February 3, 2009

TO: FILLMORE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROY PAYNE, FILLMORE CITY MANAGER (1989-2005)
SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER (2005-2009)
SUBJECT: RENEGOTIATION OF FEE AGREEMENT

In response to the Fillmore City Council’s decision on January 27, 2009 to renegotiate the terms of my fee agreement with the City, why in the world would I want to continue working for a City that has a City Council who questions my integrity and value and my right to speak out on issues by stating:

1. According to Mr. Brooks, my expressed extensive opinions on Measures H and I and the passage of those measures by the voters of Fillmore was a clear no confidence vote against me and that Brooks heard from many voters that I should not be working for the City because of my opinions. I seriously doubt that Brooks heard from all 2300 voters who supported these measures; I seriously doubt that some of the persons who Brooks takes counsel from are even residents of Fillmore; and I guess freedom of speech is not permitted when it comes to expressing opinions that are contrary to the liking of Brooks.

2. Brooks stated that the fact that part of my compensation from the City was from deposits made by developers is in his opinion a conflict of interest. This is an insult to my integrity as a person who has spent the last 20 years of my working career attempting to represent the best interests of the City of Fillmore and to faithfully and honestly carry out the directions of the Fillmore City Council. My method of receiving payment for my services is no different than the method used to pay the Public Works Director, the City Engineer, the contract employees who work for the engineering department, the employees in the City Planning Department and the contract employees who work for the Planning Department. The salary of each and every one of these city employees and contract employees is partially funded from developer deposits to the city. The reason for this is to save the taxpayers of Fillmore money and not have the taxpayers paying for development projects within the City. So, if in Brooks’ opinion I have a conflict of interest, then I guess the City has a conflict of interest because the City accepts monies from developers and pays it employees with those monies on a regular basis.

3. According to Ms. Washburn, she is very familiar with the Sewer pro forma excel spreadsheets that I prepared and the City can certainly get someone to do the same work I am doing for a lesser price. If Ms. Washburn is so familiar with the Sewer pro forma worksheet, why doesn’t she, and why didn’t she perform a sewer rate analysis to save the sewer ratepayers money? Last year, Councilmember Scott Lee asked me to see if I could somehow reduce the proposed July 1, 2008 sewer rate to $75 per month instead of the scheduled $85 per month rate. I did and it resulted in reducing the FY2008-09 sewer rate from $85 per month down to $72 per month resulting in an overall savings to Fillmore sewer rate payers of over $814,000 for FY2008-09. Ms. Washburn in previous comments about this savings to the ratepayers trivialized my work by stating all I did was reduce certain previously projected expenses related to the new Water Recycling (Sewer) Plant. First, that is not all that was done and I doubt that Ms. Washburn can identify $814,000 of reductions from the sources she states they were derived. Second, if it was so easy to do why didn’t she propose it or some other proposal to reduce the rates? After all she is very familiar with the spreadsheet. Third, regardless of how I did it, what does it matter how I achieved the savings? It is still an $814,000 savings to the ratepayers.

4. According to Ms. Walker my $2,000 a month retainer fee at $125 per hour is exorbitant and a burden to the citizens of Fillmore. Yet on the same agenda Ms. Walker approves two other contracts with consultant fees that range from $160 per hour to $200 per hour.

5. According to Ms. Washburn, the City doesn’t need my services on the new Fillmore Business Park because the current economy is going to cause it to fail anyway. This is an insult to the intelligence of the Business Park developers. These developers are risk takers and visionaries who have already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and develop the Business Park and to bring 1500 to 3000 jobs to the Fillmore community. Even in this down economy they are still trying to move forward and why would an elected city official who is supposed to be trying to improve the local economy and who has no expertise in Business Park development be making doom and gloom statements from the Council dais about the Business Park? I guess by setting the Business Park up for failure now, Ms. Washburn will not have to defend her actions in the future and will not need to fully analyze what was at the root of the failure if the Business Park does indeed fail. The fact that the Business Park is as far along as it is because of the efforts I have made over the last several years to: 1) Move the EIR and Business Park Master Plan through to completion in a timely manner and get the EIR certified and the Plan adopted; 2) To get all the entitlements approved for the five development projects ( I prepared all the staff reports, resolutions, ordinances and conditions of approval that were used to approve the projects); 3) To get the properties annexed into the City (I wrote the LAFCO application and coordinated, along with Bill Bartels the extreme effort that was required to get LAFCO approval after the FEMA floodway issue surfaced); 4) Initiated (along with Bill Bartels) the initial efforts to bring to the attention of the developers, the City Council and Supervisor Long the significant impacts the FEMA maps would have on the Fillmore citizenry and the need to move forward independently of the County effort to resolve the issue for Fillmore and save the property owners and residents in Fillmore the unnecessary expense of purchasing flood insurance at the estimated cost of $1200 per year per homeowner; 5) Led the effort to amend the Circulation Element and conditions of approval regarding traffic mitigation measures at the A Street/Hwy 126 intersection to allow the Business Park project to move forward and to provide $1.9 million in funding from the Business Park developers (if CFD 8 is formed) to the City to seek match funds for the future traffic mitigation improvements to the A Street/Hwy 126 intersection; 6) Led the effort to perform an updated Water Assessment Study to secure $1.2 million in funding from the Business Park developers (if CFD 8 is formed) for the construction of Water Well 9 and to allow the Business Park projects to move forward without the potential of future occupancy prohibitions; 7) Have kept all five developers committed to participating in CFD 8 funding which is the only way that the estimated $6.7 million in infrastructure that is needed for the Business Park will be collectively built, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. These seven (7) issues have been far more important to the current and future success of the Business Park and should be of more concern to Ms. Washburn than her attempt to set the Business Park up for failure by citing the current economic climate.

6. Brooks, Washburn and Walker want to renegotiate my fee agreement and expect me to take a reduction in my hourly rate. Why don’t they set the example and offer to give up their Council compensation and the compensation they receive from the outside government committees they serve on? They all work for a living, have they offered to reduce their hourly rates to save their employers money? Or if they are self-employed, have they offered to reduce their fee for services to save their clients money? Why should I reduce my fee? My fee was set in June 2005 and I have not increased that fee in the last 3 ½ years. Also, in order to provide value for my services to the City I do not charge the City for all the time I spend on City work. I estimate that I forego at least 8 billable hours per month. Over the last 40 months that is approximately $40,000 that I have not billed the City.

It seems like the City Council (hopefully not the City) is reverting full circle back to the type of politics that were in play in 1984-88. Please read the October 29, 2008 document in the Fillmore Gazette entitled “A Message From 5 Retired Fillmore Mayors”. By the way, I had absolutely nothing to do with the writing, drafting or contributing in any manner to that article, but like every other issue that comes up, those who don’t like my comments will try to discredit me or the 5 Mayors for speaking out.

I was hired in March 1989 in part to clean-up the mess that Gary Creagle and his cronies created during his term of office on the Fillmore City Council. In 1988, Fillmore had become the butt of jokes throughout Ventura County because of the English Only Resolution, the sexual harassment charges against the City Manager hired by Creagle, the fisticuffs that occurred at City Council meetings, etc.

Creagle was elected in November 1984 and on January 8, 1985 as one of his first official acts as a council person, he was responsible for firing City Manager Jim Robbins. Creagle was then responsible for hiring Stan Greene in March, 1988 and following sexual harassment charges that were brought against Greene; Greene resigned in September, 1988 after just six-months in office. By the way, the City had to pay Greene $95,000 to resign because of the generous contract that Creagle secured for him. In today’s dollars, at a 3% inflation rate that is about $165,000. Between 1985 and 1989 the City had five City Managers (Robbins, Southwick, Rupp, Greene and Blacher). Look at what Mr. Brooks requested as one of his first official acts as a council person, review of City Manager Tom Ristau’s contract. Guess who was sitting in the audience…Creagle…Full circle by Brooks back to the malfeasance of 1984-88.

Creagle also was responsible for the City Council’s adoption of the “English Only” resolution during his 1984-88 term which was a source of concern and mistrust in the Hispanic community in Fillmore for many, many years. It wasn’t until Scott Lee and Evaristo Barajas joined forces on the City Council in 1999 that this resolution was unanimously repealed. According to a December 16, 1999 article in the Los Angeles Times, “…symbolically it was an affront to many Latinos. ‘It split the town, really. No doubt,’ said Jim Fauver, a retired schoolteacher. “It hurt a lot of people at the time.”

In 1984-88 Creagle unsuccessfully tried to bring gambling casinos and an airport to Fillmore. After he left office he teamed up with developer Don Mallas, Stan Greene and others and tried to foist plans on the City for development of the hillsides above Fillmore and to develop out the Santa Clara River Valley from Fillmore to Piru. A statement I made at a Council meeting a year or so ago about the fact that the City’s adopted General Plan is intended (and in fact required by State law) to plan for the “build out” of the City drew mock disdain and surprise from Creagle as he gasped out from the audience to the City Council “see Mr. Payne wants to build-out the City”. Brooks on January 27, 2009 claimed that because I expressed extensive opinions in the Fillmore Gazette about Measure H and Measure I and because these two Measures were passed by the Fillmore voters that, according to Brooks, this was a clear no confidence vote against me and my intent to “build out” the City. I have reread all my letters to the Editor about Measure H and Measure I and not one of them contains the words “build out”. But guess who was sitting in the audience, front and center when Brooks uses the term “build out” to discredit me…Creagle…Full circle Creagle to Brooks.

According to the Fillmore Gazette, at the September 9, 2008 City Council meeting: “Jamey Brooks provided a rebuttal to the argument that passing Measure I would increase the city's liability. He claimed that the Council and City Staff had acted in ways that increased the risk of lawsuits despite that factor, and that passing the Initiative would be less risky than some of their previous actions. He said that the Council had been informed before the initiative was drawn up that citizens would not accept high density housing, so if the City is sued it will be the fault of the Council, not Fillmore's citizens. Tom Dawson and Gary Creagle criticized a letter from Fillmore Special Projects Manager Roy Payne as offensive, unprofessional, and threatening. Dawson mentioned that Payne does not live in Fillmore. Dawson said that the City's consultant should be dismissed. He spoke about the joys of having backyards instead of alleys for children to play in. Creagle criticized the Council and City staff for worrying about litigation due to Measure I instead of other more likely litigation. He criticized them further for entering into a tax scheme and not paying their partner cities.” Brooks made no disclosures to the public at the January 13, 2009 City Council meeting about the fact that the City had to pay its Housing Consultant (HDR Engineering) an additional $16,500 to revise the Housing Element as a result of the passage of Measure I. Why did Brooks, who has so zealously campaigned for transparency in government, fail to acknowledge to the public at that Council meeting the reason for this $16,500 expense and that the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) had put the City on notice that the passage of Measure I amended the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan in manner affecting the City’s Housing Element, therefore rendering the adopting Housing Element non-compliant? Both of these results, additional financial cost to the City and potential litigation were the very things I stated would happen if Measure I were to pass. So what is so offensive to Brooks about me speaking the truth about the results that would occur if Measure I passed? I believe these first two results are just the beginning of what the City will need to deal with financially in order to meet its State Housing obligations.

Brooks, Washburn and Walker campaigned for Measures H and I. One of the campaign posters implied that their passage would stop eminent domain. This was misleading. The City Council still has the clear authority to use eminent domain. I bring this up because Ms. Washburn claimed that eminent domain was used several times while I was City Manager, I guess implying that it was a bad thing. Well, if Brooks believes the passage of Measures H and I were a mandate against me, he should logically come to the conclusion that the passage of those measures was a mandate against eminent domain and Brooks and Washburn should think about moving City Hall because the property was acquired by the City using eminent domain and maybe the Fillmore bloggers who so proudly display the City Hall picture on their blog sites should use a picture that is not associated with the evils of eminent domain. To quote Joyce Schifanelli from a November 5th, 2008 Fillmore Gazette article: “These days, our beautiful, golden domed City Hall complex built in 1996, is located at 250 Central Avenue. It is the pride of the city and home base to elected officials and dozens of city employees”. My wife Donna and I were primarily responsible for the design of that building and I was responsible for obtaining a $1.3 million federal grant to pay for the building. Also, the City’s new skateboard park is receiving rave reviews from the skateboard community throughout the state. Guess what? The City acquired that property through eminent domain.

The folks who supported Brooks and Washburn (in particular Stroh and Creagle) have railed against the evils of the Sales Tax Agreements that were entered into by the City and decry the moral and ethical values of those who “entered into this scheme”. Stroh says he wants to get to the bottom of it and find out just who is responsible. Why don’t Stroh and Creagle with their high and mighty morals and ethics demand that the new City Council give back the $1.5 million in Sales Tax Sharing money and terminate the Sales Tax Sharing agreements? By the way the City Attorney has advised on several occasions that the agreements are legal.

I could go on with the hypocritical stances that have been taken by some of those who are currently sitting on the City Council, and the supporters that they take their direction from, but I digress. I have no further interest in working for the City Council and hereby submit my resignation effective immediately. By accepting my immediate resignation, and waiving the 30-day termination provision in my fee agreement, the frugal City Council can save itself $2,000 in exorbitant retainer fees.