Artists Guild
Judy Dressler appeared before the Council Tuesday night, March 23, to represent the newly formed, eight-charter-members-strong Artists Guild, which is looking to grow and find venues to showcase their work. The Guild is holding a Show and Sale at the Giessinger Winery at 365 Santa Clara Street on March 27-28 in conjunction with the City’s RailFest Celebration.

Boy Scouts and Boys & Girls Club
Mayor Patti Walker presented a Proclamation to the Fillmore Boy Scout Troop #406 for Outstanding Service to the Community. The troop filled 1,200 sandbags to protect against potential flood damage at the Fillmore Fire House during the January storms. Eleven of the 16 members were in attendance to receive the Proclamation. Mayor Walker then presented a Proclamation to Sheila Tate to acknowledge March 21-27, 2010 as National Boys & Girls Club Week and commended the new permanent director of Boys & Girls Club of Santa Clara Valley for the organization’s work in providing comprehensive effective services to over 300 youths annually.

Keeping Revenues Local
David Mullinax of the California League of Cities, which represents 480 cities in the state, spoke on the group’s initiative to gather 1.1 million signatures by the end of April to protect local revenues from Sacramento. They have collected 800,000 signatures to date and are campaigning to mobilize grassroots efforts to meet their goal in order to keep the state government from “balancing their budgets on our backs.” Mullinax said that the beginning of the process starts with the adoption of the resolution he submitted before the City.

Classification and Compensation Study Shellie Anderson of Bryce Consulting gave a presentation on the Classification and Compensation Study being conducted for the City of Fillmore. The study encompasses 46 full-time and 47 part-time positions in 54 classifications and will produce recommendations on staff alignments, reporting relationships, and organizational structure. A salary and benefit study including a market survey and a City salary/step plan will gauge consistency and help ensure the accuracy of job descriptions to better serve recruitment, selection, and career progression purposes.

Fillmore Business Park
City Manager Yvonne Quiring introduced a request by Fillmore Riverview, LLC (KDF Communities) for Council to give consideration and direction to Staff regarding the funding of the Business Park Infrastructure through California Infrastructure Bank, Redevelopment Agency Budget Allocation, and Development Impact Fee Budget Allocations. The staff recommends that if Council agrees to proceed with exploring funding options for the Business Park, that the staff be directed to explore other financing alternatives that do not use the General Fund or other City funding sources (RDA and Developer Impact Fees) as collateral. The proposal calls for an analysis by independent consultants selected by the City at the developer’s expense, with KDF furnishing all necessary documents for the review.

The 112 acres under consideration is located in the southwest corner of the City of Fillmore and is bounded by Sespe Creek on the west, the Santa Clara River on the south, C Street on the east, and State Route 126 on the north. This area includes eight separate property owners, the Water Recycling Plant (12.5 acres), and Two Rivers Regional Park (22 acres), leaving 77.5 acres for commercial and light industrial land use in the Business Park.
The infrastructure projects includes the construction of a street traffic signal at State Route 126 and D Street, water lines, sewer lines, storm drains, and street improvements. As proposed, the financing plan involves the City applying for a $4.9 million I-Bank loan, with RDA Budget Allocations and DIF Budget Allocations providing $2,194,800 and $726,158, respectively. KDF and other Business Park property owners would form a Community Facilities District (CFD) with a combined annual maximum tax rate sufficient to match the annual debt service payments on the I-Bank loan, and would agree to fund all CFD formation costs. If the CFD revenue were insufficient, the General Fund would need to pay the debt service. KDF and the property owners would also deposit monies with the City to allow the City to conduct its own independent analysis of the feasibility of using general fund revenues as the payment source for the I-Bank loan.

KDF believes that a public/private partnership between the City of Fillmore and the developers would “bring thousands of new jobs to Fillmore” and get the “local economy growing and help bring prosperity to the existing businesses and residents of Fillmore.”

Councilmember Jamey Brooks’ immediate question was why the developers turned to the I-Bank loan and not directly to a bank. Quiring replied, “I prefer the developer answer that question.”

Ray Harper of KDF stressed the 2,600 jobs that the Business Park would provide, and mentioned his recent efforts to speak directly to the council members to discuss the project in detail. Brooks acknowledged the invitation but cited his personal policy of detachment, though he “appreciates” that others met. Harper explained his situation as the developer, citing the Master Plan approved in March 2008 for which a Common Area Master Infrastructure Fee was developed to support the Business Park parcels, including the City’s Water Recycling Plant and Two Rivers Park. The formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD #8) was requested by KDF to include five separate projects within the Park representing approximately 64 acres. The Water Recycling Plant the Park were not proposed to be included as these projects would be paying for improvements through City-budged funds outside of a bond sale. KDF deposited $60,000 toward formation costs when the formation of CFD #8 began in January 2008, but formation efforts ceased in July 2009, when $8.1 million in infrastructure and development impact fees were being proposed for financing. Harper highlighted KDF’s having paid for additional projects not in the original plan and not having “gotten a single dollar back.”

KDF turned to consultants at California Strategies, which advised that they go to Infrastructure Banking, as the situation was determined to be “almost tailor-made for I-Bank,” with banks not lending, especially in commercial real estate. Appealing to the prospect of 2,600 jobs the project would bring, bringing outside money into the community, Harper assuring the council that the plan is “not a risk to the city” and said that he was not asking to use the General Fund, but was asking the City to be a pass-through in light of the economic circumstances.
Craig Peters of CB Richard Ellis spoke on the state of the commercial market, preemptively posing the question, why take on debt now. His answer: to create new jobs. Peters explained that “the market is improving, the worst is behind us,” citing Santa Clarity Valley’s having created 2,600 jobs in the last four to six months in lucrative fields such as biotech, entertainment, and technology. In view of the area having 142 acres left on hold until 2015-2018, Peters proposed three possible solutions to this situation: the businesses would expand to Antelope Valley, but there they would face water issues; the Tejon area, which have very low land prices, but it’s too far and the businesses would run the risk of losing employees; or else they could come west, to Fillmore. He recommended “to have land sites deliverable,” with the Business Park ready to attract jobs.

Public Forum
In the public forum, Citizen Tom Dawson warned, “We’re not going to get our money back. No one can afford the water rates or flood insurance.” He questioned the likelihood of 2,600 jobs being created in the near future, and claimed it was unwise to take a risk on the speculation the market might improve when the City “might need the money for a rainy day.” Citizen Dave Roegner of El Dorado stated that real estate developers are speculators and suggested the project be made to wait until they find businesses willing to sign on, concluding that the plan “should be dropped like a hot potato.” Citizen Gary Creagle asked to see the past appraisals and also expressed doubt on the jobs, suggesting the council to go see the unoccupied industrial areas in Ventura. Kriegle said that developers “can’t get 60 cents a foot on a building that was $1.50 two years ago” on the 101 corridor, which gets much more traffic than the 126. He called the project yet another “pie-in-the-sky” idea and said, “We can’t afford another scheme.” He reiterated his interest in knowing how much the City paid for Perry Ranch. Citizen Gloria Hansen asked if the developers could present the City with “a viable analysis” if the city is going to encumber itself with debt.

Mayor Patti Walker clarified that KDF would pay up to $15,000 for the City to hire a consultant, before asking Harper whether the landowners had been contacted. Harper replied that they hadn’t formally met for lack of concrete figures and analysis to discuss. He stated that the time frame for the analysis would be two or three months. Upon Mayor Walker’s question about the developer’s intentions of the repayment of $2.8 million, Harper answered that they were “looking at sources.”

Councilmember Steve Conaway moved to pass the first recommendation to provide policy directions, expressing his interest in exploring other sources of funding. Brooks declared that he was “not willing to put any GF in jeopardy” in light of banks having gone under and in the absence of occupants. He stated that the project “shouldn’t be a matter of gambling” and it is “not a good financial practice for city councils to do.” Conaway redirected attention to the request explore other options, with Councilmember Laurie Hernandez calling it “irresponsible” not to put up the General Fund. Brooks exclaimed that to assume a guarantee of 2,600 jobs is “erroneous.” Mayor Pro-tem Gayle Washburn wanted to know of viable occupants, but appeared skeptical of the City’s qualification for monies in light of recent ineligibility for the Water Recycling Plant. Walker expressed her doubts of the feasibility of the project as in July, not one landowner wanted to join a CFD. She stated that the Business Park would be “a good addition to the community, but not at the risk of losing our General Fund.”
Conaway stated that he wanted to explore funding options and strike while the iron is hot. He moved to support item #2, for an independent consultant to complete a review. The motion was seconded by Hernandez, and a voice vote yielded No’s from Walker, Washburn, and Brooks, with Brooks explaining his vote as the result of no other landowner having expressed interest in signing on. The failed motion marked the abrupt exit of the majority of the audience.

Brooks reiterated that he doesn’t want “to waste staff time” and “doesn’t want us to hire anyone at this time.” Conaway countered that the proposal was for the developers to hire, at their expense, a consultant that the council thinks is qualified to ensure fairness. Brooks conceded that he would consider a vote for an analysis severed from any obligation of the City to put up the General Fund, but cited the absence of the developers as reason for his refusal to vote on any immediate motion. The Council voted to remain open to exploring other sources of funding and to consider a consultant at the expense of the developers. Quiring stated that they would contact the developers in the morning.