard zone. WE DO! We must clear and maintain vegetation up to 100 ft from our property according to the Fire Hazard Reduction Program Guidelines throughout the year (I just received a $450.00 bid for this on Monday), we pay higher fees for our homeowners insurance, AND any one of us may someday pay the ultimate price and loose our home to a wild fire. I think we pay the price. I don't think the fee is fair. We live next to a canyon but the City has an easement and owns a slice of land between our property and the canyon. The public regularly uses a path on this easement to hike up to two trees. Since the community owns the land, the community should share in the costs. The goal, as stated on the brochure that arrived with our "unexpected" bill, is to "establish a fire-safe community". I don't think any homeowners, (beach, hillside or other), should be singled out for fees or taxes, and instead the community should share the necessary costs. Why not charge homeowners' who live next to parks a fee to maintain the park? They get the benefit of living next to it. Or perhaps it should be an administrative fee that performs inspections to make sure the park is free from gangs, graffiti, etc.so we can establish a gang-safe community. Of course, I think this is silly but I do wonder what's next. Finally, I think the most annoying thing about this fee is that I don't know where the money is going. Is it going directly to the fire department or is it paying a salary at City Hall? I have often wondered who oversees this program. I have never seen an inspection done and compliance isn't enforced in some cases. Many of the homes in my neighborhood have large pine and other tree branches that hang over homes. Pine needles litter roofs and the canyon. These trees are an extreme fire hazards and put the neighborhood at risk, yet they remain. If the City is going to charge the fee, then I wish they would do the inspections and enforce compliance. Maybe a volunteer group could be formed to check properties for complinance which would help reduce costs. I would be the first to volunteer!

The fees the City has established are designed to generate revenue, not pay for services provided. There is a great article in today's Star by Don Facciano of the Ventura County Taxpayers' Association encouraging people to opt out of the new 911 tax the City imposed recently. In the article he points out the detrimental impact of new fees and taxes on a faltering economy.

These indiscriminate fees by the City have to stop. The only way we're going to make this happen is to get the word out to the community that this is unacceptable. I've been doing my part by talking to my friends and neighbors and writing letters to the editor. The other thing we must all remember to do is vote in the next Ventura City Council election - and vote all of the incumbents out!!!

Now there's an unbiased source. The Taxpayers' Association. I don't think the $1.49 a month is going to impact anyone too much. The fact is that 62% of the voters wanted to tax themselves for public safety. So most of the voters don't mind paying a little more for increased public safety. Only 10% of the phone lines opted out. All the cities are in the bind and some like Oxnard and T.O. will put up ballot measures this fall to increase sales or property taxes. So, Mongo, let's just vote the entire councils of T.O. and Oxnard out too, while we're at it. It's easy to sit on a blog and complain but a lot harder to be the ones making the tough calls.

That's right do your part and talk people out of keeping themselves safe. Good job.

Oxnard is at least putting it's proposed sales tax hike on the ballot, so that the voters will be given the chance to make the decision (which is how it should be). Ventura just pulls the old quarterback sneak every time they want to impose a fee. That is arrogance beyond belief, and you know it.

The public is getting sick of this and, by the letters to the editor and the complaints that are flooding in to City Hall, it's becoming more and more evident. The City Council will even be considering waiving the $99 (not $100) weed abatement inspection fee due to public pressure and the fact that the City Attorney (after the fact) discovered that they imposed it illegally. Surprise!

You sound very much like the City Council in your arrogant attitude. I am not talking people out of keeping themselves safe. These people, my neighbors and friends who live in Ventura, are fully aware of what's going on at City Hall. These aren't the stupid people that you and the City Council are insinuating they are. They don't need me to tell them what's going on. They read the paper and watch the Council meetings and make up their own minds.

The Ventura City Council is not making any tough calls. If they were making tough calls, they'd be cutting their budget like every other jurisdiction is doing right now. No, instead they're imposing illegal and arrogant fees. That's why I'm complaining, Skippy, and, believe me, I'm not the only one!

Are you living in a frickin cave? They are cutting the budget plenty, to the tune of four million dollars. What's going on is they're trying not to cut any more than they have to. What's going on is they are trying to add police and fire personnel in tough times to keep the community safe.

Well, they obviously need to cut it more, Skiparoo. When the private sector hits tough times, that's the first thing they do, not the last thing. The City needs to adopt more of a private sector model in the way it conducts the public's (the taxpayers) business. That was the point of Don's editorial, by the way. And yes, in fact, it was a biased source (the County Taxpayers Association) - biased towards the taxpaying public (you and I, Skippy), which is whom they represent.

By the way, did you happen to see this morning's Star and the latest news on the City's illegal 911 tax? Sounds like the City will be facing a lawsuit over this (and it just may come from Don's group), based on what happened with Union City, so they'd be wise to drop it (as the Star's editorial suggests they do).

"The City With A Fee" is really working hard to cultivate this new image.

The private sector can raise prices for its services. Happens all the time. The city can't raise fees or taxes without people like you making a big stink. There will be a parade of people complaining about the cuts too. The Pierpont homeowners don't want their services cut back, yet they're on the chopping block. Bottom line some one will be unhappy.

That's where you're wrong, Skippy. When the private sector experiences a drop in revenue due to less people using their services (comparable to less taxes being collected in the public sector), they usually drop their prices to attract business and/or cut their costs. Public bureaucracies are resistant to cutting back their costs because it affects the fiefdom of whichever "duke" or "dutchess" is running a particular public agency at the time. That's the difference.

By the way, today I have contacted both the Ventura County & Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Associations as well as AT&T & Verizon to find out what their current positions are regarding the Ventura 911 tax, in light of what has happened in Union City. I spoke to a person in each of their corporate offices, as well as AT&T's legal counsel's office.

Each one of them told me they are currently considering their legal options at this point and will make a decision shortly. They were very pleased to hear from a concerned citizen and reaffirmed their opposition to this outrageous fee that has caused so much consternatinon in the local community. Verizon told me the City be wise to pull the plug on it now and not undergo the costly litigation that is sure to ensue.

Ventura's fee has legal safeguards that the other fees don't have with the opt-out clause.
Raising taxes and fees in times when less revenues are coming in helps protect important services that benefit all citizens from being cut. It has nothing to do with who is on the council. Cut the crap. You have some sort of personal ax to grind against the current council thats pretty obvious. Your attitude stinks.

Let me say as a taxpayer, bub, that your attitude stinks! You're damn right I've got an axe to grind with the Council. That is, the "fee-happy" ones, which, as near as I can tell, are all of them, with the exception of Neal Andrews.

On the flip side, I'm curious as to why you're such an ardent defender of the Council and the status quo. Oh yeah, that's right, you're probably a City employee. Now it's becoming clearer.

Sorry, oh Inflamed One, don't work for the city. Just an interested citizen who would like the added police presence in a few critical areas. I pay taxes too, and have no problem with a few fees to keep important services from being cut. We're losing all our police storefronts to budget cuts, did you know that?

Although I'm finding that a little hard to believe, I'll take your word for it for now, Mr. Skipster (Police or Fire Department?). One question I have for you though is if we were able to add 6 cops in the last budget cycle and we added 6 more through the illegal 911 tax, why is it that we are cutting police storefronts? Is this one of those ploys by the public safety folks to scare the public into voting in more taxes? Sounds kind of fishy to me. I anxiously await your explanation.

Hi Mongo,

I'll answer that one. They are eliminating the PSO position that ran the storefronts. From what I understand, the mall will still have its storefront without the PSO, just a security area, and I think Catholic Charities will be helping out with some sort of space on the West End. The Montalvo one is closed for good.

I'm sorry to see this happen. I'm working on a budget cut post. I just needed to see the final numbers today.

I think we all want what's best for the city. We just disagree on how to get there.

Hey Mongo looks like your Republican Governator is looking at raising taxes too. Sorry to break this to you buddy but it's gonna happen somewhere sometime. Deal with it. But since you bragged earlier about your hilltop mansion maybe you'll survive. Cut a servant or two.

I don't need to brag about my accomplishments in life, Skippy. They speak for themselves.

At least Arnold is being up front about his intentions, which is more than than I can say for your buddies on the City Council, who you to love to play lap dog to.

Mongo,
Did you read the story in the Los Angeles Times yesterday? Schwarzenegger isn't really being what I would call "upfront." He's still having his press secretary tell everyone that he doesn't support tax increases. In the mean time, his staff is apparently looking at taxing entertainment purchases, service professionals, take-out coffee, and Internet software purchases.

A state Chamber of Commerce official recently wrote that temporary tax increases may be necessary given the depth of the problem.

Marie, the bottom line though is the message has been sent and received. I did read yesterday's L.A. Times article and the main theme that came across for me was that all options have to be considered to deal with a fiscal crisis of this magnitude.

Taxes, at some level, are not off the table. And I appreciate the Governor's willingness to discuss them openly and frankly. We'll see what ends up being proposed though and I am very likely to take exception to certain taxes, especially across-the-board measures, that will have a counter-productive effect on an economic recovery that is on the horizon.

No more taxes. Cut government and cut government programs. Cut, cut, cut!

First of all I want to thank the Heroic taxpayers who have been battered endlessly year after year after year for more taxes from state, local and fedral government.....

Before we ask the taxpayers for MORE money for fire protection....let's tell them how much they are already paying for fire protection...and where is it going.....

Since 1.25 percent seems like such a small smount, let's try reducing property and sales taxes by 1.25%....it is such a small amount, I don't think government will miss it....