At the July 20 City Council meeting, Interim Finance Director Anita Lawrence presented the City of Fillmore/Redevelopment Agency 2010-11 Budget for a final review and adoption by the Council. The budget was the product of long deliberations over the July 13 City Council meeting, the Budget Workshop held July 14, and many hours of preparation and discussion by staff. Debates covered cost cutting and revenue generating ideas, adjustment of service levels, changes in rates and fees and allocation of funds, and took into consideration public comments submitted by supporters of the Fillmore Aquatic Center and representatives from the Senior Center.

Lawrence noted in her presentation that City Manager Yvonne Quiring has asserted that addressing the problems the City will face in next fiscal year will not be enough to solve Fillmore’s financial situation, as the 2011/12 fiscal year is expected to have further challenges.

The City Manager’s recommendation for City funds in FY 2010/11 were accepted, with further analysis on the Pool Fund and Town Theater still pending. An estimate of the net impact of the eleven adjusted funds totals hovers near $180,000, with anticipated losses in the Sewer Fund, Pool Fund, RDA Housing Fund, and RDA Capital Projects Fund.

In discussing the proposed changes to the water and sewer penalties, Councilman Steve Conaway pointed out to the council, “By reducing the penalty amount, we’re asking our diligent rate-payers to help fund the late-fee mechanism.” He asked whether it’s a fair assessment to conclude that timely payers were going to subsidize late payers.

Quiring responded that to alter the item would mean “a loss of $25,000 in revenue.” Mayor Pro-tem Gayle Washburn suggested, “the amount of delinquencies we have right now might reflect lack of money” in the community.
In response to Conaway’s idea of extending the grace period for an additional six days, Quiring countered, “the longer we wait to get our money back, the harder it is to get the money.” Mayor Patti Walker suggested the seniors on fixed income might be having difficulties, to which Conaway replied that an extension would give enough time for their checks to come in. Conaway proposed to extension of the payment period from 25 to 31 days. Passed 4-0.
Conaway’s motion to return the penalty fee from 5% to the original 10% failed 2-0, Washburn and Walker opposed.

Reserve Funds
Quiring stated that $1.4 million of the General Fund is in reserves, and did not know whether this was the 40% minimum the City seeks to keep in reserve. Conaway calculated that the number is slightly less than 19%. Walker agreed to his recommendation to modify the minimum of General Fund reserves to 19% in light of the economy.
Conaway further proposed lowering the amount the City Manager can transfer out of the General Reserve Fund without Council approval from $250,000 to $50,000. Walker stressed, “Quiring has been very astute,” but agreed that with the reserves at $1.4 million, “it doesn’t take long to reduce at $250,000,”

Walker stated, “We were able to take from our reserves another $100,000” and that “through this discussion, we got the million deficit to 375,000.” She expressed her appreciation to the staff for their hard work. “I’m looking forward with this staff and council to come up with a solution.”

Public Comments
The two groups that spoke at the budget meetings were the Senior Center and the Fillmore Aquatic Center. At the Budget Workshop, Senior Center representative Gloria Hansen petitioned the council for the $12,000 they had received in the past. Hansen outlined the history of the Center and its revival in 2008. “If you ever want to see bang for your buck, look at the Senior Center,” she urged. “Money is like an antibiotic, given at the right time in the right dose,” she continued, citing their current need for a fax machine, D&O insurance, website, senior newsletter, and automatic doors. With monthly participation of 800-900 seniors, the center is vital to community Hansen pressed: “You’ve given them a life, somewhere to go, you’ve given them identity in this town where there is virtually none…Let us keep that $12,000; give it to us for a little bit more time.”

Of the $40,000 in the Senior Center’s 2010 budget, half went to programs, and the other to operations. Lawrence noticed that the budget included an additional $28,000 for the Senior Center. Hernandez argued, “it’s up to the Board to provide the programs,” and asked what happened to the $28,000 the Senior Center did not spend.

Lawrence also added that the Center earned $36,000 in fireworks revenue that was not yet included in the budget.
Conaway stated that as a member on the board, he understood the past City Council’s contribution to the Senior Center as a one-time event, not a continuing pledge. He argued that the center should become self-sufficient, and with Hernandez, supported sticking with the City Manager’s recommendation to cut $12,000.

Councilman Jamey Brooks stated, “They’re super active. I don't’ want to see services to citizens taken away…I’d like to give them six to seven thousand this year.” Washburn added, “I’ve been there since day one, and one of the best things about Fillmore is that people are so wiling to give. I agree with Jamey to give 6,000 for programs. I’ve seen that place save lives.” Brooks continued, “The reason why they held onto the money is that they wanted to demonstrate how frugal and careful they were with the money, and how responsible they are.” To Brook’s “I don’t want to lose the momentum,” Hernandez countered, “We don’t help any other organization to that point. We may waive fees for buildings or events, but we do not infuse money like this.” Conaway pointed out that the original money “came from reserves—cash from our back pocket.” He supported Hernandez, “The money that has been allocated has not been used. To me, it’s illogical to give them more money to put into a savings account they haven’t used.” Conaway acknowledged the center’s rapid growth, however: “Cleary they’ve developed great programs,” he emphasized.

Walker noted that it costs the Senior Center money to provide materials and instructors for their programs, and that “they have done a lot with what they have been given.”

“You can allocate money and it doesn’t necessarily get spent,” she stated. In a bid to provide the Center with the opportunity to expand,” she supported the additional $6,000 to the Senior Center budget. Passed 3-2, Hernandez and Conaway opposed.

At the July 13 council meeting, Fillmore Aquatic Center director Cindy Blatt commented on the City’s budget for the Aquatic Center, going over line items page by page. Blatt’s detailed analysis of the budgeting included critique of salaries and the impact cutting certain positions would have on the programs the center can offer, based on her knowledge of the positions’ responsibilities. She also compared the proposed fees to those of similar programs in the area. “The pool was built to teach our kids to swim,” she reminded the Council, warning that the proposed budget would mean cutting down the number of families who will be able to afford lessons. Blatt further remarked that she was unsure how the utilities were budgeted, as the pool cannot simply be emptied and chemicals need to be balanced on a daily basis, factors not taken into consideration in the budget.
Blatt argued that regular users of the facilities would be particularly impacted. Closing the pool for four and a half months would mean the loss of runners who would set up new schedules elsewhere, and blocking the pool from mid-September to February would cut out two months of practice time for the swim team, leaving one week of practice before competitions.

Blatt stated that at the end of the 2008 calendar year, there should have been $180,000 in the pool fund from the special tax fund. She expressed her interest in seeing how the money was spent and how the deficit was created. Citing a past directive to increase time when the Center proposed to cut back their schedule, Blatt advised the Council to listen to the input of “people who know more about aquatics programming and aquatics facilities.” “You wouldn’t be in such a deficit if you’d listen to us a little more,” she closed. Blatt distributed a list of her points to the Council for review.

Fillmore resident and current swimmer Carina Casas expressed her hope that the pool would be open year round, citing the difficulties that the planned closure would pose for both returning and new members of the swim team. Explaining that she had to travel to Santa Paula in the past to swim, Casas urged the Council to reconsider, “Now that we have it, we need to use it.” Her brothers Esteban and Andres also spoke against the pool closure, saying that the Aquatic Center “put Fillmore on the map in the swimming world.” Santa Paula resident Sheryl Barnd also attested to the coaches throughout the area who have praised the facility.

At the Budget Workshop—attended by about five people—Aquatic Center lifeguard Andie McDonnell announced that the pool had seen a record 100 kids that day. McDonnell told the Council that “this money is getting put to good use,” and that the Center needs more life jackets and toys. She added, “Cindy Blatt went to the Olympic Trials; she knows what she’s talking about.” McDonnell said the Aquatic Center is teaching children safety and how to recognize emergencies. “Taking away the pool is not the answer; if you take it all away, people won’t want to come back.”

Lawrence announced to the council the discovery earlier that day that the pool’s expenditures “is quite a bit more optimistic.” Having just opened in April 2009, a forecast of the Center’s future is not as certain as other long-standing facilities. While fee increases are proposed, closing the pool from October to February would save $20,000 annually, based on the startup year.

Mayor Patti Walker acknowledged the many comments in support of the swim team and in light of the joint-use agreement, “it might be in the best interest to send (city) staff back” to the Center and bring back the new study for more in-depth analysis. “This is the first year; I would expect rocky starts,” she assured. Walker expressed her willingness to “look at this community asset with proper information and have a full dialog.” Conaway and further suggested, “Rather than tax ourselves into prosperity, we might be able to alter the fee schedule to entice more users.” He proposed looking into the joint-use agreement and review the fee schedule with the goal of increasing usage and minimizing the “down period” to help the swim team. Councilwoman Laurie Hernandez said she expected pool attendance to pick up in the hot summer days, while Washburn agreed, “We haven’t marketed the pool very well.” She also suggested that the figures used in calculating supplies may have been startup costs from the first year. Councilman Jamey Brooks stated, “I’m not in favor of closing the pool whether the high school has an agreement or not. I am not willing to increase any of the fees. We need to send the message to the public: we’ve got to keep it accessible.”

Upon review, City Attorney Ted Schneider stated that there was no legal requirement to keep the pool open in the April 2006 joint-use agreement.