To the Editor:
Santa Paula has a clear choice in the upcoming City Council Election. Will we return to the old regrets and disappointments that have led directly our city’s current problems, or will we choose new, inspired leaders who can deliver the repairs that our city so urgently needs?
Three of the current candidates have participated in creating Santa Paula’s current civic debacle. Three other candidates offer new abilities and new leadership. The newcomers can give Santa Paula the fresh perspective that we desperately need, and none brings more proven ability and demonstrated accomplishments to this election than John Demers.
Demers’s credentials, retired Navy Commander & 25 year veteran, Iraq War veteran, & COO at the Port of Hueneme, would qualify him to serve anywhere in the world, let alone Santa Paula. Yet his investment in Santa Paula is as deep as his commitment to his family and our community.
Santa Paula has chosen familiar leaders for generations and the results could not be more obvious: stubborn crime rates, outrageous and unsustainable utility rates, planning and traffic nightmares, stagnant business and job growth, high poverty and unemployment, decaying and non-compliant infrastructure, wasteful government, and worst of all, leadership that seems disengaged and unaccountable with no comprehensive response to our problems or any positive plan for capitalizing on Santa Paula’s wealth of natural assets.
“Do your best” has its place, but Santa Paula needs real leaders now who can deliver today.
Demers’s 12 years in Santa Paula make him a relative newcomer in our town, but perhaps this is precisely what Santa Paula needs: someone from the outside who truly has the skills to rise above our city’s problems, bring our disaffected residents together, and finally put some of the luster back on our enduring gem of a city.
Gabriel Zamora
Santa Paula
Prior service on Simi Valley City Council
To the Editor:
It has come to my attention that rumors are being circulated in an effort to discredit me regarding my service on the Simi Valley City Council between 1972 and 1979, including the successful recall of Bill Carpenter and myself. My life is an open book. This issue has been in the papers many times, including after I was hired as the Executive Director of the Ventura County Transportation Commission in 1989.
Simi Valley incorporated in 1969 and was a very different place than the vibrant City that it is today. At that time, there was virtually no zoning - billboards and signs cluttered the streets and just about anything could be built, anywhere, with no concern about how it looked. I served during that transitional time on the first Planning Commission and was subsequently elected to the City Council in 1972 when the effort began to transform the “Slimy” Valley, a rather derogatory but perhaps apt nickname, into the attractive City that it is today.
As a resident, I represented controlled growth, helped institute development regulations and worked to clean up the community. Simi Valley went from blight to a clean, vibrant city attracting jobs and residents, including many in law enforcement.
A 5-0 City Council vote related to the sewer hook-up fees of annexed property’s septic tanks to the City sewers was used as the excuse for the recall. But, the real reason for the recall was the issue of smart growth versus uncontrolled growth.
To quote the Los Angeles Times on May 24, 1979 “A coalition of anti-tax zealots and disgruntled businessmen,” - primarily those who had cluttered the City with signs - “has parlayed Prop 13 fever and local political resentment into a stunning recall of two council members.”
The then City Manager, Dick Malcolm, said “If they have any sin, it is that they served both wisely and courageously.”
During my tenure on the Council I had learned quite a bit about transportation and City governance. I decided to switch careers, left teaching at that time and took a job at the Southern California Association of Governments where I ran a technical program and oversaw programming of funds for 5 counties.
I was then recruited to run the highway program in Los Angeles, for the predecessor agency of the current MTA and created many programs, new technology projects and funded many improvements that are in place today. The Santa Paula Mayor at that time recruited me to apply for the position as the Executive Director of the Ventura County Transportation Commission and the rest is history.
From 1989 to 2007 I brought millions of dollars into this county for highways, roads, bike paths, including the Santa Paula Bike Path, helped create Metrolink and the VISTA bus system and bought the Santa Paula Branch Line. The very last project I got funded before I retired in 2007 was the widening of the 101 freeway between Ventura and Santa Barbara that is almost completed. I have lived in Santa Paula for 24 years, and I love this community. While with VCTC I was glad to be able to help this City with projects like turning the Mill into the Ag Museum, the bike path or improvements to the Depot and Gazebo.
But, I have also been a long time volunteer with the Rotary on the Pumpkin Patch, the Christmas Baskets, Christmas Stockings for the convalescent hospital, helped to get the Santa Paula Art Museum established and brought back fireworks for the entire community. I helped spearhead the effort to unify the schools and I served on the County Fair Board for ten years.
It concerns and saddens me that what occurred when I was on the Simi Valley City Council 35 years ago has become so controversial. If you have any questions about it, I invite you to call me. It also bothers me when I hear rumors about other candidates. I refuse to become involved in gutter politics; there is too much at stake in Santa Paula.
I have the expertise, skills and vision that can help address the serious problems Santa Paula faces and I am willing to help make our community even greater. I would appreciate your vote and support on November 4th.
Ginger Gherardi
Santa Paula
Vote for Bob
Gonzales
To the Editor:
I have had the pleasure of knowing Bob for over 20 years as a policeman, police chief, fellow Rotarian, Councilman and Mayor. He is a native of Santa Paula and to my knowledge has always done everything he could for the best interest of Santa Paula citizens. I support him in his offer to continue to serve on our city council. He has no hidden agenda and his loyalty has always been to Santa Paula’s people.
David Kaiser
Santa Paula
Measure F
To the Editor:
What are the qualities of a good city? There are many, but surely safety would be high on everyone’s list. Most of us take safety for granted until faced with the lack of it.
I am going to share something here which few know. On an early evening, about 11 years ago, my wife and I encountered just such a situation. We were held up at knife-point in the alley south of Main Street, downtown Santa Paula. A knife-wielding man threatened to kill us for the $40 that he stole. It probably went to buy drugs. Most people are not aware that such an event can leave permanent mental scars. My wife suffers from overwhelming dementia and I’m sure that this event contributed to it. We live in a wonderful town in a wonderful country, but it’s important to realize that bad things do happen right here.
According to Peggy Kelly (Santa Paula Times on October 8), we have had eight murders since May of 2013. Three were women, one carrying an unborn child.
As I write this, I have been reading Police Chief McLean’s article urging passage of Measure F. He has written, “...your vote represents a defining moment in Santa Paula history. We have an opportunity to break the cycle of crime that has plagued this city for 30 years. If Measure F does not pass, your children and grandchildren will be left to deal with the same issues: Crime and drugs.”
Life has a series of choices. Passage of Measure F will mean paying a one-percent increase on a Big Mac. Groceries, rent, and medicines are not taxed. Half the increase will go to police services; one-fourth toward improving fire services; the other one-fourth toward improving our streets. I believe that Big Mac now goes for $4.80. There are persons of good intent who will vote against the increase, but I’ll be happy to pay the extra nickel. Please join me in voting YES on Measure F.
Thank you.
Delton Lee Johnson
Santa Paula
Facts about our groundwater supply
To the Editor:
Fact One: Because of the ongoing drought many groundwater wells around the State have gone dry in certain areas causing the Governor to design a one size fits all Mandatory Conservation Program. The Governor’s action was good from the point of view that historically 50% of the residential water use is outside of the home and that is the water being targeted. With changes to outside landscape water use reductions in excess of 20% can and are being realized by replacing lawns with artificial turf and other drought tolerant landscapes.
Fact Two: Not all groundwater basins are created equal. Overlying demand further complicates the issue of sustainability. The Santa Paula Basin has a significant advantage over most groundwater basins in Ventura County as underflow from upstream basins is occurring with little or no flow in the Santa Clara River and Santa Paula Creek from normal rainfall. Also the Santa Paula Basin is adjudicated meaning the yield of the Basin has been allocated. Should its sustainability require pumping reductions, cutback provisions are already in place and under the continuing jurisdiction of Superior Court.
Fact Three: In approximately the last 80 years through September 2014 the local groundwater supply has been depleted by 28,200 acre-feet according to United Water Conservation District records, causing a gradual 20’ decline in water levels during that time period, leaving a reserve of nearly 5 million acre-feet. The 28,200 acre-feet is approximately equal to the annual water demand from the Basin. Losing 15 to 25% of the local groundwater capacity in the next 5 years is impossible.
Fact Four: The cost to deliver recycled water to city residents would cost considerably more to deliver than what is delivered in the current system. The high cost is primarily because of the construction cost of the recycled water delivery facilities needed. Most people think current rates are high, so adding more cost because it sounds good would not be acceptable for the real world rate payers. Be careful what you ask for!
Fact Five: The conversion of Agricultural land to houses and commercial development decreases the water demand per acre, as a general rule demand is less depending on crop and development type. An added benefit for East Area 1 is that water demand on site will be less and the wastewater flows will be recycled when those facilities are developed. The water demand would increase only for new development on land that does not have any historical water use.
Fact Six: In contrast starting a new development can be considered timely as all during the construction process when trees are removed groundwater demand is reduced leaving water un-pumped for other uses. This means the water not pumped during the development process is banked for later use.
Frank Brommenschenkel
Frank B & Associates
Water Management Consulting
Short, sweet and to the point
To the Editor:
Ralph Fernandez is one of the best council members this city has ever had. He is smart, honest, is not beholden to any special interests, is capable of making hard decisions and living with the consequences, makes the most of extremely limited resources, and tries to fairly balance multiple departmental needs within the city. He has strong ties to the community and cares deeply about the future of Santa Paula.
Compare those attributes to his challengers. Procter seems like a nice enough guy, but his previous time on the council proved he can’t make hard decisions. He was part of the council back in the mid-2000’s which got us into the last-minute mess with the water-treatment plant by ignoring looming deadlines. Tough choices needed to be made, and he chose not to make them. He recently reminded us that he helped negotiate down the millions of dollars’ worth of water fines the city was facing then, and yet he was partially responsible, along with his fellow council members, for the fines in the first place.
Both Gherardi and Demers have had the privilege of working on multi-million dollar projects - how are they at working within a tight and often contentious budget? Funded projects are one thing, but a limited city budget with multiple departments vying for those resources is quite another. A candidate can advertise all they want about pie-in-the-sky promises (more police, more fire, fewer potholes), but unless Measure F passes, I know the hard reality.
Crosswhite is new to town and has no history with us. This makes her scary and appealing all at the same time. We don’t know how well she will serve the community when put under the scrutiny and pressure of the city council, however, she has the rare opportunity of running for office free of the usual encumbrances of personal history, political opponents, and past unpopular stands on any issues.
No matter which candidate or candidates you favor, though, the most important thing is to vote. No complaining if you don’t vote! I’ve heard this upcoming election is going to be a light turnout because the governor’s race is so boring. A few proactive people could decide the outcome of our local election. If you have any opinion over the leadership of this city, VOTE!!
Mary Doll
Santa Paula
Very disturbing account
To the Editor:
I heard a very disturbing account of the Good Morning Santa Paula Candidates Forum on October 7. Apparently one of the two current City Council running for re-election blamed a previous City Council, the one on which I sat, for the very deliberate and ill-advised decision he and two of his colleagues made to privately finance and build the sewer plant. Perhaps a few actual facts will provide some perspective on this issue.
In 2004, the City Council employed a lobbyist in Washington D.C. to help us find the money for the new sewer plant. Hiring a lobbyist is considered a financially prudent move, even for a small, low income community, when a city needs to finance a major piece of infrastructure. We chose a lobbyist who was very well respected, and whose firm also worked for the League of California Cities. The lobbyist was intimately familiar with Santa Paula, having been married to a Santa Paulan and having visited the city many times.
When I was mayor in 2005, City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz and I attended meetings with Federal agencies and elected representatives in Washington that were set up by our lobbyist. Our lobbyist or one of his partners attended all of those meetings. We met with the FAA to get money for the airport, which had been badly damaged in El Nino, and we met with Senators Boxer and Feinstein to get money for the sewer plant. The Senators’ staffs agreed that Feinstein would take the lead.
When we met with Senator Feinstein and our lobbyist, the Senator warned us that not much money would be available for planning, but that we would be eligible for a large amount of Federal money for construction of the sewer plant. We would likely qualify for grant money, and might also get another earmark. The Senator assured us that the process was specifically designed to benefit low income communities that have a harder time complying with Federal water quality regulations. As promised, later that year we received approximately $35,000 for planning, one of only 6 earmarks awarded by Congress that year for all of California.
City staff incorporated this approach into our financing strategy for the sewer plant, and recommended that any portion of the plant not funded with grants or earmarks could be financed through the California Infrastructure Bond Fund, which is a low-interest bond program available to municipalities. The interest rate at that time was approximately 1 1/2 %. As many of you know we are currently paying 8% on the privately financed sewer bonds.
I was not re-elected to City Council, but I know that the City Manager and the City Engineer recommended staying the course and building the plant with this financing strategy. I also know that two Council Members, John Procter and Gabino Aguirre, voted to stay the course, and not throw away the groundwork and Federal dollars we could expect.
Using Federal money (some of it money we ourselves paid in Federal taxes), to reduce the overall cost of the sewer plant for Santa Paula residents made all kinds of sense. Financing the remainder with very low interest rate bonds would have made the overall cost of the plant and resulting monthly charges, manageable for local residents. Ignoring this prudent financing strategy has resulted in enormous sewer bills that are projected to go up again and again.
It is true that we were under a State imposed deadline to complete the plant, but the State had been reasonable within the framework of the law, due to work by then Mayor John Procter. If for some reason plant construction fell behind schedule, there is reason to believe the State would continue to forego fines if we could show progress. The State wanted compliance, not punishment. In the worst case, if the State were to impose fines in the millions of dollars, we would still have saved TENS of millions of dollars over what we are currently contracted to pay to the private financing company.
If we choose to buy back the plant now, our contract requires us to also pay most of the interest the private company would have received over the 20-year life of the bonds. We will have to finance $90M to $100M instead of just the cost of the plant itself!! We have been “punished” by our own City Council majority in the form of very high sewer rates for the life of the sewer plant, a plant that we do not even own and can hardly afford to buy back.
It is time for a new City Council majority. Unfortunately, there are no quick, fixes for the damage that has already been done, but I ask that you vote for John Procter, Ginger Gherardi, and Jenny Crosswhite who will work smart to unravel this mess and put us on a prudent financial path, one where the residents of Santa Paula come ahead of outside business interests.
Mary Ann Krause
Former Mayor and
Council Member
