Fillmore resident and former Mayor Gary Creagle protested loudly concerning the several unfunded state mandates at Thursday’s special city council meeting. If all the new state requirements, including the water treatment plant, possible chloride control plant, new flood control demand threats, and new surface water treatment requirements are all implemented, the City of Fillmore could find itself wiped-out financially.

Fillmore City Council held a special meeting on August 7th to review the North Fillmore Initiative Impact Report. The Council also conducted some other business.
The Council had ordered an Impact Report when it voted to put the initiative on the November 4, 2008 ballot. The Council requested the report to provide accurate information to the public about the consequences of voting yes on the initiative. The full analysis will not be ready until August 26, 2008, but Andrew Belknap, Regional Vice President of Management Partners, Inc., provided a summary presentation for discussion purposes. Belknap's summary letter to City Manager Tom Ristau was included as part of the Council meeting packet.
The analysis indicates the initiative is inconsistent with the city's plans for development and infrastructure. If the initiative passes, then the city's plans can be changed, but not without some negative consequences for the city as a whole and the North Fillmore area.
The land in question is approximately ten percent of Fillmore's acreage, and is mostly vacant. The initiative calls for a maximum of 350 units on that land instead of a maximum of 700 or 894. It would also reduce the potential density of development: instead of five to twenty units per acre, development would be limited to a range of one to five units per acre. The most significant change would be a drop in the number of affordable housing units in the area: from 105 to 53. State authorities have approved Fillmore's development plans with provision for 105 affordable housing units. If the initiative passes, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will almost certainly require the building of 52 affordable housing units in other parts of town to compensate for the difference. Belknap wrote, "[I]t is going to be difficult for the City to comply with the state's requirements for affordable housing if this initiative is approved, which could put the City at risk legally and financially."
There would be less of a traffic increase with 350 new units instead of 700 new units, but the smaller increase in traffic would fail to meet the threshold required for road improvements to be affordable. Utility fees, water fees, sewer fees, and storm drain costs would be higher because the base costs would be divided among fewer residents.
Restricting development to 350 units might prevent development by making development economically unfeasible for developers. Belknap wrote, "Infrastructure costs may make development at levels allowed by the Initiative prohibitively expensive." If the initiative passes, it is uncertain whether anything would be built on the land in question. If less than 320 units are built, the imbalance between City-provided services and taxes will cause the City to lose money. The City could lose $106,000 to $146,000 per year. If the land were developed at previously planned levels, the City could see major increases in tax revenues: possibly one to two million dollars annually.
The initiative would not significantly impact Fillmore's school system.
Some proponents of the initiative were present to argue that Fillmore citizens approve of the initiative, and that the benefits outweigh the costs. Two of them stated that people do not want dense development, particularly in that area. Smith suggested that the Impact Report is based on uncertainties and might be unreliable. The third speaker talked about over-crowded units, people living in garages, and the lack of street packing. He implied that the state has overestimated the number of affordable housing units needed in Fillmore, and that development planners should consider person-density instead of unit-density. He spoke passionately about fighting the state on affordable housing. He also suggested that the Impact Report might not be trustworthy.
The Council adopted an official weapons policy. The policy will not be part of the employee handbook, but will be circulated among city employees for signatures.
The Council voted to remain neutral on the proposed conversion of the Ventura Youth Correctional Facility into a Medical and Mental Health Facility for 1,500 adult male prisoners. Assemblywoman Audra Strickland had written a letter of opposition to the proposed conversion and sent a copy to the Council members encouraging them to follow suit. Scott Lee seems to be in favor of the proposed conversion, and Patti Walker is opposed. She voted against the Council remaining neutral as a whole. City Attorney Ted Schneider is looking into whether is would be legal and ethical for individual Council members to write letters indicating their personal positions as Council members.
The Council voted to approve the release of construction bonds on the Griffin Housing Tracts. The bonds were no longer needed to ensure completion of the work.
Public Works Director Bert Rapp reported that only one bid had been received on the Effluent Disposal and Re-use for Fillmore Middle School and Railroad Right of Way Project. He requested that the Council reject the bid, because it is over-budget by almost two million dollars. After discussion, the Council agreed to reject that bid and make modifications in the re-advertisement for bids. The modifications and re-advertisement will cost $23,000.
The Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Remedial Grading agreement to facilitate construction on the Water Recycling Plant.
At a previous City Council meeting, Marcos Hernandez had alleged that a firefighter had harassed and intimidated people. At the August 7th meeting, the Council reported that Sergeant Wareham, of the Fillmore branch of the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, had overseen an investigation into the allegations. Of the people supposedly harassed, only one came forward. The firefighter apologized to that person for the inference of intimidation and that person accepted his apology. Wareham exhausted all available leads, and was unable to find any other person who claimed to have been harassed or intimidated.
Marcos Hernandez requested that the Council pursue his allegations further. The Council appropriately refused to comment on any personnel issues, but eventually agreed to place the matter on the executive agenda. Even after an executive session on the matter, Council members would be legally prohibited from commenting.
City Staff were praised for convincing the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to approve the annexation of 41 acres for the development of a business park. Patti Walker, Laurie Hernandez, and Cecilia Cuevas were praised for their persuasiveness. Roy Payne, Bill Bartels, and Supervisor Kathy Long were also praised for their help with the annexation, as was City Attorney Ted Schneider. The final public hearing for protest proceedings is scheduled for August 19, 2008. If there continues to be no public opposition, LAFCO will finalize the annexation after that hearing.
Mayor Steve Conaway and Mayor Pro-Tem Cecilia Cuevas will report on their lobbying trip to Washington D.C. at the August 26th City Council Meeting.
Upcoming special events mentioned: Downtown Merchants Meeting 8/14/08, 5:30 p.m. at City Hall; Relay for Life 9/13/08 and 9/14/08 at FHS Baseball Field; International Day of Peace 9/21/08; Citywide Clean Up Day 9/27/08, 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at City Hall Lot; and Household Hazardous Waste Day 10/4/08, 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m at Public Works Lot by appointment only.