ELECTIONS / BURBANK CITY COUNCIL : Candidates Focus on Stagnant Economy : Campaign: The 19 hopefuls are paying more attention to jobs and government spending this year and less to development issues.

The 19 candidates for Burbank City Council seem to agree on one thing: The issue dominating the Feb. 23 election is the city’s stagnant economy.

But there are 19 different opinions about how to stimulate economic development, trim the budget and protect the present level of city services.

The debate over whether Burbank needs to cut its spending by millions of dollars or slash utility taxes by $20 million has largely displaced more familiar issues, such as growth. The only big development question, the proposed sports arena near Burbank Airport, has sharply split the candidates. Also hotly debated has been a revived proposal to merge two high schools, a topic over which the council has no legal authority.

In two weeks, voters will select three new members, a majority of the five-member council. No incumbent is seeking reelection to four-year terms. Candidates must receive a majority of votes to win a seat. If required, a runoff election will be held in April.

Recent council elections have pitted neighborhood activists who fear excessive development against pro-business forces. In 1991, council elections were linked to the candidates’ positions on a pair of growth-control initiatives. Both measures failed, and their supporters were defeated.

But this year, the fear of excessive growth has withered under the shadow of the recession, as 15,000 jobs have disappeared in two years and several major employers have left town.

“I agree that the first priority is economic development,” said Ted McConkey, president of Burbank Rancho Homeowners and a frequent critic of development projects.

“We need to replace the well-paying manufacturing jobs we’ve lost with comparable jobs that are sensitive to the environment and neighborhoods,” McConkey said. “There needs to be more attention to neighborhood concerns.”

Discussion of several traditionally contentious issues has been muted, including traffic, growth plans for the Media District and the condition of the city’s parks and recreational areas, such as the Starlight Amphitheatre.

The only widely discussed land-use issue has been a proposal to build a 20,000-seat sports arena designed to house the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team. The proposal, put forward by a developer group, is in the preliminary stages of study, and the arena will probably not be built unless the Clippers commit to moving there. The Clippers, who play in the Los Angeles Sports Arena, have been searching for a new home.

But if the deal progresses, the arena could be the council’s largest land-use decision for the next two years.

The candidates are divided over the arena. Some strongly support it; others fervently oppose it. Some urge waiting for the final plans. Most oppose any use of city money for the project.

Some, like Tom Pratt, admit that they are torn on the subject. “I’m a season-ticket holder to the Clippers,” Pratt said. “But traffic, parking and security could be real serious problems.”

But the sputtering local economy holds center stage, with virtually every candidate vowing to cut government waste and protect city services.

When they start talking numbers, however, it gets confusing.

While everyone agrees that the recession has hit city revenues, the biggest debate has centered on the state of municipal finances.

Many candidates, using budget projections from city administrators, fear that Burbank will have to cut between $5 million and $7 million from its $285-million budget in the next fiscal year. Some advocate using city reserves to cover all or most of the predicted shortfall.

In contrast, a blue-ribbon panel of three business people appointed by Mayor Robert Bowne, dubbed the Business Review Committee, maintains that the city’s finances are quite healthy. In fact, they concluded that Burbank’s reserves are excessive and have called for a $20-million cut in the tax paid by customers of the city-owned utility, which provides water and power.

“The money should go back to the taxpayers, plain and simple,” Tom Tunnicliffe, who chairs the committee, said after releasing the report in January. “I think people will realize that nothing we’re doing is that radical. We’re treating the city as if it were a business.”

Tunnicliffe is not running for office, but he supports another member of the committee who is, Richard G. Messer. Messer is using the report as a platform; several candidates support some or all of his proposals.

Other candidates call the proposed tax cut imprudent.

The issue has put City Manager Robert Ovrom, who claims that many of the report’s assumptions and calculations are incorrect or incomplete, in an uncomfortable position.

Ovrom has said he feels obligated to counter many of Messer’s assertions about city resources. He recently presented a lengthy memo to the council explaining the reasons for holding the $20 million in reserve.

“Although staff strongly disagrees with BRC’s conclusions and the line of thinking that went into them, we still believe it is extremely worthwhile to have a forthright discussion about our cash reserves,” Ovrom wrote.

Messer stands by the report, saying that spreading the $20-million tax cut over four years would help stimulate the local economy.

The debate has left some candidates and many residents confused.

“Are they going to cut the budget or cut taxes? I’m trying to follow this but I’m confused,” said Robyn Smith, 34, an undecided voter who moved to Burbank recently.

Smith’s comments were typical of 28 Burbank voters interviewed at random over a two-week period. All said they were worried about the economy, but few thought that the council could do much to change it because the recession is both national and regional in scope. Most of those interviewed said Burbank needs more jobs and better services, and they wanted less traffic and lower taxes.

The Business Review Committee also succeeded in resurrecting what many Burbank residents thought was a dead issue: the high school merger.

Many of the council candidates have felt obligated to take a stand, although a merger decision is the province of the Burbank Unified School District, which has flatly rejected the proposal in the past.

Both of Burbank’s high schools are in need of renovation, and many people have suggested that it would be cheaper to close Burbank High School and expand and remodel Burroughs High. Opponents to the merger, including most school officials and educators, say the merger would dramatically reduce the quality of education in Burbank. But the BRC recommended that the city give the school district $5 million to assist with the renovation on the condition that the schools merge.

Most council candidates oppose the merger, which is being debated by school board candidates also running in the Feb. 23 election. Four candidates are vying for two seats on the five-member board.

And most of the council candidates have proclaimed their fervent opposition to an idea that seems to have no visible support in Burbank--contracting with Los Angeles County for police and fire services now provided by city employees.

Ovrom included the idea on a wide-ranging list of nearly 100 options for cutting city expenses that was presented to a 15-member citizens group, called the FOCUS committee, which reviewed city services. Although it might have saved the city money, the proposal proved unpopular because Burbank residents appreciate having direct control over the police and fire departments.

The idea was promptly rejected, but it lives on in the minds of candidates, who proclaim their opposition in their literature and at public forums. One candidate, Robert C. Kramer, said he decided to run after hearing that contracting out might be under consideration.

The election was thrown wide open in September when the three incumbents whose terms are expiring announced that they would not run again. Michael Hastings decided to quit after two four-year terms, while Tim Murphy and Tom Flavin have served one term each. All three cited personal or business concerns.

* NEXT STEP

Burbank will hold a municipal election Feb. 23, with polls open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Voters will be casting ballots for three City Council seats and two positions on the school board, as well as city clerk and city treasurer. Candidates must win a majority to take office. For races in which no candidate garners a majority, the top finishers will compete in a runoff election April 13. For information about polling places, call (818) 953-9732.