Voters deserve to know how a candidate responds to special interest organizations whose endorsement he or she seeks.

By Neal Andrews

Full text of answers to questions posed by Special Interest Organizations. Full text of Candidacy Announcement speech.

1. Living Wage.

Do you favor the concept of the so-called "living wage" ordinance for employees of contractors for the city similar to the legislation passed by the county? Why or why not? If you favor this concept, do you favor an exemption for small business, lessees, or concessionaires of the city? You may note any other exemptions you favor. Do you favor expanding the concept of the "living wage" to include all employed within the city?

I have major problems with the "living wage" proposals that I have seen to date, including the ordinance adopted by the county. In general, I support the notion that employees should be paid a fair and equitable wage commensurate with the ability to live with dignity near their place of work. In general, in most communities, in my opinion, the federal and state minimum wage laws are adequate to achieve such a living standard. There may be an issue warranting some additional consideration in a community like Ventura, where certain costs of living, principally housing, are atypical. Nonetheless, I prefer to rely upon free market mechanisms to make the appropriate adjustments in prevailing wages.

As I told the labor unions when asked this same question, I am not certain that I see the reason that there should be a different minimum wage standard for companies that contract with governmental entities, in effect creating a "special" super minimum wage applying only to those companies. I believe such an ordinance may reduce competition and make it more possible for contracts to become political awards. In most cases, in any case, such contracts are for services (labor intensive non-professional services like groundskeeping, janitorial and maintenance services, etc.) that may be more appropriately performed by true employees of the city. I believe generally that contracts should be used only a.) for work which is short-term in nature, b.) one-time projects so that, even if longer term, it would not make sense to hire a regular employee only to lay them off in a year, or c.) of such a skilled and professional nature that the competence cannot be found among regular employees. Contracts for routine services otherwise are poor management arrangements. They place barriers between those performing work and the government administrators who should be responsible for managing the work, and they make holding managers accountable more difficult.

Among the other problems I find in the county ordinance are burdensome record keeping requirements, dual book-keeping if a contractor also serves non-government clientele and does not wish to have those financial records subject to intrusive government oversight and audit on demand, the imposition of a grievance process totally under control of the government without right of appeal for the employer, and the fact that the concept of subcontractors is so loosely defined that it is conceivable that simple vendor relationships like those with the phone company, internet service, or some other unsuspecting service vendor might be arguably subject to the ordinance because they do work that could be regarded as essential to a contractor's performance of county funded services.

The county, when it passed its living wage ordinance, offered the rationale that if a living wage were not paid, then the county would likely have added costs in its welfare and healthcare programs. I will not judge the merits of that argument, but clearly the same rationale does not apply to the city, because the city has no legal responsibility for social welfare or indigent healthcare programs. If the county might argue that its savings in social welfare programs would offset its costs, the city certainly cannot make the same argument.

Exemptions?

If such an ordinance were to be presented in a form that I could endorse, I would favor certain exemptions, including those found in the county ordinance for small employers, small contracts, concessionaires, lessees, etc. However, the county's rationale for exemptions seems in some cases to have had more to do with qualities inherent (and often hidden) in the arcane characteristics of the county budget than with any moral principle, as they have also exempted in-home health workers, board and care facilities, printing and copying services, and 501c3 non-profit organizations (their favored low-cost source of contract services) ... all services for which the impact would likely to have been significantly increased costs to the county if no exemption were granted.

Do you favor expanding the concept of living wage to include all employed within the city?

No.

2. Permit Process & Fee Structure.

What is your opinion of the permit process and fee structure that is presently in place for the City of Ventura? If you feel it needs to be changed please advise WHY and HOW.

Fortunately, in my business I do not have to deal much with the permit process nor to pay related fees often, so my opinion is based not on first-hand experience but on war-stories told by my business colleagues about life in the trenches at City Hall. I have however read the Zucker Report (1999) fairly carefully, and this well written and incisive report dealt at some length with these issues and made numerous sound recommendations.

First the Zucker Report identified several major categories of problem. These range from inadequate staffing and in particular no lead staff, to lack of teamwork and interdepartmental coordination, inadequate knowledge and training, and poorly thought out processes. The cumulative result in any case has been that timelines to get through the permitting process are too long, issues do not get defined in the early stages, but crop up in second and third reviews when they might have been anticipated at far less cost and frustration earlier, and instructions and requirements dance around as they are differently interpreted by one or another person or as issues pass through one department and get perceived differently than was the case last week in a prior department. An example I heard recently was of a project that was given conflicting remediation requirements by Planning, who wanted a sound wall, Parks, who wanted a landscaped linear park and bike path, and Public Safety who wanted to be able to surveil from the street without interference by any natural or manmade barriers. In other words the bottom line is the problem has been bad management in general.

Some staffing issues have been addressed, especially the development of a lead staff, but many problems still seem to prevail. That suggests that they may either be embedded in the organizational structure so deeply that rooting them out is problematic, or they are the artifacts of a management approach that is not responsive to the recommended changes.

Permit seekers have a right to expect competence, consistency, predictability of process, and timeliness.

The Zucker report laid out numerous sound proposals and recommendations, and I endorse them. As I noted, some have already been implemented, but others apparently still need to be addressed. I especially would encourage city management to institute a stronger pre-review joint conference process engaging all departments through whom some aspect of the permitting or planning will be required to pass, so that builders or other permit seekers can get a clearer idea as early as possible of all the changes or conditions that are likely to be put forward and so the city can get coordinated right at the outset on resolving inconsistencies in their requests, conditions or requirements.

Secondly a project management approach should be developed and a lead project manager should be identified who has the responsibility for escorting the project all the way through the permit process in a timely manner. The project manager should be accountable for assuring that issues are addressed by the appropriate city staff in a timely fashion and be responsible for getting projects through the process within pre-established timelines for each stage. Recommendations and conditions and their rationales need to be documented and staff need to be accountable for their consistency with policy. Inconsistencies of policy, particularly between Planning, Design Review, and Economic Development need to be resolved.

Fees?

The Zucker Report suggested that some fees were too high, and some were not clearly related to costs, which may indicate they were either too high or too low.

I think that the issue of fees may become a very secondary and minor matter if the timeliness of permitting and the efficiency of the review process were improved. The cost to the builder of the repetitive re-do's and the going back time and time again is almost certainly far greater to the permit seeker than the city fees. And, of course, if the fees are truly cost based and the efficiency improves (by definition the cost is reduced), the appropriate fee will be less.

As a matter of principle, I feel that special user fees are inappropriate for any city service that serves the general interest of all citizens of the city and that they have become over-used. But the fact is that, in the aftermath of Prop 13 and the ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) raid on local property tax revenues perpetrated by the State, fee revenue has become a vital part of any city's funding of services. (Over 30% of properties in the City of Ventura are still subject to 1978 assessments under Prop 13.)

I do strongly believe that the fees established must have a strong and clear tie to the actual costs of providing the services in question, and that the services in question must be provided in the most efficient manner possible to minimize costs. However, only a time and motion study could ascertain whether current fees reflect true costs and highest efficiency. I doubt such a study has been done recently. An alternative approach would be to compare fees with other jurisdictions, especially those with similar circumstances and preferably those who may have done a cost assessment in recent years.

I am less convinced of the validity of actual cost analysis employed in some of our other fee areas such as traffic mitigation, where I have followed staff presentations and reports in recent projects and found their rationales sometimes inconsistent and their method sometimes such that a reasonable observer might have easily come up with a different assessment. I certainly do not support including in fees the time and staff resources associated with policy making or other activities that support the city council or city commissions decision-making processes, or city management's for that matter, if the activity is not project specific.

3. Hillside Development.

Please explain, in detail, your understanding of the hillside development proposal as presented by the landowners. Are you in favor or do you oppose this proposal? Explain. If you are opposed to this plan, is there any form of hillside development you could favor? Explain.

I regard the current "plans" as no more than working proposals and as very fluid and changeful.

The owners have presented two plans.

Plan A calls for development of selected areas out of a total of approximately 6000 acres into cluster mini-communities totaling all together about 1950 fairly pricey homes. These mini-communities would be sited so as to minimize their impact on sight lines from the city toward the hills. This plan would grant all other acreage to the city, and provide for the building of certain amenities at developer's expense, including "all required infrastructure" (streets, water, sewer) and several parks and multi-use trails.

Plan B would deed the land in an undeveloped state to the city or another body for "preservation" (or possibly other use) in exchange for between $50 and $90 million, the specific amount to be negotiated.

In one sense it is immaterial whether or not any candidate is in favor of these proposals or not. For good or ill, the hillside property owners have declared their intent to place any proposal to develop their property before the voters. Without doubt the people will hold them to that. The City Council has unanimously voted to place a ballot measure on the ballot that will establish a Hillside Voter Participation Area encompassing the entire area in question and that will require voter approval for the next 30 years of any extension of city services into this area. I cannot imagine this proposal not being enacted by the voters of Ventura this November. Either action takes the matter out of the hands of the City Council and makes any individual's position moot.

That being said and noting again that what I do or do not support is pretty much irrelevant, I do not support either Plan A or Plan B at this time.

First Plan B. If the citizens of this city collectively wish to attempt to purchase this land and place it into some form of "preservation" arrangement, I would support that strategy for at least that part of the land in question that is significant to the esthetic character of the city or that might be usefully preserved to serve sound ecological purposes. I would also support the creation of a regional park. I would not as a City Councilperson use city revenues as the major source of funds to place this land in such a trust or to create such a park. (Moreover, there is no viable basis for the valuation of the land currently at the proposed amount unless it is annexed and rezoned. But that's a whole different issue.) The city may be better served, however, by letting the acreage be developed for a time under existing county zoning rules (1:160 or 1:40) and re-visiting the issue at another time and under different circumstances.

As for Plan A, as I indicated earlier, this is hardly a "plan" at all, but rather a concept. It leaves too many unanswered questions. To take a stand in support of this plan in its present state of development would be irresponsible. I would be painting myself into a very narrow corner. To lock myself into a position from which it would be impossible to negotiate from strength on behalf of the city and its people by making a premature commitment would be a fundamental betrayal of the public trust in my opinion. I do not intend to do that.

First, this so-called plan promises to provide "all required infrastructure" but defines none of it. Does it include a fire station if one is needed to keep response times to acceptable levels for the residents who would live there? Will it include guaranteeing a water source for this population? Will there be a branch library? Will the "parks" be anything more than a mowed field? Will there be tennis courts, baseball diamonds, bleachers, pools, etc.? What about the infrastructure that will be required outside of the development area # widening or improving Foothill Rd., boosting the capacity of the feeder mains to the project area, etc.? Will the developers pay for any of that? What about the impact on the local schools?

Many of these things will be subject to negotiation between the City and the property owners or developers. We need to be free to negotiate as effectively as possible on behalf of the city. We should not get ourselves locked into a position from which we have given away the end-game.

An element of a well designed "sustainable" community is the inclusion of commercial development that provides for basic shopping (groceries, gasoline, dry cleaners, etc.) in close proximity to the community, if not integrated into it. Plan A so far doesn't address that need. Maybe those services will be offered on the periphery of the development zone, but the only way to mitigate traffic burdens on the rest of the city is to make sure they are either within the development area or in close proximity.

There is no provision for "affordable" housing. Perhaps that too will be developed in the peripheral areas, but should not the developers here contribute to the creation of that more affordable housing in exchange for the right to proceed? If the city does not develop such housing it will lose substantial federal and state money and could incur significant sanctions. In my view no development should be allowed anywhere in the city that does not either make a contribution in some manner to solving that problem or is specifically found to offer a valid reason that it should be exempted.

I cannot conceive any substantial development in these foothills that does not anticipate and provide for expedited access and egress. Any proposed project has to be well planned to mitigate traffic impacts on existing arterial streets. Aliso Viejo would never have been developed without an Aliso Parkway. There has to be provision in the plan for an ultimate through arterial that bypasses downtown and relieves the pressure on Foothill Rd. and Victoria Ave., one that links to highway 33 on the northwest and to the 101 Freeway on the south and east. It may not have to be paid for by these developers, but in the end these developers, these property owners and their extended families, with their millions in potential political contributions, may play a vital role in accessing the state and federal funds to build these roads. It has to be part of the "plan".

4. Harbor & Port District.

What do you think is the proper role for the City to play in the management of Ventura Harbor? Do you favor any shift in responsibility or authority from the Port District?

The structure of the legal arrangement between the city and the port district is one designed thoughtfully and deliberately to create an arms-length relationship, as I understand it. It has served the city well, I believe. It has effectively insulated the city, and its assets and its taxpayers, from some of the worst effects of the failures of the harbor's early years. Yet the City Council maintains ultimate control of the harbor management by virtue of its selection of the Port Commissioners. In the last analysis if there is a difference of policy perspective that is enduring and pervasive, the will of the elected Council will ultimately prevail.

Indeed the recent challenge to the Port Commission by some members of the Council may originally have had more to do with an election agenda than what is or is not good for the harbor community or the city as a whole, according to some observers. Some say it may in fact have compromised negotiations between the Commission and one or more harbor tenants, potentially resulting in less favorable terms for the harbor. Others suggest it may ultimately also be intended to skew some of the development decisions anticipated by the Commission. Finally, one cannot help but speculate whether there is an interest on the part of some of the current Council in raiding the newly found positive cash flow being generated by the Port District. These are no more than speculations at this time, but they are worth noting.

By removing certain of the policy and development decisions from the more politicized environment of City Council and delegating these decisions to the Port Commissioners, in my view, the very intent was to reduce some of these exact negative aspects of influence peddling and election driven decision-making by the elected members of the Council.

Again, however, in the last analysis, a City Council ultimately will prevail in a struggle of wills under the current arrangement, if such a Council is unified, supported by public opinion, and can maintain its will to act over a period of time. For that to happen it is very likely that the Council's collective and united position is the correct one. The current Council seems however interested less in achieving the right outcome over the long run and more with getting what they want today because they want it today (and perhaps have made some unfortunate promises they can't keep without it).

It is alleged that there may be some cost saving measures that could be undertaken if some services provided by both the city and the port district were integrated. Probably so. But under most normal circumstances I would have expected the two management teams to sit down together and go over what they do and why and find the overlaps and identify potential savings and make appropriate recommendations. I am at something of a loss in this case as to why a very expensive consultant had to be hired to figure it out for them, unless someone was looking for cover behind the outside "expert" to launch an ambush. In my world of consulting, that is often what is underlying a job like Mr. Belknap has been hired to do.

I plan to wait however until Mr. Belknap has completed his study before I develop a definitive position on this issue.

In general, I do not see a major problem in the way the Harbor is developing today under the guidance of the Port Commission. Structurally, unless I am missing something, I don't see an issue. My bias is to preserve the arms-length relationship between the City Council and the Port District unless there is compelling reason presented to change it. I will remain open to hear such an argument fairly and objectively if one is made. Maybe there is something I don't know. I'll wait and see.

Written Questions to City Council Candidates from the San Buenaventura Arts Foundation (October 1, 2001)

1. Synergy between organizational efforts, city government, schools, tourist and convention bureau, arts organizations, etc.?

As a veteran of most of the theatrical stages in the area and a writer myself, I believe that each of these organizations has a vital role to play in the development of a strong cultural arts identity for Ventura. The City's primary role is to use its authority to facilitate and promote development of the facilities and infrastructure required by a robust arts community. The School District's principal role is to integrate educational programs with the cultural opportunities afforded by a vibrant local arts community. The Visitors and Convention Bureau's job is to promote and expand the market necessary to feed a viable arts community, at the same time that it uses the availability of arts and cultural attractions to enhance the draw of Ventura to business and recreational travelers. The arts organizations are, of course, the primary producers and supporters # the very lifeblood # of the arts and cultural experiences themselves. Each plays an essential role. Each, when effective, contributes to the success of the others. A coordinated and well-managed program tying each to the other in a conscious fabric of mutual support is essential and should be one of the foremost policy objectives of City government as it relates to the arts.

2. Importance of arts in education?

I agree wholeheartedly that the arts should play an extremely important role in the education of our young people. As a former educator, I know how exposure to the arts and a wide range of cultural media enriches a student's life. The arts expand a student's ability to embrace and understand complex concepts and ideas. The arts make people feel good. The arts inspire us. The arts give us insight into our spirit and our relationships with our world and with each other. These are among the most important of things for society to share with its youth. These are the very essence of education.

3. Economic impact of the Arts in Ventura?

A strong cultural community clearly stimulates and enhances the economic wellbeing of a city. Its performances and attractions draw people from surrounding areas to the local scene. They inevitably spend money when they come # the admission ticket, maybe a meal in a local eatery, or even a stop at the gas station for a fill-up before leaving town. The money they spend then is spent again by the local merchant # perhaps for groceries, for clothing in a local shop, for business services. The process goes on and on with each newfound dollar multiplying its stimulating effect on the local economy each time it is spent again and again. Moreover, as each dollar is spent over and over again a sales tax is generated that increases the city's ability to do all the things we ask our local government to do for us. The bottom line is that the city as a whole, and each citizen in it, is dollars ahead when there is a really strong and active cultural community calling Ventura home.

Arts Forum Opening Statement (October 9, 2001)

I have been involved in the arts all my life. I am a member of the San Buenaventura Foundation for the Arts, our host organization, Board of Directors and Executive Committee, currently on leave of absence. I am a veteran of many of the stages of western Ventura County ranging from the old Firelight Dinner Theatre to the Ojai Art Center and the Santa Paula Theatre Center. In Michigan before I came to California I was the business manager for a repertory company and played such venues as the Old GristMill Theater, the Hartland Music Hall, and the MillPond and the Rosedale Theatres. And I worked the house at the Fischer Theatre in Detroit. I have performed over the years in dozens of stage productions # musicals, dramas, and comedies # and even one or two small specialty film productions. Dramas like the Potting Shed or murder mysteries like Ten Little Indians, comedies like The Sunshine Boys and musicals like Carnival and The Fantasticks. As a young man I was a part-time musician # a trumpeter # some said of symphonic stature. Though I did play first chair in an orchestra, mostly I performed in dance bands and ensembles, and as a student of course in our school marching band. I am a writer and playwright with two produced shows. I'm a passable water colorist. And I once owned a cartoon production company. I'm a season ticket holder to the L.A. Opera, the Music Theatre Santa Barbara, and a series holder to the L.A. Philharmonic and Hollywood Bowl. I rarely miss a local theatre production or an Art Walk. I've even pretended to be a Leslie Nielson or Ed McMann impersonator when it would get me a laugh at times.

But I'm also a very well qualified candidate for your City Council # the only one in fact with the unique combination of experience managing multi-million dollar budgets, helping produce billion dollar revenues, managing very large business organizations, and leading large state, regional and local government agencies. I am accustomed to working in a collaborative policy making process and providing policy direction to senior organizational management. I know how to build consensus in a community and create productive working relationships that get difficult and complex jobs done. I know when an organization is not performing, and I know how to fix it. Our city is not performing up to its capabilities or your expectations. I ask for your support. Help me help you fix it.

Responses to Prepared Forum Questions

1 What are your priorities for cultural arts in Ventura based on prior planning?

The 1992 Cultural Plan laid a solid foundation at the time for the development of a strong cultural arts program. It clearly made nurturing a strong arts community in Ventura a prominent public policy goal. The Downtown Cultural District Plan took another step by defining some very specific actions to develop venues for the arts and to establish a coherent strategy at least for the initial phases of developing a business support and promotion and marketing system.

A lot has changed of course since 1992, and some of the programs identified and promoted along the way have faltered. Our financial commitment has been erratic. Our staff support has changed too often for a stable program. We no longer have the Livery Theater, but we now have the Laurel and the Rubicon Company, and we have the San Buenaventura Foundation for the Arts. So one of the first priorities should be to update our plans and strategies to reflect our current situation and assets.

In the long run, I believe the highest priority # the one we should never lose sight of # is the creation of a cultural arts center in the city of Ventura # a physical place that can serve as a focal point for all the arts # one which will breed and nurture creativity and cross fertilization among artists, genre and media. Such a center would have both a variety of performing venues according to the demands of our market and the needs of performing organizations responding to that market, and it would have work and study facilities for all types of artistic expression # both visual and performing # and it would provide the business services infrastructure to help them maintain a solid financial underpinning.

Q. 2 What priority should the arts have in the budget?

In a budget process, the relative priority one gives to a thing is driven by a number of factors. How essential is the thing to the core mission of the organization? How large or small are the available resources? How big is the thing # how much revenue does it propose to consume?

I place a very high priority on providing what I consider a baseline of funding for programs related to the arts. I would not sacrifice public safety or basic city services, but I do not think we have to to provide a continuing stable baseline program. I am a businessman. I take a business approach. I believe strongly that the best strategies for stimulating the development of a strong cultural and arts community are those which engage a joint public-private cooperative process and that both encourage the development of markets and strategies for meeting market needs or responding to market demands. I am not a build it and they will come kind of guy. I am a find out what the market wants and give it to them fellow. I am market focused and market driven.

I would want the baseline commitment of public funds to be dedicated primarily to leveraging other funds and to stimulating and kick-starting private efforts # whether in the form of public or private grants or private non-profit or for-profit business enterprises. I do not believe in subsidies of either non-profit or for-profit businesses. I do believe in partnerships. That means city staff would support with technical assistance generally but would not assume operational roles in these organizations or manage or staff their programs. Too often organizations tend to try to shift operating burdens to the staff of government support programs and too often in their zeal government staff foster that dependence rather than weaning the artists or their companies or organizations from over-reliance on public funding or staff support. Arts organizations must ultimately mature into independent freestanding entities to really assure a robust cultural life in our city.

I favor relationships more often than not that are structured with revenue sharing features.

Q.3 What is the economic impact of the arts on the city?

Without question the arts and cultural events and expression of a city represent dollars and cents for its economy. The best type of industry -#and art and culture is an industry # in any city is one that does not consume great environmental resources, does not pollute, and that sells substantial amounts of its production of goods and services to buyers from outside its local community, because that brings money # new money # found money so to speak # into the community, and that new money multiplies the beneficial economic effects over and over as it circulates within the community. OK # non-consuming, non-polluting, and attracts outside money # the arts as an industry meet each of these criteria. Arts are one of the most desirable and powerful economic generators a community can have.

Plus, they make a place a more desirable place to live or visit. Thus, the arts contribute in many other indirect ways to our economic well-being.

The arts are of such importance that we may ultimately want to set a budgetary target # x% per budget year below which our expenditures should only be allowed to fall under the direst financial circumstances. To the extent that we can use limited city revenues to leverage state, federal or private grant money, we should aggressively do so. But I also believe that to the extent the city enters into public private business relationships to support, promote or produce cultural programs, events, or products and services, it should share in any revenue generated. These revenues should be reinvested in further cultural programs and business partnerships in the fashion of an enterprise fund. There are other ways to leverage city funds without actually spending them with loans and loan guarantees, performance bonds, etc and all are tools that we should use to their maximum benefit.

Questions from Police & Fire Associations (Sept. 13, 2001)

Question 1. How do you feel about Public Safety? Priority? Competitive Compensation?

The core components of public safety of course are police, fire and field emergency medical response services. I do not however limit my definition of services appropriately included to just these. I also include such services as harbor patrol, lifeguards, mental health crisis support, search and rescue, and even virulent contagious disease control, among others, as properly within the scope of public safety. But for all practical purposes most such services are provided by other units of government than the city. The common element underlying all such services is that they have a vital role to play in protecting the public from threat or in controlling, managing or reducing damage to persons or property after a threat has become a reality.

I place the highest priority on such services in the public budget process. Our first responsibility to the public is to protect their health, safety and well-being. It is foremost among the obligations of government.

It's customary for any organization, including governments, to monitor compensation arrangements offered by their labor market competitors and make adjustments as needed to assure that they can attract and retain adequate personnel with appropriate skill levels. I place greatest emphasis on retention, as it normally costs far more to recruit and train new personnel than to retain experienced personnel. I have not done such a comparative study at this time, so I won't propose any specific measures to improve compensation packages. I will fairly and objectively review comparisons and any proposals offered at the appropriate time. Since I have a great deal of experience in benefits management, I probably bring more to the table than most candidates in terms of evaluation of total benefit packages, and I have more direct knowledge and experience than any other candidate in the area of organizational resource analysis and manpower assessment. I'm also the only candidate with significant direct line experience in public safety management.

2. Will I support NFP Standard 1710 (increased manpower per fire engine). What city service will I sacrifice to implement it?

You've cast this as a Hobson's Choice.

In principle I support Standard 1710. The challenge is how to get there from here. Obviously, achieving that objective is not going to be an overnight thing. A plan for transition to four person rigs or rapid deployment of sufficient response otherwise to assure appropriate on-scene resources has to be developed which would optimize use of existing manpower resources while simultaneously requiring the least additional personnel. Almost certainly it will have to be a phased plan. Just to recruit and train for it will take time.

But the real issue is money. As your question suggests, there simply isn't enough at this time. That's why you present me a Hobson's choice by asking what or whom would I sacrifice to achieve your objective. While I do believe there are areas of current expenditure which could be reduced to redirect funds to such needs (the city is spending a lot of money on outside consultants, litigation issues, etc.), I am not prepared to sacrifice any other essential service to achieve this objective, nor do I think we have to.

My approach is to attack the problem of inadequate city revenues by increasing revenues, not asking the various departments to fight against one another in a feeding frenzy over the few scraps available today. Now, that too will take time. We cannot achieve significantly increased revenues overnight either. But we can increase revenues with an intelligent program that emphasizes increased retail sales and tourism and brings in new employers to the city. If we generally raise the level of economic activity in the city, property values will rise and property turnover will increase, retail sales will grow, and more tourist bed taxes will be generated. That will raise substantially the tax revenue available for all city services. That is the key to meeting our needs.

3. Do you support SB 402(binding arbitration?

I support SB 402 for public safety personnel. Ordinarily I feel that binding arbitration provisions, for example in business arrangements, tend to favor the dominant party and may work against fairness, but in this instance the circumstances are different in that the ultimate sanction of a strike or job action is not available to public safety personnel.

I would not be inclined to spend public resources on a legal challenge to this law.

4. East Ventura Sports Complex. Capital Cost? Operating Expense? Economic Benefit?

If anyone says they know what this project will cost ultimately, they are blowing smoke. What we do know is it will cost a lot, and we don't have the money.

The city has presented two first stage plans for development of the facility focusing on the swimming complex, one a Cadillac version and one more like a top of the line Chevy. Even these are as yet without a firm price estimate.

It's clear that it will take years to fully develop these facilities. The capital cost will be substantial, but raising the capital for construction is probably the less significant problem. There was substantial support for the ballot measure authorizing the land use for the park, so it may well be that there is sufficient support to pass a bond measure to finance building the facilities. In addition there may be some one-time grant funds available for such purposes, and the supporters of the park proposal may well be willing and able to carry out a voluntary capital funding campaign.

The real problem lies in how to finance the on-going operation and maintenance costs. These are the costs that will compete year after year with every other program in the city for operating funds. I do not believe concessionaire fees and user fees will be adequate, nor do I feel the people of this city will endorse anything more than nominal user fees in any case. While a private-public joint venture has been suggested as a means for providing an operating entity, no one has yet come to grips with how such an entity itself would be funded.

One possible approach would be to sell certain "use rights" to private entities, but any such proposal would restrict the availability of the facilities for general public use and would likely be somewhat controversial. In any case such an arrangement would have to be negotiated very carefully to protect the public interest. In the past the city has been notoriously incompetent in negotiating deals with private interests, paying far more than might have been required by a more astute businessman. I do not believe it is a proper function of government to make some private party rich by offering inflated prices or failing to negotiate concessions effectively.

Another approach might be to explore the imposition of a special park assessment on any new housing or commercial project in the city, but that may have some legal problems if it is determined to be improperly discriminatory or insufficiently related to the development project against which the charge is assessed. Another option to explore may be establishing a special district and imposing a general fee on all property holders in the district, but that too requires voter support and is less likely in my opinion to be able to pass at the ballot than a one-time bond measure. Finally, it might be possible to fund an endowment sufficient to spin-off enough annual revenue to finance at least basic operating costs, much as endowments fund land conservation efforts.

I do not see the economic benefits of this park complex being in any way sufficient to offset its costs. That does not mean there will be no economic benefits. If the facilities were leased for special events, there may be some direct economic impacts. To the extent the facilities routinely draw out-of-town users, there will be some indirect spillover effects in the local economy. To the extent that the facilities make Ventura generally a more attractive place to live, property values may rise, as more people seek to live here. Obviously, that's a two-edged sword.

In the short run, the city may be heading in the wrong direction by placing its priority on the swimming complex. We may be better off developing the playing fields first. They cost less to develop and far less to maintain. They could be developed faster and bring more immediate benefit to the city. In the long run, as I indicated earlier, the real solution lies in stimulating local economic growth so that general revenues rise, and the city can fund such projects naturally as a by-product of prosperity.

5. How would you address the curent Paramedic shortage?

Since the College District established its paramedic training program two years ago and the first classes are out now, there should be some additional local supply. In general, I believe the problem of supply arises from the lack of sufficient internship opportunities after the classroom portion of training # at least as I understand the current situation. There appear to be plenty of qualified applicants for the training. Of course, in the case of the fire service they also have to be willing and able to meet the other requirements of fire service employment. Still, I think the basic problem seems to lie in making more internship slots available. Internships require that there be mentors or preceptors in the local services available to supervise students. Thus, the rub comes from the fact that making preceptors available is an added cost and reduces to some extent the available manpower in the local agencies, including Ventura City Fire. Moreover, I presume that some of the resources of the Department that might otherwise be available for internship supervision is being committed to ongoing continuing education programs and re-certification training, which makes the limited training resources even less available for internships. The solution may partly perhaps be to increase over time the availability of internal training resources, but since fire personnel resources are multi-skilled, using them exclusively for such paramedic training purposes may not be an optimal use of city resources. It actually may be smarter and less expensive to subsidize internship training opportunities outside the Department for personnel who commit to joining the fire service after the internship and who would otherwise qualify.

Since, for the most part I also tend to feel the best solution is often to grow your own, so to speak, to the extent that there are current fire personnel who would be interested in advancing by enrolling in a paramedic program, I would think it may be useful to explore at least some additional city commitment to support of such advancement opportunities. I find in my private business practice that it is important to provide advancement opportunities within my organization and that doing so improves morale and productivity significantly.

In both cases, whether subsidized internship outplacement or internal advancement programs, I would only support such approaches if there were actual new personnel positions to be filled or budgeted vacancies through turnover or attrition in the Department that had previously received general approval in the budgeting process.

While I obviously have a strong background and understanding of public safety and especially of paramedic service issues, the shortage issue is not one I have studied in detail. If I don't have some of the critical facts or if I misunderstand some of the concerns, I would welcome your input and advice.

6. Will you be available and accessible to public safety union representatives if elected? Assurance of Continuing Attention.

I believe it is important for any elected official to maintain open lines of communication with constituents. I will be available to law enforcement and fire and any other constituent representatives at any time to discuss issues of concern, and I will accept no restriction on my right to do so unless someone can show me some legal restriction or a potential conflict of interest issue that can be clearly documented.

Obviously, no one can give an ironclad guarantee that they will always be supportive of your representatives' requests or responsive to your special interests. I will always review your requests and proposals conscientiously. I will fairly consider your interests and carefully strive to balance them against the other needs and interests of the city and its residents. If anyone tells you they will do more, you should probably bring them up on charges. In the last analysis, your assurance is simply that, if you feel betrayed, you can rectify the problem at the next election. I have no problem owning accountability for my actions.

Questions from Friends of the Library (Oct. 1, 2001)

1. Now that the City is a full partner with the County and other cities in overseeing our library, would you use General Fund money to support Ventura libraries?

As in any partnership, the partners in the enterprise, in this case the library system, are each expected to participate equitably. There are always times when one or another party may be unable to fulfill its obligations on a temporary basis, but to do so consistently over the long haul jeopardizes the partnership and the very enterprise itself. Moreover, contributions, whether in money, facilities or services, should be commensurate to the benefit received by the city and its citizens. The city's direct support of our libraries is currently very limited. As the city's revenues grow, I believe that significant consideration should be given to more adequately supporting our library services, especially to the degree that any added or enhanced services directly benefit Venturans over other users of the system.

2. What else could the city do to improve our libraries?

It's of utmost importance that we continue to upgrade and modernize our citizens' access to the vast knowledge base and communications opportunities opened over the last decade with the development of the worldwide Internet system. The exploitation of modern technology to increase access to information quickly and inexpensively should be one of our highest priorities when considering our library services. The city should make a firm commitment to developing all the electronic or technology based infrastructure elements required to assure that people using our library resources can do so most effectively and efficiently. The city should work with all its library partners to develop or link to a specialized Internet portal service accessible from any Internet computer that would provide organized user-friendly guidance to Internet resources that are especially relevant to typical library users, particularly those who may be Internet novices.

Historic Preservation Alliance Questions (Oct. 11, 2001)

1. Would you increase the powers of the city's historic preservation committee?

Frankly I am not very familiar with the "powers" of the committee or what it can or cannot do. I understand that it was at one time a "Commission" and presumably it had some greater powers then, not just a different name. Again presumably the difference was that while a committee can give advice, it usually has little or no delegated decision authority, while a commission can be delegated limited authority by the Council to make certain decisions, subject to review and appeal provisions. I do not have a position on this question, but I would be quite willing to entertain a discussion of the merits of restoring commission status and would be willing to review the areas where proponents felt authority should or could be delegated. It is clearly inefficient for the Council to make all decisions on every matter that appropriately comes before the City, and there are standard safeguards that can be employed to assure that delegated authority is not misplaced or misused. I would be concerned somewhat that delegation of certain authority not add inappropriate administrative burdens on property owners or cause undue delays in securing project approvals, so I think we would need to take special steps to streamline and integrate any delegated approval process into the normal applicant review process to avoid such problems.

2. What would you do to ensure that designated historic landmarks are not altered?

I have no specific plan at this time to prevent unauthorized alteration of designated historic sites. I would be willing to learn what steps might be most effective. To the extent that such alterations in the past, as in the case of the Bank of Italy building, were actually reviewed and approved or, if not approved, simply not objected to by the City, I think the appropriate corrective steps are to make sure everyone who reviews such plans knows and applies the current law and restrictions. That is an administrative matter. If it is not being done today, responsibility lies at the office of the administrative head, and it would be then one of the criteria of evaluation that might be applied by Council in judging the performance of that office. Obviously we could require that any alterations of any historic site be passed before the historic preservation committee or commission in a timely manner or even require sign-off by it. Timeliness issues will often be a problem in requiring such review, but in a public arena, people need to be prepared to accept the burden of oversight. We could also establish some definite review indices that would have to be specifically considered and for which there would be required a positive assertion of no objection before final approval could be considered by any review body, including the Council.

3. What ideas do you have to encourage owners of historic properties to apply for landmark status and help preserve their properties?

Owners are often very concerned about establishing historic status relative to their properties because it often places restrictions on their property rights and it equally often imposes frightfully obstructive bureaucratic barriers to doing anything different ever. Obviously, we need to be very sensitive to the bureaucratic burden issue. I believe strongly that government intrusiveness should be as limited as humanly possible consistent with the public interest. Tax incentives are of course the classic tool to encourage property owners to accept historic preservation restrictions. A public trust fund, whose assets were committed to protect owners from adverse financial consequences of placing a property into historic status or which might be used to help finance restoration efforts on favorable terms, might be another useful approach.

4. What ideas do you have to protect historic buildings in the downtown; specifically what would you do to preserrve the Herbert House?

Again I do not have a specific plan to preserve the Herbert House or even just those buildings in the downtown area that have some historic stature. I would be open to discussion with more knowledgeable persons. I think some of the ideas outlined above are relevant, particularly the development of a public trust funding mechanism. In addition, one might consider a downtown "historic district" similar to the cultural district, or perhaps simply require there to be a specific historic plan component for the cultural district plan. I don't recall that there is one at this time except that which relates to the Museum.

5. What ideas would you have to help raise funds to give proper signage to historic sites?

First I think that appropriate signage, including signs related to specific communities with discrete identities and specific historic buildings or sites, is a key component to a community's identity and a city's character, and I believe that funding appropriate signage is not something that should require extraordinary provisions. It should be a routine part of every budget. Signage transition is obviously a long-term project. To the extent that special signage has a clear commercial impact on a community, if local businesses wanted to expedite a signage program I would invite them to make donations or establish assessments to help do so. To the extent that community councils wished likewise to assist, I would encourage them to do so.

6. Would you support a Heritage Square for threatened historic buildings? Where?

I think a Heritage Square concept would be wonderful. I have no specific site, but several might be considered ranging from the "Triangle site," to the foot of the palisade below the Pierpont Inn, to atop a covered spanse of the freeway, or out across from the Harbor, or even possibly in Saticoy. We might even ultimately explore extending the historic Heritage Valley rail system from Fillmore to Saticoy. I believe that right-of-way exists. I have no clue how to fund such a development, but I know how to find out. We have a good role model in Oxnard for a Heritage Village or Square, and could explore with the principals there how they made it happen. There are many other historic villages around the country that could be examined as well. Some are living history experiences, some simply tourist attractions without much current historic content, and others are like the one in Oxnard where the buildings support modern uses but are preserved more or less as architectural commentary. In addition there are numerous successful historic railroads operating around the country which might serve as models if the railway extension idea was considered worth pursuing. I do know there are at least limited state and federal funds that could be applicable, and I believe this is the sort of project that could be very interesting to certain private foundations as well.

Full text of speech to constituents announcing Neal Andrews candidacy.

Announcement: Neal Andrews Candidacy

August 8, 2001

First, let me say how flattered I am that you all would take time out of your lunch hour to join me here today. I'm flattered and I'm very grateful Thank you all so very much.

As you all know, today is the official launch of my campaign for election to the Ventura City Council. As of this moment I am a candidate for City Council. As of this moment, my world--our world # for the next 90 days has changed in so many ways.

For those of you who have been involved in political campaigns before, you know how hectic this next 90 days will be # how it will start slowly from a small base like we have here today and it will grow and grow and move faster and faster until it seems we are moving at a blindingly frenetic pace toward the final day # November 6th.

People have asked me why on earth I would agree to run in this election? Who in their right mind wants to be a politician? Who would ever willingly wade into the muck and mire that has too often come to be politics in America today?

My reason has been simple. I wear it on my lapel almost ever day. I want to try to make a difference. I think I can make a difference.

I see a great future for this city. I see a future in my mind's eye that I believe the people of this city will have resoundingly endorsed on Election Day. And I don't believe I have to become a "politician" to get there. I refuse to become a "politician" to get there. In fact, I think it is impossible for a "politician" to get us there.

The only way to get there is through leadership and statesmanship, not the manipulation and deception most people think of when they think of "politics." We can only get there by successfully reaching out to you and all the rest of our community and welding the power of people into an irresistible force that will overcome all obstacles and carry us forward to a higher level of achievement. That's the kind of leadership we need. That's the kind of leadership I will try to bring to our city.

Don't get me wrong. We won't on Election Day all at once see some magical transformation. And I can't do it all by myself. But I believe that, as a result of our work together on this campaign, we will see an indomitable spirit and momentum rising so clearly that in future years people will look back and say November 6th, 2001 was a watershed for the city of Ventura.

Oh, and I know too how frail and inadequate my own leadership will be sometimes. But I also know I don't have to be perfect. I just have to try my best. You will do the rest # all of you who live here and believe in our future. You will carry the day. You will make the true difference in the end.

There is a line from Browning poem, Andrea del Sarto, that says it just right: "A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

Most who know me think of me as a practical and pragmatic businessman. A hard nosed realist. A fiscal conservative. All that is true. But, I'm also paradoxically an idealist and a dreamer of great dreams. Those who really know me understand that as well.

My dreams will exceed my abilities. I know that. But, the dreams, even if only half fulfilled, will have been worth it.

So let me share with you today some of my dream about our City of Ventura.

I see a city nestled here between the blue of the sea and these green and gold hills # a shining city like a diamond beckoning people to admire it # a gem rivaling Santa Barbara or Thousand Oaks # one of the most complete and robust communities imaginable.

It's a city with a dynamic community life, enriching cultural experiences, magnanimous in its caring and its social justice to the lowest and most disadvantaged, and full of opportunity for its youth.

Imagine a city that anchors the north end of a thriving beach, port and marina complex stretching all the way through Oxnard Shores and the Channel Islands Marina to Port Hueneme. One that combines the characteristics of Newport Beach, Balboa Island, Laguna and Dana Point with their rich residential, recreational and resort qualities, and the economic strength of the ports of San Pedro and Long Beach. We have the resources. We have one of the fastest growing deep-water ports on the West Coast and two of the finest recreational marinas on the central coast. We have coastal parks with magnificent potential and wonderful wetland refuges. We have a national ocean park unlike any other in the country. And yet we have some of the most under-utilized coastal commercial properties anywhere in southern California.

Imagine if we could put together a collaborative program integrating the resources of Ventura, Oxnard, and Port Hueneme. Imagine if we worked more effectively with the City of Ojai, the County and the State and Federal Governments to knock down Matilija dam today, not tomorrow ... today. Imagine what we could accomplish ... more recreational and entertainment facilities, more sand on our beaches, a revived steelhead fishery in the Ventura River.

Imagine our city bracketed by signature gateways # proud hallmarks of a great city # a place of commerce and economic vitality, a city rich in opportunity for its people and whose quality of life is admired and envied by everyone who passes through it.

Imagine a new gateway from the south with new shining office towers along the 101 Freeway on the Ventura side of the Santa Clara River marking the southern doorway to our city, instead of the run-down warehouses along the railway spur or the boxy little industrial condos on the south side of the freeway.

Or imagine a unique new commercial campus on the 96 acres marking the entrance to the city from Ojai at the north end of the Avenue in place of the rusting old Petrochem refinery and the surrounding brownfields.

Imagine a new state-of-the-art medical plaza in the eastern reach of mid-town or on the far east end # again a signature gateway sending a message of prosperity and progress to all who approach our city.

Our existing hospitals must be rebuilt for all practical purposes by 2008 to meet new earthquake codes. Let's work with them and the County and the State and maybe even UCLA and the Veteran's Administration to seize the opportunity inherent in the fact that they must be replaced. The resources will be there. Let's use them to the best benefit for our city.

Imagine those broad flat areas along Highway 33 through the West End filled with sound stages or technical design and support studios for the entertainment industry. Now imagine the whole Avenue community rebuilt and revitalized, because inevitably that is what will happen if we can bring such industry to that area.

Imagine a concert bowl in the canyons east of town where it's warmer and drier on a summer's evening. Imagine a botanical garden along the Ventura River bottom replacing the hobo town where the river meets the sea and anchoring the west entrance to the city # another signature statement to all who approach that this is a city with class and beauty. Or imagine, as one of our civic leaders has suggested, a cover over the freeway and railroad tracks from the Promenade to the State Beach Park, supported by parking facilities and a complex of boutiques, eateries and entertainment facilities with a city park on top.

Imagine an art center downtown with performing stages, galleries, studios and teaching facilities integrating all the classic art forms # music, theatre, ballet, painting, sculpting. Imagine local bands playing pop concerts or rock and roll or blues or jazz on a summer night in our parks.

Imagine taking advantage of our nearness to Ojai and our great natural mountain resources to become the launch point for a whole host of excursions and recreational activities in the Sespe's and Topa Topa mountains from wilderness trekking to four wheel vehicle tours, from trout fishing to cross country skiing, to rock climbing.

Imagine a city with enough financial resources that a place could be made available for our homeless to live with dignity and where treatment and housing would be supported for all our disadvantaged. Imagine a city with the spirit of generosity and humanity that would allow none of its fellow citizens to suffer needlessly.

Imagine a city where each of you have 50% more disposable income eight years from now after adjustment for inflation and where there are 1000 new high paying jobs in clean low social and ecological impact industries # a city where natural growth is guided and planned to protect the quality of life and where needs are anticipated intelligently and met effectively and efficiently.

This is the city I imagine. This is the city I will try to bring to reality if you elect me. This is the cityview I will try to inspire our fellow citizens to share # oh, with a tweak here, a better idea there, a new thought from this one and a different concept from that arena about this or that aspect. The specifics and particulars are not so important. It's the spirit that is important. I believe that together we can achieve great things. We just need to believe we can, and we must find the will to.

There is another poem # actually a little ditty # that sort of sums up what I believe we need to do and what in a sense my campaign will be all about. A friend # a clown named Boffo who sang it to entertain children and all of us young at heart, gave it to me. It goes like this: " There is a place where the sun always shines and where rainbows fill the air, and if you try and if I try and if we both try together, maybe someday we can find our way there."

Thank you for being here today and letting me share my dreams with you. I promise over the course of the campaign to try to give you more specific ideas of how we can achieve some of these dreams. In the meantime please join me on the journey to the land of sunshine and rainbows.