Posts

Citizens Don't trust Ventura City government

Ventura City Government Gives Citizens Few Reasons To Trust Them

/in /by
don't trust government

“The most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power” —John Stuart Mill

Keeping Track Of Lost Opportunities, Revenues and Unnecessary Expenses

With the passing of sales tax increases in Oxnard and Port Hueneme, it will come as no surprise to Venturans that our city Council will take this as a signal that it is time to attempt to impose a new sales tax increase again in Ventura. If citizens read the Ventura County Star article of November 9, they should catch the reason why Ventura’s tax failed while others passed.

Lack of Trust Killed P6

The operative word is TRUST. The City of Ventura has been determined and relentless in their effort of to unilaterally impose new taxes, in the form of fees, regardless of the wishes of the citizens of this community. It seems clear that we are not in charge of our own community and are to be punished for having the audacity of not approving a sales tax increase in 2006.

Financial Failures Killing Trust In City Government

Here are some examples of how this City Council has been attempting to increase revenues at the expense of Venturans:

Increased taxes or increased fees:
911 Phone tax $2.2 million per year, estimated
$10 Fee to process a Business License $40,000 per year, estimated
$99 Hillside weed abatement inspection fee $250,000 per year, repealed
$140 Toxic Waste disposal fee on restaurants $200,000  per year, estimated
$100+ fee on all restaurants for beach clean-up $150,000 per year, estimated
¼% Sales tax increase (Measure P6) $6 million per year, failed
User fee increases in 2004-2006 $500,000 per year, estimated
Safe Beaches fees $133 per business $266,000 per year, estimated
SUB-TOTAL OF FEES/ATTEMPTED FEES $8,206,000
Loss of new businesses or loss of existing businesses:
Ventura County Star moves to Camarillo $0, estimated
Harbor Development — 10 years in planning $0, estimated
Seaward and Harbor Development $0, estimated
Failure to complete Olivas Park Road to Auto Center $4.0 million, estimated
Harbor and Figueroa — Embassy Suite Hotel $2.0 million, estimated
SUB-TOTAL LOST REVENUE $ 9,000,000
Inaction, indecision or bad decisions by city gov’t.
 Waste Water Discharge penalty imposed by State Water Control Board  $733,000
 Wal-Mart lease – annual loss of sales taxes  $600,000 per year, estimated
 State Water Contract – annual cost  $895,000 per year
 Helen Yunker legal defense costs  $500,000, estimated
 Legal expense in Ventura v. Tolman & Wiker, low income housing dispute  $800,000, estimated
 Staff costs to track/ resolve 911 refunds issues  $65,000, estimated
 33% increase in retirement pensions for Firefighters  $1.2 million per year, estimated
 Cemetery Park Beautification Plan  $4.0 million, estimated
 Viewscape Consultant  $110,000
Use of out of town architect(s) for review $1.0 million, estimated
Victoria Avenue narrowing project $322,332
Solar compactor Trash can $ 4,500
Failed Computer System 2005-2006 $1.7 million, estimated
New Computer Program $800,000, estimated
Annual Living Wage Implementation for public contracts $171,000, estimated
City personnel cost to pursue P6, the failed sales tax increase initiative $ 40,000*
New City Attorney salary increase $ 85,000 per year, estimated
Buyout of old City Attorney Contract $150,000, estimated
SUB-TOTAL OF OTHER EXPENDITURES $13,175,832, estimated
GRAND TOTAL $30,381,832, estimated

The Cost of Trust Measured In Dollars

Missed opportunity and bad judgment contribute to citizens’ lack of trust in city government.

When you total this all up, there is over $30 million in lost revenue, new taxes, new fees or expenditures that combined would have eased the City budget greatly from wanting to tax the citizens further.

One third of this total is in lost businesses for our community directly attributable to the City Council’s failure to direct city staff to actively process new economic developments and opportunities in an expeditious and cost effective manner.

Then there is the collateral impact of such fiscal mismanagement. Consider, if you will, the impact of projects which failed and/or were not built because of inaction by the City Council and the staff, which resulted in loss of property taxes which were needed to support the Ventura Unified School District. Property taxes would have been collected from the Harbor Development marina, Seaward and Harbor Development, Olivas Park Road-Auto Center development, the Harbor and Figueroa- Embassy Suite Hotel property, the old Ventura County Star site and a fully leased K-Mart property. Forty percent (40%) of those taxes would have been spent on the children of this community.

EDITORS’ COMMENTS

Citizens are now being actively polled to see if they will agree to a ½-cent sales tax. We predict the reversal of the 911-tax blunder, and that our politicos will then spin this as a “carrot” to persuade a yes vote from the voters on a new sales tax. See this for what it really is, a threat of fewer services unless we tax ourselves further. Please review the way our City Council has conducted business in the past, and ask yourself one question- “Do we TRUST them to continue to make more decisions on how they manage our community and spend our money in the future?”

Editors:

B. Alviani          S. Doll             J. Tingstrom

K. Corse             B. McCord      T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

Ventura government needs constant watching

Update on Ventura’s City Government Policy Issues

/in /by

“Government, in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one”  —THOMAS PAINE

SUMMARY UPDATE

In previous editions we treated issues that are important to our community. We now provide updates on those issues as they have evolved and as information has become available from our city government:

(A) The 911 Fee

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) has undertaken the task of prosecuting this action on behalf of several citizens that have volunteered to be named as plaintiffs. So, what is the status?

Their lawyers are preparing claims for refunds, which must then be rejected by the City before a lawsuit can be filed.   It is clear that a suit is soon to be filed. When it is over attorney’s fees and costs will be requested. California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 provides that a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in a significant benefit to the general public. A finding that the 911 fee is in fact a tax invalidates the 911 ordinance enacted by the Ventura City Council because a 2/3 vote of the voters is required. Sadly the citizens of this community will pay again for this misadventure

(B) CITY GOVERNMENT IMPOSES MORE INCREASED FEES

[Economics 101]

Economic stress brings legislators and government employees out of their offices looking for more revenue. The State is broke and the Feds are oiling the money presses. All a result of colossal malfeasance and incompetence at all levels of government. We can also add a good measure of greed for our fine friends on Wall Street. Will our governments stop, take a breath and get back to basic economic reality? Every family and every business know that given such circumstances you have two choices – seek more income or decrease costs. The narrow paradigm for politicians is that they always see new taxes and fees on the citizens as the principal, if not the only solution. Can’t blame them entirely for this because voters insist on more government for less, and voters continue to approve massive bond measures that draw on the treasury we don’t have. The problem with this approach is that the only ones who have money to tax are those that did not spend and live foolishly in the first instance and who in the final analysis are those that create the jobs for society.

In our last three monthlies we reported to you that the City Council is seeking to increase fees to raise another $2.6 million dollars, and that at the early June Council meeting the issue was tabled when Councilmen Fulton and Summers commented that there had not been sufficient time for the community to address this issue.  Another important factor was the inability of anyone to obtain and read the MAXIMUS REPORT(s) (the experts hired by the City), which was designed to be the “legal basis” for the fee increases in the first place. This was perplexing because the Council, adopting an attitude of “don’t confuse me with facts”, increased fees in 2006 and 2007. So good reader you ask yourself how an elected official can vote to increase fees based on a report that they don’t have?

In July, VREG received the MAXIMUS 2004 AND 2007 reports. These reports provide conclusions and some basic financial data that led to those conclusions, but not the “Cost Plan”. That plan is not available.

Officials at the City have been most cooperative and helpful. They too want accurate data so that a logical decision can be made. If increased fees are justified then increase them, but let’s not play games and pretend we are out 2.6 million dollars that City government was never entitled to in the first place. Councilman Fulton wants to hurry into this and make a decision. Now that we finally have all eleven (11) appendices to the MAXIMUS Report he may want to so some reading, deliberate and wait to make sure that when a decision is made it is truly “legally defensible”.

Another 911 fiasco in the making?

(c) THE FIREFIGHTER PENSION

[CITY GOVERNMENT NEGOTIATIONS GONE AWRY]

In a vote of 4 to 3 the council approved the Memorandum of Agreement and the new pension contract with the firefighters of this city giving them a pension equal to 3% of their highest salary times the number of years in service plus all medical, dental. The yeas were Councilmen Fulton, Brennan, Summers and Monahan. The neighs were Mayor Weir, Councilmen Andrews and Morehouse. It should be of grave concern to all when one councilman says, before he cast his “NO” vote – “I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS TO COMMIT WHEN WE DON’T KNOW WHERE THE FUNDS WILL COME FROM”.

In our August letter we posed a hypothetical retirement scenario – a fireman goes to work for the department at age 20, works 35 years and retires at the age of 55 earning a salary of $100,000 per year. The proposal is that he will receive 3% of his salary in his last year of employment multiplied by the number of years of service. So he will retire earning $105,000. [$100,000 x 3% = $3,000 x. 35 = $105,000].

Since that publication one Councilman has been very kind to point out that we need to make some “minor corrections”.

We quote:

In the example it indicates that an employee has the ability to retire and receive 105% of their annual salary. Regardless of the time of service and age at retirement, the program is capped at 90% of the eligible salary. The example also includes add-back for accrued sick leave and vacation. The City’s formula does not include any add backs, the formula uses only the base salary. It is the County’s formula that includes add backs…(in addition)…unfortunately the assumption of a 30-year future obligation per employee is incorrect, the average life expectancy of a public safety employee is 7 years from retirement”. We don’t know what source Councilman Summers is using for this surprising statistical justification for his supportive vote.

We thank Councilman Ed Summers for his thoughtful letter and correction, but when he and others argued that “the increase was only 1%, it in fact was an increase from 2% to 3%, which is a 33 1/3% increase in the retirement plan.

Our hypothetical 55 year old fireman will now only get $105,000 with no add backs to the base salary calculations. As for his 7-year life expectancy, we await the data from the Councilman and pray that our fireman lives longer than that.

Counter point– the judiciary and life insurance companies use annuity tables that tell us that our hypothetical firefighter at age 55 will live 23.7 more years so will still be kicking at age 78.7. That calculates to $8,263,500 over the life span of this firefighter.

The question to our citizenry remains. How much do we as citizens want to pay for police and fire?

The reason given for not being able to fill open vacancies is that Ventura requires all firefighter to be trained paramedics. By raising the bar, is it too expensive and causing Ventura to have a “garage full of Cadillac’s when a Ford will do? Do we want all of our firemen to be trained paramedics? Please send your answers to us.

[Consider: you are now paying 51 cents for police and fire. That leaves 49 cents for general government purposes. However, it is estimated that 70% of that (34 cents) is spent on people. That leaves us with 15 cents for all other purposes]

(D) RATE INCREASE FOR WATER AND SEWER

Enclosed with your last bill was a notice that you will be paying more unless you object by SEPTEMBER 22, 2008. We reported the proposal in the last letter. As an ordinance the City Council approved the first reading. The final reading and the final step for approval was set for October 6, 2008.

The City Clerk only received 353 letters ostensibly objecting to the increase.

Critics of this process protest the reverse approval process that is used in the City. Good arguments can be made that no fees should be imposed unless a majority of the water users agree to a 14% increase for water rates. Is it good public policy to increase fees and taxes based upon sending out a notice and requiring a written reply to avoid a new increase ? As it stands the fee is increased unless a large percentage protest. Can silence be construed as acceptance of this 14% increase of water rate? Is it good public policy to increase fees and taxes based upon sending out a notice that requires a written reply to avoid the increase? You be the judge.  

(E) THE “CRIME FREE RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM”

The City Council has asked its staff to appear at the council meeting on October 20, 2008, to consider implementation of a new program called the ”Crime Free Rental Housing Program”. That hearing has been postponed to November 3, 2008.

The original ordinance that was requested by the Ventura City Council, and which was reported to you in the last news letter, may be abandoned but apparently will morph into something we know not what.

The individual charged with developing this ordinance, at the request of the Council, Andrew Stuffler, has compiled data on this proposal, and is reaching out to interest groups to determine the viability of this program. The data he developed reveals that 93% of the rental property owners are doing it right and that 7% are the problem, but 7 % of what problem? Further analysis indicates that of this 7% all but 10% of those complaints relate to issues unrelated to code enforcement issues, such as dog barking, parking, loud party etc.   So a major program is being developed with major fees to deal with a problem that involve less than 0.7% of the rental property owners.

Draw your own conclusions. If you want to contact the working group here are their addresses:

RENTAL HOUSING PRESERVATION PROGRAM WORKING GROUP MEETING

Apartment Owners:
Tara Bannister Executive Director California Apartment Association tbannister@caanet.org
Tenants Rights:
Karina Arabolaza Director Housing Rights Center karabolaza@hrc-la.org
Local Tenant:
Nori De la O Housing Authority Inspector Renter ndelao@hacityventura.org
Local Landlord:
Bob Chatenever (Back-up to Tag Gilbert) Local Landlord chatenever@yahoo.com
City Attorney:
Rebeca Mendoza Assistant City Attorney City of Ventura rmendoza@ci.ventura.ca.us
City Staff:
Andrew Stuffler Chief Building Official City of Ventura astuffler@ci.ventura.ca.us
Business Community:
Niels Nyborg, (Back-up to Dennis Goldstein) Local Business Person Aptlife@pacbell.net

 

THE STATE OF THE CITY TREASURY

Early in 2008, a task force was created concerning the City budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. This was a good effort. As a result $4 million dollars were saved through cost cutting.  The process involved income projections that required a reduction of $4 million in expenses to avoid going into red ink territory. This worked well but the real unknown was what the income would really total on June 30, 2008 [fiscal year is July 1 to June 30]

In the Budget Summary Overview published by the City Manger the following comment was made concerning the reliability of the income stream that could be expected for 200708. Property taxes were forecasted to increase by 5%, sales tax to increase by 5% [from sale of autos, dept. stores and restaurants] and “all other taxes … by 4% due to a healthier economy”. What actually happened was that property taxes were up by 4.3%, sales taxes down by 5% and other taxes up by 1.6%. Well so much for projections and the predictions of the experts hired by the City – MuniServices !

Notwithstanding the failure of the “healthier economy” projection our City money mangers have done well under difficult circumstances. Unlike Sacramento or Washington costs have been adjusted by the Council to stay within our income stream (what a refreshing concept). A few facts for you to consider:

  • Total revenue for 2007-08 was $88,728,000. Total expenses $88,392,735. This left $335,730 in the bank.
  • City portfolio of investments totals $160 million in the bank and earning interest. Included in this number is $35 million in corporate paper. Unfortunately $5 million was invested in WAMU and $5 million in Lehman Bros. This may prove to be a loss but in this economy a loss of 6% is an accomplishment.
  • For FY 2008-09 income projections are on track. Expenses are below projected expenses and the income projection is accurate for the period of July 1 through September 30th.   A copy of the income/expense graph is attached.
  • The $5 million set aside by the Council to invest for the purpose of attracting new start up businesses is pretty much intact. Called “growth funding”   $3 million was segregated for Southern California businesses (Santa Barbara south to Camarillo). $600,000 has been requested from this fund. The other $2 million was allocated for Ventura business development. $400,000 was spent to create a business incubator (I think they mean offices and tenant improvements) in the building behind City Hall. We have $4 million left in the bank.

EDITORS’ COMMENTS

This is our community and we should have a voice in what happens in our community, but there is great mistrust between the citizenry, those elected to office and the office of the City Manager. The citizens demand that government do its job based on the revenues from existing taxes, that they manage costs and stay within a budget. The City Council on the other hand makes decisions seeking more money for more programs regardless of the taxpayers’ wishes.

How often we have heard one Councilman say “the citizens of this community do not understand the cost of government”. Au contraire Councilman. The citizens do understand what it costs to run government. What they do not understand, or share, is the Council’s desire for more and greater government which in turn requires more and more and greater taxes and fees. So when our citizens’ vote against tax increases what they are really saying is we do not want more government – just stop. The City Council goes around the voters, do what they want to do, create more programs, hire more consultants and then impose more fees (taxes).

A deep seated mistrust now exists. This widening gap of distrust between the government and the governed, at all levels, is very dangerous if history teaches us anything.

Editors:

B. Alviani          S. Doll               J. Tingstrom

K. Corse             B. McCord        T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

Keeping track of the City Council

Keeping You Up-to-Date On The City Council Decisions

/in /by

SUMMARY UPDATE OF CITY COUNCIL DECISIONS

In our last several publications we treated issues that are important to our community. We now provide updates on those issues as they have evolved and as information has become available:

(A) The 911 Fee

You refused to pay, filled out the forms and opted out, but you are being charged monthly. What more could happen? Out of town residents have been ensnared in the program. Those who purchased their cell phones in Ventura are being billed. The City has no jurisdiction over them but they are being charged the fee. The official response of the City is “we are working on it, or it is the fault of the telephone company”.

If you are one of the 27,000 that opted out you should check your bill and write a letter to the Council.   At $1.49 a month, the City is collecting approximately $40,000 per month from you and they are not entitled to it. What a mess!

There is light at the end of this dark tunnel. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has drafted a civil complaint to determine that this ordinance is a tax under Proposition 218 and therefore illegal. The complaint is to be filed in the next two weeks.  Reported in today’s Ventura County Star another lawsuit is planned to compete with this one.

(B) Increased Fees

[A Quest — “Who’s got the soap”?]

In our last three monthlies we reported to you that the City Council is seeking to increase fees and raise another $2.6 million dollars, and that the early June Council meeting the issue was tabled after Councilmen Fulton and Summers commented that there had not been sufficient time for the community to address this issue.  Another important point was the inability of anyone to obtain and read the MAXIMUS REPORT(s) [the experts hired by the City), which was designed to be the “legal” for the fee increases in the first place. These reports could not be found.

Somehow that lack of critical financial data did not stop the Council from increasing fees in 2006 and 2007. So, good reader, ask yourself how an elected official can vote to increase fees based on a report that they don’t have? Or, you ask rhetorically how an elected official can ask the community to pay another 2.6 million dollars if they are not able to provide logical answers?

In July VREG received the MAXIMUS 2004 AND 2007 reports. These reports only provide conclusions and none of the basic financial data that led to those conclusions. For example, the 2007 report incorporates a “Cost Plan which has been provided as a separate document”. That plan is not available. Another example, the 2004 report says that MAXIMUS “used the standard methodology that we have employed for hundreds of similar studies: MAXFEE”. At page 29 the reports says “MAXIMUS provided the voluminous detail and background materials behind all of the calculations and analysis to the City under separate cover. Appendix 5 of this report contains the summarized results (potential fees)”.

VREG has not been able to locate the basic cost report that served as the foundation for the MAXIMUS reports. Officials at the City have been helpful, and now have provided all eleven (11) appendices. The cost report has not surfaced. It is hoped that the Council will not race to judgment until all parties have a chance to evaluate the data.

(C) The Firefighters’ Pension

In a vote of 4 to 3. the Council approved the Memorandum of Agreement and the new pension contract with the firefighters of this city giving them a pension equal to 3% of their highest salary times the number of years in service plus all medical, dental. The yeas were Councilmen Fulton, Brennan, Summers and Monahan. The neighs were Mayor Weir, Councilmen Andrews and Morehouse. It should be of grave concern to all when one councilman says, before he cast his “NO” vote – “I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS TO COMMIT WHEN WE DON’T KNOW WHERE THE FUNDS WILL COME FROM”.

Editors Comment:

Councilmen this was an increase of 33 1/3%!

The councilmen casting the yea votes and our fire chief, Mike Lavery, defend their position by saying that they need more benefits because they must remain competitive with other cities and counties, using as a current example the fact that they have unfilled openings. When asked why they are not filled, the answer is that the Chief REQUIRES all firefighters to be trained paramedics.

We all want qualified firemen and police officers and certainly want Councilman Summers “to sleep well at night knowing that he has the best public safety officers” (quote from his speech on August 4th) but somewhere a limit must be established on how much of our general revenues will be devoted to this purpose. The City of Vallejo is in bankruptcy because they devoted 80% of their budget to this purpose compared to Ventura at 51%.

How much of your tax dollar do you want to pay out for police and fire? You only have 49 cents left to pay for streets, recreation, other employees and widgets, so what are your priorities? We at VREG would like to hear from you.

(D) The Sale Of State Water Options

 As previously reported we annually pay $950,000 to the State Water Project for the option to obtain 10,000 acre feet. Since 1972, we have paid $22,582,371. We are committed to pay another $25,650,000 through 2035.      The reality is that we will never build a pipeline, and that as a category A user we will only get a fraction of the entitlement because there is not enough water to meet all entitlements under drought conditions. Make no mistake – the Governator has declared a drought.

Since 1972, we have paid $22,582,371.

VREG last year proposed that the rights be marketed to meet our annual cost AND put money in the bank to help defer our water costs, and/or to hopefully fund and build a desalination/filtration plant. We are happy to report that the Council has commissioned Kennedy-Jenks Consultants to assist in an attempt to market Ventura’s contractual rights. There is precedent for such a step. Butte County recently received approval of the sale of their water rights on a one year plus one year option basis to Palmdale Water District. This was accomplished over the objection of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District, which charges $425 am acre foot for untreated water. This 800 pound gorilla objected to the Butte-Palmdale contract and you can expect them to object to any sale by the City of Ventura in any sum below that which is charged by the MWD.

Editors’ Comment:

Doesn’t take a lot to grasp the market opportunity here so we encourage the City Council to forge ahead with “viga”, all due dispatch and total disregard for the MWD.

WHAT’S ON THE HORIZON FROM THE CITY COUNCIL

(A) Rate Increase For Water and Sewer

Enclosed with your last bill was a notice that you will be paying more unless you object by SEPTEMBER 22, 2008. The following is a summary and what it will mean to you as an owner or renter:

SINGLE FAMILY HOME
Current FY2008-09 FS2009-10 Increase/%
Water Bill $59.46 $63.66 $68.63
Wastewater bill $64.16 $68.52 $73.27
Total 2 month bill $123.62 $132.18 $141.90 $18.28 = 14.7%
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING (10 UNITS) -89,700 GALLONS
Water Bill $282.10 $300.38 $321.96
Wastewater bill $437.80 $467.50 $500.00
Total 2 month bill $719.90 $ 767.88 $821.96 $102.06=14.1%
COMMERCIAL OFFICE – 29,920 GALLONS
Water Bill $137.03 $142.85 $154.16
Wastewater Bill $83.71 $ 92.98 $100.23
Total 2-month Bill $216.74 $235.83 $254.39 $ 37.65/17.4%

* Rates include assessment for the contractual right to obtain water from the State Water Project. If that entitlement is sold to another user that income would go a long ways in lessening the impact of water costs on this community.

If you oppose the rate increase then by SEPTEMBER 22, 2008, you must mail your name, property address or parcel number to:

 

WATER RATES

CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

City of Ventura

P.O. Box 99

Ventura, CA 93002-0099

 

If you object you can also attend the City Council meeting on September 22, 2008, and/or can obtain information from Gary Lee at (805) 652-4253, or email him at glee@cityofventura.net.

(B) The “Crime-Free Rental Housing Program”

[Specter of Aldous Huxley‘s “Brave New World” of

The City Council has asked its staff to appear at the council meeting on October 20, 2008, to consider implementation of a new program called the ”Crime Free Rental Housing Program”. The draft proposal seeks more fees, purportedly revenue neutral – meaning it will only cost what it costs to enforce – projected at $400,000 from our citizens who own rental housing. The proposal seeks to force owners to have all of their apartments or rental home inspected to make sure there is no criminal activity and/or to make sure that all buildings are in compliance with building codes and all City regulations. Here’s the proposal:

 

  1. The owners of apartment will have to pay an annual fee for each apartment in order to raise $400,000. The fee is for inspecting each apartment to make sure it is crime free. The City has not said how much the fee will be, and they don’t know how many rental units there are in the City.
  2. The owners will have to attend formal training on how to prevent crime and to show them how they can manage their property and rental agreements.
  3. Initially and every 47 months afterward each apartment is required to be inspected (searched) by the Fire Department and/or the Police Department and/or Code Enforcement Officer [all law enforcement] to determine if any crime is being committed or to determine if there are any building code violations.
  4. If you don’t get the certificate you can’t operate your apartments and penalties will be imposed. If you get the certificate the City Manager is given the power to revoke your certificate, along guidelines that his office is to develop, you will suffer penalties The penalties that can be imposed:
    1. You may be cited for a misdemeanor, jailed and/or fined
    2. The property, summarily declared a public nuisance by this ordinance if it does not have a certificate, can be sold, the nuisance abated at the owners expense or destroyed at the owner’s expense
    3. If your certificate is not timely renewed you will receive an Administrative Citation, and penalties will be imposed for each day beyond the expiration.

A large number of owners have expressed strong objections to this program, and a committee has now been established to try to determine if such a program should be modified or abandoned as a bad idea. Initial indications are that some type of enforcement is being considered but it is not clear what form this will take. Information can be obtained from Andrew Stuffler (654-7837), the lead person for the City. He has stated that since the initial proposal their data has shown that 93% of owners with rental units have not had any code enforcement or law enforcement issues.

Editors Comment:

Another 911 fee fiasco? This proposal seeks to impose new fees for police, fire and code enforcement, the costs of which by law are paid by general tax revenue. New “taxes” require a citizens 2/3 vote, whereas “fees” don’t. Now the city wants to re-label the police, fire and code enforcement officer’s inspections as a service to prevent crime and/or enforce the law against wrongdoers (7%) by imposing the costs (fees) of enforcement on citizens (93%) who are law abiding. Just who comes up with these ideas in the first place?

In case they haven’t thought about it our new city attorney might review California Code of Civil Procedure 1822.5, which requires Inspection Warrants before a residence can be searched to enforce regulations, and the decision of CURRIER v. CITY OF PASADENA (1975) 48 C.A. 3d 810, which held a similar regulatory scheme unconstitutional.

If passed as presented we predict that the lawsuits will fly. We citizens will have to pay for the attorneys fees and costs on both sides.

 

Editors:

B. Alviani          S. Doll               J. Tingstrom

K. Corse            B. McCord         T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.