FPMD MSR Final

MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW FFIILLLLMMOORREE--PPIIRRUU MMEEMMOORRIIAALL DDIISSTTRRIICCTT Prepared By VVeennttuurraa LLooccaall AAggeennccyy FFoorrmmaattiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn 800 South Victoria Ave. Ventura, California 93009-1850 Accepted October 17, 2007 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................1 II. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3 III. FILLMORE-PIRU MEMORIAL DISTRICT SERVICES...............................................5 A. Background 5 General......................................................................................................................................5 Ventura County.........................................................................................................................5 B. Agency Profile 7 Fillmore-Piru Memorial District...............................................................................................7 C. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies 9 D. Growth and Population 9 Population Estimates & Forecasts.............................................................................................9 E. Financing Constraints and Opportunities/Cost Avoidance Opportunities and Rate Restructuring 9 F. Government Structure Options/Opportunities for Shared Facilities 11 Sphere of Influence.................................................................................................................12 G. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies 15 H. Local Accountability and Governance 15 IV. DETERMINATIONS..................................................................................................18 Fillmore-Piru Memorial District.............................................................................................18 List of Maps Map 1 - Fillmore-Piru Memorial District....................................................................................... 6 Map 2 - Fillmore-Piru Memorial District – National Forest...........................................................14 List of Tables Table 1 - Existing & Projected Population.................................................................................... 9 Table 2 - District Board Members/Terms of Office......................................................................15 Appendix Appendix 1 - 2nd Amended Agreement – City of Fillmore/Fillmore Piru Memorial District……21 Final i October 2007 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District I. Executive Summary II.. EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY In creating Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCos) the state legislature recognized, “…that the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is an important factor in promoting orderly development and in balancing that development with sometimes competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending governmental services.”1 One of the statutory requirements for each LAFCo is to establish spheres of influence for cities and special districts. A sphere of influence may be separate from an agency’s boundary and is defined as a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by LAFCo. The legislature now requires the LAFCo in each county in the state to, as necessary, review and update each sphere of influence on or before January 1, 2008 and every five years thereafter. In order to prepare and to update a sphere of influence, however, LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area 3. Financing constraints and opportunities 4. Cost avoidance opportunities 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring 6. Opportunities for shared facilities 7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies 9. Local accountability and governance This municipal service review (MSR) is for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District. Formed in 1950, the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is an independent special district that serves the City of Fillmore, the unincorporated community of Piru and other unincorporated areas in the east-central portion of Ventura County It is the only special district of its type in Ventura County. The District is governed by a five member board of directors elected at-large to staggered four year terms of office by the voters within the District’s boundary. Municipal service reviews should be considered as studies, not investigative reports. LAFCos have no investigative authority. In reviewing this study, the reader is encouraged to focus on the recommended determinations contained in Section IV. The most significant of the recommended determinations for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District reflect that the District is heavily dependent on property tax revenue and almost totally dependent on the City of Fillmore for functioning. Approximately two thirds of the District’s property tax revenue is, and will continue to be, derived from the territory within the City of Fillmore. Because of these facts, and because there has not been a contested election for the District’s board of directors since at least 1990, the most significant determination is that the District, together with the City of Fillmore and the County of Ventura should consider and possibly jointly initiate proceedings for the dissolution of the District within the next 1 CA Government Code §56000, et seq, known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, is the primary law governing LAFCos. All references to LAFCo law and mandates refer to this statute. Final -1- October 2007 I Executive Summary Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District five years. Such an action would result in the disposition of the District’s sole asset, the Memorial Hall and related property at 511 2nd Street in Fillmore, possibly to the City of Fillmore. Dissolution would provide for a more logical and orderly governmental structure and better local accountability and governance. October 2007 -2- Final Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District II. Introduction IIII.. IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN The law governing Local Agency Formation Commissions (“LAFCos”) was substantially changed effective January 1, 2001. Among the changes is the requirement that LAFCos, as necessary, review and update the sphere of influence of each city and special district by January 1, 2008, and every five years thereafter. No sphere of influence can be updated, however, unless the LAFCo first conducts a municipal service review. California Government Code §56430 provides that municipal service reviews (“service reviews” or “MSRs”) consist of written determinations relating to the following nine factors: 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area 3. Financing constraints and opportunities 4. Cost avoidance opportunities 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring 6. Opportunities for shared facilities 7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies 9. Local accountability and governance It is important to note that municipal service reviews are: • The written determinations adopted by a LAFCo for the services provided by cities and special districts. LAFCo service review reports are essentially only studies with recommended determinations for each of the nine factors. • Not applicable to counties, except for special districts governed by a county board of supervisors. They are also not applicable to private providers of public services, such as investor owned water companies regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, or private mutual benefit corporations. This is because service reviews are required for the update of spheres of influence and LAFCos do not establish spheres of influence for counties or private service providers. • Not investigations. While authorized to prepare studies relating to their role as boundary agencies, LAFCos have no investigative authority. As required by Government Code §56430, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) adopted advisory guidelines for municipal service reviews. Because of the timing of the issuance of the guidelines and widely varying local circumstances, each LAFCo in the state is following its own process and procedures for meeting the sphere of influence update and related municipal service review mandate. The Ventura LAFCo’s municipal service review process is being completed in three phases based on a work plan that has been periodically updated and is available on the Ventura LAFCo web site (www.ventura.lafco.ca.gov). The process used to prepare all service review reports to date involved a four-part questionnaire that each affected agency was requested to complete. The first part collected general information about the agency (contact information, governing body, financial etc.), the second part asked for service specific data, the third part included both questions and a map relating Final -3- October 2007 II. Introduction Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District to boundary issues and the fourth part was a signature page. The questionnaire was the basis for most of the information in the service review reports and was designed to ensure the efficient transfer of information into a database designed to provide a base of information for future service reviews. This MSR for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is part of the third and final phase of the Ventura LAFCo work plan. Various public agencies provide public meeting facilities and recreation services, but the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is the only special district of its type in Ventura County. October 2007 -4- Final Municipal Service Review-Fillmore-Piru Memorial District III. Services IIIIII.. FFIILLLLMMOORREE--PPIIRRUU MMEEMMOORRIIAALL DDIISSTTRRIICCTT SSEERRVVIICCEESS A. Background General Memorial districts are formed under and operate pursuant to the provisions of Division 6, Chapter 1 of the Military and Veterans Code of the State of California, Section 1170 et seq. In general, memorial districts have the authority to provide and maintain halls and meeting places and indoor and outdoor recreational facilities for both the general public and veterans. Memorial districts may perform these functions by either owning their own facilities or leasing facilities from other public entities such as counties, cities and/or schools. There are only twenty seven memorial districts in California.1 Memorial districts are governed by a five member board of directors elected at-large by voters within the district’s boundaries. At least three of the seats on the board of directors are designated for veterans. Board members are elected to four year, alternating terms of office. Elections are held in odd-numbered calendar years. Seats unfilled on the district board by the election process are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members may not receive any compensation for their service, but are entitled to actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of board duties. Ventura County The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is an independent special district that serves the City of Fillmore, the unincorporated community of Piru and other unincorporated areas in the east-central portion of Ventura County as shown on Map 1. It is the only special district of its type in Ventura County. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District was formed in 1950. The District owns and operates a memorial hall at 511 2nd Street in the City of Fillmore (northeasterly corner of the intersection of 2nd Street and Shiells Drive) on approximately 1.12 acres of property (48,807 sq. ft.). This property and facility are the District’s sole assets. The maintenance and operation of this building and property, consistent with the provisions of the Military and Veterans Code, is the sole service provided by the District. The District has no employees, but has an agreement with the City of Fillmore for the provision of all administrative, operational and maintenance services (Appendix 1). 1 Source: CA State Controller Special Districts Annual Report Fiscal Year 2004 – 2005 Final -5- October 2007 III. Services Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District ` Map 1 – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District October 2007 -6- Final Municipal Service Review-Fillmore-Piru Memorial District III. Services B. Agency Profile Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Contact Annette Cardona, Community Services Supervisor, City of Fillmore Mailing Address 250 Central Avenue, Fillmore CA 93015-1907 Site Address 511 2nd Street, Fillmore, CA 93015 Phone Number 805-524-1500, ext. 216 Fax Number 805-524-5707 Email acardona@ci.fillmore.ca.us Website None Services Owns, operates and maintains a memorial hall consistent with the Types of Services provisions of the Military and Veterans Code. Governance Date Formed September 1950 Five member board of directors elected at large, or appointed, to alternating four year terms; elections are held every two years in odd Board of Directors numbered years. The board of directors regularly meets on the third Wednesday of each month at the District’s memorial hall at 511 2nd Street, Fillmore, CA. Area & Size Information Area in District Boundary (approximate) 151,304.6 acres (236.4 sq. mi.)1 Number of Assessor Parcels in District 5,917 Estimated Population 18,894 (2005 forecast)2 Staff Executive & Management 0 Professional & Support 0 Operational 0 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 Source: Ventura County & Council of Governments –2005 population forecast for the Fillmore and Piru Areas Final -7- October 2007 III. Services Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Profile (continued) Financial Information Revenue FY 2003-20041 FY 2004-20052 Property Taxes (all) $58,387 40.06% $60,219 40.32% Special Property Assessments 25,994 17.84% 26,247 17.57% Licenses/Permits $2,700 1.85% $2,700 1.81% Interest $78 0.05% $488 0.33% Rents/Concessions $58,474 40.14% $55,763 37.34% Intergovernmental $91 0.06% $3,930 2.63% Total Revenue $145,724 $149,347 Expenditures Salaries & Benefits3 $72,174 50.29% $67,126 51.85% Services & Supplies $59,809 41.67% $54,497 42.10% Long Term Debt Pmt $11,538 8.04% Fixed Assets $7,828 6.05% Total Expenditures $143,521 $129,451 Revenue Over Expenditures $2,203 $19,896 1 Source: CA State Controller Special Districts Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003 – 2004 2 Source: CA State Controller Special Districts Annual Report Fiscal Year 2004 – 2005 3 The District has no employees and, therefore, does not directly pay for any salaries and benefits; the CA State Controller listing is presumably for contract services provided by others. October 2007 -8- Final Municipal Service Review-Fillmore-Piru Memorial District III. Services C. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District does not own or operate basic infrastructure such as roads or utilities. The District does, however, own and operate a memorial hall at 511 2nd Street in Fillmore. The memorial hall is located on approximately 1.12 acres of land owned by the District. The memorial hall and related property are the District’s sole assets. The memorial hall contains meeting, recreation and office facilities for use by veterans, community groups and the general public. As a part of the LAFCo service review questionnaire and follow-up meetings with City of Fillmore staff, no infrastructure needs or deficiencies were identified. The memorial hall building, while reflective of its age, appears to be reasonably maintained. No critical deferred maintenance issues were identified. D. Growth and Population The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District does not attempt to forecast population growth within the District boundary, and no other agency determines or forecasts population for the District. Given the District’s boundary, the closest approximation of current and projected population in the District is to combine the population information for both the Fillmore area and the Piru area as determined by Ventura County through the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). Table 1 provides comparison population data for the combined Fillmore and Piru areas as defined by Ventura County and VCOG. Table 1 Population Estimates & Forecasts 2000 Census 2005 VCOG 2010 VCOG 2020 VCOG (4-1-2000) Forecast Forecast Forecast Fillmore Area 15,145 16,534 18,068 23,038 Piru Area 2,300 2,360 2,596 3,070 Total 17,445 18,894 20,664 26,108 VCOG is currently in the process of updating its population forecasts and the forecasts in Table 1 will change in the near future based on the growth projected by the current City of Fillmore General Plan and pending changes to the County of Ventura’s Piru Area Plan (part of the County’s General Plan). Little growth is expected outside the City of Fillmore and the Piru community. Requests for use of the District’s memorial hall will likely increase as the population within the District increases. E. Financing Constraints and Opportunities/Cost Avoidance Opportunities and Rate Restructuring The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is financially stable. As shown in the “Agency Profile” financial information table on page 8, the District’s primary sources of revenue are a share of the 1% property tax based on pre-Proposition 13 levels of taxation as of 1976 (40.32% of total revenue in 2004-2005), rents and fees charged for the use of the District’s memorial hall (37.34% of total revenue in 2004- 2005), and special property assessments (17.57% of total revenue in 2004-2005). The special property Final -9- October 2007 III. Services Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District assessments are a result special tax of $5 per parcel approved, according to City of Fillmore staff, sometime in 1981 or 1982. This special assessment is applied to all taxable parcels in the District. Based on information from the County Auditor-Controller the 2005 - 2006 fiscal year apportionment rate (the portion of the 1% property tax assigned to the District) for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District was .0001204315. Thus, for every $1,000 in property tax collected within the District’s boundaries the District received approximately $0.12. For the 2005 -2006 fiscal year this amounted to $103,517.97. According to information provided to the State Controller, the District borrowed $60,000 in 1994 for construction and repair purposes. This debt obligation was paid in full by the end of the 2003 - 2004 fiscal year and the District currently has no long term debt. Approximately two thirds (over 65% in FY 2006 – 2007) of the District’s property tax and special property assessment revenue are derived from the City of Fillmore. As most of the growth within the District’s boundary is expected to occur within the City of Fillmore, the proportion of property tax and special property assessment revenue the District receives from territory within the City of Fillmore in comparison to the rest of the territory in the District is expected to increase in the future. The District’s dependency on property taxes and limited sources of other revenue is considered a constraint. The voter approval requirements to increase taxes and the lack of growth in most of the territory in the District means the District is primarily dependent on growth and the increase in property tax values within the City of Fillmore for increases in revenue. The other major source of revenue, rents and fees for facility use, is also constrained by the ability of users to pay increased service charges or fees, the desire of the District to maintain reasonable rates and, in some instances, competition with other agencies (e.g. schools) and others (e.g. churches) that may also provide space for community groups. The District’s $5 per parcel special assessment revenue is a fixed amount that does not have any mechanism for adjustment to keep pace with inflation and, therefore, its relative value decreases over time. This portion of the District’s revenue only increases when new parcels or subdivisions occur, primarily in the City of Fillmore. The District has entered into an agreement with the City of Fillmore for administrative, operational and maintenance services (Appendix 1). Based on this agreement, the City is responsible for annually formulating and proposing to the District Board a rate schedule for fees. This annual review by both the City and District provides a mechanism for rate restructuring to occur within the constraints identified. Due to the small amount of total revenue available, the District does not have any employees. The District’s agreement with the City of Fillmore is basically for cost avoidance purposes as it would be more costly for the District to have to perform administrative, operational and maintenance services on its own with its own employees. Based on the District’s agreement with the City, the City provides the District with general liability and property insurance through the Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, and the City provides the District with all required financial reporting, including a comprehensive annual financial report (audit). In recognition of both this support by the City and the District’s dependence on property tax revenue from the City of Fillmore, the District’s board of directors annually holds joint budget workshop meetings with the City of Fillmore City Council. Except for furthering this relationship with the City, there are few opportunities for cost avoidance. October 2007 -10- Final Municipal Service Review-Fillmore-Piru Memorial District III. Services The District has noted that a substantial cost avoidance opportunity would be to change the election cycle for the election of board members from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. Currently the Military and Veteran’s Code (Section 1195) requires that elections for board members be held in odd-numbered years, however, most local, state and federal elections are held in even-numbered years. The result is that he District must pay for the full cost of an election rather than sharing election costs with many other agencies. The District estimates that the cost of holding an election in an odd- numbered year as required by current law costs approximately $25,000 while the cost of holding an election in an even-numbered year would be approximately $2,500. This issue can only be remedied by a change in state law. To do this District will need the cooperation and staff support of the City of Fillmore and the County. F. Government Structure Options/Opportunities for Shared Facilities In the context of this service review and LAFCo terminology, government structure options include: • Annexation or detachment of territory (increasing or decreasing the amount of territory within an agency’s boundaries). • Consolidations (the uniting or joining of two or more special districts into a single new special district). • Mergers (the extinguishment of a special district by combining the special district with a city). • Establishment of subsidiary districts (a special district continues to exist as a legal entity, but a city council is designated as the ex officio board of directors of the special district), and • Dissolutions (the extinguishment of a special district and the cessation of all the special district’s powers). Each of these structural changes is considered a change of organization or a reorganization if combined with other structural changes (e.g. an annexation and a detachment), and each requires approval by LAFCo. The government structure options for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District are quite limited. The District’s existing sphere of influence is coterminous with the District’s boundary. Since territory can only be annexed into a city or district if it is within the agency’s sphere of influence, no annexation of additional territory into the District can occur unless the District’s sphere of influence is expanded. Expansion of the sphere of influence to expand the District’s service area would only be practical if the District were to receive some tax revenue related to the service expansion. It is highly unlikely that any taxing agency would agree to a shift of existing tax revenue to the District for this purpose. It is also considered unlikely that at least two thirds of the voters in an area to be annexed would agree to an increase in property taxes to fund the District’s potential expansion of services. Consolidation is not a feasible alternative. There is no other district in the area served by the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District that performs similar functions. Even though United Water Conservation District does provide some recreation services at Lake Piru, such services are not a primary function of the United Water Conservation District and the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District and United Water Conservation District were formed under different principal acts. Final -11- October 2007 III. Services Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District A merger with the City of Fillmore or making the District a subsidiary district of the City of Fillmore is not feasible. For both a merger or the establishment of a subsidiary district the law requires that the area in the city equal at least 70% of the area within the District boundary. The area within the boundary of the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is much larger than the area within the City of Fillmore. Thus, unless the District were to detach the majority of the territory within its boundary, a merger with, or making the District a subsidiary district of, the City of Fillmore is not legally possible. Dissolution of the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is a feasible alternative. Dissolution proceedings could be initiated by the District, LAFCo or any “affected local agency.” An affected local agency is any local government agency which contains, or whose sphere of influence contains, any territory that is also within the boundary of the District. Thus, the County and the City of Fillmore are both affected local agencies for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District, as are several other special districts. A recommended determination is that the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District, together with the City of Fillmore and the County of Ventura, consider and possibly jointly initiate proceedings for the dissolution of the District. As noted, the District has revenue constraints and no real opportunity for expansion of its current services or service area. All of the District’s administrative, operational and maintenance functions are being done by the City of Fillmore and it is doubtful that the District could, by itself, meet the on-going requirements and mandates for local governmental agencies. Further, and as noted in Section H of this report relating to local accountability and governance, no elections for the District board have been held since at least 1990. This lack of candidate and voter participation in the District’s governance, combined with the District’s financial constraints and total administrative reliance on the City of Fillmore for the provision of District services, calls into question the basic reasons and need for the District’s continued existence as a separate unit of local government. Dissolution of the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District would only be possible if, at minimum, each of the following criteria is met: • The cost savings of dissolution equal or exceed the amount of the $5 per parcel tax that now exists. This special tax would essentially “go away” if the District were to be dissolved. • The City of Fillmore and the County of Ventura reached agreement on a new or revised property tax sharing agreement that would provide transfer all or a substantial portion of the property tax now going to the District to the City. • The District, the City and the County are willing and can agree that dissolution would be in the best interests of the residents and tax payers in the area now served by the District. Because of the Districts’ reliance on the City of Fillmore for administrative, operational and maintenance services, it can be stated that the District shares facilities, programs and service provision with the City. No other opportunities for shared facilities were noted. Sphere of Influence As part of the service review process, the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District was given a LAFCo- generated map of its jurisdictional and sphere of influence boundaries. The District was asked to note on the map: • Areas of duplication of planned or existing facilities with another agency • Areas better served by another agency October 2007 -12- Final Municipal Service Review-Fillmore-Piru Memorial District III. Services • Areas better served by the responding agency • Areas outside the agency’s boundaries which currently receive service • Areas difficult to serve or with illogical boundaries No areas noted above were identified by the District. As noted, the District’s boundary and sphere of influence are coterminous. A substantial portion of the area within the District’s boundary and sphere is, however, within the Los Padres National Forest as shown on Map 2. The District provides no services to and receives no tax revenue from these federally controlled areas. It is therefore recommended that the territory within the boundary of the Los Padres National Forest be removed from the District’s sphere of influence as a part of the sphere update following this municipal service review. To the extent the District is not dissolved in the future, the District board should take subsequent steps to detach all areas outside the District’s sphere of influence from the District. Further, if the District continues in existence without change, a zero sphere of influence should be considered as a part of any future sphere of influence updates. Final -13- October 2007 III. Services Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District Map 2 – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District – National Forest October 2007 -14- Final Municipal Service Review-Fillmore-Piru Memorial District III. Services G. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies The City of Fillmore provides management services to the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District pursuant to the administrative, operational and maintenance services agreement with the City (Appendix 1). The City provides an efficient management structure for the District. No other management structure would likely be as efficient. Based on recommendations from the City, the District annually adopts a budget. The City serves as fiscal agent for the District and prepares or causes the preparation of all mandatory financial reports, and prepares, administers and manages grants. The District’s most recent audit was for the 2005 – 2006 fiscal year and was unqualified. The District does not have a capital improvement program, currently has no long term debt, and does not have any reserve or contingency accounts or funds. The District is not currently involved in any litigation, nor has the District been the subject of any Grand Jury investigations at least during the last twenty years. H. Local Accountability and Governance The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is governed by a five member Board of Directors. The Board of Directors must be residents of the District. Pursuant to law board members are elected, or selected, at- large to staggered four-year terms of office. Information about the current Board of Directors is shown in Table 2. Table 2 FILLMORE-PIRU MEMORIAL DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS AND TERMS OF OFFICE MOST RECENT BOARD MEMBER TITLE ELECTION OR EXPIRATION OF TERM APPOINTMENT Jim Herbert President November 2003 November 2007 William L. Morris III Vice President November 2005 November 2009 Dwight Magness Treasurer November 2003 November 2007 Don Gunderson Secretary November 2003 November 2007 Gene Wren Director November 2005 November 2009 No elections for the District board have been held since at least 1990. This means that no one during the last seventeen years has filed to challenge any incumbent board member at an election. Thus, during this time, as the four year terms of office of incumbent board members expire, existing District board members are reappointed or new District board members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors in lieu of an election, pursuant to the Military and Veterans Code. This reflects a substantial lack of candidate and voter participation in the District’s governance. District board members have noted, however, that due to the high cost of being required to hold elections in odd- Final -15- October 2007 III. Services Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District numbered years incumbent board members have in the past tried to time vacancies so that they can easily be filled by appointed members in order to save the costs of an election. The Board of Directors typically meets monthly on the 3rd Wednesday of each month at 7 PM in the District’s memorial hall at 511 2nd Street, Fillmore. District directors serve without compensation, but are entitled to actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties. The City of Fillmore ensures that the District’s meetings are publicly noticed in compliance with the Brown Act and indicates that the District’s meeting location and facilities are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The District board receives legal advice, as necessary, about the Brown Act, the rules and regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Public Records Act from the Ventura County Counsel who serves as legal counsel for the District. No special or periodic reviews of these Acts or regulations were noted. Information provided by the City of Fillmore indicates that the District board has not completed the mandatory ethics training required by AB-1234 passed in 2005 (Government Code Section 53234 et seq). City representatives indicated that because the District board does not receive compensation it was the City’s interpretation that the ethics training mandate does not apply. However, Government Code 53235 (a) states: “If a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article.” The Military and Veterans Code relating to Memorial Districts provides that District board members serve without compensation, but are entitled to actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties (Military and Veterans Code Section 1197). Thus, to the extent District board members may at any time receive reimbursement for expenses, the District board must comply with the mandatory ethics training requirements. Arguably, the District board is now out of compliance with this requirement and the board should review this matter with its legal counsel. The District does not have a web site and provision of such a service is not a specified part of the District’s service agreement with the City of Fillmore. Given the District’s constrained financial resources and the limited services provided by the District, establishing and maintaining a web site is not considered a priority. October 2007 -16- Final Municipal Service Review-Fillmore-Piru Memorial District III. Services This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final -17- October 2007 IV. Determinations Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District IIVV.. DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Determinations are based on data provided by the District and information from other publicly available sources. Fillmore – Piru Memorial District • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. No significant infrastructure needs were identified for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. Based on population projections for the Fillmore area and the Piru Area, there will be continuing population growth within the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District, however, the majority of the growth in population will occur within the City of Fillmore. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is financially stable. 2. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District has no debt. 3. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is dependent on property taxes and special assessment revenue and approximately two thirds of the District’s property tax and special assessment revenue is derived from the territory within the City of Fillmore. 4. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is constrained in its ability and opportunities for other sources of financing beyond property taxes, facility use fees and the existing, fixed special assessment revenue. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District has entered into an agreement with the City of Fillmore for administrative, operational and maintenance services. Based on this agreement all District services are provided by the City of Fillmore. 2. The District has noted that a substantial cost avoidance opportunity would be to change the election cycle for the election of board members from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. Currently the Military and Veteran’s Code (Section 1195) requires that elections for board members be held in odd-numbered years, however, most local, state and federal elections are held in even-numbered years. The result is that he District must pay for the full cost of an election rather than sharing election costs with many other agencies. The District estimates that the cost of holding an election in an odd-numbered year as required by current law costs approximately $25,000 while the cost of holding an election in an even-numbered year would be approximately $2,500. This issue can only be remedied by a change in state law. To do this District will need the cooperation and staff support of the City of Fillmore and the County. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District annually reviews its rates based on recommendations made by the City of Fillmore. 2. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District has limited opportunities for rate restructuring as the rates for the District’s Memorial Hall are constrained by the ability of users to pay increased charges, the desire of the District to maintain reasonable rates and the prevailing rates charged by other agencies for use of similar facility space. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District relies exclusively on the City of Fillmore for administrative, operational and maintenance services and, thus, shares facilities, programs October 2007 -18 Final Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District IV. Determinations and the provision of services with the City. No other opportunities for shared facilities were noted. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. The only feasible government structure option for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is dissolution. The District, together with the City of Fillmore and the County of Ventura should consider and possibly jointly initiate proceedings for the dissolution of the District within the next five years. Without the on-going administrative, operational and maintenance support by the City of Fillmore it is unlikely that the District would be able to operate as an independent entity. Most of the District’s revenue is derived from property taxes and the future growth from the City of Fillmore. Since the District board has not had a contested election since at least 1990, dissolution would provide for better local accountability and governance of the District’s sole asset. 2. Dissolution of the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District would only be possible if, at minimum, each of the following criteria is met: • The cost savings of dissolution equal or exceed the amount of the $5 per parcel tax that now exists. This special tax would essentially “go away” if the District were to be dissolved. • The City of Fillmore and the County of Ventura reached agreement on a new or revised property tax sharing agreement that would provide transfer all or a substantial portion of the property tax now going to the District to the City. • The District, the City and the County are willing and can agree that dissolution would be in the best interests of the residents and tax payers in the area now served by the District. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. The City of Fillmore provides all management services for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District. No other management structure would be more efficient. 2. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District has no employees. 3. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is in compliance with all budgeting, audit and financial reporting requirements. The District’s most recent audit was unqualified. 4. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is not involved in any litigation. • Local accountability and governance 1. There have been no elections for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District’s board of directors since at least 1990. This means that incumbent board members are routinely re-appointed or, if vacancies occur, new board members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors pursuant to the provisions of the Military and Veterans Code. This lack of elections reflects a substantial lack of candidate and voter participation in the District’s governance. District board members have noted, however, that due to the high cost of being required to hold elections in odd-numbered years incumbent board members have in the past tried to time vacancies so that they can easily be filled by appointed members in order to save the costs of an election. 2. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District typically meets monthly. The City of Fillmore ensures that there is public notice of District board meetings as required by law. Meeting facilities are in compliance with the American’s Disabilities Act. 3. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District board of directors serve without compensation, but are entitled to actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties. 4. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District receives advice about the Brown Act, the rules and regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and the Public Records Act, as Final -19- October 2007 IV. Determinations Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District necessary from the Ventura County Counsel who serves as legal counsel for the District. No special or periodic reviews of these Acts or regulations were noted. 5. The City of Fillmore indicates that the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District board of directors has not completed the mandatory ethics training required by AB-1234 passed in 2005 (Government Code Section 53234 et seq). To the extent District board members may at any time receive reimbursement for expenses, the District must comply with the mandatory ethics training requirements. Arguably, the District board is now out of compliance with this requirement and the board should review this matter with its legal counsel. 6. The Fillmore-Piru Memorial District does not have a web site but, given the District’s constrained financial resources and limited services, establishing and maintaining a web site is not considered a priority. October 2007 -20 Final Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Appendix I APPENDIX I Final -21- October 2007 Appendix I Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District October 2007 -22 Final Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Appendix I Final -23- October 2007 Appendix I Municipal Service Review-Fillmore Piru Memorial District October 2007 -24 Final Municipal Service Review – Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Appendix I Final -25- October 2007