IT'S HISTORY. With a unanimous vote tonight, the Ventura City Council took steps to erase the controversial 911 fee from the books. Anybody who wants a refund will be able to get one.

No doubt a very vocal portion of the city, including the editor of the Star, did not like the fee. And there are those, such as an Orange County law firm which specializes in class-action lawsuits, who saw an opportunity for litigation and fat legal fees.

City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained that the legal environment has changed dramatically since the fee and its opt-out were first proposed last January. A ruling last spring opened the door for class-action suits on this issue.

When the opt-out provision was first presented, I knew it would be an administrative nightmare. That has proven to be true. Service providers and city staff have struggled mightily with it. Fifteen percent of the city's telephone lines were opted out. But because of technical delays, Assistant Police Chief Ken Corney said, not one person has yet been charged the $17.88-per-call fee which would have been imposed for those who opted out of the monthly fee.

It's also been a public relations nightmare. Many still don't understand that if you opted out, you would not be charged for calling 911 on behalf of somebody else. Nor did they realize the fee would've been waived for first-time callers.

BUT MY FAMILY DIDN'T opt out and we willingly paid the $1.49-per-month charge on two land lines and three cell phones because we knew the money saved through funding the costs of the city's 911 system in this manner would be used to pay for our badly needed School Resource Officer (SRO) program (which I explained about in an earlier post) and a team of officers for trouble spots in the city.

Since Council member Neal Andrews has taken the unilateral step to end the 911 fee by proposing this policy consideration, I hope he will also be a leader in efforts to maintain a sufficient revenue stream to keep our citizens and our students safe and healthy.

With the possibility of $8 million being trimmed from the general fund by next year, coming on the heels of $7 million in cuts made in the last year, there isn't much left to cut that won't hurt. The public safety budget makes up half of the general fund. Every single attempt at cost recovery for public safety services in the form of fees has met with resistance from some corner.

The Police Department pulled in officers from patrol for the SRO program when school started this fall in the hopes of replacing them when the 911 fee revenues kicked in, Corney said. The school district, which pays for the other half of the SRO program, can't afford to pay for it in its entirety. The schools are looking at devastating mid-year cuts of their own unless the state legislature can get its act together. (And today the state's Republican leaders proposed a $10.6 billion cut in the education budget.)

THE $35,000 THE COUNCIL allocated last summer for Downtown foot patrols on Friday and Saturday nights is nearly gone and won't last until the end of the fiscal year in July. This would've been supplemented with 911 fee revenues, too. Add into this mix the fact that aggravated assaults are up 25 percent in the city, Corney said, and a rash of daytime burglaries have been going on in east Ventura.

Since public safety is such a priority for our city, the budget-cutting teams now being assembled will likely look at other areas. Perhaps we will have to quit heating the pools in the aquatics center in the winter, which will greatly affect our swim teams, or stop cutting the grass under the city's soccer fields on a regular basis. Many items will be looked at.

The Star's editorial writers called for us to think seriously about joining Oxnard and Port Hueneme in putting forth a general-purpose sales tax hike, which would require just a simple majority vote.

It's an idea worth exploring.

Update: Watch Monday night's council meeting. Neal Andrews will be introducing a policy consideration to end the 911 fee. The document can be found here. The item is No. 9 on the agenda. The meeting is packed with interesting items and could run late.

THERE'S NOTHING LIKE the mention of new fees or taxes from Ventura city staff to strike fear in the hearts of our citizens. Two-plus hours of testimony and 47 comment cards later, an exhausted City Council decided to table their own comment Monday night on five different versions of a plan to regulate one- to three-unit rentals, which are now entirely exempt from taxes. The issue will come back again on Jan. 12.

According to a staff report, there are an estimated 6,000 unregulated rental units in Ventura. These rentals make up less than 40 percent of the city's rental housing, but account for nearly 90 percent of the documented substandard housing complaints. City staff would like to be more proactive with these rentals before they become severe problems and affect the safety of tenants.

Multiple plans to finance inspections of these units did not sit well with the large crowd of landlords gathered Monday night who complained that adding a business license tax based on gross receipts plus annual inspection fee of $33 would be a hardship. This was just one of five options presented; two required no additional fees or taxes. The staff report can be found here.

The city already taxes four-or-more-rental-unit businesses and inspects rentals of three or more connected units on a property. One- to two-unit rental properties, such as single family homes and duplexes, are entirely exempt from taxes and inspections.

THIS PLAN TO RECOVER COSTS for city safety services directly from those involved went over about as well as the $99 weed abatement fee plan did in April and the 911 fee did in February. City staff backed off on the weed fee and now is considering ending the 911 fee, too.

So how DO you keep citizens safe in these challenging budget times? Perhaps 20-30 city positions will be lost in the upcoming budget process and cutbacks may include up to $8 million dollars following a round of cutbacks last year totaling more than $7 million.

A few weeks ago the chambers were pretty much empty as the City Council was briefed on these cuts. I figure it was only me, the Star's Ventura reporter and a council gadfly or two who were really listening to City Manager Rick Cole's predictions of the upcoming gloom and doom.

It seems many of our citizens only get activated when they think government services may end up costing them more. News of cuts doesn't draw much of a crowd, unless of course that government service is something that directly affects someone. And then they want it taken care of pronto.

A FULL STAFF OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS are about to be restored to our high school campuses after being missing in action for several years.

On Monday night, the City Council will vote on authorizing an agreement between the Ventura Unified School District and the Ventura Police Department to reinstate this valuable program citywide and I couldn't be more thrilled that this is finally happening. I expect it to pass overwhelmingly.

The city and schools partnered to bring back this much-needed program which was whittled away year after year and finally pulled due to a loss of grant funding and the city's need to put the officers back out on patrol to reduce 911-call response times. One officer was put back at Buena High School in January but more were needed.

The SRO program is a true example of "you can pay a little now or a lot later." The right intervention can make all the difference in a young life. These three officers will also respond to calls around the areas of the schools, provide law-related information to students and parents, maintain a safe environment and perform a myriad of other duties.

The SROs will also work with the School Attendance and Review Board to visit the homes of children who are truant from school. There is often a reason why these kids aren't in school and it isn't pretty.

I KNOW WE'D ALL LIKE TO THINK that there aren't drugs, alcohol and gangs at our campuses, but sadly, it's all there. In the past, the SROs have even been able to solve outside crimes by working through tips gleaned from students.

I've been helping to highlight the value of this program for years. One year through Save Our Schools we privately raised enough money to buy back the middle school SRO for one year. I volunteered my time to make phone calls for the city's Public Safety Initiative which would have restored the program. It failed after receiving 61 percent of the vote. I have addressed the City Council numerous times on this issue and sat on a task force with the Chamber of Commerce to help study ways to privately raise funds. None of this solved the problem.

Where is the city's half of the funding coming from now? It will come from the new 911 fee, which will offset the city's costs for operating the 911 call center and free up dollars for the SROs and a roving team of officers for trouble spots in the city. In all the hubbub over the fee, what it will actually pay for has been lost in the squabbling.

It hasn't been easy for the school district to come up with its half of the funding, either, in these troubled budget times. But they considered it a priority and made it happen.

If the program helps put just one young person back on track, the long battle will have been worth it.

MUCH HAS BEEN MADE recently of the 911 fee and the efforts to generate more revenue for our police department. While our city goes through a series of budget cuts, the police budget is taking a big hit. As the biggest recipient of dollars from our general fund, ($31 million) that's to be expected.

Opinions vary on how best to boost public safety funding, but I heard something the other day that I really feel like I need to share: in order to save a valuable Public Service Officer (PSO) position, the Police Officers Management Association recently voted to forgo raises for three months.

Now in the final year of a three-year contract, the association had deferred scheduled raises until October of this year, said Lt. Quinn Fenwick, association president. These raises were meant to put police management salaries to just the median of those in comparable agencies. The savings will bring in $70,000, enough to fund the front desk position that was scheduled to be cut.

Now I suppose somebody out there will complain and ask, "Why they are taking raises at all?" And that's a fair question. But the City Council voted to remain committed to competitive compensation for city employees. City Manager Rick Cole explained at a recent council meeting: "Competitive is average and we've consistently been behind average across the board."

The front desk position was crucial to providing good service to city residents, Fenwick said. There are currently two PSOs on duty each day; one was scheduled to be cut. "Sometimes I walk out there and there's a lobby full of people," he said. "If that position will help maintain a level of service for the public, we're glad we did it."

EVEN SO, other positions will go, Assistant Chief Skip Young said. For example, a secretarial position will go by the wayside, the PSO position for the Police Storefronts has been cut as well as the PSO who worked with the Neighborhood Watch program. Much of this dealt with crime prevention programs. "We held 22 meetings last year for the public," Lt. Ray Vance said. "A lot of that is going to stop now."

Also among the missing will be five cadet positions, one crime analyst and a CSI technician position, although some of these are just deferred hiring.

Fortunately, the City Council voted to restore the Downtown foot patrol on weekend nights. That $36,000 item will come from other funding sources, Young said.

The council will go over the final budget revisions Monday night.

MY FRIEND KATHY is never one to miss a good shopping experience. If I want to go to the mall, she's always up for it. But I was surprised to learn awhile back that she avoided shopping Downtown.

Why? I asked her. "The people down there creep me out," she told me, referring to the panhandlers and chronically homeless who can often be unnerving to visitors.

So I kidnapped her one day, took her out to lunch and shopping and completely changed her point of view about Downtown. She had a great time and has returned several times since without me.

But one bad experience can have a lingering effect. As I listened to Downtown business owner Jim Rice plead last night to the City Council for the weekend police foot patrols to be fully restored, I realized just how desperate the merchants down there are feeling these days since the foot patrols were lost to recent budget cuts.

"Feeling safe and feeling comfortable where you are is what makes you go back to a place," Rice said. "The bad guys are winning here. When I bring investors to this town ... it is the single biggest issue. When I bring my friends from Westlake and Agoura, they say 'How do you live here? There's a bunch of crazy people here.' "

Apparently his speech made an impact on the council, too. They voted to restore the foot patrols through the summer months and revisit the issue this fall when it is known how much money has been collected from the 911 fee. Proceeds from the fee will go to pay for the costs of the city's 911 call center and free up money for additional police services. At this time, the plan is to hire an additional two-person team for problem areas such as Downtown.

THE COUNCIL ALSO VOTED to continue the funding for the city's efforts in the 10-year plan to end homelessness, which has brought a community outreach supervisor who works with the homeless population to get them off the streets.

In terms of the numbers of homeless, Ventura ranks second only to Oxnard in the county. And while all of these folks are certainly not causing trouble Downtown, the few who do -- along with those who have homes but are just unruly -- have the potential to cast a pall on our blossoming tourist trade, one of the few bright spots in the local economy.

These small investments in extra policing and social services will pay dividends for us all.

I am sorry to note, however, that the Ventura Visitors and Convention Bureau, which helps bring tourist dollars here in the first place, did not fare as well. The council approved a $60,000 cut to next year's anticipated funding on a 4-3 vote.

THOSE UNEXPECTED bills for $99 probably came as a shock to the 1,252 Ventura homeowners who were recently charged by the city for weed-abatement inspections on their hillside properties.

They've been given a reprieve for now. After listening to feedback from residents, Mayor Christy Weir has asked the council to waive the fee for this year until it can be given a proper hearing.

"The proposal for a weed abatement fee wasn't given the opportunity for public input. We need to bring it back to the council and the public, explain it, debate the issue and take a look at the trade-offs," she said. "The choice is, should every taxpayer in Ventura pay the city's costs for a state-mandated weed abatement program through their sales and property taxes or should this cost fall on just the immediately affected property owners?"

The weed-abatement inspection program, which costs more than $120,000 a year to administer, has been a success, Ventura Fire Chief Mike Lavery said. "We credit vegetation management on these properties with aiding our efforts to successfully fight the School Canyon fire in 2005. The 100-foot clearance created a safe, defensible space for firefighters and no homes were lost."

RECOVERING COSTS FOR FIGHTING wildfires statewide has been a goal for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, too. He wants to levy an annual fee of 1.25 percent on all property insurance premiums in the state to generate $125 million a year for fire protection equipment and services. State Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill proposed another plan. She believes the costs should be levied only on the residences located in the 31 million acres where the state has the main firefighting responsibility.

Living near the ocean has its own set of problems. Pierpont beachfront residents are currently fighting the city in court over who bears the responsibility for clearing the large accumulation of sand from in front of their homes and implementing a state-authored sand management plan. They believe the city -- and thus other taxpayers -- should pay. The cash-strapped city has asked the homeowners to help bear the burden.

And so it goes.

In a state where homes are often built on the fringes of wilderness areas and near the unpredictable forces of ocean waves and sand, who should bear the expense of preventative measures designed to help protect these residents from the elements?

What do you think?

Note: The "preview" function in the comments system is not working. Please just hit the "post" button.

THE NEW 911 FEE will cost my family $89 a year and I'll gladly pay it. That's for one land line, one fax line and three cell phones. I could opt out of the fax line, but I'm not going to.

I'm such a rebel.

I thought about this yesterday as I plunked down $15.83 for three cups of fancy coffee at a local java boutique. City Manager Rick Cole is fond of these coffee analogies, so if it's good enough for Rick, it's good enough for me. But it serves a useful purpose in providing perspective.

Yesterday was the first day Ventura residents were able to opt out of the $1.49-per-line monthly fee, which adds up to $17.88 a year for one line. Businesses with multiple or "trunk lines" will pay $4.47 a month. Those who choose to opt out of the fees can pay $17.88 if they ever call 911. This will be waived the first time and also for all "good samaritan" calls. Low-income folks eligible for lifeline service would not pay anything at all.

I had some reservations with the original $50-per-call opt out proposal. I thought it was too much and that it would dissuade those who opted out from calling 911. But the $17.88 is hardly going to break the piggybank of anyone not eligible for lifeline service, and it will be waived the first time.

I'LL ADMIT IT. I have a soft spot for those men and women who don uniforms every day to protect our lives. If they say they need extra personnel to keep us safe, I believe them. The money raised through the fee is earmarked for the operational costs of running the 911 system. What is gathered there will free up other dollars to hire three new firefighters and six new police officers.

Three of those new officers will be School Resource Officers and the school district is picking up the other half of the tab. In these tight budget times they've committed to doing this. It's that important to keep our kids safe.

I've seen the city's proposed budget and it is grim -- $4 million in cuts will be made for the next fiscal year. I've talked to school district officials and the news is worse there. We have tough budget times ahead in the city and state. Experts I've spoken with have told me the situation is likely to get worse. What's on the horizon for all of us is not pretty.

So I'm happy to pay the $89 a year to the city for the extra public safety personnel. Now if I could just get my coffee habit under control...

I RECEIVED AN EMAIL from Councilmember Neal Andrews, who
cast the lone dissenting vote on the proposed 911 fee. I asked him if
I could post it here and he agreed.

It's long, but very well thought out. Neal has real integrity and although he often finds himself the odd man out on council votes, he always sticks to his principles. Neal is also a supporter of many good causes around town and I bump into him at nearly every function I attend. He's a good man. From Neal:

Dear Friends,

A number of people have asked me for an explanation of my vote against the recently adopted 911 "fee."

Here it is.

1. This proposed "fee" is simply a device to raise funds for the City. It has nothing whatever to do with 911 except that 911 provides a convenient peg to hang a new tax on, one that is generally so highly regarded and considered so essential that I believe the Council and city staff presumed it would be relatively immune from criticism and controversy.

2. The charging of a fee to pay the operating costs of a core public safety service like 911 is inappropriate in my opinion.

3. The specific provisions and mechanisms of this proposal, particularly as related to the "opt-out" provision, are antithetical to an efficient emergency response system. Even though the staff in response to public criticism has now (as predicted) reduced the "opt-out" fee and provided for the first call to be exempt from the charge in any case, the "opt-out" provision still creates a perverse incentive to work around the 911 system that compromises its design and intent.

4. The "fee" as designed will generate far less revenue than projected, if many people choose to "opt-out," as I believe they will. It will have huge administrative implications and probably huge administrative expense. Complications and expense usually go together. Moreover, until amended at my request, the proposal directed the staff to spend the money immediately that is presumably going to be collected. That is, the staff was recommending that the Council not only proceed with the tax, but to actually spend the money before they knew for sure that sufficient funds were going to be collected.

5. If litigated, the fee is almost certainly going to ultimately, I believe, be ruled a tax, requiring a vote of the electorate. The risk of litigation is high. The cost of defending this ordinance will be huge. Moreover, the reduced "opt-out" fee now may create an additional vulnerability as it is arbitrary and severs the required link between the fee and actual 911 costs. Instead it substitutes a standard of one year's fees as the benchmark. There is no relationship whatever between one year's fees and an equitable share of cost. There may also be litigation risk and liability attendant to the "opt-out" provision, should it be argued that an avoidable harm was done to some party as a result of delays or errors in summoning emergency assistance because of it.

Those are the essential reasons for my vote.

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

THERE IS A PHRASE KNOWN to politicos as "the third rail," a topic so politically taboo that it is "instant death" to any politician who broaches it. The term comes from the third rail in a train system which has an exposed electrical conductor that carries high voltage power. If you touch that area, you're quickly electrocuted.

There are certain topics in political circles that we just don't mention. Reforming California's Prop. 13 is one. Looking to solve California's 2003 fiscal crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger enlisted the aid of businessman Warren Buffet. His advice? The California cap on property taxes imposed by Prop. 13 "makes no sense" and should be dismantled, Buffet said.

Our governor patted his billionaire friend on the head and quickly sent him packing.

In the difficult budget times the state and our cities are facing, there are no easy choices. Raising fees and taxes is met with vociferous protests, as city leaders recently learned when they voted for the new 911 fee. But every budget cut and resulting loss of service will set off an equal howl from another corner. That's coming up. City staff has drawn up a list of cuts for this budget year and more will be coming for the next.

Particularly unpopular, the 911 fee has become a rallying cry for critics of the City Council members who voted for it. Responding to public opinion, city staff has proposed a large reduction in the former $50-per-call charge for those who opt out of the $1.49-per-line monthly plan. Now set at $17.88, it will be waived the first time a 911 call is made. The council will vote on this proposal Monday night.

WHEN MAKING DECISIONS for the greater public good, it is tempting to do what is politically popular. But politics should never enter into any decision. I commend our council members who voted for the fee as well as our lone council member who voted against it. None of them took the easy way out. Those who voted for it believed it was the right thing to do in order to add personnel to keep our city safe. They knew they would take heat for it. Our dissenting council member, Neal Andrews, has undoubtedly taken flak himself from public safety boosters. But it was a matter of principle for him and he stuck to his guns.

Our council members voted their consciences. And that's all I can ask for.

For a look at the revised 911 fee structure, click here.