El Dorado Mobile home owner Charles Richardson told the Council the park subdivision would price the cost of his unit and others out of the sellable market.

There was standing room only at the first Fillmore City Council Meeting of 2015. The four hour meeting had a number of items, some were continuing such as the El Dorado subdivision, the leasing of the Fillmore Senior Center and increased improvement of Fillmore's Energy Action Plan. Others were new items; addressing future demands for potable water, and renewal of the Waste Discharge Requirement Permit.

The first item addressed was the question of renewing the lease of the City's multi-use building known as the Senior Center to the nonprofit Fillmore Senior Center Inc. (FSCI).

At the December 9, 2014 Council meeting former Council Member and President of FSCI Patti Walker addressed the Council claiming the English speaking classes arranged by the City had encroached on areas used by the seniors. FSCI themselves have offered Spanish classes, but not English. Walker also remarked on FSCI's displeasure with the Council not waving the rental fees for events such as Bingo.

On December 17, 2014 the City received a letter from former Council Member Gayle Washburn who threatened a lawsuit citing that lease discussions had been done in closed session, saying it was a Brown Act violation. There were also accusations that the Council had not disclosed the date and time when the lease discussions had taken place. Council Member Rick Neal answered the accusations informing those present that the discussions were always announced with all the other agenda items and that lease issues are always done in closed session to which City Attorney Tiffany Israel added that a lease is a real estate item and must be discussed in closed session.

During Public Comments Jean Westling, Joanne King, Gayle Washburn, Gloria Hanson and Patti Walker spoke to the Council to plead with them to reconsider the lease, but not all were conciliatory in trying to win over the Council and went so far to call the move by the Council a "hostile takeover."

City Manager David W. Rowlands reminded those in attendance of the six to seven months of discussions regarding the lease and that the City is not eliminating any adult activities or closing the doors. There are plans for a future Adult Advisory Board which will take about seven month to put together a program. He then added, "We're looking to improve on the programs." Council Member Rick Neal commented that when the City first took over the Equestrian Center everyone seemed against it. But after the program was in place he received many emails stating what a great move it was and how happy everyone is with the changes.

Council Member Diane McCall responded, "The City isn't looking to close the Senior Center, we're looking to enhance it." All Council Members agreed they are excited about this change and that it is a good time for the City to help enhance those programs and a chance to be a united front with everyone going forward. Council Member Manuel Minjares told those present, "We by no means want to take away programs. It is our wish to move forward with improving existing programs." Mayor Doug Tucker added, "Our seniors are a strong asset...it is not a hostile takeover. We want to partner with the Senior Center. Our intentions are very positive. We want to see classes continue."

Minjares then made a motion to not renew the lease. McCall seconded the motion and all members agreed. It was obvious that the 15 or so who had attended the meeting because of this one item were not happy with the Council’s decision and immediately walked out.

Another item that drew about 30 people to attend the Council Meeting was the El Dorado Estates v. City of Fillmore settlement agreement which would end the ongoing multi-year litigation brought against the City by the owners of El Dorado Mobile Estates (EDME). The litigation has cost the City close to $300,000 to date.

The owner of EDME wants to subdivide the land into 302 condominium lots and one common area. Many of the tenants have been against the move and previous Councils have held four public hearings on the issue resulting in the park owner filing two court lawsuits and two federal court lawsuits to challenge the City's processing and denial of their application to subdivide.

Over the years both Federal and State Courts have made decisions with some being overrule by a new court. The latest rulings have not been favorable to the City and the Council questioned the litigation continuing, which could go on for many years. If the City were to lose, it would leave the City responsible for both the plaintiff's legal fees and the City's added attorney fees, which could have been an additional hundreds of thousands of dollars.

During Public Comments many addressed the Council pleading for them to continue the litigation. Many stated the cost of buying the land would out-price them when trying to sell their mobile home and that no one would want to buy because they would be required to purchase the land. According to those that spoke, El Dorado Estates is the lowest priced mobile home park in Ventura County and that people were giving their coaches away "just to get out from under them." Some warned the Council that the move to purchase the lots would undercut State requirement for affordable housing. The Council corrected that misconception telling everyone the EDME is not part of the housing equation and has no affect on our housing needs.

But not all were trying to get the Council to continue litigation. Greg Kelingsworth, who had just bought his mobile home four months ago, said he felt his home would be worth more due to people owning their lot stating, "I think it's going to be better for the park all together....it's a win-win situation." Kelingsworth also reminded everyone that because of the lower price that there are people looking for something in that price range.

Charles Richardson spoke of why he had move to El Dorado stating, "We downsized and moved to Fillmore because our daughter lives in Ojai...we put $200,000 into a coach and when you consider another $100,000 for the land, no ones going to buy it.....It's a bad investment."

Many residents were upset that the proposed cost of the lots has not been announced. The attorney representing the park owner explained that when the lots do go up for sale the price could be higher than presently quoted and that same situation has caused problems for his previous park owner clients, so he does not recommend that his clients give out that information.

During the negotiations some concessions were made in the Settlement Agreement that went beyond what state law requires. The park owner must offer each resident the option of entering into a 20-year lease (or shorter if the tenant desires) with yearly rent increases limited to the Consumer Price Index or 3%, whichever is greater, but never greater than a 6% increase. The lease is assignable to whomever purchases the coach if sold within the first 3 years and the new owner can then again assign the lease for another 3 years to the next owner if they also sell within their first 3 years. Tenants can also choose to continue renting without any rent control until state rent control takes effect upon the sale of the first lot in the park. There is also a 10% rent credit to low income households (not available to Section 8 Housing) for 5 years, but it is capped at 30 units.

The park became a family park in 2012 and another concession agreed to is the installation of a child's play area.

With emotions running high there were times when some in attendance interrupted others and were a bit unruly. After more than an hour of comments they were closed and the Council discussed their opinions.

One consideration was that if the City continued with the litigation and lost in court, all the concessions in the agreement would also be lost.

McCall told everyone, "We're working in a lot of realms that we do not have a lot of leverage in." Minjares stated, "I need to make a decision considering the community as a whole. I don't make this decision flippantly" and reminded everyone that the guarantees in the agreement are beyond what State Law requires. Neal responded, "I see this as a lose-lose situation, the courts are not going in our way...the only winners are the attorneys. I've heard both sides, I don't think anyone wanted this....the City was almost bankrupted by the legal fees."

McCall then added, "This Council has been faced with cleaning up what others have left behind, this is one of them...Thank you to everyone who came to speak. The courts have turned on us. We've gotten some rent control in place....We are dealing with a bad situation."

Council Member Carrie Broggie also commented, "Here we are having to wrap-up something that started before we arrived."

The Council then approved the Settlement Agreement by unanimous decision. The chamber then cleared out as EDME residents left, but not before some stated out loud that they would remember this Council at voting time.

There were a number of agenda items approved. One was the City of Fillmore Energy Action Plan which is an agreement with Edison to cut energy consumption and move one step closer to Platinum Status. This will result in a 20% cut in energy costs, a savings of about $62,000 per year.

Also approved was a request for consultant assistance for renewal of the Waste Discharge Requirement Permit along with a consultant contract for the update of the 2008 potable water demand study.

Another item approved was authorization for the City Manager to contract a planning retreat for the City Council and himself. Although it is called a retreat, it is held here in town at a designated location. The cost is $15,000.

Edward Keyes with Win-Win Workplace Solutions out of Pasadena explained what a strategic planning retreat would do to help coordinate city plans and projects. Win-Win has worked with the cities of Pasadena and Glendale and the Tournament of Roses. Keyes said the goal is to assure everyone is on the same page, with an equal voice and to assure decisions are able to be implemented, effective, continuous and used for year through staff and Council changes. Broggie asked what the time frame was for future use that Keyes was referring to. Keyes responded, "A 5 to 10 year strategic plan with milestones along the way."